Botched circumcision of American infant boy severes entire glans!!!!!!! 10% circ complication rate "normal"

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:52:35 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex

You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.

------------------------
That isn't made-up, you just don't LIKE the Truth, and you don't
BELIEVE it because it doesn't suit your sick agenda!!


Ok, if it's "The Truth" (TM), you'll have no difficulties in citing a
study which a) identified which nerves are critical to sexual pleasure,
and b) counted those in the foreskin and elsewhere on the genitals.

On the other hand, if it's not "The Truth", such a study won't exist.



Oh dear, now you have cornered him. All you will hear is more abuse.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:07:23 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:




This isn't a peer-reviewed journal. No such are appropriate here
since you will simply lie about them.


The thing about citing sources, Steve, is that anyone can verify that they
say what is claimed. So, if you cite such a source, I can check whether
you're lying about it, and you can check whether I'm lying about it.




Steve to cite a source? heh heh heh he can bearly read! (Home schooled
in the trailer park)

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:52:35 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex

You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.
------------------------
That isn't made-up, you just don't LIKE the Truth, and you don't
BELIEVE it because it doesn't suit your sick agenda!!

Ok, if it's "The Truth" (TM), you'll have no difficulties in citing
------------
I don't do cites. This is NOT a peer-reviewed journal and you'll just
make up some others or lie about mine, and I'll have no recourse, so
I don't bother, and your demand for cites on Usenet is just your cute
disingenuous deception to waste our time and bide yours.


a
study which a) identified which nerves are critical to sexual pleasure,
and b) counted those in the foreskin and elsewhere on the genitals.
-----------------------
Critical, as in we can't cum without them? Or the complete set, so
we can enjoy it to the maximal intensity? You see, those are quite
different. Monogamy is the minimal copulation necessary to breed the
species, but you don't see many people limiting themselves to it, now
do you, hmmm? Pretending the foreskin is unnecessary is like pretending
that all we need are about ten foods to remain healthy, we'd NOT have
a life that any of us really WANT!

Also, merely because you don't experience anything doesn't mean that
the rest of us, or those who aren't circumcised don't! Your failure to
experience is obviously a psychiatric problem you have. And the
experience of women enjoying the foreskin is well beyond you, since
nobody will **** you.


On the other hand, if it's not "The Truth", such a study won't exist.
---------------------------
The Truth exists without any supposed studies of any kind,
and also, especially without any of your distortion of them.
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:52:35 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex

You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.

------------------------
That isn't made-up, you just don't LIKE the Truth, and you don't
BELIEVE it because it doesn't suit your sick agenda!!


Ok, if it's "The Truth" (TM), you'll have no difficulties in citing a
study which a) identified which nerves are critical to sexual pleasure,
and b) counted those in the foreskin and elsewhere on the genitals.

On the other hand, if it's not "The Truth", such a study won't exist.


Oh dear, now you have cornered him. All you will hear is more abuse.
-----------
Why are ytou talking to yourself, sock-puppet?
Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:07:23 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:37:12 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

You're not the arbiter of what I get to say in response to you.
You may not LIKE it, you may call it all sorts of lies to try
to deflect it, but it STANDS, and it IS the answer to you!!

Obviously, you're free to write whatever nonsense you like, but that does
not make it an answer.
-------------------
It makes it an asnwer if I say it does, whether you grasp that fact
or not, you ****ty disingenuous dishonest posturing little liar!

Clearly that's what you want to believe.
------------------------
I want to believe what is True, which is why I believe what I believe!
Now deal with it!

Deal with what? Your grammar or your choice of belief?
-----------------------
My grammar is fine, and I don't choose my beliefs, I choose the Truth!
You ****ass!


Please cite one example, published in a peer-reviewed journal.
-----------------------------
This isn't a peer-reviewed journal. No such are appropriate here
since you will simply lie about them.

The thing about citing sources, Steve, is that anyone can verify that they
say what is claimed.
--------------------
Except that nobody knows how they got there or what other studies
and critiques say about them. Studies are limited to what the author
is trying to prove. There is damned little fundamentally pure research
that is done and nothing that is complete nor is the supposed result
un-confounded. It doesn't make anyone any money. Also, studies do not
analyze themselves, and no one knows whether a "peer-reviewed" research
meets standards of proof. Hell even the Creationists have set up
"peer-reviewed journals" now, because they were getting trashed in
the others!


So, if you cite such a source, I can check whether
you're lying about it, and you can check whether I'm lying about it.
-----------------------------
That's the theory, but it never makes it back to Usenet, because this
is not a peer-reviewed venue and you can lie like the **** you are
about anything you like.


LOL! Nope. Try reading up on what is meant by 'randomised controlled trial'.
---------------------------
Oh, *I* know. Unfortunately the people you keep quoting do NOT!

Except that you seem to have the idea that participants for the
intervention and control group are non-randomly allocated, which is not a
randomised trial.
------------------------
Read the critiques of your supposed "studies", with an interest in what
the Truth is from a puiblic health standpoint, without an
eye to disinforming about them, then get back to me. But of course
we know you'll just lie, you always lie because your problem with
foreskins is, at its root, psychiatric in nature.


But so slightly that it's irrelevant compared
to other methods of preventing the spread of HIV, such as condoms,
which washes out the whole effect ANYWAY!!

There was a roughly 2-fold difference.
-------------------------
Nonsense. The effect was trivial compared to that of condoms.
EVERYTHING ELSE is trivial compared to the effect of condoms!

Don't confuse you with the facts, eh?
------------------------------
Factoid:
Two-fold, when the total effect amounted to two-people, is one person.

Want to try again, in English?
-------------------
Quit posturing and pretending.


Real FACT!:

An opinion, actually.
------------------------
No, the actual public health Truth that you don't like because you
have a psychiatric problem with the very existence of foreskins.


We shouldn't have to amputate the organs of every person to save one
person, get the stupid ******* some condoms and call it a day!! We
do NOT mastectomize all little girls to prevent future breast cancer,
and that's a pandemic!! How much LESS should be be concerned over
something that makes far LESS difference???
--------------------
I note you failed to respond. That's to try to get the reader to ignore
what I said, like hurrying past a graveyard on a dark night.


the rate of circumcision among males who became HIV+
will be lower than in the general population.
----------------------------
Liar. Not in the USA or Europe.

See "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" in
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm
-----------------------------
THAT paper is ALSO skeptical of the effect of circumcision in the
USA regarding HIV! Since we have fewer than 1 in 5000 people getting
HIV in a given year, circumcision could at most make a difference of
a couple people tops, which does NOT justify circumcising the entire
population, nor any member of it, when testing and condoms can do
the job FAR better and prevent virtually ALL of it!!

So the HIV cases are just an illusion?
----------------------------
The figures are so variable statistically that the sheer statistical
variance can account for your WHOLE FOCUS FIGURE!! When that happens
any suggestion that a public health effort be made to promulgate a
surgery universally on infants is NUTS!!!

Please explain what you mean by 'so variable'.
---------------------
Within the statistical variance and standard deviation for the sample,
dummy.


ESPECIALLY when this is all just to please your VERY SICK TWISTED
dis-aesthetic about foreskins!!!!!!!

What 'dis-aesthetic' are you talking about?
---------------------------
Your psychiatrically diseased skreed about forekins that you only trot
out when you aren't trying to use "studies" or "cites" to support it.


We do NOT, for instance, mastectomize little girls to prevent breast
cancer, despite it being pandemic!

Now you're making no sense at all.
-----------------------------------
The reason you don't grasp what I just said is the heart of your
insanity!!

Of course.
---------------------
Of course? You just sunk your own battleship!


Thus the claim that "most" were circumcised is highly dubious.
------------------------------
That's a statistic that even those against infant circumcision in
the USA admit!! You silly jerkoff!

You evidently fail to understand the mathematics. What will help?
-----------------------------
Being a phyusicist, I understand math just fine, thanks, but you seem
to have no realistic perspective on what the numbers actually MEAN!!

Clearly you are having difficulties in this particular case.
--------------------------------
YOU'RE the one who has EMOTIONALLY SICK problems in this particular
case!!

I beg your pardon? How 'emotionally sick' does one need to be to calculate
percentages based upon known control groups and relative risks?
-------------------------
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, careful not to do both in
any one post. You indicate how you have an emotional psychiatric problem
with the very existence of foreskins in one post, for no reason other
than some cockeyed aesthetic sense of yours that nobody else shares,
and then in another post you pretend to try to use "evidence" to show
why everyone should get circumcised. Your whole motive is questionable!


YOU have this twisted non-normal emotional revulsion regarding
foreskins that makes you wholly UNSUITED to decide or even participate
in ANY examination of the issues around them.

Huh?
----------------
Oh stop, it's you or your sock-puppet, Wadi, which you admitted to using
yesterday!


The article you cited before contradicts that. Novel!

Neither article focused on this particular subject, but the latter one is
slightly more thorough in its treatment of US circumcision rates.
--------------------------------
Hahahahahahah! Backpedaling, eh?

Not at all. Would you prefer a source that makes a more thorough or less
thorough review of evidence?
-------------------------------
I prefer you to try to make sense using logic, rather than pretend
that studies exist that you aren't distorting and which can't be
honestly approached here or on any non-peer-reviewed forum!
Steve


You will post any selected piece of crap if it says what you want,
wontcha, you little ****!??
[]
YOU said that, you ****-****ing bald-faced little liar!

No. You did, in your post dated Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0700
----------------------------------
I said you were a ****-****ing little liar in every post at you I've
made! That's because you ARE!

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:07:23 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:




This isn't a peer-reviewed journal. No such are appropriate here
since you will simply lie about them.


The thing about citing sources, Steve, is that anyone can verify that they
say what is claimed. So, if you cite such a source, I can check whether
you're lying about it, and you can check whether I'm lying about it.



Steve to cite a source? heh heh heh he can bearly read! (Home schooled
in the trailer park)
-------------------
Why are you talking to yourself, sock-puppet??
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex


You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.

Maybe he is just getting desperate. Morons do you know. So maybe they
-----------------------------
Why are you talking to yourself, sock-puppet?
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:


R. Steve Walz wrote:


Wadi (the original) wrote:


As they say about you Steve, they can take the boy out of the trailer
park but they can't take the trailer park out of the boy. Learn to live
with it Steve.

-----------------
You're lying as always. You know I've never lived in a trailer.
Steve

I don't know that Steve. From the way you behave around here I bet its a
sure thing that you are trailer trash.
-----------------------------
Why do you think such semi-racist classist crap? It wouldn't matter
if I ever lived in a trailer or not, that's just plain STUPID! But
for your info I haven't happened to have lived in a trailer, Jake,
you stupid deceptive piece of ****. All you do with this **** is
try to distract people from noticing your other lies!
Steve

Pure denial Steve and its not convincing. Trailer trash are like
foreskins. Why do they both stink?

So even blind people can hate them ;-)
-------------------------
This whole classist problem of yours is psychiatric at its root.
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Jake Waskett wrote:


On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:01:16 -0700, TLC Tugger wrote:



How about for the 25 or so years it took a half-million US men (most
of whom who were circumcised at birth) to die of AIDS.

Oh? What percentage of male US AIDS patients were circumcised at birth?

-----------------------------
Most. Dumb****. In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!


No sane person could conclude that.

--------------------------
That is what your crap looks like, you know, just like that kind of
illogic!



The studies that we are specifically talking about relate to the 60%
reduction of risk of infection from female to male heterosexual
intercourse.

--------------------------
Which amounts to 1 in a thousand people a year. BUY THEM SOME CONDOMS!
We don't ALL have to have surgery to achieve the same end, you
DUMB****!!



Now lets look at the US stats shall we from
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

--------------------
None of that is relevant.



You see Steve you are a lunatic, which most people will recognise
anyways. Any chance you gonna stop posting your garbage?

-------------------------
You're nothing but a carefully lying deceptove little piece of ****.
Steve

But what I'm not 'lying' about is your trailer park existence ;-)
-----------------------
Jake, you're insane. Get help.
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:



The foreskin is a hideous vestigial appendage which no longer serves any
function.

----------------------
This proves you're not only a liar, but fixated and insane.
The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex
and the organ that results in the most sexual pleasure for women!
Steve

Just how do you know this Steve?
---------------------------
Gee, from people I talk to, and the vast amount that I read.

How did you achieve your defective psyxchiatric state of foreksin and
trailer panic? You were beaten and made to suck some uncircumcised
abuser who was filthy in the trailer next door. That's the only way
you can connect these two and generate your psychiatric disorder, by
that kind of traumatic abuse.
Steve