unicorn
-
Posts
1,173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by unicorn
-
-
On 3/5/2020 at 4:13 PM, caeron said:
One of my great annoyances with internet culture is the obsession with having and expressing uniformed opinions.
Some of the jurors gave interviews on why they convicted. I found their logic sound.
Nobody here, to my knowledge, sat through the entire trial and then deliberated and then had 12 people agree that a crime had occurred.
But, hey, let's trash their efforts to achieve justice because we have opinions.
No, I did not sit through the entire trial, obviously. But I would love to hear about what you heard about the jurors' logic. Why was there essentially no doubt in their minds that the sex couldn't have been consensual and/or used for personal gain of the women involved? I haven't heard those interviews. What did they say?
-
On 2/13/2020 at 12:13 AM, nycman said:
If I were on a jury, I don’t think I could vote to convict on a rape charge, where the alleged “victim” willingly got back into bed with the defendant. I don’t care how many other “victims” have similar stories. More nonsense is still nonsense.
The man is clearly a pig, but being a pig isn’t illegal. I’m not so sure he’s a “rapist”.
Many of these women were opportunists who used their body and sexuality to get ahead in Hollywood. Some of them now regret it. I’m not so sure any of them were “raped”.
That’s my take on the circus so far. I’m sure others feel differently.On 2/13/2020 at 12:36 AM, caeron said:Having been on several juries, I was generally impressed with how seriously my fellow citizens took the duty.
So I feel no urge to have an opinion without reviewing the case presented. I trust that the jury will get it right. If he convicted, he deserved it. If he doesn't, it wasn't proven.
Well, juries are often cherry-picked and not necessarily the brightest people. I certainly feel there was reasonable doubt as to whether rape occurred or whether these women (repeatedly) used sex for personal gain, then later (after having reaped the rewards) regretted it. Weinstein is obviously a creep, but could it not be possible that these women consented to sex, if only for nefarious purposes? I don't think most jurors understand the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt," but rather just go by their guts, and what they feel is more likely than not to be the case. It's the reason there are so many innocent people languishing in prison.
-
7 hours ago, AaronInDallas said:
Interesting information! I have my testosterone levels checked annually and my doctor says they are in a normal range, even with the dutasteride. Maybe that means I was just a raging hormonal maniac prior to taking the drug! That said, prostate cancer runs in my family so I’m happy to do anything to reduce my risk of getting it.
Well, if you're not having side-effects, you might as well take it. Dutasteride doesn't actually lower testosterone levels, but rather, it blocks the testosterone receptors in the prostate, if that makes sense. All men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, so when you say that prostate cancer runs in the family, it's important to differentiate whether prostate cancer has killed members of your family, or whether just it's been discovered through screening tests (most prostate cancers never affect the life of the person who has it). In the US, autopsy results on men who die for other reasons show that the chance of having an undiagnosed prostate cancer roughly equals your age (i.e. 30% at age 30, 80% at age 80).
-
It's an anti-testosterone medication. Dutasteride may be a bit more specific for certain testosterone receptors. Finasteride and dutasteride will both reduce the amount of cum you produce first by blocking testosterone directly (immediate effect), and secondly by shrinking the prostate, which is the organ that produces most of your cum (long-term effect which may last years). It's extremely safe in men over 40. In fact, if you're ever to get prostate cancer, it will delay the onset of your getting prostate cancer, possibly for as long as you take it.
- floridarob and AaronInDallas
-
2
-
On 8/22/2019 at 5:14 AM, Lucky said:
...
McLoone allegedly withdrew roughly $46,000 in cash from the undisclosed account in Ocean City, New Jersey, where he owns a beach house. He also admitted to using some of the funds to pay for his “personal relationships” with other men, including $1,200 McLoone deposited into the commissary account of an inmate in a New York correctional facility, according to a criminal complaint.
The inmate, identified in court documents as Brian Miller, was never a Pennsylvania resident and had no previous connection to McLoone’s church. McLoone told investigators that Miller lived in New York City and that he met the inmate via Grindr for a sexual relationship, the complaint shows.
...
Sounds like a loon. Maybe I'm missing something, but how does one have sexual relationships with inmates in correctional facilities (especially if one isn't an inmate there)?
-
-
-
-
The only time I send someone to the ER is when they need something done there that I can't do myself (such as immediate labs, Chest X-ray, etc.). When patients go to the ER themselves, they almost always seem to end up with a CT scan and get sent home on a Z-pak. Documented are crazy exams which they never actually do (i.e. a person comes in complaining of ear pain, and an abdominal and neurological exam are documented, but not an ear exam), and differentials written by computers which are both ridiculous and never really explored (like, no, elephantiasis is not in the differential of that 80 year-old who came in with swollen feet, and if you really considered a DVT or PE, why didn't you even order a D-dimer??). When I ask patients "Did he actually check your reflexes when you came in for an earache?", they usually say no even when the exam is documented. And why order a strep test in the dude with a sore throat and a cough who clearly has a simple cold, if you're going to ignore the negative strep test and send the patient home with a Z-pack anyway?
-
11 hours ago, nycman said:
What a biased, stupid, and ill informed comment.
The world has passed you by I'm afraid...or you work in a shitty time-warped hospital that's providing care circa 1974.
Either way, I feel pity for you.
There are three hospitals within easy driving distance from my office. Some are better than others, but I often roll my eyes regardless of which ER it is. Similarly in other places I've worked with other hospitals. Skilled ER doctors are few and far between. ER medicine attracts physicians who lack commitment. That's the nature of the specialty. FWIW, most of my colleagues are of the same opinion. We talk about this often. Emergency medicine is a specialty in which nothing is really done other than passing the problem to someone else--for the most part.
-
Is an assisted living facility an option for you?
-
There is far too little information in your posting to be able to advise you regarding home health. ER physicians are usually the bottom of the barrel within the physician community (for the most part), and I take little stock in what they say. Their job is mainly just figuring out which doctor can actually take care of the patient's problem (and they don't always even get that right). Your primary care physician is in the best position to determine whether you'll benefit from home health care. If you can't make it to your physician's office, then a home visiting RN would probably be appropriate.
-
On 2/15/2019 at 12:02 AM, AdamSmith said:
Given his career success to date, why would he need to do that?
Your comment reveals considerably more about you than about him.
Did it reveal that RH has a good 6th sense?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Psychosis at M4M?
in The Beer Bar
Posted · Edited by unicorn
All I can say is "Wow." Someone resurrected at the M4M foums a 5 year-old string (What's Your Earliest "I'm Queer" memory?) in which people were asked to recall when they first realized they were gay (in my case it when I was a 12 year-old in my gym class, admiring the 14 year-old who led us into calisthenics, which I discussed in my 2015 response). The string was locked with the following message:
"Thread Closed. It is against the rules to discuss children; even ourselves."
So discussing our past is child porn?? I don't think even Justice Thomas or Justice Alito would go that far. I can certainly understand and wholly support banning child pornography. But if the mere mention of children in a non-sexual way is child pornography, so is Mary Poppins. Am I the only person who feels this way, or is the leadership at M4M completely off its rocker?