Should we catalog FR Information for New Users?

[Reality]

If you are attempting to address my points then it would be a better argument on your part to actually do that, rather than ignore them, which you've done throughout your above post. Instead you continue to use stalking horse arguments, essentially using up bandwidth with no help for the newbies. The science I was referring to is the established sciences of skin expansion, and epidermal mitotic processes. Can we ever transfer those revelations to what we do, with the equipment we use? No, probably not successfully, except when wild claims are made from some suspiciously "more successful" individual (your words). Then, they can easily be refuted. I call them obvious liars simply because their claims fly in the face of what Science has found to be true. They post here all the time. Not knowing those basics, they continue to make their ridiculous claims about techniques and substances they claim help in somehow magically affecting that "success". They lie, and they hope YOU think they are successful (apparently they rely on you to pump up their ego). Some of the time frames you mention are good examples of this. Biological processes can only proceed at a natural pace, but the big claim to fame is always that they found some BS magic to speed things.

And I have to say, Science is NEVER the uneducated approach, "technical" or otherwise. It's the exact opposite. If you knew anything about the scientific method , you'd know that. Science always begins with the KNOWN! I don't know why you have to promote your personal feelings about Science (is it that you don't know anything about it, and you know it?), but you are doing just that. So the question becomes, what would you replace Science with, in an informative guide for newbies? Feelings? Now THAT would be the uneducated approach. Why say anything if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, or you can't refer to what the pros know? Is it just to pump YOUR ego?

[Reality]

Well, no, you don't really know me; in order to know me you'd have to know everything I know; just that simple. Also, my making "nice" here should come as a surprise: please remember that to craft a newbie resource you have take that part, ie "newbie" (just like acting) and start at that point. You have to begin with their mistaken belief and anxiety that they are responsible for everything in their results. And they need to know that those results have been played around with by the clinical guys, and the guys who the clinical guys respect as their resource, ie the researchers in human physiological response; and unless you can reference those scientific results and the time frames they involve it's easy to believe all the false claims we've seen here ( and no doubt will continue to see).

In other words, we have to list ALL the basics, explain the confusing popular (and misleading) terminology, and support them in relaxing a bit through clarity, not bias. I take all your points, but the starting point in crafting a comprehensive resource doesn't start with assumptions, they start with what has been established and reconfirmed. This can be anecdotal discoveries as well (some guys here always have the ring of truth in their posts because their experiences are common to all of us.

[The Metal One]

In other words, we have to list ALL the basics, explain the confusing popular (and misleading) terminology, and support them in relaxing a bit through clarity, not bias. I take all your points, but the starting point in crafting a comprehensive resource doesn't start with assumptions, they start with what has been established and reconfirmed. This can be anecdotal discoveries as well (some guys here always have the ring of truth in their posts because their experiences are common to all of us.

In essence, my idea was to teach the indisputable basics, like anatomy, and then—rather than push a potential restorer in any direction, we simply explain all the options out there. Concise, and easy to understand. There are quite a few options out there, and it could cause a sort of decision overload for some people, but explaining that they have options and being clear (but totally unbiased) have a little blurb about how certain devices/stretches affect the two kinds of skin we need to grow...again, strictly the unbiased facts. For example: certain devices have more customization options, or ways to potentially/definitely improve results. It's not something that requires a team of researchers to figure out, it's just something that would be time-consuming, and it would need to be very carefully written—so as not to present false or anecdotal information as fact. Of course, there are some things that are technically anecdotal—scientifically disproved—that we all know are straight-up facts. For example, I've read studies that claimed uncut men showed no signs of superior sensitivity, but we all know that is total bullshit. Science and fact are sometimes separated, when the subject is circumcision. But, I digress...

Other basic stuff, like the coverage index and forced erect coverage systems of measurement could be easily explained for a beginner. Basically, not trying to make someone into a restoration scholar, but to simply show them the lay of the land, and the different paths they can take.


Side note: if an admin sees this, I will again state that I would be willing to work on a rough draft of what I'm talking about, to be submitted for your approval before finishing it (for free, if that wasn't clear).

[admin]

I would be willing to work on a rough draft of what I'm talking about

If you write it up, I'll find a place to post it prominently.

[The Metal One]

If you write it up, I'll find a place to post it prominently.

Thank you. It'll take some time, but I'll get it to you as soon as I can.