"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Graham" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > "Graham" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know that the PSA test is not reliable but my comment above comes
>> >> from
>> >> a
>> >> study carried out by some hick hospital called Johns Hopkins.
>> >> BTW, my interest arises from being a PC survivor (discovered by a DRE
>> >> with
>> >> PSA and biopsy follow-up) although I hate that term.
>> >> Graham
>> >
>> > Trust me, I'm not supporting the stingy idiocy of the insurance
>> > company... Just trying to figure out "why".
>> >
>> > Many insurance companies also will not pay for PAP smears.
>> > I guess they'd rather pay for cervical or uterine cancer treatment...
>> >
>> > Morons.
>> > --
>> The BC lobby is very powerful (lots of emotional blackmail). The
>> provincial
>> govt run health care system proposed to limit mammograms to women over 50
>> (it makes sense) but you should have heard the outcry and the govt had to
>> back down. Paps are free but PSAs are not unless there is prior history
>> or
>> it's a backup to the DRE.
>> Graham
>
> What's really stupid is that the PSA test is cheap....
>
> I'll have to note the exact charge next time I see one on the Audit
> printouts I do every night.
> --
I think the full charge here is $40 but I'm not sure as I don't have to pay
for my annual PSA.
Graham

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:57:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Graham" > wrote:
>
>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it being
>> more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>> Graham
>
> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> "uncomfortable". :-P

but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up their
whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon wrote:

> On Sep 19, 12:05�pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>> "hahabogus" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> "Gill Smith" > wrote in
usnet:
>>
>>>> That would take the fat off of people's brains.
>>
>>> Ummm, excuse me but the brain is composed mostly of fat....understanding
>>> science woulda told you that.
>>
>> I didn't know that. And I know EVERYTHING.
>
> The only one who thinks you know anything is you... CyberObama!
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

that's pretty funny coming from The World's Foremost Authority.

blake

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:16:23 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:

> Janet Baraclough > fnord
> :
>>
>> Send 100 dollars for the first week's special introductory offer and
>> I'll be your life coach.
>>
>> Janet.
>>
>>
>
> If I ever won the lottery, I would love to do free classes for people on
> food stamps to show how to stretch their grocery budget.
>
> Then again, if I had no reason to be frugal on groceries, I am sure I
> would still spend less than many people, simply because I'd still cook
> from scratch

but if you had more scratch you could buy better scratch.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy > fnord
:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:16:23 GMT, Saerah Gray wrote:
>
>> Janet Baraclough > fnord
>> :
>>>
>>> Send 100 dollars for the first week's special introductory offer
>>> and
>>> I'll be your life coach.
>>>
>>> Janet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I ever won the lottery, I would love to do free classes for people
>> on food stamps to show how to stretch their grocery budget.
>>
>> Then again, if I had no reason to be frugal on groceries, I am sure I
>> would still spend less than many people, simply because I'd still
>> cook from scratch
>
> but if you had more scratch you could buy better scratch.
>

Yes, but I would still spend less than many from the shit in a can
crowd.


--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

blake murphy > fnord
:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:57:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Graham" > wrote:
>>
>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>> Graham
>>
>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>
> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.

I guess I am very immature, heh.

--
Saerah (A finger up the ass is not *that* horrible, in the scheme of
things, no? Frankly, I think I'd rather have that than a cold, pinchy
speculum. Yeech!)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On Sep 19, 12:05?pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
>>> "hahabogus" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "Gill Smith" > wrote in
lusnet:
>>>
>>>>> That would take the fat off of people's brains.
>>>
>>>> Ummm, excuse me but the brain is composed mostly of
>>>> fat....understanding
>>>> science woulda told you that.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that. And I know EVERYTHING.
>>
>> The only one who thinks you know anything is you... CyberObama!
>>
>> Ahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
>
> that's pretty funny coming from The World's Foremost Authority.
>
I read that as "The Worlds's Foreskin Authority." My bahhhhhd.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:57:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Graham" > wrote:
>>
>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>> being
>>> more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>> Graham
>>
>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>
> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up their
> whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>

*Snapping my latex glove* You just need somebody who'll tell you they love
you first. 8)

Saerah Gray wrote:
>
>>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>>> Graham
>>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
>> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.

Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.







> I guess I am very immature, heh.
>

"Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
. 102...
> "Gill Smith" > fnord
> et:

> That would be a bad thing. Our brains are mostly fat.
>
> I realize that it's aeasy for me to be frigal aboutfood partly because I
> like to cook. but some things really don't take that much more time to
> make from scratch. It's not like roasting a chicken is difficult. I
> tried to explain to a friend how to make different "hamburger helper"
> type things, and the idea of 5 to 7 ingredients was just too
> complicated....

That's the real secret: no waste.

I shudder when I think back to how I routinely threw away 'sub-prime'
parts of chicken meat, let alone the bones.

Criminal.




-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-


http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

"Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
0...
> blake murphy > fnord
> :


> Yes, but I would still spend less than many from the shit in a can
> crowd.

Have to say I'm amazed at how unhealthy the diet of many people
who post to this ng.



-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-


http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:57:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Graham" > wrote:
> >
> >> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it being
> >> more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> >> Graham
> >
> > PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> > why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
> > Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> > "uncomfortable". :-P
>
> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up their
> whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Depends on the man... <g>
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
Saerah Gray > wrote:

> blake murphy > fnord
> :
>
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:57:19 -0500, Omelet wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> "Graham" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
> >>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> >>> Graham
> >>
> >> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> >> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
> >> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> >> "uncomfortable". :-P
> >
> > but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> > their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>
> I guess I am very immature, heh.

I thought it rather creative, and laughed too. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:17:37 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
>>>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>>>> Graham
>>>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>>>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>>>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>>>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>>> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
>>> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>
> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>

i hear some folks Find a Way.

your pal,
blake

"Michael \"Dog3\"" > fnord
:

> Saerah Gray >
> news:Xns9B1F9CB8A70B9anisaerahoohaycom@ 208.49.82.60: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> Yes, but I would still spend less than many from the shit in a can
>> crowd.
>
> Never heard the expression, "shit in the can crowd" before. What does
> it refer to?
>
> Michael
>
>

shit in *a* can. As in food that comes out of cans and jars and boxes
and packages exclusively.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

"Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
0...
> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > fnord
> :
>
>> Saerah Gray >
>> news:Xns9B1F9CB8A70B9anisaerahoohaycom@ 208.49.82.60: in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but I would still spend less than many from the shit in a can
>>> crowd.
>>
>> Never heard the expression, "shit in the can crowd" before. What does
>> it refer to?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>
> shit in *a* can. As in food that comes out of cans and jars and boxes
> and packages exclusively.
>
> --

The sad thing is, sometimes it is actually cheaper to eat the shit in the
cans. Fresh vegetables are often expensive. I have my priorities straight,
so a big chunk of our food budget goes to them, though.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:17:37 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>>>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>>>>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>>>>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>>>>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>>>> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
>>>> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>>
>> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>>
>
> i hear some folks Find a Way.
>
But in the end (pardon the pun) their whatnots are not happy.

On Sep 20, 5:17*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Saerah Gray wrote:
>
> >>>> What about PSA? *IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
> >>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> >>>> Graham
> >>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> >>> why. *The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant". *
> >>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> >>> "uncomfortable". :-P
> >> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> >> their whatnot. *men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
>
> > I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>
> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.

A pelvic exam is "bimanual". That is, access to two whatnots is
performed
simultaneously.

You guys are weak...

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>>>> blake
>>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>
> A pelvic exam is "bimanual". That is, access to two whatnots is
> performed
> simultaneously.
>
> You guys are weak...


Sorry. I am not a doctor. I don't even play on on TV.
:-)

In article
>,
Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 5:17*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> > Saerah Gray wrote:
> >
> > >>>> What about PSA? *IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
> > >>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> > >>>> Graham
> > >>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> > >>> why. *The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant". *
> > >>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> > >>> "uncomfortable". :-P
> > >> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> > >> their whatnot. *men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
> >
> > >> your pal,
> > >> blake
> >
> > > I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
> >
> > Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>
> A pelvic exam is "bimanual". That is, access to two whatnots is
> performed
> simultaneously.
>
> You guys are weak...
>
> Cindy Hamilton

<giggles> They have no idea...
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> >>>> blake
> >>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
> >> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
> >
> > A pelvic exam is "bimanual". That is, access to two whatnots is
> > performed
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > You guys are weak...
>
>
> Sorry. I am not a doctor. I don't even play on on TV.
> :-)

But in your fantasies... ;-D
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:19:51 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:17:37 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
>>>>>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
>>>>>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>>>>>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>>>>>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>>>>> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
>>>>> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> your pal,
>>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>>>
>>> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>>>
>>
>> i hear some folks Find a Way.
>>
> But in the end (pardon the pun) their whatnots are not happy.

but i hear sometimes the corners turn up in a nether smile.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:19:51 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:17:37 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
>>>>>>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
>>>>>>> "uncomfortable". :-P
>>>>>> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
>>>>>> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your pal,
>>>>>> blake
>>>>>
>>>>> I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>>>>
>>>> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i hear some folks Find a Way.
>>>
>> But in the end (pardon the pun) their whatnots are not happy.
>
> but i hear sometimes the corners turn up in a nether smile.
>

Wanna try a spearmint? *EG*

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 5:17 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Saerah Gray wrote:
>
> >>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
> >>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> >>>> Graham
> >>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> >>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
> >>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> >>> "uncomfortable". :-P
> >> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> >> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
>
> > I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>
> Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.

A pelvic exam is "bimanual". That is, access to two whatnots is
performed
simultaneously.

You guys are weak...

__________________________________________________ ___

I can assure you that having a prostate biopsy is not a sign of weakness!
Graham

On Sep 25, 12:33*am, "Graham" > wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 20, 5:17 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Saerah Gray wrote:
>
> > >>>> What about PSA? IME, few public systems pay for that in spite of it
> > >>>> being more effective as a cancer screen than mammograms.
> > >>>> Graham
> > >>> PSA and TPSA have been shown to be NOT 100% reliable. That's probably
> > >>> why. The digital exam is generally more accurate, if "unpleasant".
> > >>> Take it like a man. The "annual indignity" for females is no less
> > >>> "uncomfortable". :-P
> > >> but women grow up having doctors (and others) sticking doodads up
> > >> their whatnot. men at fifty are more squeamish about it.
>
> > >> your pal,
> > >> blake
>
> > > I am laughing at the phrase "doodads up their whatnot". Still.
>
> > Some whatnots are designed to allow doodad entry. Others are not.
>
> A pelvic exam is "bimanual". *That is, access to two whatnots is
> performed
> simultaneously.
>
> You guys are weak...
>
> __________________________________________________ ___
>
> I can assure you that having a prostate biopsy is not a sign of weakness!
> Graham

You're right about that. I was thinking about the ordinary "turn your
head and cough".

Cindy Hamilton