Question:
> : I am starting to think that we should all move to some homosexual newsgroup > : and hold our discussions about air travel there while the homosexuals hold > : their discussions in rec.travel.air. > Too late JF, we already do ;-) > Jason
But why make an issue of your sexuality in r.t.a.?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > MAn, are you ill informed. In the USA, 60%+ of infants are >> circumcised. >> No, I beg to differ – less than one third are circumcised at birth. It >> appears you are ill informed. And before you ask for the citation, do >> the math:) >The declared national rate for RIC is apx. 60%. why not do YOUR math. > I am, and I can’t come up with a way that’s possible. I think you and > Norma must be meaning something other than what you’re saying. > I’ll give you a hint: define "infant." > Deborah Stevenson
Thanks Deborah – seems not even the smiley was a cue. Perhaps a little more information is necessary – how many female circumcisions are done in the US? Yo, Dave – take it in the spirit it’s offered. Come on – lighten up folks 
amp Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
> Could someone tell me what this particular thread has to do with air > travel? > Maryanne > …scratching her head in confusion.
–As far as I know it has nothing to do with air travel, but maybe you could direct the same question to your own posting in the ‘Hey all you PRC fans, it’s June 4th!’ thread, and you may find that your posting also had nothing to do with air travel. –==++AJC++==– ..twitching his nose to detect the faint aroma of hypocracy.
Response:
>> > MAn, are you ill informed. In the USA, 60%+ of infants are > circumcised. > No, I beg to differ – less than one third are circumcised at birth. It > appears you are ill informed. And before you ask for the citation, do > the math:) >The declared national rate for RIC is apx. 60%. why not do YOUR math.
I am, and I can’t come up with a way that’s possible. I think you and Norma must be meaning something other than what you’re saying. I’ll give you a hint: define "infant." Deborah Stevenson
Response:
And what exactly has this got to do with uk.travel.air and rec.travel air may we ask??????? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Not Tonight, Dear, You Have No Foreskin >> Women in Britain overwhelmingly prefer sex with a partner who has an >> anatomically complete penis, according to a recent survey of 138 English women >> who had had intercourse with both intact and circumcised partners. >> The women involved reported noticeably more vaginal discomfort, increased loss >> of vaginal secretions, greater likelihood of premature ejaculation, shorter >> duration of intercourse, fewer vaginal orgasms, fewer multiple orgasms, and >> more negative emotions during sex with circumcised men than with men who had >> their foreskins intact. "Circumcision profoundly alters the sexual experience >> of the female partner in a negative fashion," researcher Kristen >> O’Hara concluded with typical British understatement. (See the British >> Journal >> of Urology, 83, 1999.) >> –From Mothering Magazine March/April 1999 >Ellen’s husband is a faggot. >Why would she care about this article? >Maryanne >…scratching her head in confusion. >Don’t you know nothing, as they say? >It’s about ellen’s penis, not her husband’s. >In 1967 ellen met with a jewish mohel in some backstreet alley in Brooklyn. She >was looking to buy a real penis, having tried the strap-on variety like sheryl >has and finding that they just don’t work as well as the real thing. This mohel >had just accidentally amputated a penis during a bris and was looking to unload >it clandestinely, so he sold it to ellen on the black market for $7.50 and a >bottle of Manischewitz. >Problem is, now when ellen travels to Britain (and the rest of Europe) none of >the women there let her penetrate them because ellen’s circumcised >penis…well…it just rubs them the wrong way. >(Re-read the article above to see why.) >This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. >The original sender is unlogged. The address shown in the From header, if any, >is unverified and maybe wrong. - Widow Anonymous Remailer –
Response:
>> Could someone tell me what this particular thread has to do with air > travel? >We seem to attract all sorts of weirdos. And folks though *I* was weird… I >think this latest case takes the cake. >I am starting to think that we should all move to some homosexual newsgroup >and hold our discussions about air travel there while the homosexuals hold >their discussions in rec.travel.air.
As far as I can tell, most of the homosexuals, like most of the heterosexuals, *are* discussing air travel here. People with an obsession with homosexuals (interestingly enough, this can be a characteristic of schizophrenia), however, are posting about their obsession with homosexuals. People with an obsession with individuals (the objections of such obsession, interestingly enough, often women or gay men) are posting about their obsession with individuals. While this kind of crossposting chain-yanking is rampant on much of Usenet these days, r.t.a’s has a particular flavor that makes me think that an ideal solution would be to retromoderate any crosspost to more than two groups into a new group, rec.travel.air.idee-fixe. In the meantime, however, it seems silly to feed the trolls and then wonder why they don’t go away. Deborah Stevenson
Response:
> Could someone tell me what this particular thread has to do with air > travel?
We seem to attract all sorts of weirdos. And folks though *I* was weird… I think this latest case takes the cake. I am starting to think that we should all move to some homosexual newsgroup and hold our discussions about air travel there while the homosexuals hold their discussions in rec.travel.air. I can just see it in 5 years: there will be a directory of newsgroup equivalences: for rec.travel.air, go to alt.sex.bondage.hamsters.ducttape for alt.sex.bondage.hamsters.ducctape go to alt.discussions.rush.limbaugh for alt.dicussions.rush.limbaugh go to alt.parenting.issues All this because a single invividal was so persistant in cross-posting to the wrong newsgroups that the whole world had to adopt a strategy to confuse the hell out of him so his cross-posting would result in him posting to the right groups.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> :G’day… > snip > MAn, are you ill informed. In the USA, 60%+ of infants are > circumcised. > No, I beg to differ – less than one third are circumcised at birth. It > appears you are ill informed. And before you ask for the citation, do > the math:)
The declared national rate for RIC is apx. 60%. why not do YOUR math.
Response:
G’day… > Although I am in favor of leaving the infant penis intact, I must say that > such a study as sited above is probably slanted because these women are > *used to* intact men. If you were to do the exact same study in America,
Err… What makes you think the trends in the practice of circumcision is different in Britian and the UK as it is in the USA? Things are fairly equal from the UK, to USA to Australia… All the best… Michael.
Response:
> :G’day…
snip > MAn, are you ill informed. In the USA, 60%+ of infants are
circumcised. No, I beg to differ – less than one third are circumcised at birth. It appears you are ill informed. And before you ask for the citation, do the math:) amp Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Am I logged onto the wrong ng?!?
Response:
>Am I logged onto the wrong ng?!?
No, I think rta has just been blessed with a larger-than-normal kook influx this month. :-) — Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4! The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Response:
Could someone tell me what this particular thread has to do with air travel? Maryanne …scratching her head in confusion.
Response:
Maryanne asked: [snip] what does this thread have to do with air travel? [unsnip] Well.. apparently nothing, and everything. Somehow the rec.travel.air ng is getting crossposts from the alt.circumcision ng. It’s annoying but occasionally amusing. Incidentally, the circumcision rate for American born males is dropping dramatically. Most informed doctors and parents (keyword: INFORMED) have begun to realize it is a needless procedure which causes great trauma for the newborn boy. And I didn’t bother to read all the statistics on this string of posts, but 85% of the world’s males are uncircumcised. As with many other things, the US is late in waking up to this and joining the rest of the world. But I am rambling and this is neither here nor there — I am Hispanic, was born outside the US, live here now, so I’ll let that speak for itself. =Tristan "Go ahead… send me flaming email… I’ll just post it here for EVERYONE to enjoy."
Response:
> Hence another reason to find an American woman. > LOL > Michael
Yes, with the English women you have to worry about lovely teeth. Rich
Response:
:G’day… : Hi :> Although I am in favor of leaving the infant penis intact, I must say that :> such a study as sited above is probably slanted because these women are :> *used to* intact men. If you were to do the exact same study in America, : :Err… What makes you think the trends in the practice of circumcision :is different in Britian and the UK as it is in the USA? MAn, are you ill informed. In the USA, 60%+ of infants are circumcised. And this study was conducted on grown women. Most grown women in the USA have only known circumcised men, since back in the 40’s-50’s-60’s the circ rate was almost 100%. BUT, in the UK the circ rate is extremely LOW, and has been for many decades, and most UK women have only known intact men, since the circ rate back when was very low. : :Things are fairly equal from the UK, to USA to Australia… Not with circumcision. We in the USA are still far behind you… Norma : :All the best… : :Michael.
Response:
Hence another reason to find an American woman. LOL Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Not Tonight, Dear, You Have No Foreskin > Women in Britain overwhelmingly prefer sex with a partner who has an > anatomically complete penis, according to a recent survey of 138 English women > who had had intercourse with both intact and circumcised partners.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Not Tonight, Dear, You Have No Foreskin > Women in Britain overwhelmingly prefer sex with a partner who has an > anatomically complete penis, according to a recent survey of 138 English women > who had had intercourse with both intact and circumcised partners. > The women involved reported noticeably more vaginal discomfort, increased loss > of vaginal secretions, greater likelihood of premature ejaculation, shorter > duration of intercourse, fewer vaginal orgasms, fewer multiple orgasms, and > more negative emotions during sex with circumcised men than with men who had > their foreskins intact. "Circumcision profoundly alters the sexual experience > of the female partner in a negative fashion," researcher Kristen > O’Hara concluded with typical British understatement. (See the British > Journal > of Urology, 83, 1999.) > –From Mothering Magazine March/April 1999
Go ahead, ask me if I care if British women have vaginal orgasms or not. There is nothing further from my mind than British women sexual satisfaction.
Response:
:Not Tonight, Dear, You Have No Foreskin : :Women in Britain overwhelmingly prefer sex with a partner who has an :anatomically complete penis, according to a recent survey of 138 English women :who had had intercourse with both intact and circumcised partners. : :The women involved reported noticeably more vaginal discomfort, increased loss 
f vaginal secretions, greater likelihood of premature ejaculation, shorter :duration of intercourse, fewer vaginal orgasms, fewer multiple orgasms, and :more negative emotions during sex with circumcised men than with men who had :their foreskins intact. "Circumcision profoundly alters the sexual experience f the female partner in a negative fashion," researcher Kristen :O’Hara concluded with typical British understatement. (See the British Journal f Urology, 83, 1999.) : :–From Mothering Magazine March/April 1999 Although I am in favor of leaving the infant penis intact, I must say that such a study as sited above is probably slanted because these women are *used to* intact men. If you were to do the exact same study in America, you would likely find the exact opposite in results. Sex is 95% mental. Foreskin or not, it much more matters the sensativity and feelings involved in the manners and mind of the participants, rather than the tools used. Which is also why it is possible for a 9" man to be an awful lover, leaving his partners highly dissatisfied, but a 4" man the opposite. Norma
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.