BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM

Troubadour, your idiosyncratic theory of epidemiology has nothing to do with reality.

This is what National Aids Trust say,

"So people
with multiple sexual partners, such as
homosexually active men, commercial
sex workers, and people in (formal or
informal) polygamous relationships, are
more likely to have sero-discordant sex
than those with fewer partners'.2

This point was also made by a number
of participants at the NAT expert
seminar. It is certainly the case that the
probability of having sex with someone
of a different HIV status increases with
the number of sexual partners you
have. This has been a fundamental
insight into the spread of sexually
transmitted infections, linking numbers
of partners to risk of STI infection and
STI incidence. Of course incidence is
also affected by other factors such as
condom use, overall STI prevalence in
a population and in a sexual network,
and sexual mixing - factors we will
consider further.
Recent results from the Gay Men's
Sex Survey (GMSS) conducted
by Sigma Research suggests the
correlation between high numbers of
sexual partners and infection with STIs
including HIV"
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:00 AM

Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?

So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

And guess what? They are all bidding to influence priority in healthcare provision and awareness.

I haven't quite decided whether I actually needed to explain that?

Did I really?

You see, I am trying to work out whether Keith is intelligent but with odious views or just not capable of reading something without wondering what that means?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 05:08 AM


Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?
So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

So why say they pour petrol on the fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:59 AM

"To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk."

Yes Keith, bang on the button, very well said.
Anyone reading this thread and wondering about the anger and abuse being thrown around by two or three people, should think hard on what you have said.

Filling posts with Orwellian jargon to obfuscate and confuse is almost laughable.....the truth is there for all to see at present, but before long results by demographic will be banned, the epidemic will be obscured and the so called health professionals will be able to claim that HIV infection rates are falling and all is well in the world.

It will have become "discriminatory" to tell the truth about serious health matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:15 AM

The only discrimination is from the likes of Akenaton. If it feels that "truth" on health matters is discriminatory, perhaps it would do well to wear tin foil on its head to protect it from other sources of it's paranoia.

Pleased with yourself Keith?

65,000,000 of my ilk in The UK. There are a few hundred thousand homophobic criminal bigots though. If you want to give them a veneer of respectability rather than listen to reason, be my guest.

I hope you pray for them.

By the way worm, "so called" health professionals work in the interest of all without fear nor favour. Your fantasy has no parallel in the world of decent people. If reality doesn't support your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society, it isn't reality that needs to seek help.

Irrelevant, wrong, small minded, bitter and twisted. Although what Mudcat did wrong to make you think anybody agreed with your odious outlook, I don't know. Even Keith is hesitant to support you, and his right wing religious zeal is on record.

Just you and Goofus.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:31 AM

Musket, it is you not listening to reason.
Reason says that scarce resources should be targeted to do the most good.
You say it is homophobic to target the most at risk group, but that actually is existing policy.
It is being done and you did not even know it and only you and your ilk would think it homophobic.
This is not about discrimination or persecution.

your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society

All I see is a wish to reduce suffering and save lives.

Akeneaton is not saying anything that NAT does not say.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:18 AM

See?

Where have I said it is homophobic to target the most at risk group?

Never.

Quite the opposite in fact.

You say targeting is being done. I know. You don't have to tell me. I help allocate the fucking resource! I am satisfied that gay men remain the most at risk single demographic, (if sexual preference is used as a demographic) and the second largest demographic (if urban socio economic is used.) I am also convinced of the argument that historical data alone will not inform future planning as other consequences of heterosexual promiscuity translate into long term issues. A&E, GP and colo rectal referrals indicate a worrying trend that requires vigilance in screening of those demographics, who hitherto have not come forward at the rate gay men do.

You will be pleased to know that to the best ability of those knowledgable in these things, the resources are being targetted fairly well. From next month, future incidence figures will help plan said resources even better. So long as councils don't use the money they will get for sexual health to fund more frequent dustbin collections.. (Don't laugh, don't shake your head. Pickles has made it clear that QIPP (moving healthcare resource into community and social care) is not ring fenced where councils get it.

NAT doesn't say that gay men need to be forced by law to be screened for STDs. NAT is nothing whatsoever to do with gay men, and has no mandate for them. It has a mandate of sorts for gay men who happen to be sexually active with anal penetrative sex without protection, which is a small percentage of gay men. It is also a small rising percentage of teenage girls for that matter.

If NAT said what Akenaton says, it's directors would be in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Correct.

That's what I said.

Do you have a problem with that?

Or do you just like to play with context in support of homophobia? A health promotion campaign is about all people at risk, including gay men.

If anybody is still desperate enough to be reading this, Keith has purposely confused legitimate targeting (aiming health promotion) at a section of society with Akenston's campaign to stigmatise them. Out of interest,

I hope you are very pleased with yourself Keith. At least have the courage of your conviction to say what you really think about gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

Actually it was Dr. Cemetry who said it.

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

Campaigns ARE focussed on gay men.

What are you insinuating about me, and on what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:05 AM

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

Is that, a campaign for promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, or letting it run rampant, because to inform the carriers, would 'insult their sensitivities'???....and therefore be branded by the nutcases as being 'homophobic' for doing so???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:51 AM

Like I said. So what? You are purposely confusing campaign with campaign. I notice that two people working in healthcare, one a doctor for at matter, seem to have no issue with health promotion campaigns that include certain groups, and for that matter, you need to target your efforts for greatest good.

I think the origin of the word campaign in this debate was more to do with a certain homophobic campaign of persecution as a solution to a minority of a problem.

I'll tell you what I am insinuating about you. Nothing. I am stating as a fact though that you twist figures to support the overt homophobic evil intentions of the person behind Akenaton whilst claiming his diatribe isn't bigoted.

Nothing to insinuate. Plenty to ponder.

The only reason I am bothering at all is that somewhere, buried deep, there might have been a conscience. But if ill informed pedantry is all you can offer, you either have a condition I am not qualified to deal with (although Goofus reckons he is) or I am right all along.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:49 PM

I have twisted nothing.
The only figures I have given were from the latest PHE report.
Untwistable.

Show one example of a twisted figure Musket/Seaham.

Confident prediction- you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

I only gave figures to correct things that you had said.
You either twisted them or you got them wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

Perhaps you have forgotten.
You stated that new MSM infections were less than half the total.
It was true once, but they overtook all others combined in 2011.
You said my figures were out of date and you had better, but it was you who was hopelessly out of touch.

Then you said that hetero figures were rising when they actually are falling and have been year on year for a decade.

No twisting.
My figures were correct and showed that you were hopelessly out of touch and wrong.
Or were you trying to twist the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

And those who read this will also be able to see those who say one thing and do another. Ake, you really are the master of twisting what people say to suit yourself and then whinging on about others. Fortunately, apart from a couple of supporters, everyone can see just what you are and what you do. We don't need to make you look an idiot. You are quite capable of doing that with no help.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

The person behind Akenaton has already shown us his criminal tendencies. He isn't fit to be displayed in public.

He now thinks I am someone else too. Considering I have met the person who signs as Seaham Cemetrey and that he is a doctor working in sexual health, the disgraceful slurs of Akenaton are amazing only by their bitter hatred.

I repeat. I am not the person who feels Akenaton sold unwanted racing puppies to a builder in Seaham who killed them to order before going to prison for it. I didn't make the link regarding Scottish greyhound trainers with a certain first name.

If Akenaton wishes to state I made those allegations, perhaps he would wish to substantiate it?

Keith. The reporting year 2012/13. I gave the figures. Slightly irrelevant as historical trajectory is just one factor. The 2013/14 figures will include the ones I gave for annual comparison which are in the public domain by the way, and I gave them. No spin. No lies. Just data as collected and analysed by PHE. You can't quote a body then say it lies. I am not a spokesman for them but in this, the person writing as Musket can and does speak on behalf of NHS strategy and rationale. Although not when prompting idiots on a silly website in order to expose their stupidity.

I guess it is 1.3 million liars working in The NHS or two twisted bigots. Take your choice.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:45 PM

....and it was wrong anyway.

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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:33 PM

WHO- the 5 Cs in reducing HIV 

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:58 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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
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: 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 - 05:13 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
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".