BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:27 AM

"Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?"

Simply because your continued negativity, obstructionism, and personalising of this issue, makes you look a fool, which I know from your posting history, you are not.

Now I have had only the most basic of educations, yet can formulate arguments which address the issues associated with HIV infection, and put forward positive procedures for the curtailing of infection rates in the massively worst affected demographic, MSM.

Why can you not do the same? Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic of not only HIV, but syphilis and most other STD's.....would it really damage your agenda so much to admit this fact?

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

Stop acting the goat, and treat the issue seriously."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:54 AM

Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic

I have never claimed that. I have said it is not an epidemic IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is using scaremonger tactics to headline this as an epidemic when you know full well that most people will take that to be a danger to themselves. Typical gutter press headlining. I know people should read further than the headline but I'm afraid a lot don't.

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

No, it wouldn't unless the 'special status' meant demonising them. Which some of the measures you suggested earlier did. I am happy that you have changed your stance from compulsory registration testing but the reason you gave, 'unworkable', should be substitued with immoral.

Now, you have still not answered my questions.

Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

How about you stop prevaricating and answer them.

The bit about education is complete nonsense BTW. You have no more idea what my education is that I have of yours. You are making assumptions based on pure guesswork.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves.

By the way Keith, your apology seems to have either been deleted or failed to post. If you could check at your end, thanks.

I don't need to respond to the worm's latest smear of decent people. You just need to read what he puts, no commentary or explanation needed.

At least it helps us understand why we need laws to protect the more vulnerable in society. I'm not vulnerable, I suppose . I'm far too fucking important! Nice to see you reading old posts Keith. Perhaps as part of your apology you can read back some of the worm's awful comments to give context to what you have been supporting. If it keeps you busy, the report on HIV prevalence by Prof. Hugh Janus is on the archived HPA website. You might find it right up your street.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:08 AM

My dear Musket. You have won the argument and your earlier suspicions regarding the true colours of Akenaton and Keith A of Hertford have borne fruit, which is an excellent example of Mudcat debate.

You don't need to rub it into them. They are either ashamed or not capable of being ashamed. Your point is made and try moving on.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

My Dear ______

Respectfully I must disagree. Mr Musket was winning the argument until he disqualified himself with this.

"Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves."

It is like the figure skater upon doing a flawless performance did a victory lap and poked the judge in the eye with his middle finger while his time was still running.

Its like Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time because it would rather be considered talentless and pathetic than be thought of as good sports. Sad sad so sad......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

Musket, you are a disgrace.
An over-paid NHS mandarin who has some responsibility for all this, shown up by a couple of interested amateurs with things you do not know but should.

You were shown to be completely out of touch with the trends and their direction.
You underestimate the issues to the extent that when the true figures are put in front of you, you call it scaremongering.
If only it would scare you out of your complacency.

If someone in your position is scared of and disbelieves the truth, there is no hope.
You did not even understand that you are dealing with an epidemic!

Some of the blame for those thousands of easily preventable deaths and ruined lives falls squarely on YOU.
Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:15 AM

My dear Guest,
Musket told you that hetero infections were rising.
The truth is they have fallen every year for a decade.

Musket told you that less than half new infections were MSM.
In fact they surpassed all other groups together in 2012 and have been steadily rising for years and still are.

Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

How does that win him the argument please.
He knows nothing, makes shit up, and accuses those who know and understand the true facts of scaremongering.

You call that winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:19 AM

"Hugh Janus"
So droll Musket.
You are killing us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

Oh Dear!

Now Mr' A has also disqualified himself.

I fear Mr. Max Speigel that the Mudcat is about to become the cesspool it seems to have been designed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 11:55 AM

Mandarin! That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!

You've got to be important to be responsible for "thousands of easily preventable deaths." Irrelevant nobodies couldn't pull that one off with aplomb. Kneel in my presence knaves!

Goes with being a Co Messiah. AND Jack is basing a novel on me! Someone who goes round pointing and laughing at people coming out of church apparently. If the film rights get the go ahead, I reckon George Clooney to play me.

Scene 1. The star character is giving a speech, saying that there is still an epidemic with regard to people being infected by religion. A member of a neo nazi far right group is at the back of the hall tweeting that our hero is denying the epidemic.

Writes itself Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:33 PM

Dave, I have stated a dozen times, that there is no HIV epidemic amongst the general population, only amongst male homosexuals(the MSM demographic......So we are agreed on that? That is progress.

Regarding Black Africans (many of whom are migrants), infection rates peaked at 4050 in 2003, and have fallen steadily every year and now stand at 1522.....infection rates seem to be under control in this demographic, only in the MSM demographic are infection rates rising year on year.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Keith?

Your mate is saying there is no epidemic.

Any chance you can hold him to account for thousands of needless deaths?

Perhaps you can use your precious fucking google to show us why HIV is only an epidemic if you relate it to one demographic? Or alternatively, try calling him a liar. It's easy. You'd be on the button for once too. It's alright, he won't take offence. On account of having no shame in the main, but being beyond hope too.

If he wants you on a register for being gay, I wonder what his solution is for being a black gay migrant?

Weather ok here in Edinburgh. Looks a bit dark to the west, but I'll be ok. They are choosy who they allow in The Malt Shovel. I doubt it is one of those where you have to wipe your feet on the way out. We are meeting friends. I'll have to watch my arse though, Akenaton reckons they are into multiple partners these gay blokes, and some of our friends we are drinking with fall into his favourite category.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:04 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-) <<

Again pshaw, you are not my intended audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:19 PM

Musket: "That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!"

A true legend in his own wine!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

You'd better believe it Goofus!

That's why I usually hand you over to the good professor to deal with. Isn't that right boy?

"Woof!"

As to Bill and Ben, the bigoted men.... A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words. Which in their case is the most respectable option.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:13 PM

Nothing more to say really.
If I notice you making more misleading or plain wrong statements I might point them out.

The position can be put simply that MSM rates are very high and rising.
Some of the increase is due to increased testing, but PHE states,
"However, estimations of HIV incidence using a back-calculation analysis [3] indicate that HIV transmission among MSM remained high with 2,300-2,500 new infections (not just diagnoses) annually and 7,200 MSM undiagnosed in 2012, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3). The large majority of new infections stem from MSM unaware of their infection [4].

The National Aids Trust accuse NHS of failing to diagnose as many as it could and failing to trace contacts of those it does.
Complacency?
Denial of the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, I forgot to close quotes.
The final para is not part of the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Yeah...and that hasn't worked out too well for either one of you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 01:19 AM

"Back calculation."

Or in other words, using historical prevalence. Now... Who called me a liar for saying PHE/HPA rely heavily on that ? (The reorganisation is designed to ensure public health protection takes a more holistic and multi factorial approach in the future.)

Possibly someone who thinks that we only have access to third party websites same as him, and everything else is just Musket and his fantasy.

Rather funny really, seeing the ignorant sod quote what I have been saying, from what he calls "official" sources. I don't wish to put two and two together here , but the word "four" and the phrase "fucking important" appear to be related?

So as ever, we are left with the object of Keith's exercise, stigmatising gay people and supporting his mate.

Bill and Ben , the bigoted men.

So busy falling over each other to portray gay people in a bad light, they won't even question where their previous data and conclusions contradict each other.

Want to find some more statistics Keith? Find the number of suicides where stigmatisation or shame of their sexuality was the factor. Then carry on with your righteous campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 02:11 AM

Being honest about the facts does not make someone a bigot.
Denying them makes you a complacent fool.
Worse, that attitude leads to a failure to address the situation as it really is, and failing those in danger.
Wasted lives.

The calculation you refer to is just to identify the proportion of new diagnoses that really are new infections.
You have claimed that the increase is largely due to better screening and good news.
PHE calculates otherwise, and there are no alternative figure.
Your claim about that is another false one.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 03:06 AM

HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition.
ANY demographic presenting the infection rates which presently pertain to MSM.....need to be treated as a "special status" risk group, whether they be Black Africans or ANY other designated demographic.
The important point, is to stop infection rates rising and only by increased testing and contact tracing can this be brought about.
No political agenda should be allowed to stand in the way, as
it is vitally important to determine why any one demographic is massively worse affected than others.

If the rates of infection which currently affect MSM, were transferred to the heterosexual community, it would already be too late, all the health agencies could pack up and go home.

Society would be decimated.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:14 AM

"Alternative figures." You do rely on Mudcat readers being thick don't you?

Tell you what, just for argument's sake. We'll allow predictions based on historical trajectory which is I think what you are meaning when you call analysis of figures alternative figures.

If you have any credibility whatsoever, take your mate to task.

Go on!





Just look at his last post above. Treat his comments in the same way you treat respectable peoples' comments.

Well?

Is there an epidemic of gay HIV but no other HIV epidemic? Care to see where HPE support his comments? Up to yet, I only see his comments echoed in far right and religious websites.

Anything you wish to tell us? Do you want reminding of where you are adamant his comments are false? Dare you upset him? Is it easier to demonise a whole group of society than expose hatred?

Busted flush.


Again.

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

If there are other figures relating to new infections, please show us.
We are not "thick."
If you do not show us, we will know why.

All I have done is state facts and quote PHE.
You can not argue against that, so all you can do is call me bigot.
A lie.

Your ignorance of the true facts, and your culpable complacency as someone of influence in NHS, is causing the real deaths of gay men.

By highlighting their true vulnerability and plight, I am arguing on their behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:40 AM

"Dave, I have stated a dozen times, that there is no HIV epidemic amongst the general population, only amongst male homosexuals(the MSM demographic......So we are agreed on that? That is progress."

Yes, but I have never denied that. Why do you intimate I have? At least it shows that you have read what I posted. How come you have not answered my questions?

Keith. I pointed out the link you posted. No comment? No further points about me misinterpreting what ake says? How can I when he will not commit?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 05:49 AM

A big difference between killing gay men and wishing them dead. I don't do the former and the latter is the ultimate aim of bigotry.

Stop misinterpreting facts. Stop denying trends. Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

Your continued support of someone who ignores the figures you cherish, let alone the bigger picture ruins the credibility you think you have.

Me however , being fucking important and all that, saw through you from the beginning. Not difficult. I deal with the politics of healthcare each and every day. The professionals can be a challenge. You aren't in their league. If you want to be selected for a council seat, you are going to have to provide Nigel with far better evidence of your suitability. I'd watch out too. He is back pedalling on demonising gays. He is sticking to migrants. Akenaton had a bit to say about them on his HIV judgment above too. Especially black ones.

Is Pharaoh worship worth losing what respectability you aspire to? Or am I just hurling abuse at innocent people for whom butter wouldn't melt in their mouths?

If you are talking on behalf of gay people or indeed people at heightened risk of HIV, you have a funny way of doing it. They don't seem to be briefing their spokesman very well. I'd leave the advocacy to Stonewall if I were you.

You could always say you speak up for HIV sufferers, most of which didn't acquire it by sticking their cocks up men's bottoms, especially the women. You could focus on the social stigma that endangers many gay peoples contact with sexual health services. You could use your talents in focussing on particular data at the expense of the rest to shut our resident homophobic bigot down for once.

Or you could carry on finding ways to vilify those who stand up to hatred.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:42 AM

Stop misinterpreting facts.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop denying trends.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?

Re Akeneaton, he and I have little in common.
I have not seen anything from him that would make him a bigot.
I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.

Promiscuity is a factor in HIV transmission, whatever the orientation.

When I was single I would have liked to be more promiscuous myself.
I do not regard it as something to be condemned.
Few today would, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:22 AM

If you haven't read anything Akenaton had put that is derogatory about gay people, I suggest new spectacles or computer screen.

You ask for examples. I suggest you click on the blue text that says Keith A of Hertford and then click on the archive of his posts. Plenty in there, and what's more, they are on the internet so you can trust them as being official and definitive.

When I was single, I didn't wish to be more promiscuous. There weren't enough hours in the bloody day as it was. As far as promiscuity as a factor in HIV, it is true to say it is an increased exposure risk. First contraction is a single event, as you like to be so exact.



So, let's get this right. Do you support the data you have given or the data Akenaton has given? Do you agree with PHE/Musket use of the word epidemic or Akenaton's use of the word?

What else don't you have in common?

Do you put the word marriage in parentheses too when referring to people of the same gender? Is that not bigotry? What about gay people liking multiple partners even if married?

Do you realise how stupid your comment to Dave is?

Bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?


No but it does say that education should play an important part. Something which ake denies.

I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.


Maybe not. But he will not answer these 3 very simple questions. Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.

Musket, I deny all those things you claim I have done.
They are lies told to discredit me in the absence of any other argument.
If they are not lies, I challenge and defy you to produce a single specific example.

They are lies and you have no chance of producing anything, just as you could not produce any other figure for new infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:13 PM

"Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

How does that win him the argument please.
He knows nothing, makes shit up, and accuses those who know and understand the true facts of scaremongering.

You call that winning?" K A of H
_____________________________________________________________________

"Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace."

YOU call THAT winning!

Jack the Sailor, where's your condemnation of the above?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.


No, he didn't. No it doesn't. He did suggest that I was better educated then he was. Which he does not know and is complete bollocks anyway. He did start to talk about education instead of answering the simple questions I posed. What the f**k are you on about?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:38 PM

"The unfortunate advent of "gay marriage" bears no relation to the ever worsening infection rates in the MSM demographic, which seem to continue to rise regardless."

The most ridiculous statement yet, given that HIV infections post Gay marriage wouldn't even show up for several months after the first gay marriages, in fact months after the first occurrence of infidelity, which exists only in your warped perception as yet.

Also, can you get it into that impermeable skull that the MEDICAL Profession now regard HIV as a manageable condition which need not reduce life expectancy.

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

If that should happen, I hope it will give you the satisfaction you deserve........NONE!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:48 PM

"HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition."

Half the story yet AGAIN! The other half is the medical profession's assessment of "a manageable condition which should not affect life expectancy"

So what exactly ARE you ranting about?.......The cost of treatment?....Possibly!

The existence of homosexuals?......Almost certainly!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:36 AM

Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late.

The problem that the rest of us have been discussing is that thousands of infected people have not been tested and do not know that they are incubating a highly infectious, incurable and deadly virus, and thousands still die of it every year.

I hope that helps you to understand the issues that concern us.

It was good of you to refresh my justified, accurate and non-abusive criticism of Musket.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

BTW Troubadour, being unaware of infection is not an anti gay thing.
It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:58 AM

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

What a ridiculous claim, and how it demonstrates your ignorance Troubadour.

We are arguing that the preventable, unnecessary deaths of AIDS sufferers could be greatly reduced by more screening.
The complacency of those responsible, and denial of the scale of the problem, has allowed thousands of infected folk to go untested.

Musket is a classic example.
He did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that he should be dealing with.
He did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
He even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

The national AIDS Trust is scathing of how the NHS fails to diagnose many people even when it sees them, and when it does diagnose someone they do not try to trace the contacts who are almost certain to be infected too.
And thus the infection spreads and people die of a treatable disease that treatment could have prevented.

Ignorance and complacency is what I am arguing against.
What is your case Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:01 AM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?

Actually, Keith, having slept on it I am changing my mind about my last answer to that one. I am pretty sure that ake said education was not working. So, yes he did. I could be mistaken of course and I would ask him directly but as he has not answered my other questions I doubt if he would respond to that one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:07 AM

Saying it is not working is not saying we should give up on it.
Saying it does not make him a bigot anyway.

Dave, do you think the situation is helped by denying the scale of it, refusing to accept the scale of it and being wilfully ignorant of the facts?

Do you think it stigmatises anyone to say they have this or that infection, and is it better to let them die rather than be honest about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

Will you pray for them or pray for their sins when you get to your church today?

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

As Keith says, of course "education has a part to play", but "education" alone is not having the desired affect on MSM infection rates.
There can be few people who do not know the dangers of promiscuous and risky behaviour in todays world.
All agencies are aware that targeted responses are required, but political opposition inhibits effective procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 AM

Saying X is not saying Y. I thought you felt we should avoid such things, Keith?

I am happy to answer your questions. No, no, no, yes and no. In that order. The yes is only partial BTW. Some people believe that AIDS is a stigma, some don't. But if some believe it is a stigma, yes, it does stigmatise them.

I am not sure why you keep asking me these things. I have never said any of them. Do you think that by asking me them it somehow suggests that I did?

Still no response on my questions I see. Can I ask them of you, Keith, in case you are more prepared to answer than ake? Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males put on a register?


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".

We cannot go through life avoiding certain issues, lest our motives be misunderstood by fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions.
I asked them because you are a serious participant, and I am interested in your view of those issues, which are hotly disputed here.

Re your questions,
Unnatural?
No.
Perversion?
No.
Registration?
No compulsion.

Musket,
Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

To say that a group is targeted by a virus does not stigmatise them.
To deny the truth about it condemns thousands to death.
Denying the truth is what you do.
You call the truth "scaremongering."
You were ignorant of vital facts that your position should require you to know.
You allow young men to die needlessly for your worthless political convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

This is why the Latin phrase "ad nauseam" exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:31 AM

Thanks Keith - I now know your views on those points. I still don't know ake's.

Ake. Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".


It is both to a lot of people. Now, Keith has answered my questions and found it easy. How about you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:37 AM

Oh, and Sorry. Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions. Yes it is. My poor choice of words. 'These questions' did not relate to just those few. There was a lot of earlier ones.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:05 PM

There are two things at play here....and they are in the 'tactics'.
When I read the posts, both sides, somebody will post figures, and put the link up...but instead of an honest exchange of ideas to get to the truth, we get this(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around.
It reveals that the political postures, and those who subscribe to them are a bit turned around.
When they insist, on their posturing, over the TRUTH, then is just makes them bullshitters!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:08 PM

400...and still avoiding the truth!

GfS