INFANT FORESKINS: MANY HUSBANDS CAN'T BE OBJECTIVE
Pregnant? If it's a boy, why not let him keep his foreskin?
If your husband insists on foreskin amputation for your baby...
BEWARE: Many men - themselves foreskin amputees - can't be objective
- like for example David Z...
DAVID Z ANSWERS HIS OWN AD HOMINEM...
On Mar 5, 6:24 pm, "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "David Z" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:553qr4F238llvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "Morvak" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1173120966.734587.119290@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 1, 8:59 am, "ToddGastaldo" <tgasta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Whoever you are,Todd, you are overboard and come across as sounding
> > > very insane.
>
> > Yes, everyone knows that. Everyone, that is, except Dr. Retardo.
>
> > > Might I suggest that instead of wasting time writing these insane
> > > diatribes that you use your time in a constructive manner that would
> > > be of benefit to someone in need or the planet?
>
> > Well said. And good advice.
>
> > Unfortunately, Dr. Retardo finds any response, even admonishing
> > responses like yours (of which he's gotten plenty) encouraging rather
> > than discouraging.
>
> > You see, in addition to being a spammer, Dr. Retardo is a troll, too.
>
> See what I mean?
David Z is answering his own ad hominem now.
See David Z's new foreskin: Dr. Foley was right...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/8cb24ed3f24da19a
DR. FOLEY WAS RIGHT^^^
David Z has about as much chance of being objective as he has of
growing himself a new foreskin:
^^^JOHN FOLEY, MD WROTE:
"If [the reader] has been circumcised, either ritually or surgically,
and is chagrined that anyone would dare question the advisability of
circumcising every single male infant, let him read no further. He has
about as much chance of being objective as he has of growing himself a
new foreskin."
--John M. Foley, M.D. FACT Magazine, July-August 1966
THEN AGAIN...
David Z - like Zac - might not be aware of certain facts...
See Zac's new foreskin and ancient nude wrestling
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/011e75246ee863fc
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com
Zac - 06 Mar 2007 16:39 GMT
> INFANT FORESKINS: MANY HUSBANDS CAN'T BE OBJECTIVE
> BEWARE: Many men - themselves foreskin amputees - can't be objective
> - like for example David Z...
In an effort to appear as irrational as the poster (which is not
easy), I'd like to prove him wrong about his objectivity assertion by
citing MY previous post that proves he's not objective:
"Oh, and YOU have objectivity? You who repeatedly recite your
nonsensical and moronic cut-and-paste tirades over and over, as if it
conveys something meaningful? "
Todd Gastaldo - 07 Mar 2007 15:31 GMT
ZAC'S HUMOROUS EFFORT TO APPEAR IRRATIONAL...
I WROTE: Infant foreskins: Many husbands can't be objective
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/a6213f3bbde60869
ZAC REPLIED:
> In an effort to appear as irrational as the poster (which is not
> easy), I'd like to prove him wrong about his objectivity assertion by
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> nonsensical and moronic cut-and-paste tirades over and over, as if it
> conveys something meaningful? "
ACTION STEP FOR ZAC
Familiarize yourself with the quotes and references regarding the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
See Zac's new foreskin and ancient nude wrestling
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/011e75246ee863fc
If you have quotes and references to support your argument (that the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis
was made up (by me or others)) - I hope you will post them.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com