BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket bemused
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:17 AM

If it sickens it must be hate?

Mick. If you don't like "Englishmen" pointing out posts that lower and cheapen Mudcat, look for the source, not the reaction. If Max doesn't want parental blocks by ISPs, start moderating. Parental blocks don't stop fuck, shit, nipple, cunt or thick, but they are there in case people unsuspectingly read the likes of Akenaton. If he sickens you too, think why.

Why should I try to argue and debate? I may as well debate with the pigs on the farm across the way. Because when I have finished my speech, asked for any questions and ejected my PowerPoint stick, they will just carry on grunting and rolling in shit.

Oh, and deleting my posts on the basis of a quasi medical opinion is fair comment, but it has to be applied fairly. I have yet to see hate deleted. Despite it being on Max's shit list. I know you guys are volunteers, and you think you are being fair but look for the source not the reaction.

There seems to be an echo here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 03:42 AM

In all the years I have been here, I have never never made a racist post because I am no racist.
I am a member of a church that fights racism.
Anyone who accuses me of racism is engaging in dishonest personal attack.
If you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:55 AM

"f you do it at least produce something, which obviously you can't."
We have - and you've constantly confirmed it - while at the same time, denying it.
Your church must be very proud of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:34 AM

It's a pity that your precious church actively supports misogyny and homophobia then.

Im a member of a wine club that supports small producers but I don't appreciate wine because I claim to be a member.

Lots of prisoners locked away and not allowed to wear their dog collar. They are still members of their church.

Not sure what your point is Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:34 AM

You can accuse me all day, but you can not produce a racist post because I have no racist views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:52 AM

No answer then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:10 AM

"Groundhog Day: a situation in which a series of unwelcome or tedious events appear to be recurring in exactly the same way."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

Mick, without trying to be argumentative, I would be interested to hear which particular views expressed by either Keith Sanity, or myself, you find so "sickening".
I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures, not my views but data collected by health agencies.

I am against homosexual "marriage" for several reasons, the same stance as your church, do you find the church's views "sickening"?

I am have no hatred towards homosexuals, being opposed to criminalisation of the practice when that was the law.

Keith is certainly no racist and why you infer that he is, is beyond my comprehension.

Be specific, or your allegations are as bad as those of the "pack".
You say stick to the issues, perhaps you should start taking your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:00 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:35 PM

...I am sorry for the bad parenting which perhaps led to them taking the path that they did, or the psychological trauma that moulded their sexual orientation.

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 14 May 14 - 12:32 PM

...I have expressed mainly facts concerning over representation of male homosexuals in the STD figures

Mainly facts over STD figures? Including the fact that homosexuality is a result of bad parenting or psychological trauma maybe? And you wonder what sickens people about your statements? Well, for me, it really does sicken me that someone can cast such aspersions on the thousands of good and honest parents who have brought up their gay children to be good, honest people themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:41 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:43 PM

Dave, my remarks were addressed to Mick, I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views.

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written, you are not worth the time it will take to type yet another explanation. Disingenuous to the end! Back into room 101!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 14 - 04:53 PM

Jeri, I am neither "ignorant" nor "clueless" about this particular issue.
I thank you for your insight into what is happening on this forum, but I view your allegations of ignorance and cluelessness in the same way as I do Mick's "queasiness". Perhaps it was something he ate?   :0).
Do all the moderators have such delicate stomachs?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:19 PM

Your last post is the usual misrepresentation of what I have written

How so?

(Not that I expect an answer)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:22 PM

With that attitude Jeri, you wouldn't get a job as a public health specialist here, even after they dumbed it down so less qualified people than consultant doctors can advise.

By the way, the director of public health (a real one, GMC registered Prof) who answered to me in a previous life was always reminding the board that with the money we spent on health promotion, the damaging hatred if not challenged leads to mental health issues, CHD etc through obesity and other lack of self esteem conditions and gay men have a shorter life expectancy than others in the same socio economic groups. We might as well not bother promoting health if we turn a blind eye to the discrimination that leads to issues in the first place.

I don't excuse hatred, I refuse to accept it.

Leave public health to the experts eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:15 PM

Ignorance and cluelessness aren't hatred. Musket, you demonstrate far more hatred than either Keith or Ake. Hatred and childish name calling and bullying are what you're left with when you give up on reason and go straight to demonizing. I worked in Public Health for 18 years, and you're not helping anyone. Especially not yourself.

Absolute bl*oody b*oll*ocks. Ake cannot bring himself to accept the law of the land and the attitude of the vast majority by typing gay marriage instead of gay "marriage". That is totally hateful and thoroughly nasty. Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances. That is brainless demonisation of the worst kind by any decent measure, levelled against people who have (yes, wrongly) killed, whilst under siege lest we forget, a couple of handfuls of Israelis over more than a decade in the face of having more than a hundred times as many of their own people killed by Israeli forces over the same period. That is hateful, spiteful and riddled with denial. He also will not blame Israel for the disgusting massacres at Sabra and Shatila which were overseen by that nasty shitbag Ariel Sharon, still lionised in Israel today. Sorry, Jeri, whoever you are, but you also are not helping yourself, nor are you helping Mudcat to be a better place by lamely excusing these total bastards (note lack of asterisks this time) who you, big Mick and the other mod-apologists allow to blight this place. And what the hell "working in public health for 18 years" has to do with anything is anyone's guess. Puerile.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:31 PM

We need an exterminator.

"Pass the DDT"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:32 PM

Here come da Jews, here come da Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:01 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:30 AM

Society is such that we don't have to "get" bigotry and discrimination Janie.

Just whack it back into the hole it came out of in the first place.

A word to the wise. "Mixed bag" and "irrational" are so close, they could fit together in a single strait jacket.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:09 AM

Steve.
Keith equates Hamas, with whom I personally have no truck by the way, with Nazis, who killed six million Jews in the most horrendous circumstances.

I actually said "In this respect they out-Nazi the Nazis."
The context was that the Nazis kept quiet about their intention to exterminate the Jews while Hamas are quite open about it, even encouraging it in TV shows for young and preschool children.
The Nazis never went that far.

Many contributors have equated Israel with the Nazis.
Why not vilify them as you did me?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:21 AM

Oh. The Nazis kept their odious views to themselves. That's alright then.

I wish some on here would take a leaf out of their book if that's the case.

"Many contributors." But you keep telling us you are clever and understand things we mere liars don't have the capacity to digest. Why question peasants when a member of his local church is saying it!

Gather round everybody! Keith has something to say and he is a member of a church that opposes something or other! Let's sit at the feet of the wise one.

Oh how you smirked when some of us disagreed with a bloke who called himself a "historian." Only you have an IQ high enough to understand. How you scoffed when anyone challenged four revisionists, or "the established view" as you so ably put it.

Funny thing context Keith. You enjoy taking things out of context to justify views that are frankly disturbing yet are very quick to claim others do it to you.

But there again, I'm just a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:48 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:31 AM

True. Very true.

(The bit about your four, who don't represent all current historians. All current historians is a bit of a mouthful, even for you and your rose tinted blinkers.). It appears I do know better. Who'd have thought it? Just me, most commentators, most academics, anybody whose relatives are on a War Memorial.........

Alan Clark died in 1999, so isn't strictly speaking current. "Donkeys" makes interesting reading anyway. As he was part of the privileged establishment, he is very scathing as to their ability to lead.

That's the book, not someone's opinion of it you read through a google hit.   I notice even David Cameron has stopped giving credence to your mate Michael Gove on the subject.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:36 AM

It was all current historians Musket.
You said they "should know better," like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 12:55 PM

This thread has become pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 02:14 PM

Oh, I don't know. Some of us are just strumming and picking at the same time. A huge difference between pointless and of interest to any particular person.

The pointless ones are where ignorant people talk bollocks on subjects they have no clue about. See the "all current historians" claim as a case in point. I'm a historian, I've decided, and I'm with the "donkeys" scenario and butcher of the Somme moniker, just like the vast majority of people who have given war any thought.

Then we come to religion. Someone, to pick a member at random, claims his church isn't into racism or any other "old fashioned" vice, yet I've just been watching BBC News. A Christian group with right wing political connections broke into a mosque in Bradford and started laying bibles around, videoing themselves and then found an Imam, and with their video running, tried forcing him to read from the bible.

The local MP, one Eric Pickles has promised to "have a word" with the relevant authorities, but refused to condemn Christian Right to try to convert people.

Language?

I've got some choice language and it isn't just aimed at the awful bigotry earlier on....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:08 PM

Well then let me see....Is it really "vile hatred"   to type homosexual " marriage", rather than "gay marriage"?

I don't think so, I never use the word "gay", in respect of sexual orientation, as it is a rather good example of Orwellian newspeak and I am not prepared to be manipulated by a tiny section of society.

I put homosexual "marriage" in inverted commas, as I do not agree with the redefinition of the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority.
Homosexual "marriage" is completely different in construct to traditional hetero marriage, in that very many homosexual "marriages" and unions are "open relationships" containing large numbers of sexual partners. Also, homosexual "marriage" does not fulfil the function of a secure base for the procreation, nurturing, raising of children and the construction of an extended family structure.

I opposed the law on the criminalising of homosexuals and I reserve the right to oppose legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

No hatred from me, just cool calm reason.

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith in the ethereal myth of equality under a cruel economic system based on greed and exploitation. For this reason, they dismiss all know data on homosexual health rates, male homosexual sexual behaviour patterns and any other facts which contradict their "raison d'etre".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:48 PM

Insert word here ...............

How many other people did you fuck In your open marriage?

Not a nice accusation is it? What's more, I have no evidence to back it up.

How dare you make such vile accusations against people you don't even know? Where is your evidence that people who make a commitment to marriage don't preclude monogamy based on their gender?

Nobody wants you to agree with the law. You are obliged to abide by it though regardless of your lack of respect for society. You are also obliged by law not to publish lies designed to vilify sections of society in order to invite hatred of people for their sexual orientation.

Any chance of carrying on your criminal activities where unsuspecting people don't come across it? Freedom of speech has responsibility attached.if you won't listen to me, listen to the others who are telling you that you are out of order.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:25 PM

Anyone notice that a bloke reads an "entertainement" book or two,( lets say, fir example, the bible, the Orwell, and trys to figure out all life from it, and this one author.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:29 PM

I have already published a link to the American study on "Open Homosexual Relationships.
You read it and commented on it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:40 PM

Here is another from a large list.

Examining the correspondence between relationship identity and actual sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

Blashill AJ1, Wilson JM, O'Cleirigh CM, Mayer KH, Safren SA.



Author information

1Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, 1 Bowdoin Square, 7th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, [e-mail].

Abstract

Sexual behavior of men who have sex with men (MSM), within and outside of one's primary relationship, may contribute to increased risk of HIV transmission among those living with HIV. The current study sought to understand how HIV-infected MSM report their relationship status and the degree to which this corresponds with their sexual behavior. Further, we examined rates and psychosocial associations with sexual HIV transmission risk behavior (TRB) across relationship categories. In a sample of 503 HIV-infected MSM in HIV care, 200 (39.8 %) reported having a primary partner. Of these, 115 reported that their relationship was open and 85 reported that it was monogamous. Of the 85 who reported a monogamous relationship, 23 (27 %) reported more than one sexual partner in the prior 3 months, 53 (62 %) reported only one partner, and nine did not report on the number of partners in the past 3 months. Hence, there were three categories of relationships: (1) "monogamous with one sexual partner," (2) "monogamous with more than one sexual partner," and (3) "open relationship." The "monogamous with more than one sexual partner" group reported higher TRB and crystal methamphetamine use compared to the "monogamous with one sexual partner" group and different patterns of relationships with TRB emerged across the three groups. Couples-based HIV prevention interventions for MSM may be enhanced by considering that there may be different definitions of monogamy among MSM, and that the context of relationship status may require tailoring interventions to meet the needs of specific subgroups of MSM couples.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:11 PM

Really Musket. You don't get it? I don't believe you.

Really Keith and Ake? You don't get it? I don't believe you.

My impression is that Steve and Jim really don't get it.

GfS, You don't get it? My impression is you are a more "mixed bag" than the others I named (Happy now, Steve?) I shudder to think you may be a licensed clinician.

Could name any of us at one time or another, including myself.

Suspect I may regret hitting "submit" on this one unless I can let the reactions roll off my back.

Don't "get" what? Who are you, another mod-apologist for the real nasties around here?? Care to explain this post of yours??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:27 PM

Dave, Ian and Steve are afraid of reason, preferring to depend on faith etc. etc.

So, ake, when you said you mainly deal in facts and then went on to say that homosexuality was brought on by poor parenting or psychological trauma, was that an example of your reasoning?

When I asked how I was misrepresenting you by pointing this out and you failed to answer, was that another example?

When you say I have absolutely no interest in what you or your friend think of me, or my views. does this give us an insight into your self styled wonderful debating skills? If you have no interest in what we say, why do you keep replying?

Something is rotten in the state of Mudcat methinks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:02 PM

bring back MGM, AT LEAST HE HAS STYLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:07 PM

Infidelity as no fixed orientation 

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 14 - 07:51 PM

The paper was published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information, under the auspices of the US National Library of Medicine and the National institute of Health.
The authors are reputable and have published many papers on medical issues. There are many more such studies into homosexual open relationships.

Please stop playing King Canute, It makes you look even dafter.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:52 AM

It was sent for assessment and possible publication to The New England Journal of Medicine and over here, to The BMJ and Lancet.

It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence.

The Terence Higgins Trust have a library of papers on gay lifestyle and one factor that keeps cropping up is the struggle to keep in a relationship against discrimination and social pressure of not being accepted by family and the local community.

Rather than the discredited "proactive" promiscuity, it is generally a case of hitherto, relationships being frail.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest open relationship numbers are higher in gay people than straight. Confusion over sexuality is a result of lack of understanding by society, not a trait of any particular sexuality.

The paper gets currency on religious websites and far right Nazi groups such as BNP over here and according to the CSU sexual health lead I had a chat with yesterday evening about it, it received prominence in The USA when KKK picked up on it.

By the way, there are many papers on a similar theme available in The USA, due to lack of strictness on impartiality. Only NEJM has similar stringent editorial policy to UK and EU journals.

I only have access to BMJ reasons for rejection. I can't say conclusively why others rejected it. BMJ is sensitive to publishing false data, hence the uproar over the statin data slipping through in a paper they accepted recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:09 AM

By the way. The paper forwarded for publication here was a meta paper of many similar papers too.

NICE guidelines for treating sexual orientation anxiety specifically preclude looking for promiscuity as a symptom.

In any event, what the hell has that to do with gay people getting married? If we were pathetic enough to see equality as a medical necessity anyway, marriage and civil partnerships combat the (non existent) promiscuity the papers refer to.

It is all well and good observing a phenomenon such as length of time a relationship lasts in a particular demographic. It is wrong however to make conclusions based on prejudice as such papers do. Short term relationships through lack of society acceptance are very different to the odious "let's find someone to fuck" fantasy that seems to keep Akenaton interested in the subject.

Considering decent people accept gay relationships in the same way as mixed race now, (it wasn't always the case there either) bile from the likes of Akenaton will become less until one fine sunny day, it falls quiet forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:19 AM

I would be very interest to see your evidence for all that Musket.

What is your opinion of this NAT report?

"Given the importance of partnership
patterns to HIV transmission, we should
look at what we know about such patterns
amongst MSM in the UK. The 2007
Gay Men's Sex Survey states:
'As every year, respondents were
very varied in their number of sexual
partners. Among the men who had a
male sex partner in the last year, 21.4%
indicated they had one male partner
only; 27.6% had two, three or four
male partners; 24.4% had between five
and twelve male partners; 13.4% had
between thirteen and 29 male partners;
and the remaining 13.4% had thirty or
more male partners in the last year'. 17
John Imrie also presented data on
numbers of sexual partners amongst
HIV positive MSM at the NAT seminar
which found a median of 12 partners in
the year. 18 25% of the men reported 35
or more sexual partners in the last year.
These 89 HIV positive men with more
than 35 partners a year also accounted
for nearly 80% of all reported sexual
contacts in the sample (11,077 of the
total of 13,969 sexual contacts).
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:29 AM

"A significant proportion of MSM have
a high number of sexual partners, and
these men have sex with each other
(the 'core of the core'), thus facilitating
the spread of HIV and other STIs,
but also have sex with other MSM
who themselves have fewer partners
('the edge of the core'). This sexual
organisation is a major determinant of
HIV incidence in the MSM population.

'High rates of STI infection in a population
are also indicators of multiple partnership
and ongoing HIV transmission. As has been
previously stated, MSM in the UK experience
not only high rates of HIV but also other STIs
such as gonorrhoea and syphilis."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:38 AM

Thank you, Dick. Much appreciated!

I have been staying away as I am somewhat bemused as to how this thread, which I OPd with the clear object of testing out how many Catters were as fed up as I am with the extremely high incidence of mindless and meaningless phatic obscenity on the forum, has somehow transmogrified into yet another ill-tempered spat about gay marriage and the comparative incidence of STDs in the gay community: most worthy topics to be sure, but I absolutely fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the thread's evident subject.

Still, there's Mudcat for you, innit! As Tommy Handley's old signature tune used to aver, as the real oldies among us will remember ~~

"Oh, it's useless to complain!"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 05:23 AM

My opinion is already noted. It basically concurs with PHE and Terrence Higgins Trust.

First of all, NAT are talking about MSM sex, not gay relationships.

Second, it is a noted issue, from the discredited US papers and the more objective research that gay relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones, all other factors considered.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in their submission to NICE on this statistic stated that there is no evidence to suggest promiscuity is a larger or lower factor in this. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest social pressure, discrimination and acceptance by family and society at large is a factor. The promiscuity has lowered as society acceptance has increased. The somewhat explosion of HIV at the outset being the point in case. Fascinating reading. I only looked at it a few weeks ago actually, when looking for ideas of how to make representations to NICE as I am delivering one shortly on chemotherapy. The reports I have from oncologists may make the technical points (although who am I to judge) but the RCP approach to laying the points out is something I am happy to crib, or at least get someone else to crib. I am backing off over the summer, trying to slowly retire (again.)

You are quick to find anything to contradict me when I put an opinion forward Keith. I don't know your background, someone said you were a sports teacher but I don't know. However, please for once read something I wish to say seriously.

You ca find many contradictory opinions on any scientific subject and double that when it comes to healthcare. NAT, PHE, the Royal Colleges etc, all have their interest to factor into their conclusions. Their evidence base is usually sound, but conclusions from evidence are subjective. Even the implementation of them is subjective. Whilst I would wish to be totally objective when advising on priority spending and cash releasing efficiency savings (CRES) it is a fact that the political, social and situation aspects mould the actions.

Hence, and I understand if this is beyond your comprehension, information from such as NAT and THT are valuable and informed, and as a lay person I nor anyone else can argue otherwise. I have no issue whatsoever with the statistical facts, indeed I pulled you up on such matters a few weeks ago.

But selectively cutting and pasting whilst inferring that I might not agree is either stupidity or malicious. I'm too "fucking important" to lower myself to your level. If you want to keep giving credibility to bigotry, start a band with Akenaton. Your credibility won't lower I assure you, as it can't get much lower lately...







TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:20 AM

TC, there was nothing selective about my extracts except their relevance to this.

Discussing differing opinions is what a forum is for, but in this case I was not questioning any opinion but asking for the source of stated "facts."

It seems extraordinarily improbable that the group quoted by Ake would choose the BMJ to publish their paper.
Where did you get that info about the rejection?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 06:37 AM

Ian calls me a "dreadful bigot" for saying that many male homosexual "marriages", unions and relationships contain multiple sexual partners.
When confronted by health agency papers confirming my statement, Ian is forced to agree that this is indeed the case.....does anyone think an apology will be forthcoming?

This is the pattern adopted by Ian from the beginning of these discussions, first the mudslinging, then a grudging acceptance, hoping that some of the mud will have stuck.

He does the same to Keith over immigration, he attacks Sanity, MtheGM, and any who dare to challenge the myth which underpins his ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:19 AM

History, not immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jeri
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:46 AM

Ake, same-sex marriages have only been legal in the UK since 29 March of this year. Less than 2 months ago. How could there be statistics from men married to men in that amount of time?

One also has to take into consideration the population that was surveyed. I remember reading one survey that came from surveys done at hot-spots for anonymous MSM hookups. Bathhouses and bars and such. That'll always show figures indicating more promiscuity. Gay men who go to a movie or a restaurant or such won't be included.

The reason you're using quotation marks around "marriage" is that marriage isn't want you're talking about at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 12:09 PM

I note my reply to Akenaton has been deleted.

You can guess the contents though, it isn't difficult.

My reply to Keith on a more serious subject has disappeared with it. No matter, the understanding of a blank is about the same level as the understanding of strings of characters on a screen.

Just one thing Jeri. Why is hate still on my screen where people can see it without prior warning but attempts to address it get deleted? You come across as educated, and even seem to have some understanding of the epidemiology of health, which is the smokescreen bigotry is using in these threads to spread distrust and fear of sections of society.

Yet still, you berate me and try to educate pork at the same time. Do you honestly think Akenaton is interested in reality?

And now a word to the perpetrator which I will try to do without getting the whole lot deleted, and it isn't easy when you have nothing but contempt for an opinion..

I don't "attack" Michael. I think he comes out with a few odd comments and he can get confused occasionally, but you know what? He comes across as a human. Good man. He is as sick of this obsession with gay people as I am. Sadly, I will never ever allow bitter hatred to have the last word. I refuse to rationalise it too. it only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:42 PM

Hi Jeri, the two studies I quoted, were from areas of the US where homosexual marriage has been legal for some time.
I have also read studies from Scandinavia, where the same rates of "open relationships" apply.

The American studies included civil unions, with a "primary partner" and several secondary partners. Of course some male homosexual relationships are monogamous, but the rates of "open relationships" amongst male homosexuals are massively higher than amongst heterosexual marriages and partnerships.

The last study which I linked to gave the rates as almost 50/50 "open" and monogamous amongst male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:45 PM

You mean you can't rationalise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:37 PM

I can't rationalise your comments Keith. They have to be rational comments for starters.

Akenaton is perpetuating myth as usual. I very much doubt that 50% of married people are promiscuous. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.

Any conclusions based on prejudice are not valid. Never have been and never shall. It's a bit like saying Keith is religious therefore don't let him steer a jumbo jet.

Long term relationships lasting in single people is not as high as married ones. Younger people look for shorter term relationships in general. That's a fact too.

After that, we leave reality.

"Nobody is predisposed to promiscuity on the basis of their sexual orientation." There's a quote from a Professor in healthcare. Feel free to repeat it. It is evidence based too.

Lock your doors tonight Akenaton. You live fairly close to a gay couple I call close friends. I wouldn't want either of them trying to get in and fuck you. Your friend will be ringing in the quarter peel for their wedding later this year. Isn't that nice? Like you said, it doesn't happen much up your way. I doubt anyone would fancy going up your way anyway.