I feel better now knowing that my dick was sacrificed to the great Kahuna.

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:
A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

I think I will start a religion that says you should slap your kid
around on the equinox, so the kid remembers what it is like when there
is cosmic balance. Or maybe I'll come up with a more complicated
justification for hurting babies.

Hey, I didn't make up the rules.

And don't think JJ is being facetious, just because the nonsense he
spews is so ridiculous. He's one of the most literal-minded people
posting here. If he says babies don't feel pain, it's because he has a
head full of crisps. Every parent knows better.

marcia skrev:

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:
A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

I think I will start a religion that says you should slap your kid
around on the equinox, so the kid remembers what it is like when there
is cosmic balance. Or maybe I'll come up with a more complicated
justification for hurting babies.

Hey, I didn't make up the rules. :)

I know. I couldn't tell whether you supported this form of abuse or
were simply informing. Citing the roots of traditions is often
justification for certain religious people. They sometimes don't add
'and that's why I know it is good' assuming this is obvious.

And don't think JJ is being facetious, just because the nonsense he
spews is so ridiculous. He's one of the most literal-minded people
posting here. If he says babies don't feel pain, it's because he has a
head full of crisps. Every parent knows better.

He was being ironic, read his other post.

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:
A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

I think I will start a religion that says you should slap your kid
around on the equinox, so the kid remembers what it is like when there
is cosmic balance. Or maybe I'll come up with a more complicated
justification for hurting babies.

Hey, I didn't make up the rules. :)

I know. I couldn't tell whether you supported this form of abuse or
were simply informing. Citing the roots of traditions is often
justification for certain religious people. They sometimes don't add
'and that's why I know it is good' assuming this is obvious.

I don't support *any* kind of child abuse, but don't want to antagonize
people of the Jewish faith, either, because the practice is deeply
rooted in their religion (and won't be changed by a Usenet flame war).

I also don't know whether circumcision causes longterm trauma, but it
certainly seems like it would be painful, not to mention unsanitary. A
few years ago, there was a problem with a Mohel (whose job it is to
suction blood away from the penis with his mouth) passing hepes along
to newborns. Fortunately, the courts forced his retirement.

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:
A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

I think I will start a religion that says you should slap your kid
around on the equinox, so the kid remembers what it is like when there
is cosmic balance. Or maybe I'll come up with a more complicated
justification for hurting babies.

Hey, I didn't make up the rules. :)

I know. I couldn't tell whether you supported this form of abuse or
were simply informing. Citing the roots of traditions is often
justification for certain religious people. They sometimes don't add
'and that's why I know it is good' assuming this is obvious.

I don't support *any* kind of child abuse, but don't want to antagonize
people of the Jewish faith, either, because the practice is deeply
rooted in their religion (and won't be changed by a Usenet flame war).

I also don't know whether circumcision causes longterm trauma, but it
certainly seems like it would be painful, not to mention unsanitary. A
few years ago, there was a problem with a Mohel (whose job it is to
suction blood away from the penis with his mouth) passing hepes along
to newborns. Fortunately, the courts forced his retirement.


And don't think JJ is being facetious, just because the nonsense he
spews is so ridiculous. He's one of the most literal-minded people
posting here. If he says babies don't feel pain, it's because he has a
head full of crisps. Every parent knows better.

He was being ironic, read his other post.

Maybe; maybe not. I've read a lot of his posts, both here and on other
forums. John tends to be antagonistic, sarcastic, insensitive to
people's feelings (refering specifically to ASD-meds posts) and a bit
of a know-it-all. His beliefs about medication and psychiatry appear to
parallel those of Scientology, which, for me, casts doubt on anything
he says. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

marcia

marcia wrote:

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:

Sammybaby wrote:
marcia skrev:
A bris has no meaning when performed before the eighth day.

I think I will start a religion that says you should slap your kid
around on the equinox, so the kid remembers what it is like when there
is cosmic balance. Or maybe I'll come up with a more complicated
justification for hurting babies.

Hey, I didn't make up the rules. :)

I know. I couldn't tell whether you supported this form of abuse or
were simply informing. Citing the roots of traditions is often
justification for certain religious people. They sometimes don't add
'and that's why I know it is good' assuming this is obvious.

I don't support *any* kind of child abuse, but don't want to antagonize
people of the Jewish faith, either, because the practice is deeply
rooted in their religion (and won't be changed by a Usenet flame war).

I also don't know whether circumcision causes longterm trauma, but it
certainly seems like it would be painful, not to mention unsanitary. A
few years ago, there was a problem with a Mohel (whose job it is to
suction blood away from the penis with his mouth) passing hepes along
to newborns. Fortunately, the courts forced his retirement.


And don't think JJ is being facetious, just because the nonsense he
spews is so ridiculous. He's one of the most literal-minded people
posting here. If he says babies don't feel pain, it's because he has a
head full of crisps. Every parent knows better.

He was being ironic, read his other post.

Maybe; maybe not. I've read a lot of his posts, both here and on other
forums. John tends to be antagonistic, sarcastic, insensitive to
people's feelings (refering specifically to ASD-meds posts) and a bit
of a know-it-all. His beliefs about medication and psychiatry appear to
parallel those of Scientology, which, for me, casts doubt on anything
he says. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

marcia

I know very little about scientology. I think that there must be an
american backlash against psychiatry, and that the scientologists,
amongst others have taken up. But its convenient then to say 'oh
they're a scientologist', and ignore issues by diminishing them.

I didn't say you were a scientologist; I said your *beliefs about
medication and psychology appear to parallel those of Scientology.*

You frequently troll ASD-meds and heckle people asking about depression
and medication. You often make snide remarks and negative comments
about scientists, including the medical doctors who prescribe
antidepressants. *In my opinion,* your demeanor is *usually*
antagonistic, sarcastic, insensitive and arrogant, not to mention
dismissive. Because of these *behaviors*, I no longer take you
seriously. A number of other people appear to feel the same way.

If you want your opinions to receive a fair hearing, try changing your
delivery. Then, maybe you won't feel others are "diminishing" you when
they react negatively to your *obnoxious behavior.*

If you want your opinions to receive a fair hearing, try changing your
delivery. Then, maybe you won't feel others are "diminishing" you when
they react negatively to your *obnoxious behavior.*

Issues. Diminishing issues. I meant diminishing the issues. I meant
that you are diminishing the issues. If you read all this from this end
first my reply gets smaller.

On 8 Jan 2007 12:52:51 -0800, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com
proclaimed to the world:

If you want your opinions to receive a fair hearing, try changing your
delivery. Then, maybe you won't feel others are "diminishing" you when
they react negatively to your *obnoxious behavior.*

Issues. Diminishing issues. I meant diminishing the issues. I meant
that you are diminishing the issues. If you read all this from this end
first my reply gets smaller.

While your word play is sometimes cute and clever, you have very
little to say, and what you do actually say appears to be generally
anti main stream psychology. It no longer is necessary for me to read
your posts because I can predict the message and I don't have to
translate it into normal speak. (In this case would that would be
called "normal wrote" or perhaps just rot.)

So what you want is all posts to be 'mainstream' psychology. And these
are not predictable? The mainstream is always being moved and
challenged by anti-mainstream elements. Remember when everyone with
PTSD was given psychotropics or diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.

That
was mainstream. Hugging the center is a good thing to confess, but it
is a confession.
Socky the Puppet skrev:

On 8 Jan 2007 12:52:51 -0800, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com
proclaimed to the world:

If you want your opinions to receive a fair hearing, try changing your
delivery. Then, maybe you won't feel others are "diminishing" you when
they react negatively to your *obnoxious behavior.*

Issues. Diminishing issues. I meant diminishing the issues. I meant
that you are diminishing the issues. If you read all this from this end
first my reply gets smaller.

While your word play is sometimes cute and clever, you have very
little to say, and what you do actually say appears to be generally
anti main stream psychology. It no longer is necessary for me to read
your posts because I can predict the message and I don't have to
translate it into normal speak. (In this case would that would be
called "normal wrote" or perhaps just rot.)

Sammybaby wrote:

So what you want is all posts to be 'mainstream' psychology. And these
are not predictable? The mainstream is always being moved and
challenged by anti-mainstream elements. Remember when everyone with
PTSD was given psychotropics or diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.

TSK,TSK!!
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are DX as schizophrenic.
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are prescribed psychotropics.

So what you want is all posts to be 'mainstream' psychology. And these
are not predictable? The mainstream is always being moved and
challenged by anti-mainstream elements. Remember when everyone with
PTSD was given psychotropics or diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc. That
was mainstream. Hugging the center is a good thing to confess, but it
is a confession.

True. But it was a common occurence in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s,
possibly beyond. I was dx'd schizophrenic in 1979 (which I'm not); I
don't believe PTSD was even in DSM-II, which was the version in use at
that time. Didn't PTSD make its first appearance in DSM-III or IIIR?

hoofprints wrote:
Sammybaby wrote:

So what you want is all posts to be 'mainstream' psychology. And these
are not predictable? The mainstream is always being moved and
challenged by anti-mainstream elements. Remember when everyone with
PTSD was given psychotropics or diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.

TSK,TSK!!
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are DX as schizophrenic.
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are prescribed psychotropics.

True. But it was a common occurence in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s,
possibly beyond. I was dx'd schizophrenic in 1979 (which I'm not); I
don't believe PTSD was even in DSM-II, which was the version in use at
that time. Didn't PTSD make its first appearance in DSM-III or IIIR?