Tweet
The GoFundMe campaign was canceled and in its replace is this KickStarter campaign. Please take a look at it below via the link, and share!
-
-
Ah, a spiffed up appeal. There are inaccuracies in your "research paper" thus far; not very confidence inspiring. And is that a photo of Ron's devices? I don't remember seeing a credit.
At any rate, people here can give money to you if they choose, but what you have here is an appeal to fund what is basically vanity press, and I for one would want better representation than that. I would think that any author would want to be his own captain in this, and would come up with the money under his own effort. But it's a hand-out culture nowadays. Kind of the antithesis of tugging ethics, though.
No credentials (scientists, and science-based practitioners, work for, and live for (and by), credential and license), no study with any specific meaning to scientists, poor terminology, and ...... perhaps the risk of more derision for what the mainstream sees as a "fringe" effort, assuming it's read. In this case you are trying to give a layman's opinion piece. No actual scientific chew to it.
Someday, a real research effort will tackle this subject, hypothesis by hypothesis, and that may bring our group a little closer to something we can apply in our practice, or at least point to as scientifically confirmed information. -
The photo of the restoration devices seems to be taken by the author, hence no photo credit would be needed.Originally posted by Info View Post
Advanced Devices Inc.
http://foreskin-restoration.info/
Adhesi-Med Skin Safe Medical Adhesive
Supercanister Tuggers
Torpedo Tugging Weights
Intaction - Understand the Harm, Change the World, Are You Ready?
Join the I DID NOT CONSENT Army
http://intaction.org/Comment
-
Info, I'm just curious how you're making these assumptions without having read my paper. The reason I'm asking for money is because, hmm, I don't have it! I'm a single stay at home dad with a side business that really isn't bringing in the amount of money necessary to fund the publication. Instead of just giving up, I'm asking for help in funding the publication.
"Someday, a real research effort will tackle this subject", that is what I hope for as well! However, to disregard my paper as "not real" is incredibly rude and has no bounds. You have no insight into the content of my article except for the abstract.
As Tony said, I don't need photo credit for the device. You don't see people crediting Ford for their cars when they pose with them. Or Tommy Hilfiger for their dress in their selfies. You don't need to donate any money, I'm not asking you specifically. I'm asking those who want to help move along foreskin restoration so the time necessary can one day be cut down and scientifically tested techniques and devices can be offered.
Have a nice day.Comment
-
-
1. You're right, I don't know the word-by-word content of your paper (that isn't my fault), but because of the inaccuracies in what is available, I don't think I have to know much more. It's really just that simple. Unfair? Well, you could show us the paper, or at least offer to do that after it's published.Originally posted by ansmirt View Post
2. Again, people here or elsewhere can do what they want their money, mazel tov, but you have put yourself out there for criticism, not just money, and criticism is an inevitability (not to mention a desirable function) of publishing, and it also happens to be the life's blood of true research; publish and then hunch your shoulders for peer review. Science, and it's rigorous method, is all about peer review. What's more, because there aren't scientific peers that I can tell or you've admitted to, and because this is a vanity press effort and really not an "abstract" of that sort of caliber, you open yourself to criticism from all corners. I happen to live in one of those corners, et voila........And, one thing we do here is critique pertinent articles. We're actually getting better at it.
3. I'll never understand why (aside from it being a professional expectation as I've stated) the act of critiquing became "incredibly rude" in general culture; probably comes from the PC influence. "Incredibly rude"? My suggestion is drop the expectation of "what I want, when I want it", and get real. "Incredibly rude" is hyperbole, which never is effective writing. It also happens to be another mainstay of PC outlook. Pure science, even popular press quasi science, isn't about being politically correct. It's about information; the give and take of information. Again, you put yourself out there. I realize that you aren't grounded in science, but you are appealing to it, and you got to say what you wanted in your appeal, and I get to describe my take on it, as does everyone here, who's interested. (They ought to get some sort of say, for their money; decals aren't enough in my view) That's the way it works on a forum, especially when you're asking for support. This is a forum, remember? Level playing field, twixt you and us.
4. And I don't know what you are referring to, when you say what I've said "has no bounds". Did you mean 'out of bounds', or no constraint? (Would you tether speech?) That would be PC as well. 'Grounds', maybe? What I've written has firm ground, so it obviously has "bounds", whatever that might mean to you, and it has coherent thought, and borders, and paragraphs, punctuation, and the rest of the format provided by this site. So.........do what you think is best for the general good. I did.
Last edited by Guest; 05-25-2016, 04:29 PM.Comment
Comment