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

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:48:17 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0700, 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****.

I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:48:17 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0700, 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****.

I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you, here it is again:

It's irrelevant. You were trying to prove something related to non-
circumcised males being more likely to get HIV. You won't succeed!
MOST males are circumcised, gays are NO different, because their
parents decided that LONG BEFORE they proved to be gay! Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.


In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.


You're Jake Waskett, the guy who calls himself Wadi and that
"DrBull****@gmail".
Steve

You got the first one right.
---------------------------
Yeah, right. Watch your header, you lose track.
Steve

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:14:51 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:48:17 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0700, 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****.

I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you,

You didn't answer my question. You made excuses about why you felt it was
not relevant. There is a difference.

here it is again:

It's irrelevant. You were trying to prove something related to non-
circumcised males being more likely to get HIV.

Incorrect. As a result of the fact that uncircumcised males are more
likely to get HIV, the rate of circumcision among males who became HIV+
will be lower than in the general population. Thus the claim that "most"
were circumcised is highly dubious.

You won't succeed!
MOST males are circumcised, gays are NO different, because their
parents decided that LONG BEFORE they proved to be gay!

Who said anything about being gay?

Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.

Not according to available evidence.

In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.

Why would it do that? By your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect". Seems a waste of energy to type something that you know to be
erroneous, but go ahead.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:14:51 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you,

You didn't answer my question. You made excuses about why you felt it was
not relevant. There is a difference.
----------------------
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!!

Here it is again!:
It's irrelevant. You were trying to prove something related to non-
circumcised males being more likely to get HIV. You won't succeed!
MOST males are circumcised, gays are NO different, because their
parents decided that LONG BEFORE they proved to be gay! Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.


here it is again:

It's irrelevant. You were trying to prove something related to non-
circumcised males being more likely to get HIV.

Incorrect. As a result of the fact that uncircumcised males are more
likely to get HIV,
--------------------
No. The Africa data ONLY shows that among men who use anal intercourse
as a form of contraception, that the passing of HIV is slightly greater
among those circumcised. 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!!


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


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 won't succeed!
MOST males are circumcised, gays are NO different, because their
parents decided that LONG BEFORE they proved to be gay!

Who said anything about being gay?
--------------------------
When you said HIV+ you in effect said GAY!


Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.

Not according to available evidence.
-----------------------------
You're a stupid posturing little liar.
ANYBODY can look THAT up and find that you're LYING!


In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.

Why would it do that? By your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".
-----------------
All you do is spew more ****-****ing bald-faced lies!!
Steve

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:21:08 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:14:51 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you,

You didn't answer my question. You made excuses about why you felt it was
not relevant. There is a difference.
----------------------
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.


Here it is again!:
[deleted]


here it is again:

It's irrelevant. You were trying to prove something related to non-
circumcised males being more likely to get HIV.

Incorrect. As a result of the fact that uncircumcised males are more
likely to get HIV,
--------------------
No. The Africa data ONLY shows that among men who use anal intercourse
as a form of contraception, that the passing of HIV is slightly greater
among those circumcised.

Um, no. Firstly, the data show lesser, not greater seroconversion. Second,
there is no indication whatsoever that anal intercourse was used as a form
of contraception.

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.



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



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?

You won't succeed!
MOST males are circumcised, gays are NO different, because their
parents decided that LONG BEFORE they proved to be gay!

Who said anything about being gay?
--------------------------
When you said HIV+ you in effect said GAY!

Not all gay men are HIV+, and not all HIV+ men are gay.

Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.

Not according to available evidence.
-----------------------------
You're a stupid posturing little liar.
ANYBODY can look THAT up and find that you're LYING!

Whatever you say.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040223



In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.

Why would it do that? By your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".
-----------------
All you do is spew more ****-****ing bald-faced lies!!

Anyone can read your post and see the words "...we could incorrectly infer
that..."

Steve

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.

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.

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

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

At the end of 2005 it was found that only 11% of males were in infected
through heterosexual activity. 59% through many having sex with men
(MSM), 20% through injecting drug use (IDU), a further 8% from those
involved in MSM sex and IDU and the rest unknown source of infection.

So only 11% of HIV+ men in the US have been HIV infected by that
means.while the majority are homosexual and/or IDU drug abusing.
Obviously the majority of those dying were not through heterosexual
infection.

Now of this 11% of males there are no circumcision statistics yet it is
known that 15% of the 11% are White, no-Hispanic (reflecting 60% of the
population), Of the 62% of the 11% Black/African American (reflecting
12% of the population), and 20% of the 11% Hispanic (reflecting 14% of
the population).

There you have it so predominantly circumcised white heterosexual males
have a 0.002% chance in the US of being HIV+. Non-black Hispanics
heterosexual males have a 0.017% chance of being HIV+ (8.5 times higher
than whites) and Black/African American males have a 0.061% chance of
being HIV+ (30.5 times higher than for whites.)

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

Rogered wrote:

On Jul 21, 10:30 pm, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:

Rogered wrote:


Circumcision is obscene...and the finished product is mighty ugly.

Rogered

Are you one of those shallow people who formed an opinion based on a
personal preference? You got a cute little foreskin fetish perhaps?


****off. Your the sort of **** who would bites of dogs tails because
of the look. Circumcision is not as nature intended. I stand by my
initial phrase, the human cock looks and feels much better with a
foreskin.

Rogered



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.

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

"SYDNEY (Reuters) - The world's biggest scientific HIV/AIDS conference
opened in Australia on Sunday with experts calling for more funding for
research and new findings which suggest male circumcision can reduce
infection by 60 percent.

A briefing note said male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa would
prevent 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over
20 years."

------------------
After some initial hoopla, they are now looking at this with more
skepticism as to its origins and intent.
Steve


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

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

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rogered wrote:

On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Rogered wrote:

Circumcision is obscene...and the finished product is mighty ugly.

Rogered

Are you one of those shallow people who formed an opinion based on a
personal preference? You got a cute little foreskin fetish perhaps?

----------------
No, you do, and you have a reverse fetish!
Steve

Now that was an intelligent contribution Steve, but the what are we to
expect from you trailer park types?

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

And you're just trying to sidetrack my criticism of you.
Steve

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.

Where the **** do you live Wadi ? What a ****in asshole you are. I bet
you hang around trailer parks looking for a quick handjob.

Rogered

------------------------
He appears to have this issue about people who live in trailers. I
happened to have never lived in a trailer, but I would if it was
cheap and close to work. I have NO idea why he has this weirdness
about trailers. I've been low-income several times in my life and
it would have been a good idea. It seems the asshole is some rich
dilletante that can't handle people "not of his class".
Steve


Just reconizing you for what you are Steve... trailer trash!