PDA

View Full Version : Self-delusion as a coping tool


Pages : [1] 2

Dally
September 15th 04, 03:34 PM
DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of funny
because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and seek to
share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean by that or
explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.

When I was very fat with sore knees and too big for running clothes I
wore spandex tights in the workout room. I deluded myself that no one
was laughing at me - in fact, I sort of deluded myself into thinking I
was invisible. This coping strategy allowed me to overcome serious
embarrassment and show my fat ass in public long enough to LOSE the fat
ass. I've lost 74 pounds in the past two years. Self-delusion has been
a POWERFUL tool for me.

Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.

You grabbed the quote from a long thread on religion. You laugh at my
choice to believe in a possibility because I PREFER to believe in that
possibility. You truly underestimate the power of positive
visualization. Taking the world as I would PREFER it to be so that I
behave accordingly has been very powerful tool for transforming myself,
as well as helping me to feel happier with the stuff I can't change.

You don't have to use it. I'm particularly good at holding
unlikely-to-be-true beliefs in my head. Maybe it was my time spent
studying particle physics. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? I don't
really care, I pick the answer I like best to solve the problem at hand.
I don't need absolutes, I need constructs.

Does any of this make any sense to you? If not, at least the people
reading your sig file might understand why the joke's on you.

Dally

DRS
September 15th 04, 03:41 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
> funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
> seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
> by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.

I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Donovan Rebbechi
September 15th 04, 03:52 PM
On 2004-09-15, Dally > wrote:

I'm just going to comment on the training aspect of this post:

> Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
> without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
> something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
> form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
> Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
> the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
> Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
> it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
> drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
> otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
> act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
> that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.

What sort of training are you doing exactly ? What you've described sounds
pretty good.

The hill runs are important, because you need to have enough of a "surplus"
of vo2 that you can run up the hills. Even a 12 minute/mile pace is reasonably
difficult up a 10% grade (I think it's comparable to about 8min/mile on flats)

Anyway, I'd recommend against any speed work given your goals, just use hills
for intensity.

The general rule for any sort of intense training is that total volume should
be in the range of about 10-20 minutes (that excludes time between reps,
warmup and cooldown.) So if you have a 2 minute hill, try about 5 reps. If
it's a 5 minute climb, try 3 reps. I wouldn't recommend reps of more than 5
minutes duration -- make the reps longer than that and intensity suffers.

It may also be worth attempting longer runs than 3 miles. You can take a break
for a drink of water if necessary. As long as the break is fairly short, you
still get the desired training effect, as well as the psychological boost of
having an "over distance" run under your belt.

Good luck,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 04:33 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:34:08 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of funny
>because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and seek to
>share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean by that or
>explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>
>When I was very fat with sore knees and too big for running clothes I
>wore spandex tights in the workout room. I deluded myself that no one
>was laughing at me - in fact, I sort of deluded myself into thinking I
>was invisible. This coping strategy allowed me to overcome serious
>embarrassment and show my fat ass in public long enough to LOSE the fat
>ass. I've lost 74 pounds in the past two years. Self-delusion has been
>a POWERFUL tool for me.
>
>Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
>without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
>something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
>form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
>Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
>the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
> Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
>it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
>drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
>otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
>act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
>that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.
>
>You grabbed the quote from a long thread on religion. You laugh at my
>choice to believe in a possibility because I PREFER to believe in that
>possibility. You truly underestimate the power of positive
>visualization. Taking the world as I would PREFER it to be so that I
>behave accordingly has been very powerful tool for transforming myself,
>as well as helping me to feel happier with the stuff I can't change.
>
>You don't have to use it. I'm particularly good at holding
>unlikely-to-be-true beliefs in my head. Maybe it was my time spent
>studying particle physics. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? I don't
>really care, I pick the answer I like best to solve the problem at hand.
> I don't need absolutes, I need constructs.
>
>Does any of this make any sense to you? If not, at least the people
>reading your sig file might understand why the joke's on you.

You have no need to justify or explain yourself Wendy; DRS Dave is a
cowardly poofter prick, who when he was on the receiving end ran for
the alleged "killfiles"!!

Either ignore the limp-wristed **** or tell him to **** off!!

Steve Freides
September 15th 04, 04:47 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
> funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
> seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
> by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>
> When I was very fat with sore knees and too big for running clothes I
> wore spandex tights in the workout room. I deluded myself that no one
> was laughing at me - in fact, I sort of deluded myself into thinking I
> was invisible. This coping strategy allowed me to overcome serious
> embarrassment and show my fat ass in public long enough to LOSE the
> fat ass. I've lost 74 pounds in the past two years. Self-delusion
> has been a POWERFUL tool for me.
>
> Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
> without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile
> up something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the
> entry form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run
> this. Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made
> it all the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up
> last week. Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am
> pretending that it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets
> me out doing hill drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make
> 3 miles) and otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't
> make if I didn't act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion
> will get me across that finish line... possibly in last place. But
> I'll be out there trying.
>
> You grabbed the quote from a long thread on religion. You laugh at my
> choice to believe in a possibility because I PREFER to believe in that
> possibility. You truly underestimate the power of positive
> visualization. Taking the world as I would PREFER it to be so that I
> behave accordingly has been very powerful tool for transforming
> myself, as well as helping me to feel happier with the stuff I can't
> change.
>
> You don't have to use it. I'm particularly good at holding
> unlikely-to-be-true beliefs in my head. Maybe it was my time spent
> studying particle physics. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? I don't
> really care, I pick the answer I like best to solve the problem at
> hand. I don't need absolutes, I need constructs.
>
> Does any of this make any sense to you? If not, at least the people
> reading your sig file might understand why the joke's on you.

Dally, when you know you're deluding yourself, you're aren't deluding
yourself.

You're a whole lot more smart and self-aware than you seem to be giving
yourself credit for. Bottom line: you went to the gym and you lost the
weight. I don't care if you chanted Hare Krisha the entire time or wore
a purple jock strap around your ears, you did it, which is more than the
overwhelming majority of still-obese Americans have done to date.
Whatever gets you through is whatever gets you through - you got
through, bravo, and keep up the good work. This is MFW - learn what you
can, say what you want, ignore the rest.

Steve "seems to be cheerleading lately, don't know why" Freides
http://www.kbnj.com

Dally
September 15th 04, 04:52 PM
DRS wrote:
> "Dally" > wrote:
>
>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>
> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.

So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
children? How kind of you. And how confusing.

If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural group."

I don't really think those two acts define me either as a person or as a
parent. But at least that quote reflects my complex position on this
controversial topic concisely. Your quoting my "self-delusion as a
useful coping tool" concept is just plain confusing if you're trying to
make fun of me. It *is* a useful tool. I at least practice it knowing
it's delusion. You are just deluded without awareness of it.

Dally

Lee Michaels
September 15th 04, 05:02 PM
"Steve Freides" wrote
>
> Dally, when you know you're deluding yourself, you're aren't deluding
> yourself.
>
> You're a whole lot more smart and self-aware than you seem to be giving
> yourself credit for. Bottom line: you went to the gym and you lost the
> weight. I don't care if you chanted Hare Krisha the entire time or wore
> a purple jock strap around your ears, you did it, which is more than the
> overwhelming majority of still-obese Americans have done to date.
> Whatever gets you through is whatever gets you through - you got
> through, bravo, and keep up the good work. This is MFW - learn what you
> can, say what you want, ignore the rest.
>

I must be coming down with a fever or something. Cuz I am actually agreeing
with the resident Pavelite.

I have worked with hundreds of folks over the years. I would say that no
more than 25% of them ever really followed through for a long term. And I am
highly selective with who i work with too.

For a self employed, middle aged woman with kids and a hubby, you are doing
just fine. I find some of the stuff you say a little ridiculous from time
to time. But your training results speak for themselves. You are not only
doing well, but you acheived your results the old fashioned way. You earned
it!! You worked for it!!

And as such, you earned the right to be proud of your accomplishments. And
not babbling bull**** when it comes to what you actually did to make the
changes counts for something as well. This is NOT a blanket endorsement of
some of the stuff that you post from time to time.

But your physical transformation is well documented and noteworthy. Have a
drink on me on the next appropriate refeed day.

Lee Michaels

DRS
September 15th 04, 05:59 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>
>>> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>> funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom
>>> and seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I
>>> mean by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>
>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to
>> yourself it would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think
>> it's acceptable to make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate
>> your children on the basis of your delusions. That's what it's
>> really all about - as if you didn't know.
>
> So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
> children? How kind of you. And how confusing.

Only you could find something so simple confusing.

> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural
> group."

Because that misses the point, something you have honed to a fine art.

> I don't really think those two acts define me either as a person or
> as a parent. But at least that quote reflects my complex position on
> this controversial topic concisely. Your quoting my "self-delusion

"Complex position" like ****. You simply didn't care enough about your sons
to stand by your initial, correct position. Instead you chose to harm them
on the basis of a belief you admit you plucked out of thin air
(http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=2npscvF3clbiU1%40uni-berlin.de).
That is utterly contemptible.

> as a useful coping tool" concept is just plain confusing if you're
> trying to make fun of me. It *is* a useful tool. I at least
> practice it knowing it's delusion. You are just deluded without
> awareness of it.

Weak.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 15th 04, 07:23 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-09-15, Dally > wrote:
>
> I'm just going to comment on the training aspect of this post:
>
>>Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
>>without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
>>something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
>>form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
>>Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
>>the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
>> Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
>>it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
>>drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
>>otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
>>act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
>>that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.
>
>
> What sort of training are you doing exactly ? What you've described sounds
> pretty good.

I'm embarrassed to detail it - I wasn't kidding about not being able to
run 5K. What I've been doing is going out running about three times a
week where I bring a stop watch with me and run for progressively longer
periods and walk for progressively shorter periods. Yesterday I "ran"
for 40 minutes, where 34 were running and 6 were walking, including 3
sessions where I walked for two minutes, usually up hills.

Then one day a week I cross-train, usually doing HIIT on my NordicTrack.
And I've added a "hills day" where I do pretty much what you said, I
warm up then I tackle a big hill near my house over and over again until
10 minutes is elapsed and I'm ready to roll down the hill in a puddle.
Meanwhile, I've been weightlifting three days a week. Getting in 8
workouts a week hasn't worked well for my "rest" day and I'm a bit
exhausted at the moment. I'm skipping an upper body workout today to
just do some gentle biking and roller blading with my boys. (Those
would be my horribly abused boys, by the way.)

> The hill runs are important, because you need to have enough of a "surplus"
> of vo2 that you can run up the hills. Even a 12 minute/mile pace is reasonably
> difficult up a 10% grade (I think it's comparable to about 8min/mile on flats)

LOL, yesterday I was running up a hill and a lady was pushing a baby
carriage up the same hill and I had a hell of a time passing her! I
*look* like I'm running, but apparently it's in slow motion!

> Anyway, I'd recommend against any speed work given your goals, just use hills
> for intensity.

It's nice to not feel guilty about skipping the 100 meter dashes. I
haven't bothered with it just because I only really have four good run
days. I thought of it the other day when I was running a mile to
warm-up before weight-lifting. I figured if I did the mile REALLY fast
I could work on bringing up my pace. All I accomplished was to blow my
legs before my squatting session. Lesson learned was that warm-up runs
can't be co-opted for speed work if I want to do any weightlifting aftwards.

> The general rule for any sort of intense training is that total volume should
> be in the range of about 10-20 minutes (that excludes time between reps,
> warmup and cooldown.) So if you have a 2 minute hill, try about 5 reps. If
> it's a 5 minute climb, try 3 reps. I wouldn't recommend reps of more than 5
> minutes duration -- make the reps longer than that and intensity suffers.

Thanks for the rule of thumb. I'll time how long it takes me to run up
the hill. Last time I got three reps in 10 minutes. I like the idea of
skipping the HIIT on the NordicTrack and doing the hills that day
instead. At least until the race. Even the little bit of hill work
I've done has shown nearly immediate benefits.

> It may also be worth attempting longer runs than 3 miles. You can take a break
> for a drink of water if necessary. As long as the break is fairly short, you
> still get the desired training effect, as well as the psychological boost of
> having an "over distance" run under your belt.

I'm trying, I'm trying! Part of my problem is the rigors of running in
a hilly park. I think I could do an over-distance run on the dreadmills
at the gym, but the weather is so beautiful and the trails are so sweet
and the gym is so awful... they're doing construction and the fumes are
rotten, plus they've got the treadmills set to go off at 25 minutes
which means you have to stop and get in line for another treadmill at 25
minutes (which isn't a terrible problem when I go, just annoying for
timed runs.)

Do you think it's worth it to go do four miles on Saturday (two weeks
before the race day) on a treadmill or keep slugging along at trying to
do 3 miles outside without interruption?

By the way, does the term "lactic threshold run" mean what I think it
means? I think it means you run until you feel a stitch in your side
and/or burn in your legs and you keep running through the pain instead
of stopping. Is that the point of that sort of run? (Of course, as you
can guess, nearly ALL my runs are in that category.)

Dally

Dally
September 15th 04, 07:28 PM
DRS wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>>I don't really think those two acts define me either as a person or
>>as a parent. But at least that quote reflects my complex position on
>>this controversial topic concisely.
>
>
> "Complex position" like ****. You simply didn't care enough about your sons
> to stand by your initial, correct position. Instead you chose to harm them
> on the basis of a belief you admit you plucked out of thin air
> (http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=2npscvF3clbiU1%40uni-berlin.de).
> That is utterly contemptible.

Did you click on that link? That's an example of me being utterly
contemptable in my foolish self-delusion?

Okay, guilty. I just suspect that my quote doesn't mean what you think
it means. But carry on.

Dally

Dally
September 15th 04, 07:31 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> For a self employed, middle aged woman with kids and a hubby, you are doing
> just fine. I find some of the stuff you say a little ridiculous from time
> to time. But your training results speak for themselves. You are not only
> doing well, but you acheived your results the old fashioned way. You earned
> it!! You worked for it!!

Thanks! I get lots of ideas from this group. Helps a lot with the
"repeat, forever" part. Right now I'm contemplating chanting hare
krishna. Just to **** off DRS.

> And as such, you earned the right to be proud of your accomplishments. And
> not babbling bull**** when it comes to what you actually did to make the
> changes counts for something as well. This is NOT a blanket endorsement of
> some of the stuff that you post from time to time.

Well, duh.

> But your physical transformation is well documented and noteworthy. Have a
> drink on me on the next appropriate refeed day.

Thanks. I will. I really ought to drink more. It's on my "to do" list
but never really fits well into my calorie budget.

Dally

Hoff
September 15th 04, 07:44 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > For a self employed, middle aged woman with kids and a hubby, you are doing
> > just fine. I find some of the stuff you say a little ridiculous from time
> > to time. But your training results speak for themselves. You are not only
> > doing well, but you acheived your results the old fashioned way. You earned
> > it!! You worked for it!!
>
> Thanks! I get lots of ideas from this group. Helps a lot with the
> "repeat, forever" part. Right now I'm contemplating chanting hare
> krishna. Just to **** off DRS.

It's worth a shot.

'Cuz he definitely scored based on this thread.

Hoff
--
Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

bc
September 15th 04, 07:51 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message >...
> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
> > DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
> > funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
> > seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
> > by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>
> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.

I'll let Dally respond to the particulars, but "make **** up out of
thin air?" Hmmm, sounds like religion in general. Still, some find
it useful.

I've always liked that quote. I've chosen to read it as a rather
introspective, self-deprecating statement reflecting the vagaries of
life and existence and her admission that she gets by sometimes in
spite of herself.

- bc

bc
September 15th 04, 07:55 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
> On 2004-09-15, Dally > wrote:
>
> I'm just going to comment on the training aspect of this post:
>
> > Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
> > without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
> > something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
> > form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
> > Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
> > the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
> > Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
> > it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
> > drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
> > otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
> > act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
> > that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.
>
> What sort of training are you doing exactly ? What you've described sounds
> pretty good.
>
> The hill runs are important, because you need to have enough of a "surplus"
> of vo2 that you can run up the hills. Even a 12 minute/mile pace is reasonably
> difficult up a 10% grade (I think it's comparable to about 8min/mile on flats)
>
> Anyway, I'd recommend against any speed work given your goals, just use hills
> for intensity.
>
> The general rule for any sort of intense training is that total volume should
> be in the range of about 10-20 minutes (that excludes time between reps,
> warmup and cooldown.) So if you have a 2 minute hill, try about 5 reps. If
> it's a 5 minute climb, try 3 reps. I wouldn't recommend reps of more than 5
> minutes duration -- make the reps longer than that and intensity suffers.
>
> It may also be worth attempting longer runs than 3 miles. You can take a break
> for a drink of water if necessary. As long as the break is fairly short, you
> still get the desired training effect, as well as the psychological boost of
> having an "over distance" run under your belt.
>

Good comments. I'm finding that returning to running has not been
easy personally. I try to do a high percentage of off-pavement work
to cut down on the jarring, it seems to reduce soreness and injury
potential. I live in the Colorado Front Range, so as a result, most
of my pitiful runs recently have involved trail runs which happen to
have hills. I get to maximize the training effect while minimizing
the boredom. I think I like trail running a lot more than running on
pavement.

- bc

Robert Schuh
September 15th 04, 09:43 PM
Dally wrote:

> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of funny
> because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and seek to
> share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean by that or
> explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>
> When I was very fat with sore knees and too big for running clothes I
> wore spandex tights in the workout room. I deluded myself that no one
> was laughing at me - in fact, I sort of deluded myself into thinking I
> was invisible. This coping strategy allowed me to overcome serious
> embarrassment and show my fat ass in public long enough to LOSE the fat
> ass. I've lost 74 pounds in the past two years. Self-delusion has been
> a POWERFUL tool for me.
>
> Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
> without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
> something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
> form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
> Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
> the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
> Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
> it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
> drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
> otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
> act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
> that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.
>
> You grabbed the quote from a long thread on religion. You laugh at my
> choice to believe in a possibility because I PREFER to believe in that
> possibility. You truly underestimate the power of positive
> visualization. Taking the world as I would PREFER it to be so that I
> behave accordingly has been very powerful tool for transforming myself,
> as well as helping me to feel happier with the stuff I can't change.
>
> You don't have to use it. I'm particularly good at holding
> unlikely-to-be-true beliefs in my head. Maybe it was my time spent
> studying particle physics. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? I don't
> really care, I pick the answer I like best to solve the problem at hand.
> I don't need absolutes, I need constructs.
>
> Does any of this make any sense to you? If not, at least the people
> reading your sig file might understand why the joke's on you.
>
> Dally

Dally,
You really need to learn to ignore the trolls. Have you noticed that they ALL
have no lives and just talk a lot of bull****?

Rob


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 09:49 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:43:49 -0700, Robert Schuh >
wrote:

>Dally wrote:
>
>> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of funny
>> because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and seek to
>> share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean by that or
>> explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>
>> When I was very fat with sore knees and too big for running clothes I
>> wore spandex tights in the workout room. I deluded myself that no one
>> was laughing at me - in fact, I sort of deluded myself into thinking I
>> was invisible. This coping strategy allowed me to overcome serious
>> embarrassment and show my fat ass in public long enough to LOSE the fat
>> ass. I've lost 74 pounds in the past two years. Self-delusion has been
>> a POWERFUL tool for me.
>>
>> Right now I'm training for a 5K race. The fact is, I can't run 5K
>> without stopping, particularly on this course which goes half a mile up
>> something named "Mountain Road" for good reason. I sent in the entry
>> form yesterday. I'm absolutely deluding myself that I can run this.
>> Yet I go out there and train anyway. Yesterday I noticed I made it all
>> the way up a training hill that I couldn't run all the way up last week.
>> Can I run up Mountain Road yet? No way. But I am pretending that
>> it's possible to do by October 2. Self-delusion gets me out doing hill
>> drills and "long-slow runs" (which never quite make 3 miles) and
>> otherwise making significant progress that I wouldn't make if I didn't
>> act like it was at least possible. Self-delusion will get me across
>> that finish line... possibly in last place. But I'll be out there trying.
>>
>> You grabbed the quote from a long thread on religion. You laugh at my
>> choice to believe in a possibility because I PREFER to believe in that
>> possibility. You truly underestimate the power of positive
>> visualization. Taking the world as I would PREFER it to be so that I
>> behave accordingly has been very powerful tool for transforming myself,
>> as well as helping me to feel happier with the stuff I can't change.
>>
>> You don't have to use it. I'm particularly good at holding
>> unlikely-to-be-true beliefs in my head. Maybe it was my time spent
>> studying particle physics. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? I don't
>> really care, I pick the answer I like best to solve the problem at hand.
>> I don't need absolutes, I need constructs.
>>
>> Does any of this make any sense to you? If not, at least the people
>> reading your sig file might understand why the joke's on you.
>>
>> Dally
>
>Dally,
>You really need to learn to ignore the trolls. Have you noticed that they ALL
>have no lives and just talk a lot of bull****?

That says it as it is Rob, nice one!! ;o)

Donovan Rebbechi
September 16th 04, 01:56 AM
On 2004-09-15, Dally > wrote:

> I'm embarrassed to detail it - I wasn't kidding about not being able to
> run 5K. What I've been doing is going out running about three times a
> week where I bring a stop watch with me and run for progressively longer
> periods and walk for progressively shorter periods. Yesterday I "ran"
> for 40 minutes, where 34 were running and 6 were walking, including 3
> sessions where I walked for two minutes, usually up hills.

OK, that sounds fine. Don't work too hard on minimising the rest periods.
The idea should be to keep heart rate going, and get in some miles without
hurting more than necessary.

> Then one day a week I cross-train, usually doing HIIT on my NordicTrack.
> And I've added a "hills day" where I do pretty much what you said, I
> warm up then I tackle a big hill near my house over and over again until
> 10 minutes is elapsed and I'm ready to roll down the hill in a puddle.

Excellent.

> Meanwhile, I've been weightlifting three days a week. Getting in 8
> workouts a week hasn't worked well for my "rest" day and I'm a bit
> exhausted at the moment.

Probably worth resting a couple of days before the race.

>> The hill runs are important, because you need to have enough of a "surplus"
>> of vo2 that you can run up the hills. Even a 12 minute/mile pace is
>> reasonably difficult up a 10% grade (I think it's comparable to about
>> 8min/mile on flats)
>
> LOL, yesterday I was running up a hill and a lady was pushing a baby
> carriage up the same hill and I had a hell of a time passing her! I
> *look* like I'm running, but apparently it's in slow motion!
>
>> Anyway, I'd recommend against any speed work given your goals, just use hills
>> for intensity.
>
> It's nice to not feel guilty about skipping the 100 meter dashes. I
> haven't bothered with it just because I only really have four good run
> days.

Exactly -- you need to prioritise, and hills a goal-specific, whereas 100m
dashes aren't terribly relevant (way too short to provide much for endurance).

> I thought of it the other day when I was running a mile to
> warm-up before weight-lifting. I figured if I did the mile REALLY fast
> I could work on bringing up my pace. All I accomplished was to blow my
> legs before my squatting session. Lesson learned was that warm-up runs
> can't be co-opted for speed work if I want to do any weightlifting aftwards.

Yep. The run has to be really easy if you want to do weights afterwards. I
simply don't do any cardio before weights.

>> The general rule for any sort of intense training is that total volume should
>> be in the range of about 10-20 minutes (that excludes time between reps,
>> warmup and cooldown.) So if you have a 2 minute hill, try about 5 reps. If
>> it's a 5 minute climb, try 3 reps. I wouldn't recommend reps of more than 5
>> minutes duration -- make the reps longer than that and intensity suffers.
>
> Thanks for the rule of thumb. I'll time how long it takes me to run up
> the hill. Last time I got three reps in 10 minutes. I like the idea of
> skipping the HIIT on the NordicTrack and doing the hills that day
> instead. At least until the race.

Yes, that's a good idea. In general, cross training gets less relative
carryover as intensity increases -- because there are all these neuromuscular
adaptions you get with increased intensity, and these don't transfer at all.

Hills will give you a number of benefits -- you get general aerobic fitness,
but you also get benefits specific to running uphill, and these also have
pretty good carryover to running on flats (it's very good for your running
efficiency, because it forces you to use a harder toe-off and knee-lift)

> Even the little bit of hill work
> I've done has shown nearly immediate benefits.
>
>> It may also be worth attempting longer runs than 3 miles. You can take a break
>> for a drink of water if necessary. As long as the break is fairly short, you
>> still get the desired training effect, as well as the psychological boost of
>> having an "over distance" run under your belt.
>
> I'm trying, I'm trying! Part of my problem is the rigors of running in
> a hilly park.

That's OK, walk up the hills as mecessary.

[snip]

> Do you think it's worth it to go do four miles on Saturday (two weeks
> before the race day) on a treadmill or keep slugging along at trying to
> do 3 miles outside without interruption?

Wouldn't worry too much about forcing yourself to run continuously, you will
get a chance to do that on race day. Just get in some miles.

> By the way, does the term "lactic threshold run" mean what I think it
> means? I think it means you run until you feel a stitch in your side
> and/or burn in your legs and you keep running through the pain instead
> of stopping. Is that the point of that sort of run? (Of course, as you
> can guess, nearly ALL my runs are in that category.)

No. a lactate threshold, or "tempo" run is supposed to be close to the
so-called lactic acid turning point. What happens is that instead of having
a clearly defined distinction between anaerobic and aerobic metabolism, both
usually coexist. The plot of blood lactate level against intensity follows an
almost exponential trajectory, so the idea is that if you're just below the
point where the graph spirals out of control, you're producing a fair amount of
lactic acid, but you're still below the point of rapid lactic acid
accumulation. A well conditioned athlete can continue for about an hour at this
intensity. A non-runner may well exceed their threshold just by running. Even a
runner would exceed their threshold if forced to run up a severe incline.

Anyway, don't worry about tempo runs yet -- any run will be intense at this
stage. Just try to get in some miles without beating yourself too much, and
when you do feel like beating yourself up, run some hills.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
September 16th 04, 02:06 AM
On 2004-09-15, bc > wrote:

> Good comments. I'm finding that returning to running has not been
> easy personally. I try to do a high percentage of off-pavement work
> to cut down on the jarring, it seems to reduce soreness and injury
> potential.

A lot of people swear by trails, but I'm not sure if there's much in the way of
hard evidence that it reduces injury. One of the common misconceptions about
running injuries is that people think in terms of "jarring" "the joints", that
is, they think running primarily causes bone problems like osteo-arthritis
and stress fractures. This is actually a misconception. Running doesn't
cause osteo-arthritis, and nearly all running injuries are soft-tissue
injuries -- repetitive stress problems with any of the numerous tendons and
muscles involved in running, from the foot all the way up to the hip. The only
common problems unrelated to soft tissue are stress fractures, and everyone I
know who's had these is female (hip width is one of the main risk factors,
lack of calcium is another).

Still, hard surfaces could result in more load on some of the muscles and
tendons. If you're consistently more sore on one surface than another
(especially swelling around connective tissues), even after reasonable adaption
time, it's a sign that one is causing more stress than the other.

> I live in the Colorado Front Range, so as a result, most
> of my pitiful runs recently have involved trail runs which happen to
> have hills. I get to maximize the training effect while minimizing
> the boredom. I think I like trail running a lot more than running on
> pavement.

Yes, enjoyment is also an important (and too often overlooked) factor, and good
trails score well on this count.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dally
September 16th 04, 02:29 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Wouldn't worry too much about forcing yourself to run continuously, you will
> get a chance to do that on race day. Just get in some miles.

[snip]
Thank you for your excellent analysis and advice. I really appreciate
it. I think I'll leave the dreadmill alone and continue with my trail
running.

Part of my problem came from spending over a year doing ALL my cardio as
HIIT. Shot my endurance all to hell. It's harder to get fit quickly
now (at 40) than it ever used to be! My daughter just started running
last week with her cross country team. She started at my pace and,
well, exponential growth appears to be going on. Ah, youth!

Speaking of being an old fogey, my knees don't seem to ache nearly as
much when I run on grass or dirt or pine needles, but I always feel it
in the knees after running on the road for a few miles. I'm taking
G/C/MSM twice a day now and I think that helps, but I really do prefer
trail running in terms of the way my body feels. I don't know if it's
pyschological or not - could be - because I really do enjoy running on
the trails that start three minutes up from my house. As you point out,
enjoyment is worth something.

Dally

Peter Webb
September 16th 04, 03:29 AM
> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural group."
>

You genitally mutilated your own children?

I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also accept
that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make you
feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that its
still legal in the civilised world.

Jim
September 16th 04, 03:46 AM
I have no idea about the religious stuff. I just know the ladies Ive been
with would rather have an circumsiced penis. Especially blowjobs.

Jim

John M. Williams
September 16th 04, 04:01 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote:

>> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
>> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
>> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
>> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural group."
>>
>
>You genitally mutilated your own children?
>
>I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also accept
>that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make you
>feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
>ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that its
>still legal in the civilised world.

We're glad to hear that you and DRS still have the same foreskin
fascination. Perhaps you should understand that many of the rest of
us don't share it.

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 04:34 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:40 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
>> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
>> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
>> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural group."
>>
>
>You genitally mutilated your own children?
>
>I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also accept
>that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make you
>feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
>ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that its
>still legal in the civilised world.
>
>
Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes. WTF is
the problem?

Peter Webb
September 16th 04, 04:59 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:40 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
> >> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
> >> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits and
> >> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
> >> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural
group."
> >>
> >
> >You genitally mutilated your own children?
> >
> >I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also accept
> >that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make
you
> >feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
> >ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that
its
> >still legal in the civilised world.
> >
> >
> Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes. WTF is
> the problem?
>

Well, I would find that hard to believe. I have never been in the situation
of having dropped my pants and been ready to do the deed and had some chick
say "Ohhh ... your not not circumsised ... not interested". I can state with
some confidence that I would not have been laid any more often if I had not
been circumsized.

And yes, I know that some women tell some circumsized men that they prefer
circumsized men. They also say the opposite to uncircumsized men. If you
really believe that they prefer circumsized men you probably also believe
that they think you have the biggest/fattest/most perfectly sized penis they
have ever seen, and that its perfectly OK to cuddle when brewer's droop
hits. In short, women will generally tell you exactly what you want to hear
about your penis; when was the last time you told some chick that you didn't
like her vagina?

In answer to your question, men who have been circumsised after they have
become sexually active report a drop in sexual pleasure. This is not
surprising; the foreskin has the third highest concentration of nerve
endings of anywhere in the human body (after the tip of the tongue and the
fingertips); the sole function of these nerve endings appears to be for
hightened sexual pleasure.

Removing foreskins is the male equivalent of clitoredectomy in females, and
seems to have the same medical effect - reducing the pleasure associated
with sex. How do you feel about ritual clitorodectomy in Muslim societies -
is that OK? - if not, what is the difference?

If the child wants to have his foreskin removed, let him decide he can
mutilate his own body when he turns 18. Not surprisingly, not many people
want to. If they want to, this should be subect to the same counselling as
occurs with other people requesting medical mutilation. Once you chop it
off, it aint going to grow back. Forcing this irreversible mutilation on a
child when he is no position to make an informed decision is like
clitoredectomy (as I described above) or the ritual mutilation which occurs
in poor Indian families to allow them to become better beggars. I cannot see
why the law allows parents to chop off babies foreskins when it (for
example) doesn't allow parents to ritually chop of their fingers or make
them deaf.

Jim
September 16th 04, 05:07 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:40 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> > > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> > >> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to
circumsize
> > >> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
> > >> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits
and
> > >> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
> > >> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural
> group."
> > >>
> > >
> > >You genitally mutilated your own children?
> > >
> > >I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also
accept
> > >that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make
> you
> > >feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
> > >ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that
> its
> > >still legal in the civilised world.
> > >
> > >
> > Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes. WTF is
> > the problem?
> >
>
> Well, I would find that hard to believe. I have never been in the
situation
> of having dropped my pants and been ready to do the deed and had some
chick
> say "Ohhh ... your not not circumsised ... not interested". I can state
with
> some confidence that I would not have been laid any more often if I had
not
> been circumsized.
>
> And yes, I know that some women tell some circumsized men that they prefer
> circumsized men. They also say the opposite to uncircumsized men. If you
> really believe that they prefer circumsized men you probably also believe
> that they think you have the biggest/fattest/most perfectly sized penis
they
> have ever seen, and that its perfectly OK to cuddle when brewer's droop
> hits. In short, women will generally tell you exactly what you want to
hear
> about your penis; when was the last time you told some chick that you
didn't
> like her vagina?
>
> In answer to your question, men who have been circumsised after they have
> become sexually active report a drop in sexual pleasure. This is not
> surprising; the foreskin has the third highest concentration of nerve
> endings of anywhere in the human body (after the tip of the tongue and the
> fingertips); the sole function of these nerve endings appears to be for
> hightened sexual pleasure.
>
> Removing foreskins is the male equivalent of clitoredectomy in females,
and
> seems to have the same medical effect - reducing the pleasure associated
> with sex. How do you feel about ritual clitorodectomy in Muslim
societies -
> is that OK? - if not, what is the difference?
>
> If the child wants to have his foreskin removed, let him decide he can
> mutilate his own body when he turns 18. Not surprisingly, not many people
> want to. If they want to, this should be subect to the same counselling as
> occurs with other people requesting medical mutilation. Once you chop it
> off, it aint going to grow back. Forcing this irreversible mutilation on a
> child when he is no position to make an informed decision is like
> clitoredectomy (as I described above) or the ritual mutilation which
occurs
> in poor Indian families to allow them to become better beggars. I cannot
see
> why the law allows parents to chop off babies foreskins when it (for
> example) doesn't allow parents to ritually chop of their fingers or make
> them deaf.

When my boy was born..I was there for the birth..the doctor asked me..."do
you want him circumsized(sp)...I said ...with a resounding...YES.

Jim

Preacher
September 16th 04, 05:39 AM
Jim > wrote:

> I have no idea about the religious stuff. I just know the ladies Ive been
> with would rather have an circumsiced penis. Especially blowjobs.

You shouldn't say stuff like that. You're liable to start a stampede...

aj
September 16th 04, 05:58 AM
On 2004-09-16, Jim > wrote:
>
> "Peter Webb" > wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:40 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> > > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >
>> > >> If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to
> circumsize
>> > >> my (Jewish) sons, then don't you think you could pick a more
>> > >> illuminating quote? How's this: "After deliberating the benefits
> and
>> > >> risks, I chose to have my sons circumsized in a bris - an ancient
>> > >> ceremony commonly done to nearly every male member of my cultural
>> group."
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >You genitally mutilated your own children?
>> > >
>> > >I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also
> accept
>> > >that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make
>> you
>> > >feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
>> > >ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that
>> its
>> > >still legal in the civilised world.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes. WTF is
>> > the problem?
>> >
>>
>> Well, I would find that hard to believe. I have never been in the
> situation
>> of having dropped my pants and been ready to do the deed and had some
> chick
>> say "Ohhh ... your not not circumsised ... not interested". I can state
> with
>> some confidence that I would not have been laid any more often if I had
> not
>> been circumsized.
>>
>> And yes, I know that some women tell some circumsized men that they prefer
>> circumsized men. They also say the opposite to uncircumsized men. If you
>> really believe that they prefer circumsized men you probably also believe
>> that they think you have the biggest/fattest/most perfectly sized penis
> they
>> have ever seen, and that its perfectly OK to cuddle when brewer's droop
>> hits. In short, women will generally tell you exactly what you want to
> hear
>> about your penis; when was the last time you told some chick that you
> didn't
>> like her vagina?
>>
>> In answer to your question, men who have been circumsised after they have
>> become sexually active report a drop in sexual pleasure. This is not
>> surprising; the foreskin has the third highest concentration of nerve
>> endings of anywhere in the human body (after the tip of the tongue and the
>> fingertips); the sole function of these nerve endings appears to be for
>> hightened sexual pleasure.
>>
>> Removing foreskins is the male equivalent of clitoredectomy in females,
> and
>> seems to have the same medical effect - reducing the pleasure associated
>> with sex. How do you feel about ritual clitorodectomy in Muslim
> societies -
>> is that OK? - if not, what is the difference?
>>
>> If the child wants to have his foreskin removed, let him decide he can
>> mutilate his own body when he turns 18. Not surprisingly, not many people
>> want to. If they want to, this should be subect to the same counselling as
>> occurs with other people requesting medical mutilation. Once you chop it
>> off, it aint going to grow back. Forcing this irreversible mutilation on a
>> child when he is no position to make an informed decision is like
>> clitoredectomy (as I described above) or the ritual mutilation which
> occurs
>> in poor Indian families to allow them to become better beggars. I cannot
> see
>> why the law allows parents to chop off babies foreskins when it (for
>> example) doesn't allow parents to ritually chop of their fingers or make
>> them deaf.
>
> When my boy was born..I was there for the birth..the doctor asked me..."do
> you want him circumsized(sp)...I said ...with a resounding...YES.
>
> Jim

Let it not be said that I is a brutha who does not care.
In fact, me 'art is me second biggest organ. Aiiiii...

....A lot of this is uncut. Just like me beast used to be before me had
its tommyhat removed as valentines present for me julie.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Anna Martelli Ravenscroft
September 16th 04, 11:52 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:29:55 -0400, Dally wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't worry too much about forcing yourself to run continuously, you will
>> get a chance to do that on race day. Just get in some miles.
>
> [snip]
> Thank you for your excellent analysis and advice. I really appreciate
> it. I think I'll leave the dreadmill alone and continue with my trail
> running.
>
> Part of my problem came from spending over a year doing ALL my cardio as
> HIIT. Shot my endurance all to hell. It's harder to get fit quickly
> now (at 40) than it ever used to be! My daughter just started running
> last week with her cross country team. She started at my pace and,
> well, exponential growth appears to be going on. Ah, youth!
>
> Speaking of being an old fogey, my knees don't seem to ache nearly as
> much when I run on grass or dirt or pine needles, but I always feel it
> in the knees after running on the road for a few miles. I'm taking
> G/C/MSM twice a day now and I think that helps, but I really do prefer
> trail running in terms of the way my body feels. I don't know if it's
> pyschological or not - could be - because I really do enjoy running on
> the trails that start three minutes up from my house. As you point out,
> enjoyment is worth something.

Hey Dally - good luck on the race! I think it's awesome that you're out
there trying this. I know exactly what you mean about the "running in
slow-motion" that you mentioned in a previous post.

Keep up the good work. and don't worry about where you come in - just
worry about finishing and you'll have done awesome!

Anna

DRS
September 16th 04, 01:03 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message


[...]

> Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes.

You don't know that. Not only is circumcised versus uncircumcised as an
aesthetic preference culturally determined and therefore contingent (for
some bizarre reason you think it's an absolute), but if the women in America
had a clue they'd insist on uncircumcised when having intercourse because
it's better for them. When an uncircumcised man has intercourse most of the
motion of the glans is within the foreskin and therefore needs no additional
lubrication from the female. The same obviously is not true of the
circumcised man. Many women who have been led to believe they have a
problem because they don't produce enough vaginal lubrication are in fact
perfectly normal and the problem is with their circumcised partner.

> WTF is the problem?

The problem is that harming your children's genitals is wrong.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 16th 04, 01:07 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>>
>>> I don't really think those two acts define me either as a person or
>>> as a parent. But at least that quote reflects my complex position
>>> on this controversial topic concisely.
>>
>> "Complex position" like ****. You simply didn't care enough about
>> your sons to stand by your initial, correct position. Instead you
>> chose to harm them on the basis of a belief you admit you plucked
>> out of thin air
>> (http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=2npscvF3clbiU1%40uni-berlin.de).
>> That is utterly contemptible.
>
> Did you click on that link? That's an example of me being utterly
> contemptable in my foolish self-delusion?

It proves you make **** up out of thin air. That you subsequently had your
sons mutilated because you lacked the integrity to protect them as you knew
you should have is a given.

> Okay, guilty. I just suspect that my quote doesn't mean what you
> think it means. But carry on.

The problem for you is it doesn't just mean what you think it means.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 16th 04, 01:28 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>> For a self employed, middle aged woman with kids and a hubby, you
>> are doing just fine. I find some of the stuff you say a little
>> ridiculous from time to time. But your training results speak for
>> themselves. You are not only doing well, but you acheived your
>> results the old fashioned way. You earned it!! You worked for it!!
>
> Thanks! I get lots of ideas from this group. Helps a lot with the
> "repeat, forever" part. Right now I'm contemplating chanting hare
> krishna. Just to **** off DRS.

It wouldn't bother me in the least, you moron.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 16th 04, 01:29 PM
"Robert Schuh" > wrote in message


[...]

> Dally,
> You really need to learn to ignore the trolls. Have you noticed that
> they ALL have no lives and just talk a lot of bull****?

Like you, yes.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 16th 04, 01:34 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Schuh" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Dally,
> > You really need to learn to ignore the trolls. Have you noticed that
> > they ALL have no lives and just talk a lot of bull****?
>
> Like you, yes.
>
Good one DRS - Shooey is one of the foremost piles of useless crap in
usenet. His mouth is bigger than a parking lot. Doesn;t know how to say 3
words without '**** this' and '**** that' - thinks he is tough maybe but he
comes across like a dumb dick

Hugh Beyer
September 16th 04, 01:59 PM
"DRS" > wrote in
:

> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes.
>
> You don't know that. Not only is circumcised versus uncircumcised as an
> aesthetic preference culturally determined and therefore contingent (for
> some bizarre reason you think it's an absolute), but if the women in
> America had a clue they'd insist on uncircumcised when having
> intercourse because it's better for them. When an uncircumcised man has
> intercourse most of the motion of the glans is within the foreskin and
> therefore needs no additional lubrication from the female. The same
> obviously is not true of the circumcised man. Many women who have been
> led to believe they have a problem because they don't produce enough
> vaginal lubrication are in fact perfectly normal and the problem is with
> their circumcised partner.
>
>> WTF is the problem?
>
> The problem is that harming your children's genitals is wrong.
>

Dally, you had to start them off again... now it'll be another few hundred
posts before they shut up.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Dally
September 16th 04, 02:12 PM
Peter Webb wrote:
>
> You genitally mutilated your own children?

Well, no, I hired a moyel to do it. The moyel happens to also be a
pediatrician in his day job. You know, a mandated child abuse reporter.
Don't worry, homeland security has me on their list and are keeping a
sharp eye out.

After the last thread on this I took my sixth grade son aside and had a
conversation about this with him. I confessed what we had done to his
foreskin. I showed him pictures of a circumcision from a link DRS
thoughtfully supplied me with (and told him how his differed substantially.)

He was absolutely horrified. He can barely forgive me. No, not for
circumsizing him, he doesn't care one bit (in fact, he thought the
'member of the tribe' thing was cool) but he does not want me TALKING
ABOUT HIS PENIS!

Dally, mother of a normal pubescent boy

Dally
September 16th 04, 02:15 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Dally, you had to start them off again... now it'll be another few hundred
> posts before they shut up.

I'm sorry.

Hey, Guys, I promise never to do it again. Okay? And I won't
proselytize in favor of circumcision. Promise. Will you shut up now?

Dally

David
September 16th 04, 02:18 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
> > Dally, you had to start them off again... now it'll be another few
hundred
> > posts before they shut up.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> Hey, Guys, I promise never to do it again. Okay? And I won't
> proselytize in favor of circumcision. Promise. Will you shut up now?
>
> Dally

Dally, you can talk about my penis as much as you like

Lee Michaels
September 16th 04, 02:24 PM
"Dally" > wrote

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
> > Dally, you had to start them off again... now it'll be another few
hundred
> > posts before they shut up.
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> Hey, Guys, I promise never to do it again. Okay? And I won't
> proselytize in favor of circumcision. Promise. Will you shut up now?
>
Your son supports this decision.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 16th 04, 03:56 PM
On 2004-09-16, Ignoramus19552 > wrote:
> Donovan, if you don't mind me asking, what does cause osteoarthritis?

Sorry, don't know. I would guess that there are many contributing factors
(which do not include recreational running)

BTW, unless you've been diagnosed, swollen joints does not imply
osteoarthritis.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

bc
September 16th 04, 04:08 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
> On 2004-09-15, bc > wrote:
>
> > Good comments. I'm finding that returning to running has not been
> > easy personally. I try to do a high percentage of off-pavement work
> > to cut down on the jarring, it seems to reduce soreness and injury
> > potential.
>
> A lot of people swear by trails, but I'm not sure if there's much in the way of
> hard evidence that it reduces injury. One of the common misconceptions about
> running injuries is that people think in terms of "jarring" "the joints", that
> is, they think running primarily causes bone problems like osteo-arthritis
> and stress fractures. This is actually a misconception. Running doesn't
> cause osteo-arthritis, and nearly all running injuries are soft-tissue
> injuries -- repetitive stress problems with any of the numerous tendons and
> muscles involved in running, from the foot all the way up to the hip. The only
> common problems unrelated to soft tissue are stress fractures, and everyone I
> know who's had these is female (hip width is one of the main risk factors,
> lack of calcium is another).
>
> Still, hard surfaces could result in more load on some of the muscles and
> tendons. If you're consistently more sore on one surface than another
> (especially swelling around connective tissues), even after reasonable adaption
> time, it's a sign that one is causing more stress than the other.

I find that trail surfaces definitely reduce my soreness from the
knees on down. In addition to the softer surface, one of the factors
is, I believe, the constantly varying angles of the foot strike. I
don't just pound away at the same angles with the same stresses. A
good trail is softer than pavement, but not as squishy as a beach.

- bc

Dally
September 16th 04, 04:19 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote
>
>
>>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dally, you had to start them off again... now it'll be another few
>>>hundred posts before they shut up.
>>
>>I'm sorry.
>>
>>Hey, Guys, I promise never to do it again. Okay? And I won't
>>proselytize in favor of circumcision. Promise. Will you shut up now?
>>
>
> Your son supports this decision.

Whole-heartedly. But actually I was thinking longer-term than that: I
won't exert pressure on my daughter and/or daughters-in-law to carry on
the tradition. Barring an act of God a la Sarah and Abraham I don't
think any more sons are forthcoming. (And let's not get into what God
required Abraham do with Isaac.) :-)

Dally

Dally
September 16th 04, 04:21 PM
bc wrote:

> I find that trail surfaces definitely reduce my soreness from the
> knees on down. In addition to the softer surface, one of the factors
> is, I believe, the constantly varying angles of the foot strike. I
> don't just pound away at the same angles with the same stresses. A
> good trail is softer than pavement, but not as squishy as a beach.

My favorite trail is covered in pine needles. Sigh. I'm supposed to be
out doing some road running right now. Like, right now. I'm online
because I'm procrastinating, which I wouldn't be doing if I were
supposed to be in the woods.

There's another vote for trail running.

Dally

DRS
September 16th 04, 04:29 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message


[...]

> Whole-heartedly. But actually I was thinking longer-term than that: I
> won't exert pressure on my daughter and/or daughters-in-law to carry
> on the tradition.

And when those around them exert pressure on them to do it what will you do?
Cave in again?

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 16th 04, 04:49 PM
DRS wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Whole-heartedly. But actually I was thinking longer-term than that: I
>>won't exert pressure on my daughter and/or daughters-in-law to carry
>>on the tradition.
>
>
> And when those around them exert pressure on them to do it what will you do?
> Cave in again?

Ah, it's not enough to cease and desist, is it? You need me to kidnap
my grandsons if I suspect a bris is planned?

We've come full circle back to why I kill-filed you a few months ago.
You're actively frothing-at-the-mouth insane, aren't you? No, don't
answer that. I don't need to know.

Dally

DRS
September 16th 04, 05:18 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Whole-heartedly. But actually I was thinking longer-term than
>>> that: I won't exert pressure on my daughter and/or daughters-in-law
>>> to carry on the tradition.
>>
>> And when those around them exert pressure on them to do it what will
>> you do? Cave in again?
>
> Ah, it's not enough to cease and desist, is it? You need me to kidnap
> my grandsons if I suspect a bris is planned?

They will have the same right of bodily integrity your sons had. They will
also need to be protected.

> We've come full circle back to why I kill-filed you a few months ago.

Actually you chose to kill-file me after I used the phrase "the Church" in a
perfectly conventional way when talking about an aspect of traditional
theology. It was truly bizarre, but then that's you.

> You're actively frothing-at-the-mouth insane, aren't you? No, don't
> answer that. I don't need to know.

I don't expect someone who delights in making **** up out of thin air and
acting as if it were real to understand or appreciate logic. I'm not the
one harming others on the basis of chosen self-delusions, you are, and by
any rational measure that makes me the sane one.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

bc
September 16th 04, 06:10 PM
"Hoff" > wrote in message >...
> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lee Michaels wrote:
> >
> > > For a self employed, middle aged woman with kids and a hubby, you are doing
> > > just fine. I find some of the stuff you say a little ridiculous from time
> > > to time. But your training results speak for themselves. You are not only
> > > doing well, but you acheived your results the old fashioned way. You earned
> > > it!! You worked for it!!
> >
> > Thanks! I get lots of ideas from this group. Helps a lot with the
> > "repeat, forever" part. Right now I'm contemplating chanting hare
> > krishna. Just to **** off DRS.
>
> It's worth a shot.
>
> 'Cuz he definitely scored based on this thread.
>

I want to see the purple jock strap on the head pics.

- bc

bc
September 16th 04, 06:23 PM
John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:43:49 -0700, Robert Schuh >
> wrote:
>
> >Dally wrote:
> >
> >> DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of funny
> >> because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and seek to
> >> share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean by that or
> >> explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.

> >
> >Dally,
> >You really need to learn to ignore the trolls. Have you noticed that they ALL
> >have no lives and just talk a lot of bull****?
>
> That says it as it is Rob, nice one!! ;o)

One of Dally's endearing qualities is her ability to just take the
comments and respond to them. Kind of a Timex mindset, but far less
common than the usual chest pounding seen here so often. I like the
fact that she maintains a dialog. It's really qute trivial to
bombastically cut away at someone. Far more interesting however, is
the desire to communicate.

- bc

ray miller
September 16th 04, 08:25 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:12:57 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> You genitally mutilated your own children?
>
>Well, no, I hired a moyel to do it. The moyel happens to also be a
>pediatrician in his day job. You know, a mandated child abuse reporter.
> Don't worry, homeland security has me on their list and are keeping a
>sharp eye out.
>
>After the last thread on this I took my sixth grade son aside and had a
>conversation about this with him. I confessed what we had done to his
>foreskin. I showed him pictures of a circumcision from a link DRS
>thoughtfully supplied me with (and told him how his differed substantially.)
>
>He was absolutely horrified. He can barely forgive me. No, not for
>circumsizing him, he doesn't care one bit (in fact, he thought the
>'member of the tribe' thing was cool) but he does not want me TALKING
>ABOUT HIS PENIS!
>
>Dally, mother of a normal pubescent boy

I agree with DRS (yikes!!). If someone tried to circumcise me they
would end up in court facing a stiff sentence. On the other hand
parents are allowed and maybe even encouraged to mutilate their kids.

It's interesting that it's illegal to tattoo minors in the UK, but not
to mutilate their genitals - weird.

I don't blame you personally, Dally, that won't achieve anything. But
I would have suggested waiting till your kid was 16 and so of an age
to decide for himself. You do realize that elective adult circumcision
is very rare don't you.

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

Lenny Lennerson
September 16th 04, 08:57 PM
> When my boy was born..I was there for the birth..the doctor asked me..."do
> you want him circumsized(sp)...I said ...with a resounding...YES.
>
> Jim

- Which goes to show you have some serious mental problems. What fool
allows his child to be mutilated for no good reason mere minutes after
being born? You must have felt like a big tough guy watching him
scream as they sliced off a large chunk of his penis. Maybe you didn't
want the boy to look bigger than you.

Lenny Lennerson
September 16th 04, 09:12 PM
> Well, no, I hired a moyel to do it. The moyel happens to also be a
> pediatrician in his day job. You know, a mandated child abuse reporter.
> Don't worry, homeland security has me on their list and are keeping a
> sharp eye out.
>
> After the last thread on this I took my sixth grade son aside and had a
> conversation about this with him. I confessed what we had done to his
> foreskin. I showed him pictures of a circumcision from a link DRS
> thoughtfully supplied me with (and told him how his differed substantially.)
>
> He was absolutely horrified. He can barely forgive me. No, not for
> circumsizing him, he doesn't care one bit (in fact, he thought the
> 'member of the tribe' thing was cool) but he does not want me TALKING
> ABOUT HIS PENIS!
>
> Dally, mother of a normal pubescent boy

- Look, I'm circumsized and I certainly don't hold it against my
parents nor would I prefer to be uncircumcised (although I have zero
doubt that sex feels much better for those men who didn't have their
foreskin sliced off at birth).

That being said, male circumcision is a barbaric, useless and cruel
mutilation ritual. Your child abuse defence is laughable. Just because
a society is sick enough to support ritual mutilation doesn't make it
right. How does it differ from slicing off his pinky fingers at birth
or any of the other abusive cultural practices that exist throughout
the world?

Let me take a wild guess that you wouldnt circumcise your female
children nor do you support that practice. I guarantee you that your
son would NEVER have thought slicing up a perfectly good penis was
"cool" enough to have it done on his 18th birthday.

Dally
September 16th 04, 09:22 PM
Lenny Lennerson wrote:

> - Look, I'm circumsized and I certainly don't hold it against my
> parents nor would I prefer to be uncircumcised (although I have zero
> doubt that sex feels much better for those men who didn't have their
> foreskin sliced off at birth).
>
> That being said, male circumcision is a barbaric, useless and cruel
> mutilation ritual. Your child abuse defence is laughable. Just because
> a society is sick enough to support ritual mutilation doesn't make it
> right. How does it differ from slicing off his pinky fingers at birth
> or any of the other abusive cultural practices that exist throughout
> the world?

Why are you telling *me* this? Wouldn't this be better sent to your own
mother? Go for it. It'd open up a more useful dialogue than this could.

Dally

Chad Hutchinson
September 16th 04, 10:54 PM
Lenny Lennerson > wrote:

> - Look, I'm circumsized and I certainly don't hold it against my
> parents nor would I prefer to be uncircumcised (although I have zero
> doubt that sex feels much better for those men who didn't have their
> foreskin sliced off at birth).
>
> That being said, male circumcision is a barbaric, useless and cruel
> mutilation ritual. Your child abuse defence is laughable. Just because
> a society is sick enough to support ritual mutilation doesn't make it
> right. How does it differ from slicing off his pinky fingers at birth
> or any of the other abusive cultural practices that exist throughout
> the world?

a) You sound like you hold it against your parents and think what they
did was barbaric and cruel.

b) There's got to be a better use for your time than worrying about
someone else's penis.

> Let me take a wild guess that you wouldnt circumcise your female
> children nor do you support that practice. I guarantee you that your
> son would NEVER have thought slicing up a perfectly good penis was
> "cool" enough to have it done on his 18th birthday.

We don't have sons, but we pierced our daughters' ears before they were
3 months old. They seem to have survived.

DRS
September 17th 04, 01:27 AM
"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
m
> Lenny Lennerson > wrote:
>
>> - Look, I'm circumsized and I certainly don't hold it against my
>> parents nor would I prefer to be uncircumcised (although I have zero
>> doubt that sex feels much better for those men who didn't have their
>> foreskin sliced off at birth).
>>
>> That being said, male circumcision is a barbaric, useless and cruel
>> mutilation ritual. Your child abuse defence is laughable. Just
>> because a society is sick enough to support ritual mutilation
>> doesn't make it right. How does it differ from slicing off his pinky
>> fingers at birth or any of the other abusive cultural practices that
>> exist throughout the world?
>
> a) You sound like you hold it against your parents and think what they
> did was barbaric and cruel.
>
> b) There's got to be a better use for your time than worrying about
> someone else's penis.

Worrying about child abuse is always worthwhile.

>> Let me take a wild guess that you wouldnt circumcise your female
>> children nor do you support that practice. I guarantee you that your
>> son would NEVER have thought slicing up a perfectly good penis was
>> "cool" enough to have it done on his 18th birthday.
>
> We don't have sons, but we pierced our daughters' ears before they
> were 3 months old. They seem to have survived.

Piercing the ear lobe doesn't cause permanent damage and is trivial to
reverse.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Chad Hutchinson
September 17th 04, 01:38 AM
DRS > wrote:

> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
> m
> > Lenny Lennerson > wrote:
> >
> >> - Look, I'm circumsized and I certainly don't hold it against my
> >> parents nor would I prefer to be uncircumcised (although I have zero
> >> doubt that sex feels much better for those men who didn't have their
> >> foreskin sliced off at birth).
> >>
> >> That being said, male circumcision is a barbaric, useless and cruel
> >> mutilation ritual. Your child abuse defence is laughable. Just
> >> because a society is sick enough to support ritual mutilation
> >> doesn't make it right. How does it differ from slicing off his pinky
> >> fingers at birth or any of the other abusive cultural practices that
> >> exist throughout the world?
> >
> > a) You sound like you hold it against your parents and think what they
> > did was barbaric and cruel.
> >
> > b) There's got to be a better use for your time than worrying about
> > someone else's penis.
>
> Worrying about child abuse is always worthwhile.

You trivialize child abuse by defining it that way. Plenty of
"mutilated" guys are using their cut penises without a problem, and with
plenty of pleasure.

> >> Let me take a wild guess that you wouldnt circumcise your female
> >> children nor do you support that practice. I guarantee you that your
> >> son would NEVER have thought slicing up a perfectly good penis was
> >> "cool" enough to have it done on his 18th birthday.
> >
> > We don't have sons, but we pierced our daughters' ears before they
> > were 3 months old. They seem to have survived.
>
> Piercing the ear lobe doesn't cause permanent damage and is trivial to
> reverse.

Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why
don't you spend all that energy fighting REAL child abuse - the kind
that destroys and psychologically torments people?

DRS
September 17th 04, 02:06 AM
"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message

> DRS > wrote:
>> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
>> m

[...]

>>> b) There's got to be a better use for your time than worrying about
>>> someone else's penis.
>>
>> Worrying about child abuse is always worthwhile.
>
> You trivialize child abuse by defining it that way. Plenty of
> "mutilated" guys are using their cut penises without a problem, and
> with plenty of pleasure.

No, I don't. Mutilating your child's genitals is child abuse. We don't
allow it for girls and we certainly shouldn't allow it for boys. When you
say "without a problem" you are wrong. That people adapt to their state
doesn't make it right in the first place.

[...]

>> Piercing the ear lobe doesn't cause permanent damage and is trivial
>> to reverse.
>
> Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why

It exactly qualifies as damage. Why don't you do some homework instead of
embarasing yourself in public like this? I suppose you think the foreskin
is "just a bit of skin".

> don't you spend all that energy fighting REAL child abuse - the kind
> that destroys and psychologically torments people?

I am.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Chad Hutchinson
September 17th 04, 02:24 AM
DRS > wrote:

> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
>
>
> > You trivialize child abuse by defining it that way. Plenty of
> > "mutilated" guys are using their cut penises without a problem, and
> > with plenty of pleasure.
>
> No, I don't. Mutilating your child's genitals is child abuse. We don't
> allow it for girls and we certainly shouldn't allow it for boys. When you
> say "without a problem" you are wrong. That people adapt to their state
> doesn't make it right in the first place.
>
> >> Piercing the ear lobe doesn't cause permanent damage and is trivial
> >> to reverse.
> >
> > Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why
>
> It exactly qualifies as damage. Why don't you do some homework instead of
> embarasing yourself in public like this? I suppose you think the foreskin
> is "just a bit of skin".
>
> > don't you spend all that energy fighting REAL child abuse - the kind
> > that destroys and psychologically torments people?
>
> I am.

You're full of ****. That's why the people in this newsgroup rightly
refer to you as a troll and alternately ignore or patronize you. As will
I, from now on.

John M. Williams
September 17th 04, 02:46 AM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote:
>> DRS > wrote:
>>> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> b) There's got to be a better use for your time than worrying about
>>>> someone else's penis.
>>>
>>> Worrying about child abuse is always worthwhile.
>>
>> You trivialize child abuse by defining it that way. Plenty of
>> "mutilated" guys are using their cut penises without a problem, and
>> with plenty of pleasure.
>
>No, I don't. Mutilating your child's genitals is child abuse. We don't
>allow it for girls and we certainly shouldn't allow it for boys. When you
>say "without a problem" you are wrong. That people adapt to their state
>doesn't make it right in the first place.
>
>[...]
>
>>> Piercing the ear lobe doesn't cause permanent damage and is trivial
>>> to reverse.
>>
>> Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why
>
>It exactly qualifies as damage. Why don't you do some homework instead of
>embarasing yourself in public like this? I suppose you think the foreskin
>is "just a bit of skin".

That's exactly what it is, you foreskin-obsessed asswipe.

Opinions can differ broadly on the subject of circumcision, but your
obsession with the subject is beyond the pale of anything reasonably
rational. Of course, you're incapable of recognizing the possibility
that anyone could see the world differently than you do, so I guess
that's not surprising.

DRS
September 17th 04, 02:48 AM
"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
m

[...]

> You're full of ****. That's why the people in this newsgroup rightly
> refer to you as a troll and alternately ignore or patronize you. As
> will I, from now on.

I am not full of ****. I have done my homework and I know what I'm talking
about. That you don't have a clue what you're talking about doesn't make me
a troll, arsehole, but it certainly makes you a fool.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Don
September 17th 04, 03:21 AM
Have you ever cut the palm of your hand? And put a band-aid over the cut for
several days?
So that your skin is kept moist, and the amount of callous skin is reduced?
And noticed the increased sensitivity to touch on the protected area?
Case closed.

Peter Webb
September 17th 04, 04:06 AM
"Don" > wrote in message
news:ISr2d.62828$D%[email protected]_s51...
> Have you ever cut the palm of your hand? And put a band-aid over the cut
for
> several days?
> So that your skin is kept moist, and the amount of callous skin is
reduced?
> And noticed the increased sensitivity to touch on the protected area?
> Case closed.
>

They don't cut the foreskin. They cut it off. Difficult to see how your
foreskin is more sensitive when its in the garbage bin ...

Lee Michaels
September 17th 04, 04:29 AM
"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote
>
> Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why
> don't you spend all that energy fighting REAL child abuse - the kind
> that destroys and psychologically torments people?

Because it would interfere with his present program of destroying and
psychologically tormenting people.

DRS
September 17th 04, 11:42 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u
> "Don" > wrote in message
> news:ISr2d.62828$D%[email protected]_s51...
>> Have you ever cut the palm of your hand? And put a band-aid over the
>> cut for several days?
>> So that your skin is kept moist, and the amount of callous skin is
>> reduced? And noticed the increased sensitivity to touch on the
>> protected area? Case closed.
>
> They don't cut the foreskin. They cut it off. Difficult to see how
> your foreskin is more sensitive when its in the garbage bin ...

And in the meantime the glans hardens as it becomes keratinized.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 17th 04, 11:42 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03
> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote
>>
>> Circumcision isn't a hindrance and hardly qualifies as "damage." Why
>> don't you spend all that energy fighting REAL child abuse - the kind
>> that destroys and psychologically torments people?
>
> Because it would interfere with his present program of destroying and
> psychologically tormenting people.

You're as dopey as Dally.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 17th 04, 02:08 PM
Anna Martelli Ravenscroft wrote:

> Hey Dally - good luck on the race! I think it's awesome that you're out
> there trying this. I know exactly what you mean about the "running in
> slow-motion" that you mentioned in a previous post.
>
> Keep up the good work. and don't worry about where you come in - just
> worry about finishing and you'll have done awesome!

Thanks, Anna. I took another stab at the race course yesterday. Ever
find yourself running up a hill and negotiating with yourself which weed
you'll run until? (The telephone poles were too distant to aim for.) I
actually shaved a lot of time off my run this time: I ran two minutes
longer up that hill than I've ever been able to before. Another month
and I might be able to run the whole thing! (The race, however, is in
two weeks.)

Dally

Dally
September 17th 04, 02:10 PM
bc wrote:

> I want to see the purple jock strap on the head pics.

I'll add it to the list of jpegs I mean to get around to doing. :-)

Dally

Anna Martelli Ravenscroft
September 17th 04, 06:49 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:08:33 -0400, Dally wrote:

> Anna Martelli Ravenscroft wrote:
>
>> Hey Dally - good luck on the race! I think it's awesome that you're out
>> there trying this. I know exactly what you mean about the "running in
>> slow-motion" that you mentioned in a previous post.
>>
>> Keep up the good work. and don't worry about where you come in - just
>> worry about finishing and you'll have done awesome!
>
> Thanks, Anna. I took another stab at the race course yesterday. Ever
> find yourself running up a hill and negotiating with yourself which weed
> you'll run until?

YES!!!! LOL


> (The telephone poles were too distant to aim for.) I actually shaved a
> lot of time off my run this time: I ran two minutes longer up that hill
> than I've ever been able to before. Another month and I might be able
> to run the whole thing! (The race, however, is in two weeks.)


The fact that you're going out there is a victory, imho.

When I started getting into shape, I signed up for (and participated in) a
couple of 5k races. I tended to go for the races that allowed walkers too.
(I hate running.) I usually came in 2nd to last... (just in front of the
old guy or the woman with the stroller... ) But for me, finishing a 5k at
all was an achievement.

Running uphill is even worse. I admire your perseverence. You deserve to
be proud of yourself.

Anna

Donovan Rebbechi
September 17th 04, 07:33 PM
On 2004-09-17, Dally > wrote:
> Anna Martelli Ravenscroft wrote:
>
>> Hey Dally - good luck on the race! I think it's awesome that you're out
>> there trying this. I know exactly what you mean about the "running in
>> slow-motion" that you mentioned in a previous post.
>>
>> Keep up the good work. and don't worry about where you come in - just
>> worry about finishing and you'll have done awesome!
>
> Thanks, Anna. I took another stab at the race course yesterday. Ever
> find yourself running up a hill and negotiating with yourself which weed
> you'll run until?

I do it all the time during races ... well, with telephone poles anyway.

Just make it to the next one, avoid thinking too far ahead.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

J.S. Jackson
September 18th 04, 06:19 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:59:02 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

> If the child wants to have his foreskin removed, let him decide he can
> mutilate his own body when he turns 18. Not surprisingly, not many people
> want to. If they want to, this should be subect to the same counselling as
> occurs with other people requesting medical mutilation. Once you chop it
> off, it aint going to grow back. Forcing this irreversible mutilation on a
> child when he is no position to make an informed decision is like
> clitoredectomy (as I described above) or the ritual mutilation which occurs
> in poor Indian families to allow them to become better beggars. I cannot see
> why the law allows parents to chop off babies foreskins when it (for
> example) doesn't allow parents to ritually chop of their fingers or make
> them deaf.

I agree 100%. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can even
*think* about trying to justify circumcism of babies.

J.S. Jackson
September 18th 04, 06:26 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:03:13 +1000, DRS wrote:

[...]

> but if the women in America
> had a clue they'd insist on uncircumcised when having intercourse because
> it's better for them.

[...]

Oddly enough, during a casual sexual encounter with an american woman, she
matter-of-factly informed me that "studies have shown" that women who
regularly engage in sex with uncircumcised men have a higher rate of
cervical cancer! I never actually looked into it myself. I simply
dismissed it as utterly ridiculous.

DRS
September 18th 04, 11:42 AM
"J.S. Jackson" > wrote in message


[...]

> Oddly enough, during a casual sexual encounter with an american
> woman, she matter-of-factly informed me that "studies have shown"
> that women who regularly engage in sex with uncircumcised men have a
> higher rate of cervical cancer! I never actually looked into it
> myself. I simply dismissed it as utterly ridiculous.

It's an urban myth. It's based on studies done in the 50s that purportedly
showed that Orthodox Jewish women suffered less from cervical cancer than
women in general. The false conclusion drawn was that it must somehow be
linked to the fact that their husbands are circumcised. The reality, as we
now know, is that the Human Papilloma Virus is the main risk factor and that
factor increases with the number of sexual partners a woman has. A
combination of superior (at the time) hygenic practices and generally more
monogomous sexual behaviour by Orthodox Jews was the reason for the
difference. These days the circumcised status of a woman's sexual partner
doesn't even rate a mention by any authority on cervical cancer as a risk
factor in any way, shape or form.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 18th 04, 11:44 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u
> Amputation of arms and legs reduces the risk of melanoma. Do you do
> that to your children as well?

Don't waste your time with Williams. The study he cites has been
discredited but he's too dishonest to admit it.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 04:27 PM
"Peter Webb" > wrote:

>Amputation of arms and legs reduces the risk of melanoma. Do you do that to
>your children as well?

Comparing the important of your foreskin to you arms and legs?

I guess your penile obsession is worse than I thought.

J.S. Jackson
September 18th 04, 06:13 PM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:

> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.

I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
knowledge of what all women prefer.

Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...

Also I see that you add the attributes "clean" and "large" into the
equation. The size of a penis is (obviously) unrelated to whether or not
it's circumsized. As far as cleanliness is concerned - I think it goes
without saying that most people prefer clean genitals (male or female) when
they consider putting their mouth on it LOL? What has that to do with
circumcision?


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 07:05 PM
"J.S. Jackson" > wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:
>
>> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.
>
>I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
>knowledge of what all women prefer.
>
>Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
>american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
>But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...

Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
issue.

Dally
September 18th 04, 07:12 PM
John M. Williams wrote:

> "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
>
>>Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
>>american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
>>But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
>
> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
> issue.

Exactly. I doubt very much that Jewish or Moslem families have trouble
finding moyels in Australia, despite what Peter might think.

Dally

Preacher
September 18th 04, 09:22 PM
Peter Webb > wrote:

> Amputation of arms and legs reduces the risk of melanoma. Do you do that to
> your children as well?
>
> Here in Australia, it is very hard to find a doctor willing to mutilate
> newborn babies, and if you insist there is a significant counselling
> session. I assume this is because the doctors do not believe it is medically
> justified.
>
> My argument however is not medical it is moral. If you are convinced that
> you should chop off very pleasant parts of your body tp prevent a tiny
> chance of them getting diseased, this is a decision you make as an adult.
> You have no right (or should have no right) to permanently mutilate your
> children.

Sure. So Australians are anti-abortion, right?

Mick R.
September 18th 04, 11:09 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> John M. Williams wrote:
>
> > "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
> >
> >>Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
> >>american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the
norm.
> >>But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
> >
> > Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> > anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> > again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
> > issue.
>
> Exactly. I doubt very much that Jewish or Moslem families have trouble
> finding moyels in Australia, despite what Peter might think.
>
> Dally

As far as I know you're right, Dally. The general trend has been away from
snipping since the early seventies, when it was standard practice for all
children given up for adoption were circumcized as standard practice.
>

Donovan Rebbechi
September 18th 04, 11:40 PM
On 2004-09-18, Mick R. > wrote:
>
> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John M. Williams wrote:
>>
>> > "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
>> >>american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the
> norm.
>> >>But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
>> >
>> > Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>> > anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>> > again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
>> > issue.
>>
>> Exactly. I doubt very much that Jewish or Moslem families have trouble
>> finding moyels in Australia, despite what Peter might think.
>>
>> Dally
>
> As far as I know you're right, Dally. The general trend has been away from
> snipping since the early seventies, when it was standard practice for all
> children given up for adoption were circumcized as standard practice.

I was born in '73 (Australia). It was going out of style rapidly enough at that
time, that sometimes you'd have siblings of about my age where the older one
and younger one would be different. My recollection is that the majority of the
kids 3 years younger than me weren't snipped, but nearly everyone 3 years older
was.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Don
September 19th 04, 02:39 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Don" > wrote in message
>news:ISr2d.62828$D%[email protected]_s51...
>> Have you ever cut the palm of your hand? And put a band-aid over the cut
>for
>> several days?
>> So that your skin is kept moist, and the amount of callous skin is
>reduced?
>> And noticed the increased sensitivity to touch on the protected area?
>> Case closed.
>>
>
>They don't cut the foreskin. They cut it off. Difficult to see how your
>foreskin is more sensitive when its in the garbage bin ...

My point is that a un-circumsized penis is more sensitive. The foreskin
protects the penis.
If you are circumised, an experience that you may be famaliar with is having
your hand bandaged.
You obviously don't know about natural penii. The foreskin rolls back, and
allows the shaft to have more skin. the inside of the foreskin is now covering
the shaft, and the head is exposed. the head is more sensitive, and the shaft
now covered by the foreskin is more sensitive, because the skin has been
protected. I don't blame you for your ignorance, it's not a topic that comes
up commonly. I think having a couple million more nerve endings is better.

Mick R.
September 19th 04, 06:44 AM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-18, Mick R. > wrote:
> >
> > "Dally" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> John M. Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> > "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
> >> >>american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the
> > norm.
> >> >>But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
> >> >
> >> > Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> >> > anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> >> > again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a
medical
> >> > issue.
> >>
> >> Exactly. I doubt very much that Jewish or Moslem families have trouble
> >> finding moyels in Australia, despite what Peter might think.
> >>
> >> Dally
> >
> > As far as I know you're right, Dally. The general trend has been away
from
> > snipping since the early seventies, when it was standard practice for
all
> > children given up for adoption were circumcized as standard practice.
>
> I was born in '73 (Australia). It was going out of style rapidly enough at
that
> time, that sometimes you'd have siblings of about my age where the older
one
> and younger one would be different. My recollection is that the majority
of the
> kids 3 years younger than me weren't snipped, but nearly everyone 3 years
older
> was.
>
I was born in '70. Nuff said.

> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Lenny Lennerson
September 19th 04, 08:18 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message >...
> "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:
> >
> >> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.
> >
> >I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
> >knowledge of what all women prefer.
> >
> >Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
> >american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
> >But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
>
> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
> issue.

- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
the stone age.

John M. Williams
September 19th 04, 08:45 AM
(Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
>John M. Williams > wrote:
>> "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:
>> >
>> >> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.
>> >
>> >I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
>> >knowledge of what all women prefer.
>> >
>> >Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
>> >american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
>> >But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
>>
>> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
>> issue.
>
>- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
>great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
>slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
>the stone age.

Yeah, sure, Lenny. Whatever you say. As to the stone age, there has
been a troglodyte around here lately, and it's pretty clear who that
is.

David
September 19th 04, 08:57 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> (Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
> >John M. Williams > wrote:
> >> "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.
> >> >
> >> >I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
> >> >knowledge of what all women prefer.
> >> >
> >> >Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
> >> >american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the
norm.
> >> >But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
> >>
> >> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> >> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> >> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
> >> issue.
> >
> >- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
> >great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
> >slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
> >the stone age.
>
> Yeah, sure, Lenny. Whatever you say. As to the stone age, there has
> been a troglodyte around here lately, and it's pretty clear who that
> is.

I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times when I am
having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at the guy next to
me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy with
yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be fine, thanks"

ray miller
September 19th 04, 10:04 AM
>Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
>issue.

So americans main reason for infant mutilation is a fashion
statement.?!!

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

David
September 19th 04, 10:14 AM
"ray miller" > wrote in message
...
> >Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
> >anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
> >again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
> >issue.
>
> So americans main reason for infant mutilation is a fashion
> statement.?!!
>
> Ray
> --
> rmnsuk
> 273/187/182

well . . . afer a fashion . . .
Mutilate might be the wrong word - it means to 'disfigure'. Think of
circumcision more as a 'trim' job

DRS
September 19th 04, 11:14 AM
"Mick R." > wrote in message

> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John M. Williams wrote:

[...]

>>> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>>> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>>> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a
>>> medical issue.

The removal of 36% of the nerve endings in the penis is a medical issue,
moron. The keratinization of the glans is a medical issue. Etc.

>> Exactly. I doubt very much that Jewish or Moslem families have
>> trouble finding moyels in Australia, despite what Peter might think.
>
> As far as I know you're right, Dally. The general trend has been
> away from snipping since the early seventies, when it was standard
> practice for all children given up for adoption were circumcized as
> standard practice.

America is the last developed country to persist with this pernicious
practice and even there the rate of routine neonatal circumcision is slowly
but surely dropping.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 19th 04, 11:16 AM
"David" > wrote in message


[...]

> I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
> when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
> the guy next to
> me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
> with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
> fine, thanks"

People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm right.
If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming medical evidence
that circumcision always causes harm then you're just trolling.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 19th 04, 11:17 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "ray miller" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>>> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>>> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a
>>> medical issue.
>>
>> So americans main reason for infant mutilation is a fashion
>> statement.?!!
>
> well . . . afer a fashion . . .
> Mutilate might be the wrong word - it means to 'disfigure'. Think of
> circumcision more as a 'trim' job

It's mutilation. It causes permanent injury and a radical aesthetic change.
A "trim job" would be harmless. Circumcision is always harmful.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 19th 04, 11:49 AM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
> > when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
> > the guy next to
> > me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
> > with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
> > fine, thanks"
>
> People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm right.
> If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming medical evidence
> that circumcision always causes harm then you're just trolling.
>
>
I believe there is a case for and against - I've been following your
arguments and have read the links. However to me it is nowhere as serious an
issue as say abortion. I go along with the notion that it is a cultural
thing. It has been done for centuries and I don;t believe the problems are
statistically significant. I agree with much of what you say however in the
end if the parents are properly informed and it is still legal and the
parents want it done . . . . . I don't think children are traumatized by
the procedure.

DRS
September 19th 04, 12:10 PM
"David" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "David" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
>>> when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
>>> the guy next to
>>> me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
>>> with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
>>> fine, thanks"
>>
>> People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm
>> right. If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming
>> medical evidence that circumcision always causes harm then you're
>> just trolling.
>>
> I believe there is a case for and against - I've been following your
> arguments and have read the links. However to me it is nowhere as
> serious an issue as say abortion.

What does that have to do with it? Circumcision is wrong in its own right.
It's also a problem that in principle is extraordinarily easy to solve: you
just stop doing it.

> I go along with the notion that it
> is a cultural thing.

Foreskins are not cultural, they're biological. The consequences of
circumcision are medical, not cultural.

> It has been done for centuries and I don;t
> believe the problems are statistically significant.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Circumcision always causes harm.
Since the rate of routine neonatal circumcision is still about 50% in
America that means a huge number of babies are harmed there every year, and
since in the past the numbers were higher there's a huge number of men
around the world right now who suffered this unnecessarily.

> I agree with much
> of what you say however in the end if the parents are properly
> informed and it is still legal and the parents want it done . . . . .
> I don't think children are traumatized by the procedure.

And you're wrong, hence the ever increasing number of men speaking out
against what was done to them.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 19th 04, 12:43 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
> > "DRS" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "David" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
> >>> when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
> >>> the guy next to
> >>> me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
> >>> with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
> >>> fine, thanks"
> >>
> >> People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm
> >> right. If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming
> >> medical evidence that circumcision always causes harm then you're
> >> just trolling.
> >>
> > I believe there is a case for and against - I've been following your
> > arguments and have read the links. However to me it is nowhere as
> > serious an issue as say abortion.
>
> What does that have to do with it? Circumcision is wrong in its own
right.
> It's also a problem that in principle is extraordinarily easy to solve:
you
> just stop doing it.
>
> > I go along with the notion that it
> > is a cultural thing.
>
> Foreskins are not cultural, they're biological. The consequences of
> circumcision are medical, not cultural.
>
> > It has been done for centuries and I don;t
> > believe the problems are statistically significant.
>
> Then you haven't been paying attention. Circumcision always causes harm.
> Since the rate of routine neonatal circumcision is still about 50% in
> America that means a huge number of babies are harmed there every year,
and
> since in the past the numbers were higher there's a huge number of men
> around the world right now who suffered this unnecessarily.
>
> > I agree with much
> > of what you say however in the end if the parents are properly
> > informed and it is still legal and the parents want it done . . . . .
> > I don't think children are traumatized by the procedure.
>
> And you're wrong, hence the ever increasing number of men speaking out
> against what was done to them.
>
From what I can see there are any number of studies that support either
position - so to me it comes down to a matter of choice i.e. call it
"cultural" for want of a better word - there are very persuasive positions
taken either way.

For instance if you look at this study from the University of Washington
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000111074855.htm

out of 130,475 circumcisions over a certain period - 287 had complications -
most of them not serious - however it was determined that there was a 'trade
off analysis' i.e. for every case of a boy with complications from
circumcision, 6 boys can be expected to have avoided urinary tract
infections . For every two cases of circumcision complications, one case of
penile cancer is prevented.

So I think it comes down to a personal decision that a parent will make
based on cultural factors

DRS
September 19th 04, 12:52 PM
"David" > wrote in message


[...]

> From what I can see there are any number of studies that support
> either position - so to me it comes down to a matter of choice i.e.
> call it "cultural" for want of a better word - there are very
> persuasive positions taken either way.

I suppose you also believe there are persuasive positions either way on high
protein diets and kidney damage. Because that's the level of your argument.
You can't blindly take every piece of research as being of equal value. You
have to evaluate it and when you do circumcision loses badly. That's why
developed countries except America don't do it anymore and even in America
the rate is dropping.

> For instance if you look at this study from the University of
> Washington
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000111074855.htm
>
> out of 130,475 circumcisions over a certain period - 287 had
> complications - most of them not serious - however it was determined
> that there was a 'trade off analysis' i.e. for every case of a boy
> with complications from circumcision, 6 boys can be expected to have
> avoided urinary tract infections . For every two cases of
> circumcision complications, one case of penile cancer is prevented.
>
> So I think it comes down to a personal decision that a parent will
> make based on cultural factors

No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract infection
myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's discredited bull****.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 19th 04, 01:02 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> > From what I can see there are any number of studies that support
> > either position - so to me it comes down to a matter of choice i.e.
> > call it "cultural" for want of a better word - there are very
> > persuasive positions taken either way.
>
> I suppose you also believe there are persuasive positions either way on
high
> protein diets and kidney damage. Because that's the level of your
argument.
> You can't blindly take every piece of research as being of equal value.
You
> have to evaluate it and when you do circumcision loses badly. That's why
> developed countries except America don't do it anymore and even in America
> the rate is dropping.
>
> > For instance if you look at this study from the University of
> > Washington
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000111074855.htm
> >
> > out of 130,475 circumcisions over a certain period - 287 had
> > complications - most of them not serious - however it was determined
> > that there was a 'trade off analysis' i.e. for every case of a boy
> > with complications from circumcision, 6 boys can be expected to have
> > avoided urinary tract infections . For every two cases of
> > circumcision complications, one case of penile cancer is prevented.
> >
> > So I think it comes down to a personal decision that a parent will
> > make based on cultural factors
>
> No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract infection
> myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's discredited
bull****.

Sorry I didn't see your posts from the first round - in any case on what
basis has the U of W study been discredited? Any links to support that?

DRS
September 19th 04, 01:06 PM
"David" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

>> No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract
>> infection myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's
>> discredited bull****.
>
> Sorry I didn't see your posts from the first round - in any case on
> what basis has the U of W study been discredited? Any links to
> support that?

www.****inggoogleit.com

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 19th 04, 01:12 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
> > "DRS" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> [...]
>
> >> No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract
> >> infection myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's
> >> discredited bull****.
> >
> > Sorry I didn't see your posts from the first round - in any case on
> > what basis has the U of W study been discredited? Any links to
> > support that?
>
> www.****inggoogleit.com
>
that kind of response doesn't become you

Preacher
September 19th 04, 02:11 PM
David > wrote:

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "David" > wrote in message
> >
> > > "DRS" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract
> > >> infection myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's
> > >> discredited bull****.
> > >
> > > Sorry I didn't see your posts from the first round - in any case on
> > > what basis has the U of W study been discredited? Any links to
> > > support that?
> >
> > www.****inggoogleit.com
> >
> that kind of response doesn't become you

Actually, it does.

DRS, what makes circumcision morally wrong that doesn't apply to
abortion?

DRS
September 19th 04, 02:35 PM
"Preacher" > wrote in message


[...]

> DRS, what makes circumcision morally wrong that doesn't apply to
> abortion?

The difference between a person and a potential person.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 19th 04, 02:42 PM
Mick R. wrote:

> I was born in '70. Nuff said.

With a name like "Mick" you're probably not Jewish... so I'm left
wondering (idly - don't answer if you don't care to) what did you do
about your son? (IIRC you've got one of each?)

Dally

Dally
September 19th 04, 03:13 PM
ray miller wrote:

>>Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>>anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>>again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
>>issue.
>
>
> So americans main reason for infant mutilation is a fashion
> statement.?!!

No, at this point I'd say the main benefit is ****ing off DRS.

Dally

Pete
September 19th 04, 06:02 PM
DRS wrote:
> "Preacher" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> DRS, what makes circumcision morally wrong that doesn't apply to
>> abortion?
>
> The difference between a person and a potential person.

That response speaks volumes about DRS.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/16/2004

John M. Williams
September 19th 04, 06:34 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"Mick R." > wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>> John M. Williams wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>>>> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>>>> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a
>>>> medical issue.
>
>The removal of 36% of the nerve endings in the penis is a medical issue,
>moron. The keratinization of the glans is a medical issue. Etc.

Post scientific literature like I did. Your self-righteous screeching
and emotional _ad_hominem_ attacks no longer have any meaning.

John M. Williams
September 19th 04, 06:41 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"David" > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
>> when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
>> the guy next to
>> me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
>> with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
>> fine, thanks"
>
>People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm right.
>If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming medical evidence
>that circumcision always causes harm then you're just trolling.

Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?

John M. Williams
September 19th 04, 07:00 PM
"DRS" > wrote:

>"David" > wrote:
>>
>> So I think it comes down to a personal decision that a parent will
>> make based on cultural factors
>
>No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract infection
>myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's discredited bull****.

You claimed that the link between cervical cancer and HPVs in
uncircumcized males was a "discredited" myth because it all came from
speculation in the 1950s. I posted clear evidence that proved you
wrong. It's difficult to give any credence to anything you say.

David
September 19th 04, 08:39 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "DRS" > wrote:
> >"David" > wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> I don't see any problems with circumcision. In fact, lots of times
> >> when I am having a pee in a public urinal, I might sneak a look at
> >> the guy next to
> >> me - then if his penis is circumsized, I might ask "Are you happy
> >> with yours?" and almost invariably the reply is "yes, seems to be
> >> fine, thanks"
> >
> >People adapt to their state but that doesn't make the initial harm right.
> >If you still can't see the harm despite the overwhelming medical evidence
> >that circumcision always causes harm then you're just trolling.
>
> Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
> well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
> anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?

Seems his main argument is that "it is a barbarous act and causes
unnecessary pain" - by that logic, so is going to the dentist. There is
enough evidence to show that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the
pain.

MJL
September 19th 04, 08:52 PM
On 19 Sep 2004 00:18:59 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
wrote:

>John M. Williams > wrote in message >...
>> "J.S. Jackson" > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:46:06 -0400, Jim wrote:
>> >
>> >> Especially blowjobs. Women prefer a clean,large penis.
>> >
>> >I don't doubt what you say, however I am curious where you obtained
>> >knowledge of what all women prefer.
>> >
>> >Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I would imagine that
>> >american women prefer a circumcised penis, since that is by far the norm.
>> >But in countries where an uncircumcised penis is the norm...
>>
>> Which seems to be the _real_ issue here, since all the
>> anti-circumcision rants seem to be coming from non-Americans. Once
>> again, this is a cultural issue and a matter of opinion, not a medical
>> issue.
>
>- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
>great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
>slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
>the stone age.

It was, and is, one of those "well, everyone does it so it must be
right" kinda things. And more specifically it is an "I don't want my
son to be DIFFERENT" thing (heaven forfend).

The cattle won't change until progressive people insert a big enough
wedge (as in all things).


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

ray miller
September 19th 04, 10:08 PM
>No, at this point I'd say the main benefit is ****ing off DRS.

:)

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

DRS
September 20th 04, 12:18 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message ...
>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. I can't believe you brought up the urinary tract
>>>>> infection myth after I destroyed it the first time round. It's
>>>>> discredited bull****.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I didn't see your posts from the first round - in any case on
>>>> what basis has the U of W study been discredited? Any links to
>>>> support that?
>>>
>>> www.****inggoogleit.com
>>
>> That is DRS's first response to being proven wrong. If
>> that doesn't work, he'll call you a liar and killfile you.

You are a liar, which is why I killfiled you.

> I've seen debating techniques but this takes the cake. This guy needs
> help

You're both full of ****. You know how to use Google, nothing is being
hidden from you.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 20th 04, 12:25 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message ...

[...]

>> Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
>> well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
>> anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?

You're a liar. I've cited peer-reviewed studies in here and elsewhere as
you know full well.

> Seems his main argument is that "it is a barbarous act and causes
> unnecessary pain"

My main argument is that it causes permanent harm. I've said it often
enough. You're not even paying attention to who is saying what. Why am I
not surprised?

> - by that logic, so is going to the dentist. There
> is enough evidence to show that the benefits of circumcision
> outweigh the pain.

The evidence is to the contrary, which is why it's not done any more in
developed countries execept America and even there the rate is dropping.
And dentists don't perform surgery without anaesthetic, which is how
circumcision is traditionally performed. Take a knife and start to flay
some part of yourself, like a finger. That's the pain you apparently
consider trivial.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 20th 04, 12:40 AM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
> > "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> > message ...
>
> [...]
>
> >> Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
> >> well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
> >> anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?
>
> You're a liar. I've cited peer-reviewed studies in here and elsewhere as
> you know full well.

(the above response would be to JW)


> > Seems his main argument is that "it is a barbarous act and causes
> > unnecessary pain"
>
> My main argument is that it causes permanent harm. I've said it often
> enough. You're not even paying attention to who is saying what. Why am I
> not surprised?
>
> > - by that logic, so is going to the dentist. There
> > is enough evidence to show that the benefits of circumcision
> > outweigh the pain.
>
> The evidence is to the contrary, which is why it's not done any more in
> developed countries execept America and even there the rate is dropping.
> And dentists don't perform surgery without anaesthetic, which is how
> circumcision is traditionally performed. Take a knife and start to flay
> some part of yourself, like a finger. That's the pain you apparently
> consider trivial.
>
No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.

When you say the evidence is to the contrary - well you must accept there
are two sides to this story and compelling evidence on both sides.

DRS
September 20th 04, 12:45 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

>> The evidence is to the contrary, which is why it's not done any more
>> in developed countries execept America and even there the rate is
>> dropping. And dentists don't perform surgery without anaesthetic,
>> which is how circumcision is traditionally performed. Take a knife
>> and start to flay some part of yourself, like a finger. That's the
>> pain you apparently consider trivial.
>>
> No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
> anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.

Surgery without anaesthetic is always not a good idea. If anaesthetic for a
newborn is not a good idea then it follows that perfoming this medically
unnecessary procedure on newborns is also not a good idea.

> When you say the evidence is to the contrary - well you must accept
> there are two sides to this story and compelling evidence on both
> sides.

I don't have to accept anything of the sort. You're ignoring what I said
about evaluating evidence.

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 01:27 AM
"DRS" > wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>>
>>> That is DRS's first response to being proven wrong. If
>>> that doesn't work, he'll call you a liar and killfile you.
>
>You are a liar, which is why I killfiled you.

You keep saying that, yet you never prove it or even specify what
you're talking about.

>You know how to use Google, nothing is being
>hidden from you.

True. And I never x-no-archive my posts, so if I'm a liar, you can
surely establish what you're talking about and why I'm lying.

I await proof, or even some evidence, of your accusations.

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 01:33 AM
"DRS" > wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
>>> well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
>>> anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?
>
>You're a liar. I've cited peer-reviewed studies in here and elsewhere as
>you know full well.

Once again, you call me a liar. You say you cite peer-reviewed
studies. Please provide references for the studies which refute
these:

"It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
of cervical cancer in their current female partners." Castellsague X,
Bosch FX, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, de Sanjose S, Eluf-Neto J,
Ngelangel CA, Chichareon S, Smith JS, Herrero R, Moreno V, Franceschi
S; International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical
Cancer Study Group. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus
infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med. 2002
Apr 11;346(15):1105-12.

"In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
May;59(5):379-95.

"Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.

"[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

Lenny Lennerson
September 20th 04, 03:13 AM
> >- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
> >great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
> >slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
> >the stone age.
>
> Yeah, sure, Lenny. Whatever you say. As to the stone age, there has
> been a troglodyte around here lately, and it's pretty clear who that
> is.

- Great argument, you neaderthal. Justify your support for slicing off
the most sensitive portion of a perfectly good penis... of an innocent
child who never gave consent none the less. Just give it a try so I
can watch you fail like you almost always do. What a joke you are, go
back to beating animals with your club and mutilating your children,
Goldore.

Art S
September 20th 04, 03:42 AM
<just a repeat for DRS>

"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "DRS" > wrote:
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>> Where is the medical evidence? I posted citations to studies in
> >>> well-regarded, peer-reviewed medical journals. Where have you cited
> >>> anything other than hyperbole from anti-circumcision web sites?
> >
> >You're a liar. I've cited peer-reviewed studies in here and elsewhere as
> >you know full well.
>
> Once again, you call me a liar. You say you cite peer-reviewed
> studies. Please provide references for the studies which refute
> these:
>
> "It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
> human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
> in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
> associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
> case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
> of cervical cancer in their current female partners." Castellsague X,
> Bosch FX, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, de Sanjose S, Eluf-Neto J,
> Ngelangel CA, Chichareon S, Smith JS, Herrero R, Moreno V, Franceschi
> S; International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical
> Cancer Study Group. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus
> infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med. 2002
> Apr 11;346(15):1105-12.
>
> "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> May;59(5):379-95.
>
> "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>
> "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

Just repeating this to make sure DRS has an adequate opportunity to
respond.

Art

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 03:45 AM
(Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
>> >- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
>> >great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
>> >slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
>> >the stone age.
>>
>> Yeah, sure, Lenny. Whatever you say. As to the stone age, there has
>> been a troglodyte around here lately, and it's pretty clear who that
>> is.
>
>- Great argument, you neaderthal. Justify your support for slicing off
>the most sensitive portion of a perfectly good penis... of an innocent
>child who never gave consent none the less. Just give it a try so I
>can watch you fail like you almost always do. What a joke you are, go
>back to beating animals with your club and mutilating your children,
>Goldore.

Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
try again:

"In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
May;59(5):379-95.

"Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.

"[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 03:58 AM
"Art S" > wrote:
>
>Just repeating this to make sure DRS has an adequate opportunity to
>respond.

You're so fair-minded, Art. :)

Preacher
September 20th 04, 05:14 AM
DRS > wrote:

> I don't have to accept anything of the sort. You're ignoring what I said
> about evaluating evidence.

Speaking of ignoring evidence, did you ever respond to these, courtesy
of John M. Williams?

> "It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
> human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
> in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
> associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
> case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
> of cervical cancer in their current female partners." Castellsague X,
> Bosch FX, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, de Sanjose S, Eluf-Neto J,
> Ngelangel CA, Chichareon S, Smith JS, Herrero R, Moreno V, Franceschi
> S; International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical
> Cancer Study Group. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus
> infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med. 2002
> Apr 11;346(15):1105-12.
>
> "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> May;59(5):379-95.
>
> "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>
> "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

David
September 20th 04, 05:24 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> (Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
> >> >- Circumcision is unnecessary and cruel, plain and simple. If it's so
> >> >great, then give men the chance to chose for themselves at age 18 to
> >> >slice of the most sensitive portion of their cock. You people live in
> >> >the stone age.
> >>
> >> Yeah, sure, Lenny. Whatever you say. As to the stone age, there has
> >> been a troglodyte around here lately, and it's pretty clear who that
> >> is.
> >
> >- Great argument, you neaderthal. Justify your support for slicing off
> >the most sensitive portion of a perfectly good penis... of an innocent
> >child who never gave consent none the less. Just give it a try so I
> >can watch you fail like you almost always do. What a joke you are, go
> >back to beating animals with your club and mutilating your children,
> >Goldore.
>
> Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
> just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
> try again:
>
> "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> May;59(5):379-95.
>
> "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>
> "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

Yes . . .but . . . .but . . . .sure these diseases are like really serious
.. . . . but. . . .it's the little teeny kids . . . .you are hurtin' them, ya
know, they never said you could just snip that skin off of them just willy
nilly like that. If they could just sign a consent or something?

David
September 20th 04, 06:43 AM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
> > "DRS" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> [...]
>
> >> The evidence is to the contrary, which is why it's not done any more
> >> in developed countries execept America and even there the rate is
> >> dropping. And dentists don't perform surgery without anaesthetic,
> >> which is how circumcision is traditionally performed. Take a knife
> >> and start to flay some part of yourself, like a finger. That's the
> >> pain you apparently consider trivial.
> >>
> > No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
> > anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.
>
> Surgery without anaesthetic is always not a good idea. If anaesthetic for
a
> newborn is not a good idea then it follows that perfoming this medically
> unnecessary procedure on newborns is also not a good idea.
>
> > When you say the evidence is to the contrary - well you must accept
> > there are two sides to this story and compelling evidence on both
> > sides.
>
> I don't have to accept anything of the sort. You're ignoring what I said
> about evaluating evidence.
>
On that subject seems you are rejecting evidence on the other side without
properly addressing it.

DRS
September 20th 04, 12:22 PM
"Art S" > wrote in message

> <just a repeat for DRS>

I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and see it for
yourself. It's not rocket science.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David
September 20th 04, 12:31 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "Art S" > wrote in message
>
> > <just a repeat for DRS>
>
> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
> Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and see it
for
> yourself. It's not rocket science.
>
> --
You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than urinary
tract infections. You are not paying attention

Proton Soup
September 20th 04, 04:09 PM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:22:41 +1000, "DRS"
> wrote:

>"Art S" > wrote in message

>> <just a repeat for DRS>
>
>I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
>Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and see it for
>yourself. It's not rocket science.

Speaking of which, we dealt with the whole circumcision issue once
before, too. So either answer the question or just STFU.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
September 20th 04, 04:18 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:22:41 +1000, "DRS"
> > wrote:
>> "Art S" > wrote in message
>>
>>> <just a repeat for DRS>
>>
>> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
>> Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and
>> see it for yourself. It's not rocket science.
>
> Speaking of which, we dealt with the whole circumcision issue once
> before, too. So either answer the question or just STFU.

Asked and answered.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 20th 04, 04:34 PM
David wrote:

> No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
> anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.

Please tell me why you think anaesthetic for a newborn ins a bad idea?
You understand that they use local or topical anaesthetics, right? IIRC
we used emla cream (or something like that.)

Dally

Lenny Lennerson
September 20th 04, 06:11 PM
> > "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> > decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> > cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> > Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> > most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> > May;59(5):379-95.
> >
> > "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> > important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> > childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> > S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> > developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
> >
> > "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> > uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> > infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> > complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> > transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> > immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> > male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> > Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
>
> Yes . . .but . . . .but . . . .sure these diseases are like really serious
> . . . . but. . . .it's the little teeny kids . . . .you are hurtin' them, ya
> know, they never said you could just snip that skin off of them just willy
> nilly like that. If they could just sign a consent or something?

- What a moron. In the 21st century, us non-neanderthals have this
wild new thing called soap and water, so that pretty much destroys
your bull**** urinary tract infection argument. Secondly, if you are
****ing people with HIV/AIDS without a condom, a foreskin is the LEAST
of your problems. The very fact he would use that point shows how weak
his overall argument is. Thirdly, I don't know too many men worried
about getting cancer in their cervix. What a bunch of ****ing
cave-men.

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 06:28 PM
"David" > wrote:
>
>"DRS" > wrote:
>> "Art S" > wrote:
>> > <just a repeat for DRS>
>>
>> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
>> Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and see it
>> for yourself. It's not rocket science.
>>
>You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than urinary
>tract infections. You are not paying attention

You should understand that DRS doesn't actually do any research
on this subject; he just cribs all this stuff from the
Circumcision Information and Resources Page (CIRP). Naturally,
CIRP is an anti-circumcision site, just like so many "pregnancy
information centers" are merely anti-abortion organizations.
And as expected, their medico-scientific information is
one-sided. If more recent studies refute what they publish,
they just pretend those studies don't exist. That's why he
wasn't even aware of some of the articles I cited.

Lenny Lennerson
September 20th 04, 06:36 PM
> Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
> just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
> try again:
>
> "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> May;59(5):379-95.
>
> "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>
> "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.

- You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
non-bathers like yourself. One of your arguments destroyed, now on to
the next. The ONLY way a foreskin would EVER come into play in
contracting HIV/AIDS is if you are ****ing people with HIV/AIDS and
not wearing a condom. No doubt you are stupid enough to do this, but
civilised humans wouldn't. Second argument obliterated, on to the
last. The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's. We
should also perform a lobotomy to insure you have potential female
partners as stupid as you are. You are hereby dismissed.

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 07:09 PM
(Lenny Lennerson) wrote:

>> Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
>> just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
>> try again:
>>
>> "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
>> decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
>> cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
>> Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
>> most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
>> May;59(5):379-95.
>>
>> "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
>> important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
>> childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
>> S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
>> developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>>
>> "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
>> uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
>> infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
>> complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
>> transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
>> immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
>> male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
>> Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
>
>- You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
>pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
>magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
>non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
>preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
>non-bathers like yourself.

I'll bet you really, really, really like cleaning yours, don't you,
Lenny? There's another word for that, Lenny.

>One of your arguments destroyed, now on to the next.

Not according to the studies, but why ruin the purity of your
ignorance with facts, eh?

>The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
>with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
>you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
>remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
>would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
>it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's.

Ah, Lenny is back on his misogyny kick again.

I know that you desperately want to be a tough guy, Lenny, but the
wuss in you just keeps bleeding through. Sorry.

David
September 20th 04, 07:29 PM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
om...
> > Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
> > just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
> > try again:
> >
> > "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> > decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> > cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> > Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> > most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> > May;59(5):379-95.
> >
> > "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> > important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> > childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> > S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> > developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
> >
> > "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> > uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> > infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> > complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> > transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> > immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> > male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> > Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
>
> - You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
> pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
> magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
> non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
> preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
> non-bathers like yourself. One of your arguments destroyed, now on to
> the next. The ONLY way a foreskin would EVER come into play in
> contracting HIV/AIDS is if you are ****ing people with HIV/AIDS and
> not wearing a condom. No doubt you are stupid enough to do this, but
> civilised humans wouldn't. Second argument obliterated, on to the
> last. The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
> remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
> it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's. We
> should also perform a lobotomy to insure you have potential female
> partners as stupid as you are. You are hereby dismissed.

Lenny, you are unfortunately full of **** - when you 'demolish' an argument
you need to do it with facts - not your opinion

David
September 20th 04, 07:31 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote:
> >
> >"DRS" > wrote:
> >> "Art S" > wrote:
> >> > <just a repeat for DRS>
> >>
> >> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time around.
> >> Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google skills and see
it
> >> for yourself. It's not rocket science.
> >>
> >You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than urinary
> >tract infections. You are not paying attention
>
> You should understand that DRS doesn't actually do any research
> on this subject; he just cribs all this stuff from the
> Circumcision Information and Resources Page (CIRP). Naturally,
> CIRP is an anti-circumcision site, just like so many "pregnancy
> information centers" are merely anti-abortion organizations.
> And as expected, their medico-scientific information is
> one-sided. If more recent studies refute what they publish,
> they just pretend those studies don't exist. That's why he
> wasn't even aware of some of the articles I cited.

DRS is highly opinionated for a guy who does little *real* research. He's
dangerous

David
September 20th 04, 07:37 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
>
> > No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
> > anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.
>
> Please tell me why you think anaesthetic for a newborn ins a bad idea?
> You understand that they use local or topical anaesthetics, right? IIRC
> we used emla cream (or something like that.)
>
> Dally

When DRS said that no anaesthetic is used I took that at face value - I'm
pleased to see that he is wrong about this as well

ray miller
September 20th 04, 09:21 PM
> Circumcision is always harmful.

To be fair there are time when it's medically necessary. Google for
phimosis as a start point.

Ray

--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

ray miller
September 20th 04, 09:40 PM
>"It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
>human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
>in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
>associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
>case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
>of cervical cancer in their current female partners."

I'm not getting involved in the personal arguements here, but that 1st
conclusion is very carefully worded. It doesn't say that "male
cirumcision reduces..." It says "male ciscumcision is associated with
reduced...".

A basic tenet of scientific study is that correlation does not imply
cause.

The other cites seem to prove your point, though 2 of the studies
imply that it's not that cut and dried.
"An evidence-based approach to male circumcision: what do we know?"
"a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation"

FWIW my view is that circumcision isn't a good thing, but it's a
personal view, and I can't and won't cite studies to prove either way.

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

September 20th 04, 09:52 PM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:40:22 GMT, ray miller
> wrote:

>>"It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
>>human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
>>in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
>>associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
>>case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
>>of cervical cancer in their current female partners."
>
>I'm not getting involved in the personal arguements here, but that 1st
>conclusion is very carefully worded. It doesn't say that "male
>cirumcision reduces..." It says "male ciscumcision is associated with
>reduced...".
>
>A basic tenet of scientific study is that correlation does not imply
>cause.
>
>The other cites seem to prove your point, though 2 of the studies
>imply that it's not that cut and dried.

no pun intended, I am sure

>"An evidence-based approach to male circumcision: what do we know?"
>"a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation"
>
>FWIW my view is that circumcision isn't a good thing, but it's a
>personal view, and I can't and won't cite studies to prove either way.
>
>Ray

Lenny Lennerson
September 20th 04, 10:38 PM
"David" > wrote in message >...
> "Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
> > > just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
> > > try again:
> > >
> > > "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
> > > decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> > > cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> > > Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> > > most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> > > May;59(5):379-95.
> > >
> > > "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> > > important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> > > childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
> > > S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> > > developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
> > >
> > > "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> > > uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> > > infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> > > complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
> > > transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> > > immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
> > > male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> > > Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
> >
> > - You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
> > pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
> > magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
> > non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
> > preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
> > non-bathers like yourself. One of your arguments destroyed, now on to
> > the next. The ONLY way a foreskin would EVER come into play in
> > contracting HIV/AIDS is if you are ****ing people with HIV/AIDS and
> > not wearing a condom. No doubt you are stupid enough to do this, but
> > civilised humans wouldn't. Second argument obliterated, on to the
> > last. The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> > with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> > you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
> > remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> > would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
> > it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's. We
> > should also perform a lobotomy to insure you have potential female
> > partners as stupid as you are. You are hereby dismissed.
>
> Lenny, you are unfortunately full of **** - when you 'demolish' an argument
> you need to do it with facts - not your opinion

- Do all neanderthals travel in packs like you two? Let your
butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
world who have refused to recommend circumcision. It;'s a cave-man
mutilation ritual, period. You have been outclassed buddy, know when
to give up.

David
September 20th 04, 10:47 PM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
om...
> "David" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were
there
> > > > just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
> > > > try again:
> > > >
> > > > "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in
the
> > > > decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
> > > > cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
> > > > Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
> > > > most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
> > > > May;59(5):379-95.
> > > >
> > > > "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
> > > > important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
> > > > childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease."
Misra
> > > > S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
> > > > developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
> > > >
> > > > "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
> > > > uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
> > > > infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
> > > > complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative
sexually
> > > > transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
> > > > immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach
to
> > > > male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
> > > > Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
> > >
> > > - You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
> > > pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
> > > magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
> > > non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
> > > preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
> > > non-bathers like yourself. One of your arguments destroyed, now on to
> > > the next. The ONLY way a foreskin would EVER come into play in
> > > contracting HIV/AIDS is if you are ****ing people with HIV/AIDS and
> > > not wearing a condom. No doubt you are stupid enough to do this, but
> > > civilised humans wouldn't. Second argument obliterated, on to the
> > > last. The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> > > with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> > > you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
> > > remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> > > would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
> > > it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's. We
> > > should also perform a lobotomy to insure you have potential female
> > > partners as stupid as you are. You are hereby dismissed.
> >
> > Lenny, you are unfortunately full of **** - when you 'demolish' an
argument
> > you need to do it with facts - not your opinion
>
> - Do all neanderthals travel in packs like you two? Let your
> butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
> listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
> world who have refused to recommend circumcision. It;'s a cave-man
> mutilation ritual, period. You have been outclassed buddy, know when
> to give up.

Lots of procedures are not recommended. That doesn't mean that it is
recommended *not* to circumcise. There is a big difference.

Lenny Lennerson
September 20th 04, 10:47 PM
> >One of your arguments destroyed, now on to the next.

> Not according to the studies, but why ruin the purity of your
> ignorance with facts, eh?

- Honestly bro, how dumb are you? The AMA refuses to recommend
circumcision for a reason, you tool. Maybe because they know most
people follow simple advice to a) Clean your cock and it wont get
infected and B) Don't **** people with HIV/Aids without a condom.
There goes all of your arguments. You're just embarrasing yourself at
this point. Kepp trying though, it's funny.

> >The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> >with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> >you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
> >remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> >would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
> >it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's.
>
> Ah, Lenny is back on his misogyny kick again.

- Do you even try to make sense when you post? It's hard to make any
sense when you are making a sad attempt to defend chopping off healthy
body parts for no reason.

> I know that you desperately want to be a tough guy, Lenny, but the
> wuss in you just keeps bleeding through. Sorry.

- Yeah, it makes you look really tough, wanting to mutilate babies for
no good reason. Way to go, you big tough guy. Enjoy your cro-magnon
mutilation ritual.

David
September 20th 04, 10:58 PM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
om...
> > >One of your arguments destroyed, now on to the next.
>
> > Not according to the studies, but why ruin the purity of your
> > ignorance with facts, eh?
>
> - Honestly bro, how dumb are you? The AMA refuses to recommend
> circumcision for a reason, you tool. Maybe because they know most
> people follow simple advice to a) Clean your cock and it wont get
> infected and B) Don't **** people with HIV/Aids without a condom.
> There goes all of your arguments. You're just embarrasing yourself at
> this point. Kepp trying though, it's funny.
>
> > >The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> > >with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> > >you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
> > >remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> > >would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
> > >it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's.
> >
> > Ah, Lenny is back on his misogyny kick again.
>
> - Do you even try to make sense when you post? It's hard to make any
> sense when you are making a sad attempt to defend chopping off healthy
> body parts for no reason.
>
> > I know that you desperately want to be a tough guy, Lenny, but the
> > wuss in you just keeps bleeding through. Sorry.
>
> - Yeah, it makes you look really tough, wanting to mutilate babies for
> no good reason. Way to go, you big tough guy. Enjoy your cro-magnon
> mutilation ritual.

Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
not 'road rage'

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 11:40 PM
"David" > wrote:
>
>"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote:
>> > >One of your arguments destroyed, now on to the next.
>>
>> > Not according to the studies, but why ruin the purity of your
>> > ignorance with facts, eh?
>>
>> - Honestly bro, how dumb are you? The AMA refuses to recommend
>> circumcision for a reason, you tool. Maybe because they know most
>> people follow simple advice to a) Clean your cock and it wont get
>> infected and B) Don't **** people with HIV/Aids without a condom.
>> There goes all of your arguments. You're just embarrasing yourself at
>> this point. Kepp trying though, it's funny.
>>
>> > >The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
>> > >with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
>> > >you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
>> > >remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
>> > >would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
>> > >it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's.
>> >
>> > Ah, Lenny is back on his misogyny kick again.
>>
>> - Do you even try to make sense when you post? It's hard to make any
>> sense when you are making a sad attempt to defend chopping off healthy
>> body parts for no reason.
>>
>> > I know that you desperately want to be a tough guy, Lenny, but the
>> > wuss in you just keeps bleeding through. Sorry.
>>
>> - Yeah, it makes you look really tough, wanting to mutilate babies for
>> no good reason. Way to go, you big tough guy. Enjoy your cro-magnon
>> mutilation ritual.
>
>Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
>not 'road rage'

Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:

http://tinyurl.com/5kzej

John M. Williams
September 20th 04, 11:41 PM
ray miller > wrote:

>>"It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile
>>human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer
>>in his female partner. *** CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is
>>associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the
>>case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk
>>of cervical cancer in their current female partners."
>
>I'm not getting involved in the personal arguements here, but that 1st
>conclusion is very carefully worded. It doesn't say that "male
>cirumcision reduces..." It says "male ciscumcision is associated with
>reduced...".
>
>A basic tenet of scientific study is that correlation does not imply
>cause.
>
>The other cites seem to prove your point, though 2 of the studies
>imply that it's not that cut and dried.
>"An evidence-based approach to male circumcision: what do we know?"
>"a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation"
>
>FWIW my view is that circumcision isn't a good thing, but it's a
>personal view, and I can't and won't cite studies to prove either way.

And that's pretty much been my point all along. There are a few
people whose views are arbitrary, but those same people tend to be
that way in everything they post.

David
September 21st 04, 12:45 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote:
> >
> >"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote:
> >> > >One of your arguments destroyed, now on to the next.
> >>
> >> > Not according to the studies, but why ruin the purity of your
> >> > ignorance with facts, eh?
> >>
> >> - Honestly bro, how dumb are you? The AMA refuses to recommend
> >> circumcision for a reason, you tool. Maybe because they know most
> >> people follow simple advice to a) Clean your cock and it wont get
> >> infected and B) Don't **** people with HIV/Aids without a condom.
> >> There goes all of your arguments. You're just embarrasing yourself at
> >> this point. Kepp trying though, it's funny.
> >>
> >> > >The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
> >> > >with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
> >> > >you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to
simply
> >> > >remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
> >> > >would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were
at
> >> > >it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, Lenny is back on his misogyny kick again.
> >>
> >> - Do you even try to make sense when you post? It's hard to make any
> >> sense when you are making a sad attempt to defend chopping off healthy
> >> body parts for no reason.
> >>
> >> > I know that you desperately want to be a tough guy, Lenny, but the
> >> > wuss in you just keeps bleeding through. Sorry.
> >>
> >> - Yeah, it makes you look really tough, wanting to mutilate babies for
> >> no good reason. Way to go, you big tough guy. Enjoy your cro-magnon
> >> mutilation ritual.
> >
> >Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
> >not 'road rage'
>
> Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5kzej

Ha ha - big tough wannabe boxer! (the first and most important question is
"How much do you make per fight?") What a jerk! - He wants to dive into
pro boxing - wouldn't he have to be 'amateur' first? By the sound of him he
cut his teeth on boxing by punching the "old bag" around a little (his wife,
girlfriend or mother)

Seth Breidbart
September 21st 04, 04:20 AM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:29:40 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>>You genitally mutilated your own children?
>>
>>I accept that this act does not define you as a person, and I also accept
>>that you thought about this before you did it, and I don't want to make you
>>feel worse about something you appear to have mixed feelings about, but
>>ritual mutilation of children is extremely barbaric. Its a wonder that its
>>still legal in the civilised world.
>>
>Circumcised dudes get laid more than non circumcised dudes. WTF is
>the problem?

He thinks it's unfair competition.

Seth
--
99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
it. -- Will Brink

Lenny Lennerson
September 21st 04, 07:59 AM
> >Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
> >not 'road rage'
>
> Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5kzej

- You don't much like being beaten in a debate, do you?

No Frills
September 21st 04, 09:02 AM
On 20 Sep 2004 14:38:00 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
wrote:

>"David" > wrote in message >...
>> "Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > > Did you not read the conclusions of the studies I cited, or were there
>> > > just too many big words for you? Here they are, in case you want to
>> > > try again:
>> > >
>> > > "In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the
>> > > decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV,
>> > > cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection." Alanis MC,
>> > > Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and
>> > > most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004
>> > > May;59(5):379-95.
>> > >
>> > > "Although rare in developed countries, carcinoma of the penis is an
>> > > important problem in the developing world. Circumcision done in
>> > > childhood offers the greatest protection against this disease." Misra
>> > > S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the
>> > > developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7.
>> > >
>> > > "[S]ubstantial data exist to support the conclusions that
>> > > uncircumcised males have greater incidences of urinary tract
>> > > infections, especially in the first 6 months of life when
>> > > complications are greatest, greater incidences of ulcerative sexually
>> > > transmitted infections, and increased transmission of human
>> > > immunodeficiency virus." Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to
>> > > male circumcision: what do we know? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001
>> > > Nov-Dec;46(6):415-22.
>> >
>> > - You are truly a ****ing moron. I asked you to try and defend your
>> > pathetic position so I could watch you fail and you did so
>> > magnificently. Let me educate you a bit here, cave-man. Us
>> > non-neaderthals use soap and water to clean ourselves, thereby
>> > preventing all sorts of infection that come from being as filthy as
>> > non-bathers like yourself. One of your arguments destroyed, now on to
>> > the next. The ONLY way a foreskin would EVER come into play in
>> > contracting HIV/AIDS is if you are ****ing people with HIV/AIDS and
>> > not wearing a condom. No doubt you are stupid enough to do this, but
>> > civilised humans wouldn't. Second argument obliterated, on to the
>> > last. The number of sexual partners a womans had has MUCH more to do
>> > with the slight risk of cervical cancer than a foreskin ever would,
>> > you dumbass. And wouldn't the solution, according to you, be to simply
>> > remove her cervix at birth? I mean, we wouldn't want to risk cancer,
>> > would we? That sounds pretty serious. Chop off her labia while were at
>> > it, seeing as how that would reduce her risk of several STD's. We
>> > should also perform a lobotomy to insure you have potential female
>> > partners as stupid as you are. You are hereby dismissed.
>>
>> Lenny, you are unfortunately full of **** - when you 'demolish' an argument
>> you need to do it with facts - not your opinion
>
>- Do all neanderthals travel in packs like you two? Let your
>butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
>listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
>world who have refused to recommend circumcision. It;'s a cave-man
>mutilation ritual, period. You have been outclassed buddy, know when
>to give up.

Cavemen removed their foreskins so that cavewomen would be more likely
to give cavemen blowjobs.

---
No-no-no in the squat rack!!

David
September 21st 04, 10:52 AM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
m...
> > >Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it
is
> > >not 'road rage'
> >
> > Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> > an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> > about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> > macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> > it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5kzej
>
> - You don't much like being beaten in a debate, do you?

No, you are dead right about that Lenny. Maybe you can tell me what it feels
like?

DRS
September 21st 04, 11:56 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
>>> anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.
>>
>> Please tell me why you think anaesthetic for a newborn ins a bad
>> idea? You understand that they use local or topical anaesthetics,
>> right? IIRC we used emla cream (or something like that.)
>
> When DRS said that no anaesthetic is used I took that at face value -
> I'm pleased to see that he is wrong about this as well

I'm not wrong. Traditionally anaesthetic was not used and it is only
recently that *some* practitioners have begun using it. The old theory was
that an infant's nervous system was not sufficiently developed for them to
really feel pain. All that screaming and thrashing about (many doctors
strap the infant to a solid board to keep them still during the operation)
was apparently just for show and supposedly had nothing to do with the fact
that the infant was enduring surgery on the most sensitive part of its body
without even a hint of pain killer.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 21st 04, 11:58 AM
"David" > wrote in message

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message ...
>> "David" > wrote:
>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>>> "Art S" > wrote:
>>>>> <just a repeat for DRS>
>>>>
>>>> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time
>>>> around. Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google
>>>> skills and see it for yourself. It's not rocket science.
>>>>
>>> You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than
>>> urinary tract infections. You are not paying attention
>>
>> You should understand that DRS doesn't actually do any research
>> on this subject;

You're a shameless, pathological liar.

>> he just cribs all this stuff from the
>> Circumcision Information and Resources Page (CIRP). Naturally,

I have never cribbed even once from that site.

[...]

> DRS is highly opinionated for a guy who does little *real* research.
> He's dangerous

You're a pig-ignorant troll.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 21st 04, 12:05 PM
"ray miller" > wrote in message

>> Circumcision is always harmful.
>
> To be fair there are time when it's medically necessary. Google for
> phimosis as a start point.

It's not medically necessary. There are several less radical alternatives
to circumcision to deal with both phimosis and paraphimosis, about half are
not even surgical. European doctors use them because they work without
causing the harm circumcision does. As I said the first time around, if
even a fraction of the myths about not circumcising were true the
consequences would show up in the control population of the males of Western
and Northern Europe. They don't. Of more than 150 million men, the number
of circumcisions performed is so low most European countries no longer
include them in their statistics yet European penises are not suffering the
catastrophic problems predicted by the slashing brigade.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Rob Heinzman
September 21st 04, 12:41 PM
(Lenny Lennerson) wrote in message >...
> > >Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
> > >not 'road rage'
> >
> > Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> > an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> > about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> > macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> > it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5kzej
>
> - You don't much like being beaten in a debate, do you?

You must be punchdrunk; on my scorecard, you haven't won a single round.

John M. Williams
September 21st 04, 12:57 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"David" > wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>>>> "Art S" > wrote:
>>>>>> <just a repeat for DRS>
>>>>>
>>>>> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time
>>>>> around. Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google
>>>>> skills and see it for yourself. It's not rocket science.
>>>>>
>>>> You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than
>>>> urinary tract infections. You are not paying attention
>>>
>>> You should understand that DRS doesn't actually do any research
>>> on this subject;
>
>You're a shameless, pathological liar.
>
>>> he just cribs all this stuff from the
>>> Circumcision Information and Resources Page (CIRP). Naturally,
>
>I have never cribbed even once from that site.

You're also poor at covering your tracks. I found that site by
Googling backwards from your references. Everything you cite can be
found there, and all the recent research you failed or refused to
recognize is also missing from there. If you didn't Google it from
there, you Googled it from a clone site.

Dally
September 21st 04, 01:31 PM
DRS wrote:
> "David" > wrote in message
>
>
>>"Dally" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No one said the pain is trivial - maybe when you consider the risks,
>>>>anaesthetic for a newborn is not a good idea.
>>>
>>>Please tell me why you think anaesthetic for a newborn ins a bad
>>>idea? You understand that they use local or topical anaesthetics,
>>>right? IIRC we used emla cream (or something like that.)
>>
>>When DRS said that no anaesthetic is used I took that at face value -
>>I'm pleased to see that he is wrong about this as well
>
>
> I'm not wrong. Traditionally anaesthetic was not used and it is only
> recently that *some* practitioners have begun using it.

By "recently" you mean since it was invented?

I recall a study a dozen years ago saying they'd discovered that
newborns feel pain. I remember this because I got such a good laugh out
of it - science catching up with mothers. I assure you that humans
already knew about infant pain before science quantified it. I went
beyond the headline to read the study since it sounded so assinine.
IIRC it was a study about how well children did with invasive surgery
where the risks of the stress from the pain were being balanced with the
risks from G.A. where risk was justified because of the critical need
for the surgery. In other words, it wasn't whether infants feel pain,
but whether being in extreme, long-lasting pain is particularly bad for
them. (The answer is yes.)

I don't know of ANY circumcisions that were done without some sort of
pain amelioration. You've got yourself a straw man there, DRS.

Not that that will bother you any.

> All that screaming and thrashing about (many doctors
> strap the infant to a solid board to keep them still during the operation)
> was apparently just for show and supposedly had nothing to do with the fact
> that the infant was enduring surgery on the most sensitive part of its body
> without even a hint of pain killer.

No, the board is to keep the baby from moving, period. Even if all they
feel is a quick pinch (this is a VERY fast procedure) they might still
flinch. By the way, the site you sent me to didn't resemble my son's in
many respects: the board we had was molded and padded, and the actual
cutting was done with a sort of ringed cutting instrument, not
free-hand. My memory is that being unswaddled under bright lights was
the most traumatic part.

Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe you
ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting about
since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.

Dally

David
September 21st 04, 01:41 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote in message
>
> > "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> "David" > wrote:
> >>> "DRS" > wrote:
> >>>> "Art S" > wrote:
> >>>>> <just a repeat for DRS>
> >>>>
> >>>> I dealt with the urinary tract infection myth the first time
> >>>> around. Instead of being a dickhead just polish up your Google
> >>>> skills and see it for yourself. It's not rocket science.
> >>>>
> >>> You are a stubborn son of a bitch - there are other issues than
> >>> urinary tract infections. You are not paying attention
> >>
> >> You should understand that DRS doesn't actually do any research
> >> on this subject;
>
> You're a shameless, pathological liar.
>
> >> he just cribs all this stuff from the
> >> Circumcision Information and Resources Page (CIRP). Naturally,
>
> I have never cribbed even once from that site.
>
> [...]
>
> > DRS is highly opinionated for a guy who does little *real* research.
> > He's dangerous
>
> You're a pig-ignorant troll.

If you would address the various issues instead of simply pointing to
google you would help your cause.

DRS
September 21st 04, 02:32 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:

[...]

>> I'm not wrong. Traditionally anaesthetic was not used and it is only
>> recently that *some* practitioners have begun using it.
>
> By "recently" you mean since it was invented?

No, I mean recently as in the past few years.

> I recall a study a dozen years ago saying they'd discovered that
> newborns feel pain. I remember this because I got such a good laugh
> out of it - science catching up with mothers. I assure you that
> humans already knew about infant pain before science quantified it.
> I went beyond the headline to read the study since it sounded so
> assinine. IIRC it was a study about how well children did with
> invasive surgery where the risks of the stress from the pain were
> being balanced with the risks from G.A. where risk was justified
> because of the critical need for the surgery. In other words, it
> wasn't whether infants feel pain, but whether being in extreme,
> long-lasting pain is particularly bad for them. (The answer is yes.)
>
> I don't know of ANY circumcisions that were done without some sort of
> pain amelioration.

How many would that be? And how many do you know nothing directly about?

> You've got yourself a straw man there, DRS.

For it to be a strawman I would have had to have invented it. Unfortunately
for you I didn't. The fact is most neonatal circumcision is still done
without anaesthetic and it is excruciatingly painful.

> Not that that will bother you any.

I only deal in facts. You should try it.

>> All that screaming and thrashing about (many doctors
>> strap the infant to a solid board to keep them still during the
>> operation) was apparently just for show and supposedly had nothing
>> to do with the fact that the infant was enduring surgery on the most
>> sensitive part of its body without even a hint of pain killer.
>
> No, the board is to keep the baby from moving, period. Even if all
> they feel is a quick pinch (this is a VERY fast procedure) they might
> still flinch. By the way, the site you sent me to didn't resemble my

I didn't send you to any site.

> son's in many respects: the board we had was molded and padded, and
> the actual cutting was done with a sort of ringed cutting instrument,
> not free-hand. My memory is that being unswaddled under bright
> lights was the most traumatic part.
>
> Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
> fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
> you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
> about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done my
homework.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 21st 04, 02:33 PM
"David" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

>> You're a pig-ignorant troll.
>
> If you would address the various issues instead of simply pointing to
> google you would help your cause.

I have done exactly that and your moronic insistence I repeat myself
endlessly at your whim is a game I'm not playing.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 21st 04, 04:34 PM
DRS wrote:
> "Dally" > wrote in message

>>Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
>>fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
>>you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
>>about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.
>
>
> I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done my
> homework.

Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
direct experience.

What's your source?

Dally

Lee Michaels
September 21st 04, 04:57 PM
"Dally" > wrote

> DRS wrote:
> > "Dally" > wrote in message
>
> >>Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
> >>fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
> >>you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
> >>about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.
> >
> >
> > I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done my
> > homework.
>
> Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
> for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
> perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
> direct experience.
>
> What's your source?
>
DRS's source??

That would be paranoid delusions.

John M. Williams
September 21st 04, 06:18 PM
Dally > wrote:
>DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>>>Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
>>>fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
>>>you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
>>>about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.
>>
>>
>> I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done my
>> homework.
>
>Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
>for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
>perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
>direct experience.
>
>What's your source?

He believes what he writes, and he is always right about everything.

QED

David Cohen
September 21st 04, 08:05 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote
> Dally > wrote:
> >DRS wrote:
> >> "Dally" > wrote in message
> >
> >>>Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in your
> >>>fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
> >>>you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
> >>>about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.
> >>
> >> I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done my
> >> homework.
> >
> >Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
> >for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
> >perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
> >direct experience.
> >
> >What's your source?
>
> He believes what he writes, and he is always right about everything.

I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as well.
More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of my professions
as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse, caused tremendous pain
to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving their lives. I am an expert at
judging pain in patients who can't speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due
to such things as intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far shorter
time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common everyday
accidents that infants are involved in are more painful, for longer, than
circumcision.

The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
unadulterated, bull****.

David

Seth Breidbart
September 21st 04, 08:36 PM
In article >,
Lenny Lennerson > wrote:
>"David" > wrote in message >...

>> Lenny, you are unfortunately full of **** - when you 'demolish' an argument
>> you need to do it with facts - not your opinion
>
>- Do all neanderthals travel in packs like you two? Let your
>butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
>listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
>world who have refused to recommend circumcision.

"refused to recommend" doesn't mean "recommend against". The AMA
refuses to recommend lots of things. That doesn't mean they're
harmful.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

ray miller
September 21st 04, 09:37 PM
>>The other cites seem to prove your point, though 2 of the studies
>>imply that it's not that cut and dried.
>
>no pun intended, I am sure

It's no fun when you have to point them out :)

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/187/182

David
September 21st 04, 10:48 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "John M. Williams" > wrote
> > Dally > wrote:
> > >DRS wrote:
> > >> "Dally" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >>>Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in
your
> > >>>fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one. Maybe
> > >>>you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're ranting
> > >>>about since other people's foreskins are of such deep concern to you.
> > >>
> > >> I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done
my
> > >> homework.
> > >
> > >Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
> > >for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
> > >perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
> > >direct experience.
> > >
> > >What's your source?
> >
> > He believes what he writes, and he is always right about everything.
>
> I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as well.
> More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of my
professions
> as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse, caused tremendous pain
> to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving their lives. I am an expert
at
> judging pain in patients who can't speak yet, or can't verbalize at all
due
> to such things as intubation and mechanical ventilation.
>
> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
shorter
> time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common everyday
> accidents that infants are involved in are more painful, for longer, than
> circumcision.
>
> The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
> lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
> unadulterated, bull****.
>
> David
>
Being a 'member' of your profession, this is valuable stuff as you certainly
would not have an axe to grind

Lenny Lennerson
September 21st 04, 10:49 PM
(Rob Heinzman) wrote in message >...
> (Lenny Lennerson) wrote in message >...
> > > >Lenny, are you this way in real life? This thing is being debated - it is
> > > >not 'road rage'
> > >
> > > Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> > > an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> > > about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> > > macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> > > it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/5kzej
> >
> > - You don't much like being beaten in a debate, do you?
>
> You must be punchdrunk; on my scorecard, you haven't won a single round.

- It was a 3 punch knockout combo. Jab (Clean your cock and it wont
get infected)... Right cross (Don't have unprotected sex with AIDS
patients)... Left hook (Don't be a total slut if you don't want cancer
of the cervix or any STD's.) 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8 (Ref waves
it off, fight over!)

AleX
September 22nd 04, 01:01 AM
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
> an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
> about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
> macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
> it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:

Apparently, the simple truth is: you circumcised folks
need some kind of self-justification. So, instead of just
admitting that this operation has no real value and is
just a stupid "tradition", you would dig up whatever
ridiculous reason to defend _your_ masculinity.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

Proton Soup
September 22nd 04, 01:54 AM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:01:22 -0400 (EDT), AleX
> wrote:

>John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>> Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
>> an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
>> about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
>> macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
>> it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
>
>Apparently, the simple truth is: you circumcised folks
>need some kind of self-justification. So, instead of just
>admitting that this operation has no real value and is
>just a stupid "tradition", you would dig up whatever
>ridiculous reason to defend _your_ masculinity.

And some of us just don't give a **** what you think about it.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Preacher
September 22nd 04, 02:42 AM
> wrote:

> "Circumcision is not essential to a child's well-being at birth, even
> though it does have medical benefits," concluded a recent statement
> from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has the feel of a
> bottom line on the subject. "These benefits are not compelling enough
> to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision." All the
> medical and social reasons for whether or not to perform a
> circumcision, in other words, are essentially a wash. And,
> increasingly, doctors are shifting the responsibility for weighing the
> pros and cons squarely onto parents.

Thanks for posting the article. This paragraph seems to sum it up
nicely. This is what most of us are saying, and it is, of course,
consist with the articles cited by John M. Williams.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

DRS
September 22nd 04, 04:07 AM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>>> Have you ever seen a circumcision? This obviously looms large in
>>> your fantasy life. It really ought not be that hard to find one.
>>> Maybe you ought to make an effort to learn what the hell you're
>>> ranting about since other people's foreskins are of such deep
>>> concern to you.
>>
>> I know exactly what I'm talking about because, unlike you, I've done
>> my homework.
>
> Please explain. I've been to a circumcision and had a front-row seat
> for the show. I know what went on before, during and after, from the
> perspective of a custodial adult. I know what really happens through
> direct experience.
>
> What's your source?

Peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals. I cited some in here the first
time around. You should know by now that anecdotal experience is the
weakest form of evidence. You tried to improperly extrapolate from your
single data point and claimed I was wrong that "Traditionally anaesthetic
was not used and it is only recently that some practitioners have begun
using it." The problem for you is that statement is 100% correct.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 04:11 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
nk.net

[...]

> I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as
> well. More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of
> my professions as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse,
> caused tremendous pain to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving
> their lives. I am an expert at judging pain in patients who can't
> speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due to such things as intubation
> and mechanical ventilation.
>
> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful, for
> longer, than circumcision.

It is outrageous that you should try to diminish the excruciating nature of
neonatal circumcision. In most infants the foreskin and the glans have not
separated, which means the act of removing the foreskin involves more than
"just" cutting the foreskin off. The foreskin must be literally flayed to
be removed.

> The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
> lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
> unadulterated, bull****.

It's also a different question.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 04:12 AM
"David" > wrote in message


[...]

>> I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as
>> well. More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of
>> my professions as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse,
>> caused tremendous pain to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving
>> their lives. I am an expert at judging pain in patients who can't
>> speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due to such things as
>> intubation and mechanical ventilation.
>>
>> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
>> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
>> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
>> for longer, than circumcision.
>>
>> The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
>> lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
>> unadulterated, bull****.
>>
>> David
>>
> Being a 'member' of your profession, this is valuable stuff as you
> certainly would not have an axe to grind

And the fact he's Jewish wouldn't give him any incentive to defend
traditional Jewish practices?

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

David Cohen
September 22nd 04, 04:58 AM
"DRS" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>
> > I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as
> > well. More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of
> > my professions as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse,
> > caused tremendous pain to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving
> > their lives. I am an expert at judging pain in patients who can't
> > speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due to such things as intubation
> > and mechanical ventilation.
> >
> > Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
> > shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
> > everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful, for
> > longer, than circumcision.
>
> It is outrageous that you should try to diminish the excruciating nature
of
> neonatal circumcision. In most infants the foreskin and the glans have
not
> separated, which means the act of removing the foreskin involves more than
> "just" cutting the foreskin off. The foreskin must be literally flayed to
> be removed.

You are so incredibly full of ****. How many urinary catheters have you
inserted into the urethras of neonatal males? None? I've done countless
ones, so try not to describe the anatomy to me, you ignorant twit.

You have ZERO credentials in the area of neonatal pain. I am an expert in
it. By your description, you have NEVER witnessed either a medical
circumcision or a bris.

Your ignorance in this area is extraordinary, even for you.

David

David Cohen
September 22nd 04, 05:01 AM
"DRS" > wrote
> "David" > wrote
> >> I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as
> >> well. More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of
> >> my professions as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse,
> >> caused tremendous pain to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving
> >> their lives. I am an expert at judging pain in patients who can't
> >> speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due to such things as
> >> intubation and mechanical ventilation.
> >>
> >> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
> >> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
> >> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
> >> for longer, than circumcision.
> >>
> >> The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
> >> lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
> >> unadulterated, bull****.
> >>
> > Being a 'member' of your profession, this is valuable stuff as you
> > certainly would not have an axe to grind
>
> And the fact he's Jewish wouldn't give him any incentive to defend
> traditional Jewish practices?

I'm not defending it, you freakin' moron. It is an irrelevant procedure. If
the parents want it, fine. If not, fine.

It is your contentions regarding the pain and the consequences that is utter
bull****.

David

DRS
September 22nd 04, 05:02 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
nk.net
> "DRS" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote

[...]

>>> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
>>> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
>>> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
>>> for longer, than circumcision.
>>
>> It is outrageous that you should try to diminish the excruciating
>> nature of neonatal circumcision. In most infants the foreskin and
>> the glans have not separated, which means the act of removing the
>> foreskin involves more than "just" cutting the foreskin off. The
>> foreskin must be literally flayed to be removed.
>
> You are so incredibly full of ****. How many urinary catheters have
> you inserted into the urethras of neonatal males? None? I've done
> countless ones, so try not to describe the anatomy to me, you
> ignorant twit.
>
> You have ZERO credentials in the area of neonatal pain. I am an
> expert in it. By your description, you have NEVER witnessed either a
> medical circumcision or a bris.
>
> Your ignorance in this area is extraordinary, even for you.

Gee, look how you managed to write three paragraphs of nastiness without
once addressing the point. I'm not full of **** and you know it. My
description of neonatal circumcision is spot on, which is why you had to
ignore it completely in order to have a go at me.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 05:04 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "DRS" > wrote
>> "David" > wrote

[...]

>>> Being a 'member' of your profession, this is valuable stuff as you
>>> certainly would not have an axe to grind
>>
>> And the fact he's Jewish wouldn't give him any incentive to defend
>> traditional Jewish practices?
>
> I'm not defending it, you freakin' moron. It is an irrelevant
> procedure. If the parents want it, fine. If not, fine.

You are implicitly defending it by making out that it's somehow "not that
bad". And you are wrong.

> It is your contentions regarding the pain and the consequences that
> is utter bull****.

No, it isn't. The pain is as real as the biological consequences that
follow from it.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John M. Williams
September 22nd 04, 05:07 AM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"David" > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> I have assisted in a number of circumcisions. I attended my own, as
>>> well. More importantly to this discussion, I have, in the course of
>>> my professions as a paramedic and a pediatric critical care nurse,
>>> caused tremendous pain to infants, as an unavoidable part of saving
>>> their lives. I am an expert at judging pain in patients who can't
>>> speak yet, or can't verbalize at all due to such things as
>>> intubation and mechanical ventilation.
>>>
>>> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
>>> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
>>> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
>>> for longer, than circumcision.
>>>
>>> The notion that circumcision is some kind of "special" pain, that has
>>> lifelong psychiatric implications, is utter bull****. Total, utter,
>>> unadulterated, bull****.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>> Being a 'member' of your profession, this is valuable stuff as you
>> certainly would not have an axe to grind
>
>And the fact he's Jewish wouldn't give him any incentive to defend
>traditional Jewish practices?

No more than the fact that you're gay leaves you with a penis
obsession.

David Cohen
September 22nd 04, 05:08 AM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> nk.net
> > "DRS" > wrote
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
> >>> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
> >>> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
> >>> for longer, than circumcision.
> >>
> >> It is outrageous that you should try to diminish the excruciating
> >> nature of neonatal circumcision. In most infants the foreskin and
> >> the glans have not separated, which means the act of removing the
> >> foreskin involves more than "just" cutting the foreskin off. The
> >> foreskin must be literally flayed to be removed.
> >
> > You are so incredibly full of ****. How many urinary catheters have
> > you inserted into the urethras of neonatal males? None? I've done
> > countless ones, so try not to describe the anatomy to me, you
> > ignorant twit.
> >
> > You have ZERO credentials in the area of neonatal pain. I am an
> > expert in it. By your description, you have NEVER witnessed either a
> > medical circumcision or a bris.
> >
> > Your ignorance in this area is extraordinary, even for you.
>
> Gee, look how you managed to write three paragraphs of nastiness without
> once addressing the point. I'm not full of **** and you know it. My
> description of neonatal circumcision is spot on, which is why you had to
> ignore it completely in order to have a go at me.

Ignore it? Your reading comprehension is as ****ed as your rational faculty.
Let me spell it out: YOU KNOW JACK **** ABOUT THE ANATOMY OF NEONATAL MALE
GENITALIA. To the point enough for you?

> "Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy
for
> me."

This quote is misattributed. Dally was clearly channeling you. You are so
delusional, it is sad.

David

John M. Williams
September 22nd 04, 05:25 AM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"David Cohen" > wrote:
>> "DRS" > wrote
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Circumcision is painful. It is, however, far less painful, for a far
>>>> shorter time, than many other events in an infants life. Even common
>>>> everyday accidents that infants are involved in are more painful,
>>>> for longer, than circumcision.
>>>
>>> It is outrageous that you should try to diminish the excruciating
>>> nature of neonatal circumcision. In most infants the foreskin and
>>> the glans have not separated, which means the act of removing the
>>> foreskin involves more than "just" cutting the foreskin off. The
>>> foreskin must be literally flayed to be removed.
>>
>> You are so incredibly full of ****. How many urinary catheters have
>> you inserted into the urethras of neonatal males? None? I've done
>> countless ones, so try not to describe the anatomy to me, you
>> ignorant twit.
>>
>> You have ZERO credentials in the area of neonatal pain. I am an
>> expert in it. By your description, you have NEVER witnessed either a
>> medical circumcision or a bris.
>>
>> Your ignorance in this area is extraordinary, even for you.
>
>Gee, look how you managed to write three paragraphs of nastiness without
>once addressing the point. I'm not full of **** and you know it. My
>description of neonatal circumcision is spot on, which is why you had to
>ignore it completely in order to have a go at me.

Once again, it's time for quotes from some of the guys in soc.motss
who know you best:

"You're wrong. You can't admit it. You're pathological about always
being right even when you're dead wrong."
-- Michael Thomas

"(Not that I expect you to admit you did something wrong. I don't
think you are capable of it.)"
-- Frank McQuarry

"You have no interest in dialogue. You have chosen your viewpoint,
and all opposing views are *wrong*."
-- Frank McQuarry

"Because you never admit when you say something wrong, there's no
difference between your flawed arguments and your correct arguments -
therefore your opponents loose nothing whatsoever by assuming that
*all* of your arguments are flawed."
-- Alex Elliot

"MT is very correct when he compares you to the braying of a mule.
You dig in so deep that anyone stupid enough to participate with you
just keeps turning around in circles. After awhile, kicking the mule
seems like the only thing left to do."
-- Frank McQuarry

DRS
September 22nd 04, 10:29 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> nk.net

[...]

>> Gee, look how you managed to write three paragraphs of nastiness
>> without once addressing the point. I'm not full of **** and you
>> know it. My description of neonatal circumcision is spot on, which
>> is why you had to ignore it completely in order to have a go at me.
>
> Ignore it? Your reading comprehension is as ****ed as your rational
> faculty. Let me spell it out: YOU KNOW JACK **** ABOUT THE ANATOMY OF
> NEONATAL MALE GENITALIA. To the point enough for you?

You're full of ****. I've demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the
anatomy of neonatal male genitalia, certainly more so than you. You've not
said one thing that disproves anything I've said, you've merely tried to
diminish the extent of the pain of having one's foreskin flayed without
anaesthetic.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

AleX
September 22nd 04, 01:31 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:

>>> Since Lenny first appeared in MFW, he has spent most of his time being
>>> an angry blowhard and insulting women. It seems he is rather insecure
>>> about his masculinity. If his foreskin obsession makes him feel more
>>> macho, perhaps we should let it go at that. Maybe then he won't find
>>> it necessary to pretend that he's a pro boxer:
>>
>>Apparently, the simple truth is: you circumcised folks
>>need some kind of self-justification. So, instead of just
>>admitting that this operation has no real value and is
>>just a stupid "tradition", you would dig up whatever
>>ridiculous reason to defend _your_ masculinity.

> And some of us just don't give a **** what you think about it.

Apparently, that's why you're responsing.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

AleX
September 22nd 04, 01:32 PM
Seth Breidbart > wrote:

>>butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
>>listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
>>world who have refused to recommend circumcision.

> "refused to recommend" doesn't mean "recommend against". The AMA
> refuses to recommend lots of things. That doesn't mean they're
> harmful.

They're not harmful. They're just useless.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

Dally
September 22nd 04, 01:40 PM
DRS wrote:

> "David Cohen" > wrote in message wrote:

>>It is your contentions regarding the pain and the consequences that
>>is utter bull****.
>
>
> No, it isn't. The pain is as real as the biological consequences that
> follow from it.

Oh, butch the **** up. My boys managed to handle it at the age of 8
days old. Why can't you?

Dally

AleX
September 22nd 04, 01:43 PM
DRS > wrote:

>>> Circumcision is always harmful.

>> To be fair there are time when it's medically necessary. Google for
>> phimosis as a start point.

> It's not medically necessary. There are several less radical alternatives
> to circumcision to deal with both phimosis and paraphimosis, about half are
> not even surgical.

And American doctors somehow never heard of them and suggest
circumcision right away and as the only choice (personal
experience).

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

September 22nd 04, 01:56 PM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:42:34 -0400, (Preacher) wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> "Circumcision is not essential to a child's well-being at birth, even
>> though it does have medical benefits," concluded a recent statement
>> from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has the feel of a
>> bottom line on the subject. "These benefits are not compelling enough
>> to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision." All the
>> medical and social reasons for whether or not to perform a
>> circumcision, in other words, are essentially a wash. And,
>> increasingly, doctors are shifting the responsibility for weighing the
>> pros and cons squarely onto parents.
>
>Thanks for posting the article. This paragraph seems to sum it up
>nicely. This is what most of us are saying, and it is, of course,
>consist with the articles cited by John M. Williams.
>
>Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Thanx.

Actually, I'm not sure the article I posted is totally trustworthy.
For example, "...infant pain...is actually as vivid, or more so, than
that of adults."

Compare that to what you will read in the American Pain Society
Bulletin, July/August 2003 Volume 14, Number 4
http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

DRS
September 22nd 04, 01:57 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in message wrote:
>
>>> It is your contentions regarding the pain and the consequences that
>>> is utter bull****.
>>
>> No, it isn't. The pain is as real as the biological consequences
>> that follow from it.
>
> Oh, butch the **** up. My boys managed to handle it at the age of 8
> days old. Why can't you?

As I said, get yourself a sharp knife and start flaying the skin from some
tender part of your anatomy. Merely nicking yourself doersn't count.
You've got to genuinely flay the area. Then get back to me about how well
you handled it.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 01:59 PM
DRS wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Oh, butch the **** up. My boys managed to handle it at the age of 8
>>days old. Why can't you?
>
>
> As I said, get yourself a sharp knife and start flaying the skin from some
> tender part of your anatomy. Merely nicking yourself doersn't count.
> You've got to genuinely flay the area. Then get back to me about how well
> you handled it.

Would an episiotomy count? BTDT. And I'd do it again.

Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 02:01 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Oh, butch the **** up. My boys managed to handle it at the age of 8
>>> days old. Why can't you?
>>
>> As I said, get yourself a sharp knife and start flaying the skin
>> from some tender part of your anatomy. Merely nicking yourself
>> doersn't count. You've got to genuinely flay the area. Then get
>> back to me about how well you handled it.
>
> Would an episiotomy count? BTDT. And I'd do it again.

No. Try removing your clitoral hood instead.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 02:15 PM
"AleX" > wrote in message

> Seth Breidbart > wrote:
>
>>> butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
>>> listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
>>> world who have refused to recommend circumcision.
>
>> "refused to recommend" doesn't mean "recommend against". The AMA
>> refuses to recommend lots of things. That doesn't mean they're
>> harmful.
>
> They're not harmful. They're just useless.

Circumcision is always harmful.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 22nd 04, 02:17 PM
"AleX" > wrote in message

> DRS > wrote:
>
>>>> Circumcision is always harmful.
>
>>> To be fair there are time when it's medically necessary. Google for
>>> phimosis as a start point.
>
>> It's not medically necessary. There are several less radical
>> alternatives to circumcision to deal with both phimosis and
>> paraphimosis, about half are not even surgical.
>
> And American doctors somehow never heard of them and suggest
> circumcision right away and as the only choice (personal
> experience).

It's sometimes hard to understand why people do what they do. American
doctors certainly should be aware of the less radical alternatives yet on
average seem to have an ideological compulsion to circumcise even though
it's not in the best interests of the patient. The fact that European
doctors have been successfully using these techniques for a long, long time
is proof circumcision is not medically necessary.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Chad Hutchinson
September 22nd 04, 02:29 PM
DRS > wrote:

> I've demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the
> anatomy of neonatal male genitalia, certainly more so than you.

Hey, I don't know if that's the kind of thing you want to be bragging
about...

Lee Michaels
September 22nd 04, 02:32 PM
"David Cohen" wrote
>
> This quote is misattributed. Dally was clearly channeling you. You are so
> delusional, it is sad.
>
Dally is a channel??

That clearly explains some things.

I have a question though.

If you are going to channel, why DRS?

Dally
September 22nd 04, 02:42 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> "David Cohen" wrote
>
>>This quote is misattributed. Dally was clearly channeling you. You are so
>>delusional, it is sad.
>>
>
> Dally is a channel??
>
> That clearly explains some things.
>
> I have a question though.
>
> If you are going to channel, why DRS?

Because I'm fascinated with penises?

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 02:53 PM
AleX wrote:

> Apparently, the simple truth is: you circumcised folks
> need some kind of self-justification.

Simple truth? I saw your post asserting that loose skin after fat loss
was just laziness about not wanting to lose more fat since the simple
truth is that skin is only a few mm thick. It must be nice to have your
world be so simple and to know truth with such certainty. (It doesn't
matter if you're wrong, does it? You and DRS must be friends.)

> So, instead of just
> admitting that this operation has no real value and is
> just a stupid "tradition", you would dig up whatever
> ridiculous reason to defend _your_ masculinity.

It's not my masculinityg that's under attack.

What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
make judgments for other people's children better than they can. Thanks
for illustrating that.

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 03:00 PM
wrote:

> Actually, I'm not sure the article I posted is totally trustworthy.
> For example, "...infant pain...is actually as vivid, or more so, than
> that of adults."
>
> Compare that to what you will read in the American Pain Society
> Bulletin, July/August 2003 Volume 14, Number 4
> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

I also know that pain medication was given to infants in our family 40
years ago. I have no reason to believe that my great-grandparents
believed infants didn't feel pain, either. It just doesn't parse. I'm
not familiar with what was used, but I'm positive "infant pain was just
discovered 10 years ago" is pure bull****.

Dally, mother of a nearly 12 year old who had pain meds during circ

DRS
September 22nd 04, 03:09 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message


[...]

> What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
> zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
> make judgments for other people's children better than they can.

You're wrong, as usual. Your stupid tradition is under attack by highly
intelligent people who, unlike you, have done their homework and who
therefore are aware it cannot be justified on any grounds as it always
causes harm, yet you persist in your delusion that harming your children is
acceptable behaviour.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lee Michaels
September 22nd 04, 03:11 PM
"Chad Hutchinson" wrote

> DRS > wrote:
>
> > I've demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the
> > anatomy of neonatal male genitalia, certainly more so than you.
>
> Hey, I don't know if that's the kind of thing you want to be bragging
> about...

Get over it.

My wife has similar expertise. Cuz she is a neonatal nurse. A highly
specialized branch of nursing that takes care of those one pound babies. The
level of dedication and sophistication that these folks have is
inspirational. And I am not just saying that because I am married to one.

As an example, my wife has on more than one occaision irritated the hell out
of certain docs to run tests that the doc didn't think was necessary. And
saved the baby's life as a result. Just a lot of years of experience, a real
mother hen mentality and a total no nonsense attitude when dealing with docs
has resulted a very favorable outcome.

Cohen may be a lot of things. And we love to give him **** about some
things. But he is an expert is certain areas that deal directly with life
and death issues. Give the man credit where credit is due.

Lee Michaels.

PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons. But
as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing. As
virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.

DRS
September 22nd 04, 03:11 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'm not sure the article I posted is totally trustworthy.
>> For example, "...infant pain...is actually as vivid, or more so, than
>> that of adults."
>>
>> Compare that to what you will read in the American Pain Society
>> Bulletin, July/August 2003 Volume 14, Number 4
>> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm
>
> I also know that pain medication was given to infants in our family 40
> years ago. I have no reason to believe that my great-grandparents
> believed infants didn't feel pain, either. It just doesn't parse.
> I'm not familiar with what was used, but I'm positive "infant pain
> was just discovered 10 years ago" is pure bull****.

It was believed until quite recently that infants' nervous systems were
insufficiently developed for them to feel pain. Apparently a newborn was
more like a lobster than a human being. That you refuse to believe this, as
you refuse to believe anything that conflicts with your delusions, doesn't
change this fact one whit.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lee Michaels
September 22nd 04, 03:19 PM
"Dally" wrote

> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > "David Cohen" wrote
> >
> >>This quote is misattributed. Dally was clearly channeling you. You are
so
> >>delusional, it is sad.
> >>
> >
> > Dally is a channel??
> >
> > That clearly explains some things.
> >
> > I have a question though.
> >
> > If you are going to channel, why DRS?
>
> Because I'm fascinated with penises?
>
Ahhhhh...., the truth finally comes out,

Dally
September 22nd 04, 03:36 PM
DRS wrote:

> It was believed until quite recently that infants' nervous systems were
> insufficiently developed for them to feel pain.

You assert "it was believed". I assert "my family didn't believe that."
You assert parents for the past 6,000 years figured newborns didn't
feel pain. I assert that no reasonable human with experience with
newborns could believe that.

It turns out neither of us know what parents thought or believed in the
past. But I'm guessing that infant pain is not a new discovery.
Discerning readers will detect which one of us is flinging bull**** fast
and furiously.

> Apparently a newborn was more like a lobster than a human being.

Funny you should mention mistreatment of shellfish. Nevermind, you
won't get the joke.

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 03:41 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Dally" wrote
>>Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>>Dally is a channel??
>>>
>>>That clearly explains some things.
>>>
>>>I have a question though.
>>>
>>>If you are going to channel, why DRS?
>>
>>Because I'm fascinated with penises?
>>
>
> Ahhhhh...., the truth finally comes out,

Yes, dammit!

I go to the weight room week after week, I hang out with lesbians and
feminists... I'm trying hard... but just can't shake this horrible
hetero-ness! (I note that Krista has the same problem.)

I have a decently muscled face, by the way. :-)

Dally

Chad Hutchinson
September 22nd 04, 03:57 PM
Lee Michaels > wrote:

> "Chad Hutchinson" wrote
>
> > DRS > wrote:
> >
> > > I've demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the
> > > anatomy of neonatal male genitalia, certainly more so than you.
> >
> > Hey, I don't know if that's the kind of thing you want to be bragging
> > about...
>
> Get over it.
>
> Cohen may be a lot of things. And we love to give him **** about some
> things. But he is an expert is certain areas that deal directly with life
> and death issues. Give the man credit where credit is due.

Easy there, big fella. I was responding to DRS, not David Cohen, as you
can see above. I guess it may have been unclear what I meant, which was
basically that DRS' intimate knowledge of neonatal male genitalia is...
not something he necessarily wants to broadcast.

DRS
September 22nd 04, 04:11 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> It was believed until quite recently that infants' nervous systems
>> were insufficiently developed for them to feel pain.
>
> You assert "it was believed".

Absolutely. I thought you'd read damnfine's link:
http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

> I assert "my family didn't believe
> that." You assert parents for the past 6,000 years figured newborns
> didn't feel pain. I assert that no reasonable human with experience
> with newborns could believe that.

"Since [1992], it has become normal practice to assume neonates feel pain,"

http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

> It turns out neither of us know what parents thought or believed in
> the past. But I'm guessing that infant pain is not a new discovery.
> Discerning readers will detect which one of us is flinging bull****
> fast and furiously.

http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

AleX
September 22nd 04, 04:38 PM
Dally > wrote:

>> Apparently, the simple truth is: you circumcised folks
>> need some kind of self-justification.

> Simple truth? I saw your post asserting that loose skin after fat loss
> was just laziness about not wanting to lose more fat since the simple
> truth is that skin is only a few mm thick. It must be nice to have your

I never wrote anything about loose skin after fat loss.

So, you're delusional as always.

> What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
> zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
> make judgments for other people's children better than they can. Thanks
> for illustrating that.

Calm down, I'm not attacking you. It'd be useless.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

Lee Michaels
September 22nd 04, 05:29 PM
"Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Lee Michaels > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Hutchinson" wrote
> >
> > > DRS > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the
> > > > anatomy of neonatal male genitalia, certainly more so than you.
> > >
> > > Hey, I don't know if that's the kind of thing you want to be bragging
> > > about...
> >
> > Get over it.
> >
> > Cohen may be a lot of things. And we love to give him **** about some
> > things. But he is an expert is certain areas that deal directly with
life
> > and death issues. Give the man credit where credit is due.
>
> Easy there, big fella. I was responding to DRS, not David Cohen, as you
> can see above. I guess it may have been unclear what I meant, which was
> basically that DRS' intimate knowledge of neonatal male genitalia is...
> not something he necessarily wants to broadcast.

Oops, sorry about that Chad.

Dealing with DRS's bull**** is can be stressful at times. I had just read
Cohen's post, then read yours and just reacted.

But DRS's agenda is to spread hate, misinformation and dissension wherever
he goes, isn't it?

David Cohen
September 22nd 04, 05:37 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote >
> PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons. But
> as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing. As
> virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
> discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.

Of course. But her and my combined decades of experience and expertise are
irrelevant, because the Blunder from Down Under has spoken.

Ya' know, I actually don't mind ignorant people, because they can often be
educated. And even people who are determined to retain their ignorance at
least demonstrate the admirable trait of tenacity. But a putz who seems to
have pride in his ignorance, is another thing.

David

John M. Williams
September 22nd 04, 05:54 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote:
>"Lee Michaels" > wrote >
>> PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons. But
>> as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing. As
>> virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
>> discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.
>
>Of course. But her and my combined decades of experience and expertise are
>irrelevant, because the Blunder from Down Under has spoken.
>
>Ya' know, I actually don't mind ignorant people, because they can often be
>educated. And even people who are determined to retain their ignorance at
>least demonstrate the admirable trait of tenacity. But a putz who seems to
>have pride in his ignorance, is another thing.

Being DRS means never having to say you're wrong.

Lee Michaels
September 22nd 04, 05:57 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote >
> > PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons.
But
> > as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing.
As
> > virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
> > discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.
>
> Of course. But her and my combined decades of experience and expertise are
> irrelevant, because the Blunder from Down Under has spoken.
>
> Ya' know, I actually don't mind ignorant people, because they can often be
> educated. And even people who are determined to retain their ignorance at
> least demonstrate the admirable trait of tenacity. But a putz who seems to
> have pride in his ignorance, is another thing.
>

I asked her this morning just what the (most common( procedure was for
circumcision where she works. This is what she told me.

First, numb the area for an hour with a novocaine based creme. Then insert a
pacifier in the mouth with sugar on it (or give the baby sugar water). This
apparently mitigates the pain signals in the neonates body for some reason.
Do the circumcision. They have special devices for this job that makes it
quick with little blood.

And in few days everything is healed and forgotten.

Hardly qualifys as major trauma.

September 22nd 04, 06:12 PM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:57:34 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" > wrote
>>
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote >
>> > PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons.
>But
>> > as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing.
>As
>> > virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
>> > discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.
>>
>> Of course. But her and my combined decades of experience and expertise are
>> irrelevant, because the Blunder from Down Under has spoken.
>>
>> Ya' know, I actually don't mind ignorant people, because they can often be
>> educated. And even people who are determined to retain their ignorance at
>> least demonstrate the admirable trait of tenacity. But a putz who seems to
>> have pride in his ignorance, is another thing.
>>
>
>I asked her this morning just what the (most common( procedure was for
>circumcision where she works. This is what she told me.
>
>First, numb the area for an hour with a novocaine based creme. Then insert a
>pacifier in the mouth with sugar on it (or give the baby sugar water). This
>apparently mitigates the pain signals in the neonates body for some reason.
>Do the circumcision. They have special devices for this job that makes it
>quick with little blood.
>
>And in few days everything is healed and forgotten.
>
>Hardly qualifys as major trauma.

Hardly qualifies as a justifiable medical procedure as well.

Hal

Dally
September 22nd 04, 06:38 PM
DRS wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
>
>
>>DRS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It was believed until quite recently that infants' nervous systems
>>>were insufficiently developed for them to feel pain.
>>
>>You assert "it was believed".
>
>
> Absolutely. I thought you'd read damnfine's link:
> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm
>
>
>> I assert "my family didn't believe
>> that." You assert parents for the past 6,000 years figured newborns
>>didn't feel pain. I assert that no reasonable human with experience
>>with newborns could believe that.
>
>
> "Since [1992], it has become normal practice to assume neonates feel pain,"
>
> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

You are so bizarre. Clinicians in western meds act like infants don't
process pain as an experience and study the effects of the "stress
response" to painful invasive procedures.

What does this have to do with a bris as practiced for thousands of
years? You think heart surgery and a circumcision are equatable in
terms of "stress response"? Hint: suckling cures the stress response to
a bris. Heart surgery pain is a bit more, um, intractible.

> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm

Go read the article yourself. It doesn't say what you think it says.
(BTW, didn't you say you were pro-choice?) And even if SOME people
SOMEWHERE hadn't understood infant responses, it doesn't mean that ALL
PEOPLE EVERYWHERE were equally obtuse.

But I see why you might have trouble with that concept.

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 06:45 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> I asked her this morning just what the (most common( procedure was for
> circumcision where she works. This is what she told me.
>
> First, numb the area for an hour with a novocaine based creme. Then insert a
> pacifier in the mouth with sugar on it (or give the baby sugar water). This
> apparently mitigates the pain signals in the neonates body for some reason.
> Do the circumcision. They have special devices for this job that makes it
> quick with little blood.

That was my experience (with the addition of a prayer.) I nursed the
baby immediately afterwards and all was forgiven.

> And in few days everything is healed and forgotten.

It didn't appear to cause pain during the few days of healing, no more
than a skinned knee causes you pain the next day. The only issue was
that I needed to be careful about keeping the area clean and dry, IIRC.

> Hardly qualifys as major trauma.

Unless you google your mother and discover she's been talking about it
online.

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 06:47 PM
AleX wrote:

> Dally > wrote:
>
>>Simple truth? I saw your post asserting that loose skin after fat loss
>>was just laziness about not wanting to lose more fat since the simple
>>truth is that skin is only a few mm thick. It must be nice to have your
>
>
> I never wrote anything about loose skin after fat loss.

Sorry, wrong Alex. My mistake.

> So, you're delusional as always.

I wouldn't take DRS as your guru if I were you.

Dally

geek_girl
September 22nd 04, 07:01 PM
In > AleX wrote:
> Dally > wrote:
>
>> What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
>> zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
>> make judgments for other people's children better than they can.
>> Thanks for illustrating that.
>
> Calm down, I'm not attacking you. It'd be useless.

Yeah, but it's fun!

AleX
September 22nd 04, 08:06 PM
DRS > wrote:

>>>> butt-buddy try to defend himself. If you don't take my word for it,
>>>> listen to the AMA or any other medical assosiation in the developed
>>>> world who have refused to recommend circumcision.

>>> "refused to recommend" doesn't mean "recommend against". The AMA
>>> refuses to recommend lots of things. That doesn't mean they're
>>> harmful.
>>
>> They're not harmful. They're just useless.

> Circumcision is always harmful.

Well, to the same extent as any unnecessary operation.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

AleX
September 22nd 04, 08:34 PM
Dally > wrote:

>>>Simple truth? I saw your post asserting that loose skin after fat loss
>>>was just laziness about not wanting to lose more fat since the simple
>>>truth is that skin is only a few mm thick. It must be nice to have your

>> I never wrote anything about loose skin after fat loss.

> Sorry, wrong Alex. My mistake.

Appoligies accepted.

> > So, you're delusional as always.

> I wouldn't take DRS as your guru if I were you.

I don't take DRS as my guru (and I don't have anything
against him either). I speak my own mind.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

Dally
September 22nd 04, 10:09 PM
geek_girl wrote:

> In > AleX wrote:
>
>>Dally > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
>>>zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
>>>make judgments for other people's children better than they can.
>>>Thanks for illustrating that.
>>
>>Calm down, I'm not attacking you. It'd be useless.
>
>
> Yeah, but it's fun!

I don't mind attacks from you. You have advanced reasoning abilities,
are insightful and haven't ever once frothed at the mouth (at least that
I know about.)

So what's new with you? I haven't seen much Geek-Girl stuff since you
did Vegas. How's your training going? How's your ankle? How's life?

Dally

Seth Breidbart
September 22nd 04, 11:16 PM
In article >,
DRS > wrote:
>"Dally" > wrote in message


>> What's under attack is my "stupid" tradition by ignorant egotistical
>> zealots who think they understand Simple Truths and believe they can
>> make judgments for other people's children better than they can.
>
>You're wrong, as usual.

YM "I'm" HTH

> Your stupid tradition is under attack by highly
>intelligent people who

aren't posting to this newsgroup, obviously.

Seth
--
99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
it. -- Will Brink

DRS
September 23rd 04, 09:44 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s01

[...]

> First, numb the area for an hour with a novocaine based creme. Then
> insert a pacifier in the mouth with sugar on it (or give the baby
> sugar water). This apparently mitigates the pain signals in the
> neonates body for some reason. Do the circumcision. They have special
> devices for this job that makes it quick with little blood.
>
> And in few days everything is healed and forgotten.

No, it isn't. The harm that has just been done is permanent and
irreversible.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
September 23rd 04, 09:48 AM
"Dally" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote in message
>>
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was believed until quite recently that infants' nervous systems
>>>> were insufficiently developed for them to feel pain.
>>>
>>> You assert "it was believed".
>>
>> Absolutely. I thought you'd read damnfine's link:
>> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm
>>
>>> I assert "my family didn't believe
>>> that." You assert parents for the past 6,000 years figured newborns
>>> didn't feel pain. I assert that no reasonable human with experience
>>> with newborns could believe that.
>>
>> "Since [1992], it has become normal practice to assume neonates feel
>> pain,"
>>
>> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm
>
> You are so bizarre.

You're projecting again.

> Clinicians in western meds act like infants don't
> process pain as an experience and study the effects of the "stress
> response" to painful invasive procedures.

Well done. You've finally grasped a cogent fact.

> What does this have to do with a bris as practiced for thousands of
> years? You think heart surgery and a circumcision are equatable in
> terms of "stress response"? Hint: suckling cures the stress response
> to a bris. Heart surgery pain is a bit more, um, intractible.

I never once said circumcision was necessarily the most painful thing that
could be done to a baby (or anyone else, for that matter). That's not the
point.

>> http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/jul03/article1.htm
>
> Go read the article yourself. It doesn't say what you think it says.
> (BTW, didn't you say you were pro-choice?) And even if SOME people
> SOMEWHERE hadn't understood infant responses, it doesn't mean that ALL
> PEOPLE EVERYWHERE were equally obtuse.
>
> But I see why you might have trouble with that concept.

Being obtuse is your speciality.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Proton Soup
September 23rd 04, 04:13 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:44:22 +1000, "DRS"
> wrote:

>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]_s01
>
>[...]
>
>> First, numb the area for an hour with a novocaine based creme. Then
>> insert a pacifier in the mouth with sugar on it (or give the baby
>> sugar water). This apparently mitigates the pain signals in the
>> neonates body for some reason. Do the circumcision. They have special
>> devices for this job that makes it quick with little blood.
>>
>> And in few days everything is healed and forgotten.
>
>No, it isn't. The harm that has just been done is permanent and
>irreversible.

So there's no fixing you? Shame that.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

MJL
September 24th 04, 01:07 AM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:37:21 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Lee Michaels" > wrote >
>> PS: I should point out that my wife does NOT approve of circumcisons. But
>> as she points out, babies recover very quickly from this sort of thing. As
>> virtually any other kind of intervention results in far more pain or
>> discomfort than a little foreskin lopping. And they recover just fine.
>
>Of course. But her and my combined decades of experience and expertise are
>irrelevant, because the Blunder from Down Under has spoken.
>
>Ya' know, I actually don't mind ignorant people, because they can often be
>educated. And even people who are determined to retain their ignorance at
>least demonstrate the admirable trait of tenacity. But a putz who seems to
>have pride in his ignorance, is another thing.
>
>David
>

I think the pro-circumcision side of the debate is a "very odd bunch".
On the female side it seems to be populated by women who say "oh it is
just a penis, get over it" and on the male side by men who say "my boy
is gonna look like me".

Both sides can find research to prop up their beliefs.

I think the pro-choice crowd is similarly strange. People who make it
a priority to preserve the right to kill babies. Weird to me even if
I can understand the desire not to have any restrictions.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Chad Hutchinson
September 24th 04, 01:22 AM
MJL > wrote:

> I think the pro-choice crowd is similarly strange. People who make it
> a priority to preserve the right to kill babies. Weird to me even if
> I can understand the desire not to have any restrictions.

DRS says that an abortion removes only a potential person - just a bit
of tissue. Otoh, a circumcision removes a bit of tissue with lots of
nerve endings. You get one guess as to which procedure he thinks is
barbaric mutilation.

Jim
September 24th 04, 01:49 AM
I'm a liberal Democrat but abortion bothers me. I felt that way before I had
kids but I remember my feeling when I heard I was about to have my second
child. It wasnt planned,I was shocked and for 1 split moment I thought about
that .It was a split moment. To me..its personal..hey..if you can handle an
abortion I aint gonna tell you no if I dont know you. Myself..if I got a
girl pregnant and she wanted an abortion,I would do everything in my power
to stop it.

Jim

MJL
September 24th 04, 04:11 AM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:49:45 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:

>I'm a liberal Democrat

Are you seeking help for that?


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

John M. Williams
September 24th 04, 04:16 AM
MJL > wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:49:45 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
>
>>I'm a liberal Democrat
>
>Are you seeking help for that?

If so, avoid Mike Lane's therapist.

Jim
September 24th 04, 05:00 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> MJL > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:49:45 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
> >
> >>I'm a liberal Democrat
> >
> >Are you seeking help for that?
>
> If so, avoid Mike Lane's therapist.

Hey,I had more to say..you damn snippers.

Jim

Preacher
September 24th 04, 09:13 PM
DRS > wrote:

> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
> m
> > DRS > wrote:
> >
> >> "Chad Hutchinson" > wrote in message
> >> m
> >>> MJL > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think the pro-choice crowd is similarly strange. People who make
> >>>> it a priority to preserve the right to kill babies. Weird to me
> >>>> even if I can understand the desire not to have any restrictions.
> >>>
> >>> DRS says that an abortion removes only a potential person - just a
> >>> bit of tissue. Otoh, a circumcision removes a bit of tissue with
> >>> lots of nerve endings. You get one guess as to which procedure he
> >>> thinks is barbaric mutilation.
> >>
> >> You've misrepresented my argument but why am I not surprised? The
> >> point about circumcision is not simply that it "removes a bit of
> >> tissue with lots of nerve endings" but the consequences of that for
> >> the person who has to live with them.
> >
> > Right. And when you abort a "potential" person, no one has to live
> > with the consequences of that.
>
> You're focussing on the wrong person, I suspect deliberately.

No, I thinking of BOTH of them.

Lucas Buck
October 8th 04, 09:06 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>DRS wrote:
>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>
>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>
>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>
>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>
>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>my (Jewish) sons,

You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.

Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
Covenant argument doesn't wash.



--
Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com
"I have the right to harm my children when it is in their best interests.
And I get to determine when it's in their best interests."
Dally

Proton Soup
October 8th 04, 04:12 PM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>>DRS wrote:
>>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>>> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>>> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>>> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>>
>>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>>
>>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>>my (Jewish) sons,
>
>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>
>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>Covenant argument doesn't wash.

Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
plan in place. ;)

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 8th 04, 04:28 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:

[...]

>> You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>> Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>
>> Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>> any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating
>> your sons, the Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>
> Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
> under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
> without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
> plan in place. ;)

Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this already.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John HUDSON
October 8th 04, 04:35 PM
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:28:52 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
>> > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>> Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>
>>> Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>> any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating
>>> your sons, the Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>
>> Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
>> under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
>> without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
>> plan in place. ;)
>
>Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this already.

Just because smegma is a turn-on for you Dave, it doesn't mean the
rest of us are too keen on it!! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!!

Proton Soup
October 8th 04, 04:59 PM
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:28:52 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
>> > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>> Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>
>>> Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>> any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating
>>> your sons, the Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>
>> Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
>> under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
>> without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
>> plan in place. ;)
>
>Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this already.

I wasn't talking to you. And not being Christian, you really wouldn't
know. It's neither here nor there, I've told you this already.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 8th 04, 05:19 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:28:52 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Proton Soup" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
>>> > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>>> Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>>> any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating
>>>> your sons, the Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>>
>>> Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
>>> under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
>>> without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
>>> plan in place. ;)
>>
>> Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this
>> already.
>
> I wasn't talking to you.

Welcome to Usenet.

> And not being Christian, you really wouldn't
> know.

You know nothing about me.

> It's neither here nor there, I've told you this already.

You are wrong. Then and now.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

Tiger Hillside
October 8th 04, 05:39 PM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>>DRS wrote:
>>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>>> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>>> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>>> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>>
>>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>>
>>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>>my (Jewish) sons,
>
>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>
>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>Covenant argument doesn't wash.

All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother) and has not done something
really horrible (I am not ever sure what meets that standard) then she
is still a Jews. Which makes her children Jewish. Her level of
observance, per se, does not change this.

Anna Martelli Ravenscroft
October 8th 04, 06:39 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dally" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>>>>consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>>>>would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>>>>make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>>>>your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>>>
>>>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>>>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>>>
>>>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>>>my (Jewish) sons,
>>
>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>
>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>
>
> All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
> issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
> is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca.

I checked the official site: http://www.alpacainfo.com/ and I don't see
anything there about being Jewish...

Anna

Lucas Buck
October 9th 04, 09:24 AM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:39:47 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>
>>>DRS wrote:
>>>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>>>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>>>> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>>>> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>>>> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>>>
>>>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>>>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>>>
>>>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>>>my (Jewish) sons,
>>
>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>
>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>
>All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
>issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
>is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
>born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother)

Her mother WAS NOT A JEW -- she was "raised Catholic" and is now
a Jehovah's Witness. Do try to keep up.

Dally
October 9th 04, 04:00 PM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:39:47 GMT, Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck wrote:

>>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>
>>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>
>>All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
>>issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
>>is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
>>born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother)

> Her mother WAS NOT A JEW -- she was "raised Catholic" and is now
> a Jehovah's Witness. Do try to keep up.

Awww, now you're giving theological counselling, too! How sweet of you!
As it happens, you're wrong. My mother was technically a Jew, born to
a Jewish woman who raised her Jewish almost secretly, while sending her
to a Catholic church every Sunday.

I got the same treatment: Sunday school with nuns but apples and honey
for "Labor Day picnics" and gelt in Christmas stockings and matzoh all
through Lent with the story of the exodus from Egypt liberally told
every spring. (Ever notice that "The Ten Coommandments" is on TV most
of the time on the night that Passover falls? A seder can be a pizza in
front of the TV if you're assimilated enough.) We all got over our
Catholic thing about the time my grandfather died, as he was the only
real Catholic in the family. After that I went to a Unitarian-
Universalist church with my mother (who had married a Buddhist by that
time.)

We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.

As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through the
mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept. My grandmother
taught my Jewish foods (had lox on a bagel for breakfast this morning)
and Jewish values (my kids all started piano lessons at age 5 and we
value education above almost everything else.)

Is my house kosher? No. But my boys had a bris and we study the torah
and attempt to be upright people. You can say we're not Jewish if you
want. All I can say is I sure act Jewish.

Dally

Tiger Hillside
October 9th 04, 04:10 PM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:24:11 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:39:47 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:52:51 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>>
>>>>DRS wrote:
>>>>> "Dally" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>DRS, you keep quoting me in your sig file and it's really kind of
>>>>>>funny because I am quite sure you don't actually admire my wisdom and
>>>>>>seek to share it. I think you need to either figure out what I mean
>>>>>>by that or explain to me why you think it's so ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't admire your wisdom. I think you're a dangerous fool. If the
>>>>> consequences of your deliberate self-delusions were confined to yourself it
>>>>> would warrant little mention but unfortunately you think it's acceptable to
>>>>> make **** up out of thin air and then mutilate your children on the basis of
>>>>> your delusions. That's what it's really all about - as if you didn't know.
>>>>
>>>>So your quoting me is actually a plaintive cry for help for my male
>>>>children? How kind of you. And how confusing.
>>>>
>>>>If you really mean it to be an indictment of my decision to circumsize
>>>>my (Jewish) sons,
>>>
>>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>
>>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>
>>All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
>>issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
>>is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
>>born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother)
>
>Her mother WAS NOT A JEW -- she was "raised Catholic" and is now
>a Jehovah's Witness. Do try to keep up.
>
Sorry, but I don't see the need to ready every post in every thread.
Do learn what "If" means as well as "All I know about this thread is
this post".

Hugh Beyer
October 9th 04, 09:04 PM
"DRS" > wrote in news:ck6bob$gkd$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

> "Proton Soup" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck
>> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>> Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>
>>> Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>> any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating
>>> your sons, the Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>
>> Well, her husband is Christian, so that makes them Covenant children
>> under New Testament law with or without circumcision, and with or
>> without Jewish heritage. So for the kids at least, she has a backup
>> plan in place. ;)
>
> Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this
already.
>

Wrong. Christians of Jewish heritage are allowed/encouraged to circumcise if
their conscience prompts them to do so.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

DRS
October 9th 04, 09:09 PM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
42
> "DRS" > wrote in news:ck6bob$gkd$1
> @lust.ihug.co.nz:

[...]

>> Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this
>> already.
>
> Wrong. Christians of Jewish heritage are allowed/encouraged to
> circumcise if their conscience prompts them to do so.

Not wrong. As I said, we've been through this before.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

Pete
October 9th 04, 09:37 PM
DRS wrote:

> You know nothing about me.

Other than the fact you are a self-absorbed, self-righteous, blathering
ninny.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

John M. Williams
October 9th 04, 10:25 PM
"Pete" > wrote:

>DRS wrote:
>
>> You know nothing about me.
>
>Other than the fact you are a self-absorbed, self-righteous, blathering
>ninny

who covets a foreskin.

Hugh Beyer
October 10th 04, 02:21 AM
"DRS" > wrote in news:ck9ghm$7gq$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

> "Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> 42
>> "DRS" > wrote in news:ck6bob$gkd$1
>> @lust.ihug.co.nz:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this
>>> already.
>>
>> Wrong. Christians of Jewish heritage are allowed/encouraged to
>> circumcise if their conscience prompts them to do so.
>
> Not wrong. As I said, we've been through this before.
>

Nope. Paul's quite clear. You're wrong, unless you're setting up as Apostle.

Hugh

--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Dally
October 10th 04, 04:51 AM
DZ wrote:

> Dally > wrote:
>
>>As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through
>>the mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept.
>
>
> No, it's because it is inherited through mitochondria.

God works in mysterious ways. As an accountant the forethought that
went into creating that audit trail of the Chosen People.

Dally

elzinator
October 10th 04, 05:12 AM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:51:17 -0400, Dally wrote:
>DZ wrote:
>
>> Dally > wrote:
>>
>>>As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through
>>>the mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept.
>>
>>
>> No, it's because it is inherited through mitochondria.
>
>God works in mysterious ways. As an accountant the forethought that
>went into creating that audit trail of the Chosen People.

More evidence for the Religion gene.

---------------------------------
Teddy Roosevelt for President!!

Lucas Buck
October 10th 04, 10:50 AM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:18:47 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>Dally > wrote:
>> As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through
>> the mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept.
>
>No, it's because it is inherited through mitochondria.

You mean, in Wendy's case, it's a genetic disease?

Lucas Buck
October 10th 04, 10:50 AM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:00:38 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Lucas Buck wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:39:47 GMT, Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck wrote:
>
>>>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>>
>>>All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
>>>issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
>>>is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
>>>born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother)
>
>> Her mother WAS NOT A JEW -- she was "raised Catholic" and is now
>> a Jehovah's Witness. Do try to keep up.
>
>Awww, now you're giving theological counselling, too! How sweet of you!
> As it happens, you're wrong. My mother was technically a Jew, born to
>a Jewish woman who raised her Jewish almost secretly, while sending her
>to a Catholic church every Sunday.
>
>I got the same treatment: Sunday school with nuns but apples and honey
>for "Labor Day picnics" and gelt in Christmas stockings and matzoh all
>through Lent with the story of the exodus from Egypt liberally told
>every spring. (Ever notice that "The Ten Coommandments" is on TV most
>of the time on the night that Passover falls? A seder can be a pizza in
>front of the TV if you're assimilated enough.) We all got over our
>Catholic thing about the time my grandfather died, as he was the only
>real Catholic in the family. After that I went to a Unitarian-
>Universalist church with my mother (who had married a Buddhist by that
>time.)
>
>We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
>Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
>it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.

You lay claim to belonging to a group that would not recognize your membership,
hence your definition is delusional. You might as well claim to be Iroqoius
by learning a couple of native dances and prayers.

>As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through the
>mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept. My grandmother
>taught my Jewish foods (had lox on a bagel for breakfast this morning)
>and Jewish values (my kids all started piano lessons at age 5 and we
>value education above almost everything else.)
>
>Is my house kosher? No. But my boys had a bris and we study the torah
>and attempt to be upright people.

Being Jewish (via religion, not ethnicity -- you've already eliminated the
latter in previous threads) is defined by certain requirements laid down in
the Talmud (give Deuteronomy and Leviticus a good reading).

You don't qualify, by any definition.

>You can say we're not Jewish if you want. All I can say is I sure act Jewish.

Not touching that last one ... it's YOU who likes to put people of certain
races or national origins in little labeled boxes.

>Dally

--
Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com

"My credentials for this insight (that men are whiny) come from
knowing bunches of men very well and having gone to a Women's College."
Dally AKA Wendy

DRS
October 10th 04, 12:44 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> You know nothing about me.
>
> Other than the fact you are a self-absorbed, self-righteous,
> blathering ninny.

That's three strikes. You're out!

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

DRS
October 10th 04, 12:44 PM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
42
> "DRS" > wrote in news:ck9ghm$7gq$1
> @lust.ihug.co.nz:
>> "Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
>> 42
>>> "DRS" > wrote in news:ck6bob$gkd$1
>>> @lust.ihug.co.nz:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Christians aren't supposed to circumcise. We've been through this
>>>> already.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Christians of Jewish heritage are allowed/encouraged to
>>> circumcise if their conscience prompts them to do so.
>>
>> Not wrong. As I said, we've been through this before.
>
> Nope. Paul's quite clear. You're wrong, unless you're setting up as
> Apostle.

Yes, Paul is clear. It's a shame you have John Hanson's reading
comprehension skills.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

Dally
October 11th 04, 03:12 AM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:00:38 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>>We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
>>Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
>>it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.
>
> You lay claim to belonging to a group that would not recognize your membership,
> hence your definition is delusional. You might as well claim to be Iroqoius
> by learning a couple of native dances and prayers.

I've never researched the topic, but I'd be shocked to find that someone
whose maternal grandmother was full-blooded Iroquois was not allowed
membership in the tribe. In fact, I'd guess someone who self-identifies
as Iroquois, is 1/4 Iroquois and is going to some effort to practice
Iroquois culture is probably pretty welcome at any tribal council even
with only 1/4 Iroquois blood. Do you think I'm wrong?

Dally

Dally
October 11th 04, 03:13 AM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:51:17 -0400, Dally wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dally > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through
>>>>the mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's because it is inherited through mitochondria.
>>
>>God works in mysterious ways. As an accountant the forethought that
>>went into creating that audit trail of the Chosen People.
>
>
> More evidence for the Religion gene.

One that causes people to leave out the main clause in their sentences?
IIRC I meant to say "I appreciate" the forethought... sort of a geek
way to praise hosannah or something.

Dally

Tiger Hillside
October 11th 04, 05:08 PM
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:50:01 -0700, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:00:38 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>>Lucas Buck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:39:47 GMT, Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:06:52 -0700, Lucas Buck wrote:
>>
>>>>>You've already stated many times that you are NOT an observant Jew.
>>>>>Nor have you ever indicated that your sons underwent conversion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Therefore, under Jewish law, your sons ARE NOT JEWISH. Check with
>>>>>any Talmudic scholar. Whatever your justification for mutilating your sons, the
>>>>>Covenant argument doesn't wash.
>>>>
>>>>All I know about this thread is this post, so excuse me if the other
>>>>issues have been covered, but you are wrong here. Whether or not she
>>>>is observant does not affect her being Jewish under Alpaca. If she was
>>>>born a Jew (that is, to a Jewish mother)
>>
>>> Her mother WAS NOT A JEW -- she was "raised Catholic" and is now
>>> a Jehovah's Witness. Do try to keep up.
>>
>>Awww, now you're giving theological counselling, too! How sweet of you!
>> As it happens, you're wrong. My mother was technically a Jew, born to
>>a Jewish woman who raised her Jewish almost secretly, while sending her
>>to a Catholic church every Sunday.
>>
>>I got the same treatment: Sunday school with nuns but apples and honey
>>for "Labor Day picnics" and gelt in Christmas stockings and matzoh all
>>through Lent with the story of the exodus from Egypt liberally told
>>every spring. (Ever notice that "The Ten Coommandments" is on TV most
>>of the time on the night that Passover falls? A seder can be a pizza in
>>front of the TV if you're assimilated enough.) We all got over our
>>Catholic thing about the time my grandfather died, as he was the only
>>real Catholic in the family. After that I went to a Unitarian-
>>Universalist church with my mother (who had married a Buddhist by that
>>time.)
>>
>>We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
>>Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
>>it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.
>
>You lay claim to belonging to a group that would not recognize your membership,
>hence your definition is delusional. You might as well claim to be Iroqoius
>by learning a couple of native dances and prayers.

It is not as clear cut as you are putting it here. Again, I lack the
history background from the thread(s), but there are some
possibilities here.

Dolly, can you explain to me why your family was Catholic in public
and Jewish in private. I have some thoughts, but I don't want to color
the story. (Of course what we think is unimportant, if you have a real
interest in being considered a Jew in your community go to see a
rabbi. The rabbi can call a Bet Din if necessary and resolve things.)

>>As far as I can tell the reason the Jewish religion passes through the
>>mothers is that it survives as a cultural precept. My grandmother
>>taught my Jewish foods (had lox on a bagel for breakfast this morning)
>>and Jewish values (my kids all started piano lessons at age 5 and we
>>value education above almost everything else.)
>>
>>Is my house kosher? No. But my boys had a bris and we study the torah
>>and attempt to be upright people.
>
>Being Jewish (via religion, not ethnicity -- you've already eliminated the
>latter in previous threads) is defined by certain requirements laid down in
>the Talmud (give Deuteronomy and Leviticus a good reading).
>
>You don't qualify, by any definition.

Actually oral Torah matters here, this is a question of Halacha and
you really don't learn that just from reading the written Torah.

>>You can say we're not Jewish if you want. All I can say is I sure act Jewish.

According to what standards? You are not observant, you don't seem to
go to mynan, you don't seem to attend shul for the hags or for
Shabbat. Pizza is not a Pesach food.

>Not touching that last one ... it's YOU who likes to put people of certain
>races or national origins in little labeled boxes.

Tiger Hillside
October 11th 04, 05:40 PM
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:12:01 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Lucas Buck wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:00:38 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>
>>>We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
>>>Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
>>>it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.
>>
>> You lay claim to belonging to a group that would not recognize your membership,
>> hence your definition is delusional. You might as well claim to be Iroqoius
>> by learning a couple of native dances and prayers.
>
>I've never researched the topic, but I'd be shocked to find that someone
>whose maternal grandmother was full-blooded Iroquois was not allowed
>membership in the tribe. In fact, I'd guess someone who self-identifies
>as Iroquois, is 1/4 Iroquois and is going to some effort to practice
>Iroquois culture is probably pretty welcome at any tribal council even
>with only 1/4 Iroquois blood. Do you think I'm wrong?

Different groups have different rules. Born in the U.S., you are a
citizen of the U.S. Born in Switzerland to non-citizen parents, you
are not a citizen of Switzerland. Different tribes have different
rules for membership. Those rules have nothing to do with being a
Jews. If you are going to claim to be a Jew then you had better learn
Halacha, Jewish law.

John M. Williams
October 11th 04, 05:47 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> Dally > wrote:
>>Lucas Buck wrote:
>>> Dally > wrote:
>>>
>>>>We practice the Jewish faith in a myriad ways. We just do it in a
>>>>Unitarian-Universalist church. If you don't get how that can be then
>>>>it's from YOUR lack of imagination, not our piety.
>>>
>>> You lay claim to belonging to a group that would not recognize your membership,
>>> hence your definition is delusional. You might as well claim to be Iroqoius
>>> by learning a couple of native dances and prayers.
>>
>>I've never researched the topic, but I'd be shocked to find that someone
>>whose maternal grandmother was full-blooded Iroquois was not allowed
>>membership in the tribe. In fact, I'd guess someone who self-identifies
>>as Iroquois, is 1/4 Iroquois and is going to some effort to practice
>>Iroquois culture is probably pretty welcome at any tribal council even
>>with only 1/4 Iroquois blood. Do you think I'm wrong?
>
>Different groups have different rules. Born in the U.S., you are a
>citizen of the U.S. Born in Switzerland to non-citizen parents, you
>are not a citizen of Switzerland. Different tribes have different
>rules for membership. Those rules have nothing to do with being a
>Jews. If you are going to claim to be a Jew then you had better learn
>Halacha, Jewish law.

I guess we finally found a subject where Tigger is an elitist.