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

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:



I don't know Steve they seem to be on a roll...

Read about it here http://allcircumcision.blogspot.com/

----------------------
Blogs are lies, rumors, mistakes, and errors.
Steve

But not the content,
--------------------
Of course the content, dumbass!
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Rogered wrote:

On Jul 25, 9:39 am, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:


The foreskin is a hideous vestigial appendage which no longer serves any
function. There is some hope though and that is instead of tossing
circumcised foreskins into the trash can they may be used to culture
skin graft material, but then again as one infant foreskin can culture
up to six football fields worth of skin graft material not that may will
be needed. So the majority get to end up where they belong... in the
trash can.


Maybe your foreskin or indeed the inch or so beneath never served any
purpose.

Rogered


Well can you provide any evidence other than anecdotal or halfassed
stuff off a skin freak website?
----------------------------------
"Skin freak" is the touchstone word for his psychiatric disorder about
foreskins and trailers. He was made to suck some filthy guy with a
foreskin in a trailer, that's the only way to account for it.
Steve

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:54:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

You choose the truth? So if it weren't for you, there would
be no truth at all? Interesting.



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!

Wow! Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you're making excuses for
the fact that you can't find such criticism in credible publications...



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.

Sure it does. For example, consider the fact that you accused me of lying
when I pointed out that 'by your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".' I provided a link to your original post, proving that
was right.



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.

You refuse to cite any examples of such critiques!

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.

Which sample, Steve?



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.

What on earth are you talking about?

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,

Example?

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!

No, I didn't.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:34:24 -0700, R. Steve Walz 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
------------
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.

LOL! To paraphrase: "I speak the truth, and although I refuse to prove
what I say, you must believe me."



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.

Why are you asking me? *You* used the phrase; you should know what you
meant.

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!

Are you trying to tell me that a foreskin is like a gourmet meal?


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.

Um - what?



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.

I'm beginning to think that, for you, the word "truth" means "what Steve
thinks".

Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:54:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

You choose the truth? So if it weren't for you, there would
be no truth at all? Interesting.
---------------------------
I never said that.
Your attempts to distort are only mildly amusing.


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!

Wow! Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you're making excuses for
the fact that you can't find such criticism in credible publications...
--------------------------------
No they couldn't. Everything I said was True and goes on on Usenet
constantly! Thinking so would mean they had a distorted agenda.
Like YOU do.


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.

Sure it does. For example, consider the fact that you accused me of lying
when I pointed out that 'by your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".' I provided a link to your original post, proving that
was right.
-----------------------------
No, in context anyone can tell it meant something wholly other, which
means that you merely distorted it in a thoroughly childish gradeschool
manner for your immature ends.


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.

You refuse to cite any examples of such critiques!
---------------------------
I don't do cites on Usenet. It always winds up a liar posts counter
cites that are NOT peer-reviewed, or they waste everyone's time trying
to nickel and dime the math to death till everyone is so tired of the
thread that they wander away, and then the disinformant has achieved
his end.

I've been on Usenet since 1992, and that has ALWAYS been the story of
any attempt to bring citations to the Net. Liars like you always lie,
because your beliefs are erroneous and you know it somewhere deep down.
Thus you know that to promote your beliefs you must lie, and lie about
everything said against you! Yours is a psychiatric condition, virtually
ALL social disorder is due to the personal psychiatric disorders of
the people promoting evil. In the near future, when we can correctly
identify and arrest and treat and correct these people we shall enjoy
a psychosocial renaissance never before seen!


Within the statistical variance and standard deviation for the sample,
dummy.

Which sample, Steve?
--------------------------
If you don't know this, I'd be wasting my time to tell you. Try
Wikipedia.


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.

What on earth are you talking about?
-----------------------------
Deny, deny, deny.


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,

Example?
-----------------
Your posts, all you and your sock-puppets.


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!

No, I didn't.
------------------
Too late. You blew it yesterday.
Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:34:24 -0700, R. Steve Walz 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
------------
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.

LOL! To paraphrase: "I speak the truth, and although I refuse to prove
what I say, you must believe me."
---------------------------------
You "must"? I wish.


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.

Why are you asking me? *You* used the phrase; you should know what you
meant.
---------------------------
I was being rhetorical, you dumbass. Read for comprehension, you loser!


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!

Are you trying to tell me that a foreskin is like a gourmet meal?
----------------------------
Having one is superior to not having one.
"Meal" is merely your psychiatric oral problem with them.


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.

Um - what?
---------------------------------
Deny, deny, deny.


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.

I'm beginning to think that, for you, the word "truth" means "what Steve
thinks".
--------------------------------
That would be merest coincidence. I seek to think the Truth!
And you don't!
Steve

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:24:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:54:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

You choose the truth? So if it weren't for you, there would
be no truth at all? Interesting.
---------------------------
I never said that.
Your attempts to distort are only mildly amusing.

"I choose the Truth!" -- R. Steve Walz

Want a link?



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!

Wow! Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you're making excuses for
the fact that you can't find such criticism in credible publications...
--------------------------------
No they couldn't. Everything I said was True and goes on on Usenet
constantly! Thinking so would mean they had a distorted agenda.
Like YOU do.

That's an interestingly paranoid viewpoint.



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.

Sure it does. For example, consider the fact that you accused me of lying
when I pointed out that 'by your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".' I provided a link to your original post, proving that
was right.
-----------------------------
No, in context anyone can tell it meant something wholly other, which
means that you merely distorted it in a thoroughly childish gradeschool
manner for your immature ends.

If anyone could tell this, then why did you deny what you said right up
until I proved you were lying?



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.

You refuse to cite any examples of such critiques!
---------------------------
I don't do cites on Usenet.

No kidding! Getting evidence out of you is like getting blood from a stone!

Within the statistical variance and standard deviation for the sample,
dummy.

Which sample, Steve?
--------------------------
If you don't know this, I'd be wasting my time to tell you. Try
Wikipedia.

I'd need to try a mind-reader, Steve, because the fundamental problem here
is that either a) you can't express yourself well enough for anyone to
have a clue what you mean, and/or b) that you don't have a clue about what
you mean either.



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.

What on earth are you talking about?
-----------------------------
Deny, deny, deny.

???



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,

Example?
-----------------
Your posts, all you and your sock-puppets.

Sockpuppets?



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!

No, I didn't.
------------------
Too late. You blew it yesterday.

When?

Steve

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:24:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:54:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

You choose the truth? So if it weren't for you, there would
be no truth at all? Interesting.
---------------------------
I never said that.
Your attempts to distort are only mildly amusing.

"I choose the Truth!" -- R. Steve Walz

Want a link?
------------------------------
I choose to BELIEVE the Truth, you Distortionist!


Wow! Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you're making excuses for
the fact that you can't find such criticism in credible publications...
--------------------------------
No they couldn't. Everything I said was True and goes on on Usenet
constantly! Thinking so would mean they had a distorted agenda.
Like YOU do.

That's an interestingly paranoid viewpoint.
------------------------
With people like you around, it's necessary!


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.

Sure it does. For example, consider the fact that you accused me of lying
when I pointed out that 'by your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".' I provided a link to your original post, proving that
was right.
-----------------------------
No, in context anyone can tell it meant something wholly other, which
means that you merely distorted it in a thoroughly childish gradeschool
manner for your immature ends.

If anyone could tell this, then why did you deny what you said right up
until I proved you were lying?
--------------------------
You proved no such thing, you DISTORTED it to make it look that way!


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.

You refuse to cite any examples of such critiques!
---------------------------
I don't do cites on Usenet.

No kidding! Getting evidence out of you is like getting blood from a stone!
-----------------------------
"Evidence" includes logical argument, that is what I will use.

But yes, there is NO blood in a stone, and I do NOT offer cites
on Usenet!


If you don't know this, I'd be wasting my time to tell you. Try
Wikipedia.

I'd need to try a mind-reader, Steve,
---------------
To look up statistical smapling on Wikipedia?? Hardly!


because the fundamental problem here
is that either a) you can't express yourself well enough for anyone to
have a clue what you mean, and/or b) that you don't have a clue about what
you mean either.
-------------------------------
Nonsense, that's just your Disinformation.

Everybody else has been writing me telling me to leave you alone
because you will just lie and lie and lie around in a circle
over and over. They won't even bother with you anymore because
they believe that you're insane and beyond reason.


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.

What on earth are you talking about?
-----------------------------
Deny, deny, deny.

???
----------------------
Read for comprehension, quit pretending befuddlement to avoid logic.
You've just about run out of gambits, next you'll try harping on typos.


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,

Example?
-----------------
Your posts, all you and your sock-puppets.

Sockpuppets?
-------------------------
The one you admitted using yesterday, Wadi, and the DrWhatever@gmail
you denied using, even though both have your speech pattern and insane
jargon particular to your psychiatric problem.


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!

No, I didn't.
------------------
Too late. You blew it yesterday.

When?
-------------------------
Read for comprehension, not to deceive.
Steve

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:57:20 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:24:32 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

If anyone could tell this, then why did you deny what you said right up
until I proved you were lying?
--------------------------
You proved no such thing, you DISTORTED it to make it look that way!

I distorted it by giving you a link to your original post?

No kidding! Getting evidence out of you is like getting blood from a stone!
-----------------------------
"Evidence" includes logical argument, that is what I will use.

But yes, there is NO blood in a stone, and I do NOT offer cites
on Usenet!

I believe you in that respect.

If you don't know this, I'd be wasting my time to tell you. Try
Wikipedia.

I'd need to try a mind-reader, Steve,
---------------
To look up statistical smapling on Wikipedia?? Hardly!

I understand sampling. What is less clear is what sample you're talking
about.

because the fundamental problem here
is that either a) you can't express yourself well enough for anyone to
have a clue what you mean, and/or b) that you don't have a clue about what
you mean either.
-------------------------------
Nonsense, that's just your Disinformation.

Everybody else has been writing me telling me to leave you alone
because you will just lie and lie and lie around in a circle
over and over. They won't even bother with you anymore because
they believe that you're insane and beyond reason.

Writing? Unusual.

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,

Example?
-----------------
Your posts, all you and your sock-puppets.

Sockpuppets?
-------------------------
The one you admitted using yesterday, Wadi, and the DrWhatever@gmail
you denied using, even though both have your speech pattern and insane
jargon particular to your psychiatric problem.

What was the subject line and timestamp of this 'admission', Steve?

One of the many benefits of circumcision is that circumcised boys and
men never need to worry about paraphimosis, the situation in which the
retracted foreskin gets stuck behind the head of the penis and
strangles the latter, depriving it of blood and and oxygen. If the
situation is not corrected (which often means urgent medical
intervention), the head of the penis turns gangrenous and drops off.

Photographs of this dreadful condition can be seen on google, but be
sure to turn the "safe search" function off, as these hideous
foreskinned organs are deemed unsuitable for viewing by the young, the
sqeamish, or the innocent. See:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

Paraphimosis should not be confused with phimosis, a different malady
in which the foreskin will not retract at all. This condition is not
so dire from a medical point of view, but it is probably more
disgusting as the foreskin traps foul stenches that cannot be washed
away.

Circumcision probably arose in prehistoric times as a response to
phimosis and paraphimosis. Surgery, however primitive, cured these
foreskin problems -- and the result, a handsome penis unecumbered by
an ugly, smelly prepuce was widely seen as a great improvement on the
original. In time, many societies institutionalized circumcision and
in some cases their gods (seeing that Circumcision was Good) endorsed
it also.