Re: Male Virginity and Circumcision (was: Male Virginity EXPLANATION)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Roger M. Wilcox: "Re: What were those apes called?"

In <1995Oct28.040124.42584@ac.dal.ca> ljcdal@ac.dal.ca writes:

>
>In article <46bjg0$544@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, nakis@ix.netcom.com
(Michael Nakis ) writes:
>>
[snip]
>>Well, if I can manage to defend my positions so well as to make them
>>invulnerable to falsification, I will consider myself to have done
>>pretty well! Once I have reached that point, I might then top it off
>>by introducing some falsifiable element so as to satisfy people like
>>you.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>So far, you are stuck in the realm of mythology
>
>LC

I would greatly appreciate it if people posting followups to this thread,
especially those who feel compelled to rebut my ideas, took the extra
steps of mentioning a) whether they are circumcised or not, and b) what
their authority on the subject is, let alone c) the reasons behind their
unwillingness to consider my hypotheses.

That having been said, I hope you understand that if you happen to a) be
circumcised, b) be no expert in Anthropology or Anatomy, and/or c) have
nothing to say to back up your objections, then I believe that most of us
following this thread would be very happy to be spared from your useless
comments.

• Previous message: Roger M. Wilcox: "Re: What were those apes called?"