Recent comments in /f/RhodeIsland

succubusprime t1_j6yplap wrote

My husband got his done at South County hospital in Wakefield last November. The doctor was great and he healed up very nicely!

3

herc51 t1_j6ypj3e wrote

First one didn't take, had to be done a second time. First time was local, second was general anesthesia. Trust me, take the general.

7

User0098237490 t1_j6ylhg8 wrote

I wonder how old you’d have to be for them to let you do this in this state because I want to get this done at some point but I’m probably way younger than the average guy looking to get this done.

8

RhodySeth t1_j6yjzz5 wrote

I got it done, I dunno, 5-6 years ago at Urology Associates Inc behind Newport Hospital through South County Health. It went very smoothly. Whole thing took about 25 minutes. Doc did a good job of chatting with me throughout the procedure to keep me occupied. No pain except for the first anesthetic needle they stuck in my testicle - that was excruciating for about literally one second and then the local kicked in. Barely felt the second needle and didn't feel the third. They repeat for the other testicle after they are done with the first.

So about two full seconds of awful pain and otherwise a walk in the park.

30

fishythepete t1_j6ye0vh wrote

>I'll tell you what, if you weren't intending to be misleading in your "analysis" you certainly succeeded despite yourself.

You've called my post misleading three times now. With literal 0 explanation on what part of it you find misleading. Feel free to flesh out that thought a little bit. Because I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

>I'm genuinely unsure what you thought was worthwhile about your limited discussion of RI castle doctrine under ch 8 but,

And... you're an attorney? Let me spell it out for you.

  1. It's an interesting fact pattern, as most self-defense / castle doctrine defenses arise out of attacks by unknown assailants, vs. a known person with a reasonable (if unlawful) goal.
  2. RI is a duty to retreat state. The shooter breached that duty.
  3. There are few exceptions to that duty. § 11-8-8 outlines the exception provided by the castle doctrine.

>your comment was not expansive enough to provide the context to a layperson reader that it was simply your thoughts on a very, very limited slice of a single defense that could be raised at trial.

Unless the layperson reader read the first paragraph... Again, the opening didn't state that I was undertaking a comprehensive review of defenses available to the shooter. It also wasn't silent on the scope of review. It detailed the exact question I was looking to answer. Are you under the impression that any analysis which doesn't boil the ocean is misleading by design?

It's like you just opened a can of carrots you bought and you're getting all worked up about being misled because the carrots are a slightly different color than those on the tin. And there are no peas. You were sold carrots, you got carrots, and any angst that comes out of the transaction exists entirely within you.

>I am an attorney, I adequately understood what you were trying to say, which was also clear by my post.

Lulz

>again tho--good luck with your bad self. I won't engage with you again, sir lord of logic.

Oh no

2

March_Latter t1_j6yd1pw wrote

Water tests are typically performed no charge at various places in the hopes of selling you a water purification system. Lowes I think does this also.

4

ghogan1010 t1_j6yab3s wrote

I’m actually going to jump on this with you. My home water in Cranston, so also Providence water has been hard AF. Staining toilets and showers in ways it never ever did prior.

11