BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:19 AM

Male Homosexuals(MSM), are defined by who they like to have sex with, NOT by who they love.
That is not to say that they are not capable of love.

"Love" is hard to define most couples are "loving" some days, "hating" some days, "mildly irritating" MOST days :0) Couples stay together chiefly to raise their family in doing so they develop a deep emotional bond, they become comfortable with one another.

The bond, and the fact that their actions affect their extended family keeps most of the men monogamous....I think most women with children are naturally less disposed to promiscuity than men.

Heterosexual marriage is an excellent template for society, but the prevalence of "open relationships" amongst the male homosexual community, is extremely risky and unhealthy in todays sexual climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:20 PM

Dave the Gnome: "I did say we had no choice in whom we love. You mean to say you have?"

Here is your quote, Dave, "What are you talking about choices when having sex for?"

(and the answer to the first one is), the choice IS TO love, as in a place you live...and ALWAYS KEEP YOUR WORD...just be careful who you give it to...and 'WHY?'...might just be the measure on how much it is really love.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:43 PM

Gosh take that up with Dave the Gnome..for some reason he believes certain people have 'no choice'

Quite right. I did say we had no choice in whom we love. You mean to say you have? Or are you so sane that you do not know what love is? Or by 'certain people' do you mean that homosexuals do have a choice? That they are somehow different form us 'ordinary' people? I don't think that even ake considers that to be a valid point of view.

You don't half talk twaddle sometimes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Troubadour, remember Musket was completely wrong about the things I picked him up on.
Whatever his job, he does not actually know much about this.

Can you think of one single fact that he has contributed to this whole debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:25 PM

Troubadour, the PHE report has the latest national data.
Musket, whatever his job, has produced nothing newer or better.

He might have a subjective impression that established trends have reversed, but if such a thing had happened it would be reported in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:26 PM

Musket: "Goofus. You are rather weird aren't you?"

Just sane...to you that must seem 'weird'!

Musket: "Buggered if I know exactly what I write. For what it's worth, I would be comfortable writing it although I may have padded a couple of qualifiers in it if it were my post or indeed my style."

You mean like,
"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I"?

Musket: "A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word, and therefore has neither will nor instinct."

'Will' as in 'free choice'??...Gosh take that up with Dave the Gnome..for some reason he believes certain people have 'no choice', either....I guess you don't think they're alive either, huh?...Oh, and BTW, viruses ARE alive....methinks YOU'RE the one who needs the education....and this is just folly, ""A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word..."
That's what happens when you try to fit reality into 'spin'!....so as per aforementioned:

"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I"?

Musket: "The odd five mins playing with the children on Mudcat is a quick light relief from reality."

Your posts are certain proof of that!

GfS

P.S....or are you sure you can tell the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:25 PM

Yeah, I'm Dr Cemetery. If it keeps you happy.

I suppose the idea of anyone working in a sexual health clinic as a doctor questioning your motives is too much to handle eh? No, must be that Musket.

I suppose if I am Seaham Cemetery, as you want me to be, I'll have to start believing Akenaton sells unwanted puppies to a builder who kills them to order. After all, that's what he and his greyhound rearing wife reckon. I notice the Greyhound Action website does refer to a Scottish trainer with your first name, so I'd watch myself anyway. A word of advice regarding Barlinnie, take your own soap eh? I'd hate you to be spurious statistic....

zzzzzzzzz

What are your other names Akenaton? Oh.. You don't need any. Your twisted bitter hatred comes over loud and clear in every post you make.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:11 PM

""GUEST? I don't see how what you have quoted from WHO is going to quickly arrest the epidemic amongst MSM....They are pretty general ideas which don't really address the current problem?""

Ok, I will bite, since the op asked for suggested treatments. Beyond compulsory testing-which is unworkable, and will most likely make things worse, what are your treatment solutions to arrest the global HIV pandemic impacting many groups. Your chance to put it forward, with the benefit of what has been posted and linked here.

A question, what have you learned from the 700 posts in this thread, and does your position remain the same as in other threads. If nothing is gained/learned and your position remains intact, what is your purpose participating in the discussion, (beyond promoting one one solution, you seem to hold firm to). However, if you have benefited from others (beyond those who shared your viewpoints in other threads and here), can you sum it up using respectful terms (for example, please omit any reference to your earlier views as to "a perversion")?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

There are so many anonymous guests posting on this thread that it is almost impossible to hold a serious discussion.
What's wrong with you, that you won't use a consistent handle?

I least we know who "Dr Cemetery" is now.....Mr Hyde and Mr Hyde I think. :0)

GUEST? I don't see how what you have quoted from WHO is going to quickly arrest the epidemic amongst MSM....They are pretty general ideas which don't really address the current problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

"BTW, the HIV/AIDS virus has a 'will' or 'instinct' to survive and reproduce,"

Little knowledge of the subject on display there Goofy.

A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word, and therefore has neither will nor instinct.

I suggest you get yourself some education.

BTW, I was the Guest who posted the World Health organisation, but emphatically not the anonymous Guest in the recent conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

"Anybody got any ideas,"

Yes Ake, the World Health Organisation, the link to which you couldn't, apparently, be arsed to read, but I don't think you'll like their ideas.

" WHO has defined five key components—the "5 Cs"—that must be respected and adhered to by all HTC services. These components are:

    Consent
    Confidentiality
    Counselling
    Correct test results
    Connection/linkage to prevention, care and treatment.

The five Cs, and the key principles they entail, apply to all models of HTC services:

    People being tested for HIV must give informed consent to be tested. They must be informed of the process for HTC, the services that will be available depending on the results, and their right to refuse testing. Mandatory or compulsory (coerced) testing is never appropriate, regardless of where that coercion comes from: health-care providers, partners, family members, employers, or others.
    Testing services must be confidential, meaning that the content of discussions between the person tested and the health-care worker, testing provider, or counsellor, as well as the test results, will not be disclosed to anyone else without the consent of the person tested.
    Testing services must be accompanied by appropriate and high-quality pre-test information or pre-test counselling, and post-test counselling.
    Provision of correct test results. Testing must be performed and quality assurance measures followed according to internationally-recognized testing strategies, norms, and standards based on the type of epidemic. Results must be communicated to the person tested unless that person refuses the results.
    Connections to HIV prevention, treatment and care and support services should be supported through concrete and well-resourced patient referral, support, and/or tracking systems."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:16 AM

""What I said is what is known because what I said is from the latest PHE report, and what you said was wrong according to that.
If you have more up to date figures show us.""

You quote the ""latest" report, now two years out of date.

Musket is dealing on a daily basis with the current situation, which is not yet on any report.

So, who do we think has the latest gen?

A CLUE!......IT AIN'T YOU!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 08:44 AM

""The thread is about the transmission of the HIV virus, not proving jack shit one way or the other about homosexuals and their trips about having kids.""

So, if so, why did you bring the topic up in a post(what was your purpose in doing that)? Since you refer to the importance of "facts", I was merely correcting a statement you posted on that topic, one that was clearly inaccurate, (as you used the word "ALL"). So, should one get from your "prickly" response that you give don't "jack shit" for factual accuracy? Or, should one get the message that you can't admit to a factual error you make, and get all heated up and defensive when an error you make is brought forward?


BTW, on your other point, the OP is below, as a refresher (since you brought the purpose up). jts clearly intended to have the topic broader than HIV transmission alone. Experience in prevention programs was noted. In addition, this did not limit the topic to the UK nor the USA, but to the global situation where prevention programs seems more promising. (the word "civil" was also included, which means respectful).

(As I noted before, many people who have sexual relations, state they have have no interest in reproducing, this includes homosexuals and those with other sexual orientations). Most reasonable people are ok with their personal decision.




OP-

""Subject: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM

I have been told that a section of this forum does not want to discuss it. I think it deserves its own thread.

I haven't thought about it much since I got checked for it and got married. But it is obviously and important issue. Does anyone have any special insights? Does anyone have experience in prevention programs.

I have to admit, I have an interest in seeing this thread succeed.
I'd like to see the discussion kept civil and confined to one thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:30 AM

I always knew it was you anyway, and I am sure I was not alone.
No more proof needed but fun to see you squirming.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:46 AM

My output each day in all areas is rather frightening. My own fault for learning how to type. Writing up a paper right now that needs cropping because I've read shorter novels.

The odd five mins playing with the children on Mudcat is a quick light relief from reality.

Buggered if I know exactly what I write. For what it's worth, I would be comfortable writing it although I may have padded a couple of qualifiers in it if it were my post or indeed my style.

I could be a registrar attached to the armed forces I suppose, but never thought myself clever enough at school to find out. Anyway, Derek isn't around now, and was rather disappointed by the idiots and nasty bastards here, your good self included, so no idea if he will be back. He said not. He has moved on now, so I won't be seeing him at my lectures either.

You really are grasping at straws aren't you? You never forgave me for seeing your slip admitting support for a right wing loony political party... Don't worry, I had you weighed up far before then. I deal with your sort before breakfast back in reality land.

You have up up your game a bit if you want to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:26 AM

It is carefully and emphatically worded.

"There is nothing, nothing whatseover to substantiate a campaign focussing on gay men. It is homophobic to do so."

You would remember constructing it, and you do, but you are not likely start being honest now.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:40 AM

No Keith.

You said I said it. I am comfortable with it so accepted I said it.

Tricks and deceptions only work insofar as they are still tricks and deceptions.

That two people working in different capacities in healthcare form similar professional judgements is not surprising. That they both fly in the face of bigotry and lies is comforting.

Next.



Goofus. You are rather weird aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:21 AM

Musket, he said "many" not "most" and it is the cause of high infection rate in sexual transmission.

Re. Seaham's post, you said,
"Correct.
That's what I said.
Do you have a problem with that?"

You remembered saying it but forgot who you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:53 AM

Don: "Please provide evidence of this statement, as I contend I have done nothing of the sort. That is illogical thinking. Like with others, I suspect many homosexuals have no interest in producing children of their own. Sex in humans goes beyond reproduction, regardlessof what some religions try (have tried, unsuccessfully ) to contend."

The thread is about the transmission of the HIV virus, not proving jack shit one way or the other about homosexuals and their trips about having kids.

BTW, the HIV/AIDS virus has a 'will' or 'instinct' to survive and reproduce, the carriers, homo or hetero, are merely their host...and promiscuity is the most common method of transferring the virus. Wouldn't you NOT want your kids to be vulnerable??? IF, they would ever ask your advice, about one partner or another, wouldn't you advise either your kid, or the 'partner' to get checked out????

But then, I don't know if either one of you stuck around that long...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:20 PM

"You always resort to try to give 'evidence' that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to reproduce!!"

Please provide evidence of this statement, as I contend I have done nothing of the sort. That is illogical thinking. Like with others, I suspect many homosexuals have no interest in producing children of their own. Sex in humans goes beyond reproduction, regardlessof what some religions try (have tried, unsuccessfully ) to contend.

As to the purpose of the thread, please refer to the original detailed post from jts, not merely the title, which provides a different "spin".

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:13 PM

The statement I referred to that was not a fact, and was in error, regardless of the reason (that more likely go beyond the last posted reasons) I list below. It seems reasonable to note this, to avoid discourse and promote a reasonable discussion. However, raising the error has oddly seemed to prick a sensitivity of some type?

The poster used the word "All", to reinforce his/her case which is not a fact. Why would he/she do that in a discussion "some say" is merely to further knowledge, not to promote an agenda/opinion on a health issue, global or local? Just wondering.

"" Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE""

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:03 PM

After reading Don's link to David Baresh, I also read this!

...and by the way, in case you didn't notice, or got caught up in your usual semi-literate diatribes going on in your head, this thread is about "Discussion of HIV transmission."
You always resort to try to give 'evidence' that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to reproduce!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:00 PM

" let's spin the FACTS, to make them fit into your ideology."

A good self confession. What is yourrpurpose of doing that?

Some folks have a very loose definition/understanding of what a fact would be-a factor that would meet a reasonable norm. Just calling it a fact, by wishing it were one, choosing something from a questionable source, taking something out of context, or matching it to a cause - hardly qualifies something as a fact.

Observe that some folks resort to the illogical error of reinforcing their case by calling those with a different viewpoint names, in most caes when their case is weak. That merely reflects on their lack of personal courtesy, in addtion to their weak position put forward. Why would one do that, given the result?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 04:56 PM

Guest, Of course there will always be a small minority of humans who do not wish to have children, but there are usually reasons for them taking this course in life. Fear of childbirth, economic circumstances, medical reasons, issues about overpopulation etc, but the vast majority of young healthy people ARE driven by nature to reproduce.....and that is a positive for our species.

Heterosexual relationships are the only way of ensuring the survival of the species, and a monogamous heterosexual marriage is thought by most experts to be the best way of producing and raising children.

Studies like the link I posted previously suggest that many male homosexual relationships, unions and "marriages are "open" to many sexual partners, by common consent, do not produce offspring and are not a proper environment for adoption.
As such they are radically different from conventional heterosexual marriages, which are for the large part monogamous.

The studies also suggest that these "open" relationships which include multiple sexual partners, are an additional risk in HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

The Village Idiot: "A greater knowledge of Science and the definition of the word "fact", if not the concept itself, could benefit some and improve this discussion:)"

In other words, let's spin the FACTS, to make them fit into your ideology.....Good grief!

Back to basics.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

homosexuality+biological diversity 

A greater knowledge of Science and the definition of the word "fact", if not the concept itself, could benefit some and improve this discussion:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 03:21 PM

Idiot: "Some humans instinctively, and by intent, prefer not to reproduce."

"I submit that this statement is not factually accurate"
Glad you 'submitted' it...it shows you have very little knowledge of the attributes of the basic instincts of living creatures!...even viruses!!

Musket: "I doubt my lads would call someone their own age mummy, but we have higher social standards this side of the pond perhaps."

Oh do you??....Do your children that you 'don't have', ever ask for your advice?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:58 PM

"" Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE""

I submit that this statement is not factually accurate.
Some humans instinctively, and by intent, prefer not to reproduce.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

Akenaton: "Keith does not agree with my views on homosexual "marriage" but he abhors lies and the distortion of facts.
Sanity is valuable contributor here with his own take on many issues, he does not write to "support" me but to give his views on the issues as he sees them. He is sensible and an original thinker...you should pay more attention."

Well, my 'own take'???.....actually a SANE take coupled with common sense...and common sense sees that those who have a political agenda, whose foundation is not rooted in truth, are going to blither and blather on, ignoring the FACTS, even when they are laid out right in front of them...and so plainly, at that. They NEED subscribers to their falsely based dogmas, because they are proudly deluded, and NEED the support of those who don't know much better...but at least it's SOMEBODY.....and when the going gets tough, and their backs are to the wall, they just get nastier, calling more names, and insulting others who they fear are going to pop their plastic bubble of bullshit and hypocrisy.
In the proper light, Akenaton's figures ARE supported by FACTS, and the links that he's provided.....I asked this in a prior post...

"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 AM

"If Akenaton or Keith has twisted the figures, give us 'your' figures' and the links to back up your claim...fair enough?
If you can't, and are only attacking the 'messenger', then what is the point of insisting he is wrong and you are right....just back it up, and point out the difference.
Please try to use reliable sources and reliable links.

If you can, fine...if you can't then give it a rest....and accept his/theirs.
Seems fair to me."

Nobody could do it...OR, nobody did.....instead we get crap like this:

Musket: "I'm not trying to be clever here, but when I first put the record straight on sexual health a few subjects ago, the more odious scum decided to have a pop. I don't like that. I was trying to be useful.

Then I realised that reality can get in the way of prejudice. The two (Goofus doesn't count, he is daft as a brush really) characters on this thread and others can easily become a focus point for who will be first up against the wall come the glorious day. (Second and third actually. That bitch on Question Time last night, saying gay marriage offends her Christianity, she can be first, evil slut.)

Hey worm! Have you noticed how many people defend you? Even Keith and Joe refuse to agree with you, just think that hate has a place in debate. Well yes, if only to realise the alternative to civilised respectability.

Get fucked."
......................................................................
So who cares if Musket 'gets it'????....matter of fact, he is an embarrassment to the very 'cause' he is trying to 'promote'!
I'd say let him blither and blather on....what is he trying to do, want people to be like HIM?????!!!???.....ALL fucked up????(your words), Musket, dear small thinker!...who thinks people have the absolute right to wander the streets looking for others to infect with a deadly fatal, slow-death disease, with complete abandon!....because his ideology 'wants equality'(?) for the carriers.....what are fucking moron!
...as for the would-be victims, if they are cautious or take precautions to avoid behavior that would give them exposure to dying a slow death, via sexual promiscuity, he calls them 'bigots and homophobes'...and based on what???...Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE......(not found in his ideology)....

Regards to Those Who Enjoy Living With the Truth!

GfS

P.S. Oh Regards and condolences to whomever was stupid enough into buy this rap, "I am married, don't have children (two by my previous marriage though) and consider myself married."
Does she?....or do the kids call her 'Mummy'...just so long as you are happily deluded, everything is just fine!
Try to keep it together Ol' Chap, because your whole trip is just flappin'

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:09 PM

"Anybody got any ideas, other than research and education, which will not stop the epidemc soon enough."

Where is the evidence (some links were posted here, for the open minded to review) that research and education has had a no impact on dealing with the global HIV-AIDs pandemic? International agencies indicate that progress is being made with that approach.

The idea of compulsary testing of all gay people (the one size fits all testing theory promoted by some), or similar initiatives that stigmatize the entire male gay community, or other impacted communities, will do little to stop the global pandemic. However, it surely would add fuel to homophobia, which is alive and well globally. It would also drive those needing testing farther away from getting tested, as noted by many. That is why this "right-wing" approach has been rejected as counter-productive by most respected agencies dealing directly with the issues and those impacted.

Why would anyone post links for those who have already made up their minds to ignore? Why would one participate in a thread where posters are mostly rude to those who see things differently than they do?

What is the real purpose of those posting here on this mudcat soapbox? It hardly is a place for enlightened thought, and the personal views of a few (regardless if who they team up with) are not a factor on preventing future infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 01:30 PM

I could prove that I am not a liar quite easily, ut I have a strict rule about not posting PMs on open forum.

However, proving some other member to be a fraud, will not improve MSM HIV infection rates, which is the object of this thread.

Anybody got any ideas, other than research and education, which will not stop the epidemic soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 11:52 AM

You must remember "Seaham Cemetry" Dave.
His first posts were to smear Akenaton about killing greyhounds.
His name derives from that smear story.

He then announced he was a doctor, and began supporting Musket on HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 08:12 AM

Come on Dave...your pal has admitted being the author of the statement quoted by Keith from "Dr Cemetery's" post.

I don't know where to start on that. Firstly, I have never met 'my pal', by whom I presume you mean Musket. Why do you continue to say there is some sort of collusion between posters who disagree with you when I have repeatedly said there is no such plot? You are really not that important. There are some things on which we agree and there are some things we have disagreed about. It is what grown up people do. It is not like school where you are in one gang or another. Secondly, you still do not post under your real name. Why say posting under a false name is wrong when you do the same? Third, even if someone posts under a different name, provided everyone knows, there is no issue. I have no idea whether Musket ever posted under the name "Dr Cemetery". I cannot find any posts in that name. But even if he did, and then said it was him, it is no different to posting under one, two or many pseudonyms. However, as the moderators will highlight and prevent instances where people post under different names, I would rather leave it to them anyway.

Finally, seeing as you have already said you do not wish to discuss any issues with me, why do you continue doing so? Can you not do anything you say you will?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:45 AM

Come on Dave...your pal has admitted being the author of the statement quoted by Keith from "Dr Cemetery's" post.

His credibility is ZERO.

I on the other hand, NEVER post under any other handle than "akenaton".
I don't need any support, real or imaginary.
Keith does not agree with my views on homosexual "marriage" but he abhors lies and the distortion of facts.
Sanity is valuable contributor here with his own take on many issues, he does not write to "support" me but to give his views on the issues as he sees them. He is sensible and an original thinker...you should pay more attention

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.

Once again I ask. So, your real name is akenaton then?

It doesn't matter whether there are multiple personas or not. You are still posting under a false name.

.....are you just a bit dim

No, I don't believe I am. Are you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:33 PM

WHO- the 5 Cs in reducing HIV 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:43 PM

Dave, I have only one posting name on this forum.
I have NEVER purposely posted under any other posting name than akenaton.

Others here use multiple personas to support their views.....are you just a bit dim, or are you being disingenuous again?

I don't see you using such tactics. Do you not think it is a pathetic way to engage in discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

What I said is what is known and used for provision of sexual health services in The UK.

No.
What I said is what is known because what I said is from the latest PHE report, and what you said was wrong according to that.
If you have more up to date figures show us.

You have been asked many times already so you clearly can not show us anything.
I think and believe that your "upstream" figures are an invention, but would be happy to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.


So, your real name is akenaton then?

What a wanker.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:45 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.

Uses the fraudulent cover to libel and insult other members, stalks other members and uses the crudest of language.
Does he not realise that the used of the word "cunt" as a term of abuse is a serious insult to the women, who, on another thread, he pretends to support.......a fraud in every dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:45 PM

....and it was wrong anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:44 PM

Not true.
You were unable to give a source and still have not.
It came from you and nowhere else.
You said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:34 PM

Musket didn't say that.

Musket is aware of it and related it.

Did someone say you once was a teacher? The mind boggles.

Sports I assume...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:58 AM

Me argue with PHE?
That is where I got the figures to expose your ignorance, or deliberate falsification.

Musket hasn't said any of the above.

"Less than half new HIV+ diagnosis results are from make to male transmission,"

" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:19 AM

Which fact produced by me do you dispute Troubadour?

Was Musket telling the truth when he stated that MSM infections were less than half the total?

No he was not.

Was he telling the truth when he stated that hetero rates are rising?

No he was not.

Have I stated one thing that is not clearly and demonstrably the truth?

No I have not, or can you produce one?

Confident prediction, NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:04 AM

"Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction."

Which is why you three are on your own.

Musket, I fear that there is little purpose in trying to communicate with neanderthals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

So there are no better or newer figures than those I produced.

The trends of ten years standing have not screeched to a halt and gone into reverse in just three months without anyone reporting it.

You made it all up, like the existence of Doctor Who.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:21 AM

Keith. The reporting year 2012/13. I gave the figures.

No, you never have.
You have alluded to them and claimed them but never produced them and they are not published.
Will you produce them now?
Confident prediction- you can't.
The latest figures given have been the ones that I produced and you initially rubbished.

Correct. That's what I said.

Yes it is, but you said it under the name "Seaham Cemetry."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 AM

If Akenaton or Keith has twisted the figures, give us 'your' figures' and the links to back up your claim...fair enough?
If you can't, and are only attacking the 'messenger', then what is the point of insisting he is wrong and you are right....just back it up, and point out the difference.
Please try to use reliable sources and reliable links.

If you can, fine...if you can't then give it a rest....and accept his/theirs.
Seems fair to me.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:48 PM

Whilst no great lover of the twattery that Question Time usually embraces, I did appreciate the sublime twenty minutes or so of tonight's programme that were devoted to gay marriage. The debate was wonderful. The UKIP pillock on the panel, and the "committed Christian" lady in the audience, didn't need to be shot down as they both did an expert job in shooting themselves down. If you have iPlayer and didn't see it, do take a look. Akenhateon and Guffers ExtremoInsanitario should be forced to watch it ten times in a row, preferably shackled in front of the telly. Love, love, love. If you are sceptical, do watch it if you can.