Class Action Lawsuit Against Purina

[pinkpuppy9]

http://www.seattledogspot.com/dog-h...ims-purinas-beneful-dog-food-is-killing-dogs/

Anyone care to weigh in?? I'll admit, it's kind of scary to see such a well known brand facing 3,000 accusations and claims, a number that will probably increase as this gets more media coverage.

What are current veterinarians responsibilities when it comes to things like this? Nothing is proven, but there is a risk. Do you make owners who purchase Purina aware that there are claims against Beneful? Do you wait and see what happens? Better yet....I bet a veterinarian will be called to testify for and against the brand. How would one even prove that the food caused these dogs to die/other dogs to get sick? My initial thought was that the two dogs in the same household may have both gotten into something that caused them to get sick, but now that there's 3,000 other complaints....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thecatastrophist]

This is one of those tough ethical issues, but if it were me and there were such numerous claims surfacing, I'd at least make owners aware of it. I've heard complaints about Beneful before (my parents actually became aware of this and switched their dog off of the brand and claim that he's much healthier because of it). I'm still not sure what my opinion of the legitimacy of these claims are, but even then I think the owners have a right to know about it and make their own decision about the issue. At least without more evidence, I wouldn't offer a professional opinion about it even if prodded. I'd just issue a notice from my clinic and direct clients toward the appropriate resources if asked.

I do question if the allegations about proplyene glycol and mycotoxins being present in the food are actually true. I think I've heard this before, but I can't remember where. I'd at least treat it with a degree of skepticism because I've heard such outrageous claims in things like anti-vaccine arguments (sometimes claiming that a certain chemical is there, when it really isn't). These claims need to be tested before I'm to treat them with any weight. As for the symptoms noted... are they correlated, or no? I'm not entirely clear. I figure that as the case progresses, that will become clearer.

Basically, I'm not going to make any hard and fast claims against the brand. But, 3,000 complaints is nothing to sneeze at. Clients should at least be aware of the potential risk. If it turns out to be nothing, I would prefer to have needlessly worried my clients than erred on the side of caution and put a patient at risk whose owners would have made a different decision had they known.

 

[Trilt]

Beautiful example of correlation =/= causation, and people liking to blame food for everything.

 

[DVMDream]

Beautiful example of correlation =/= causation, and people liking to blame food for everything.

Yup.

I'd never recommend beneful to a client but has nothing to do with this claim. They are going to have to prove that these toxins are in the food, which I highly doubt they'll be able to.

And I wonder how many of the 3,000 complaints are from people who have been feeding their dog this food forever and suddenly the dog died or got ill due to normal aging processes and people have to blame something, so it'll be the food or vaccines or that one rawhide the dog had as a puppy 12 years ago.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I mean, mycotoxins are no bueno. Propylene glycol is a food grade preservative and it is plainly listed on the label/website. So it's in there. It'd be a little embarrassing if they were confusing it with ethylene glycol, but you'd think the lawyer or whoever would have done some fact checking.

Yup.

I'd never recommend beneful to a client but has nothing to do with this claim. They are going to have to prove that these toxins are in the food, which I highly doubt they'll be able to.

And I wonder how many of the 3,000 complaints are from people who have been feeding their dog this food forever and suddenly the dog died or got ill due to normal aging processes and people have to blame something, so it'll be the food or vaccines or that one rawhide the dog had as a puppy 12 years ago.

I thought of something similar. How many of these owners are jumping on the bandwagon becauae Fluffy vomited occasionally while on this food? Sometimes, my dog just urps up her food, especially when she eats too fast. Am I thinking Hill's is poisoning her? No.

 

[battie]

I totally agree with the sentiments here. But I have a separate point that people seem to think is kind of heartless. Whether or not the food is poisoning the dogs, no one forced the owners to buy that specific brand, particularly when there are so many out there to choose from and so much information on dog food. Most of the time, I feel it is on the consumer (to a certain extent) to know what they are buying. I feel the exact same way on cigarettes or fast food. I do not feel that companies should be sued for "wrong doing" when personal choice is what caused the problem. Should Marlboro be sued for my mom ever getting lung cancer cause she smoked from 15 to 42? No, cause there was plenty of information out there when she started and subsequently coming out saying that smoking is bad. She made the choice to smoke the first cigarette and so the consequences are on her, especially since she knew they are bad for her.

Now, I will admit in this case, Purina does say that Beneful is supposed to be good for your dog (the implied warranty the article talked about). So if there is "bad stuff" in the food, whether by ignorance or purposefully on their part, then they do deserve to get sued. However, until someone can claim that Purina explicitly lied or was negligent, I think the lawsuit is crap. With how many choices there are in dog food, and how much information is out there and is extremely accessible to the public, it is the owner's responsibility to know what they are giving their dogs and have an educated opinion about it. Yeah, not everyone is going to have the scientific background we all have, but there are resources out there that can interpret that information. The owners can look at the dog food website, look at an "opposing" website, and ask their veterinarian about the information they find (I am assuming that owners that feed their dogs Beneful actually use their veterinarian because Beneful is not cheap food, at least in my area; definitely on the high end).

 

[DVMDream]

I totally agree with the sentiments here. But I have a separate point that people seem to think is kind of heartless. Whether or not the food is poisoning the dogs, no one forced the owners to buy that specific brand, particularly when there are so many out there to choose from and so much information on dog food. Most of the time, I feel it is on the consumer (to a certain extent) to know what they are buying. I feel the exact same way on cigarettes or fast food. I do not feel that companies should be sued for "wrong doing" when personal choice is what caused the problem. Should Marlboro be sued for my mom ever getting lung cancer cause she smoked from 15 to 42? No, cause there was plenty of information out there when she started and subsequently coming out saying that smoking is bad. She made the choice to smoke the first cigarette and so the consequences are on her, especially since she knew they are bad for her.

You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here. If the food from Purina really was contaminated with some form of poison, they are liable. It would be more equal to your mom buying cigarettes that were somehow laced with anthrax. However the lawsuit appears to have turned into a anyone who has ever used beneful complaining, so it kind of reduces any possibility of real merit. A batch of food can become contaminated, that isn't out of realm of possibility, which I think is what the original claim was trying to state, it has just escalated into something completely unreasonable now. Really, they are going to have to prove the food they fed to their dogs had some contaminant in it.

 

[deleted498041]

You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here. If the food from Purina really was contaminated with some form of poison, they are liable. It would be more equal to your mom buying cigarettes that were somehow laced with anthrax. However the lawsuit appears to have turned into a anyone who has ever used beneful complaining, so it kind of reduces any possibility of real merit. A batch of food can become contaminated, that isn't out of realm of possibility, which I think is what the original claim was trying to state, it has just escalated into something completely unreasonable now. Really, they are going to have to prove the food they fed to their dogs had some contaminant in it.

Kind of a tangent here, but it's a little bit related. I worked at a Banfield before vet school and whenever we saw a pet that we thought was having an adverse reaction to a vaccine (or something else) that we'd administered we had to "order up" an adverse reaction form. Basically, it went into the computer as lab work and asked questions like if there was facial swelling, difficulty breathing, anaphylaxis, etc. I was told that if we didn't order up and fill out the form, the owners wouldn't receive any compensation from the vaccine company, if they decided to go that route.
In the case of everyone now complaining about their dogs' various issues being related to Beneful, do you think it's necessary for clinics to have similar forms for something like this? Would it hold up in a court of law, if everyone had these kinds of forms to bring to the class action suit? Or is it different because we could run a food analysis?

 

[Jamr0ckin]

Kind of a tangent here, but it's a little bit related. I worked at a Banfield before vet school and whenever we saw a pet that we thought was having an adverse reaction to a vaccine (or something else) that we'd administered we had to "order up" an adverse reaction form. Basically, it went into the computer as lab work and asked questions like if there was facial swelling, difficulty breathing, anaphylaxis, etc. I was told that if we didn't order up and fill out the form, the owners wouldn't receive any compensation from the vaccine company, if they decided to go that route.
In the case of everyone now complaining about their dogs' various issues being related to Beneful, do you think it's necessary for clinics to have similar forms for something like this? Would it hold up in a court of law, if everyone had these kinds of forms to bring to the class action suit? Or is it different because we could run a food analysis?

If it was a prescription diet that you specifically recommended, maybe... But since this is food they bought without the advice of a vet, I'm inclined to say no.

 

[battie]

So if there is "bad stuff" in the food, whether by ignorance or purposefully on their part, then they do deserve to get sued.

You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here. If the food from Purina really was contaminated with some form of poison, they are liable. It would be more equal to your mom buying cigarettes that were somehow laced with anthrax. However the lawsuit appears to have turned into a anyone who has ever used beneful complaining, so it kind of reduces any possibility of real merit. A batch of food can become contaminated, that isn't out of realm of possibility, which I think is what the original claim was trying to state, it has just escalated into something completely unreasonable now. Really, they are going to have to prove the food they fed to their dogs had some contaminant in it.

I did say the bolded point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be sued. I'm saying they should only be sued if it could be proven without a doubt that they did something wrong. But with the thousands of complaints that have now been filed against Purina, it sounds like the lawsuits have gone beyond a single batch of food being contaminated to the entire food line being dangerous to feed dogs. It sounds like we both agree that is not the case, but the media is already blowing this out of proportion.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Echoing what @DVMDream said-you cannot sell a food that has poison as an ingredient (Referring to the idea thst propylene glycol is thought of as a poison). As for the mycotoxins, if those are indeed in the food, it sounds like something that needs a recall, not a class action lawsuit.

@batsenecal, you are totally correct that no one is forcing owners to buy Beneful. But don't you think an owner should have reasonable assurance that they can get a bag of food off the shelf and not be poisoning their dog (assuming that the claims are true)?

 

[DVMDream]

So if there is "bad stuff" in the food, whether by ignorance or purposefully on their part, then they do deserve to get sued.



I did say the bolded point. I'm not saying they shouldn't be sued. I'm saying they should only be sued if it could be proven without a doubt that they did something wrong. But with the thousands of complaints that have now been filed against Purina, it sounds like the lawsuits have gone beyond a single batch of food being contaminated to the entire food line being dangerous to feed dogs. It sounds like we both agree that is not the case, but the media is already blowing this out of proportion.

I agree.

 

[LetItSnow]

OMG! Some dogs eating Purina Beneful food are getting sick and showing such clinical signs as "stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating, and kidney failure" ............ just like thousands of other dogs eating other diets.

I like how the implication (based on that broad list of signs) is that Beneful is causing a multitude of problems, not just one specific disease process. Internal bleeding! Liver failure! Seizures! Bloating! Renal failure! Wooo!!! An internal medicine doc's dream dog food!

Regarding the question of making clients aware during an office visit: hell no. If I do that, I've gotten myself involved and that may come back to haunt me. What if I make them aware of the litigation against Purina, but I don't know of the litigation against Brand X that they switch to? And then they come in screaming to me because I steered them away from Purina and onto Brand X and now their dog is sick (ha - probably with something completely unrelated to its diet).

Nope, no way, not a chance.

I'm going to keep consistently recommending that owners feed a food that is formulated for their pet and meets AAFCO requirements. I will make a recommendation when it comes to medically necessary diets (allergies, weight loss, urolithiasis, diabetes, thyroid, etc etc etc). But for the average healthy animal? Nope. I'll work with them to determine caloric and other nutrient needs if they want. I'll help them with the pros and cons of homemade vs raw vs consumer manufactured foods. But I am not gonna steer them to one brand and away from another, other than "formulated for <X> and meets AAFCO requirements."

I disagree that 3,000 is "nothing to sneeze at" in the sense that these foods are fed to millions of pets. 3,000 complaints with widely varying signs because some animals got sick while, incidentally, eating these foods? Meh. Now if they were all showing up with a specific problem that had the same underlying pathophys .... that might be different.

(And, for the record, I use Purina Pro Plan for my cats, and Hills for my dog, and have zero intention to change. Companies like Purina, Hills, Royal Canin, Eukanuba .... they do their research and they contribute to moving the industry of pet food forward. I have no qualms using any of them.)

 

[DVMDream]

Echoing what @DVMDream said-you cannot sell a food that has poison as an ingredient (Referring to the idea thst propylene glycol is thought of as a poison). As for the mycotoxins, if those are indeed in the food, it sounds like something that needs a recall, not a class action lawsuit.

A recall would be part of it, but you can guarantee that products that have been recalled and have caused harm or death will also be followed up with a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is pet food, baby formula, car seats, a child's toy, etc.


I just think the whole lawsuit is BS and boils down to correlation does not equal causation.

 

[DVMDream]

Kind of a tangent here, but it's a little bit related. I worked at a Banfield before vet school and whenever we saw a pet that we thought was having an adverse reaction to a vaccine (or something else) that we'd administered we had to "order up" an adverse reaction form. Basically, it went into the computer as lab work and asked questions like if there was facial swelling, difficulty breathing, anaphylaxis, etc. I was told that if we didn't order up and fill out the form, the owners wouldn't receive any compensation from the vaccine company, if they decided to go that route.
In the case of everyone now complaining about their dogs' various issues being related to Beneful, do you think it's necessary for clinics to have similar forms for something like this? Would it hold up in a court of law, if everyone had these kinds of forms to bring to the class action suit? Or is it different because we could run a food analysis?

I'd say no because there is no proof the food caused these dogs to have the symptoms and like Jam said, it isn't a medication or rx food.

I mean it is just as likely the 3 dogs in the article from the one owner got into rat poisoning, NSAIDs, etc, etc.

 

[LetItSnow]

I just think the whole lawsuit is BS and boils down to correlation does not equal causation.

I think it's even worse - I doubt that it's true correlation, much less causation.

I mean... it's not really honest-to-god correlation if I point out that "humans who drink water get cancer". Correlation at least implies some connection between the two, doesn't it? Like the classic example everyone uses to teach correlation/causation with the whole "murder rates are higher on hot days, ice cream sales are higher on hot days, therefore higher ice cream sales correlate to murder rates"?

With this food, I don't even think the correlation is real. Did they even show that these (stupidly broad) clinically signs are occurring at a higher rate for dogs eating Beneful?

 

[DVMDream]

I think it's even worse - I doubt that it's true correlation, much less causation.

I mean... it's not really honest-to-god correlation if I point out that "humans who drink water get cancer". Correlation at least implies some connection between the two, doesn't it? Like the classic example everyone uses to teach correlation/causation with the whole "murder rates are higher on hot days, ice cream sales are higher on hot days, therefore higher ice cream sales correlate to murder rates"?

With this food, I don't even think the correlation is real. Did they even show that these (stupidly broad) clinically signs are occurring at a higher rate for dogs eating Beneful?

I completely agree with you.

And no, from what I can tell they haven't shown anything was caused by the food.

 

[battie]

Echoing what @DVMDream said-you cannot sell a food that has poison as an ingredient (Referring to the idea thst propylene glycol is thought of as a poison). As for the mycotoxins, if those are indeed in the food, it sounds like something that needs a recall, not a class action lawsuit.

@batsenecal, you are totally correct that no one is forcing owners to buy Beneful. But don't you think an owner should have reasonable assurance that they can get a bag of food off the shelf and not be poisoning their dog (assuming that the claims are true)?

I think the owner does have reasonable assurance. Pet food is regulated on the federal and state levels, just like human food is. The fact it is sitting on the shelf is pretty reasonable assurance to me. Do I think some dog foods are better than others? Yeah. But I don't think a single bag on the shelf at the grocery store, feed store, or pet store will have a high chance of poisoning a dog, purposely or inadvertently.

I just think the whole lawsuit is BS and boils down to correlation does not equal causation.

You think the whole lawsuit is batsenecal?

 

[geldedgoat]

On the issue of the veterinarian's responsibility, I would definitely recommend that all clients switch to Science Diet... that just happens to be stocked in the front of the clinic.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I while back I went to the website that was formed for Purina users to post their "experiences", and about how bad the food was.
Most of it seemed like a crock of manure.
If you guys can find that website, and want to see the worst of the internet, read it.

This is the problem I find with a lot of stuff involving large numbers on the internet. ANYTHING can be made to seem bad or good in large numbers.
It is the reason why Las Vegas exists.

Enough people win to talk about how they won, and they attract others who on the whole don't have the same experience...
(by the way, it is why in the end casinos don't care THAT much about card counters, they deceive others into thinking you can beat the house)

Anyway, if 100 million meals are eaten, there are going to be a lot of things that happen "just after I switched" ... it is the law of large numbers, and then only people who have similar experiences post, and soon you have a new internet legend... and these things, as we know, are harding to unstick than anything else. Everyone is a conspiracy theorist, every vet, and pharmaceutical company, and food company is evil hiding something. And the occasional truth just gives them even more reason to believe (check with animal behaviorists why intermittent rewards are the best.)

Just needed to get that off my chest... it has been sitting there for a while, and now that I coughed it up like a hairball, I feel much better.

Meow.

 

[battie]

ANYTHING can be made to seem bad or good in large numbers.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I never use online review sites at all because a vast majority of review companies do not verify the information they receive. This includes Yelp, Google, and Angie's List (at least it did when I called them to ask; this may have changed since it has been a few years since I called). I have started noticing companies fighting back against these "negative reviewers" by suing the review companies for posting slander against the company by not verifying the information. The fact of the matter is anyone can say anything about any business on the internet without providing any proof on the matter. And then the opposite is true where some review websites will place companies at the top of the list or list the best reviews for a company first (or only list the positive reviews) if that company pays them to do so, regardless of the ratings the company has. Completely stupid. I understand the review companies need to stay in business and make money, but it should be done honestly and legally. I feel like posting reviews that are lies walks the line of slander that the review company can be held liable for.

This is becoming more of an issue in vet med. The clinic I worked for last summer had the same issue the year before. A woman claimed that our vet killed her cat, but when she tried to sue the doctor and go through all the shenanigans, she refused point blank to provide a body for a necropsy or any testing, which the clinic's lawyer was demanding happen. She went so far as to go to other, larger clinics in the area and requested their information and protocols on drug reactions to show our doctor practices bad medicine. When the other clinics realized what she was doing, they backed up real quick and told her they didn't want to be involved. When it was all said and done, she lost hard core, but the review websites refused to take down the negative reviews she posted about our clinic. The doctor may be crazy to work for, but she's certainly not a bad doctor.

 

[Skimble]

Got my first call about this today. The client had a 10yo dog with no health concerns, but wanted to change food for her peace of mind. I didn't really know what to tell her, I've never been a fan of beneful. I told her the dog would probably be fine, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to switch to a higher quality food.

 

[DVMDream]

Yeah, this apparently made it into the main news media. Going to be a lot of calls to vet clinics for a whole lot of nothing.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Yeah...the last headline I came across had 4,000 complaints instead of 3,000. I wonder what's gonna happen with the company. I know that there may be no issue at all with their food, but it's tough to bounce back from something like this.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

This is becoming more of an issue in vet med. The clinic I worked for last summer had the same issue the year before. A woman claimed that our vet killed her cat, but when she tried to sue the doctor and go through all the shenanigans, she refused point blank to provide a body for a necropsy or any testing, which the clinic's lawyer was demanding happen. She went so far as to go to other, larger clinics in the area and requested their information and protocols on drug reactions to show our doctor practices bad medicine. When the other clinics realized what she was doing, they backed up real quick and told her they didn't want to be involved. When it was all said and done, she lost hard core, but the review websites refused to take down the negative reviews she posted about our clinic. The doctor may be crazy to work for, but she's certainly not a bad doctor.

I hate that. Yelp is one of my least favorite websites for that reason, and they seem to always have bad reviews at the top of the page. Angry clients post lies and slander all of the time, whether or not they have a valid reason for being angry. I'm aware of a service you can hire that works through the legal system to get all of those crap review taken down (in addition to the reviews that are clearly from competing clinics or fired employees), but it's not cheap.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

Had a cousin share the story on Facebook. Posted some information, shared some knowledge. Had someone use the line about "if you can't pronounce it, don't eat it" and I countered with that article with the Banana ingredient list that has a bunch of "chemicals" in it. She then references my age and her experience (she's not in the veterinary field at all) and that's why she knows what she knows. Pissed me off, I'm younger than you, but I'm also in professional school for this field and don't discount my knowledge because of my age (plus I'm 29... not really that young). Uuuuuggggghhhh. People suck.

 

[battie]

I hate that. Yelp is one of my least favorite websites for that reason, and they seem to always have bad reviews at the top of the page. Angry clients post lies and slander all of the time, whether or not they have a valid reason for being angry. I'm aware of a service you can hire that works through the legal system to get all of those crap review taken down (in addition to the reviews that are clearly from competing clinics or fired employees), but it's not cheap.

There is such a service. My family looked into it for our pet stores, but it was hideously expensive. When I say hideously, no small business could afford that, no matter what they do. At least in Colorado. We still thought about doing it, just to prove a point, but in the end we figure that the negative reviews don't hit us hard enough to matter in the end. People who read them come in to see if they are true all the time, actually, and that's when we can present our side of the case. My grandpa has always said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. . Granted, I think that depends on the business. Definitely would not work for a vet clinic, I think.

Had a cousin share the story on Facebook. Posted some information, shared some knowledge. Had someone use the line about "if you can't pronounce it, don't eat it" and I countered with that article with the Banana ingredient list that has a bunch of "chemicals" in it. She then references my age and her experience (she's not in the veterinary field at all) and that's why she knows what she knows. Pissed me off, I'm younger than you, but I'm also in professional school for this field and don't discount my knowledge because of my age (plus I'm 29... not really that young). Uuuuuggggghhhh. People suck.

Preach!!!! It is so true! Particularly when she isn't even in the field. A competitor of my mom's wanted to start feeding her dogs a raw food diet based off a set up a human nurse came up with. A human nurse dictating what dogs are eating. The vet was like, "Uh.... no. Don't be an idiot."

 

[StartingoverVet]

Had a cousin share the story on Facebook. Posted some information, shared some knowledge. Had someone use the line about "if you can't pronounce it, don't eat it" and I countered with that article with the Banana ingredient list that has a bunch of "chemicals" in it. She then references my age and her experience (she's not in the veterinary field at all) and that's why she knows what she knows. Pissed me off, I'm younger than you, but I'm also in professional school for this field and don't discount my knowledge because of my age (plus I'm 29... not really that young). Uuuuuggggghhhh. People suck.

She just had to fine some justification for her irrational beliefs. When you challenge someone's dogma, don't expect a reasoned response back.
Dog food feeding is basically a form of politics IMO.
I try to avoid the topic (usually), and know it will always end up to no good.

 

[DVMDream]

She just had to fine some justification for her irrational beliefs. When you challenge someone's dogma, don't expect a reasoned response back.
Dog food feeding is basically a form of politics IMO.
I try to avoid the topic (usually), and know it will always end up to no good.

Search any dog food and you can find a few hundred to thousand people complaining that the food made their dog sick. Reading comments on some of these things is hilarious..... and sad.... people are commenting about their dog suddenly getting a tumor and bam... it is the food's fault.

I wonder how many calls vet clinics will have now with, "Fluffy vomited once last week. And I have been feeding her Beneful and that stuff is poisoned!!! Is she dying? I think she is dying! I am bringing her in right now!"

 

[StartingoverVet]

Search any dog food and you can find a few hundred to thousand people complaining that the food made their dog sick. Reading comments on some of these things is hilarious..... and sad.... people are commenting about their dog suddenly getting a tumor and bam... it is the food's fault.

I wonder how many calls vet clinics will have now with, "Fluffy vomited once last week. And I have been feeding her Beneful and that stuff is poisoned!!! Is she dying? I think she is dying! I am bringing her in right now!"

look on the bright side, anything that gets more people out to their vets is a good thing!

 

[DVMDream]

look on the bright side, anything that gets more people out to their vets is a good thing!

I was going to add on something about vets taking advantage of the situation as a joke, but didn't want to wrestle any jimmies.

 

[StartingoverVet]

wrestle any jimmies.

WTH kind of expression is this?

Jimmies? As in the sprinkles you put on ice cream?
Why would you wrestle them?

SMH.

 

[DVMDream]

WTH kind of expression is this?

Jimmies? As in the sprinkles you put on ice cream?
Why would you wrestle them?

SMH.

Who calls sprinkles jimmies???? WTF????

Sprinkles are sprinkles...

Jimmies are jimmies.... look it up old man!

 

[StartingoverVet]

Who calls sprinkles jimmies???? WTF????

Sprinkles are sprinkles...

Jimmies are jimmies.... look it up old man!

I learned the jimmy thing in Philly. They have strange words for everything.
Including DVMs....

 

[dyachei]

WTH kind of expression is this?

Jimmies? As in the sprinkles you put on ice cream?
Why would you wrestle them?

SMH.

i'm pretty sure the saying is rustle jimmies...

 

[DVMDream]

i'm pretty sure the saying is rustle jimmies...

I knew something looked odd, but I didn't care enough to figure out what it was exactly.... rustle, wrestle... close enough...

 

[StartingoverVet]

i'm pretty sure the saying is rustle jimmies...

and it is some post-internet expression. Not REAL English.

Where's @WildZoo when I need her!

 

[WildZoo]

and it is some post-internet expression. Not REAL English.

Where's @WildZoo when I need her!

Just another meme. A pretty good one, too.

 

[DVMDream]

and it is some post-internet expression. Not REAL English.

Where's @WildZoo when I need her!

I've been hearing that phrase well before internet was a common thing.... think even my grandparents have used that back when I was a kid.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I've been hearing that phrase well before internet was a common thing.... think even my grandparents have used that back when I was a kid.

were you even alive before the internet was a common thing?

 

[WildZoo]

I've been hearing that phrase well before internet was a common thing.... think even my grandparents have used that back when I was a kid.

The gorilla part is the internet's contribution, no idea how long the phrase itself has been around though

 

[DVMDream]

were you even alive before the internet was a common thing?

Yes. Internet wasn't really common until later in my elementary school years. And even then, it was dial-up connection that took 5,000 years to load and cut out the phone line...

 

[geldedgoat]

Wrestle with Jimmy?

 

[Caia]

I remember being so excited to be able to hand in a floppy disc to my Gr. 9 Social Studies/English teacher with my assignment instead of printing it out...

Then in Gr. 11 it was a 256 MB flashdrive. hehe

 

[Skimble]

Wrestle with Jimmy?

Something is a bubbling behind in my bag.

 

[Skimble]

I remember being so excited to be able to hand in a floppy disc to my Gr. 9 Social Studies/English teacher with my assignment instead of printing it out...

Then in Gr. 11 it was a 256 MB flashdrive. hehe

Psh! I remember when floppy disks were floppy!

 

[dyachei]

Psh! I remember when floppy disks were floppy!

and you had to have like 2 -4 of them for certain programs

 

[Skimble]

and you had to have like 2 -4 of them for certain programs

I had a "kings quest" game that I think had 8 floppies!

 

[LetItSnow]

@StartingoverVet , do we even WANT to get in on this whole "Oh yeah, while *I* remember when....." game, or shall we just let these kids have their fun?

 

[StartingoverVet]

@StartingoverVet , do we even WANT to get in on this whole "Oh yeah, while *I* remember when....." game, or shall we just let these kids have their fun?

Nah, we don't have to tell them about how we were around when TVs had dials, no remotes, no cable, and just a handful of channels (not counting those weird UHF stations. Did anyone ever watch those? ).

(Raise your hand if you ever had to have someone hold onto the antenna to get better reception, or remember trying to move the antenna just right to get a better signal. )