[ ARC forum 2 ]

Dearest Robin,

Written by Ralesk at 22 Aug 2003 11:18:40:

As an answer to: ARC admin. written by Robin at 21 Aug 2003 19:25:54:

I am writing to you to make you see that you yourself are nothing better than what you had described.

As a regular contributor of this Forum, I have seen a couple things here in the last year. I know some of us's attitudes are perhaps not the nicest, but in an easily heated topic such as this one, it is utmost necessary to read between the lines and being able to find what is worthy and what is just not more than filling matter. This also applies to you.

Let's take a look at the Jim vs. Robin issue. Your source is your own site his was cirp.org. I do wonder, having read both at different times, which one contains newer medical articles, or interpretation of such. I fear that your own site, having not been updated much lately, is based on somewhat outdated and older materials, some of which have been disproved since.

In the post I am replying to I have found some inconsistencies, and I have only one, nay, let's say two ways to interpret this. You said:

All views are NOT welcome at this forum.
And then, at the end you said:
Please make this forum a place for open minded consideration.
As far as I know the English language, these two severely contradict each other. Care to elaborate?

Later on, you say that you think “anyone who [...] discredits, insults and is obviously against the information on the home site, should be banned”, and criticise Jim for being “totally unable to communicate on the subject” and “unwilling to learn”, while you yourself do not really show any openness to studies newer than those your site refers to.

As a matter of fact, skin is something that can grow even in the old days of a human -- have you noticed that old men (and sometimes women) usually have bigger earlobes and nose? See, that's because pretty much nothing else (especially bones) is able to grow anymore, so the growth hormones, albeit lesser in amounts than they used to me, make those parts grow that still can. Then again, this forum is more concentrated on younger people than that, pretty much all of our problemous issues have been pre-40. For that, I'd like to mention the fact that some cultures do silly things like inserting bigger and bigger discs in the earlobe or lower lip, putting more rings around one's neck, etc. and these parts definitely react, even after “maturity age”, so, simple force-inducated skin growth is not a strictly puberty and prepuberty feature. You seem to have the idea that the foreskin is so significantly different in how it works, from any other skin on the human, that it needs a perfectly different approach. I'm sad to say but the inner foreskin seems to be pretty much comparable to the inner side of your lips, and the outer foreskin is skin like everywhere else.

And on age -- we have had a couple over-18 people who had success with the “only one method”.

You suggest us to read your site, we all have, believe it or not. You yourself, however, seem to have not updated your knowledge on the issue ever since you have created the site, and I would like to urge you to read some newer medical articles, because it's really a good thing to know more. It is also good, because it makes you more able to advise people optimally.

Oh, on that issue, let's go back to talk a little more about the forum. This place is for “open minded people to conduct open discussions”. Well, not counting the flame wars, it has been providing individuals a big set of suggestions, and I think the most detailed replies have been written by your “fanatics”. Not to make fun of AJ or anything, but he used to give a list of four solutions and advise people to discuss it with the GP, and that's it. Not quite full of information, mind. Nowadays he seems to be more talkative. We here as a whole, almost always refer people to 1) themselves, to be more precise about what's happening, so we can hopefully give more information 2) other posts that seem to have been dealing with the same thing already (if there is something fishy, by all means an individual will point out this or that doesn't fit his description) 3) their GP with pointing out that they might not be fully on the issue (see 10462.htm), or a dermatologist, since we are dealing with skin and skinlike matter's issue, not a secretory issue.

Re: naming. Phimotic ring is only applicable -- for my linguist mind -- when it's phimotic ie. it's in a condition that we can name Phimosis.
If anything, frenar band gives a more general description (fascia frenum - restrictive band, as far as my Latin knowledge is concerned).
But, if I am wrong on the first one, both are actually saying the same, and thus both naming is appropriate.

Re: frenum breve. Jim's “ridiculous understanding” looks like this:

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.
If you wish to label this bit as ridiculous, please refer to your request about being open minded.

Not to mention the times when Jim suggested a person clearly having phimosis (person could not retract more than to see the urethra, if I recall correctly, which would suggest the lack of diameter in the frenar band), to stretch and you told him off that it might be a frenum breve restricting retraction -- so, now, which is your terminology of frenum breve? The one that restricts and hurts on erection or any serious “shortage” of the frenum?

Re: Jim's unaware of different types of phimosis. False. Jim has always suggested different treatments of original (primary as you call it) and developed (secondary as you call it -- are these names parallel to the 1ary and 2ary diabetes?) phimosis, the latter usually urging a treatment with anti-fungal medicine, the former suggesting that the foreskin has not been used appropriately. Can you, by the way, give an example where someone came back after a month to tell Jim he's full of it and his advice didn't help and said someone is now frustrated because of it? Please then, don't accuse blindly.

Re: banning Jim. Since you have not been here, haven't read much, but only see the heat in the forum, I'd advise against making any suggestions about anyone here. Until you read all the archives.

Well, this is all I had to say, I think.

--
R,


Answers: