BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:34 PM

MtheGM said:

"I have been staying away as I am somewhat bemused as to how this thread, which I OPd with the clear object of testing out how many Catters were as fed up as I am with the extremely high incidence of mindless and meaningless phatic obscenity on the forum, has somehow transmogrified into yet another ill-tempered spat about gay marriage and the comparative incidence of STDs in the gay community: most worthy topics to be sure, but I absolutely fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the thread's evident subject."

Simple answer!

Ask the Pharaoh why his was the first post to slide in that general direction, turning your reasonable, if naive, OP in the direction of his favourite rant about the sexual practices of others, which are absolutely none of his business.

He does it on every thread of this type and many others besides, as I suspect you actually knew when you started it.

How about that for a fuckless response?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:25 PM

"This section of Mudcat was not devised for people with one strict ideological view, but a platform where all issues could be discussed; whether the issues are "inflammatory" or controversial is neither here nor there, it is the job of administration to decide which subjects are up for debate and which are beyond the pale.

The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate."

How come you, with at most two very fixed, and unsavoury ideological views, feel that you have the right to decry other people's expressed opinions as to the nature of your input.

If you post what I consider to be egregious rubbish, ditto bigotry, ditto xenophobia and homophobia, I will tell you so, and since you initiated that discussion, you have no right to stop me from posting MY view.

Same goes for KA of H and all the other axe to grind denigrators of whole sections of the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:20 PM

found on a wall in Pompeii all covered in the usual graffiti like: "I visited Constantia last night and, boy, she was good at it", "Kilroyus was here" etc (translated from the Latin and bastardised by me)

"Methinks tis a wonder this wall does not fall down with all the drivel written hereon"

Methinks this factoid has context in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:02 PM

Akenaton cannot be insulted. His views are not what should be expected to be available without prior warning on the website. Preferably they would be deleted.

How do you debate with this? You can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:44 PM

Mr Naton, I attempted a civilised conversation with you on such matters some time ago, but got nowhere. I haven't read anything recently in your comments on the topic to indicate you ears are any more open now than they were then. I trust this is not too 'insulting'.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:30 AM

I thought having a Scottish bloke on would be an opportunity for him to explain why the Scots are all heroin addicts, feed their addiction with crime and die younger than they should do through coronary heart disease....

If I were a disgusting puerile bigot, I could provide health statistics that such a conclusion could be taken from.

What is a liberal activist? What facts are you talking about? If you have any, give them.

Have you noticed that every member on Mudcat who expresses views on the subject wishes you would stop posting lies and hate? Even your two apologists seem to have realised how embarrassing their support has been. Have you any idea how many decent people there are on Mudcat?   Perhaps someone could debate the positive aspects of armed robbery, or why rape is fun? After al, we don't want liberals stifling debate do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:50 AM

Well I suppose it makes Smedley feel better to parachute in with a heap of personal abuse. I thought it might have been a chance to hear the views of a homosexual on the severe problems associated with male homosexual practice......Sexual health rates, "open" relationships etc, but no just the usual cop outs.

If anyone sincerely thinks that discussion on these important health issues is "hatred", then I am extremely sorry about their state of mind.
The truth is, that debate and discussion is unpalatable to those who hold a specific political agenda, the facts are incontrovertible, so the facts must be hidden.

Concealment of the facts is very good for the political agenda of "liberal" activists, but very bad for male homosexuals in general.
No good purpose is served by ignoring serious problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:24 AM

Onononononono

handbags has 2B

☛ to ☚

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:19 AM

10 %#!!ing paces.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:17 AM

Handbags?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 07:40 AM

Yeah

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:58 AM

"The link to this thread, to address Michael's confusion, is that Mudcat language is the topic."
.,,.

No -- sorry, Ian, but the topic was not "Mudcat language", but "Mudcat 'language'"; those quotes were put there to establish this distinction: the fact that "bumtitwillyfuckshitcunt" was the topic, and "down with gays" wasn't. If you choose to ignore this distinction that I would have thought patent to any person of intelligence who had read my OP where this particular usage of "language" as a denunciatory interjection is specifically defined, that's up to you. But fancy giving yourself airs for being such a self-evident thicko. Who's "confused", you silly old booby, you!

Right: carry on; mug away! Enjoy! Have a ball!

(Oh, and Eliza, thank you for your perceptive comment of understanding where I was coming from, unlike poor old Thicko here. Of course your apology is more than accepted.)

~M~

OK: so I said I was off; so I'm back. Wanner make something of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:27 AM

Eliza, I admire your optimism, but what the prejudiced duo were saying then and now seems pretty identical to me. Musket, I respect your energy. One comfort is that those really homophobic views are only expressed on Mudcat by two individuals.

And no, I won't be drawn by that pair into a debate about whether they are homophobic. They don't get to define homophobia, that's my privilege as a recipient of and observer of it.   If it quacks like a homophobic duck, it's a homophobic duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:35 AM

I hear you Smedley. I also accept that challenging them gives them the oxygen of publicity and in their simple way, makes them think people are engaging them in debate, which they take as acceptance of their views as valid if not popular.

But I for one challenge. You see, bowing out gives them a self styled victory and adds smugness to stupidity on their part. I don't try to educate them as you can't educate pork, so why bother. The good news is that they are becoming a less vocal part of society, and the veneer of respectability by religious clubs is slipping too. Not as fast as it might, but it is. Before long, Akenaton won't be able to goad religious people by saying their church hates them too...

People can change Eliza. But thats up to them. I am merely concerned with ensuring they don't ever feel their bigotry is acceptable.

I don't actually think the thread has drifted off course. When you start a thread, you can't control where it is going, and creepy posts by creepy people are as much an aspect of offensive language as my tits and bums. The difference being my tits and bums are there to put that in relief. Their bigotry is their natural position.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:22 AM

I always have this (maybe misguided) hope that by patiently refuting nasty prejudices and putting forward more tolerant views, one might gradually influence people to see things differently in time. Perhaps the gay-haters on this thread are actually thinking a bit more deeply about their standpoint and coming round to a kinder acceptance. I do think one can change, but not instantly. After all, times have changed radically regarding gay rights and many other contentious, prejudiced issues.
Michael, you're quite right and your thread has drifted horribly off course. I apologise for my part in this lapse of manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:29 AM

That 'talk' should be 'take', though I quite like both versions!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:27 AM

I tried, in a long-distant thread some years ago, to reason with Akenaton and GfS over the matter of sexuality. It was not successful, for all-too-evident reasons, and eventually I cut my losses and bowed out of the fray. My blood pressure isn't up to another bout. They are never going to change their views. So tackling them, even with the best of intentions, only gives them more opportunities to talk their prejudices for a walk.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:10 AM

Good to hear from you again Smedley.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:36 AM

I doubt anybody seen to be circling gives a fuck about gay people Smedley, myself included. What some of us do appear to give a fuck about is people demonising sections of society, especially when bastardising something as serious as sexually transmitted disease erroneously in order to further their pathetic agenda.

Gay people certainly don't need me to wave their banner for them. But what anybody in any situation should expect us that bigotry is shunned in order for everybody to live the way they choose.

The link to this thread, to address Michael's confusion, is that Mudcat language is the topic. My point from my first post is that the most awful disgraceful language on these threads doesn't contain the words fuck, shit, willy, cunt or thick. In fact, there are no Sweary Mary words at all.

Akenaton thinks people might agree with hatred, Keith could make an Israeli General want to blush and Goofus?

PM him. He reckons he can cure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Smedley
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:21 PM

Speaking as one of the few posters around here who has (albeit infrequently) posted from the vantage point of being an actual homoeroticist (nice term!), may I just record my fairly mind-boggled startledness at how obsessively a few of you straight lads circle around gay themes like carrion crows in search of a meal.

Truly, heterosexual masculinity never ceases to amaze me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:57 PM

Ian: What made you so excessively unmannerly to me? Quite uncharacteristic.

I quite enjoyed this thread of mine for a while. It seemed to me, for all your finding it 'rambling' for unspecified reasons, to make a valid point which needed considering, and attracted some responses which struck me as intelligent & reasonable & worthwhile; unlike your most disappointing, peculiarly facetious & [in the literal sense] impertinent, ones, as I mentioned to Janie above.

However, as you & your mates have succeeded in mugging me of my thread, & then proceeded to abuse me when I mildly protested at this impudent & unwarranted intrusion, feel free to continue. I shall not return to it, & I wish you joy of continuing to mutilate it with your and your mates' obsessive irrelevant maunderings about the homoeroticists who would appear to constitute the only topic of any interest to your scintillating intellects.

All yours...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:15 PM

No subjects make me uncomfortable TC.
Homophobia pollutes the threads because you bring it into them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 12:11 PM

Troll Jeri?

I was about to PM you and apologise for questioning your public health comment in another thread the other day.

You can get fucked now..

And now to address the comment by Field Marshall Keith A Hole of Hertford TC&bar.

What is obscene language? Is it use of fuck, shit, cunt and thick? Or is it discriminatory comments aimed at whoever The Daily M*il has told you to point and stare at today?   Gays, Arabs, Muslims, banjo players whatever?

Michael tried making a point and I disagreed with it by posting. The fact that neither you nor Jeri understand irony is not my concern.

Mudcat language is an interesting subject. One excellent example that can inform debate is the homophobia that pollutes threads.

Or is that too uncomfortable a subject for you Keith?



Keith?




TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 May 14 - 11:59 AM

Life in a revolving door.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 17 May 14 - 10:11 AM

GUEST,Musfucket trolled in the fifth post to the thread, both Keith & Ake bit the bait and the thread went to hell. This is probably a Mudcat version of a troll "singularity". I don't think a significant number people are capable of talking about a subject if they haven't rehearsed their lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 09:57 AM

It did not "start as rambling nonsense."
It was a discussion about obscene language posted on the forum by some people including you.

You people did not want that discussed so you made it into just another thread about gay marriage, "765+" not being enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 08:25 AM

Err... I just posted as Mudcat rather than Musket.

Could be conceit on my part. Could be iPad ^##^!! Autocorrect..

Take your choice.



Michael. Nobody cares who is gay. The nobody sitting at the side of his loch being a nobody in point.

You should care about elements of society shifting blame on minorities though and finding ways to incite people into hating them. After all, you are old enough to remember the blackshirts. Didn't civilised society go to war to prevent such despicable views becoming the norm? Isn't there a reason why the popularity of right wing fascist groups a concern for us all? Haven't you heard UKIP, BNP and others giving their views on who is to blame for their lack of a better lifestyle?

Nobody stole this thread. It started as a rambling nonsense anyway... If you post a view aimed at fellow members, you can't exactly call reaction rude can you?

Oh. You just did.

Dick. If Jesus was gay, the Christian churches are going to have to aim their bigotry at another group instead. Hamster owners or ginger people...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 07:33 AM

I mean, seriously now, don't some of you feel even the tiniest bit RUDE? -- hijacking (ie STEALING) someone else's thread to rehearse your all-consuming obsessions, yet again, on a topic which has no relevance to the subject of the thread whatsoever. Can I not plead at least the courtesy of the thread being returned to consideration of the avowed matters which led to its initiation?

Don't expect so. This is Mudcat, after all, which has usages of its own far divorced from the practices of the mainstream ongoings of normal yooman beans. Wonder why I bother to stay around here sometimes. But I gave up smoking 40 years ago, and haven't drunk any alcohol for 12 years or more; and I suppose we all have a tendency to a self-destructive addiction of some sort to keep going...

So go on with your gay exchanges -- straight on.

Don't mind me... I'm just the OP

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:31 AM

Who knows or cares who is gay, within the parameters of this thread? I suppose there is no point my pleading that we might just go back to the topic of my OP, re the sometimes equivocal choice of vocabulary in posts on this forum, and continue the entirely irrelevant thereto gay marriage debate which is some people's peculiarly pertinacious King Charles' Head, by refreshing one of the approx 765+ threads which have run on that topic already -- or even starting a new one?

Thought not. Still, worth a try...

Or not...

Ho-hum! Think I'll go back to bed...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:11 AM

Was Jesus gay? who knows who cares

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Mudcat
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:12 AM

By the way, none of us are perfect. I am on record as stereotyping gay men.

Seriously. Although I'm not on Facebook, a gay friend who is on it posted from a concert I was playing at. He picked up on my comment that gay men make the best soufflés.

Eventually it was posted to Mrs Musket. My punishment was to make a cheese soufflé and it was rather good though I say so myself. She posted a photo of it and Steve posted back that I should be " bowling from the pavilion end."

There you go. I'm a gay icon.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:46 AM

I get so angry with akenaton's type of prejudiced claptrap. One would try to ignore it but for the fact that it spreads nastiness and can hurt gay men who are merely living their lives as they've every right to do. Over my long life I've known many gay men (and women too), some who had several relationships (and why not, pray?) and some who had a loving, long and stable partnership with one person. They had, to my certain knowledge, happy childhoods. Their parents were supportive and kind. Their siblings were content for them to be gay (and why not?) We have now two very dear friends, men who love each other dearly and have lived together for years. Their happiness is a joy to behold. Their only trouble is people like akenaton with their homophobic nonsense. I would be thrilled to attend their wedding if/when it happens. Now, my husband is black, and he's never ever met with prejudice or condemnation for being an immigrant or an African. But I'm trying to imagine how HE would feel if he was treated with the same attitude as that of akenaton towards gays. He'd be very upset, hurt and downhearted, and I'd be very angry. VERY VERY ANGRY!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 16 May 14 - 08:45 PM

You hit the nailon the head in your last post, jeri.

Folks who inter-mix selected research with personal opinion/bias may think they "look smart"- but, it is no more than a self-serving illusion. The more that is put forward, the more the cracks in the illusion are exposed to most others, save those sharing a common root cause/theoy- beyond the vaneer of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 14 - 07:36 PM

Ake, that last post of yours is exactly why people think of you as a bigot. Primarily because that expertise you claim to have about homosexuals in general is shit you just made up.

My personal experience is based on men who are married and men who are in committed relationships, because frankly, that's all I know. I'm sure I've known promiscuous gay men, but they didn't talk about it. Luckily for the world these days, men in love with specific other men aren't as inhibited in talking about it once they realize the person they're talking to is willing to listen. In years past, I think the subject was avoided. N

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:58 PM

" I very much doubt that 50% of married people are promiscuous. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant."

As I said earlier homosexual relationships are a different construct from heterosexual ones. Open relationships are very rare amongst heteros as there is the added incentive for monogamy in the formation and providing for the welfare of a family.

Homosexuals have no such impediment to hedonistic behaviour, they are responsible only to themselves.
This in itself is a strong argument against legislation in favour of the redefinition of marriage, all these points have been carefully concealed by the media and the "liberal" lobby in their campaign to attack traditional marriage and in turn, the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:33 PM

IAN,to say;
"Nobody is predisposed to promiscuity on the basis of their sexual orientation." is not in itself rational, when there is such a massive difference in STD infection rates between homos and heteros.......do you not even read the links that we provide for you? They state unequivocally that open relationships assist the spread of STDs

You say the difference can be attributed to more male homosexuals coming forward to be tested, but that would only make up a tiny fraction of the difference, as only a very percentage of a very small percentage are presenting themselves.

You also think it is vile hatred to suggest MORE male homosexuals should be tested....you cant have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:07 PM

If you were capable of articulating a rational reply, you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:37 PM

I can't rationalise your comments Keith. They have to be rational comments for starters.

Akenaton is perpetuating myth as usual. I very much doubt that 50% of married people are promiscuous. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.

Any conclusions based on prejudice are not valid. Never have been and never shall. It's a bit like saying Keith is religious therefore don't let him steer a jumbo jet.

Long term relationships lasting in single people is not as high as married ones. Younger people look for shorter term relationships in general. That's a fact too.

After that, we leave reality.

"Nobody is predisposed to promiscuity on the basis of their sexual orientation." There's a quote from a Professor in healthcare. Feel free to repeat it. It is evidence based too.

Lock your doors tonight Akenaton. You live fairly close to a gay couple I call close friends. I wouldn't want either of them trying to get in and fuck you. Your friend will be ringing in the quarter peel for their wedding later this year. Isn't that nice? Like you said, it doesn't happen much up your way. I doubt anyone would fancy going up your way anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:45 PM

You mean you can't rationalise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:42 PM

Hi Jeri, the two studies I quoted, were from areas of the US where homosexual marriage has been legal for some time.
I have also read studies from Scandinavia, where the same rates of "open relationships" apply.

The American studies included civil unions, with a "primary partner" and several secondary partners. Of course some male homosexual relationships are monogamous, but the rates of "open relationships" amongst male homosexuals are massively higher than amongst heterosexual marriages and partnerships.

The last study which I linked to gave the rates as almost 50/50 "open" and monogamous amongst male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:09 PM

I note my reply to Akenaton has been deleted.

You can guess the contents though, it isn't difficult.

My reply to Keith on a more serious subject has disappeared with it. No matter, the understanding of a blank is about the same level as the understanding of strings of characters on a screen.

Just one thing Jeri. Why is hate still on my screen where people can see it without prior warning but attempts to address it get deleted? You come across as educated, and even seem to have some understanding of the epidemiology of health, which is the smokescreen bigotry is using in these threads to spread distrust and fear of sections of society.

Yet still, you berate me and try to educate pork at the same time. Do you honestly think Akenaton is interested in reality?

And now a word to the perpetrator which I will try to do without getting the whole lot deleted, and it isn't easy when you have nothing but contempt for an opinion..

I don't "attack" Michael. I think he comes out with a few odd comments and he can get confused occasionally, but you know what? He comes across as a human. Good man. He is as sick of this obsession with gay people as I am. Sadly, I will never ever allow bitter hatred to have the last word. I refuse to rationalise it too. it only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:46 AM

Ake, same-sex marriages have only been legal in the UK since 29 March of this year. Less than 2 months ago. How could there be statistics from men married to men in that amount of time?

One also has to take into consideration the population that was surveyed. I remember reading one survey that came from surveys done at hot-spots for anonymous MSM hookups. Bathhouses and bars and such. That'll always show figures indicating more promiscuity. Gay men who go to a movie or a restaurant or such won't be included.

The reason you're using quotation marks around "marriage" is that marriage isn't want you're talking about at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:19 AM

History, not immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:37 AM

Ian calls me a "dreadful bigot" for saying that many male homosexual "marriages", unions and relationships contain multiple sexual partners.
When confronted by health agency papers confirming my statement, Ian is forced to agree that this is indeed the case.....does anyone think an apology will be forthcoming?

This is the pattern adopted by Ian from the beginning of these discussions, first the mudslinging, then a grudging acceptance, hoping that some of the mud will have stuck.

He does the same to Keith over immigration, he attacks Sanity, MtheGM, and any who dare to challenge the myth which underpins his ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:20 AM

TC, there was nothing selective about my extracts except their relevance to this.

Discussing differing opinions is what a forum is for, but in this case I was not questioning any opinion but asking for the source of stated "facts."

It seems extraordinarily improbable that the group quoted by Ake would choose the BMJ to publish their paper.
Where did you get that info about the rejection?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:23 AM

My opinion is already noted. It basically concurs with PHE and Terrence Higgins Trust.

First of all, NAT are talking about MSM sex, not gay relationships.

Second, it is a noted issue, from the discredited US papers and the more objective research that gay relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones, all other factors considered.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in their submission to NICE on this statistic stated that there is no evidence to suggest promiscuity is a larger or lower factor in this. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest social pressure, discrimination and acceptance by family and society at large is a factor. The promiscuity has lowered as society acceptance has increased. The somewhat explosion of HIV at the outset being the point in case. Fascinating reading. I only looked at it a few weeks ago actually, when looking for ideas of how to make representations to NICE as I am delivering one shortly on chemotherapy. The reports I have from oncologists may make the technical points (although who am I to judge) but the RCP approach to laying the points out is something I am happy to crib, or at least get someone else to crib. I am backing off over the summer, trying to slowly retire (again.)

You are quick to find anything to contradict me when I put an opinion forward Keith. I don't know your background, someone said you were a sports teacher but I don't know. However, please for once read something I wish to say seriously.

You ca find many contradictory opinions on any scientific subject and double that when it comes to healthcare. NAT, PHE, the Royal Colleges etc, all have their interest to factor into their conclusions. Their evidence base is usually sound, but conclusions from evidence are subjective. Even the implementation of them is subjective. Whilst I would wish to be totally objective when advising on priority spending and cash releasing efficiency savings (CRES) it is a fact that the political, social and situation aspects mould the actions.

Hence, and I understand if this is beyond your comprehension, information from such as NAT and THT are valuable and informed, and as a lay person I nor anyone else can argue otherwise. I have no issue whatsoever with the statistical facts, indeed I pulled you up on such matters a few weeks ago.

But selectively cutting and pasting whilst inferring that I might not agree is either stupidity or malicious. I'm too "fucking important" to lower myself to your level. If you want to keep giving credibility to bigotry, start a band with Akenaton. Your credibility won't lower I assure you, as it can't get much lower lately...







TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:38 AM

Thank you, Dick. Much appreciated!

I have been staying away as I am somewhat bemused as to how this thread, which I OPd with the clear object of testing out how many Catters were as fed up as I am with the extremely high incidence of mindless and meaningless phatic obscenity on the forum, has somehow transmogrified into yet another ill-tempered spat about gay marriage and the comparative incidence of STDs in the gay community: most worthy topics to be sure, but I absolutely fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the thread's evident subject.

Still, there's Mudcat for you, innit! As Tommy Handley's old signature tune used to aver, as the real oldies among us will remember ~~

"Oh, it's useless to complain!"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:29 AM

"A significant proportion of MSM have
a high number of sexual partners, and
these men have sex with each other
(the 'core of the core'), thus facilitating
the spread of HIV and other STIs,
but also have sex with other MSM
who themselves have fewer partners
('the edge of the core'). This sexual
organisation is a major determinant of
HIV incidence in the MSM population.

'High rates of STI infection in a population
are also indicators of multiple partnership
and ongoing HIV transmission. As has been
previously stated, MSM in the UK experience
not only high rates of HIV but also other STIs
such as gonorrhoea and syphilis."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:19 AM

I would be very interest to see your evidence for all that Musket.

What is your opinion of this NAT report?

"Given the importance of partnership
patterns to HIV transmission, we should
look at what we know about such patterns
amongst MSM in the UK. The 2007
Gay Men's Sex Survey states:
'As every year, respondents were
very varied in their number of sexual
partners. Among the men who had a
male sex partner in the last year, 21.4%
indicated they had one male partner
only; 27.6% had two, three or four
male partners; 24.4% had between five
and twelve male partners; 13.4% had
between thirteen and 29 male partners;
and the remaining 13.4% had thirty or
more male partners in the last year'. 17
John Imrie also presented data on
numbers of sexual partners amongst
HIV positive MSM at the NAT seminar
which found a median of 12 partners in
the year. 18 25% of the men reported 35
or more sexual partners in the last year.
These 89 HIV positive men with more
than 35 partners a year also accounted
for nearly 80% of all reported sexual
contacts in the sample (11,077 of the
total of 13,969 sexual contacts).
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:09 AM

By the way. The paper forwarded for publication here was a meta paper of many similar papers too.

NICE guidelines for treating sexual orientation anxiety specifically preclude looking for promiscuity as a symptom.

In any event, what the hell has that to do with gay people getting married? If we were pathetic enough to see equality as a medical necessity anyway, marriage and civil partnerships combat the (non existent) promiscuity the papers refer to.

It is all well and good observing a phenomenon such as length of time a relationship lasts in a particular demographic. It is wrong however to make conclusions based on prejudice as such papers do. Short term relationships through lack of society acceptance are very different to the odious "let's find someone to fuck" fantasy that seems to keep Akenaton interested in the subject.

Considering decent people accept gay relationships in the same way as mixed race now, (it wasn't always the case there either) bile from the likes of Akenaton will become less until one fine sunny day, it falls quiet forever.