[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Sensation...

Written by chImp at 09 Apr 2003 21:37:46:

As an answer to: Re: Sensation... written by Ralesk at 09 Apr 2003 20:53:59:

I'm not saying they have the same views, just the same, shallow, mentality.

>Uhm, well, I don't think those who oppose circumcision as a solution to phimosis could be the REASON for neonatal circumcision. Your logic is FAR off.

Then why does Jim discredit himself in most people's eyes by coming with crazy remarks? Why does he discredit himself in MY eyes by refusing to talk about his background? That doesn't help the "good cause" very much.

What Jim Stands For

You're a fool, Ralesk. You can't lose the same example twice and count it twice ("EITHER" is an inappropriate word in this context). I never said the two of them share the same views. Kellogg probably didn't masturbate himself, that's why he had some crazy ideas about those who did. Jim doesn't have phimosis himself, that's why he fails to completely understand what this condition is all about.

>Uhm, sorry, but Jim is NOT an anti-masturbation person. I don't think this has ANY logic in it, EITHER.


Answers: