[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Sensation...

Written by Ralesk at 09 Apr 2003 22:05:07:

As an answer to: Re: Sensation... written by chImp at 09 Apr 2003 21:37:46:

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

um... oooooooooo kay. *shrugs*

>>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

Ok, so he is a big Christian... 1) who the fuck cares 2) what does this have to do with the fact that those who oppose circumcision and suggest people with phimosis to follow the rules that normally, children would also follow, AREN'T the reason of neonatal circumcision?

As for your keen interest in digging people's past -- which is IMHO absolutely irrelevant since there is no WAY to see if any statement is indeed true --, and using the few information given to you AGAINST the people who gave you the info, I loathe this behaviour.

>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).

Sorry, but the word "EITHER" was pointed at TWO different remarks that were both made by you, thus, since NEITHER have any logic in them, it can be said for the second one, "I don't think this has any logic in it, either."

>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.

He might not know first-hand what phimosis feels like, as don't I, myself. HOWEVER there is likeliness that we both have first-hand experience with skin stretching; I know I do.


Answers: