where does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle get it's information to initiate the erection?

"Leonard Evens" <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:BvqdnQZmOJxs1BDYnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> Certainly US education has some severe problems. But keep in mind that
> quality varies significantly depending on where you are. It is mostly
> education in inner cities and rural areas where problems exist. Suburban
> schools actually do pretty well.

Ten years ago, I might have agreed. But, now? Nowhere, except in parochial
and private schools do they "do pretty well." Again, I have very close
experience with innercity, suburban, and rural schools and other than ones
selected for the exceptional students, none do "pretty well." All are just
barely keeping their head above water as the tide is forcasted to rise.


> My children received first rate educations in public schools in Evanston.
> Indeed, my son felt there was a drop in overall the quality of his courses
> when he went from AP classes in high school to classes at a prestigious
> private college.

Yes, AP classes.

> My grandchildren are receiving first rate educations in their schools.
> Even in the Chicago public schools, where I have two grandchildren,
> pockets of excellence exist.

Well, I guess then we agree. Pockets do not a garment make.

> With respect to science education, you are likely to do worse if you put
> them in a so-called "Christian" school which insists on teaching science
> from a fundamentalist religious point of view.

Do you really think that Christians cannot comprehend the difference between
mitosis and miosis because they believe killing babies is bad? Or that they
cannot comprehend the fascinations of the periodic elements and molecular
design because they are taught that the Big Bang was caused? My God,
Leonard, how deep does your fundamentalist anti-religion run?

> Many of the basic problems with US public education trace back to the
> family circumstances of the children.

Agree.

> Others relate to large class sizes and the facts that many teachers are
> not qualified to teach the subjects they teach.

Disagree. I don't think I had a class size of less than 40 from Grades 1
through 12. Those few that fell through the cracks (i.e., got put into
public schools) did so because of the family circumstance more than any
other factor.

> In my own subject, mathematics, I can assure you that having a qualified
> teacher who understands mathematics teach students using "new math" ideas,
> much under attack these days, is going to do a better job an incompetent
> teacher who doesn't understand math using "back to basics" methods. Any
> teacher is going to do better with problem students if the class size is
> limited since the teacher can spend more time with each student.

Yes, and 1 on 1 is best of all. No! three or four on one!

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:458d521b$0$4870$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:kq0jh.63$N45.4@newsfe03.lga...
>>
>> Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend.
>
> Sure they can! If I said, "your mother is a no-tooth, dirty-ankle,
> hillbilly whore", would that offend you? No! And, for the very reason
> that it is not a fact. You would chalk it up to me being an ignorant
> troll. However, if your mother grew up in Eastern Kentucky, never brushed
> her teeth let alone go to a dentist, bathed less than the passing
> solstices and kept a list of every man she's screwed in a 3-ring binder
> and my name was listed 36 times, you'd be quite offended.
>
> There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other classification
> about which there are no negative aspects that, if mentioned, would not
> offend someone. That is why we should really keep our comments to
> prostate cancer or Nigerian goat herders.

Steve, agree with everything here---except the Nigerian goat herders. There
has to be a Usenet group for them. You and IP can take your issues about
Nigerian goat herding *there*! ;-)

doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely" wrote
> why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as
>> part of her plan?

> No reason she couldn't have. But since it's just as easy to posit
> that the supreme being is a large rabbit and just as unprovable,
> what's the point in "believing" in any supreme being that is
> unknowable and unprovable?

EVEN IF there is no supreme being, believers' belief and their
religion's structure and guidance is extremely important and useful in
their lives.

Why not just believe in what "is" and
> honor humanity because it's the right thing to do? Or do you need
> someone (such as a spokesman for a supreme being) to tell you what the
> right thing to do is?

Apparently millions, from Britney Spears to Rosie O'Donnel to OBL to yer
average gang banger, COULD use some external guidance, as they're all
screwed up. Many university professors now teach moral relativism, in
which each person is allowed to write his/her own 10 commandments,
bible, Tora, golden rule, Qoran, etc.

Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to behave.

I.P.

Claude wrote:

> IP, I'm not going to debate this with you, not because I think you're right,
> but because it's inappropriate for this forum. That's my main point.

I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of
the OT posters rather than just at me. I must assume your complaints
aimed only at me are personal, and not about OT posting in general, else
you'd address your complaints to them as well. After all, I am one of
very few who try to mark these diverted threads as OT.

> There are people in
> this forum who love your statements about societal and political issues
> because they agree with them.

While it's nice to have facts or opinions vetted, it's more educational
to have them refuted, with support. Most of need to be PERSUADED, not
merely INFORMED, that we're wrong about facts.

> There are others, like myself, who believe
> you are as wrong as you believe you are right

You'll notice that most of my political or societal statements are not
"beliefs" but instead are facts based on hard news, corrections of
others' untrue statements about those facts, or at least
counterarguments to opinions I'm no longer willing to let go
unchallenged because they relate to people our age even if not related
to cancer.

> We find your statements about societal and
> political issues very irritating, especially because of the aggressive way
> you present them.
> I personally wonder why you continually bring them, and
> frequently angrily, into a forum

Facts are not irritating or aggressive or angry. They are facts. I can't
keep others from anthropomorphizing them. Do you wonder why others bring
them here?

> There are thousands of Usenet forums where you can
> debate these issues. Why here?

1. Why not ask that question of those who introduce them to the forum?
2. I often ignore them, but
3. As they escalate in importance, I am less willing to ignore them. I'm
getting sick and tired of socialists gaining control in this nation
partly because THEIR increasing emphasis on PC lets them go increasingly
unchallenged.
4. One can't rationally debate anything in those forums because
discussions there turn to ad hominem within 2 or 3 iterations. We have
only a very short list of people here who resort to ad hominem the
minute rational, factual discourse fails them.
5. You may also notice that many of my OT responses are answers to
questions directed to me by name, and that
6. I ignore or parry some of even those in an attempt to stay relevant.

> Now, I know, you will say, "I didnt start it.", and you are correct. But
> the choice to continue it or to escalate it was yours.

That's like blaming a fight on the guy who swung second, or saying "Bush
stole the election", when in fact all Bush did was legally parry Gore's
repeated attempts to steal it. While it's admirable for the swingee to
walk away, I don't believe he's under any OBLIGATION to do so; I think
-- and that's highly debatable and situational -- it's his call as to
the relevance of the issue. Certainly socialized medicine is more
relevant to us than is basketball, but what the heck should I care if
some friends want to "chew the hoop" in a cancer forum for a while? (And
did you criticize them for that?)

> I have a degree in biology as well as a theological degree. I was tempted
> at many points to jump into
> this thread, because I have strong and informed opinions about many of these
> issues. But I didnt. I couldnt see much purpose in this discussion in a
> forum meant to provide support for cancer sufferers. I'm a prostate cancer
> victim. That's why I'm here. That's why most of us are here.

Thus I'd think your participation would be highly relevant to a group of
people attacked by biology and trying to escape it by any means of
SUPPORT possible, including technology, supplements, and/or divine
assistance.

AS I promise once before, I will try to do better. But I will not
refrain from stating facts just because some people can't handle them
(RT has SEs and Strum isn't as highly regarded as Scardino; get over
it), nor will I ignore every attempt to shove socialism, especially
socialized medicine, down our throats. And just ask Steve Kramer how
relevant a belief in a supreme being is to his cancer.

I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> it's nice to have somewhere to go; even if when
> you get there you find it wasn't really there.

Better yet, if it really isn't there after all, it was the thought that
counted, literally. Believers can't lose.

I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:kq0jh.63$N45.4@newsfe03.lga...
>> Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend.
>
> Sure they can! If I said, "your mother is a no-tooth, dirty-ankle,
> hillbilly whore", would that offend you? No! And, for the very reason that
> it is not a fact. You would chalk it up to me being an ignorant troll.
> However, if your mother grew up in Eastern Kentucky, never brushed her teeth
> let alone go to a dentist, bathed less than the passing solstices and kept a
> list of every man she's screwed in a 3-ring binder and my name was listed 36
> times, you'd be quite offended.

Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people
in many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who
incorrectly thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any
of it. IT'S THEIR OPINION, and they're entitled to it as long as they
have a specific basis for it. If someone says my wife is fat, I can't
deny it; they'd just better not say it to her face unless they're her
doctor.

>
> There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other classification
> about which there are no negative aspects that, if mentioned, would not
> offend someone.

Negative in whose eyes? I'm proud of my southern accent, and Bush's
"newkular" is no worse than Teddy Kennedy's "Cuber". A liberal should be
as proud of that label as a conservative should be of his, if they fit.
If a person resents an accurate assessment of his chosen group, maybe he
needs to rethink his association with or support of that group.

That is why we should really keep our comments to prostate
> cancer or Nigerian goat herders.

I hear you, but isn't socialized medicine, or religion as a cancer pt
support function, a skosh more relevant than goat herders?

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:KSijh.421$Cy1.419@newsfe02.lga...
> Claude wrote:
>
>> IP, I'm not going to debate this with you, not because I think you're
>> right, but because it's inappropriate for this forum. That's my main
>> point.
>
> I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of
> the OT posters rather than just at me. I must assume your complaints aimed
> only at me are personal, and not about OT posting in general, else you'd
> address your complaints to them as well. After all, I am one of very few
> who try to mark these diverted threads as OT.
>
>> There are people in this forum who love your statements about societal
>> and political issues because they agree with them.
>
> While it's nice to have facts or opinions vetted, it's more educational to
> have them refuted, with support. Most of need to be PERSUADED, not merely
> INFORMED, that we're wrong about facts.
>
>> There are others, like myself, who believe you are as wrong as you
>> believe you are right
>
> You'll notice that most of my political or societal statements are not
> "beliefs" but instead are facts based on hard news, corrections of others'
> untrue statements about those facts, or at least counterarguments to
> opinions I'm no longer willing to let go unchallenged because they relate
> to people our age even if not related to cancer.
>
>> We find your statements about societal and
>> political issues very irritating, especially because of the aggressive
>> way you present them. I personally wonder why you continually bring them,
>> and
> > frequently angrily, into a forum
>
> Facts are not irritating or aggressive or angry. They are facts. I can't
> keep others from anthropomorphizing them. Do you wonder why others bring
> them here?
>
>> There are thousands of Usenet forums where you can debate these issues.
>> Why here?
>
> 1. Why not ask that question of those who introduce them to the forum?
> 2. I often ignore them, but
> 3. As they escalate in importance, I am less willing to ignore them. I'm
> getting sick and tired of socialists gaining control in this nation partly
> because THEIR increasing emphasis on PC lets them go increasingly
> unchallenged.
> 4. One can't rationally debate anything in those forums because
> discussions there turn to ad hominem within 2 or 3 iterations. We have
> only a very short list of people here who resort to ad hominem the minute
> rational, factual discourse fails them.
> 5. You may also notice that many of my OT responses are answers to
> questions directed to me by name, and that
> 6. I ignore or parry some of even those in an attempt to stay relevant.
>
>> Now, I know, you will say, "I didnt start it.", and you are correct. But
>> the choice to continue it or to escalate it was yours.
>
> That's like blaming a fight on the guy who swung second, or saying "Bush
> stole the election", when in fact all Bush did was legally parry Gore's
> repeated attempts to steal it. While it's admirable for the swingee to
> walk away, I don't believe he's under any OBLIGATION to do so; I think --
> and that's highly debatable and situational -- it's his call as to the
> relevance of the issue. Certainly socialized medicine is more relevant to
> us than is basketball, but what the heck should I care if some friends
> want to "chew the hoop" in a cancer forum for a while? (And did you
> criticize them for that?)
>
>> I have a degree in biology as well as a theological degree. I was
>> tempted at many points to jump into
>> this thread, because I have strong and informed opinions about many of
>> these issues. But I didnt. I couldnt see much purpose in this
>> discussion in a forum meant to provide support for cancer sufferers. I'm
>> a prostate cancer victim. That's why I'm here. That's why most of us
>> are here.
>
> Thus I'd think your participation would be highly relevant to a group of
> people attacked by biology and trying to escape it by any means of SUPPORT
> possible, including technology, supplements, and/or divine assistance.
>
> AS I promise once before, I will try to do better. But I will not refrain
> from stating facts just because some people can't handle them (RT has SEs
> and Strum isn't as highly regarded as Scardino; get over it), nor will I
> ignore every attempt to shove socialism, especially socialized medicine,
> down our throats. And just ask Steve Kramer how relevant a belief in a
> supreme being is to his cancer.
>
> I.P.

I give up. If this continues, I'm going to have to stop reading you. And
I'm sorry about that because you do have some helpful things to say about
prostate cancer. However, right now the negatives outweigh the positives.

Hello all,

I lost my internal battle to stay out of this so here goes. (If you
skip the intro read the article below. It is more interesting.)

>>An example of someone who believes that is Francis Collins, who was in charge of the >>US human genome mapping project, and there are a few other qualified scientists with >>the same philosophy.

People like Collins (and there are more than a few) prove that a belief
in religious faith and science can and does coexist. It does a
disservice to everybody when scientists like Richard Dawkins and others
write about religion or other nonmaterialistic phenomena in a sneering
tone (they are the "secular dogmatists", see below). Religion has been
around forever and persists because it is (often) useful to the
individual and to the society as a whole. We hear about religion only
when a fanatic blows himself up, not when a person delivers a pie to a
sick neighbor. The latter happens a lot more often, it just doesn't
make it to the front page.

And in spite of myself sticking up for the group everybody loves to
hate: It was GWB's "evangelical base" that supposedly pressured him
into allocating $5 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, a threefold
increase (some of it, incidentally, allocated toward condom
distribution). According to an article in the NYT this week, this
increased expenditure is projected to save 9 million lives.

Also, more and more evangelicals are starting to "go green" (see Faith
Under Fire w/Bill Moyers). And finally, according to several studies,
religious fundamentalists give more charity per person than any other
group. Forex, if you live in Mississippi (a state both very religious
and very poor) you are likely to give a higher proportion of your
income to charity than a person residing in any other state. This is
because many fundamentalists "tithe" their earnings.

Last but not least: religious fundamentalists have been active in many
good causes from abolishing slavery to the modern Civil Rights
movement.

The main thing for religious people to learn is not to forcibly impose
their beliefs on others. Or try to trounce science when it comes to
explaining things that can best be explained according to the
scientific method.

It is also true that religion and science are interesecting in strange,
new ways. For example, certain ancient "spiritual" practices have
recently been validated by science, of all things. An article in the
New York Times, Science section about 2 mos. ago described how
"speaking in tongues", an "ecstatic" religious practice that has been
around since the days of the Old Testament, was shown to have a
neuroscientific basis.

Practitioners of the above claim to be passive vessels receiving god's
word; they say that words and incantations "flow" thru their bodies
without their making any conscious effort.

Interestingly, functional brain scans of some "tongue speakers" in
action showed that the parts of their brain that control willful
behavior and language were relatively inactive at the time, supporting
the practitioners' claims that they were not engaging in purposeful
behavior.

Also, a study of a group of 1,000 evangelicals in England who practice
this form of religious "ecstasy" showed that they, on average, were
healthier mentally than others in the population as a whole.

I believe as scientists come to learn more about consciousness religion
and science will draw closer even if the twain will ever meet. In the
meantime, religious folks should render unto science that which belongs
to science, like explanations of natural phenomena.

This appeared in the NYT the other day and I thought it was topical.

Leah


Op-Ed Contributor
The Devoted Student

By MARK C. TAYLOR
Published: December 21, 2006

MORE college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of
religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.

At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to
reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of
"political correctness." But, in truth, something else is
occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each
other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political
correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the
less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.

The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years
ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching
called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked
his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's
analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator
insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)

My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or
worse by including "unacceptable" books on their syllabuses or by
studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by
religiously correct students.

Distinguished scholars at several major universities in the United
States have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for
proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological
interpretations of religious texts in their classes and published
writings. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist
that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious
tradition.

At a time when colleges and universities engage in huge capital
campaigns and are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can
no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that
urgently need to be asked.

For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are
not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were
at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously
correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their
faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of
emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls
into question every certainty.

Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion in the 21st
century must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear
distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second,
an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold
roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass
judgment on religious beliefs and practices - though some secular
dogmatists wrongly cross that line - but to examine the conditions
necessary for their formation and to consider the many functions they
serve.

It is also important to explore the similarities and differences
between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed
and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which
evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to
appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious
traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different
traditions often share more with one another than they do with many
members of their own tradition.

If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they
might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an
era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is
an important lesson to learn - one that extends well beyond the
academy.

Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it
is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As
defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs,
they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide
answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for
life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.

Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a
vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as
people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have
not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by
religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago.
Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief
and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt
and those who do not.

The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue
within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious
fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will
probably be even more deadly.

Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams
College, is the author of "Mystic Bones."

Claude wrote:
>
> I give up. If this continues, I'm going to have to stop reading you. And
> I'm sorry about that because you do have some helpful things to say about
> prostate cancer. However, right now the negatives outweigh the positives.

Lincoln said it best, if one changes just one word: "You can please all
of the people some of the time, . . . "

You COULD, you know, just stop reading posts or threads you don't like,
as many people do. I'm sorry if my beliefs offend you, Claude, but I
can't and won't promise to think and/or behave exactly as you would
like, especially since you're even more intolerant of my beliefs than of
my willingness to express them, as demonstrated by the fact that you
don't hold all OT posters to the same standard. I will not change my
BEHAVIOR just because others are intolerant of my BELIEFS; that goes
against everything this nation was founded on.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:5bjjh.424$Cy1.419@newsfe02.lga...

> Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people in
> many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who incorrectly
> thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any of it.

You make half my point. Being lied to and being punched for something you
didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to
offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that.

>> There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other
>> classification about which there are no negative aspects that, if
>> mentioned, would not offend someone.
>
> Negative in whose eyes? I'm proud of my southern accent, and Bush's
> "newkular" is no worse than Teddy Kennedy's "Cuber". A liberal should be
> as proud of that label as a conservative should be of his, if they fit. If
> a person resents an accurate assessment of his chosen group, maybe he
> needs to rethink his association with or support of that group.

I said certain "aspects" of those general labels of which you speak. And I
did not identify a southern accent as one of them. And I identify with
Eastern Kentucky a hell of a lot more than I do Massachusetts. I'm sorry if
I offended you.


>> That is why we should really keep our comments to prostate
>> cancer or Nigerian goat herders.
>
> I hear you, but isn't socialized medicine, or religion as a cancer pt
> support function, a skosh more relevant than goat herders?

I tend to see things more in black and white than hues of gray, but in the
gray world, yes, socialized medicine does come closer than goat herding
(though we were talking about public schools). Religion? I think that is
dead on topic for a support group of terminal patients, but there are some
threatened by it, so I try to avoid it (albeit unsuccessfully sometimes).


--
PSA 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, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"JerryW" <jerryw@seemysig.net> wrote in message
news:_mcjh.6117$yC5.1954@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t...
> "Leonard Evens" wrote
>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>>> Claude wrote:
>>>> "I.P. Freely" wrote
>>>>> rosbif wrote:
>>>>
> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip>
>
> gary, you should be ashamed...starting a thread like this. Imagine! Asking
> about erectile nerves and nerve bundles in a forum like this!

Point taken! I'm done.


--
PSA 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, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:49:16 -0500, "Steve Kramer"
<skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:

>I think you missed my point.

Funny that - I think you missed mine, but 'missing the point' is the
life-blood of usenet.

> Darn shame too, because I thought it rather clever.

Ahh, that explains a lot.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>But are evolution and divine creation at odds?

Yes, completely. Evolution is a magnum opus, divine creation its
peevish under-educated critic, a fault finding heckler looking ONLY
for the chinks. I've been left floored so many times after hearing a
militant creationist explain how a great scientific work, the very act
of its discovery, was potentiated by divine creation itself.

>To me they co-exist,

Only in the obvious sense of occupying the same time-frame. In what
sense are they complimentary or mutually supportive?

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:26:58 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of
>the OT posters rather than just at me.

I think you began the drift from the erectile stuff to evolution.

...check the evolution of the thread....

JerryW wrote:
> "Leonard Evens" wrote
> > I.P. Freely wrote:
> >> Claude wrote:
> >>> "I.P. Freely" wrote
> >>>> rosbif wrote:
> >>>
> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip>
>
> gary, you should be ashamed...starting a thread like this. Imagine! Asking
> about erectile nerves and nerve bundles in a forum like this!

Now THAT is funny.

<hand motion of plane spiraling out of control>

It's amazing to watch thread drift, especially when there are so many
subjects that are on-topic for this group.

Here are some on-topic comments.

Anyone have radiation and experience burning and stinging while peeing
at the 2 year mark??? It normal in the first 6 months, then usually
fades away. This started up again for me at 18 months and is still
happening at 26 months.

In the same time period, I've been passing, more like leaking a tiny
amount of blood. After I pee in the morning, I'll see a very light
pink in the water. Sometimes I can dab my tip with toilet paper and
see a drop of pink. It's never red. A few times I've seen a tiny
bloodclot in the water.

How much semen do you rad-types produce? Does it keep "coming"? I
produce about a third of a teaspoon, that is, if I save it up for a
week. It almost feels normal now but this is over 2 years after
seeding. There is still no "force". It dribbles or oozes out after
orgasm.

How's your libido? Mine is still the pits. I'm surrounded by gorgeous
women on a regular basis but seeing them, thinking about them, doesn't
cause even the slightest twitch.

What does work is dredging up those weird stories from my younger days,
thinking about them while, er, performing current activity. Best I
can figure, it takes a extra stimulation to get the motor running.

This is a big improvement from 2 years ago while on Lupron. At that
time, there was nothing.

With a vivid fantasy/story in mind, a lot of caring, touching, and
stroking, I can get up to the 80 or 90% level without Vitamin-V. It's
better with a crumb or two but I don't need it.

The other side of the problem is that if I'm going full speed, maybe
thinking about that first time 40 years ago in the backseat of the old
chevy, it's like, "oh no, oh no, oh no, Dang, that wasn't very long."

It's like there's a fine balance between enough mental and physical
stimulation to get the love-rod hard and so much that it pops off. I
used to be good for 20 or 30 minutes of vigorous thrusting, enough for
her to have a couple satisfying orgasms. It's not like that now.

I never had a problem with achieving an erection or premature
ejaculation. (Well, I can think of 3 or 4 times in 40 years when I
wasn't "up to it".) Now I wonder every time whether I'll get going
and for how long.

I used to love lavishing "care" on a woman without worrying about my
erection. It was fun to bring her to orgasm or just to that point
where her eyes are wild, her breathing is heavy, her body is ready, and
at that moment, confidently slide slowly in. I don't have that
confidence now. I miss that. I miss her being at "that point" and
then taking both of us to the next level of pleasure.

Other side effects. I don't have the strength and stamina that I used
to. Simple things like walking, yardwork, taking the laundry, trash,
and groceries up and down the stairs, exhausts me. If you can't do the
laundry or take out the trash, how can you give a woman pleasure? You
don't have the stamina. Anyone else notice an overall weakness?

My joints hurt. I blame the Lupron for that. I think the Lupron has
weakened my bones.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty certain my side effects are on good
side, much better than average.

But the devil is in the details. How are you doing?

-kh

rosbif wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:26:58 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
> <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:
>
>> I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of
>> the OT posters rather than just at me.
>
> I think you began the drift from the erectile stuff to evolution.
>
> ..check the evolution of the thread....

I did, and see your point from a technical, literal point. However, I
used the word to emphasize the complexity of our physiology, including
the erectile system Gary wants to analyze, not to bring religion into
this discussion. Are we to eradicate the word "evolution" from public
discourse just because some people deny it? If so, this list ought to
bring USENET to its knees:
Holocaust.
Christmas.
Women's rights.
Radical Islam.
Reasonable liberals.
Reasonable conservatives.
Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies.

I.P.

gary wrote:
> the pump seems ...
> sucks the blood into the penis without relaxing the muscles. relaxing
> the muscles might be an important step in the recovery process since it
> is a rehab process, like what is used when we rehab muscles in the gym.
> it gets the those muscles working again.

Muscles are made stronger only by contracting them until they tear
microscopically, then letting them heal for two to four days. Relaxing
them does nothing in the short term, quickly atrophies them in the "mid"
term.

I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:5bjjh.424$Cy1.419@newsfe02.lga...
>
>> Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people in
>> many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who incorrectly
>> thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any of it.
>
> You make half my point. Being lied to

Not "to" . . . ABOUT. As in attacked personally without factual basis,
as one person repeatedly does in this forum. If it comes from a credible
source without proof, I AM offended by it; if the source loses or had no
credibility, the attack is irrelevant, without substance, and thus not
offensive. In fact its only impact then is on the source.

> and being punched for something you
> didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to
> offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that.

You're welcome to try. I don't offend easily for several reasons, including:
Thick skin.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions.
If those opinions are wrong, ain't my problem 'cause they mean nothing.
If these opinions are right, what right do I have to take offense at
them? (Maybe at how they're PUT or any DISPERSIONS attached to them, but
not to the basic FACT being stated.)
Better yet, I may become a better person if the criticism is accurate,
recognized as such, and involves something I'm willing to change. Being
offended is a small price to pay for improving one's self.
Yer mudder wears combat boots, so we're even.

> Religion? I think that is
> dead on topic for a support group of terminal patients, but there are some
> threatened by it, so I try to avoid it (albeit unsuccessfully sometimes).

Some people here are also threatened by the fact that various cancer
treatments have various likelihoods of various side effects. I say tango
sierra and discuss them anyway, because to conceal those SEs from pts
considering treatments leads them into far worse places than "being
offended". I.e., should I offend Sam, or save Bill's life? DUH!

Similarly, anyone offended by someone else's religious beliefs needs to
get a damned life. It's none of my business what idol or god you worship
or do not worship; it becomes my business only if it drives your actions
past the point my nose begins. When my Catholic neighbor says all
non-Catholics are going to hell, that shouldn't offend non-Catholics; it
merely makes my neighbor look stupid.

I.P.

rosbif wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
> <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:
>
>> But are evolution and divine creation at odds?
>> To me they co-exist,
>
> Only in the obvious sense of occupying the same time-frame. In what
> sense are they complimentary or mutually supportive?

Couldn't God or Allah or Bhudda or, what the hell, BEELZEBUB, have
designed and initiated evolution? I.e., "Here ya go, world; here's some
ooze, maybe a few snails, maybe even a hairy thing with sperm. Now go
forth and evolve." Does ANYONE really believe Adam wore Dockers?

I.P.

kh wrote:
> Anyone have radiation and experience burning and stinging while peeing
> at the 2 year mark??? It normal in the first 6 months, then usually
> fades away. This started up again for me at 18 months and is still
> happening at 26 months.
> In the same time period, I've been passing, more like leaking a tiny
> amount of blood. After I pee in the morning, I'll see a very light
> pink in the water. Sometimes I can dab my tip with toilet paper and
> see a drop of pink. It's never red. A few times I've seen a tiny
> bloodclot in the water.

RT SEs of several types can surface months to years to even a decade
after treatment.

Hope that doesn't offend you. ;-)

> How much semen do you rad-types produce? Does it keep "coming"? I
> produce about a third of a teaspoon, that is, if I save it up for a
> week.

*B*L*E*C*H*!
You *S*A*V*E* that stuff?
That's pretty sic . . .
Oh. I get it. Never mind. ;-)

> How's your libido? Mine is still the pits. I'm surrounded by gorgeous
> women on a regular basis but seeing them, thinking about them, doesn't
> cause even the slightest twitch.

That's the ADT; pretty standard stuff there. It usually goes away after
ADT stops, but by no means do we always regain interest.

> if I'm going full speed, maybe
> thinking about that first time 40 years ago in the backseat of the old
> chevy

> Now I wonder every time whether I'll get going
> and for how long.

Have you considered buying another Chevy?

> I don't have the strength and stamina that I used
> to. Simple things like walking, yardwork, taking the laundry, trash,
> and groceries up and down the stairs, exhausts me. If you can't do the
> laundry or take out the trash, how can you give a woman pleasure? You
> don't have the stamina. Anyone else notice an overall weakness?

That's the whole point of castration, chemical or surgical. That it also
slows the progress of prostate cancer is almost a side effect.

> My joints hurt. I blame the Lupron for that. I think the Lupron has
> weakened my bones.

None of this is the least bit unexpected with ADT.

I.P.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:28:22 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely" wrote
>> why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as
>>> part of her plan?
>
>> No reason she couldn't have. But since it's just as easy to posit
>> that the supreme being is a large rabbit and just as unprovable,
>> what's the point in "believing" in any supreme being that is
>> unknowable and unprovable?
>
>EVEN IF there is no supreme being, believers' belief and their
>religion's structure and guidance is extremely important and useful in
>their lives.
>
>Why not just believe in what "is" and
>> honor humanity because it's the right thing to do? Or do you need
>> someone (such as a spokesman for a supreme being) to tell you what the
>> right thing to do is?
>
>Apparently millions, from Britney Spears to Rosie O'Donnel to OBL to yer
>average gang banger, COULD use some external guidance, as they're all
>screwed up. Many university professors now teach moral relativism, in
>which each person is allowed to write his/her own 10 commandments,
>bible, Tora, golden rule, Qoran, etc.
>

I see just as many "religious leaders" teach moral relativism. They
don't call it that but they call for and support war, death, and
destruction while claiming to honor a man of Peace.

>Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to behave.
>

The ones who need it will almost always claim to believe in God. And
you didn't answer the question.. Do YOU need a spokesman for the
almighty to tell you right from wrong?

>I.P.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:36:47 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>rosbif wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
>> <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:
>>
>>> But are evolution and divine creation at odds?
>>> To me they co-exist,
>>
>> Only in the obvious sense of occupying the same time-frame. In what
>> sense are they complimentary or mutually supportive?
>
>Couldn't God or Allah or Bhudda or, what the hell, BEELZEBUB, have
>designed and initiated evolution? I.e., "Here ya go, world; here's some
>ooze, maybe a few snails, maybe even a hairy thing with sperm. Now go
>forth and evolve." Does ANYONE really believe Adam wore Dockers?
>
>I.P.

Well, as long as the subject is "what COULD god have done"... Couldn't
god have done whatever he wanted to do and then willed himself out of
existence?

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:96Djh.2126$WD1.1139@newsfe03.lga...

>> didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to
>> offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that.
>
> You're welcome to try.

Nope. It's not in my nature. Besides, your posts so overwhelming defends
my point, I wonder if I misunderstood your object to it.

I think this thread is ended. Go in peace.



--
PSA 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, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
newssCjh.2115$WD1.365@newsfe03.lga...
> rosbif wrote:

> Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies.

This would be easy. There are none.

doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com wrote:
> I.P. wrote
>> Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to
behave.
>>
>
> The ones who need it will almost always claim to believe in God. And
> you didn't answer the question.. Do YOU need a spokesman for the
> almighty to tell you right from wrong?

Didn't mean to dodge the question; thought I was answering it. Me,
personally? Not any longer, but my values evolved from exposure to
church, to highly moral parents (before drinking ruined my dad's life),
to peers and a community with strong deep South moral values (the worst
activity I ever saw or heard in grades 1-12 was a few spitballs being
thrown; no one swore or drank in public, in school, or at private
parties), and to a cadre of very good school teachers. Uptight
bible-thumpers? No. Just a lot of well-behaved people who learned right
from wrong from church and/or osmosis therefrom (is that a word?) Then
came exposure to the young people of the modern military, which cemented
it all together. In a word, DoctorLaura.

OTOH, you and I have both seen what happens when people stray too far
from religious precepts: cheating in school and life, Enron, deciding
oral sex isn't sex, wondering what "is" is, a 70% out-of-wedlock
birthrate in a major U.S. ethnic group, crime from child rape to car
prowls and the increasing lack of punishment for same, fight clubs,
bangers, child porn, the behavior of half the jocks on the planet, and
the disgusting in-yer-face "TUDE" I see every day among today's 20- and
30-somethings.

I.P.

I looked up the definition of "offend" and "offense". Far from being
simple and direct, even in a small dictionary offense a very complex
concept. I was wrong about its scope, but, IMO, right in its value for
our day-to-day behavior. The distinctions, IMO, are useful in this forum
and in our daily lives.

I was wrong in stating that facts can or should not offend, because
offense, by definition, can be taken/perceived/generated/claimed
anywhere, any time, anywhere, by anyone, over anything, for any reason
or excuse; it's in the eye and at the whim of the beholder. IOW, offense
can literally have virtually nothing to do with what's said or done and
virtually everything to do with what another person CHOOSES to take
offense to. While anyone can offend almost everyone if they try, there
are hundreds of millions of people who take very grave, even
life-altering, offense at damn near anything. E.g., simply being
non-Muslim offends the Qoran and its strict believers, and I'm going to
hell because I'm non-Catholic. (OOOOOOOH!) Ya can't win.

Thus I was right, IMO, that there's no point tiptoeing through life
worrying about offending someone. Hell, the very act of tiptoeing
probably offends gay-bashers, boot manufacturers, and tulips. There's
nothing we can do or say, and no facts or opinions, that won't offend
hundreds or even billions of people, often simply because they CHOOSE to
be offended.

Maybe the word "offend" should be eliminated from the language, because
"offense" could almost be characterized as the offendee's choice,
therefore the offendee's problem, rather than an active verb. Is there
ANY action or statement that would offend everyone or no one on the planet?

Again, Lincoln comes through: "You can offend some of the people all the
time, . . . "

I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> newssCjh.2115$WD1.365@newsfe03.lga...
>> rosbif wrote
>
>> Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies.
>
> This would be easy. There are none.

Of course. Yet millions disagree with you and me. Heck, some sober
people over 20 actually thought "Borat" was funny.

I.P.