# Hi-Tek dog food



## Brandon (Jun 28, 2012)

Has anyone tried using Hi-Tek dog food?


----------



## kathylcsw (Jul 31, 2011)

I buy the food for my mom's dog and I am buying her a bag of Hi-Tek this weekend. I had been feeding her 4Health but won't do any Diamond products anymore. I emailed the company (Hi-Tek) about either samples or coupons and they responded right away. I had samples within a week and Foxy seems to like it. It looks like s decent food at a decent price from a small family owned company.


----------



## dogvomit (Jun 27, 2012)

I just switched over to the GF Lamb and sweet potato from Kirkland lamb and rice. Its only been about two weeks. The dogs seem to like it and the stools are firm. I'm gonna give it a try for a bag or two see how it goes.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

Does anyone know more about this company? I saw it in one of the stores I used to demo in, and tried Abbie on a bag of the chicken and rice, she did great if I remember correctly, and the prices were great, even for their grain free's


----------



## doggiedad (Jan 23, 2011)

does it matter that the main ingredients are meal?


----------



## DDBsR4Me (Jan 23, 2012)

I always thought you wanted meal (as long as it specifies the specific meat i.e beef meal, lamb meal, chicken meal...not poultry meal) as that is the meat with the water removed?


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

Chicken meal is better than chicken
Chicken is 80% water
Chicken meal is not 80% water AND it holds so much more protein than just chicken

Same goes for any other meal vs meat(beef vs beef meal, pork vs pork meal, etc)


When it comes to this brand of dog food....I am NOT happy with grain being the 1st ingredient. There is so much grain in this food. It has more grain than meat! Even PetsMart's own Simply Nourish is better than Hi-Tek.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

PunkyPug said:


> Chicken meal is better than chicken
> Chicken is 80% water
> Chicken meal is not 80% water AND it holds so much more protein than just chicken
> 
> ...



That's only one formula...there are two other grain inclusives that do not have that. I believe the one of have issue with ismeir 'less active' formula


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

DDBsR4Me said:


> I always thought you wanted meal (as long as it specifies the specific meat i.e beef meal, lamb meal, chicken meal...not poultry meal) as that is the meat with the water removed?


It depends. The meal could be very bone heavy or even just be a mix of feathers, beaks, or other refuse. I think mixing meats and meals in one ingredient list with all of them high up on the list is the best.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

meggels said:


> That's only one formula...there are two other grain inclusives that do not have that. I believe the one of have issue with ismeir 'less active' formula


I doubt the other formulas have any less grains in them.
The grain free formulas have considerably more meat than the grain formulas. But seeing that they use so few meats/so much grains in their grain formulas, I'm really unhappy with this brand.
When I look at brands, ALL their formulas should have considerable amount of meat. Lastly, fruits and vegetables really have no nutritional value for dogs. It's just another marketing thing to get money from us.



SaharaNight Boxers said:


> It depends. The meal could be very bone heavy or even just be a mix of feathers, beaks, or other refuse. I think mixing meats and meals in one ingredient list with all of them high up on the list is the best.


Any meal that contains bones, feathers, beaks, etc are "by product meals"


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

Just checked. It can have bone in it, but no feathers, feet, heads, or entrails. The bone content could change drastically though depending on what part of the bird. Ash levels are very important to look at too. I would still want a combination of both and I definitely agree with the veggies and fruit.


----------



## DDBsR4Me (Jan 23, 2012)

PunkyPug said:


> Any meal that contains bones, feathers, beaks, etc are "by product meals"


That's what I was thinking ^^^


----------



## DDBsR4Me (Jan 23, 2012)

What is "ash" and what is an appropriate level to have in a food?


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

My only problem with only having meals though is how processed and cooked out they are. They're cooked at least once already before even being mixed with the kibble. I don't see how much nutrients can be left after that. I would want to see both and a high protein analysis. Even if it's a meat and not a meal but you have a very high proteins reading (with the protein not coming from fats or plants) you can know there's a lot of fresh meat in the food, like Orijen. Orijen regional red only has salmon and lamb meal, but it has one of the highest protein levels in dog food.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

DDBsR4Me said:


> What is "ash" and what is an appropriate level to have in a food?



Why Is There Ash in Your Dog's Food?

More ash normally equates to more bone in the meals.


----------



## DDBsR4Me (Jan 23, 2012)

How can I find out how much ash is in my dog's food? I went to their website but it isn't listed anywhere that I found nor is it on the bag. 

Do I have to contact them to get it, or is there some way to calculate it?

He's currently on NV Instinct Salmon....but I will likely be changing him to something different this weekend - probably Acana, Orijen or Fromm.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

NV is known for being high or too high in ash, that's the main thing that made me not feed it.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> My only problem with only having meals though is how processed and cooked out they are. They're cooked at least once already before even being mixed with the kibble. I don't see how much nutrients can be left after that.


Makes no sense what so ever since the only thing that matters is the properties of the finished meals. The very best foods out there used by the best canine athletes in the world are all using meals only as source of animal proteins. The meals pet food manufacturers buy are packed with nutrients and not "cooked out" whatever that is supposed to mean. Some meals are obviously better than others.



SaharaNight Boxers said:


> I would want to see both and a high protein analysis. Even if it's a meat and not a meal but you have a very high proteins reading (with the protein not coming from fats or plants) you can know there's a lot of fresh meat in the food like Orijen.


Proteins from fats?


Regarding one of your earlier replies; If you think it's common to have a large percentage of bone, feathers, beaks and feet in meals I have to ask where you think the nitrogen is coming from? Sure feathers is proteins but I can assure you no dog will survive on feathers.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

What I mean is sure they get protein out of it, but what quality? I can't imagine that a substance that has been cooked at least twice at a decently high or high temperature would have that many nutrients left in it. 

And sorry, I was thinking about two things at once, calories and protein. I meant plants only.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> What I mean is sure they get protein out of it, but what quality? I can't imagine that a substance that has been cooked at least twice at a decently high or high temperature would have that many nutrients left in it.
> 
> And sorry, I was thinking about two things at once, calories and protein. I meant plants only.


It can be the worst rendering plant in existence or it can be a bleeding edge plant but in the end the customer is presented with a meal with certain properties. These properties aren't just taken out of thin air. Quality is measured by two things and is really not rocket science regardless if some elitists and extremists wants it to be. 1) Complete amino acid profile according to what species we are talking about and 2) The individual ratios of these amino acids so they can be used efficiently. Since a meal is a manufactured product the manufacturer have complete control over it's properties. It can be balanced into absolute quality or it can be mixed into a lesser quality product where ratios is not optimal. This is one of many factors (a big one though) that determines the quality of a kibble/formula and why label reading is of limited value at the end of the day.


----------



## dogvomit (Jun 27, 2012)

meggels said:


> Does anyone know more about this company? I saw it in one of the stores I used to demo in, and tried Abbie on a bag of the chicken and rice, she did great if I remember correctly, and the prices were great, even for their grain free's


Hi-Tek Naturals, About Us


----------



## dogvomit (Jun 27, 2012)

PunkyPug said:


> I doubt the other formulas have any less grains in them.
> The grain free formulas have considerably more meat than the grain formulas. But seeing that they use so few meats/so much grains in their grain formulas, I'm really unhappy with this brand.
> When I look at brands, ALL their formulas should have considerable amount of meat. Lastly, fruits and vegetables really have no nutritional value for dogs. It's just another marketing thing to get money from us.
> 
> ...


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

As far as veggies I don't really believe dogs need them. If my dog eats a carrot, it comes out as a carrot. If his body can't break it down without me helping, I for think it's appropriate for him. Plus, carbs and sugars are cancer "helpers" (trying to think of a good way to say it) and with Boxers being so high up on the cancer list I wouldn't want to increase that risk. I believe dogs are carnivores, that's it. They are just a bred down wolf. You can't change what's on the inside. 

And as far as the meal thing, we already got that out on this thread.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> And as far as the meal thing, we already got that out on this thread.


What did you get out?


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

That a meal can include bone, but not feathers, heads, feet, or entrails. But a by-product meal can.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> As far as veggies I don't really believe dogs need them. If my dog eats a carrot, it comes out as a carrot. If his body can't break it down without me helping, I for think it's appropriate for him.


1) Fine but this is the dry and canned section and you are discussing a kibble. Everything here goes against your beliefs then
2) Reminds me of something I read in the raw section. Went "Proof that dogs can't process greens, my dog just passed a whole grass" or something like that. Great, reminds me to not feed my dogs lawn grass. Have you fed a whole raw carrot and in case why? How do you know what was taken up and what wasn't? Not everything given to us from mother earth should be eaten raw or eaten at all. Actually carrots is a good example. Eating raw carrots is in terms of beta-carotene a big waste, cooking it increases available beta-carotene tenfold. Processing makes all kinds of nutrients available for digestion and that is equally true for humans and dogs. Try feeding your dogs spinach, it's very green.



SaharaNight Boxers said:


> Plus, carbs and sugars are cancer "helpers" (trying to think of a good way to say it) and with Boxers being so high up on the cancer list I wouldn't want to increase that risk.


This is a serious matter so lets stick to the facts. Glucose does not increase the risk of cancer lets make that clear. However, excessive levels of glucose is shown to play a role in the growth of cancerous cells. Keep in mind that cancerous cells don't care where the glucose was derived from they just need that energy to build more cancerous cells. That's why a diet that maintains a high glucose level is believed to be bad. The goal is moderate glucose levels, where it comes from is secondary.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

I don't know if I would say that this all goes against my beliefs. If there was an all meat kibble I'd feed it. I'd feed Orijen, Canidae Pure. Duke's still on kibble right now. The veggies and fruits in kibble are broken down, that's fine. If things have to be added back in I'd rather they be naturally found in the veggies and fruits than just added vitamins and minerals. I haven't said anything about raw because I'm in the kibble section and I respect that. 

PunkyPug says she believes veggies an fruits aren't needed, but she's feeding kibble. (of course nothing against her)

He got a cut up baby carrot as a topper to his food and as a snack. 

And thank you for the info about glucose. Anything cancer related is very important to me. I just want to do what is best for Duke and to help him live a full life, with Boxerd that can be hard.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> My only problem with only having meals though is how processed and cooked out they are. They're cooked at least once already before even being mixed with the kibble. I don't see how much nutrients can be left after that. I would want to see both and a high protein analysis. Even if it's a meat and not a meal but you have a very high proteins reading (with the protein not coming from fats or plants) you can know there's a lot of fresh meat in the food, like Orijen. Orijen regional red only has salmon and lamb meal, but it has one of the highest protein levels in dog food.


The analysis you read on the bag is the final result of all the processes the kibble undergoes.
The company doesn't give an analysis BEFORE everything is combined. That would ruin the whole reason to add an analysis for your bag of kibble. 



SaharaNight Boxers said:


> What I mean is sure they get protein out of it, but what quality? I can't imagine that a substance that has been cooked at least twice at a decently high or high temperature would have that many nutrients left in it.
> 
> And sorry, I was thinking about two things at once, calories and protein. I meant plants only.


protein is the same quality. it doesn't change forms/nothing affects its quality. PROTEIN is a SCIENCE. Now, if your referring to MEAT. Then yes that can be affected quality wise.



dogvomit said:


> I don't believe any of that. Can you back those statements with a link to verify?
> First off, if "meal" contained feathers and beaks, it would NOT be called "meal" it would be called "by product". Vegetables have no nutritional value for dogs? Really?? Please, let me see where you read that crap


Clearly you haven't read as many dog food bags as I have.
There is 2 different by products. There is "By Product" then there is "By Product Meal". Here is a dog advisor review on Science Diet. It shows "by product meal": Hill's Science Diet Adult Dry Dog Food | Review and Rating

And here are your links:
Hi-Tek Naturals Dog Food | Review and Rating
Hi-Tek Naturals Grain Free Dog Food | Review and Rating

And as far as veggies and fruits have no value for dogs. Give your dog a carrot and check his poop. His poop will have chucks of carrots. Meaning his body did NOT process the carrot. Same with apples, lettuce, grapes, etc.



SaharaNight Boxers said:


> PunkyPug says she believes veggies an fruits aren't needed, but she's feeding kibble. (of course nothing against her)


I still feed kibble because in my area RAW is either too expensive or too far to get. I keep an eye and ear open in case someone opens up and offers meat at an affordable price. If they do it will be an immediate switch. My area is too lacking to change right now. Believe me....I've looked EVERYWHERE. Every corner and ethnic store, every darn grocery store, even in the high crime areas.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

Ok then I'm thinking the meat that goes into adding the protein.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> And as far as veggies and fruits have no value for dogs. Give your dog a carrot and check his poop. His poop will have chucks of carrots. Meaning his body did NOT process the carrot. Same with apples, lettuce, grapes, etc.


1) Do not give dogs grapes and 2) wrong, there are a lots of fruits, berries and vegetables that are highly digestible "as is" for dogs. Apples is among them and are a great addition with lots of good natural vitamin K among other things. Sometimes you can see curled up apple skin passed in the poop if you don't peel it. Spinach is another good one.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

DaViking said:


> 1) Do not give dogs grapes and 2) wrong, there are a lots of fruits, berries and vegetables that are highly digestible "as is" for dogs. Apples is among them and are a great addition with lots of good natural vitamin K among other things. Sometimes you can see curled up apple skin passed in the poop if you don't peel it. Spinach is another good one.


I do not give my dogs grapes
it was just something that i ended up typing for some unknown reason

2nd show me your research that PROVES what each veggie and fruit does/how the dog's body processes it.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> I do not give my dogs grapes
> it was just something that i ended up typing for some unknown reason
> 
> 2nd show me your research that PROVES what each veggie and fruit does/how the dog's body processes it.


k, I'll start with this. Why is it you think that pretty much everyone who got at least some knowledge about dogs warn against feeding, among other things, grapes to your dog? Because .................................... Ooooooh, that must mean that ......................................

If you still don't believe your own answer I am sure I can come up with some links for you.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

DaViking said:


> k, I'll start with this. Why is it you think that pretty much everyone who got at least some knowledge about dogs warn against feeding, among other things, grapes to your dog? Because .................................... Ooooooh, that must mean that ......................................
> 
> If you still don't believe your own answer I am sure I can come up with some links for you.


wow
really
i wasn't referring to the grapes
but whatever


----------



## RedneckCowgirl (Oct 28, 2011)

DaViking said:


> k, I'll start with this. Why is it you think that pretty much everyone *who got at least *some knowledge about dogs warn against feeding, among other things, grapes to your dog? Because .................................... Ooooooh, that must mean that ......................................
> 
> If you still don't believe your own answer I am sure I can come up with some links for you.


Has


Sorry... HUGE pet peeve of mine. If your trying to educate please try and sound educated as well


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

RedneckCowgirl said:


> Has
> 
> 
> Sorry... HUGE pet peeve of mine. If your trying to educate please try and sound educated as well


Sorry but English is not my first language. If you'r going to correct everyone's language here you got your work cut out for you


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> wow
> really
> i wasn't referring to the grapes
> but whatever


Last I checked grapes is part of fruits, berries and vegetables? We can do cocoa or onions. How do you think toxins are transferred around the body to various organs, bluetooth? Bottom line and contrary to what you said, lots of fruits, berries and vegetables are digestible by dogs. In fact most of them are but obviously digestibility differs and some have very little value in raw form. No one anywhere really disputes this so the only wow moment in this thread was when you said dogs don't process fruits, berries and vegetables.


----------



## Justapup (Jul 9, 2012)

I feed one of my dogs Cherry Tomatoes all the time.. And she still has firm poo and I don't notice any of the tomatoes being passed with her poo. 0o; And I've fed raw corn to some dogs some can digest it and some can't. Same with Carrots and other veggies. I think it really boils down to the dog. But you have to be careful because some have toxins that will harm the dogs.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

DaViking said:


> Last I checked grapes is part of fruits, berries and vegetables? We can do cocoa or onions. How do you think toxins are transferred around the body to various organs, bluetooth? Bottom line and contrary to what you said, lots of fruits, berries and vegetables are digestible by dogs. In fact most of them are but obviously digestibility differs and some have very little value in raw form. No one anywhere really disputes this so the only wow moment in this thread was when you said dogs don't process fruits, berries and vegetables.


Like I said
show me your prove and we'll talk.


Also, while English may not be your 1st language, that isn't an excuse to have poor grammar and spelling.
I have an Arabic friend who has perfect grammar and spelling in all FOUR of the languages he knows.
BTW, I've used all internet browsers, everyone of them has spell check.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> Like I said
> show me your prove and we'll talk.
> You need to stop being so rude and stop to think maybe I'd like to learn instead of having someone be an ass to me.
> 
> BTW, I'd used all internet browsers, everyone of them has spell check.


Nah, if you wanted to learn you wouldn't blurt out "facts" as you did. Seriously just google dogs eating fruits, berries and vegetables and you'll have all your answers, there are millions of them. You are alone in claiming dogs can't process them. You want proof? If it wasn't animal cruelty I'd suggest you buy a bag of onions and feed it to your dog. You'll experience first hand how he/she process the onions. Don't do it though, your dog will get very sick!



PunkyPug said:


> Also, while English may not be your 1st language, that isn't an excuse to have poor grammar and spelling.


Lol, it was a has/have/got error, does it *have* anything to do with anything here? I didn't know perfect English grammar is a requirement to post on the internet. Give me a break, I think my English is pretty good thank you very much. I'd like to hear your French, German and Norwegian.



PunkyPug said:


> BTW, I'd used all internet browsers, everyone of them has spell check.


:thumb:


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

DaViking said:


> Nah, if you wanted to learn you wouldn't blurt out "facts" as you did. Seriously just google dogs eating fruits, berries and vegetables and you'll have all your answers, there are millions of them. You are alone in claiming dogs can't process them. You want proof? If it wasn't animal cruelty I'd suggest you buy a bag of onions and feed it to your dog. You'll experience first hand how he/she process the onions. Don't do it though, your dog will get very sick!


I didn't say my statement was a fact. I based my statement off my own experiences with my dogs in my lifetime.
Apparently you think you are a know it all and feel like you shouldn't have to share your "knowledge" with anyone.
Thanks for providing me entertainment anyhow.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> I didn't say my statement was a fact. I based my statement off my own experiences with my dogs in my lifetime.
> Apparently you think you are a know it all and feel like you shouldn't have to share your "knowledge" with anyone.
> Thanks for providing me entertainment anyhow.


Yeah that's why I am here, to not share anything. Don't think so but whatever, it's off topic.
You are most welcome.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

it is not that dogs can't process some fruits, but that they don't need them when given a species appropriate diet. 

I'm sure they can process cooked vegetables but they don't need them either.

I am now feeding snorkels a plum per day because of her constipation problems - when I was negligent and let her get to the plum tree and ate 30 plums I noticed they made her poop like a normal dog when nothing else has ever done so.

And yes, I am concerned about what would happen should she get cancer. I think the sugar in the plum is not good for her, but struggling for minutes and minutes to poop is not good for her either. And since she doesn't have cancer currently I figure I will treat the current problem.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

PunkyPug said:


> Like I said
> show me your prove and we'll talk.
> You need to stop being so rude and stop to think maybe I'd like to learn instead of having someone be an ass to me.
> 
> ...


Not wanting to become embroiled in what seems to be an escalating flame fest, I still couldn't resist... 

If "poor grammar and spelling" are your bugaboos, and "all internet browsers, everyone of them has spell check", you may want to proofread your posts before throwing stones at someone else's glass house:

It's* proof*, not "prove".
_internet_ is *Internet*. Please note the capitalization for a proper noun.
It's *every one*, not "everyone".

To quote the late and perhaps not so great Rodney King "can we all get along" and stop insulting each other?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress. :wink:


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

SubMariner said:


> Not wanting to become embroiled in what seems to be an escalating flame fest, I still couldn't resist...
> 
> If "poor grammar and spelling" are your bugaboos, and "all internet browsers, everyone of them has spell check", you may want to proofread your posts before throwing stones at someone else's glass house:
> 
> ...


I'm not bothered by grammar and spelling.
But using the reason "English isn't my 1st language" is not a valid excuse for poor grammar and spelling. If someone is able to learn 3-4 languages then obviously they should of received excellent education .

I only know 1 language and very few of Spanish(only select words). I wasn't blessed with excellent education. I was "home schooled"(meaning my mother lied to the government/kept me home for the WRONG reasons). I was lucky to go to a public high school, but even there I only had 2 teachers who cared about giving me a proper education. It is only because of them that I have good(not great) grammar and spelling.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Seems like you would be a little more tolerant then. Or perhaps you are jealous of people who are better educated and so you like to pick at tiny flaws.

Either way, this isn't a place where grammar matters much. No one has ever corrected your poor grammar that I can remember.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

xellil said:


> Seems like you would be a little more tolerant then. Or perhaps you are jealous of people who are better educated and so you like to pick at tiny flaws.


If this was in response to me, you've lost quite a bit of respect from me.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> If this was in response to me, you've lost quite a bit of respect from me.


yes, it was in response to you. Because you attacked someone for poor grammar. I haven't had any respect for you since I caught you in a big fat lie.


----------



## RedneckCowgirl (Oct 28, 2011)

xellil said:


> Seems like you would be a little more tolerant then. Or perhaps you are jealous of people who are better educated and so you like to pick at tiny flaws.
> 
> Either way, this isn't a place where grammar matters much. No one has ever corrected your poor grammar that I can remember.


I was the one who made the grammar comment. And I made it because I am a grammar natzi. If I come to this forum looking to learn from someone, I can guarantee its not going to be from someone who has bad grammar. Spelling, that I can ignore 90% of the time, but grammar? Nah, I usually skip the whole post. I shouldn't have commented, but I did. Sorry if I offended anyone. 


And on that last part, I don't really SEE much bad grammar here, at least not with members that are active and stick around.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

RedneckCowgirl said:


> I was the one who made the grammar comment. And I made it because I am a grammar natzi. If I come to this forum looking to learn from someone, I can guarantee its not going to be from someone who has bad grammar. Spelling, that I can ignore 90% of the time, but grammar? Nah, I usually skip the whole post. I shouldn't have commented, but I did. Sorry if I offended anyone.
> 
> 
> And on that last part, I don't really SEE much bad grammar here, at least not with members that are active and stick around.


you probably miss out on a lot of good information. There are people here who I consider the most helpful, most knowledgeable, and most experienced who have poor grammar. I hope I never get my nose stuck up in the air that high that I can't appreciate the value that people bring to the table because of the way they look or talk.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

xellil said:


> yes, it was in response to you. Because you attacked someone for poor grammar. I haven't had any respect for you since I caught you in a big fat lie.


Wow
Really?
It wasn't a lie. Just because I didn't tell you every single detail doesn't make it a lie. I don't know you personally, I shouldn't have you tell you or anyone on here every single detail about everything.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Really? Picking on people because English is not their first language? I've said this once today on here and I will say it again. PLEASE, PEOPLE... STOP assuming you know everything about everyone's situation. Stop bullying. Stop picking everyone apart. Stop being petty. 

I'm closing this thread, too... as it's going nowhere productive.


----------

