Riobard

Lights out for the inmate. Gone fishing.

No, you may not go down on me. Stop persisting. Sorry nobody clued you in to advanced interpretation of lazy emoticons. Your vote does not count, you lack suffrage rights, accommodating you well it’s unprofessional and I have standards apart from interest conflicts on top of that. I cannot recall all images and try to redact many for personal wellbeing but my reliable spidey sense says resoundingly no.🤮

Did you wiggle out of it? I must be out of practice. Yes, I’ll accompany you personally. We know you depend on Keethquiff but it’s a cunttrolled product … all we can offer is sedation. Oh wait, boredom progressing to narcolepsy is one of the indications. You’re golden if you can tell Siri to reach your dealer. Maybe it’s coded, you know, a number within your ranting, what with your AI deficits and all. While at it ask for basically understood colloquial meanings … do or don’t … I don’t give a shit.

First rule of thumb with desperate sociopaths activate! Refuse bait. Straitjacket on standby. Be the management.

Multiple? What membership percentage is that now, trending to .00000 big fat zero % … emphasis big zero? 0+0=0. Try that seminar for two. Stragglers up to you. You can braid each others’ hair while figuring out how to convince trade that two dollars is an impressive multiple of one. You may be conflating multiple with your personality splitting. While Madame Guillotine is redundant as the wannabe Emperor’s head is already lost and his cronies chasing marbles. And who shit in your poutine? I’d like to give them a piece of my mind. It’s usually curdsy.

Said the insufferable bot to the mirror after hit in the ass by the door upon being ejected from what could be otherwise a fairly interesting seminar but for crashers.

Thanks, local. I have it covered.

This is lazy, no?

Not sure whether to respond to the AI half or the implicit lobotomy half, either of which could be profoundly limited. Exactly where did some evident transorbital/ prefrontal tapping take place? Would help illuminate. I think you yourself may be bungling up AI to the point of unforced error. Neither procedure should be routine, even if at varying levels of applicability, but one explains a lot. I suppose that some people should not be faulted for lacking an attention span well beyond the 8 seconds that would be required to read the content and intent of the specific metasynthesis referenced. No clinical position was put forward that suggested that circumcision should not be discretionary. If you spent more time reading and less time trolling you might realize that the paper is but one component of the topic’s broad narrative. At least try to be effectual either way. You’re shit at both conceptual ability and taking the piss. Screen nomenclature I’m aware of is ‘Block’ or ‘Ignore’. Nonutilization does not mean conceding the worth of any sad troll.

The Keethqueef … street name you may recall … is a non-issue, correct. That pill is out of the running for any attribution of non-toxicity. Metabolized. Done. Antidote. Done. All shit flushed. Done. Drug label includes: May give backhanded compliment according to well established obnoxious adverse effects. Noted. May be gateway to similarly generically engineered simpleton in arms product. Noted.

The meta-analysis is an Australian and American clinical collab. Of the 36 studies meeting quality criteria I tallied about 6 as American and the remainder distributed broadly globally. Geolocation did not factor into selectivity criteria. Gold standard is predicated on established ratings of strength of methodology and analysis. A meta-analysis does not typically present a null hypothesis, subject to bias, to be tested as supported or refuted, but involves an extensive literature scan and a synthesis of the highest quality proportion of related topic research to yield a judgement about the reality of a specific procedure. An ambiguous weighting of relative harm versus absence of deleterious consequences doesn’t get much traction with peer review, yet a paper is equally publishable with a meta-analytical finding of no particular outcome one way or the other as long as it is not wishy-washy. It is merely inquiry, and doesn’t completely resolve the conundrum of ascertaining whether something is salutary versus not bad. The data are scattered among these distinctions and the best research practices paradoxically militate against near universal consensus regarding the practice because it’s about a binary balance and there is no established set point between 51% and 100% on the more heavily weighted side of the question’s answer. This largely accounts for positional variability and cherry-picked contrarianism. Silo clinical context also plays a role, say, if one’s practice is weighted with HIV transmission considerations and circumcision status’ loading into risk.

You are quite the wanderer. Where’s your minder? Tripartite Orientation assessment: time after time annoyingly boring; spaced out; fails to know his place. Ask her. Help may be out there.

I think that if one reads the thread thoroughly and neutrally the meta analytical research conclusions prevail. In some circles the expanded notion of metasynthesis might emerge, that a cost/benefit conclusion be nevertheless contextualized within bioethics. Metananalysis does not dismiss concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy/ selfdetermination, societal wellbeing, fairness, etc, but there may be a faction that purports that autonomy is essentially retroactively inappropriately nullified by default with infant circumcision. That’s life. This can be binned with parental decision substitution across a broad clinical range and the best that can be attempted in actual application is policy steered by the scales of research data. Digging heels in the sand on the view that consent is vitiated will not likely be amenable to shifts when conceit surrounding perspectives is so ingrained. We cannot give babies, say, standard gamble tradeoff options but latent figurative tantrums are not particularly surprising. All that can be done is be factual, not get too caught up in cherry-picked refute dosed with rebuke, and electively express some degree of empathy regarding a contrarian position whether entrenched in belief systems or actual delusion. Fortunately it’s not equivalent in scope to, say, HIV denialism at point of care.

Patrick Chan also had a piano music short program with a high score at the time that I watched over and over; may have been Chopin. Of course there is dual aspect commentary but there is only so much language option and if you follow all seasonal competitions with the same network hosts it gets no less repetitive than trick ticking.

I’ve never considered an acidic sad sack clown to represent the acid test of acceptable expression style. Maybe a peanut gallery handful stand by you but what other than rampant narcissism and lack of insight makes you think I give a shit? Ask her. Add that it’s pertinent to skating and that with such a permanent single dbl triple quad double axe to grind you uniformly fail to stick the landing … splat! orthopaedics contacts, etc?