Cut vs. Uncut

[phoenix1224]

America is the only part in the world where this happens (well and Israel ).

Actually, that's not true.

Circumcisions are performed all over the world for both medical AND cosmetic reasons... It's just more PREVELENT in the States.

 

[logophile]

Weighing in as a die-hard intactivist here...

Removal of the foreskin is cosmetic surgery, nothing more. We weren't given parts we don't need and the foreskin is no exception.

Someone said that the function of the foreskin is still unknown. Wrong. It performs the same function as the clitoral hood (and I'm not going to have mine removed even if some people do think it would look better) .The foreskin protects the head of the penis and emits an antibacterial substance to prevent infection. This is illustrated in study after study such asEDIATRICS, Volume 81 Number 4, Pages 537-541, April 1988;
In this study, circumcised infant boys had a significantly higher risk of penile problems (such as meatitis) than did uncircumcised boys.

The cultures which originally circumcised their infant boys were dessert nomads. It was probably easier to keep the circ'd penis clean in the sand. But this is not an issue for most of the people in the world now.

And yes, some non-religious circs do still occur around the world. But in places where the health care system no longer pay for it, it drops uniformly to 10% of newborn boys.

We read with horror about tribal communites who remove the inner and outer labia and even clitoral hood or clitoris of young women (ages 2 to 12 depending on local customs) and yet we will blindly inflict genital mutilation on our newborn boys.

And do you know why we really started circumsizing our newborn boys? It wasn't hygiene ladies and gentlemen. It was becaus John Kellogg (co-inventor of the corn flake) claimed it would prevent a host of "illnesses" that resulted from masturbation:
It (masturbation) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.

Dr. Kellogg didn't want to cut newborns initially, but little boys. This is what he has to say about that:

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris.

However, many doctors found that families weren't co-operating with instructions to have their 3 to 6 year olds cut and so started performing the surgery immediately after birth ensure that it was done.


I was at a conference back in June at a large hotel/conference center. There was a urology conference there at the same time and we ended up sharing the hot tub for an evening. The urologists in the tub with us all said that they are now being told NOT to routinely circ newborns. This is what they are learning in med school. It's too risky. Too permanent. Like every other part of the newborn, the penis is not fully mature at birth and it can take time for the mature penis to present itself. Until then, it is DANGEROUS to mess with it. All of them said that they were trying to convince OBs, family practice docs and Peds of this new information.

And to the other point... Cut or uncut is virtually irrelevant. It's a cock. It likes to be touched, licked, stroked and fucked.

Sorry to babble. Touched on a nerve here. Well, several nerves, actually...

 

[phoenix1224]

<snip> ...We weren't given parts we don't need... <snip>

What about the appendix?

 

[sweetgirl666]

What about the appendix?

That is a leftover from evolution, if we would eat grass (and mostly that) we still would need it.

hm... puts the Nori for her Sushis away

 

[MintSoda]

That's ridiculous to state that we aren't given excess items. Humans have TONS of vestigial traits that don't do a damn thing anymore. Tail bone, appendix, wisdom teeth, the pinky toe, body hair (even in the furriest of people body hair does little or nothing to warm or cool), ear lobes, and even the foreskin. To say we're not given extra parts is ridiculous. From the evolutionary stand point do you honestly think humans are so keenly and perfectly evolved that we have removed all vestigial traits to become complete and perfect?

I really wish people would look at or read sources they cite. One of the web pages said the American Society of Pediatrics had incomplete data that leaned toward circumcision being a good idea and one of the other citations was from 1988. Medical opinion from 17 years ago shouldn't be taken too seriously. If you think medical opinion hasn't changed drastically on many topics since then look up information on erectile disfunction, HIV, type two diabetes, and arthritis from 1988 and compare them to the present opinion.

As someone already pointed out America and Israel are not the only places that perform circumcisions. In fact, I'm not even going to address anymore comments made by said individual as they are clearly misinformed about a good many topics.

Whoever said that the foreskin is meant to prevent infections...that is ONE theory on its purpose, but it isn't the definitive. The other side of the argument says it is a vestigial trait, the remanants of a much large sheath left over from when our ancestors were more tree bound and needed more protection. You can choose to believe whichever side you want and you'll have some degree of support for claims, but fact of the matter is neither side can prove what they say. That's why I said we don't really know, because we don't.

Popular wisdom about circumcision did NOT arise from Kellogg anymore than vegetarianism, home excercise equipment, or day spas did. The surgery became popular practice in the profilactic craze of cut off anything that we don't need that came around in the mid twentieth century. Doctors in almost all western nations would lop off the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids if they were going to be performing surgery regardless of the health of those organs....having a bowel resection? why don't we take out your appendix at the same time! The wisdom behind that was if it had the potential to cause problems down the road and it doesn't do anything why not just take it out. The foreskin seems to be the last item on the list of profilactic surgeries to go, probably because of the cosmetic debate. Kellogg was a nut and that isn't something people only figured out after he died. Attributing anything but corn flakes to him is a HUGE stretch.

 

[EarnestImp]

I really wish people would look at or read sources they cite. One of the web pages said the American Society of Pediatrics had incomplete data that leaned toward circumcision being a good idea and one of the other citations was from 1988. Medical opinion from 17 years ago shouldn't be taken too seriously.

On the whole, the sources did not claim a compelling reason in favor of circumcision. They are either neutral, or against. That was my point. I did read the sources I pointed to. Most of them are much more recent than 1988. Going down the list, I see 2002, 2002, 1999, 1996, 2000, 1996, 1996, 2001, 1996, etc. So many of the position papers are less than 6 years old. You are being dishonest by emphasizing a single 17 year old position paper. There is no evidence that more recent position papers are omitted.

Popular wisdom about circumcision did NOT arise from Kellogg anymore than vegetarianism, home excercise equipment, or day spas did. The surgery became popular practice in the profilactic [sic] craze of cut off anything that we don't need that came around in the mid twentieth century.

No, not really. Look at the chart here. Circ rates rose in a straight line from 1870 to 1980. No sudden jump in mid-century. Just a steady rise. The justifications shifted from anti-masturbatory to (pseudo-)medical, but there was a continuous smooth upward trend.

 

[drummer34]

Dear mint soda, you like cut penises, fine. And obviously you are not one confused with facts, fine (typical american attitude). You go ahead and mutilate your children and then accept that the rest of the world shakes its head in disbelief.

But you keeps qouting statistics so one simple question :What are the persentage of Americans that gets penile cancer? In Denmark it is 0,007% That is 40 out of 5356000 people(source Danish Cancer Registry).

 

[EarnestImp]

Whoever said that the foreskin is meant to prevent infections...that is ONE theory on its purpose, but it isn't the definitive. The other side of the argument says it is a vestigial trait, the remanants of a much large sheath left over from when our ancestors were more tree bound and needed more protection.

Could you please provide a citation for that large-sheath-apeman theory, just so we know you're not spewing rubbish?

Incidentally, in rats feedback from the prepuce seems to be a critical element of copulation. Look at this abstract. In some mammals, the prepuce has a direct sexual role.

 

[pivoter]

I never got this cut, but it it looks like it has.

 

[sikdogg]

I'm cut and proud of it... if i was uncut, i'd be uncut and proud of it.

 

[MintSoda]

On the whole, the sources did not claim a compelling reason in favor of circumcision. They are either neutral, or against. That was my point. I did read the sources I pointed to. Most of them are much more recent than 1988. Going down the list, I see 2002, 2002, 1999, 1996, 2000, 1996, 1996, 2001, 1996, etc. So many of the position papers are less than 6 years old. You are being dishonest by emphasizing a single 17 year old position paper. There is no evidence that more recent position papers are omitted.



No, not really. Look at the chart here. Circ rates rose in a straight line from 1870 to 1980. No sudden jump in mid-century. Just a steady rise. The justifications shifted from anti-masturbatory to (pseudo-)medical, but there was a continuous smooth upward trend.

The Bollinger based site you provided a link to actually does have the largest growth period between 1920 and 1980, that's not a straight line, not to mention if you read the rest of the paper it also states that the practice of medical circumcision began in the United Kingdom, seeing as Kellogg was from Michigan I don't think he had much to do with it. Basically the Bollinger site actually backed up most of what I said. That it was formerly a prophylactic surgery that has since tapered off for lack of necessity.

When your own citations that you're trying to use to refute what I'm saying actually include information, in black and white text in the Bollinger article, that supports exactly what I've said, I think you've lost the argument.
- I said it had nothing to do with Kellogg; your article said it started in England, not Michigan
- I said it was orginally used as a medical prophylactic surgery; your article said that almost verbatim
- I said it the practice became popular in the mid 20th century; your article has a bell curve with the largest percentage of growth between 1920 and 1980
- I said the practice fell out of favor recently because there didn't seem to be any medical proof it was prophylactic; your article not only says that exact same thing, but it also has a graph showing it taper off in recent years
- I said it wasn't relegated to the United States and Israel; your article listed five countries other than the United States and Israel where it was common practice

Can someone please quote me where I said circumcision prevents penile cancer? I think if you'll go back and read my posts I specifically say there is no known benefit to circumcision. So throwing out statistics about penile cancer to refute something I never said seems a little silly to me. Just go back through and quote all the posts I made about penile cancer being prevented by circumcision. In fact, go back through and find all the posts where I specifically said "I prefer uncut men."

The statements (these weren't arguments but statement of facts) you're trying to refute with your own citations are actually then supported by your citations; I invite you to hold a ruler up to your computer screen and see for sure if you really believe that line is straight and feel free to read the rest of the article. Many of you are also trying to refute statements I never made and argue points with me that I don't really care about and haven't made a single post about.

So you're uncut, big fucking deal, by the sounds of how many men are trying to defend their penis style (as a cosmetic surgery I think cut or uncut is just a style to wear a penis) because they aren't exactly comfortable with it. If you're going to quote penile cancer statistics and spend time researching all the benefits of being uncut to throw at someone who never said being uncut was bad, just so you can feel better about your foreskin, I suggest you seek help.

 

[MintSoda]

Could you please provide a citation for that large-sheath-apeman theory, just so we know you're not spewing rubbish?

Incidentally, in rats feedback from the prepuce seems to be a critical element of copulation. Look at this abstract. In some mammals, the prepuce has a direct sexual role.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. That abstract is about use of lidocaine on a rat's penis to determine thrust rate to sensory perception. That has absolutely nothing to do with the foreskin. I don't even see the foreskin mentioned in the abstract. They were trying to determine the conection, if any, between thrust rate and sensation in rats by seeing if thrust rate increased when sensation was taken away with an anesthetic.

I don't really know how to respond to that. I suppose I agree with the article's originating hypothesis that thrust rate would increase when sensation was deminished in rats. I don't really know why you thought that was relevant to this conversation, but sure, that seems like a well thought out experiment, even if it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation.

If you're going to use the animal kingdom and are curious about the statements I made about the sheath look up information on the Bonobo. They're a very close relative to humans in the great ape family. They're one of the few species besides humans that use sex for non-reproductive purposes and I'm pretty sure you'll find something interesting about their foreskin as well.

....oh and to whoever said "that's a typical American view"...I was born and raised in Coventry. So that would be a typical BRITISH view.

 

[sweetlittleass]

I get excited...

when the guy I'm with is uncut just because most men nowadays are cut... it's a treat to have one that isn't.

Now, I do still love the cut cock, but because it is so rare to find a guy in his 20-30's that isn't it's a real treat

I have 3 boys and I left them all uncut, if they want to later in life, they can make the decision to become cut themselves...

Sweet

 

[EarnestImp]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. That abstract is about use of lidocaine on a rat's penis to determine thrust rate to sensory perception. That has absolutely nothing to do with the foreskin.

bullshit

The abstract says: Lidocaine injected into the preputial region also reduced the number of intromissions and the intromission ratio. Moreover, the number of disorganized mounts, as revealed by the accelerometric record, was much increased by this treatment.....These data suggest that somatosensory feedback from the penis is critical for the achievement of intromission, whereas feedback from the preputial region is important for the execution of copulatory thrusting. Furthermore, it is possible that the strong sensory stimulation of the prepuce associated with penile insertion participates in the termination of thrusting and penile withdrawal..

Prepuce=foreskin.

 

[EarnestImp]

The Bollinger based site you provided a link to actually does have the largest growth period between 1920 and 1980, that's not a straight line.....
- I said it the practice became popular in the mid 20th century; your article has a bell curve with the largest percentage of growth between 1920 and 1980

No This chart: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2004/Normal1.jpg shows more or less linear growth from 1870 to 1980, after which it fell somewhat. It is not a perfectly straight line, but is rather linear up to 1980. It is not quadratic, it is not cubic, it is not constant; the best approximation is linear. Trust me on this. It is certainly NOT a 'Bell Curve' as you state. Do you even know what a bell curve (Gaussian, you know, exp(-x^2/2) ) looks like? There is a small bump around 1930, but the trend is linear. This is a bell curve: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/graphics/bellcrv.gif

Your other points are irrelevant - I am not the one who mentioned Kellog. I am just saying that your claim that circ became popular in the mid-1900s is wrong. It was a stready climb until 1980. I did not mention penis cancer. I did not claim that circ was practiced only in the USA/Israel. You are confusing me with someone else.

So you're uncut, big fucking deal, by the sounds of how many men are trying to defend their penis style (as a cosmetic surgery I think cut or uncut is just a style to wear a penis) because they aren't exactly comfortable with it. If you're going to quote penile cancer statistics and spend time researching all the benefits of being uncut to throw at someone who never said being uncut was bad, just so you can feel better about your foreskin, I suggest you seek help.

No, I'm cut actually. All your assumptions are wrong.

 

[EarnestImp]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You had written The other side of the argument says it is a vestigial trait, the remanants of a much large sheath left over from when our ancestors were more tree bound and needed more protection.. I find this a nutty pseudoscientific theory, and I called it 'the large-sheath apeman theory', and I am asked you to provide a citation giving evidence for it. That's all.

 

[MintSoda]

No This chart: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2004/Normal1.jpg shows more or less linear growth from 1870 to 1980, after which it fell somewhat. It is not a perfectly straight line, but is rather linear up to 1980. It is not quadratic, it is not cubic, it is not constant; the best approximation is linear. Trust me on this. It is certainly NOT a 'Bell Curve' as you state. Do you even know what a bell curve (Gaussian, you know, exp(-x^2/2) ) looks like? There is a small bump around 1930, but the trend is linear. This is a bell curve: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/graphics/bellcrv.gif

Your other points are irrelevant - I am not the one who mentioned Kellog. I am just saying that your claim that circ became popular in the mid-1900s is wrong. It was a stready climb until 1980. I did not mention penis cancer. I did not claim that circ was practiced only in the USA/Israel. You are confusing me with someone else.




No, I'm cut actually. All your assumptions are wrong.

t isn't a straight line. I can lay a straight line over it and bisect it at two points. By definition that is not straight. In fact, I can lay a straight line over it and bisect it at three points with the right angle. I don't know where you learned statistics, but obviously you need to go back and learn it again. If you can't tell the difference between a curved line and a straight line I'm not sure we have anything to talk about.

As for the rat penises prepuce is the head of the penis, not the foreskin. Considering rats don't even have foreskin in the same sense humans do I'd suggest you go through and read the entire paper to understand what they're actually doing there. Until you've done that I wouldn't cite things you clearly did not understand.

I already directed you to look up articles on the Bonobo which should hold the answers you're looking for, but after seeing how badly you misunderstood two scientific papers I don't really see a point in having you look for your own articles or even providing them for you. Why should I go research this topic for you when you haven't even demonstrated basic comprehesion of the articles you're citing yourself?

 

[EarnestImp]

t isn't a straight line. I can lay a straight line over it and bisect it at two points. By definition that is not straight.

Jesus christ, I'm a scientist. I know statistics. I've written papers on statistics. I use them every day. I should have said 'linear trend' and not 'straight line'. And I specifically mentioned that the trend is linear up to 1980 only. You are being WAY too literal, and this is getting in the way of an honest assessment of the facts. A person who claims that this is a fucking bell curve has nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing to teach me about statistics.

As for the rat penises prepuce is the head of the penis, not the foreskin. Considering rats don't even have foreskin in the same sense humans do I'd suggest you go through and read the entire paper to understand what they're actually doing there.

Bullshit: Look at this definition or here . In mammals, the foreskin or prepuce is the retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the head of the penis, (the glans penis). It serves as a sheath to protect the glans penis. In a female, the clitoral foreskin, or hood, covers and protects the glans clitoris in a similar manner. Where do you get the idea that the prepuce is the head of the penis? Provide a reference.

[edit 2]: for rat prepuces, see here. The rat prepuce is retractible, like the human variety: to ejaculate the male [rat] must be able to evert the penis from the sheath (Moltz 1975). Please provide a source for your claims that the (rat?) prepuce is not a foreskin.

I did look up the bonobo - it seems that the chimps and bonobos do not have a true glans, but possess only a foreskin, suggesting that in this case the foreskin is important to sexual function. Look here. [edit 1] But I would be interested if YOU were to point out some relevant articles on bonobo anatomy, just so I can figure out what it is you are trying to say.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Unless you are very unobservant you will be able to tell the difference between cut and uncut when doing anything. Both are cool, but must admit from personal experience, the uncut guys come out on top for sensitivity and ultimate appreciation for the sensations created. I tend to think uncut is a beautiful vision in all its states and just begs to be woken and encouraged to reveal the strength and passion that lies within.

Catalina

 

[EarnestImp]

the uncut guys come out on top for sensitivity and ultimate appreciation for the sensations created. I tend to think uncut is a beautiful vision in all its states and just begs to be woken and encouraged to reveal the strength and passion that lies within.

Could you (and others) please elaborate a bit more on what you think the differences are? Is it the prepuce itself that is pleasurable, is it the mobility of the prepuce, or does the fact that the glans is covered make it more sensitive?

Incidentally, there is a movement of men who are uncircumcusing themselves by stretching the remaining skin forward to create a new 'foreskin'. You can find a Wired article here and photos here and here. Any opinion on how it compares to the real thing?

 

[MintSoda]

Jesus christ, I'm a scientist. I know statistics. I've written papers on statistics. I use them every day. I should have said 'linear trend' and not 'straight line'. And I specifically mentioned that the trend is linear up to 1980 only. You are being WAY too literal, and this is getting in the way of an honest assessment of the facts. A person who claims that this is a fucking bell curve has nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing to teach me about statistics.




Bullshit: Look at this definition or here . In mammals, the foreskin or prepuce is the retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the head of the penis, (the glans penis). It serves as a sheath to protect the glans penis. In a female, the clitoral foreskin, or hood, covers and protects the glans clitoris in a similar manner. Where do you get the idea that the prepuce is the head of the penis? Provide a reference.

[edit 2]: for rat prepuces, see here. The rat prepuce is retractible, like the human variety: to ejaculate the male [rat] must be able to evert the penis from the sheath (Moltz 1975). Please provide a source for your claims that the (rat?) prepuce is not a foreskin.

I did look up the bonobo - it seems that the chimps and bonobos do not have a true glans, but possess only a foreskin, suggesting that in this case the foreskin is important to sexual function. Look here. [edit 1] But I would be interested if YOU were to point out some relevant articles on bonobo anatomy, just so I can figure out what it is you are trying to say.

A linear trend will have no overlap in statistic points. Meaning a line that has a linear trend will only pass one statistical point one time. The line in question passes several statistical points several times. That is why it is not a linear trend. You cannot pass 70% more than once and still be linear. That is simple statistics. The line arches over an apex and proceeds to fall. It also has multiple angles of ascent and declination, a linear trend can have multiple angles of ascent but cannot have both angles of ascent and declination, which this line has. Maybe you should go back and read some of your own papers professor.

I stated that the foreskin had sexual function, someone said it was meant for antibacterial excretion and I said that was only ONE theory. Your article offers the possibility that the foreskin in primates was actually developed as a sexual characteristic. Not to mention in the conclusion (section 5 I believe) it does address to some degree the purpose of a protective sheath as a counterpoint to the sexual trait argument. If you go back to my original post you'll see I even mentioned the sexual advantage of the foreskin.

I still maintaine that article about rats is designed to determine the thrust rate based on tacticle sensation. If it was based on foreskin why wouldn't they just circumcise the rats rather than use lidocaine injections? If it was to determine the sexual function of foreskin in rats that would be leaving multiple dependent variables in the test group and any information they managed to glean under the hypothesis you claim they had would be null and void.

Bonobos and chipmanzees, by the article you cited, have diminished corpusles where Rheese monkeys and humans do not. The article also eluded to the fact that in bonobos and chimpanzees the foreskin seems to serve as a shortened protective sheath while it serves a female selected for sexual characteristic in humans. The article doesn't draw a direct parallel, but it does show that at some point there was a divergence in the primate family tree between larger protective foreskins and smaller more sexually sensitive foreskins. What sort of primate do you suppose existed at that divergence?

Obviously you're getting very worked up over this and can't seem to see past your own point of view and analytically look at what you've placed in front of yourself. I'd recommend you take a breather, calm down, and reread some of the information both on this thread and that you yourself have cited. Unless you can calm down and get back to nonabusive, obscenity free posts I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

 

[EarnestImp]

A linear trend will have no overlap in statistic points. Meaning a line that has a linear trend will only pass one statistical point one time. The line in question passes several statistical points several times. That is why it is not a linear trend. You cannot pass 70% more than once and still be linear. That is simple statistics.

First, I said it is a linear trend UP TO 1980. YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS.
And no, what you describe isn't simple statistics. I don't think you know statistics, because you are not using the terminology of statistics. You could easily fit a straight line to the trend (up to 1980) and if you had errorbars you could get a chi-square goodness of fit. THAT is statistics. People fit straight lines all the time to lumpy datasets, and the final quality of the fit (usually chisqr) tells you if it was valid.

I still maintaine that article about rats is designed to determine the thrust rate based on tacticle sensation. If it was based on foreskin why wouldn't they just circumcise the rats rather than use lidocaine injections?

Because it was based on selectively anesthetising different parts of the penis and observing the effect on sexual behaviour, to measure what kinds of feedback (prepuce, glans) were important for copulation. If you disable feedback from the prepuce (that's foreskin to you), then sex becomes more difficult for rats.

Obviously you're getting very worked up over this and can't seem to see past your own point of view and analytically look at what you've placed in front of yourself.

Yes, I am getting worked up - you are making absurdly stupid claims like saying that a prepuce is the tip of the penis, not the foreskin, and that the trend of circ rates is a BELL CURVE, and then you are insulting ME for stupidity?

OK, do you still stand by your claims that

1) "prepuce is the head of the penis, not the foreskin." (your words)
2) the curve is a "bell curve" (your words)
and
3) what is your experience and education in statistics? Do you know how to fit a straight line and compute a chisqr?
4) You said there was something wonderful to be learned from bonobo penises. Well, what is it? Show me. Post a reference. I'm curious.

 

[EarnestImp]

duplicate post, deleted

 

[MintSoda]

First, I said it is a linear trend UP TO 1980. YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS.
And no, what you describe isn't simple statistics. I don't think you know statistics, because you are not using the terminology of statistics. You could easily fit a straight line to the trend (up to 1980) and if you had errorbars you could get a chi-square goodness of fit. THAT is statistics. People fit straight lines all the time to lumpy datasets, and the final quality of the fit (usually chisqr) tells you if it was valid.



Because it was based on selectively anesthetising different parts of the penis and observing the effect on sexual behaviour, to measure what kinds of feedback (prepuce, glans) were important for copulation. If you disable feedback from the prepuce (that's foreskin to you), then sex becomes more difficult for rats.



Yes, I am getting worked up - you are making absurdly stupid claims like saying that a prepuce is the tip of the penis, not the foreskin, and that the trend of circ rates is a BELL CURVE, and then you are insulting ME for stupidity?

OK, do you still stand by your claims that

1) "prepuce is the head of the penis, not the foreskin." (your words)
2) the curve is a "bell curve" (your words)
and
3) what is your experience and education in statistics? Do you know how to fit a straight line and compute a chisqr?
4) You said there was something wonderful to be learned from bonobo penises. Well, what is it? Show me. Post a reference. I'm curious.

This conversation is over. I don't know if you're angry with someone or something else, whether you're just prone to fits of rage over nothing, or whether you're just naturally abusive and insulting. Regardless of your reasoning I'm not going to participate in your anger management issues. You're swearing and name calling in what was a debate about an fairly benign issue of opinion and personal preference. You're now grasping at straws and attempting to draw me into a semantical argument. I suggest you take a break from the forums as you're clearly unable to gain perspective about this. Feel free to continue posting responses, but I'm done participating in your abusive banter.

 

[EarnestImp]

This conversation is over. I don't know if you're angry with someone or something else, whether you're just prone to fits of rage over nothing,

Yes, I am prone to fits of irritation at people who are deeply intellectually dishonest, and speak with false expertise about matters of which they know nothing. By failing to answer questions 1-4, you have proven my point concerning the intellectual merits of your arguments.

Incidentally, I never strongly disagreed with your initial posts. I posted references that gave counterarguments, and sometimes just parallel arguments, to what you were saying. What got my goat was when you took these references and began insulting me and engaging in irrational rebuttals to things I didn't even say. For some reason, you confused me with someone else, and began insulting me, and continued your argument using blatantly distorted logic.