BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:52 AM

It was sent for assessment and possible publication to The New England Journal of Medicine and over here, to The BMJ and Lancet.

It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence.

The Terence Higgins Trust have a library of papers on gay lifestyle and one factor that keeps cropping up is the struggle to keep in a relationship against discrimination and social pressure of not being accepted by family and the local community.

Rather than the discredited "proactive" promiscuity, it is generally a case of hitherto, relationships being frail.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest open relationship numbers are higher in gay people than straight. Confusion over sexuality is a result of lack of understanding by society, not a trait of any particular sexuality.

The paper gets currency on religious websites and far right Nazi groups such as BNP over here and according to the CSU sexual health lead I had a chat with yesterday evening about it, it received prominence in The USA when KKK picked up on it.

By the way, there are many papers on a similar theme available in The USA, due to lack of strictness on impartiality. Only NEJM has similar stringent editorial policy to UK and EU journals.

I only have access to BMJ reasons for rejection. I can't say conclusively why others rejected it. BMJ is sensitive to publishing false data, hence the uproar over the statin data slipping through in a paper they accepted recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:51 PM

The paper was published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information, under the auspices of the US National Library of Medicine and the National institute of Health.
The authors are reputable and have published many papers on medical issues. There are many more such studies into homosexual open relationships.

Please stop playing King Canute, It makes you look even dafter.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:07 PM

Infidelity as no fixed orientation 

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:02 PM

bring back MGM, AT LEAST HE HAS STYLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:27 PM

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith etc. etc.

So, ake, when you said you mainly deal in facts and then went on to say that homosexuality was brought on by poor parenting or psychological trauma, was that an example of your reasoning?

When I asked how I was misrepresenting you by pointing this out and you failed to answer, was that another example?

When you say I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views. does this give us an insight into your self styled wonderful debating skills? If you have no interest in what we say, why do you keep replying?

Something is rotten in the state of Mudcat methinks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:11 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Don't "get" what? Who are you, another mod-apologist for the real nasties around here?? Care to explain this post of yours??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:40 PM

Here is another from a large list.

Examining the correspondence between relationship identity and actual sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

Blashill AJ1, Wilson JM, O'Cleirigh CM, Mayer KH, Safren SA.



Author information

1Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, 1 Bowdoin Square, 7th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, [e-mail].

Abstract

Sexual behavior of men who have sex with men (MSM), within and outside of one's primary relationship, may contribute to increased risk of HIV transmission among those living with HIV. The current study sought to understand how HIV-infected MSM report their relationship status and the degree to which this corresponds with their sexual behavior. Further, we examined rates and psychosocial associations with sexual HIV transmission risk behavior (TRB) across relationship categories. In a sample of 503 HIV-infected MSM in HIV care, 200 (39.8 %) reported having a primary partner. Of these, 115 reported that their relationship was open and 85 reported that it was monogamous. Of the 85 who reported a monogamous relationship, 23 (27 %) reported more than one sexual partner in the prior 3 months, 53 (62 %) reported only one partner, and nine did not report on the number of partners in the past 3 months. Hence, there were three categories of relationships: (1) "monogamous with one sexual partner," (2) "monogamous with more than one sexual partner," and (3) "open relationship." The "monogamous with more than one sexual partner" group reported higher TRB and crystal methamphetamine use compared to the "monogamous with one sexual partner" group and different patterns of relationships with TRB emerged across the three groups. Couples-based HIV prevention interventions for MSM may be enhanced by considering that there may be different definitions of monogamy among MSM, and that the context of relationship status may require tailoring interventions to meet the needs of specific subgroups of MSM couples.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:29 PM

I have already published a link to the American study on "Open Homosexual Relationships.
You read it and commented on it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:25 PM

Anyone notice that a bloke reads an "entertainement" book or two,( lets say, fir example, the bible, the Orwell, and trys to figure out all life from it, and this one author.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:48 PM

Insert word here ...............

How many other people did you fuck In your open marriage?

Not a nice accusation is it? What's more, I have no evidence to back it up.

How dare you make such vile accusations against people you don't even know? Where is your evidence that people who make a commitment to marriage don't preclude monogamy based on their gender?

Nobody wants you to agree with the law. You are obliged to abide by it though regardless of your lack of respect for society. You are also obliged by law not to publish lies designed to vilify sections of society in order to invite hatred of people for their sexual orientation.

Any chance of carrying on your criminal activities where unsuspecting people don't come across it? Freedom of speech has responsibility attached.if you won't listen to me, listen to the others who are telling you that you are out of order.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:08 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.
Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

I opposed the law on the criminalising of homosexuals and I reserve the right to oppose legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

No hatred from me, just cool calm reason.

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith in the ethereal myth of equality under a cruel economic system based on greed and exploitation. For this reason, they dismiss all know data on homosexual health rates, male homosexual sexual behaviour patterns and any other facts which contradict their "raison d'etre".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 02:14 PM

Oh, I don't know. Some of us are just strumming and picking at the same time. A huge difference between pointless and of interest to any particular person.

The pointless ones are where ignorant people talk bollocks on subjects they have no clue about. See the "all current historians" claim as a case in point. I'm a historian, I've decided, and I'm with the "donkeys" scenario and butcher of the Somme moniker, just like the vast majority of people who have given war any thought.

Then we come to religion. Someone, to pick a member at random, claims his church isn't into racism or any other "old fashioned" vice, yet I've just been watching BBC News. A Christian group with right wing political connections broke into a mosque in Bradford and started laying bibles around, videoing themselves and then found an Imam, and with their video running, tried forcing him to read from the bible.

The local MP, one Eric Pickles has promised to "have a word" with the relevant authorities, but refused to condemn Christian Right to try to convert people.

Language?

I've got some choice language and it isn't just aimed at the awful bigotry earlier on....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 12:55 PM

This thread has become pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:36 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:31 AM

True. Very true.

(The bit about your four, who don't represent all current historians. All current historians is a bit of a mouthful, even for you and your rose tinted blinkers.). It appears I do know better. Who'd have thought it? Just me, most commentators, most academics, anybody whose relatives are on a War Memorial.........

Alan Clark died in 1999, so isn't strictly speaking current. "Donkeys" makes interesting reading anyway. As he was part of the privileged establishment, he is very scathing as to their ability to lead.

That's the book, not someone's opinion of it you read through a google hit.   I notice even David Cameron has stopped giving credence to your mate Michael Gove on the subject.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:48 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:21 AM

Oh. The Nazis kept their odious views to themselves. That's alright then.

I wish some on here would take a leaf out of their book if that's the case.

"Many contributors." But you keep telling us you are clever and understand things we mere liars don't have the capacity to digest. Why question peasants when a member of his local church is saying it!

Gather round everybody! Keith has something to say and he is a member of a church that opposes something or other! Let's sit at the feet of the wise one.

Oh how you smirked when some of us disagreed with a bloke who called himself a "historian." Only you have an IQ high enough to understand. How you scoffed when anyone challenged four revisionists, or "the established view" as you so ably put it.

Funny thing context Keith. You enjoy taking things out of context to justify views that are frankly disturbing yet are very quick to claim others do it to you.

But there again, I'm just a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:09 AM

Steve.
Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances.

I actually said "In this respect they out-Nazi the Nazis."
The context was that the Nazis kept quiet about their intention to exterminate the Jews while Hamas are quite open about it, even encouraging it in TV shows for young and preschool children.
The Nazis never went that far.

Many contributors have equated Israel with the Nazis.
Why not vilify them as you did me?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:30 AM

Society is such that we don't have to "get" bigotry and discrimination Janie.

Just whack it back into the hole it came out of in the first place.

A word to the wise. "Mixed bag" and "irrational" are so close, they could fit together in a single strait jacket.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:01 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:32 PM

Here come da Jews, here come da Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:31 PM

We need an exterminator.

"Pass the DDT"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:15 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Absolute bl*oody b*oll*ocks. Ake cannot bring himself to accept the law of the land and the attitude of the vast majority by typing gay marriage instead of gay "marriage". That is totally hateful and thoroughly nasty. Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances. That is brainless demonisation of the worst kind by any decent measure, levelled against people who have (yes, wrongly) killed, whilst under siege lest we forget, a couple of handfuls of Israelis over more than a decade in the face of having more than a hundred times as many of their own people killed by Israeli forces over the same period. That is hateful, spiteful and riddled with denial. He also will not blame Israel for the disgusting massacres at Sabra and Shatila which were overseen by that nasty shitbag Ariel Sharon, still lionised in Israel today. Sorry, Jeri, whoever you are, but you also are not helping yourself, nor are you helping Mudcat to be a better place by lamely excusing these total bastards (note lack of asterisks this time) who you, big Mick and the other mod-apologists allow to blight this place. And what the hell "working in public health for 18 years" has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Puerile.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:22 PM

With that attitude Jeri, you wouldn't get a job as a public health specialist here, even after they dumbed it down so less qualified people than consultant doctors can advise.

By the way, the director of public health (a real one, GMC registered Prof) who answered to me in a previous life was always reminding the board that with the money we spent on health promotion, the damaging hatred if not challenged leads to mental health issues, CHD etc through obesity and other lack of self esteem conditions and gay men have a shorter life expectancy than others in the same socio economic groups. We might as well not bother promoting health if we turn a blind eye to the discrimination that leads to issues in the first place.

I don't excuse hatred, I refuse to accept it.

Leave public health to the experts eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:19 PM

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written

How so?

(Not that I expect an answer)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:53 PM

Jeri, I am neither "ignorant" nor "clueless" about this particular issue.
I thank you for your insight into what is happening on this forum, but I view your allegations of ignorance and cluelessness in the same way as I do Mick's "queasiness". Perhaps it was something he ate?   :0).
Do all the moderators have such delicate stomachs?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:43 PM

Dave, my remarks were addressed to Mick, I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views.

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written, you are not worth the time it will take to type yet another explanation. Disingenuous to the end! Back into room 101!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:41 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:00 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

...I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

...I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures

Mainly facts over STD figures? Including the fact that homosexuality is a result of bad parenting or psychological trauma maybe? And you wonder what sickens people about your statements? Well, for me, it really does sicken me that someone can cast such aspersions on the thousands of good and honest parents who have brought up their gay children to be good, honest people themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

Mick, without trying to be argumentative, I would be interested to hear which particular views expressed by either Keith Sanity, or myself, you find so "sickening".
I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures, not my views but data collected by health agencies.

I am against homosexual "marriage" for several reasons, the same stance as your church, do you find the church's views "sickening"?

I am have no hatred towards homosexuals, being opposed to criminalisation of the practice when that was the law.

Keith is certainly no racist and why you infer that he is, is beyond my comprehension.

Be specific, or your allegations are as bad as those of the "pack".
You say stick to the issues, perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:10 AM

"Groundhog Day: a situation in which a series of unwelcome or tedious events appear to be recurring in exactly the same way."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:52 AM

No answer then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:34 AM

You can accuse me all day, but you can not produce a racist post because I have no racist views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:34 AM

It's a pity that your precious church actively supports misogyny and homophobia then.

Im a member of a wine club that supports small producers but I don't appreciate wine because I claim to be a member.

Lots of prisoners locked away and not allowed to wear their dog collar. They are still members of their church.

Not sure what your point is Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:55 AM

"f you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't."
We have - and you've constantly confirmed it - while at the same time, denying it.
Your church must be very proud of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:42 AM

In all the years I have been here, I have never never made a racist post because I am no racist.
I am a member of a church that fights racism.
Anyone who accuses me of racism is engaging in dishonest personal attack.
If you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't.

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

If it sickens it must be hate?

Mick. If you don't like "Englishmen" pointing out posts that lower and cheapen Mudcat, look for the source, not the reaction. If Max doesn't want parental blocks by ISPs, start moderating. Parental blocks don't stop fuck, shit, nipple, cunt or thick, but they are there in case people unsuspectingly read the likes of Akenaton. If he sickens you too, think why.

Why should I try to argue and debate? I may as well debate with the pigs on the farm across the way. Because when I have finished my speech, asked for any questions and ejected my PowerPoint stick, they will just carry on grunting and rolling in shit.

Oh, and deleting my posts on the basis of a quasi medical opinion is fair comment, but it has to be applied fairly. I have yet to see hate deleted. Despite it being on Max's shit list. I know you guys are volunteers, and you think you are being fair but look for the source not the reaction.

There seems to be an echo here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 11:57 PM

It would be a great opportunity for you to correct that deficit. Have at it Mr Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:20 PM

Very entertaining link, guest! The only thing it fails to mention is that your devil's advocate must, deep down, be of like mind with yourself. So, no questions about cover-ups of child abuse, or about doing dirty deals with fascist dictators, or about helping the Nazis to escape or to ship Jews to death camps by the thousand...

Dominic Savio was sainted because (a) he died young, and (b) he wouldn't take his underpants off in front of the other lads! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:44 PM

How to become a Saint in easy-to-follow steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:25 PM

Well, Big Mick, homophobic and racist posts from Ake, Keith and Goofus are personal attacks on millions of people, yet you always find a way to defend these nasty bigots. They sicken you but otherwise they're OK here. Wow. You'd much rather take the path of least resistance in attacking people who are rather nasty to known bigots (though I still await your list of us). Do I think you're simple? The thought never crossed my mind, old boy. You're probably a luvly feller deep down, but a little less luvliness to bigots and a little more cojones in confronting the b*ast*ards from you and the other forum worthies would be welcome. You know summat, old chap? We read constant bollox here from sanctimonious gits lamenting the good times of old and the loss of the nice guys who have decamped, yet we hear very little criticism, except from one or two of us who really would like to see the place being a lot better, about the horrible people like Keith, Ake, bobad and Goofus who drag this place into the mire. Note correct use of ast*er*isks there, by the way, in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:41 PM

Steve, you really must think me simple. Your attempts to elevate are very childish. Read the rules, follow them, everything is great. They apply to everyone. The names you mention do not engage in personal attack. They simply state their opinion. I find their opinions on homosexuality and racism to be sickening in my opinion. But I don't bother answering them as that allows them to elevate.

But back to the subject. Debate issues, leave personal attacks home.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:04 PM

Actually I don't know why I explain this, because the usual suspects aren't really interested in knowing this. They prefer to try and claim victim status and tilt at the windmill of "censorship".

Yeah, right, "usual suspects". How lame. No naming of names, as ever. How many times have we seen that. C'mon, Big Boy, big up why don't you. Name the usual suspects instead of bottling it, but go carefully, cos I know I'm in your sights, yet I never use c*unt, f*uck and I never claim victim status, and I don't give a flying monkey's shite about "censorship". And per-bloody-ease don't give us that "you know who you are" bollox. Nothing but a list will do. I do not hold my breath. And I bet homophobe Ake, mad Goofus and racist Keith aren't on your list! Time to get honest, Mr Mod!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:39 PM

Big Mick, for my part I admire you very much for apologising. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:35 PM

Eliza, and all, please accept a sincere apology offered without condition. I was making a tongue in cheek comment,monte that I used Englishman as opposed to English men, but my "you folks" comment was far too broad. I apologies for the offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:02 PM

Well Eliza, there does seem to be a stereotypical parenting template which applies to many, not all, male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:52 PM

And as his post us full of false facts to back up his awful opinion, I look forward to it being removed under the category hate.

Not holding my English breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:45 PM

Oh akenaton, I really MUST protest at such remarks! Do you really really believe that men's homosexual orientation can be determined by 'psychological trauma' or 'bad parenting'?? And many gay men in loving partnerships, and now marriage, have adopted children, so they do indeed have the 'pain and joy' of raising their own family. Your pity is patronising and offensive.
And Big Mick, who are you including in 'you folks'? And what makes you say we English are 'constantly moaning' about 'two cultures separated by a common language'? One surely can't stereotype an entire nation like that. I for one (English and proud of it) am not 'constantly moaning' about anything, least of all Americans and their speech.
Reading some of these posts makes me truly despair. Whatever is going on in your minds? Or hearts for that matter? Good grief. Please please stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:41 PM

Well done Mick. Sick disgraceful homophobic views suddenly come out of the midden.

The views expressed by Akenaton above are absolutely beyond the pail and even the pale.

Just read them.

For homosexual read repressed bigot. That works far better.

Moderation? Akenaton shows us why it doesn't work far better than respectable people do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

You are quite correct Mick, neither Sanity nor I have any hatred of homosexuals....in fact I feel very sorry for them, having to go through life without the pain and joy of raising their own family.
I am sorry that their behaviour seems to lead to a huge over representation in the STD figures.
I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

No hatred, just pity and a desire to see HIV and STD stats brought under control.