BS: Militant Atheism Threads

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:39 PM

BTW, in case anyone lost count, that is three times :-)

Now. What about Please consider how long I let you do that

You did not 'let me' do anything, Jack. If you believe that you did, you are more deluded than the others believe. Nothing you can do, ever, will stop me from posting my own views. Please note. My own views. Not those of either Co-Messiah. That they happen to occasionally coincide is a matter of chance. No matter what nonsense about 'allies' and being 'put up' to things you keep posting.

As to Please be warned that if you persist in calling it impolite for me to repeat things That is truly terrifying. Not the threat. The fact that someone could seriously believe I may be remotely worried about it. At the risk of repeating myself, again,

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:24 PM

You do realize that I only point it out when it occurs?

Anyone is free to do so. Once. Maybe twice. Occasionally three times if the need arises. But over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? To do so is unkind to others and therefore impolite. It is certainly argumentative and anyone trying to come across as better than others by, seemingly, quoting and sticking to the rules is certainly being snooty.

And once again I ask the question. Who appointed Jack as law enforcer and judge all in one?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

"But over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?"

You do realize that I only point it out when it occurs?

I've told the concerned parties that I am going to point it out until they learn and abide by the rules.

Who appointed Mr. Shaw to try to drive people off the forum by insulting them? Who appointed to to join with Mr. Shaw in that quest with several solid months of of non-stop mocking?

One or two jokes about being the Messiah may have been funny. "But over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?"

Nice try ally of Steve. Please consider how that argument sounds like to me coming from you. Please consider how long I let you do that without appointing myself as law enforcer and judge all in one for you? Please be warned that if you persist in calling it impolite for me to repeat things, I shall watch to see if you do it.

I didn't make up the rules, did I? A respectful and polite member of this form would learn the rules, respect the rules and abide by the rules. Wouldn't they?   

Steve Shaw and Musket appointed me the "Law enforcer and Judge" for them by attacking me and currently for Steve and up until recently for Musket

How is what I am doing argumentative? I'm not arguing with them. I am just showing them Max's words and asking them to stop insulting people. I am not inviting a discussion. I am not provoking a response. I am simply and persistently trying to educate. I am simply using a tool that Max gave us to fight back against badgering without arguing and without running to the admins and asking them to babysit our tormentors.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM

His absurd claim that statistics are er... The only things people use as er... Statistics....

My only claim is that the HPA/PHE stats are definitive and the ones used by NHS for all purposes including planning.

That contradicts your knowingly false claim.
You just hope to be believed by obfuscation and smears.


You have failed to produce any source to support your claims, or any other statistics on UK HIV infection.
Will you now?
Of course not.
You can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

Nobody appointed Jack, Dave, he took it upon himself to try to bring civility back to this forum and has made a damn good job of it IMO.

I think Jack should be offered a chance at moderating.

As I said already, somebody HAD to do something, we all like to argue the toss here, but if we are going to behave like infants the forum will surely break up, nobody LIKES discussion with people who constantly insult them personally.

If I start to push my socialist views, I expect conservatives to say I don't live in the real world, or that my ideas are unrealistic, or that I'm a Utopean dreamer......I don't expect to be personally abused.
Most people here would not like to be addressed in that fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:14 PM

Anything is up for civil debate eh?

Let's have a civil debate about your attitude to people you don't know but feel you can sit in judgement of?

Let's have a debate about Musket being a liar for knowing more about sexual health than you know about labouring for stonemasons.

Let's have a civil debate about the far right hate sites you use to draw false conclusions about the accurate HPA data you spew without knowing how it is collected nor indeed why.

Let's have a civil debate over your claim that not many gay people will want to marry, because they are naturally promiscuous. We could segue in a side debate about not letting niggers go to school because they don't need education when they end in prison. Or even letting pakis in public places in case they offend you by wearing rucksacks.

Hey! It's easy this bigot lark! I think I could ge..............

Excuse me, I need to throw up.

Then get a shower.

My skin is crawling.





Nobody is name calling you worm. Some of us don't like the company of lowlife scum and aren't afraid to say so. Read what the more civil members are actually saying. I applaud their self control, though I don't share their approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM

You don't need to be a judge to see and point out name calling and abusive language Dave.

Anyone is free to do so. Once. Maybe twice. Occasionally three times if the need arises. But over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? To do so is unkind to others and therefore impolite. It is certainly argumentative and anyone trying to come across as better than others by, seemingly, quoting and sticking to the rules is certainly being snooty.

And once again I ask the question. Who appointed Jack as law enforcer and judge all in one?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:30 PM

You don't need to be a judge to see and point out name calling and abusive language Dave.

I think Jack has made a big difference here, name calling and cursing at fellow members had all but gone.....a better feeling pervades the forum. It takes time and effort to push people in the civil direction.
Well done Jack, someone had to do it and you stepped up to the plate.

Moderators have let too much go ....I know they cant read everything, but they should keep an eye on threads which could be controversial.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 01:22 PM

Jack is correct to point out abusive language and name calling whenever it occurs Dave.

Anyone is free to do so. Once. Maybe twice. Occasionally three times if the need arises. But over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? To do so is unkind to others and therefore impolite. It is certainly argumentative and anyone trying to come across as better than others by, seemingly, quoting and sticking to the rules is certainly being snooty.

And once again I ask the question. Who appointed Jack as law enforcer and judge all in one?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

Jack is correct to point out abusive language and name calling whenever it occurs Dave.
If this behaviour was taken to its "logical" conclusion, we would have no discussion forum, just a bear pit of abuse, sensible discussion of controversial issues would be impossible.
I can't understand why you would want this sort of childish behaviour to continue, you have always seemed a sensible guy in the past?

The shutting down of civil discussion is always bad, regardless of whether we like what we hear or not.
On this forum ANY subject is up for CIVIL debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 01:00 PM

I don't think either Keith or myself are saying anything "unreasonable" Jack.
Keith is not even expressing an opinion, he is simply pointing out when others are being inaccurate or deliberately lying.

I take your point about lesbians, they seem to be more or less similar to heterosexual couples when in a committed relationship.

But the church has other issues about same sex "marriage", regarding family structure and theological teaching.
Children are the crux of the matter, it is regarded as the "ideal", if children are brought up by their natural parents in a secure family structure.....the Church wishes to reinforce this ideal, not weaken it.
Traditional marriage should always be between man and woman, to reinforce the family structure. All the "rights" are available through civil union and the institution of marriage should be supported in the interests of children everywhere.

it is my personal opinion, that the issue is really an attack on the Church and conservatism by "liberal activists" like those we see on these pages, do you not see the link in their continual attacks on religion...... it is estimated that only 0.04 of the population will avail themselves of homosexual "marriage", and of those who do 75% will be women.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:29 PM

Dave, ally of Mr. Steve Shaw, nice try. Did he put you up to that?

Unkind, uncalled for and untrue, Jack. Do you get to not only repeat the rules over and over again but also decide which statements fall foul of these rules? If so, under who's authority do you act as law enforcer and judge?

Moreover you are evading the fact that your constant parroting of the same mantra is becoming very monotonous and therefore impolite, unkind and argumentative. Being 'holier than thou' while repeating it is probably one of the snootiest things I have come across.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 12:12 PM

"Here's a stance. Bigotry, misogyny and homophobia get the reaction it deserves in the only way the ignorant tossers understand."

Here is a stance.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

It puzzles me that you seem to think that calling people names somehow mitigates the damage of people expressing unwanted ideas.

Its like they have started a bonfire and you deal with that by throwing horse turds into the flames.

I also wonder who you and Steve think appointed you to try to drive people off this forum with insults.

It doesn't work. It just makes them worse. They just think that you are mentally undisciplined and therefor may be persuadable. If everyone was countering their ideas with reason than they would not have any reason to think that saying unreasonable things would work. Simply put. When they make you angry, they win.

Try this, calm down. When they say something unreasonable, counter it with reason. Stay calm. Don't call them names. Don't ad fuel to the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 11:55 AM

Something good about putting down bigotry and malign intent all the same.

Keith gets more stupid with each post. His absurd claim that statistics are er... The only things people use as er... Statistics....

Want to try again Keith?

Who knows, you might even eventually get as far as your tubular mate. At least he admits to hating without hiding his views. Mind you, I wish he would.



Here Jack! You say that respectful members are supposed to behave etc. What about disrespectful members then? Is the worm allowed to promote hate because he is disrespectful?   Is it disrespectful to be disrespectful to disrespectful people then?

You seem to have all the fucking answers so why don't you ask our homophobic bigots that follow me round the threads to respect your so called rules?

There again, fuck 'em. Let them carry on. Nobody on Mudcat gives a rats arse about their odious diatribe, nobody cares how much they upset members. No. Because they say it without shouting so we must respect them. If we don't, Joe Offer sends us abusive emails. I guess that is the bit that disappoints me most of all.

Here's a stance. Bigotry, misogyny and homophobia get the reaction it deserves in the only way the ignorant tossers understand.

Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 11:34 AM

"I am pretty sure that quoting the same thing over and over again when it is obviously having no effect is unkind, impolite, argumentative and snooty all the same time." DtG

I am sure that it is not. I am sure those rules were put there because that is how respectful members are supposed to behave.


Dave, ally of Mr. Steve Shaw, nice try. Did he put you up to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 11:23 AM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

I am pretty sure that quoting the same thing over and over again when it is obviously having no effect is unkind, impolite, argumentative and snooty all the same time. Give it a rest, Jack. You are doing no good whatsoever. I Suggest that you email Max every time you feel the need to whinge about someone. Let's see how long he can put up with it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:16 AM

I guess you all have a reason to bicker like this over subtle differences of opinion on the meaning of words like "accurate" and "author."

Please try it without the name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:05 AM

>>Keith or the worm. Keith is just plain ignorant<<



You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 09:54 AM

Changed sources?
Just added to them.
HPA/PHE produce the definitive statistics on UK infection.
If you deny that you are lying.
They are the statistics used in NHS planning whatever you say.

That is why you have failed to produce any source to support your claims, or any other statistics on UK HIV infection.
Will you now?
Of course not.
You can't.

Some of the organisations who use those and only those UK HIV stats.
NHS Choices.
Terrence Higgins Trust.
Avert.
National Aids Trust.
In fact, every single organisation with a need for those stats.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:58 AM

Wrong as usual. You can't change your source and use the same argument hoping that nobody notices you are lying Keith. Not lying about your sources, which includes me by the way as I am paid from the same pot and helped set PHE up, but lying because you quote sources that agree with the reality I state then say I am lying.

You are one fucked up individual.

Why can't you be like that nice person Akenaton and quote the DEFINITIVE study?

Excuse me whilst I throw up. Fucked up individuals and sick puppies. What price equality for all eh?

Bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:26 AM

From the definitive study by Bell and Weinberg.

Females were more likely than males to be monogamous. One third or more of the lesbians were monogamous, while the rest fell into the other categories. There were even larger differences between males and females in sexual behavior. Nearly half of the males had over 500 different sexual partners in a life time, another third had between 100 and 500, and over 90 per cent had at least 25 (black gay men were on average slightly less promiscuous than white gay men). Much sex between men took place between strangers, met in baths or bars. 25 per cent of white gay men at some time had sex with boys who sixteen or younger, after they themselves reached the age of 21. Most lesbians, however, had fewer than 10 same-sex partners over a life time, and very few cruised or looked for casual sex. Little lesbian sex took place between strangers.[19][20] Women's sexual behavior showed a relatively greater level of heterosexual activity and a relatively lower level of homosexual activity compared to that of men.[21]

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:24 AM

"HIV in the United Kingdom: 2013 report
Authors:
Public Health England
Publication date: November 2013 "

"From 1 April 2013 we are part of Public Health England
We are still maintaining this website until further notice."
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/InfectiousDiseases/HIVAndSTIs/1311HIVintheUk2013report/

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:18 AM

"You gormless stupid ill informed pillock"
HPA have been part of PHE since April last year.
PHE are the "authors" of the last annual HIV report, still on the HPA site.

They supply the definitive statistics.
No-one else.
You are a thoroughly dishonest person.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 06:49 AM

You gormless stupid ill informed pillock.

HPA get HRG data from commissioning returns. They then produce statistics and offer scenarios to support trends.

This morning, my first day back at my desk, I am reviewing cancer data from January. It will hit national recipients possibly by April.

PHE don't do anything yet in that regard as they haven't even got their funding yet. My wife was appointed a regional cancer lead back in July and the sessions she is being paid haven't hit her paycheck yet. When they do carry on the work of national and regional planning, they will, as the SHAs did before, use HPA type data to inform planning of services and refine their raw numbers source with other pertinent intelligence. I shouldn't use that last word with you, it might confuse you, sorry. You know, if you were right, I wouldn't have the contract I have, as I am leading long term planning of NHS services for a huge region of England, and am in constant contact with, and use information from the organisations you keep quoting. I think I know a wee bit more than someone who reads two books and thinks he knows everything about anything eh?


I tried. You just can't educate pork.

There again, your agenda is clear Keith. You just don't let the mask slip as often as Akenhateon do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith keeps referring to a paper published using HPA data from a one year period as being the definitive data. No. It is a published opinion. Just that.

The HPA statistics ARE definitive.
Raw data is obviously supplied by clinicians, but HPA/PHE produce the statistics AND NO-ONE ELSE!
That is why you can not produce any others despite repeated requests.

In your position you must know this, but you hope to hide the fact from the forum because the figures undermine your position.
You are a thoroughly dishonest person.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

By the way Keith.

The BHIVA are expressing their wishes in a submission to a consultation in the quote you gave. A very good one, as the epidemiology of sexual health does require trend and incidence analysis, as well as regional variation. Our people do have concerns that HPA data may be less valid if the quango bonfire affects their ability.

But the same people are the first to decry those who dangerously use HPA data to satisfy false assumptions. There is a similar issue on recall for breast screening, where data is being misinterpreted by pressure groups who want screening expanded on other than clinical appropriateness.

If you are a decent man, and your track record hasn't been sparkling it has to be said, you at least should accept that the epidemiology of a health aspect in a population size such as ours is more complicated than looking at history and trajectory and carving the results in stone.

I wish it were. We'd need to spend less on expensive consultant doctors. Public health consultants aren't cheap, but the planning and forecasting they give at a local level helps target services far better than far right groups, priests or politicians could ever do.



Jack. Sorry but Steve Shaw was both accurate and I think constrained in his condemnation of the worm above. To think that anybody could be so sinister and repugnant as to assume gay people, the ones who fought hard to be accepted, allowed to marry, aren't worth the effort because they are all adulterous anyway?

He makes my skin crawl.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:25 AM

Keith is being literal again. Of course the data supplied by HPA is mostly accurate. After all, it is gleaned largely from NHS data in the first place. As ever, bigots confuse trajectory based on history with trajectory based on meta analysis. The latter being what public Health consultants use when planning local services.

Keith keeps referring to a paper published using HPA data from a one year period as being the definitive data. No. It is a published opinion. Just that. A very good one by the way and most useful, but merely one factor.

The other factors are the excellent take up of screening by male gays, which skew figures, and the appalling late presentations by promiscuous women. Sexual health services are concentrating on the latter. Look for the new adverts just starting up. Unlike our more odious contributors, my comments on this subject do tend to be on the basis of fact. After all, I advise on healthcare planning as a small part of what I do. When I said more women take it up the arse than men, it is based mainly on complication presentation at emergency departments and colo rectal referrals, not gut (or colon..) feeling.... Oh, and the internet funnily enough. The exposure of more people to porn makes anal sex seen more a a norm and is more expected than before. An interesting paper about that the other year in a medical journal I read.

But not worth arguing with Keith or the worm. Keith is just plain ignorant and believes what he wishes to believe, so long as he can google something with a glimmer of fact about it and the worm just hates people who are on the wrong side of his personality disorder.

Sigh....

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:31 PM

>>From: akenaton - PM
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM

I am referring only to male homosexual infection rates Jack.

The church defines marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively

I suppose the infection rates for totally monogamous male homosexual couples would be nil.....if you could find one.<<

So I guess you are saying that the only reason that women and Gay men who intend to remain faithful is a definition of the church?

I know that not all churches are as rigid in their definition of marriage. So let me ask you this. Would you have an object to two gays getting married if they pledged monogamy (as most couples do) and could find a church to marry them?

I think that if your objection is simply your morals and if you are not insisting that your morals be opposed on others then it is your right to express your opinion. MSM infection is a separate issue. I'm sure that all can agree it is a bad thing. Forcing a legal abridgement of equal rights of a citizen because of the a definition imposed by a church they do not follow does not seen like you Ake. You come across as a lover of liberty and equality to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:14 PM

>>These remarks reveal you to be one of the most repugnant, bigoted, lying, prejudiced, vile, sub-human, nasty pieces of work I've ever encountered. <<

You say that you have never insulted anyone. I think I might start counting the insults.

1 (7 actually but lets keep it simple and stick to incidences)

Perhaps you are unaware of the rules of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:23 PM

I suppose the infection rates for totally monogamous male homosexual couples would be nil.....if you could find one.

Various studies have shown male homosexuals to have large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, over 100 is common some give figures of over one thousand.

These remarks reveal you to be one of the most repugnant, bigoted, lying, prejudiced, vile, sub-human, nasty pieces of work I've ever encountered.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM

I am referring only to male homosexual infection rates Jack.

The church defines marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively

I suppose the infection rates for totally monogamous male homosexual couples would be nil.....if you could find one.

Various studies have shown male homosexuals to have large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, over 100 is common some give figures of over one thousand.
Even in "committed" relationships monogamy among male homosexuals is not common.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:16 PM

Ake, You do not have enough data to reach that conclusion.   

What are the infection rates among monogamous couples neither of whom were previously infected?

How about female homosexual couples? Are they to have their rights abridged because of male to male infection?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:11 PM

I don't see any response to the valid point about promiscuity spreading HIV

Jack.... if over 60% of new cases of HIV (70% in the US), are from the MSM demographic, surely that says something about the sexual behaviour of male homosexuals?
I have always deduced from these figures that sexual intercourse between males is dangerous and unhealthy and should not be promoted as "safe and healthy".....the legislation to promote homosexual "marriage" through the church is in my opinion flawed.

The church is supposed to give moral guidance on matters like sexual behaviour....how can they do so without studying and understanding these figures

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:31 PM

But the middle bit is misleading.

"British HIV Association (BHIVA), British Association for Sexual Health and HIV
(BASHH)/Royal College of Physicians, Medical Foundation for AIDS & Sexual Health
(MedFASH)
British HIV Association (BHIVA), British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH)/Royal College of Physicians, Medical Foundation for AIDS & Sexual Health (MedFASH)
Written evidence from The British HIV Association (BHIVA) (HAUK 53)
1. Monitoring
Please also refer to the evidence submission by the 'Halve It Campaign' of which BHIVA is a member
We wish to emphasise the following points:
i)
The quality of HIV surveillance in the UK provided by the Health Protection agency (HPA) is high and internationally recognised. The HPA provides information on the epidemiology of HIV infection across different populations and localities. Reporting of HIV surveillance data is voluntary, but both participation and reporting is high.
ii)
Under the proposed public health reforms it is important the quality and extent of the current surveillance provided by the HPA is maintained and enhanced. It is vital sufficient resources are made available, and that fragmentation of surveillance and monitoring systems does not occur.
iii)
The development of clinical outcome indicators by the HPA in collaboration with the London specialist commissioning group has been a significant initiative in the monitoring of treatment and care outcomes and will help inform the commissioning of services.
iv)"

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:35 PM

Musket leave out the first and last lines and your post has some credibility. As it is you are just a rule breaking name caller.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 01:30 PM

The academy of Royal Colleges don't recognise your false and misinterpreted health figures

They use HPA data, same as Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Oy! Odious worm!

Earlier on in this thread, you moaned about personal abuse. You said I was a poor NHS manager despite the fact I am neither poor, nor an NHS manager. Your beef was, I presume, that The academy of Royal Colleges don't recognise your false and misinterpreted health figures that you use to persecute gay people in a most despicable and awful manner. The NHS deals with reality, not your wish to criminalise people for merely existing.

So.. If you can't take it, stop giving it out.

Here's a fact. More women love it up their arse than men. Factor that into your homophobia you worthless creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:38 PM

Ake, I think that people, any people getting AIDS is disturbing to all of us. I've pointed out before that you have not shown a link between that and Gay marriage, yet you use it as an argument against it.

Near my small home town in Canada a man was convicted and jailed for knowingly having unprotected sex with multiple female partners while being infected with the virus. I know for a fact that AIDS is not just a gay problem and the causal factor for the epidemic was promiscuity and recklessness not homosexuality.

If you want to say that MSM infection rates are alarming and that young men are reckless, I doubt you will find many who will argue the point. But the conflation of that and gay marriage is taking the argument beyond the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:25 PM

I was actually responding to Jack the Sailor Mr Blandriver, I am certainly not about to carry on a debate with some one as abusive as you.

Anyway there is no need to debate you, your frenzied post says everything we need to know about you.

I am amazed though, that there are still people who hold your views on sexual conduct in todays climate.
If you are really a homosexual, as you claim, do the MSM infection rates not give you pause for thought?
If these rates are not caused by extreme promiscuous behaviour, perhaps you can enlighten us as to their actual cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:56 AM

Oh, if only we all had your wisdom and in depth perception..does beg the question though, if you are as good as you boast...

No it doesn't. It raises the question. I'm not as "good" as anything. I'm just enjoying meself.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:03 AM

the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of our sex organs is for nought but PLEASURE.

No.
Reproduction is their original purpose, but if it did not stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain, no-one or thing would use them.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 07:57 AM

Interwebby thing - Put them out of their misery by telling them rather publicly what you think of their opinion, but on Mudcat do it without gratuitous abuse in respect for the wishes of the selfless people who provide the service.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 07:16 AM

Jack, I thought we were discussing the original purpose of reproductive organs.....in relation to the species.

We are. We operate as a species through sexual pleasure & the joy of our genitalia. Homo, hetero, auto - it makes little difference. Consequently there's little chance of us dying out through contraception or STDs, BUT the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of our sex organs is for nought but PLEASURE. Reproduction is an occult & random consequence, as it is throughout all of nature from pollination to full on humping. I sure ain't heard no HORSE talk about no reproduction.

Homosexuality is not just restricted to the human realm, but we Homosexual Sapiens have made it a fine, noble and glorious art. As someone said, if God was so offended by BUGGERY, why did he put a G-spot up the male arsehole? And even the BIBLE celebrates Anal Sex... (Song o' Solomon 5:4). As someone else said, women are Lesbian by default.

Sex defines our culture & our spirituality; it is our very raison d'etre - all Nature expects of us is to have fun in a random scatter gun fashion & it will do the rest quite nicely.

*

Promiscuity is bad for all of us, that should be clear to everyone in this day and age.....Pope Benedict tried to make this very point, only to be howled down by the "liberal" media.

Pope Benedict covered up for paedophiles - anything else he said is invalid. He also headed an organisation responsible for the death & suffering of countless thousands (2 if you include the Catholic Church, in which case the number is MILLIONS). He also fast-tracked that sadistic old bitch & death fetishist Mother Theresa to becoming a saint. That is BAD.

There are no IDEALS here, just LIFE, what IS, and what has EVOLVED to be in this GODLESS REALM where the only problems are in the foetid imaginations of censorious tabloid tossers (like yourself) who take such offence at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:03 AM

The scenario.

Someone comes up with pompous shit or weird takes on reality.

The geography and reaction.

Pub - Smile , turn your back and talk to someone else.

Family - Smile, review your Christmas card list.

Interwebby thing - Put them out of their misery by telling them rather publicly what you think of their opinion.



You know, the less diplomatic approach, as seen on these threads is possibly in the long run the best approach after all.



(For the pub scenario, I would add , as I do, that when in the company of odious bigots, you may wish to leave your pint and walk out , wiping your feet as you leave.)

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 08:53 PM

I'm afraid Bill that in Mr. Shaw's universe yer either fer 'm or agin 'm.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 08:41 PM

I come home from a day at a folk music festival to find myself assured ...twice ... that I HAVE BEEN insulted... but then I read from the source that he has never, ever insulted anyone. Then he proceeds to insult me far worse than name calling by asserting that I indulge and patronize 'idiots' by participating in debate with people whom I know are NOT anything near idiots.

"Be in no doubt about whither or not it was an insult Bill.
It was indeed; it's what we term "condescension"."

Yeah... it does feel a bit like condescension *shrug*... but if no one deducts too many points for my flawed approach... *giggle*... I won't fret over it.

It must be ... nice?.... interesting?....humbling?.. naaawww, not humbling... to be so competent and smug that one can identify and categorize the innate mental capacities of those with whom he disagrees.

I suppose that all I can do as an indulgent 'ol fruit is to shrug and be whatever *I* choose to be and focus on the discussions and not the 'ratings' supplied from the sidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

"Yankee imperialism" as it is in the abstract. Although if the cap fits"

I think the problem in this case is insisting that the cap fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 07:38 PM

"Wacko-"

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty, or either FOR or AGAINST that of-what-we-do-not-speak.


Does anyone agree with Mr. Shaw's statement?

" I've never insulted anybody, ever."

He seems to think that by insulting people on this forum who don't care a think about his opinions or grievances, he can right all of the wrongs that "Christian Militants" have been doing to his poor downtrodden people for so so long. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 07:14 PM

I never read such unadulterated, self satisfied, self promoting, smug crap shaw.....it is obnoxious even for you..Oh, if only we all had your wisdom and in depth perception..does beg the question though, if you are as good as you boast, why are you infesting these pages with your particular brand of bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant Atheism Threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM

Ah yes, another Wacko-dominated thread that is descending into the ridiculous (but such fun!). Actually, I've never insulted anybody, ever. All I've done is provide sharp riposte to people who are proud of being total idiots - and insulting the rest of us, serially and routinely, by requiring us to consider their utter inanities (we must be mad). If you are not a total idiot you will recognise yourself as not ever having been the recipient of such riposte (and not just from me - I have no ego, you know!). I'm not too keen on the indulging of fools such as pete, Wacko and Ake. If only more of us told these idiots to ditch their stupid bigotry and prejudices, and cut out the defensiveness, in as direct a manner as possible, we wouldn't have these threads (though what fun we'd be denying ourselves thereby!). Saddest of all is to see the likes of Bill, fine fellow though he is, who does everything in his power, possibly unknowingly, to keep these idiots on board, by dint of his indulgence of them (the indulgence is often close to patronising, which is a good thing, but ol' fruit Bill doesn't realise that they're too thick to see it). We need a world in which bullshitters are afforded no quarter. Too many of them hold far too much sway. The Christian militants have been telling us atheists like it is for millennia (and, often, doing us in, violently, in the process). They should cut out the whingeing and fight back - if they can - if they don't like it up 'em!