The future of trek is... prostate exams?

[JoeZhang]

I've noticed a recurring theme in this forum and also a couple of others - the suggestion that the future is recasting or reusing actors from older series. On one thread I read today, a poster discussed why a Captain Sulu series would be a good idea.

Outside of 'I'd love to see again' cameos, I am truly baffled why people are suggesting that the future of Trek is creating new series with actors in their late 70s and early 80s as the lead character.

What's the attraction except wallowing in the past?

 

[hux]

A finger in the anus is as good as two in the bush. No wait, that's something else.

Old people are depressed, pointless and the universe doesn't give a shit about them anymore. They have ceased to be worthy of the universes gaze. So if what mattered to them when they were young were to matter again then that might... just might... mean that they're young again... and not staring into the face of mortality.

Not being dead yet is very important to old people. And Golf.

 

[RandyS]

A finger in the anus is as good as two in the bush. No wait, that's something else.

Old people are depressed, pointless and the universe doesn't give a shit about them anymore. They have ceased to be worthy of the universes gaze. So if what mattered to them when they were young were to matter again then that might... just might... mean that they're young again... and not staring into the face of mortality.

Not being dead yet is very important to old people. And Golf.

Be careful. before you know it, some know-nothing young punk will be saying the same things about you.

As to the question about "wallowing in the past", the past was better. What's so damned special about today??

 

[dahj]

in their late 70s and early 80s

Don't wait that long, regular checkups are recommended once you hit 50s.

 

[JoeZhang]

Don't wait that long, regular checkups are recommended once you hit 50s.

That is a surprisingly complex question - with the short answer been 'you might actually be better off not knowing.... Maybe'.

 

[JWPlatt]

That is a surprisingly complex question - with the short answer been 'you might actually be better off not knowing.... Maybe'.

1. There was no question asked.
2. The diagnostic value and relevance of the PSA test is in debate. The prostate exam is not.

 

[JoeZhang]

1. There was no question asked.
2. The diagnostic value and relevance of the PSA test is in debate. The prostate exam is not.

I'll point this out once - although I don't put posters on ignore, I don't like you or your posts or your tone and never have - so feel free to join in but don't bother responding to me directly because beyond this I will not respond.

 

[Shalashaska]

Relevant:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JWPlatt]

I'll point this out once - although I don't put posters on ignore, I don't like you or your posts or your tone and never have - so feel free to join in but don't bother responding to me directly because beyond this I will not respond.

I get the exam annually, and only recently had a PSA test added to my annual blood test. I also, as a male, keep up on the controversy about the efficacy of the PSA test and the exam. While the need for the PSA test has indeed come under scrutiny in terms of causing concern where none may be necessary, the rectal exam itself is not under dispute. So while it is good to make men aware that there is controversy surrounding the PSA test so that they can research it and make a decision for themselves, I would not recommend skipping the physical exam just because the PSA blood test is suspect. They are two different things. The "short answer" of conflating the PSA test and the rectal exam is a bad answer. Also, there are more reasonable ways to interpret the PSA test than looking at specific values without taking it too seriously.