 |
 | 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 / May 2006Opened up a can of worms.
Wow, Me, a guy wanting viagra, for erectile function, and loss of a nerve, seems to have struck a nerve. We should be able to provide ourselves with a good alternative after our surgery/treatment, to provide us with the best function we can get. If we feel reemed by America's "high cost", ($110.00 for 10 - 100 mgs.)and search for lower prices....and see some find those and some feel like your getting sweepings from the floor put into pills..... I am at a loss. One person say's they get good results, the other say's you may get the sweepings from the floor, or sugar pills. One say's the customs will hold the pills, and you may pay for it and never get it! Blue Cross of Calif. would only pay for 4 pills, and not agree with the Dr. as to 10 pills. So I said B>S..Dr. authorized 10 pills, and Blue Cross only pays for 4....what a crock. I got angry with the Blue Cross as said you provide birth control for women free and clear. Why? To have sex without pregnancy... Why cannot they provide a required amount of Viagra for a man to have sex also? What is the difference? Anyway, That is the dillema, and if I can buy the viagra, cheaper, and not get rat peelets.......I will be happy. Look at the price of Gas! Jees, what a rat race we have........ > Wow, > Me, a guy wanting viagra, for erectile function, and loss of a nerve, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jees, what a rat race we have........ I have had absolutely NO problems buying from XLPharmacy. I suspect that most of those warning about all the potential problems have no first hand experience. Ignore them! Listen to those who have first hand experience. The sky is not falling. Go for it! >>That is the dillema, and if I can buy the viagra, cheaper, and not get >>rat >>peelets.......I will be happy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ignore them! Listen to those who have first hand experience. The sky > is not falling. Go for it! John.....pay no attention to the doomsayers. Your own President said that drugs from Canada might not be safe!! Guess who is in Big Pharma's back pocket?? Gee, could it be your government?? A lot of our drugs either come from the US at a capped rate, or they are made in other countries under the supervision of US and Cdn. pharmaceutical companies. Here in the Toronto environs, we have a huge area called "Pill Hill" where a very large number of pharmaceutical companies are located. The only reason Bush said our drugs *might be unsafe* was to stop Americans from crossing the border in busloads and buying their US made pills here at a huge saving. At least they had prescriptions!! And they were coming over daily. Some of the border states are now buying all of their drugs from us.....and they know they are safe. In other words...."don't worry, be happy". Heather >>>That is the dillema, and if I can buy the viagra, cheaper, and not get >>>rat >>peelets.......I will be happy. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Heather I have to agree with you on the pharma costs and King Georges assessment of "unsafe, untested or unapproved by the FDA" Canadian available drugs. The reasoning presented by big pharma and their political toadies to justify comsumer costs seems to defy logic. Sure; we all know that R&D to develop a drug is very costly and they have to recover those costs as well as their obligations to their stockholders. I have to ask, as I'm sure others have; why does a hypothetical dose of 25mg of a particular drug cost the (almost) same as a 100mg dose. The answer is the same as the answer to why does a dog lick himself "BECAUSE HE CAN". This seems to be the attitude of the majority of our lawmakers, regardless of their party affilliations. The Wash. DC folks would have us believe that any pharma/medical technology/training/experience that did not originate in the U.S. is substandard; because the FDA has not given its approval; in my opinion that's Bull #@*^ These are the same folks who approved Thalidomide and Viox and yet regularly refuse to approve experimental drugs for the treatment of AIDS. Tom > John.....pay no attention to the doomsayers. Your own President said that > drugs from Canada might not be safe!! Guess who is in Big Pharma's back > pocket?? Gee, could it be your government?? Why do you continue to bash our leader, our country and our government? Is this something you think we have done to you on this NG? Balance of my post redacted. No need to insult all Canadians. > Why do you [Heather] continue to bash our leader, our country and our government? Is > this something you think we have done to you on this NG? Steve, I talk to droves of intelligent, astute, middle class Canadians all summer. Their press . . . like the European press . . . is so EXTREMELY biased that they haven't a clue about what's actually going on in the world, especially as applies to U.S. and world politics. At least in the U.S. we have some balanced sources for news and analyses, and, if we wanted to bias ourselves towards the other extreme, plenty of right-wing sources. At least we can view both sides and draw our own conclusions based on facts and informed logic; many Canadian and European residents don't have ready access to both sides of the issues, just as many U.S. residents REFUSE to study both sides. That's changing, finally, as our most balanced news source, according to an extensive study performed by a left-leaning institution, is starting to dominate TV news here and among the coalition forces in the Middle East. i.e., we're voting with our TV remotes to hear both sides and make up our own minds. (It's jaw-dropping to see the thoroughly documented news the alphabet soup networks and big (but shrinking) newspapers completely omit from their coverage.) IOW, THEY'RE BEING RAISED BY WOLVES AND DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. ;-) (Now watch her come back with a Fox news bash, despite having no clue what it contains, as proof of my point. But don't worry about a fight from me; I'm not even going to look; it's pointless.) I.P. >> Why do you [Heather] continue to bash our leader, our country and our government? Is >> this something you think we have done to you on this NG? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >IOW, THEY'RE BEING RAISED BY WOLVES AND DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. ;-) Dude, where do get the drugs that enable you to spew such inane claptrap with a straight face? Screw Viagra. I want some of that sh.t. Is Limbaugh dealing again? > >> Why do you [Heather] continue to bash our leader, our country and our government? Is > >> this something you think we have done to you on this NG? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > claptrap with a straight face? Screw Viagra. I want some of that > sh.t. Is Limbaugh dealing again? Major LOL....  SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com Glassman asked about "THEY'RE BEING RAISED BY WOLVES AND DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. ;-) " > Dude, where do get . . . such inane claptrap Straight from these earnest but ill-informed babes' mouths. I.P. >> Dude, where do get . . . such inane claptrap Original post: "Dude, where do get the drugs that enable you to spew such inane claptrap with a straight face?" Above is your response with altered quote. I think they call that taking a quote "out of context," but since you believe in "fair and balanced" Fox news, I don't suppose you have any clue what that means. Back to the original question: Where DO you get the drugs? Is this supposed to be your reponse?: >Straight from these earnest but ill-informed babes' mouths. Sounds kinky to me. > Glassman asked about > "THEY'RE BEING RAISED BY WOLVES AND DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. ;-) " [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I.P. I don't think I said that... did I? SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > > John.....pay no attention to the doomsayers. Your own President said that > > drugs from Canada might not be safe!! Guess who is in Big Pharma's back > > pocket?? Gee, could it be your government?? > > Why do you continue to bash our leader, our country and our government? Is > this something you think we have done to you on this NG? Red blooded American here. It's become quite fashionable to bash Mr. Buch these days. And may I say quite justly so. You can't take it so personally just because our president is so poorly thought of. I have confidence that because each guy only gets 2, four years shots at best, maybe the next one will be better? You can't fool all the people all the time. SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > Red blooded American here. It's become quite fashionable to bash Mr. > Buch > these days. And may I say quite justly so. You can't take it so personally > just because our president is so poorly thought of. I have confidence that > because each guy only gets 2, four years shots at best, maybe the next one > will be better? You can't fool all the people all the time. At no point are your opinions and mine ever going to converge with regard to Carter, Clinton, Reagan or Bush. I think you are dead wrong and that you and yours are an impediment to the continued success of the United States. However, if you were on Cincinnati's Fountain Square and someone wanted to harm you for your expressing such opinions, they would have to go through me first. I afford no such defense to those who neither vote for our leaders or contribute to our government. In any case, it is not appropriate in this NG; a notion which has been mentioned numerously. > > Red blooded American here. It's become quite fashionable to bash Mr. > > Buch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Carter, Clinton, Reagan or Bush. I think you are dead wrong and that you > and yours are an impediment to the continued success of the United States. "You and yours" you say? I'm an impediment to the US? WOW that's pretty hurtful. Sure smacks of paranoia to me. I thought love it or leave it went out in the 60's? Where in the world do you get this from? Because I think that Bush is doing a poor job? Apparently most Americans agree with that statement. I have no axe to grind or affiliation to any particular politics, as you seem to, but your personal attack and remarks are really troubling. Why so defensive? Is it me, or anyone that doesn't like Mr. Bush? > In any case, it is not appropriate in this NG; a notion which has been > mentioned numerously. Thanks for laying down the law but sorry, I'm not talking about cancer 100% and 24/7. We all do that plenty here. You must make 100 posts to my one. I even see jokes posted. Anything is a nice change for us all. You usually have such a good sense of humor, that I'm truly puzzled by all this Steve? If you don't want to talk computers or religion or sports or politics, then just don't respond. JK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com [snip] > Thanks for laying down the law but sorry, I'm not talking about > cancer 100% and 24/7. We all do that plenty here. You must make 100 posts > to my one. I even see jokes posted. Anything is a nice change for us all. > You usually have such a good sense of humor, that I'm truly puzzled by all > this Steve? If you don't want to talk computers or religion or sports or > politics, then just don't respond. There are 60,000+ groups on Usenet including many to discuss computers, religion, sports, humor, or politics. There is _one_ for Prostate Cancer support. When you introduce OT stuff here, especially controversial OT stuff, you thoughtlessly endanger a unique resource. At best you add noise that others must sort through to get vital information. At worst you start flame wars and cause hard feelings among people who might otherwise be open to helping one another and volunteering valuable information. As far as so called "humor", I learned long ago that what one person finds funny another finds in poor taste and offensive. No one expects you to talk about cancer 100% and 24/7. But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that you consider others before introducing irrelevant topics into this group to combat your own boredom and/or for your own amusement. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I have seen many useful groups destroyed by the hard feelings caused by such posts. SignatureGlowing in the Dark > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Sorry if I sound harsh, but I have seen many useful groups destroyed by the > hard feelings caused by such posts. Just for the record Glowing, I didn't initiate or introduce any of this. I simply responded to anothers attack on a poster. Slap him on the wrist too. Funny thing is I'm almost A-political, but couldn't resist this defense of one of our Canadian brothers. I'm an NG oldtimer, so I know all about the possible ugly infighting. This group is quite civil and respectful compared to others. I help others publically and privately as much as any of us do. The little tiffs we have regarding politics religion, etc are pretty "benign" if you ask me. We are men, and sometimes we clash. I don't see any cussing or real flaming in my 4 years here. It's not a big deal. SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > "You and yours" you say? I'm an impediment to the US? WOW that's pretty > hurtful. Sorry, it was not intended as such. I was trying to describe the gulf between us. Only on a political forum would I go into detail. And there, it would be to pursuade, not to hurt. I have no argument with you at this time. >> In any case, it is not appropriate in this NG; a notion which has been >> mentioned numerously. > > Thanks for laying down the law I do not make laws. I express opinions. That this is a prostate newsgroup is, I believe, an opinion universally held here. That anything that distracts from that is inappropriate here, I believe, holds a consencus. > I even see jokes posted. Anything is a nice change for us all. I concur that jokes are a nice change. > You usually have such a good sense of humor, that I'm truly puzzled by all > this Steve? If you don't want to talk computers or religion or sports or > politics, then just don't respond. Thanks, Glass. That is exactly how I approach this group. Talk about all you want. However, I have changed somewhat in the last few months. Maybe because I'll never grow old and cranky, I've turned cranky at 50. But, at some point, I decided not to sit back and take pot shots at me, my religion or my country without at the very least, politely asking the person to desist. Again, I apologize for any offense with my first paragraph. Such was not my intention. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 Non Illegitimi Carborundum >However, I have changed somewhat in the last few months. Maybe because I'll >never grow old and cranky, I've turned cranky at 50. But, at some point, I >decided not to sit back and take pot shots at me, my religion or my country >without at the very least, politely asking the person to desist. "Your" country? When did you acquire title? Did you 86 the First Amendment by imperial fiat or by a constitutional amendment? Does your anti-immigration policy include all who aren't members of "your" religion? Just curious. >>However, I have changed somewhat in the last few months. Maybe because >>I'll [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > your anti-immigration policy include all who aren't members of "your" > religion? Just curious. I guess, if you dig far enough and get sufficiently chicken-sh.t about it, you'll have me in an argument. But, not yet. I will assume your questions are rhetorical. > Only on a political forum would I go into detail. And all you'd get for your candor would be flames and rhetoric, which we HOPE will be minimized here because of our greater common bond. I don't think it's so clear cut whether to discuss OT here . . . as long as it's marked OT in the topic line and doesn't dominate the forum. On the downside, it obviously has risks, and I, too, have seen good forums ruined by politics. On second thought, that's not true. It wasn't ruined by politics, per se; it was ruined by those on one side of the political fence the minute they spotted some targets for their ad hominem attacks on the other side. That experience lasted for years despite the targets' attempts to stick to facts, logic, and rational discourse, and that, I think, is the biggest uncontrollable risk of OT political threads. I.P. >On second thought, that's not true. It wasn't ruined by politics, per >se; it was ruined by those on one side of the political fence the minute >they spotted some targets for their ad hominem attacks on the other >side. That experience lasted for years despite the targets' attempts to >stick to facts, logic, and rational discourse, and that, I think, is the >biggest uncontrollable risk of OT political threads. I totally agree. It always galls me when those neocons and evangelicals jump ugly and go ad hominem on the moderates. You know, such things as calling them naive because they don't believe in preemptive force and torture, and warning them that they will rot in the ground after death because they haven't accepted Jesus as their personal savior. So, yeah, I hear ya. Logic + evangelical = oxymoron; Rational + neocon = oxymoron. And that's a "fact." Thanks for bringing it up. > Again, I apologize for any offense with my first paragraph. Such was not my > intention. What gulf? I still love ya big guy, and despite what you may think, I'm not a commie liberal, tree huggin', owl lovin, democrat sissy-boy. I just think Bush stinks. SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > owl lovin OK, I have to hold my hands up to being an owl-lover. We were up in Humboldt County, CA a few weeks ago and got up close and personal with a spotted owl out in the forest there (they have no fear of humans and will come within 15 feet in broad daylight to see what you are doing). A really memorable experience; I certainly support their getting some protection. SignaturePeter Headland >> owl lovin > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A really memorable experience; I certainly support their getting some > protection. I had to chuckle at that after one of our backyard owls sent our 125-pound dog running for her life -- so she thought -- with her tail between her legs. When Thunder got too close to a great horned owl's nest, it dive-bombed her and removed a few tufts of fur from her butt. She never went near that tree again. I.P. >> owl lovin > > OK, I have to hold my hands up to being an owl-lover. I can take 'em or leave 'em. They taste like chicken. > I afford no such defense to those who neither vote for our leaders > or contribute to our government. I live in the USA legally and pay plenty of taxes, but can't vote (still at least 6 years from being a citizen, perhaps I should have crept in over the Mexican border - that seems like the fast track way to citizenship). Do you think I have the right to complain about the government, etc. of the USA? I ask that in all seriousness, because I would actually not be comfortable protesting publicly as I consider myself a guest of this country, Dissent and questioning from all sides is at the heart of a healthy democracy, so calling those with whom you disagree "impediments" is ridiculous. FWIW, plenty of us who would be considered somewhat right-wing do not like this administration. The budget deficit, and the drift towards "big government" are just two issues that spring to mind. Intolerance of dissent of any kind (despite all those flowery "big tent" ... "healing divisions" speeches) is another... SignaturePeter Headland >> I afford no such defense to those who neither vote for our leaders >> or contribute to our government. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to citizenship). Do you think I have the right to complain about the > government, etc. of the USA? I don't know, Peter. I have never considered at what time a man in the naturalization process has a right to assume a right to speak out against the country he intends to adopt. But, I agree you're not being treated fairly with reference to illegals. > Dissent and questioning from all sides is at the heart of a healthy > democracy, so calling those with whom you disagree "impediments" is > ridiculous. As is assuming there is no difference or that I do not know the difference. Not all who disagree are impediments, but I generally disagree with all those who are. > FWIW, plenty of us who would be considered somewhat right-wing do not > like this administration. I suspect that almost every member of the "right wing" is unhappy with his recent actions. I am not happy with his recent actions. I had reservations voting for him on his first run. If he hadn't been up against such a farce, I may not have. He was, however, clearly the right man at the right time when those jets hit the towers. And, I continue to support him, and the military, and the policies as long as we are in this war. But, none of that was ever my point. Dammit!! Now _I_ am too far indulged in politic. This is a prostate cancer newsgroup. It is inappropriate to be discussing these things. I agree and hereby chastise myself. For me, this thread is ended. Go in peace. > "Peter Headland"asked > Do you think I have the right to complain about the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > naturalization process has a right to assume a right to speak out against > the country he intends to adopt. I'd say about the day he learns to read a newspaper. If we don't question things . . . ANYthings, how do we make any choices? >> Dissent and questioning from all sides is at the heart of a healthy >> democracy, so calling those with whom you disagree "impediments" is >> ridiculous. Only if untrue. I.P. Just for the hell of it, I reckon I'll dip an oar into this OT maelstrom. (snip) > I have confidence that because each guy only gets 2, four years shots at best, maybe the next one will be better? You can't fool all the people all the time. > But, as author Christopher Buckley says, and as the leftists well know, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on." Regards, Steve J > > Wow, > > Me, a guy wanting viagra, for erectile function, and loss of a nerve, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Ignore them! Listen to those who have first hand experience. The sky is not > falling. Go for it! I just checked out XLPharmacy.com, and it looks like the place to buy for me when I run out of samples. Thanks for the info! SignatureJK Sinrod www.sinrodstudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
|
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.