[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: The BIG question

Written by Robin at 01 Aug 2003 02:21:36:

As an answer to: The BIG question written by Jim at 29 Jul 2003 19:59:54:

Jim
>Do you really want to know the truth, which you could easily discover just by reading the archives here, or are you just wanting to authenticate your own outdated sources? Cheers.

If you cant discuss the subject in a civil manner then I don’t want you on this forum.
You gave me a reference to prove your point. I followed it up and discussed it, showing that your interpretation was wrong, and infact the study relates only to 5 – 12 yr. Olds., and you haven't responded, you ignored me. And now you try to tell me I could easily discover what you are saying, and apparently I need only to read 10,000 postings.
Jim you are showing yourself as a blind fanatic who cant prove what he believes, just goes round shouting “believe me I’m right” this is not the sort of behaviour which I will tolerate on this group. Your ignorance and arrogance about these matters (see also frenulum breve following) is dangerous when advising others
Give me a reference, which shows that stretching the phimotic ring ALWAYS works. And also I would be very happy if there was even just ONE authentic reference for one frenulum breve which has been stretched.
-------------
To answer your previous post
>The correct terminology for the part of the anatomy in question has always, to the best of my knowledge, been frenar band.

Again Jim I gave you the reference namings.html and you haven't bothered to check it.
You will now need 2 references
www.male-intiation.net/namings.html
www.male-intiation.net/phimosis_diagnosis.html
Under the latter you will find Cuckow called it the phimotic ring in 1994 and then the convincing point is that in 1998 it was included in Campbell's which is, as you may not realise, the Urologists Bible.
Frenar Band was, up till year 2000, only used in Anti Circumcision Internet Sites, first used by Taylor in 1996.
--------------------------------------
>Obviously, reading your material, I see that you think development needs to be tinkered with if it doesn't come on early in life. I understand your thinking, but don't agree with it.

But the reference YOU gave me showed that development was influenced early in life! Explain to me why you disagree with your own information.
--------------------------
>The terminology "frenulum breve" is variously defined, depending upon the views of the person using the term. In my view, such terminology would indicate a severe restriction of retraction, even in the flacid state. If you wish to say it can restrict only in the erect state, that's fine.

You do not understand this condition, as I understand it or as the medical profession understand it. A frenulum breve which is no problem in the flaccid state can cause extreme pain in the erect state. You need to check out
www.male-intiation.net/frenulum_breve.html
www.male-intiation.net/frenulum_studies.html
---------------------------------
>As I say, I prefer to see the glass half full, so I see the solution easily attainable, and it's interesting that when the guys do the exercises, they prove it. I'm curious why you would find such results to be dubious?

Because they only relate to one histological form of phimotic ring: see: Clemmensen
www.male-intiation.net/phimosis_treatment.html
You will never convince me by being cynical, you need to provide solid references.
I will be able to loggin next in around 3 weeks time. Please consider your reply very carefully
Robin


Answers: