BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:23 PM

Ed T: ""My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo""
If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment."

Ed, 'promiscuity' and 'If all folks did not participate in sex' are two distinct different things...just think about it, I think you're bright enough to not play the 'overreaction' game..OK?

Musket: "Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed."

WOW!! What a 'convincing' rebuttal!!
I guess it's easier to post that, than cough up the numbers you claim you have that are not known by anyone!

DtG: "I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are."

How about bisexuals???...Oh yeah, I forgot, 'It's all about 'love'.
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the fact, that some homosexuals DECIDED to change their mind....Hey, do you think that bisexuality is 'genetic' too?....or just schizophrenia??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:18 AM

SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual

I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are. However, some may be made to feel so uncomfortable with it that they wish to be treated in the same was as heterosexuals are. And that is no surprise considering the attitude of some people.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:06 AM

"My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo"

If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment. But, that's not going to happen, for any group or location. That leaves us with safer sex, increased testing, treatment with availabke drugs and research to halt the impacts.

Safer sex: People do what they do. We have little control over that. Note that it is a global issue, with local differences. While they are not fine tools, and success and approaches vary, increasing awareness and educating the young seem to hold good hope in many global situations. Increased condom use would, and UN facts show has made a difference in some locals. Preaching down to folks, or demononizing them, IMO, would be counter productive.Increased testing:This one is a puzzle. Common sense would lead you tk believe most folks woukd want to be tested.It would reduce tge possibility of you playing a role in transmission. It also gives those found positive access to treatment. It is likely that skme impacted do not know that advances in treatment reduces the diseases impact and risk of transmission. I suspect some have a fear of testing for a number of reasons. Some in high risk groups do not travel in the same social circles as we do, making their reasoning hard to understand and factor into progressive actions . More focus is needed here, to reach out those with better inside knowledge to design better outreach initiatices that work with the various demographics and groups in different areas.

Treatment: Let's not under value the progress that has been made in this area to date, in medecines to extend lives and reduce impacts and the virus spread. According tobthose working in the field, there is good indications that more progress will be made. But, the success is not a cure, has a cost, and people must participate for a benefit to result.

Note that I focus not on treatment and reducing transfer. I prefer to look at what works, and to build on that in a broader way, versus looking at what occurs in one local, like the USA and the UK. My observation is the discussion erodes when the discussion
changes to" finger pointing."

The likely reason that occurs is mudcat is a global community, who share some values and beliefs, but also represents a diversity of values, beliefs, and experiences. This should not be a surprise, nor anything to stress any mudcater. We can learn from it, and retain what we feel is of value, and calmly, ignore, or "shake off" the rest which we do not value.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:04 AM

I only quote PHE and NAT.
No lies.
If your figures are in use for health care commissioning and are not secret, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:46 AM

"Musket claims to have secret figures"

Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed.

zzzzzzzz

There are no secret figures. The HPA /PHE raw numbers for +ve tests in The UK for the calendar year of 2012 have slightly more gay entries than the April to March 12/13 year that is used for healthcare commissioning. The reason I mentioned it was that it dips it from just over to just under 50%.

Hence not consistent with the "Most" of Keith and the "rising demographic" mentioned in BNP literature and Akenaton's cut and paste jobs.

This thread cannot discuss such matters whilst dominated by lies and distortions borne of homophobia and Goofus's made up science.

Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:25 AM

Yeah..OK with me....
I understand that you probably are not aware of the 'history' of the threads that I've referenced....I'd be glad to give you a list to look up, if you want to get familiar with why this gets so heated...however, the main 'wannabe activist' has not been posting much, as of recent, which is fine with me. He had a habit of restating positions of 'perceived motives'...and has created quite a bias, based on resentment, while dishing out hostilities, and purposefully 'spinning' things out context.
He has done Mudcat a great disservice with his wild assumptions and dishonest tactics.
I think the tone has changed, AND facts are now allowed to surface, where before they we kept at bay, and 'spun' to mean completely ridiculous, and even thread drifting diversions...However, at one time I acknowledged him for carrying on, in his antics, because the more he did, the more info was able to be covered.
That being said, his approach was political, whereas mine was not, but instead factual....as even some of your post have shed more light, on my position to him...which were void of 'religious' or 'political' agendas.
If you really are interested, I'll put up the threads....you might find them 'illuminating', not only for the info, but the crap some of us have had to deal with.....
.....and as I've said before, the whole homosexual issue, is not the MAIN issue here, other than a commentary(by others) as to the numbers they have shown, in categories, and comparisons to the spread of HIV.
My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo. Others have figures that show the percentages lean toward the homosexual community.....and my position favors a 'loving, traditional, nuclear family'....and there is no way to fake that!

Regards,

GfS

P.S....unless someone brings up something and directs it toward me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:31 PM

Gts
I have only marginally followed this topic for a few weeks. Also, I am unaware as what transpired over "four years". Imo, there clearly seems to be "a failure to communcate" and understand each other.

In a resulting emotionally-charged climate, one can not expect much progress, let alone agreement on much. At times I am unsure if the main participants are having the same discussion?

You seemed to bunch up farctoo many issues together in your last post, I suspect you, as with others are, frustrated from the difficult "communications climate" . I have not seen the "civil rights issues" you raise in this thread? So, that 's why it seemed puzzling that you were making referance to terms like "liberals and political airheads"?

While we all try oud best to make sense of it all, I suspect if is more complex than any of us know, as we are not directly involved. While we may try and parch if together from our information sources, I suspect what we have access to is limited and incomplete.

I would not wish to be included into any group that does not reflect me. I understand that any unjustifiable suggestion that any member suffers from homophobia would bd a ckncern. And, I also suspect otgers are sensitive to see this unjustifiably being done with others, such as classifying all homosexuals as the same.That is why one has to be careful with what terms are used in this topic.

My observation is the topic is heated, progress is "spinning it's wheels". Maybe the topic is overdud for a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:15 PM

Ed, I've posted many times before, on various subjects, that often get politicized beyond recognition,..."Seek out the FACTS, and then let the chips fall where they may!"
This is a far cry, from having a political agenda, then twisting and spinning the facts, to make them fit the agenda...
...besides, and I'll 'remind' some people AGAIN, this thread is about the TRANSMISSION of HIV...and those who have a political agenda, trying to fit the homosexuality issue into a 'Civil Rights' issue, akin to the racial Civil Rights struggle during the '50's, '60's and '70's, because it is based on 'genetics', which it is clearly NOT!...and IF you would have read my earlier posts, the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and other STD's has more to do with PROMISCUITY, hetero OR homo.
...It's just that the political airhead crowd seems to want to exclude homosexuals from the equation, because to include them is considered 'homophobic'....which, of course, is a joke!
Now, as it is, YOU have provided links to the latest studies, which backs up earlier assertions of mine, that homosexuality is NOT 'genetic', but BEHAVIORAL, for which I've been repeatedly accused, (along with others, as you can plainly see) of being 'bigots' and 'homo-phobics', INSTEAD of addressing the issues realistically.
Here, in Mudcat, the answers have been AHEAD of the curve, for quite sometime, only to be sniped at, by the wannabe 'Civil Rights' do-gooders, who have been promoting false information, coupled with bad science for far too long!...That being said, The Mudcat Forum should have been recognized for providing GOOD information, AHEAD OF ITS TIME...but instead, has been reduced to 'just another off-base, so-called liberal' yak site!...Thanks to our resident promoters of false propaganda.....which for the first time in God only knows, how long, is being broken through, and being replaced with factual data.
...but first, truth must be held up, and the and the old bullshit, thrown away!
This has been a four year struggle...
....but let the chips fall where they may.........(works for me...how 'bout you?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM

"There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!"

This seems like an odd way to refer to people who see things differently. Espevially, with tgd orotest that name calling be reduced. Would this not be more of a value judgement, based on limited information, versus a "FACT, that you strongly suggest we all rely on gfs?

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:18 PM

I suspect that there will be a LOT of back-peddling going on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:12 PM

Let me explain Troubadour.
The figures I use are indeed for 2012, the latest figures available.
They show not just a continuation of the trend, but an increase in it.

Musket claims to have secret, unpublished figures for the first quarter of 2013 which only he can see.
That is unfortunate because they apparently show the trend going into reverse so that MSM infections are fewer than the rest.

I have asked if the balance changed just in those 3 months, or if those 3 months figures change the balance for a whole year.
No clarification from him yet.

How do you read it now Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:09 PM

".AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'."

A sensible comment from GfS! Wonders will never cease!

Indeed they should, and from the figures, of all those who should care about testing for STDs in general and HIV in particular, the group with the highest percntage uptake (and therefore the most caring) is the Homosexual demographic.

Pick the bones out of that.

I don't expect to hear complaints from our two gay bashers about young single heterosexual females, who have the lowest percentage uptake of testing for all types of STD. Obviously they have "GREAT" concern for their partners.........NOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:04 PM

"But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue."

There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:46 PM

"Here is the quote Musket.
" I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under.""

Since the figures YOU are using are 2012 data, I read that comment as stating that the last three months completed a two year turnaround, not that the whole thing happened in three months.

But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:51 PM

Akenaton, Keith and any other person with a head on their shoulders, GO TO the, 'Shh.. Don't let them hear you..' thread!!
Ed T just posted a link validating most everything I've been saying for YEARS now......you mean WE 'might not' be 'homophobes!?!?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:33 PM

'Cured', I think, is the wrong word...that was something Firth 'interjected' when he re-phrased one of my posts, to get some traction.
That being said, SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual. Some don't care if they have sex with either sex, or 'bisexual'....some just want to 'put it' where ever they can 'put it'...this goes for BOTH sexes, however, once one engages in sex with someone of the same sex, then it becomes overtly homosexual, by definition.
Here is one problem, that gets overlooked, though....should a homosexual seek counseling or have issues regarding his/her homosexuality, being as the political idiots claim it is 'just normal and natural', counseling or 'medical considerations' can be denied, or not funded....get this....for a 'problem' that doesn't exist!
In any event, those who are sexually active, outside the traditional family structure, with more than one partner, SHOULD BY ALL MEANS be tested....AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'...because if there is a reluctance, to do what is 'right', it usually is because it is for selfish motives, and NOT 'love'....maybe 'lust' and 'horniness'...but don't call it 'Love'....Knowing that, don't you think that explains the uncomfortableness with 'a stigma'???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

I would also refer you to another article posted by Ed on the other thread that suggests even attempting to 'cure' homosexuality is wrong. Do you only read and quote articles that match your agenda or something? Not that the article you refer to does anything like back you up. I suggest you read it again.

BTW - I never accused you of being homophobic. I just think you are wrong in saying homosexuality is conditioning and that it can be 'cured'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:52 PM

Dave, I refer you to an article posted by Ed T, on:

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Anigher perspective. I cant seem tk link this, so will cut and paste it:

(DAVE, read Ed's post!!)
.................................................
To which I responded with THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM

"Very interesting article, Ed....what I have posted before, and your article alludes to, is that mother and fetus are joined during pregnancy...AND, that affects the nervous system, hormones through the 'receptors'...and in turn sets up the 'receptors' to be 'conditioned' to receive input that it can 'recognize'...even be programmed to receive....much like some babies are born with addictions to various substances, IF the mother was taking them during her pregnancy.
See if this may shed some light on the subject.....Say the mother, during her pregnancy is very resentful toward the man who impregnated her, and can't get over it, is moody, resentful, and feels like the guy is a 'cruel unloving bastard'...and she carries those emotions and thoughts, instead of 'moving on', and 'getting over it'....she labors it,.....being as the fetus and mother are using the same body, while the child is being formed, don't you think that the receptors, from which the fetus, and later child, gets 'set up' and conditioned to process 'like-input' that its nervous system was formed with???
The answer is YES!...AND in years of counseling there are DEFINITE similarities consistent with homosexuals, emotional and psychological, to how they process information. That is not saying that those who were born with those similarities are 'at fault' by any choice of their own. That being said, there are the MAJORITY of homosexuals who are NOT born with that 'conditioning of incubation'.
The ones that ARE felt that it was 'genetic'....but that was only .2% of them(as of a few years ago)....Other homosexuals heard that, or read that, talked amongst themselves and formed a 'consensus' that homosexuality was therefore 'genetic'...and it applied to ALL of them, which is simply, not true. Political Airheads tried to make it a 'Civil Rights' issue, based on genetics, akin to being born black, which it clearly is not!
The other group, (which was NOT born that way) have bantered that it was, to divert attention the way from the 'stigma' they live with, which is coupled with 'guilt'....because they KNOW, that for them, in particular, it was a 'choice'....and therefore the confusion that leads to such a heated controversy, being held by those who DO NOT KNOW, and have NOT done their homework....and fanned by the political idiot-logues, who know NOTHING about what they spout off about...(quite a few on here).....
...Taking it further, when a child, who WAS born with that condition, has interaction with a 'Father Figure' whether it be his natural father or not, and in that interaction the child gets his feelings hurt, either by abuse, or PERCEIVED abuse, due to correction or anything else, he may develop resentment that extends to 'unforgiveness' toward the 'Father Figure', and BANG, you have the same emotional/hormonal conditions that he is familiar with, from inside the womb.
When the mother is stressed during pregnancy, her hormones are also at play....and have a direct effect on the gene (Xq28) that has the 'Markers' consistent with other homosexuals....and in that, he 'identifies' with the mother EMOTIONALLY....and often feels that he is 'the victim', much like his mother.
Generally speaking, men, DO NOT get their sense of masculinity from their mothers!!!..The get it from their fathers, or a father figure!!! ...AND, if that same child has a 'built in resentment' toward father figures, or even a concept of 'God', then they tend to rely on the instincts that nurtured them in the womb, and has been 'verified', by whatever caused them, being a young child, to 'resent' their father or 'Father Figure'....they will then gravitate toward like minded others, usually during the 'experimentation period' during puberty....and the rest takes its course.
To those who do NOT understand this, and label those who do, (such as myself, who studied 'Psych', and counseled as a marriage and family counselor), as being 'hateful' or 'bigoted toward homosexuals' or 'homophobic'...these are unlearned, politically conditioned idiots!
One more thing, before I finish...I have lost two friends, one a close one, a musical genius and sound engineering mentor, to AIDS.....so I'm not interested in some nitwit barking accusations of which he or she don't know shit about!

Now, does that sound like 'homophobia'???...or understanding??"

I thought that this post was more apropos to this thread...so I put it on this one, too!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM

MSM infections and other goups have been moving in opposite directions for years.
MSMs rising, others falling.

The last annual set of figures showed the trend not just continuing but increasing.

Do you mean that the balance changed just in those three months, or that the balance was changed for the whole year by those 3 months figures?

Are those figures from over a year ago still so secret?
Is there secrecy about these things?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:58 AM

Keith really hasn't thought through his latest smear tactic has he?

In a year of figures of a few thousand cases, he questions how moving the figures by six months forward can produce a few percent difference.

He thinks he can be clever by confusing an annual figure with a rolling total.

Sorry Keith. As I said, you are dealing with the grown ups when you delve into health epidemiology and delivery. I am expected to swat local councillors like flies at overview and scrutiny committees and you aren't in the league of any of them. (Except perhaps the BNP councillor who asked why we shouldn't concentrate on decent English people first before immigrants and queers. Not easy to answer him either , so our delegation stood up and left.

I may stop feeding your habit on this thread too for that matter. You must be intelligent enough to know the flaw of your interpretation of statistics. The worm and Goofus lack the intelligence to know why they bark at other dogs. It's just instinct borne of low IQ. You however seem yo be able to form calculated attacks.

That's disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:39 AM

So, the man who believes homosexuals are perverts and the one who believes homosexuality can be cured are in agreement. No surprise there really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:42 AM

You're welcome!...Besides, though we may have taken a lot of flak for it, we told them the truth!..........and proved that it was!!....and guess what??....We actually DON'T 'hate' anyone!!!

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 05:09 PM

Thanks Sanity, they have a "child lock" on their brains, which doesn't allow them to view any fact or statistic which may upset their agenda.

Fair enough if that's what rocks your boat, but when they want to go around installing them into the whole of humanity.......I cry foul!

Orwell would have frowned on the practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:31 PM

Akenaton: "There is such a massive difference in the MSM population and the heterosexual population, that real numbers are meaningless.
NEW infections of HIV and Syphilis are very rare among heterosexuals, but run at epidemic proportions amongst MSM."

If anyone, including 'Guest' who posted a link to the CDC, even read the link he posted, (while supporting Musket's position), the CDC backs up Akenaton's claims, and even uses the word 'epidemic'...AND shows the percentages of MSM as opposed to other groups....However 'Guest' (probably a 'DF'), only found a phrase or two that stuck out in his head, and failed to read any further, to see that his post VERY much backs up Akenaton's claims.
there is another link that he posted that backs up my claims about 'receptors'....but he probably didn't read that link all the way, either!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:23 AM

Here is the quote Musket.
" I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under."

If we are discussing new infections, that would require a remarkable reversal of the trend which has been going the other way for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
If I did, others might have too.
Please explain what you really meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

alcohol consumption and testing 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM

Well the point is surely not how MANY MSM as opposed to heterosexuals, are presenting new infections, but the rates at which they present those infections.
There is such a massive difference in the MSM population and the heterosexual population, that real numbers are meaningless.
NEW infections of HIV and Syphilis are very rare among heterosexuals, but run at epidemic proportions amongst MSM.

Hence it is important to supply infection rates by demographic, as not to do so would completely distort the real problems of transmission.

If the figures were presented as one number for all cases of new infections, we would be unaware which sections of society required targeting.....the figures would show a gradual fall and the epidemic amongst MSM could be concealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:43 PM

You could confirm that they exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:40 PM

No good asking me lads. I am far from qualified to interpret any statistics on health issues. As I suspect are most people on this thread!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:35 PM

Just checking in.

They get weirder.   Never thought I'd say this, but I am beginning to agree with ONS.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:43 AM

Keith, He doesn't care about people, only himself...if he wants 'input', he just puts his head back up his ass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 08:39 AM

Musket, you have ignored my posts so I guess you can give no links.

I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under.

That would require a sudden and dramatic reversal of the rising trend for MSM, and/or of the falling trend for others.
(presuming you mean new infections and not prevalence. MSM are well below 50% prevalence)

Presumably you understand how rare and unlikely such events are, so you must see why there are issues of credibility, made worse because the only evidence is contained in figures that only you can see.

I have a suggestion.
I am sure you would trust someone like Dave to see the secret figures and not to pass them on.
He could then confirm your interpretation of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 10:32 PM

Keith, Musket doesn't care..he's more concerned with his politics, and 'political correctness' than reality...and who is crazy enough to believe politicians, and imitation activists??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:44 PM

Musket,
Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England.
The national figures for the next period will be released publicly later this sumer, as all figures up to end of March are. Using provisional figures, the trends show exactly what I said they did. Possibly because I was looking at them. Thick twat.

Are these available on line or not.
If not why did you tell us to go looking for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 04:53 PM

I never said I thought you were a 'cunt'...jeez..at best, just stubbornly attached to bad propaganda.


...and another thing, how come when people DON'T bury their heads in the sand, post figures that show a certain segment of society, are both carriers and vulnerable of a life threatening disease, and call for measures to insure their safety and the health of ALL concerned, do the 'politically correct nut-jobs' instantly attach 'hate' as the motive to correct it??????

Now You got me wondering WHO are the people who want everyone to stand-by, while those same people infect and contract this fatal disease????...Somebody's got you hoodwinked!

Something to think about......

GfS

P.S. That's for those who know about thinking BEFORE re-acting!

P.P.S. 'Re-acting' and 'responding' are TWO different things!~

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 04:20 PM

Musket, for a decade the MSM infections have been rising and overtook all others combined in 2011.

It is very hard to believe that the long established trend has completely reversed!
And all within 3 months!
Even less believable.

You suggested that we,
"Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England."

Did you mean you found them on the net and we should do the same.
If not, where should we "go looking?"
You said I was a "thick twat" for not looking.
How am I supposed to do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM

When the figures are released, it will be irrelevant anyway. (Old figures and only refined to keep consistent with new reporting systems for the following 12 months that ended last week.) I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under. A couple of percent difference but enough to stop the awful "most" demonisation that bigots cling to. Hence Keith getting on his bandwagon. He has known for a long time that I sent a link to an intranet page inadvertently. He loves to think people forget that and keeps bringing it up to make me look a cunt. Well, if the worm and Goofus think I'm a cunt, I'm happy, because if people with their problem liked me, I'd shave the dog's arse and send him out to work for me, because I wouldn't be worth bothering with.

The only reason Keith is hung up about this is that his take on life gets questioned from time to time. Bullies don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 12:19 PM

Musket, you suggested we, "Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England."

Did you mean you found them on the net and we should do the same.
I have tried and failed.
Will you not help us with a link.
I am sure I am not the only one anxious to learn more.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:41 PM

Half the people in the world are below average intelligence.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:39 PM

...and 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:49 PM

"Denial,they say, stands for"Don't even notice I am lying." Human beings are the only animals who are happily lied to by our own minds about what is actually happening around us." 
― Cesar Millan

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:53 PM

He told us that over 4 months ago.
Perhaps he is being honest this time, but seeing is believing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:59 PM

Keith - Even I, with my dull intellect, can remember Musket telling us that he cannot show us the figures until they are officially released. Can you not just accept even that as being true? Maybe it is a half full half empty thing but until proven otherwise I assume people tell the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

Ten percent of all car thieves are left-handed, All polar bears are left-handed -If your car is stolen, there's a 10 percent chance it was nicked by a Polar bear

More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread

Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. Mark Twain

Statistics are like a lamppost to a drunk--they're used more for support than illumination. 

Statistics are like whores, play with them long enough and they'll do anything for you



."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 12:38 PM

Well, you know political ideologists, if they don't have the figures, they just make them up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 10:36 AM

It is great that we have new, right up to date figures to see how the trends are going.
When will you show them to us?

If the trends have indeed reversed, that will make the news.
I am surprised it hasn't already.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM

The post From:
GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 02:40 AM
is just silly projection and too silly to even respond to...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:48 AM

Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England. The national figures for the next period will be released publicly later this sumer, as all figures up to end of March are. Using provisional figures, the trends show exactly what I said they did. Possibly because I was looking at them. Thick twat.

The Dept of Health, The NHS nor PHE make things up. If you don't like reality, I suggest you keep to your delusional world. When you have quite finished putting words in my mouth, you might wish to put some truthful ones in your own. It may hurt slightly, but you should get used to it.

Akenaton. Why stop at one lie? Your stats do indeed appear in historical prevalence figures. Your reading of them do indeed appear in right wing hate and religious sites. Some of us are briefed daily in case we are asked by mainstream media or politicians.

Brilliant coincidence eh? By the way, you will find it is BNP who advise their members to say "marriage" rather than marriage.

To whom it may concern? Certainly concerning if it was stated by anyone important...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:40 AM

Is that providing information, or "stigmatising a whole swathe of society as promiscuous perverts?"

It is providing information. You also know who did the stigmatising. Tell me, ake, did you ever answer that question? You know, the one that goes "Do you believe that homosexuals are perverts"?

The term MSM was coined by the agencies themselves, to define by behaviour not identity.

Absolutely spot on, Keith. It is behaviour that matters. Not preferences. Take note, ake.

DtG