[ ARC forum 2 ]

Dearest Ralesk

Written by Robin at 28 Aug 2003 18:08:08:

As an answer to: Dearest Robin, written by Ralesk at 22 Aug 2003 11:18:40:

Dearest Ralesk,

Nice to meet you.
Yours is a very complex letter, you cover so many themes, I have really
tried to answer all your points and tried my best to keep it simple, its
taken an enormous amount of time, so please respond, - Ok so here goes.

I believe you have misunderstood me sometimes, but mainly you are unhappy
that I took a dislike to Jim. And first well the point is Jim never wrote to
me like this, and even though you are critical, you are not insulting.


> 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.

> 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 outdated and older materials, some of which have been disproved since.

First the difference between me and Jim concerns the simple rules of
scientific discussion and mutual respect. I followed up his reference and
discussed it showing that studies concerning 5 - 12 yr. olds do not apply to
40 - 80 yr. olds. This is standard procedure, any thinker would point this out,
until there is a study on adults one has only a hypothesis not a fact,
(also in his study phimosis was not defined). Jim dismissed my discussion
and then he dismissed my references as being from the 1940s and
1950s (regardless of quotes from 1996 and 1998). This means very
simply that his dismissal was unfair.

Second cirp and me:
I certainly have the oldest texts!! and sure, the historical ones from the
1700s and 1800s are outdated and were improved by year 2000. Sure, I need a
refresher but my material is less than 3 years out of date.
My comment on openness is that I have over 30 links to cirp information,
cirp had (still has?)none to me. I could well imagine that gtf (cirp
moderator) has a couple of studies from the 2000s which I havent seen,
however when I do my research I shall do it in MEDLINE.
An important point which you appear to miss is the bias which the anti
circumcision sites have, to prove their points they have selected only
some of the available material. Anti circ. sites
in general ignore frenulum breve and all the studies on this, and anything
which disagrees with Taylor and his histological assessment of the phimotic
ring (see later for details).

My openness should be obvious: on my site I have a discussion of Taylor and
links to his studies, so that the reader can develop an intelligent opinion.
Where, on the anti-circ. sites is a discussion of Clemmensen and links to
his study??

You say some of my material has been disproved, OK then please give a
reference, (otherwise "Please then, dont accuse blindly") ... (see end for
details)

>
> 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?

Its like youre having fun at a party and someone comes along who shouts or
insults people drunk maybe, cant communicate and ruins the party .. its hard
to get rid of them, maybe a bit like Hitler and Poland, you just get taken
over by others aggressive behaviour. - Well, we have the opportunity with
internet technology to stop people who dont communicate coming in, and in
this way can develop our own ideas without intruders.


> 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.

You actually take this out of context, however: Maybe you agree that Jim had
no willingness to learn or communicate, but how does this apply to me - I
checked his reference - If you wish to point to any new study then please do
this - and I will check it out. Such nebulous general criticism is
impossible to reply to, if you wish to then please will you read the
new studies and inform us of any developments ...


> 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”.

On age you must misunderstand my attitude. I know examples of stretching at
55 yrs. and would think stretching would work till about age 70

I agree on the function of normal skin and the healthy foreskin.
I believe the point you may want to disagree with is my attitude to phimotic
ring and frenulum breve (and please allow a discussion of these terms later)
It is true, I dont think these can be treated like normal skin:
frenulum breve is histologically ( the microscopic skin tissue structure)
normal, but here in 300 years of medical history, no case of successful
stretching is reported. Stretching the frenulum breve is (was?) always
reported as being painful or resulting in ripping (I also collected reports
which showed it was sometimes also pleasurable).
One of my last entries on this forum discussed the possibility of someone
with a thin type frenulum (without hem or blood vessels) experimenting with
betamethasone.
I would be very happy if anyone had succeeded in this - (not because Im
against surgery but simply because Im unbiased and want to provide as many
optional treatments as possible, to fit individual wishes).

Also I know no comparison to the histological diversity of phimotic ring,
maybe all necks , tongues etc. can be stretched to approx. the same degree,
however the elasticity of phimotic ring is very variable, and some rings
will not stretch.
The most obvious example for this is the old age phimotic ring,
which practically every man with an intact foreskin develops from age 70
onwards, this is progressive resulting in pin-hole appearance. Other
examples are LSA type ring, which also is often shown to be progressive.


>
> 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.

My site was created in 1995, medical studies last updated in 2000. Which new
studies would you advise, if you are such an expert then you must surely
have references.

I have collected my evidence in a very unbiased and scientific manner.
Surely you cant expect me to just accept what someone else says without any
evidence? -- only a fanatic would do this!

> Oh, on that issue, let's go back to talk a little more about the forum.
> 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.

Well Im very happy about such an attitude. I dont know what a "secretory
issue" is but feel I would probably also agree!

> 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.

Another complex question.
My simple answer is that I follow Campbell - this is the recognised
Urologists Encyclopedia. The 7th. edition from 1998 uses frenulum breve
and phimotic ring. and the words occur in various other medical texts.
- The term "frenar band" is only used by anti circumcision internet sites
and two studies by Taylor. Taylor is the only laboratory technician (not
a doctor) who uses the word in medical studies. The meaning he
gave to the frenar band is as the most valuable sensitive part of the
foreskin (and please note his study was on 22 corpses, i.e. dead!).
Is this a valuable document which should have precedence
over accepted medical usage? For my part I have scratched an LSA type ring,
and there was no sensation, no nerves even registered my finger nail, this
was dead insensitive skin, so Taylor is, in my experience, wrong.

Maybe history and the future will develop other names but I assure you if a
term is used by Campbell it is recognised and accepted.

BTW
Latin frenum means a bridle, frenulum is diminutive so: a small bridle
Greek phimos means a muzzle, the nose band of a bridle

Could you please answer why you yish to use the terms frenar band and frenum
breve?


> 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.

I believe you confuse the meaning of open mindedness, it doesnt mean having
a head like a sieve, where you use wishy washy terms and definitions.
Jim and I hit head on in a couple of advisory threads - this needed clearing
up and he was not willing to commincate.

Jim said repeatedly with different words what he says here that frenulum
breve indicates a severe restriction of retraction, even in the flaccid
state.
This is not so, there are many many degrees of frenulum breve which are
completely unrestrictive ion the flaccid state yet they are painful or
problematic when erect. Frenulum breve is not just the extreme form
of this condition - there are a whole variety of degrees.

> 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?

You recall incorrectly - there were 3 examples and none concerned "person could
not retract more than to see the urethra" .. please check your references
and give exact reference if you still wish to disagree.

Do you really understand frenulum breve? if there was a noticable
restriction in the flaccid state this results in a very severe restriction
during erection. My definition of fr br. includes all the degrees of
brevity which result in bad effects, this includes even the very
mildest forms which result in unpleasant tension after sex, all these
degrees deserve the terminology "breve"


> 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.

I believe its diabetesI and diabetesII one is not enough sugar the other is
too much fat- The only interest I have here is that sugar diabetes is
recognised a sleading to development of phimotic ring (and thus requires
specific treatment - and also this might gives clues in general on
why 2ary phimosis occurs)

I like the terms original and developed (where do they come from?) However,
its not ME who calls it 1ary and 2ary, the medical profession uses these
words - I am merely following accepted usage.

When he was asked, Jim had every possibility to communicate with me and tell
me he understood something of the different types of ring. He did not do
this.

Anti fungal medicine may be interesting, can it be used in combination with
betamethasone or any other chemical helper (maybe you are against chemicals?
I am usually but on this subject as I hope you realise, I want to provide
all the options) You seem to be against all forms of surgery - is this true?

> 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.

Probably on this point you are correct. it is an assumption, and I should
be able to provide an exact reference for such an idea.

> 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.

Jims communication was dismissive, this was easy to see without reading the
archives. Humm I actually want the heat out of this forum, people need to be
able to calm down.

Anyway this letter is far too long - And I have answered ALL your points.

When you try to prove a point, its normal in scientific discussions if YOU
want to prove a point, for YOU to sort out the exact reference, rather than
asking the person you are talking with to read 10,000 letters and the entire
last 3 years medical studies.
Your criticism of me remains nebulous. Is everything wrong with my
understanding? what of my information has been disproved?
Where is the new information you have?
... It is really not normal practice and rather illogical, to suggest
someone else read so much if they want to disprove your point -
if you have a new medical point this must be argued with accuracy.

Im away all week and hope to get a couple of hours next Thursday or then abouts so you can take your time replying - and, I will look forward to your answer
Robin


Answers: