🚀 go-pugleaf

"LeRoy Blue" <leroyblue@billon.net> wrote in message 
news:3971k4hp0c2pf32fr9kh9od23a0roote19@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:52:47 -0500, "John Donovan"
> <5l40sdm02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kujebak" <kujebak@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>>news:03babf30-8e41-451b-86c0-7a684111527b@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>>> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Bill Z. wrote:
>>>> >> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
>>>> >> > entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
>>>> >> > predominant among homosexual men.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
>>>> >> that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
>>>> >> for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
>>>> >> ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
>>>> >> completely safe when it isn't.
>>>> >
>>>> > That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
>>>> > among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
>>>> > to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
>>>> > among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
>>>> > for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
>>>> > the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
>>>> > blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
>>>> > in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
>>>> > How could it not be?
>>>>
>>>> My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
>>>> meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
>>>> you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
>>>> "entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
>>>> was zero and that simply isn't the case.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
>>>> have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
>>>> members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
>>>> when you state such experience up front.
>>>>
>>>> If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
>>>> what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
>>>> imagined.
>>>
>>> There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
>>> through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
>>> subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this...
>>
>>The Gay Community is the ONLY people who dealt with the *facts* about
>>HIV/AIDS.
>>
>>The Gay Community (with little if any help from anyone else) helped stem 
>>the
>>tide of Aids.
>>
>>So, don't lecture anyone on the denial.
>>
>>Local, State and the Federal government have been in a state of denial 
>>since
>>1985.
>
>
> Few people will share your view because the average American can't
> get their head that far up their ass.

Can't discuss facts .....it appears to be an emotional thing for you.

> Homosexual males were, have been
> and are the No.1 vector of HIV/AIDS in the US. Homosexual males..

And the reduction in infections for 20 years was due to the gay 
community...with little help from anyone else.

> Get your shit straight, boy.The US spends more on AIDS treatment and
> research that it does on many other diseases that, unlike AIDS. are
> considered non-preventable.

I dont accept your statistic (as vague as it is) but whatever the fed 
government spends, it hasn't found a cure...and the reduction in infection 
rates were not due to US government spending.

> You can bet your next month's trailer payment that there are Americans
> dying because there is a shortage of funds to provide treatment..

More emotional babling...