Community harass local HIVer
Martin
HIVer:
"They harass him daily, he has been assaulted, he's had his property
damaged, a window smashed and his letter box has been spray-painted
numerous times with all sorts of graffiti relating to his HIV status
and his homosexuality."
<http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26356381-2682,00.html?from=public_rss>:
----- Begin Quote -----
ALLEGED HIV sex predator Stuart McDonald has suffered abuse from
neighbours who want him out of their neighbourhood, a court has heard.
In April, McDonald, 43, pleaded not guilty to deliberately and
recklessly infecting eight men with HIV, by having sex with them.
He today appeared in the Adelaide Magistrate Court charged with
breaching his strict home detention bail conditions.
Prosecutors said he had "left his home" where he was confined under
those conditions.
The court today heard those conditions were breached when McDonald
ventured "outside of the boundaries and gone into the street".
Prosecutors said neighbours "of a vulnerable age, being elderly or
disabled" had reported the breach and now had "fear of reprisal having
spoken to police in relation to this matter".
But, Damon Ind, for McDonald, told the court his client "had some
issues" with his electronic monitoring bracelet.
"There are black spots even within the boundaries of his home," Mr Ind
said.
"If he walks into those sports which have recently been identified by
the Department of Corrections, he goes out of range."
The court heard McDonald had been provided with a map of areas in his
home where he would remain within monitoring range.
He said neighbours had invented "a concoction of lies", telling police
McDonald had breached his bail, when he had not.
"They clearly have something against McDonald and it relates to him
being HIV positive and to him being a homosexual.
"They harass him daily, he has been assaulted, he's had his property
damaged, a window smashed and his letter box has been spray-painted
numerous times with all sorts of graffiti relating to his HIV status
and his homosexuality."
In February last year the Adelaide Magistrates Court set strict bail
conditions, allowing McDonald to live alone, but with a ban on
receiving visitors or accessing the Internet.
It is alleged McDonald met some of his victims on the gay website
Gaydar.
The court heard McDonald lives in a Housing Trust home and is on a
waiting list to be moved.
Magistrate Alfio Grasso ordered a report into the situation and
granted McDonald bail.
McDonald will return to court next week, when Mr Grasso will reassess
his bail conditions.
Outside court McDonald refused to comment.
----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 11 months and 16 days.
windinghighway
On Dec 29, 9:41�pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
> Here's an example of how a caring community treats a 'terminally ill'
> HIVer:
>
> "They harass him daily, he has been assaulted, he's had his property
> damaged, a window smashed and his letter box has been spray-painted
> numerous times with all sorts of graffiti relating to his HIV status
> and his homosexuality."
No, its an example of how a community treats somebody who is accused
of "deliberately and recklessly infecting eight men with HIV by having
sex with them", and subsquently breaching the bail conditions that
were intended to prevent him repeating the crime.
We all know why you are so sensitive to this story. You brag about
having "copious unprotected sex" with multiple partners after telling
them you dont have HIV -- even though you have tested positive on the
standard HIV test, even though you have been seeing an AIDS doctor
for several years, and even though your immune system is now so
damaged (with T-Cells below 100), that you meet the CDC definition of
having not just HIV, but full blown AIDS.. It is quite likely that
you have also "deliberately and recklessly" infected men with HIV too.
If you had a shred of respect for your unsuspecting partners you would
at least wear a condom, even if you cant bring yourself to tell them
your actual HIV history. But you dont. And do you know why you
dont?
Because you a sociopath, Martin.
Martin
<winding...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 9:41?pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
>>Here's an example of how a caring community treats a 'terminally ill'
>>HIVer:
>>
>>"They harass him daily, he has been assaulted, he's had his property
>>damaged, a window smashed and his letter box has been spray-painted
>>numerous times with all sorts of graffiti relating to his HIV status
>>and his homosexuality."
>No, its an example of how a community treats somebody who is accused
>of "deliberately and recklessly infecting eight men with HIV by having
>sex with them", and subsquently breaching the bail conditions that
>were intended to prevent him repeating the crime.
You condone their actions?
It appears you've already written the accused off as guilty: "...bail
conditions that were intended to prevent him repeating the crime."
Isn't there due legal process in your part of the world?
>We all know why you are so sensitive to this story. You brag about
>having "copious unprotected sex" with multiple partners after telling
>them you dont have HIV -- even though you have tested positive on the
>standard HIV test, even though you have been seeing an AIDS doctor
>for several years, and even though your immune system is now so
>damaged (with T-Cells below 100), that you meet the CDC definition of
>having not just HIV, but full blown AIDS.. It is quite likely that
>you have also "deliberately and recklessly" infected men with HIV too.
LOL. Made a bit of a fool of yourself a few weeks ago when you
accused me of having AIDS, didn't you? I think we all noticed how
quiet you went about the matter after, effectively, labeling the
majority of HIV healthcare professionals throughout the world as AIDS
deniers.
You have slipped up once again, though: I have never seen an "AIDS
doctor." Oh, and there's more than one type of HIV test. Which
"standard HIV test" are you referring to?
And perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between "full blown
AIDS" and other forms of the condition.
>If you had a shred of respect for your unsuspecting partners you would
>at least wear a condom, even if you cant bring yourself to tell them
>your actual HIV history. But you dont. And do you know why you
>dont?
>
>Because you a sociopath, Martin.
Another inaccurate kitchen table diagnosis?
Do you deny that I don't have AIDS?
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 11 months and 17 days.
windinghighway
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:56:01 -0800 (PST), windinghighway
>
> >>"They harass him daily, he has been assaulted, he's had his property
> >>damaged, a window smashed and his letter box has been spray-painted
> >>numerous times with all sorts of graffiti relating to his HIV status
> >>and his homosexuality."
> >No, its an example of how a community treats somebody who is accused
> >of "deliberately and recklessly infecting eight men with HIV by having
> >sex with them", and subsquently breaching the bail conditions that
> >were intended to prevent him repeating the crime.
>
> You condone their actions?
No, I would much rather he got locked up for life, or died of AIDS as
soon as possible. Same with you, actually..
>
> It appears you've already written the accused off as guilty: "...bail
> conditions that were intended to prevent him repeating the crime."
> Isn't there due legal process in your part of the world?
You would have to ask the judge about that. Its a very unsual bail
requirement, implying that the accused may be totally selfish and
reckless with other peoples health and lives. Same as you,
actually..
>
> >We all know why you are so sensitive to this story. � You brag about
> >having "copious unprotected sex" with multiple partners after telling
> >them you dont have HIV �-- even though you have tested positive on the
> >standard HIV test, �even though you have been seeing an AIDS doctor
> >for several years, �and even though your immune system is now so
> >damaged (with T-Cells below 100), that you meet the CDC definition of
> >having not just HIV, but full blown AIDS.. �It is quite likely that
> >you have also "deliberately and recklessly" infected men with HIV too.
>
> LOL. �Made a bit of a fool of yourself a few weeks ago when you
> accused me of having AIDS, didn't you?
No. I said, correctly, that according to the CDC definition you have
AIDS. Under that definition you have AIDS if you test positive for
HIV antibodies and have a T-cell count below 200 -- both of which you
do. If you prefer the WHO definition, then you must test positive
for HIV antibodies and have an opportunistic infection. Under that
definition you dont have AIDS yet, but with a T-cell count which is
now below 100 you will have one soon enough.
(It has occured to me, though. that your increasing mental confusion
may result from your HIV infection -- sometimes you say theres no such
thing as HIV, then you say your antibodies to the non virus are a
sign that you have immunity to it, then you say you have a strong
immune system that has fought off the non virus, then you admit your
immune system is in tatters with a dangerously low T-cell count, etc
etc etc. Its pathetic, actually.)
>�I think we all noticed how
> quiet you went about the matter after,
No, like most people here I rarely bother to respond to your drivel.
> effectively, labeling the
> majority of HIV healthcare professionals throughout the world as AIDS
> deniers.
Fool, the fact that doctors can use two arbitrary cutoffs between HIV
infection and full blown AIDS doesnt mean that users of either
definition are "AIDS deniers". Some prefer one cutoff, some the
other, but all are agreed about the nature of the disease. You
really are grasping at straws.
>
> You have slipped up once again, though: I have never seen an "AIDS
> doctor."
Forgive me, I assumed that the doctor or doctors who first tested
you, gave you the advice you neglected, offered you the anti-HIV
drugs you say you rejected, conducted your several T-cell tests,
etc, were AIDS doctors. If in fact you have been using non-
specialist doctors all these years its no wonder you have remained so
ignorant about the disease.
>�Oh, and there's more than one type of HIV test. �Which
> "standard HIV test" are you referring to?
Dont be deliberately obtuse -- you are dumb enough to start with,
dont make it worse.
>
> And perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between "full blown
> AIDS" and other forms of the condition.
See the CDC and WHO definitions above. HIV/AIDS is a progressive
disease starting with infection, which may be asymptomatic, and
continuing in nearly all cases to a breakdown of the immune system and
then death (unless there is successful medical intervention). On
average this process takes about ten years, although there is a lot a
individual variation. The cutoff point for full blown AIDS on this
continuum is necessarily arbitrary but it indicates which patients
have a critically compromised immunity.
>
> >If you had a shred of respect for your unsuspecting partners you would
> >at least wear a condom, �even if you cant bring yourself to tell them
> >your actual HIV history. � But you dont. � And do you know why you
> >dont?
>
> >Because you a sociopath, �Martin.
>
> Another inaccurate kitchen table diagnosis?
No, Im going by the various definitions available in pyschiatry
textbooks and the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. You can look
this stuff up yourself, but one of the characteristics of sociopaths
is a complete lack of insight into their own behavior so it probably
wouldnt help you much. Im sure everybody else here would agree you
are a sociopath though. Here are just a few of the characteristics
that others will immediately recognize in you, although you wont:
1 Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying to or conning
others for personal profit or pleasure
2. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
3. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt or mistreated another.
Your shameless rationalization for your "copious unprotected sex" with
unwitting victims illustrates the above characteristics -- to the
satisfaction of virtually anybody but you, Martin.
Martin
<winding...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 12:24?pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:56:01 -0800 (PST), windinghighway
>>You condone their actions?
>No, I would much rather he got locked up for life, or died of AIDS as
>soon as possible. Same with you, actually..
Nice.
>>It appears you've already written the accused off as guilty: "...bail
>>conditions that were intended to prevent him repeating the crime."
>>Isn't there due legal process in your part of the world?
>You would have to ask the judge about that. Its a very unsual bail
>requirement, implying that the accused may be totally selfish and
>reckless with other peoples health and lives. Same as you,
>actually..
Or that the judge is as ignorant about HIVAIDS as you are.
>>LOL. ?Made a bit of a fool of yourself a few weeks ago when you
>>accused me of having AIDS, didn't you?
>No. I said, correctly, that according to the CDC definition you have
>AIDS.
Well, let's just remind ourselves of what we wrote...
Message-ID
<382c6e04-c230-4503...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> or
see
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.circumcision/browse_thread/thread/9e8d16cdb4a51329/5f9f55a5348f41f4?q=#5f9f55a5348f41f4>:
----- Begin Quote -----
On Dec 3, 6:00 pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
> My last three CD4 counts were 150, 97 and 100.
> So, I'll pose the question again: Do I have AIDS?
Of course you have AIDS. You have tested positive on the standard HIV
test, as you admit. After years of infection your immune system is
dangerously compromised now, with T-cells about 1/8 th the normal
level. You are an excellent candidate for an early death from an
opportunistic disease such as pneumocystis pneumonia or brain cancer.
There are many more diseases that could get you first, though.
Yet you brag about having "copious unproctected sex" with others after
denying to them that you are infected with HIV. Youre a homicidal
pyschopath. So really, the quicker you die the better for all
concerned.
----- End Quote -----
I don't see anything about the CDC there. "Of course you have AIDS"
you wrote.
My HIV specialist disagrees with you and the CDC, as do the majority
of those involved in the HIVAIDS scam worldwide. They DENY I have
AIDS.
>Under that definition you have AIDS if you test positive for
>HIV antibodies and have a T-cell count below 200 -- both of which you
>do. If you prefer the WHO definition, then you must test positive
>for HIV antibodies and have an opportunistic infection. Under that
>definition you dont have AIDS yet, but with a T-cell count which is
>now below 100 you will have one soon enough.
So, let me ask the question again: Do I have AIDS? Do you stand
behind your previous statement: "Of course you have AIDS?"
Oh, and my CD4 count was sub-100 nearly THREE YEARS AGO. How soon is
soon enough?
>(It has occured to me, though. that your increasing mental confusion
>may result from your HIV infection -- sometimes you say theres no such
>thing as HIV, then you say your antibodies to the non virus are a
>sign that you have immunity to it, then you say you have a strong
>immune system that has fought off the non virus, then you admit your
>immune system is in tatters with a dangerously low T-cell count, etc
>etc etc. Its pathetic, actually.)
Perhaps I'm as confused about HIVAIDS as you and everyone else. :)
Or, perhaps, your parents had doctors remove your funny bone while
they were mutilating your penis, thus leaving you unable to appreciate
my mocking of HIVAIDS theory.
>>?I think we all noticed how
>>quiet you went about the matter after,
>No, like most people here I rarely bother to respond to your drivel.
LOL.
>>effectively, labeling the
>>majority of HIV healthcare professionals throughout the world as AIDS
>>deniers.
>Fool, the fact that doctors can use two arbitrary cutoffs between HIV
>infection and full blown AIDS doesnt mean that users of either
>definition are "AIDS deniers". Some prefer one cutoff, some the
>other, but all are agreed about the nature of the disease. You
>really are grasping at straws.
You prefer that I have HIV and AIDS. I prefer that I don't. Isn't
this kitchen table diagnosis stuff fun?
>>You have slipped up once again, though: I have never seen an "AIDS
>>doctor."
>Forgive me, I assumed that the doctor or doctors who first tested
>you, gave you the advice you neglected, offered you the anti-HIV
>drugs you say you rejected, conducted your several T-cell tests,
>etc, were AIDS doctors. If in fact you have been using non-
>specialist doctors all these years its no wonder you have remained so
>ignorant about the disease.
The term AIDS doctor is not used here in the UK. My previous
"non-specialist," as you put it, calls himself an "HIV doctor."
>>?Oh, and there's more than one type of HIV test. ?Which
>>"standard HIV test" are you referring to?
>Dont be deliberately obtuse -- you are dumb enough to start with,
>dont make it worse.
Which one of the many tests you were referring to doesn't really
matter, anyway. None of them test for HIV.
>>And perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between "full blown
>>AIDS" and other forms of the condition.
>See the CDC and WHO definitions above. HIV/AIDS is a progressive
>disease starting with infection, which may be asymptomatic, and
>continuing in nearly all cases to a breakdown of the immune system and
>then death (unless there is successful medical intervention). On
>average this process takes about ten years, although there is a lot a
>individual variation. The cutoff point for full blown AIDS on this
>continuum is necessarily arbitrary but it indicates which patients
>have a critically compromised immunity.
So, there's more than one sort of AIDS?
>>Another inaccurate kitchen table diagnosis?
>No, Im going by the various definitions available in pyschiatry
>textbooks and the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. You can look
>this stuff up yourself, but one of the characteristics of sociopaths
>is a complete lack of insight into their own behavior so it probably
>wouldnt help you much. Im sure everybody else here would agree you
>are a sociopath though. Here are just a few of the characteristics
>that others will immediately recognize in you, although you wont:
>
>1 Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying to or conning
>others for personal profit or pleasure
>
>2. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
>
>3. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
>rationalizing having hurt or mistreated another.
What do your textbooks say about someone who believes they speak on
behalf of every else when they don't?
And what do they say about someone whose penis was mutilated by his
parents and wants to see the same thing done to all other men (and
boys of course)?
Oh, and what do they say about someone who has this to say about the
terminally ill: "I would much rather he got locked up for life, or
died of AIDS as soon as possible. Same with you, actually?"
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 11 months and 19 days.