🚀 go-pugleaf

LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:

> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:45:35 -0800, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:54:51 -0800, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>> Z.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Look moron, it is not a "fallacy" to point out that you were misusing
>>>>statistics. All you had to do to avoid criticism is to provide
>>>>accurate and appropriate numbers.  For some reason, you can't do that
>>>>and instead continually exaggerate, which is not necessary.  If you
>>>>had been honest, you'd have said that 48% of the cummulative AIDS
>>>>cases since the start of the epidemic are known to have resulted from
>>>>male-to-male sexual contact.  It's 48% instead of 70% due to the 48%
>>>>number including women, and more straight women than straight men are
>>>>infected.  You can also admit that male-to-male sexual contact includes
>>>>not only homosexuals - bisexuals, straight guys who "experiment", and
>>>>rape victims (e.g., in prison) are all in that category.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you have to lie so much?  If you simply told the truth, you'd
>>>>still have rates that would make most readers nervous.  All your
>>>>exagerations do is to reduce your credibility to zero, as do your
>>>>paranoid delusions about "Dogma".
>>>
>>>
>>> As usual you refuse to acknowledge the truth about male homosexuals
>>> and their knowing and willful spread of HIV/AIDS in the us. Homosexual
>>> males account for 70% of all AIDS case among males in the US and 50%
>>> of all cases male and female.
>>
>>Well, you are still being dishonest because (a) the "male-to-male
>>sexual contact" catagory includes more than just homosexuals and
>>(b) nobody knows if people in  "male-to-male sexual contact AND
>>IV drug use catagory" got it from sex or from drug use (specifically,
>>what the percentages are).
>
> The CDC makes it quite clear that when they use the term "men who have
> sex with men" (MSM) they are referring to persons who classify
> themselves as either homosexual or bisexual. Your wild idea that they
> could accurately include data on any other class is hilarious.

 *You* are the one who ignored bisexuals and attributed all
the cases to homosexuals.  I mentioned a few other ones as well,
and the CDC includes all of them - that's why they changed the
term to "male-to-male sexual contact".

>>As I said, there is really no reason for you to lie about it (your
>>70% BTW, required some round-up with worst-case assumptions).
>
> That's not my figure that's the CDC figure -- do you think they lie
> about homosexuals?

No, I think you lie - you made up that 70 percent thing and the
CDC data simply is not consistent with it - the actual numbers
are lower.

>>Why not just admit what the actual numbers are?  That isn't asking
>>a lot from you.
>
>  Why not accept the data from the CDC rather than continue to blow
> smoke up your own ass.

Why do you lie so much?