 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2004Canada Bob
Sex is OK Talking about sex is OK If you are hurt or injured in the sex dept. It is ok to talk about it. It is ok for your wife or your lover to explain differing things done to help out. You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain yourself....Hummmmm relax...it is all part of life. Think About Kinsey? > Sex is OK > Talking about sex is OK [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Think About Kinsey? I saw the movie Kinsey last weekend. I can remember the furor when he did his original work even though I was only 10 years old in 1948. After my RRP last June, my wife really helped me get aroused again with oral stimulation. I really appreciate that. Thanks to her efforts and Cialis, I am back in the saddle again. Hello John... > Sex is OK Someone said it isn't ??? > Talking about sex is OK There's a time and a place for everything {almost} John, how often do you talk about sex to your children/grandchildren,your mother, the guy on the bus et-al ? > If you are hurt or injured in the sex dept. It is ok to talk about it. Time and place John, and if folks have any sense at all they'd figure they need professional guideance rather than amatuer opinions. > It is ok for your wife or your lover to explain differing things done to > help out. Yea, your right, some folks do it on TV,{we're not all of the Oprah Winfrey mentality}, some on the bus, some in the bar. But to me and a good many others we don't proclaim the sensual details of our relationship with our wives, it's not {really} for public review or entertainment disgused as "informative" or "helpful". > You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. > Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain > yourself....Hummmmm John, I find the above offensive, to inferr that priests fit the above profile is diablolical. I'm not a catholic nor a church goer but I respect the work that I have seen done by people of the cloth. Let me tell you this, I have been there and see priests and ministers ministering to men and women mortally wounded in action, placing themselves in great danger due to their compassion for their fellow men, so don't carte blanche run priests down to me. Folks seem to think that I am prudish, "wrong" I'm just "private" not an exhibitionist or the like. I've seen more than one reference to "how the church has repressed some folks minds" well it hasn't repressed mine, nor is it responsible for the values that I hold, yet I still respect Christian values. I guess the word etiquette springs to mind, sure you can slurp your soup, fart, belch, scratch yer a.s, pick your nose, maybe you have the right to do that {in the privacy of your own home} but most folks don't want to see it or hear it, that's why etiquette exists, to respect other folks. I'm the sort of guy that gives consideration to the religious, cultural and life style choices of other folks, and before I do anything, say anything or behave in a particular way I consider if my actions may offend anyone, if I think it might them I refrain from what I might have done in respect to others. The respect/etiquette that we display each and every day serves society well, when we don't give a damn about the values or beliefs of others then we come into conflict, all I'm asking is that when folks post they take some consideration about if their post is "OTT" {over the top}, and to me some of them have been close to the bone. I don't have a problem with anyone saying that oral sex helps them, I just don't think that the graphics accounts are appropriate. > relax...it is all part of life. You don't know how relaxed I am John, but being relaxed doesn't mean I have no values. > Think About Kinsey? I think for myself John, I'm not imprinted by a book or a TV show. Canada Bob. Hey Bob.... Cool out! This is a prostate cancer group. we talk about specifics. I brought of religion because of the denial many priest have had concerning sex and the issue of law suit pending in Calif. courts concerning sexual abuse by priest.. Anyway....Let it go. Yes we do talk about things in this group that are very personal. That is why we have a group like this. I was more worried about death when I was first dx'd Then it went into smaller problems. John Loomis > Hello John... > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Canada Bob. Hello John... > Hey Bob.... > Cool out! I guess "cool out" means accept the values of others ? Anyway John, I don't wish to persue the unpersuable, no fruit on that tree, so I'll clock off and leave the conf to those who have more in common with each other than they have with me or the values that I hold. Canada Bob's, last post... No No No. Cool out means just that. Don't get anrgy and leave. Just as in the recovery process we are all different. No one here is knocking you for voicing what you found offensive. In other posts you answered in a way that sounded like you understood and respected the way they viewed the issue. No need to take this personally and remove yourself from the group. That does not help anyone. > Canada Bob's, last post... Excerpted from a posting in another thread by Canada Bob: "After the abusive e-mails sent directly to my hotmail address {where the words used would make a pimp blush}, I'm out of here." David, apparently some here are knocking him for voicing what he found offensive. But I join with you in exhorting Bob to continue to participate...and Roy in Winston-Salem, as well. JerryW > No No No. Cool out means just that. Don't get anrgy and leave. Just as > in the recovery process we are all different. No one here is knocking you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Canada Bob's, last post... > Excerpted from a posting in another thread by Canada Bob: > "After the abusive e-mails sent directly to my > hotmail address {where the words used would make a pimp blush}, I'm > out of here." I can't believe that anyone of our regulars here would do such a thing. My guess is that it was either one wacko, or just him being too sensitive again. It's tough to take a ganging up on in print. Some people simply can't back off and reconsider, no matter how many are on the other side. It's sad. We can't afford to lose even one contributor.  SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories >>Excerpted from a posting in another thread by Canada Bob: >>"After the abusive e-mails sent directly to my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > back off and reconsider, no matter how many are on the other side. It's sad. > We can't afford to lose even one contributor. Quite right. Canada Bob has written some interesting and useful messages. He obviously was offended by one or more posts, and said so. Nothing wrong with that. If his protest was more strongly worded than some wished to see, IMO the protest nevertheless did not warrant the kind of reaction I've seen in some responses, and certainly not the sort of thing to which Bob referred above. It's one thing, and perfectly acceptable, to critique a poster's *message*. It's quite another to abuse the poster. If he has been driven away, it's a damned shame. I have finished with this topic. Regards, Steve J __ "The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital crime against society." --H. L. Mencken This is the first posting that I have made to the group although I've been reading the posts in here for a couple of months. I find it hard to believe how vicious folks have been towards Bob, he is entitled to his views, few folks have respected that. I've read all the posts and it looks like he has been accused of everything since the burning of the White House, had the First Amendment thrown at him, even though he isn't even a U.S. Citizen ! It's time for me to stand up for what I believe in, I attend my Church regularly and I find the comment "I'm betting your faith does not extend to a point where you would rather see prostate cancer victims leave than to admit that you were out of line" made by Steve Kramer very offensive. How can anyone disparage a mans faith without knowing the man, seems to me that the beliefs and values that built this country are little more than door mats to some folks. Is this how we support democracy but rounding on a guy who simply voiced a concern about the need some folks feel for graphic detail in some of the posts. I didn't see any personal attacks in what he had to say, yet he's been subjected to an unwarranted pack attack. I'm not proud of what's been said in fact I'm quite ashamed, folks who claim his comments are repressive, then seek to repress, intimidate and attack him. Here's the punch line from me, I don't want to read posts that are explicit, my daughters (14 & 19) found this and a couple of other sites that might be helpful to me after I'd been diagnosed. I find many of the posts helpful but I have been a little bit concerned that what some folks feel is OK to post I wouldn't want my daughters to read. This isn't an ADULT conf as some have said, it's open to anyone who finds it, and although we all know what oral sex is but would you really feel comfortable thinking that children might be reading graphic accounts of the sexual antics of couples. Other than that I really don't appreciate the bad comments that have been made towards the Church, I have brought my family up as I was brought up with decent Christian values and I resent the attacks on what I hold dear to me. There are some of us that don't go along with the "anything goes" at home, at work, or on the internet, we have standards too, and like folks who don't smoke we don't want other peoples views blown into our faces. Believe what you want, do what you want, in the privacy of your own homes, but when in public give thought that what you say or do may offend other folks. What gives the right to folks who don't respect the Church to speak offensively of it ? I have clipped out some of the things that were said to Bob in the hope that those who said them will give some thought to their confrontational comments, I still think he was entitled to voice his concerns and that to me was all that he did. I'm ashamed of the aggression, needless vulgarity and lynch mob mentailty of the comments made. I can't believe that Steve K called Bob, the Original Transgressor ! even though Steve accepts that "we do go over the limit in our discussions" is that Steve's limit, Bob's limit, Debbie's limit or what, seems to be some recognition that there is a line not to cross there. Worst for me was Steve then went on the lamblast the mans faith, that's shameful Steve. Here's some of the clippings, Glassman. I think that's great! If the story titilates any one of usinto a small "woody" then I say WOW.... keep it coming! (no pun there) I vote for no boundaries, and complete and unadulterated X-rated full frontalnudity! I can use the material... I think you have too much starch in your shorts Bob. No one is suggesting you can't offer up your opinion here, but when you are TOLD to click by and notread it, you don't like that option either. Debbie T. Maybe my mentioning oralstimulation was a bit much Learn how to use your spellchecker Steve K. It is my experience that the only way for this to end is for the original transggressor to apologize. It aint easy. I've had to do it before, so I know. But I'm betting yourfaith does not extend to a point where you would rather see prostate cancer victims leave than to admit that you were out of line. Do we sometimes go over the limit in our discussions of it? Yes. when you see a poster use the words "oral stimulation", immediately hit the down arrow on your news reader. It's what I do. Lorelei. who decides what is Over the Top as you call it, You?? not in my world Philski. (If you don't like the show, change the channel) Danny M. It has sometimes been graphic, but never "too" graphic" Sandy K. You areabsolutely entitled to your opinion learn from and even take solace in what's been shown/said or written while others don't. Those who don't shouldn't impede their will on those who do. if you don't like what you're seeing/hearing then change the channel, John Loomis. boners, and kunts, and clitoris, etc...... Our wives love that! they will admire us with a softy but love us more for a proper hardon! MH. YOU are the one with the problem, Robert Young, who created www.phoenix5.org, comes to mind,Would you attack his posts, too, Bob? He's dead now, so he can no longer defend himself. He'd be an easy target! Abusive, no? Bordering on being a troll? Perhaps. I think you have embroiled many good people in a worthless debate that really has nothing to do with what you *say* you have come here to do in the first place... help men and women who are dealing with prostate cancer and it's aftermath. I'm not going to openly put someone down or criticize them for speaking their minds in a way they feel comfortable with in this *open forum*... one of the *FEW* places people have to come for support. Not support *A la Canada Bob*.... Paul W. As I told Bob, I've had to apologize in the past for unintended offense, and I will do so again here and now. I did not intend to offend you or anyone else, including Bob, with my poorly worded reference. I do not recall how I was trying to make the nexus, but that which you extracted for the context is pretty bad on the face of it. I was certainly not intending to disparage his Faith. So far as I know, his Faith and mine are identical. But, I don't attack prostate cancer victims' wives, foisting upon them limits that I made up. That is a cardinal sin in newgroup tenets. And that's what he did to Lorelei. And I don't keep the fires so hot that prostate cancer patients would rather leave than get the life-saving support for which this newsgroup is singularly reknowned. And that's what happened to Roy of Winston. I don't find it a 1st Amendment issue, unless of course her 1st Amendment rights were the ones being violated. But the Internet constitutional test here is easy: What was she trying to do when expressing her success with her husband's ED? Was it for self-gratification? Or was it to provide input to the group regarding a common problem? If you think her an exhibitionist, then I accept your siding with Bob. If you think the latter, you have to agree that she should not have been attacked for what she was trying to do. Thus, Bob's opinion, or yours, or mine, as to where the limit should be set, never really enters the issue. All we should be interested in is a free flow of useful information, the value of which will always be decided by the one doing the typing. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > This is the first posting that I have made to the group although I've > been reading the posts in here for a couple of months. [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] > > Paul W. I thought I was the one he had criticized but I'm so tired of this issue that as far as I'm concerned that's neither here nor there. I would like to say, however, that you, Steve, were there for me and John when he was first diagnosed and throughout the recovery process. I appreciated your support then and still do. You have also posted a lot of useful information in this newsgroup and have been very supportive of many members. -- Debbie Trujillo On 12/7/04 12:13 AM, in article oCdtd.18702$4m5.7579@fe1.columbus.rr.com, > As I told Bob, I've had to apologize in the past for unintended offense, and > I will do so again here and now. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > All we should be interested in is a free flow of useful information, the > value of which will always be decided by the one doing the typing. SignatureDebbie Trujillo Please visit my website at http://mysite.verizon.net/res21yh8/index.html > I thought I was the one he had criticized You see what this damned Lupron is doing to my mind! Sorry about that. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum On 12/7/04 6:34 AM, in article 9cjtd.32195$CG4.24432@fe2.columbus.rr.com, >> I thought I was the one he had criticized > > You see what this damned Lupron is doing to my mind! Sorry about that. I do the same thing but blame it on menopause. ;-) I ought to take an IQ test. That would be interesting. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > On 12/7/04 6:34 AM, in article 9cjtd.32195$CG4.24432@fe2.columbus.rr.com, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > I do the same thing but blame it on menopause. ;-) I clicked on the one that shows up all the time on the web. Didn't get past the first page. Very depressing. I suggest you stick to sophmoric humor. >I ought to take an IQ test. That would be interesting. Steve, I'm glad that you have given a second thought to how you worded your comments to Bob, and that you have offered and apology, I will forward your post if you don't mind to Bob as I'd like to see him continue in the group, I don't think he's been disruptive or disrespectful in any way and I have benefitted from some of the posts that he has written. I note your caveat though inferring that he "attacked a cancer victims wife" and your quote that "he committed a cardinal sin" I think that was more offensive than anything in his original post, and certainly can't be misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think those words help, I'm not going to say make a fuss about you getting Lorelei and Debbie mixed up, we can all make mistakes, but I'd ask you to quote me his reference to Debbie and what exactly it was in his original post that got folks so intense. To my reading of Bob's concern it was where do we draw the line, please remember that it's more than likely there's a fair number of young folks looking in here due to concern about their fathers. To me I think Bob was trying to say "Informative" is fine, no problem with saying that "oral sex may help", but "Discriptive" (describing techniques, "gently at first") can be too much. Debbie may well have been describing her success and that's fine if it's informative, but I don't want descriptive, and if that makes me on "Bob's side" then that's fine with me, seems that the other team doesn't have a problem "ganging up" on the opposing side. We all have our values and we should take consideration of those who don't share ours, and avoid the lynch mob mentality that I've have seen in here the last few days. I'm going to let this go now, enough has been said to make us all think what we're saying and how it might cause injury, intended or otherwise when we post to the group. Paul. Fair 'nuff. You are, by my quick calculations, a fair man. I will leave you to your opinions and impressions of me and do so without disfavor. You are obviously also an intelligent man and one with well-rooted morals. I would be highly desirous of your continued input here. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Paul. I hear what you say Steven, the water is under the bridge now, I don't want to inflame or offend anyone, enough seems to have been said, lets bury the hatchet, but not in each others skulls. I wish I could put something in, but I'm just weeks really into what's going on for me, with some serious decisons to make, so far the brachytherapy seems to be best for me according to my Doc, but I've a lot to think about right now, and I'd be the last guy to be able to suggest anything for anyone else. Paul. Well, Paul. Let's get down to business. How old? PSA? Stage? Gleason? SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > I hear what you say Steven, the water is under the bridge now, I don't > want to inflame or offend anyone, enough seems to have been said, lets [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Paul. Steve, I'm glad that you have given a second thought to how you worded your comments to Bob, and that you have offered and apology, I will forward your post if you don't mind to Bob as I'd like to see him continue in the group, I don't think he's been disruptive or disrespectful in any way and I have benefitted from some of the posts that he has written. I note your caveat though inferring that he "attacked a cancer victims wife" and your quote that "he committed a cardinal sin" I think that was more offensive than anything in his original post, and certainly can't be misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think those words help, I'm not going to say make a fuss about you getting Lorelei and Debbie mixed up, we can all make mistakes, but I'd ask you to quote me his reference to Debbie and what exactly it was in his original post that got folks so intense. To my reading of Bob's concern it was where do we draw the line, please remember that it's more than likely there's a fair number of young folks looking in here due to concern about their fathers. To me I think Bob was trying to say "Informative" is fine, no problem with saying that "oral sex may help", but "Discriptive" (describing techniques, "gently at first") can be too much. Debbie may well have been describing her success and that's fine if it's informative, but I don't want descriptive, and if that makes me on "Bob's side" then that's fine with me, seems that the other team doesn't have a problem "ganging up" on the opposing side. We all have our values and we should take consideration of those who don't share ours, and avoid the lynch mob mentality that I've have seen in here the last few days. I'm going to let this go now, enough has been said to make us all think what we're saying and how it might cause injury, intended or otherwise when we post to the group. Paul. Steve, I'm glad that you have given a second thought to how you worded your comments to Bob, and that you have offered and apology, I will forward your post if you don't mind to Bob as I'd like to see him continue in the group, I don't think he's been disruptive or disrespectful in any way and I have benefitted from some of the posts that he has written. I note your caveat though inferring that he "attacked a cancer victims wife" and your quote that "he committed a cardinal sin" I think that was more offensive than anything in his original post, and certainly can't be misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think those words help, I'm not going to say make a fuss about you getting Lorelei and Debbie mixed up, we can all make mistakes, but I'd ask you to quote me his reference to Debbie and what exactly it was in his original post that got folks so intense. To my reading of Bob's concern it was where do we draw the line, please remember that it's more than likely there's a fair number of young folks looking in here due to concern about their fathers. To me I think Bob was trying to say "Informative" is fine, no problem with saying that "oral sex may help", but "Discriptive" (describing techniques, "gently at first") can be too much. Debbie may well have been describing her success and that's fine if it's informative, but I don't want descriptive, and if that makes me on "Bob's side" then that's fine with me, seems that the other team doesn't have a problem "ganging up" on the opposing side. We all have our values and we should take consideration of those who don't share ours, and avoid the lynch mob mentality that I've have seen in here the last few days. I'm going to let this go now, enough has been said to make us all think what we're saying and how it might cause injury, intended or otherwise when we post to the group. Paul. > This is the first posting that I have made to the group although I've > been reading the posts in here for a couple of months. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the burning of the White House, had the First Amendment thrown at him, > even though he isn't even a U.S. Citizen ! Paul just as this has died down, it seems that you have taken Bob's place and stirred it up again! I'll repeat what I've already said. A cancer victims wife posted a descriptive incident. Canada Bob voiced his "old fashioned" displeasure with it. He was answered at his request with responses that he didn't like. He chose to answer each, and fight to defend his position, all the while getting backed into a corner. He left in a huff. I said that we as a group can't afford to lose even one of us through such silliness. Yes I said silliness. You reposted several of my quotes, which most would agree were meant in good fun, that you took to be nasty. Religion aside, you 2 guys need to get a grip on reality. This is CANCER here. Not middle school underpants showing. Yes it's really really important to some of us to get tips and accounts of how to succeed in the bedroom. Yes we want help, guidance, and explicit detail. We would rather be alive and kicking first, then we'd like to be studs again as well. Yes we love and respect our wives too. We're not dirtbags looking for cheap thrills. All that being said, I am smart enough to realize that no one is going to change the mind of a regular church going guy like you, certainly not me. The good part is that you don't need to change a thing. We love you all. Christians, hookers, and urine drinkers alike. Are you part of any other NG's? Time will teach you that the more you post opinions, the more you are open to getting flamed. It's a simple law of the jungle. We all need each other here. Let's move on, and click by whatever offends us. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories > Paul just as this has died down, it seems that you have taken Bob's place > and stirred it up again! Do you mean that you can have your say but folks who oppose you are stirring it up ? Would you mind pointing out what caused the offence in the first place, maybe quote it for me, I've asked for that but no one has posted it yet. > This is CANCER here. Not middle school underpants showing. Looks like it's middle school mentality though. > we would like be studs again as well. >I am smart enough to realize that no one is going to change the mind of a >regular church going guy like you, certainly not me. Thanks for your insinuation. >The good part is that you don't need to change a thing. We love you >all. Christians, hookers, and urine drinkers alike. Nice to find decent folks in such a category, that's offensive. You offend me, and have gone out of your way to do so. Paul. > > Paul just as this has died down, it seems that you have taken Bob's > place [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Paul. You are having your say. There is no censorship here. Isn't that what got Canada Bob so upset? He was having his say, as well as those that answered him. Paul you only highlighted what you'd like to answer, disregarding all the other points I have made. I am not your enemy. I'm a writer and was trying to make light of some of this by using colorful phrasing, and I have failed miserably and insulted you further. I apologize. Maybe you haven't been here long enough to get my little inside joke about several of the past hot topics discussed here. Yes we actually intelligently discussed the virtues of urine drinking therapy, and did it for months. This was a fact, not intended as an insult. The comment made that you are looking for was something like..... "I then gave my husband oral stimulation, and after awhile I said, well look at that... and we had sex for the first time since his surgery".... I am paraphrasing, but this was the gist of what offended Canada Bob. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories I came in on the tail end of the urine drinking discussion, but I think it is important to note that, was it Howard?, chose unconventional means to deal with his disease. It was his choice, and some of what most of us consider just plain crazy was the path he chose. His decision. He was certainly a senior member of the group and well respected as I recall. I do not remember any of the discussions that I saw being inflamitory. Rest in peace Howard (hope I got the name right). Maybe you haven't been here >long enough to get my little inside joke about several of the past hot >topics discussed here. Yes we actually intelligently discussed the virtues [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that... and we had sex for the first time since his surgery".... I am >paraphrasing, but this was the gist of what offended Canada Bob. > Rest in peace Howard (hope I got the name right). You did. Howard Martin, Braintree, Essex, England. RIP 12/21/03 at Age 64. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum Heck, I give mine oral stimulation often these days (e.g., "C'MON, guy . . . DO something!" or "Hey, you lazy slug . . . wake up"). You mean it helps to have the WIFE say it? I.P. "Glassman" <jksinrod@aol.com> > paraphrased Debbie: > > "I then > > gave my husband oral stimulation, and after awhile I said, well look at > > that... " I musta missed something while my news server was belly up. I.P. > Heck, I give mine oral stimulation often these days (e.g., "C'MON, guy . . . > DO something!" or "Hey, you lazy slug . . . wake up"). You mean it helps to > have the WIFE say it? Oh, no! And all these years I thought she was talking to me! My wife talks all the time. If that worked I would be looking for a cure for potency! >Heck, I give mine oral stimulation often these days (e.g., "C'MON, guy . . . >DO something!" or "Hey, you lazy slug . . . wake up"). You mean it helps to >have the WIFE say it? > >I.P. Not wanting to boil the cabbages over and over, all I'm asking is that folks realize that some young and innocent folks find their way into here, I would prefer that my girls aren't reading some of the comments, how can we flip on by before we have actually read them ? When you're bringing up a couple of teenage girls you tend to be protective of them, that may brand me as conservative, but I can live with that. Paul. > Not wanting to boil the cabbages over and over, all I'm asking is that > folks realize that some young and innocent folks find their way into [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them, that may brand me as conservative, but I can live with that. > Paul. I will reiterate that anyone can skip any conversation they want to and maybe we need to be more explanatory in the subject line to help with that?.....? but you can (at least using OutLook Express) make message rules so that you can filter out things you don't even want coming into your box. FOr me it is under tools, message rules, news, and then you follow directions on the page. I filter out lots of stuff like slang term for female body parts, etc, naked, britany, certain posters, etc. it really helps get rid of the porno and stuff. good luck and hth SignatureLori Devoted wife of Curtis, Stage 4 Prostate cancer at age 40 PSA 865 Dec 30,2003 44 Feb 23,2004 17.3 Mar 15,2004 18.9 Apr 16, 2004 17.3 may 15,2004 14.59 =))) July 10, 2004 28!!! Oct 5,2004 37 Oct 27, 2004 next psa Dec 9 mets to bone and lymph, Left Lower Lobe [?] Lupron Q3months Casodex 50 mg daily (stopped) Zometa qmonth Ketoconazole + hydrocortisone (he stopped these, made him nauseous) Probable Taxotere/Thalidomide by Christmas http://community.webshots.com/user/lorismiller > > Not wanting to boil the cabbages over and over, all I'm asking is that > > folks realize that some young and innocent folks find their way into [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and stuff. > good luck and hth Cutting out Britany? Now I am offended! LOL SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories > Heck, I give mine oral stimulation often these days (e.g., "C'MON, guy . . . > DO something!" or "Hey, you lazy slug . . . wake up"). You mean it helps to > have the WIFE say it? LOL SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories Glasman, I'm not really for censorship, but we all owe each other a measure of common decency and respect, part of my point is my daughters found this group and as their father with the family values that we hold some of the comments seemed to be a bit indulgent, this isn't an Adult site anyone can walk through the door. My thoughts are that informative is fine, descriptive is likely to offend some folks. Regarding what I highlighted, well what you say is true, I picked out what upset me, the way folks picked up on what upset them in Canada Bob's original post, and to date no one has shown me his "attack" on anyone, he mentioned "a few posts" didn't name anyone, and most likely he wasn't on his own in his concerns. I accept your apology, it cuts me to the bone to hear the Church in general taken appart I have worked with a lot of good people helping folks who are less fortunate than we are, but I hardly ever see this reported. In all extended families there are black sheep, in our relatives, in Christian fellowships, in Muslem, in Baseball, Boxing, you name it, not to mention Politics, get a big enough barrel and you'll find some rotten apples in it, so I accpet there have been many henous things done by "members of the Church" but ther is a flip side with maybe a thousand good people for every pervert, yet folks tar and feather us all sometimes for the sport of it. I'm not good at this posting thing so I'll be back at periscope depth just looking at what's posted in here, and for those who have helped me look at options I am very grateful, and that includes Canada Bob, I'm sorry that he's pulled the plug, several of his posts were very informative to me and in where I'm at I need all the info I can gather. Let's just call this a day now. Paul. > Glasman, I'm not really for censorship, but we all owe each other a > measure of common decency and respect, part of my point is my daughters > found this group and as their father with the family values that we > hold some of the comments seemed to be a bit indulgent, this isn't an > Adult site anyone can walk through the door. Paul a usenet NG is not a place for teenage girls. PERIOD.... Even I am often offended by what I see posted regularly. Pornography, spam, violence, wackos galore. An AOL message board is guarded by a board host and censorship is encouraged. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories I hadn't thought about it because I have no young kids, but I agree. Even the best-behaved unmoderated newsgroup forums lapse into filth now and then. (Do not misunderstand; I fully support and commend the original comment and commenter that triggered this discussion). Access to newsgroups is no different from full access to a dirty book store, a public library computer, or -- GASP -- unsupervised conversations with their peers. I used to live in a 99% (I was the 1%er) Mormon neighborhood that banned cable TV because it was too corruptive of their youth. I have yet to hear any words ANYWHERE that the neighborhood girls didn't utter in open conversation as they walked down the sidewalks, and you can BET that the vast majority of them perform Lewinskys long before they can drive. It was not only allowed in the Oval Office but declared not to be sex BY the Oval Office, so it's a great way to get one's jollies without "having sex" -- or so our kids think. IMO, this forum is about PC, all its problems, and their solutions, and, we hope, some humorous twists on the subject. Anyone who can't handle that for whatever reason should avert their eyes one way or another. OTOH, we all have the right to voice our objections to anything in life. Each of us must choose which is worse, the original offense or the consequences of complaining about it. The BIGGEST lesson I'd like my hypothetical 14-yo daughter -- once she had stumbled across the original comment and its controversy -- to take away from this whole discussion IS this whole discussion. Certainly the original comment wouldn't give her any new ideas unless her whole life was a series of filters, in which case she'd be a WRECK the day she hit high school, often too naiive for her own safety, and likely too uptight for meaningful discussions when they become necessary in a relationship. I.P. > > Glasman, I'm not really for censorship, but we all owe each other a > > measure of common decency and respect, part of my point is my daughters [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wackos galore. An AOL message board is guarded by a board host and > censorship is encouraged. > Paul just as this has died down, it seems that you have taken Bob's place > and stirred it up again! Do you mean that you can have your say but folks who oppose you are stirring it up ? Would you mind pointing out what caused the offence in the first place, maybe quote it for me, I've asked for that but no one has posted it yet. > This is CANCER here. Not middle school underpants showing. Looks like it's middle school mentality though. > we would like be studs again as well. >I am smart enough to realize that no one is going to change the mind of a >regular church going guy like you, certainly not me. Thanks for your insinuation. >The good part is that you don't need to change a thing. We love you >all. Christians, hookers, and urine drinkers alike. Nice to find decent folks in such a category, that's offensive. You offend me, and have gone out of your way to do so. Paul. Paul, your posts keep coming up double for me. >> Paul just as this has died down, it seems that you have taken Bob's > place [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Paul. >Paul, your posts keep coming up double for me. ditto here. > >Paul, your posts keep coming up double for me. Sorry about that, this is the first time that I have ever done any postings, I'd just been reading the posts before and I guess I haven't yet got the hang of it. Paul. Paul: Nothing to be sorry about. Just feedback so you know this is happening. Not sure what to suggest could cause this duplication though??? Thank you. David S. >> >Paul, your posts keep coming up double for me. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Paul. Seems that when I try to send it says that th post has been spooled, so I try again, and unfortunately again :-( the second of third time it gets through, don't know what spooled means ? Paul. > Seems that when I try to send it says that th post has been spooled, so > I try again, and unfortunately again :-( the second of third time it > gets through, don't know what spooled means ? AFAIK, "spooled" means that the message is in a queue, awaiting processing. Maybe Paul's mail server has a limited capacity and must queue up messages for later transmission when it's a busy time. Recommend patience. Or a different server. Regards, Steve J > Seems that when I try to send it says that th post has been spooled, so > I try again, and unfortunately again :-( the second of third time it > gets through, don't know what spooled means ? > > Paul. Just click it once Paul. It's not real time, so don't expect to see it for awhile in most cases. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories This is the first posting that I have made to the group although I've been reading the posts in here for a couple of months. I find it hard to believe how vicious folks have been towards Bob, he is entitled to his views, few folks have respected that. I've read all the posts and it looks like he has been accused of everything since the burning of the White House, had the First Amendment thrown at him, even though he isn't even a U.S. Citizen ! It's time for me to stand up for what I believe in, I attend my Church regularly and I find the comment "I'm betting your faith does not extend to a point where you would rather see prostate cancer victims leave than to admit that you were out of line" made by Steve Kramer very offensive. How can anyone disparage a mans faith without knowing the man, seems to me that the beliefs and values that built this country are little more than door mats to some folks. Is this how we support democracy but rounding on a guy who simply voiced a concern about the need some folks feel for graphic detail in some of the posts. I didn't see any personal attacks in what he had to say, yet he's been subjected to an unwarranted pack attack. I'm not proud of what's been said in fact I'm quite ashamed, folks who claim his comments are repressive, then seek to repress, intimidate and attack him. Here's the punch line from me, I don't want to read posts that are explicit, my daughters (14 & 19) found this and a couple of other sites that might be helpful to me after I'd been diagnosed. I find many of the posts helpful but I have been a little bit concerned that what some folks feel is OK to post I wouldn't want my daughters to read. This isn't an ADULT conf as some have said, it's open to anyone who finds it, and although we all know what oral sex is but would you really feel comfortable thinking that children might be reading graphic accounts of the sexual antics of couples. Other than that I really don't appreciate the bad comments that have been made towards the Church, I have brought my family up as I was brought up with decent Christian values and I resent the attacks on what I hold dear to me. There are some of us that don't go along with the "anything goes" at home, at work, or on the internet, we have standards too, and like folks who don't smoke we don't want other peoples views blown into our faces. Believe what you want, do what you want, in the privacy of your own homes, but when in public give thought that what you say or do may offend other folks. What gives the right to folks who don't respect the Church to speak offensively of it ? I have clipped out some of the things that were said to Bob in the hope that those who said them will give some thought to their confrontational comments, I still think he was entitled to voice his concerns and that to me was all that he did. I'm ashamed of the aggression, needless vulgarity and lynch mob mentailty of the comments made. I can't believe that Steve K called Bob, the Original Transgressor ! even though Steve accepts that "we do go over the limit in our discussions" is that Steve's limit, Bob's limit, Debbie's limit or what, seems to be some recognition that there is a line not to cross there. Worst for me was Steve then went on the lamblast the mans faith, that's shameful Steve. Here's some of the clippings, Glassman. I think that's great! If the story titilates any one of usinto a small "woody" then I say WOW.... keep it coming! (no pun there) I vote for no boundaries, and complete and unadulterated X-rated full frontalnudity! I can use the material... I think you have too much starch in your shorts Bob. No one is suggesting you can't offer up your opinion here, but when you are TOLD to click by and notread it, you don't like that option either. Debbie T. Maybe my mentioning oralstimulation was a bit much Learn how to use your spellchecker Steve K. It is my experience that the only way for this to end is for the original transggressor to apologize. It aint easy. I've had to do it before, so I know. But I'm betting yourfaith does not extend to a point where you would rather see prostate cancer victims leave than to admit that you were out of line. Do we sometimes go over the limit in our discussions of it? Yes. when you see a poster use the words "oral stimulation", immediately hit the down arrow on your news reader. It's what I do. Lorelei. who decides what is Over the Top as you call it, You?? not in my world Philski. (If you don't like the show, change the channel) Danny M. It has sometimes been graphic, but never "too" graphic" Sandy K. You areabsolutely entitled to your opinion learn from and even take solace in what's been shown/said or written while others don't. Those who don't shouldn't impede their will on those who do. if you don't like what you're seeing/hearing then change the channel, John Loomis. boners, and kunts, and clitoris, etc...... Our wives love that! they will admire us with a softy but love us more for a proper hardon! MH. YOU are the one with the problem, Robert Young, who created www.phoenix5.org, comes to mind,Would you attack his posts, too, Bob? He's dead now, so he can no longer defend himself. He'd be an easy target! Abusive, no? Bordering on being a troll? Perhaps. I think you have embroiled many good people in a worthless debate that really has nothing to do with what you *say* you have come here to do in the first place... help men and women who are dealing with prostate cancer and it's aftermath. I'm not going to openly put someone down or criticize them for speaking their minds in a way they feel comfortable with in this *open forum*... one of the *FEW* places people have to come for support. Not support *A la Canada Bob*.... Paul W. Glassman, I don't know...I don't have too much trouble believing that Bob was not lying and my guess is he probably did receive more personal emails than from just one "lone gunman." And, I agree that some people won't back off a stand for what they profess to believe, "no matter how many are on the other side." And, history shows us this is not always a bad thing. At any rate, I agree with you...It is sad. The whole thing is unfortunate. SignatureJerryW jweindel at flash dot net >> Excerpted from a posting in another thread by Canada Bob: >> "After the abusive e-mails sent directly to my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sad. > We can't afford to lose even one contributor. David S. wrote: > No one here is knocking you for > voicing what you found offensive. You must be reading a different thread than I have. The majority of the replies to Bob lacked a spirit of friendship and respect—the outcry of bitterness when Bob expressed a heartfelt message surprised me. I admit that I do not read all the posts anymore. There are just too many. Before I returned to work I read every one. I had not heard about the personal emails sent to his hotmail account. That surprises me too! Sounds like this one got out of hand. I am really sorry to see this kind of thing happen. Guess it proves that there are just certain subjects too hot to handle, e.g., religion, politics and sex. > David S. wrote: >> No one here is knocking you for voicing what you found offensive. > > You must be reading a different thread than I have. The majority of the > replies to Bob lacked a spirit of friendship and respect?the outcry of > bitterness when Bob expressed a heartfelt message surprised me. > You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. > Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain > yourself....Hummmmm John, ya went over the line on this one. Jim Thomas No I did not....I was an altar boy, and a good Catholic. Did you check into the latest of priest abuse and such. I never went over a line. Sex is ok. Talking about it is ok. Doing it is ok. Never went over a line. The line you draw is your line. Please call the Catholic Ministries, and such, and help them get the ministers and priest back in line. Maybe they should be married? Why not. Anyway why argue..... It will not cure aids.... John Loomis >> You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. >> Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim Thomas > No I did not....I was an altar boy, and a good Catholic. > Did you check into the latest of priest abuse and such. > I never went over a line. Yes you did, because you seem to put all priests and ministers in the same category as the few who have violated their vows and moral codes. I wouldn't disregard religion (or confession) as valid ways for those who believe in them to better their chances for recovery from sicknesses, including prostate cancer. Jim Thomas > >> You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. > >> Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Jim Thomas >> You can go to confession if you feel that you stepped over the bounds. >> Trouble is the priest or minister may be masturbating while you explain >> yourself....Hummmmm It is still a free country unless the patriotic act has banned all speech,jeez freedom of religion and freedom from religion.... oh and by the way I don't get the joke? I wish this board did'nt break out the messages like this,they look a little harsh sitting by their own little self assured selves.This board has been a great support to me and my fear and foibles. >Subject: Re: Canada Bob >From: outlivecancer@aol.com (Outlivecancer) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >harsh sitting by their own little self assured selves.This board has been a >great support to me and my fear and foibles. "The board" doesn't break out anything. Each new subject line starts a new little group of messages, consisting of replies to that or to the replies to that or to the... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.