How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other
words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is
NO medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to
understand? These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate
to support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or
against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement,
dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more
reliable, don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations
that do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given
that that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a
link to the source itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO
recommend it? Nope..you cannot.

Why would I want to? Here's my report on their recommendations, quoted
from above:
They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate
to support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or
against.

And they don't recommend for or against because there is NO evidence
to show that routince medical circumcisions are necessary. If they
thought they
were necessary they would flat out recommend it.

Exactly right. And, as of March '03, there was no evidence that it was
necessary. There was also no evidence that it was harmful, either,
otherwise they would have recommended *against* the practice.

As is, a neutral stance seems entirely sensible.

(karen hill) wrote in message . com...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up. Who are these women who sleep with
these uncut guys? Uncut penises are so gross, that if I had not read
the studies, I would assume all uncut guys are chaste STD free
virgins! Frankly, an uncircumcised penis is a sure way to keep a guy a
virgin for life! Maybe we should tell that to all the devout
christians.

Who are these women who sleep with uncut guys? Drug addicts? Ugly
Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck!
So what I'm saying is why do men even stay uncut if they know women
are repulsed by uncircumcised men? Do they have a brain?

82% of the world's males are intact, natural, whole. Very, very few
are uncircumised, since to uncircumcise is to reverse the negative
effects of circumcision (a.k.a. penile mutilation) by foreskin
regrowtb.
It also happens that 82% of the world's males take a bath every day
and know what soap is. Those who do not, are the ones Karen Hill is
looking for.

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other
words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there is
NO medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to
understand? These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate
to support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or
against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their statement,
dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so much more
reliable, don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations
that do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given
that that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a
link to the source itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO
recommend it? Nope..you cannot.

Why would I want to? Here's my report on their recommendations, quoted
from above:
They're saying that medical benefits alone are not adequate
to support a recommendation. They don't recommend for or
against.

And they don't recommend for or against because there is NO evidence
to show that routince medical circumcisions are necessary. If they
thought they
were necessary they would flat out recommend it.

Exactly right. And, as of March '03, there was no evidence that it was
necessary. There was also no evidence that it was harmful, either,
otherwise they would have recommended *against* the practice.


Sure there is evidence that its harmful.
The American Academy of Pediatrics clearly states that circumcision is
an elective non-essential procedure, which means it is neither
necessary nor desirable for your son's health. Parents will be given
little time at the hospital to make up their minds on a complex matter
that will affect their son for all of his life. This file is addressed
to the needs of parents who do not wish the surgical procedure of
circumcision performed on their son.

One study was conducted that followed circumcised boys beyond the
immediate post-operative period. It concluded that complications
occurred at an alarming rate of 55%. [Patel]

"Some children end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which
can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections." [Morgan] The
most common complication is the removal of either too much or too
little skin. [Williams] This may not become apparent until years
later. Many circumcised adults complain that too much skin was
removed. This can result in painful erections and bowing or curvature
of the penis. Other common results not always noticed until later
include extensive scarring, skin tags, and bleeding of the
circumcision scar. Details & photos showing different types of damage
(not usually apparent until adulthood)

Many things can go wrong during a circumcision including
hemorrhage, infections and damage to the penis. People tend to believe
that the circumcised penis is less prone to problems. However,
circumcised babies experience substantially more problems than the
baby left intact.

The glans is no longer protected by it's jacket -- the
foreskin. The raw wound is exposed to fecal material and ammonia in
urine. "Infection occurs after circumcision in up to 10% of patients."
[Williams] Repeated infections can cause a narrowing of the urinary
opening (meatal stenosis). This may require surgical correction with
the attendant risks yet again.

A condition referred to as a trapped penis can occur as a result
of circumcision. This may be the same thing as what is called a
'concealed penis' where the "the penile shaft, following
circumcision, retreats into the surrounding skin and fatty area and
cannot be seen." [Circumcision Information Resource Pages Library].
Read The Inconspicuous Penis for more information. There is a rare
penile deformity known as buried penis. If an infant with this
condition is circumcised, the procedure could worsen the condition.
Search the term "buried penis" at the CIRP Resource Search Engine for
more information.

Botched jobs often call for additional surgeries as well.
Although seriously botched jobs are rare, most malpractice suits are
settled. In exchange for the financial award, the malpractice charges
against the doctor must be dropped. As a result, statistics on this
type of incident are under-reported. See: List of Articles on
Botched Jobs




This is MY position. Its a man's body and should be the man's choice.
I have
not seem you comment on this part of my argument. What do you have
against
that?

Intact wrote:

(karen hill) wrote in message
. com...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of disease
with the studies to back it up. Who are these women who sleep with
these uncut guys? Uncut penises are so gross, that if I had not read
the studies, I would assume all uncut guys are chaste STD free
virgins! Frankly, an uncircumcised penis is a sure way to keep a guy a
virgin for life! Maybe we should tell that to all the devout
christians.

Who are these women who sleep with uncut guys? Drug addicts? Ugly
Prostitutes? I personally wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy, yuck!
So what I'm saying is why do men even stay uncut if they know women
are repulsed by uncircumcised men? Do they have a brain?

82% of the world's males are intact, natural, whole. Very, very few
are uncircumised, since to uncircumcise is to reverse the negative
effects of circumcision (a.k.a. penile mutilation) by foreskin
regrowtb.

Actually, you seem to be a little confused by the correct usage of the term
"uncircumcised". You see, since the prefix "un-" means "not", or "the
opposite of", uncircumcised in fact simply means "not circumcised".

Since foreskin restoration does not actually undo a circumcision, it cannot
strictly be called "uncircumcising", although some do refer to the process
as such.

The terms "intact", "natural", and "whole" *may* describe an uncircumcised
male accurately, but then again, they may not. For example, an
uncircumcised male who has had a tonsillectomy cannot be described as any
of the three.

It also happens that 82% of the world's males take a bath every day
and know what soap is.

You really think so? In third-world countries?

Those who do not, are the ones Karen Hill is
looking for.

Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message
. com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Sky King wrote:
Read what I posted above...."these data are not
sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In other
words they do
NOT recomment routine medical circumsisions. IF there
is NO medical problem
there is NO need. Why is it so hard for you to
understand? These are the specialist that are talking.

They're saying that medical benefits alone are not
adequate to support a recommendation. They don't
recommend for or against.


Sure they do.

Actually, they do not. Here is an excerpt from their
statement, dated 3rd March, 1999 (first-hand evidence is so
much more reliable, don't you think?):


did you see my cite below listing all the medical organizations
that do not recommend it?

Yes, I did. However, it seems a somewhat unreliable source, given
that that it misled you about their recommendations. I provided a
link to the source itself, to avoid such confusion.


I know what they said. Can you point to where they say they DO
recommend it? Nope..you cannot.

Why would I want to? Here's my report on their recommendations, quoted
from above:
They're saying that medical benefits alone are not
adequate to support a recommendation. They don't
recommend for or against.

And they don't recommend for or against because there is NO evidence
to show that routince medical circumcisions are necessary. If they
thought they
were necessary they would flat out recommend it.

Exactly right. And, as of March '03, there was no evidence that it was
necessary. There was also no evidence that it was harmful, either,
otherwise they would have recommended *against* the practice.


Sure there is evidence that its harmful.
The American Academy of Pediatrics clearly states that circumcision is
an elective non-essential procedure, which means it is neither
necessary nor desirable for your son's health.

You're right that it means it is not necessary, but these is no implication
that it's not desirable.

Parents will be given
little time at the hospital to make up their minds on a complex matter
that will affect their son for all of his life. This file is addressed
to the needs of parents who do not wish the surgical procedure of
circumcision performed on their son.

One study was conducted that followed circumcised boys beyond the
immediate post-operative period. It concluded that complications
occurred at an alarming rate of 55%. [Patel]

That's very surprising, considering that other studies have put it at 0.2 -
0.6%.


"Some children end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which
can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections." [Morgan] The
most common complication is the removal of either too much or too
little skin. [Williams]

While both of these *can* occur, the question is how commonly they *do*
occur.

This may not become apparent until years
later. Many circumcised adults complain that too much skin was
removed.

What does "many" mean in this context?

This can result in painful erections and bowing or curvature
of the penis.

Improbable.

Other common results not always noticed until later
include extensive scarring, skin tags, and bleeding of the
circumcision scar. Details & photos showing different types of damage
(not usually apparent until adulthood)

Many things can go wrong during a circumcision including
hemorrhage, infections and damage to the penis. People tend to believe
that the circumcised penis is less prone to problems. However,
circumcised babies experience substantially more problems than the
baby left intact.

These occur in a *very* small number of cases.


The glans is no longer protected by it's jacket -- the
foreskin. The raw wound is exposed to fecal material and ammonia in
urine. "Infection occurs after circumcision in up to 10% of patients."
[Williams]

I don't dispute that Williams found this, but I find it odd that the figure
quoted is an order of magnitude greater than those found by others.

Repeated infections can cause a narrowing of the urinary
opening (meatal stenosis). This may require surgical correction with
the attendant risks yet again.

A condition referred to as a trapped penis can occur as a result
of circumcision. This may be the same thing as what is called a
'concealed penis' where the "the penile shaft, following
circumcision, retreats into the surrounding skin and fatty area and
cannot be seen." [Circumcision Information Resource Pages Library].
Read The Inconspicuous Penis for more information. There is a rare
penile deformity known as buried penis. If an infant with this
condition is circumcised, the procedure could worsen the condition.
Search the term "buried penis" at the CIRP Resource Search Engine for
more information.

Again, a rare condition, though it is true that care should be taken to
check for such things prior to circumcision.


Botched jobs often call for additional surgeries as well.
Although seriously botched jobs are rare, most malpractice suits are
settled. In exchange for the financial award, the malpractice charges
against the doctor must be dropped. As a result, statistics on this
type of incident are under-reported. See: List of Articles on
Botched Jobs




This is MY position. Its a man's body and should be the man's choice.
I have
not seem you comment on this part of my argument. What do you have
against
that?

It seems to me that such a view isn't really a "logical" argument, but one
that is more an expression of values. You have every right to your own
values, as do I, but in my view they have little relevance for others.

Jake.

Sky King wrote:

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/
Many years ago, when it was thought important to prevent
masturbation, American health authorities advocated circumcision.
There is no longer any national or international public health
authority in the western world which advocates routine circumcision.


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is the highest child health authority in the United States. On 1 March 1999 the AAP released its
long-awaited recommendations on circumcision. The AAP News Release
Video stated, "The AAP does not recommend the policy of routine
newborn circumcision..."

Institution Advocates Circumcision
American Medical Association No
American Cancer Society No
Center for Disease Control No
National Institute of Health No
American Academy of Pediatrics No
Pediatric Urologists Association No
Amer. College of Obst. & Gyn. No
other countries
Canadian Pediatric Society No
Canadian Medical Association No
European Medical Societies (any) No

Excerpt taken from Professor Brian "not Jewish" Morris, who has over
30-years of unbias experience on the benefits of circumcision:
POSITION STATEMENTS BY NATIONAL PEDIATRIC BODIES: "Through the 1990s
and into the new millenium a reversal of this trend began. In the
light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing
to the benefits of neonatal circumcision, the pediatric professional
bodies of various countries have reviewed the evidence and formulated
recent policy statements. The reports have to be read in their
entirety to be fully comprehended. Isolated quotes taken from these by
anti-circ groups is a problem. What is stated in the details of the
various reports is much like what is presented in the present review
of the medical literature. The latest statements of the American
Association of Pediatrics in 1999 [5a], the Canadian Paediatric
Society [547] and the Australian College of Paediatrics in August 1995
and adopted by the College in May 1996 [8] provide information on the
benefits and possibility of rare or minor risks. These fall short of
drawing an obvious conclusion from the evidence they present, i.e.,
that circumcision is the best choice for lifetime health and sexual
well-being. The hesitancy is undoubtedly a consequence of the
sensitivity of this issue, as well as medico-legal caution and the
recognition of the hysteria that this subject can provoke because of
the diversity of opinion in the community, where anti-circ groups tend
to bombard such professional bodies trying to "win" their political
cause. More on this later.
Instead, the statements of these professional bodies urge medical
practitioners to fully inform parents of the benefits and minor, rare
risks of having their male children circumcised. Thus publicly they
give the impression that the benefits and harms were very evenly
balanced [54]. However, well-informed medical practitioners only have
to read the statements in full to be able to draw their own
conclusion. Recognized authorities in the USA in particular strongly
advocate circumcision of all newborn boys. More details of their
statements appear later."
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_of_circumcision.htm

(Sky King) wrote in message . com...
Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Sky King wrote:


A condition referred to as a trapped penis can occur as a result
of circumcision. This may be the same thing as what is called a
'concealed penis' where the "the penile shaft, following
circumcision, retreats into the surrounding skin and fatty area and
cannot be seen." [Circumcision Information Resource Pages Library].
Read The Inconspicuous Penis for more information. There is a rare
penile deformity known as buried penis. If an infant with this
condition is circumcised, the procedure could worsen the condition.
Search the term "buried penis" at the CIRP Resource Search Engine for
more information. Botched jobs often call for additional surgeries as well. Although seriously botched jobs are rare, most malpractice suits are
settled. In exchange for the financial award, the malpractice charges
against the doctor must be dropped. As a result, statistics on this
type of incident are under-reported. See: List of Articles on
Botched JobsThis is MY position. Its a man's body and should be the man's choice. I have not seem you comment on this part of my argument. What do you have against that?

CIRP is a well-known anti-circ propaganda site. As they say on the
"Family Feud": "Bad answer, bad answer!" eheheeh Only a raving SHNOOK
would have the CHUTZPA to question the safest and most common surgical
procedure, occurring more frequently than tooth extraction! DOH! Once
again, if foreskin grew on fingers and toes, we wouldn't hear a peep
out of your maniacal ilk!! The second you quote from CIRP, all
credibility goes out the window. As for a man's choice!? How is
forbidding a circumcision a choice!? Ultimately, you are still making
the decision for that same newborn, no!? In essence, you know that a
child doesn't want to have a simple, safe & beneficial circumcision,
yet you are convinced that he wants to SHLEP a useless scab of
pre-cancerous skin around!? An abominable growth that may result in
death or disease? The risks of not circumcising far outweigh the risks
of circumcising. Not to humor your MISHEGOSS for too long, but a
recent survey in California found the following:
"40% of parents believed they had not been provided with enough
information on circumcision [1]. Parents of those children who were
left uncircumcised said that no medical provider discussed
circumcision with them, as opposed to 15% of parents of children who
were circumcised. Twice as many parents (27% of uncircumcised vs 14%
of circumcised boys) were unhappy with their initial decision. i.e.
twice as many in retrospect would have wanted their child to have been
circumcised had they known more." -D, NYC "I grew up believing that
Jews were the chosen people, that they gave us the high ethical and
moral principles of our civilization" - DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (34th US
President, 1953 - 1961)

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Aleph Null wrote:

(1) Urinary tract infections are generally only appreciably
increased in a small subset of uncircumcised men who have
phimosis, which is diagnosed and treated (with circumcision)
rather easily and only when indicated.

I've not heard that before. Care to cite any sources?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12421265

There is another paper with essentially the same conclusions in
slightly older children but I can't locate it right now.

With all the additional problems of adult circumcision.

Actually, adult circumcision is somewhat easier. The patients are more
cooperative, the penis is larger and fully grown, and therefore the
final result for the sexually active male are more reproducible.
Babies' immune systems are underdeveloped in comparison to older
children, therefore the would be more susceptible to wound infection.

Finall, men will have the personal option to undergo elective
circumcision according to the technical procedures they desire, once
they reach early adulthood and can elucidate their personal feeling on
the issue.

I'm not saying yet that parents should not be allowed to have their
circumcised; I'm just saying that they should probably counseled that
it is unnecessary for a child, and the reasons why they should opt to
defer.

Yes, having a foreskin requires a minimum of extra care,
which is a mild inconvenience far superceded by the
benefits of being uncircumcised.

Numbering zero, in my own experience.

Men who have medical difficulties (most commonly, phimosis) generally
do undergo circumcision.

And if the rest choose not to, what does that say about the procedure?
Why would you wish to force them at the time they cannot consent.
Should parents also be encouraged to tatoo their babies at birth?

(2) Studies on sexually transmitted disease in the U.S.
have been mixed, with some studies showing increased
incidence in uncircumcised men, and some showing
decreased incidence in uncircumcised men.

Depending, in part, on what STD you're talking about. Care to be more
precise?

For studies performed in the United States, pretty much all of them
(HIV, gonorrea, chlamydia, genital warts, herpes) you can find studies
which argue in either direction. And in most cases, the differences
are rather minor hardly interpretable in a non-randomized prospective
or retrospective study.

Notiwithstanding, the most significant and perhaps only relevant
effect reducing STD incidence are monogamy, avoidance of IV drug
abuse, and use of condoms, not circumcision.

Conclusively, there is no absolute determination that can be made.
In
addition, such studies are complicated by cultural factors (i.e.
higher incidence of circumcision in midwestern communities where
people are generally less promiscuous), race (hispanic inner city
males and recent immigrants being almost overwhelmingly
uncircumcise;
african americans much less so than whites), socioeconomic status
(lower socioeconomic status w/ higher rates of non-circumcision)
and
religion (particularly in India where Muslims are universally
circumcised and very restricted in their sexual behaviors; wheras
Hindus are overwhelmingly uncircumcised and much less restricted in
their sexual behaviors). Despite these factors, the study results
in
the U.S. have been mixed.

Despite?

Despite the fact that most of the secondary factors associated with
circumcision (i.e. circumcision) are associated with higher rates of
disease for other reasons (i.e. socioeconomic status, region of
living).

Aleph Null wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Aleph Null wrote:

(1) Urinary tract infections are generally only appreciably
increased in a small subset of uncircumcised men who have
phimosis, which is diagnosed and treated (with circumcision)
rather easily and only when indicated.

I've not heard that before. Care to cite any sources?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12421265

Thanks for that. They certainly seem to be of the highest risk, agreed.


There is another paper with essentially the same conclusions in
slightly older children but I can't locate it right now.

With all the additional problems of adult circumcision.

Actually, adult circumcision is somewhat easier. The patients are more
cooperative, the penis is larger and fully grown, and therefore the
final result for the sexually active male are more reproducible.
Babies' immune systems are underdeveloped in comparison to older
children, therefore the would be more susceptible to wound infection.

Complication rates for newborn circumcision are significantly lower than
that for adults, by my understanding.

Having had an adult circumcision, I know something about it.


Finall, men will have the personal option to undergo elective
circumcision according to the technical procedures they desire, once
they reach early adulthood and can elucidate their personal feeling on
the issue.

There's also the additional cost of adult circ, nocturnal erections (more
common post-puberty), often less "smooth" cosmetic result, being out of
action for a while, fear, and so on to consider.


I'm not saying yet that parents should not be allowed to have their
circumcised; I'm just saying that they should probably counseled that
it is unnecessary for a child, and the reasons why they should opt to
defer.

That's not an unreasonable stance, but to be fair they should probably be
advised of the "pros" as well as the "cons".


Yes, having a foreskin requires a minimum of extra care,
which is a mild inconvenience far superceded by the
benefits of being uncircumcised.

Numbering zero, in my own experience.

Men who have medical difficulties (most commonly, phimosis) generally
do undergo circumcision.

True, but I can't quite see the relevance...


And if the rest choose not to, what does that say about the procedure?

It probably says that a) they haven't considered it, and/or b) the barriers
involved with adult circ mentioned above.

Why would you wish to force them at the time they cannot consent.

I've no interest in forcing anyone. But the costs of taking action at an
earlier age are certainly lower.

Should parents also be encouraged to tatoo their babies at birth?

(2) Studies on sexually transmitted disease in the U.S.
have been mixed, with some studies showing increased
incidence in uncircumcised men, and some showing
decreased incidence in uncircumcised men.

Depending, in part, on what STD you're talking about. Care to be more
precise?

For studies performed in the United States, pretty much all of them
(HIV, gonorrea, chlamydia, genital warts, herpes) you can find studies
which argue in either direction. And in most cases, the differences
are rather minor hardly interpretable in a non-randomized prospective
or retrospective study.

Notiwithstanding, the most significant and perhaps only relevant
effect reducing STD incidence are monogamy, avoidance of IV drug
abuse, and use of condoms, not circumcision.


HIV seems pretty significant, but you're right, the value of sensible
precautions cannot be overstated.

However, there's no reason why being responsible about such things needs to
be INSTEAD of circumcision, just like we wouldn't suggest using condoms
instead of not sharing needles. Taking every precaution results in the
maximum benefit.

Conclusively, there is no absolute determination that can be made.
In
addition, such studies are complicated by cultural factors (i.e.
higher incidence of circumcision in midwestern communities where
people are generally less promiscuous), race (hispanic inner city
males and recent immigrants being almost overwhelmingly
uncircumcise;
african americans much less so than whites), socioeconomic status
(lower socioeconomic status w/ higher rates of non-circumcision)
and
religion (particularly in India where Muslims are universally
circumcised and very restricted in their sexual behaviors; wheras
Hindus are overwhelmingly uncircumcised and much less restricted in
their sexual behaviors). Despite these factors, the study results
in
the U.S. have been mixed.

Despite?

Despite the fact that most of the secondary factors associated with
circumcision (i.e. circumcision) are associated with higher rates of
disease for other reasons (i.e. socioeconomic status, region of
living).

On 30 Mar 2004 13:12:31 -0800, )
wrote:

On 1 April 2004 Matriarch_Juggz_Javelin
wrote:

Winding, trying to explain circumcision to a FORESKINSTEIN FLUNKY, is
like trying to explain rock 'n'roll to a deaf person!eheh

as evidence of your history in certain other newsgroups Darrint68 is
the bigoted elitist troll who once infested the Led Zeppelin newsgroup
for weeks with claims of Jewish supremacy in all things rock music,
yet, semmingly oblivious to the fact that, no one in Led Zeppelin is
jewish

Your honor, I object!ehe Remember, I do not automatically become a
"troll," simply because you (et al) suffer from PCness. Invoking the
"troll labelling game," falls under the same guidelines as "Godwin's
Law." When the argument is lost, everyone becomes a Nazi. When
sensitivity prevails over truth, everyone becomes a Troll. I am not an
elitist, just a realist!eh FYI: I have been gracing the Zep forum with
my wonderful & wacky candor for a number of years now. In light of
your history (all 2 messages! LOL), you only seem to utter a peep when
it pertains to labelling someone a troll. Is your inferiority-complex
so severe, that you would choose to respond out of spiteful jealousy?
Lastly, the topic that you are alluding to had dealt with Jews in the
music industry. The same Jews who comprise a measly 1/4 of 1% of the
world's populace, remember? Much like the principles of "Six Degrees
of Kevin Bacon," Jews can be tied to practically everything in
life!heehh Music DEFINITELY being no exception. And from its very
inception, Jews were responsible for shaping rock music. For it was a
Jewish DJ (the biggest of them all) by the name of Alan Freed, who
coined the term "rock 'n' roll." If not for he and fellow sweet Jew,
Jerry Wexler (co-founded Atlantic Records, coined the term R&B while
writing for Billboard), we would still be referring to it as race
music. From Elvis (great-great grandmother was Jewish - I kid you
not!eh one of the top 100 selling artists of all-time) to Bob Dylan
(b. Zimmerman - leaves most pop/rock stars (including Zep) in the
disproportionate dust when speaking of prolificacy - also one of the
top 100 selling artists of all-time) to Lou Reed (b. Rabinowitz,
NYer), from Simon & Garfunkel (NYers - one of the top 100 selling
artists of all-time) to Billy Joel (NYer - one of the top 100 selling
artists of all-time), from Joey Ramone (b. Jeffrey Hyman, NYer, ala
The Ramones, fathers of punk) to David Lee Roth, from Marvin Hamlisch
(NYer) to Burt Bacharach, from George & Ira Gershwin (b. Gershowitz,
NYers - perhaps with the exception of Lennon & McCartney, the greatest
pop songwriters of all-time) to Irving Berlin (raised in NY), from
Neil Diamond (NYer - one of the top 100 selling artists of all-time)
to Barry Manilow (b. Pincus, NYer), from Barbra Streisand (NYer - one
of the top 100 selling artists of all-time) to Bette Midler, from
Carol King (b. Klein, NYer) to Carly Simon (NYer), from Gene Simmons
(b. Chaim Witz) to Neil Sedaka, from Benny Goodman to Leonard
Bernstein, from Gustav Mahler to Felix Ludwig Mendelssohn, from Clive
Davis (Arista, J Records) to David Geffen (Geffen Records), from Mel
Torme (b. Torma) to Tiny Tim (NYer), from Kenny G (b. Gorelick, one of
the top 100 selling artists of all-time) to Michael Bolton (b.
Bolotin, one of the top 100 selling artists of all-time), from Don
Kirschner (Brill Building fame in NY - also hosted popular tv show -
"Don Kirschner's Rock Concert") to Bill Graham (Fillmore East/West),
from Brian Epstein (no FAB without him) to Phil Spector (Wall Of
Sound), from Emile Berliner (invented the gramophone, which gave way
to the modern-day record industry - RCA (formerly known as "Victor
Talking Machine") to Peter Carl Goldmark (invented the 33 1/3 LP,
which greatly increased the playing time of records), the list goes on
and on. In the end, Jews are disproportionately represented in every
facet of the music industry. A list of people who comprise so few of
the world's populace, yet so many of its successes. Like it or not, it
doesn't take an EINSTEIN to excel in this world when you comprise the
majority of its population. 99% of the world is non-Jewish! There is
no great MITZVAH there! -D, NYC "The most popular selling Christmas
song, "White Christmas," was written by a Jew - IRVING BERLIN