The Truth About AIDS & Porn Stars...
eglanders
http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/
Apparently, fans of the adult porn industry have been keeping a running list
of performers who've died of AIDS. The number is now well over 60 but here's
the rub: only one female made the list -- and more, even her cause of death
by AIDS isn't documented. To those of you who visit this list and recognize
some of the names -- ie. "John Holmes"...Mark Wallace -- what will also be
clear is that many of these males were long-time stars in heterosexual
films, that is, films where they had unprotected sex with strictly females.
John Holmes, for example, was one of the biggest stars of the so-called
"Golden Age" of adult film making. This covers the period satired in the
film "Boogey Nights". The guy had unprotected sex with hundreds of females
all apparently alive and HIV free today. In fact, in the entire industry
there are only two females who are known to have the virus.
I won't go into chapter and verse of why the list of females dead of AIDS
should at least be triple that of the males; that is, if one is to believe
the accepted wisdom of what defines "high-risk" populations why women like
Seka, Vanessa Del Rio, Ginger Lynn, Samantha Strong, et al should all have
died years ago. And it should be noted that even at this late date hundreds
of porn films are still made wherein all the performers refuse condoms.
Indeed, the latest rage are "gangbang" films, marathons where the women
literally take on hundreds of men at a time (a la Jasmin St Clair). In
theory, all of the men have been tested for HIV, or at least this is what
the producers tell us.
Whatever you may think of this one thing should be abundantly clear --no
matter what side of the debate you're on, the adult film community is
compelling laboratory for the study of AIDS virtually everyone has missed.
And this needs to stop. Ginger Lynn, one of the more noted stars, had
unprotected sex with hundreds of men during the height of the AIDS scare --
many of whom subsequently died of AIDS -- and yet she is still alive and
presumably HIV free. And there are many, many more females with the same
history.
These people must be studied and a practicable explanation of why the women
simply don't catch HIV and die of AIDS must be filed. And to you dissidents
out there I say to you, here is the research project you could never gather
the money to launch. Recruit 50 of these former porn stars, acquire their
film and sex histories. Do current HIV tests on them (or simply have them
get them at the local health clinics and mail you the results); and write
your reports.
Harry Lime
Raphael Ferreira
get AIDS after several times having unprotected sex with HIV+ men. At a
later date (about a year ago), I read another article saying that some of
those prostitutes had gone on to develop AIDS. Who were the ones developing
AIDS? The ones that had stopped being prostitutes. The article suggested
that one should keep being exposed to the virus so to keep estimulating the
immune system.
I have know idea if that is true. But makes "some" sense.
:-) Louis
eglanders wrote in message
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
> Don't take my word for any of this. Visit the following link:
> http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/
>
> Apparently, fans of the adult porn industry have been keeping a running list
> of performers who've died of AIDS. The number is now well over 60 but here's
> the rub: only one female made the list -- and more, even her cause of death
> by AIDS isn't documented. To those of you who visit this list and recognize
> some of the names -- ie. "John Holmes"...Mark Wallace -- what will also be
> clear is that many of these males were long-time stars in heterosexual
> films, that is, films where they had unprotected sex with strictly females.
interesting how you changed your observation from your earlier post to
rec.arts.movies.erotica, where you wrote:
"In (sic) just doesn't make any sense. I counted 70 male performers (mostly gay)
and, as I say, just one female.
it also seems like you're relying on others to help you write your posts:
Crs4uxx <crs...@aol.com> responded to your post in rec.arts.movies.erotica:
"And that one female (lisa Deleeuw )is still not a confirmed death of
aids.Nobody has come up
with any proof despite many requests for info."
> John Holmes, for example, was one of the biggest stars of the so-called
> "Golden Age" of adult film making. This covers the period satired in the
> film "Boogey Nights". The guy had unprotected sex with hundreds of females
> all apparently alive and HIV free today. In fact, in the entire industry
> there are only two females who are known to have the virus.
>
> I won't go into chapter and verse of why the list of females dead of AIDS
> should at least be triple that of the males; that is, if one is to believe
> the accepted wisdom of what defines "high-risk" populations why women like
> Seka, Vanessa Del Rio, Ginger Lynn, Samantha Strong, et al should all have
> died years ago. And it should be noted that even at this late date hundreds
> of porn films are still made wherein all the performers refuse condoms.
> Indeed, the latest rage are "gangbang" films, marathons where the women
> literally take on hundreds of men at a time (a la Jasmin St Clair). In
> theory, all of the men have been tested for HIV, or at least this is what
> the producers tell us.
please do go into "chapter and verse" as to why the number of female porn stars
should be "triple" that of males. all you've posted so far is unsupported
speculation. you should include all movie titles with dates of filming, number
and type of sexual acts and of course whether the females were exposed or not
(since most "cum" shots are shown, exposure to bodily fluids would be at a
minimum). don't forget to include injecting drug use differences between male
and females, as well as between "gay" and "straight".
> Whatever you may think of this one thing should be abundantly clear --no
> matter what side of the debate you're on, the adult film community is
> compelling laboratory for the study of AIDS virtually everyone has missed.
> And this needs to stop. Ginger Lynn, one of the more noted stars, had
> unprotected sex with hundreds of men during the height of the AIDS scare --
> many of whom subsequently died of AIDS -- and yet she is still alive and
> presumably HIV free. And there are many, many more females with the same
> history.
>
> These people must be studied and a practicable explanation of why the women
> simply don't catch HIV and die of AIDS must be filed. And to you dissidents
> out there I say to you, here is the research project you could never gather
> the money to launch. Recruit 50 of these former porn stars, acquire their
> film and sex histories. Do current HIV tests on them (or simply have them
> get them at the local health clinics and mail you the results); and write
> your reports.
>
> Harry Lime
unfortunately you're still showing your ignorance of the subject. studies have
been done to try and determine why some women who were exposed to hiv through
sexual contact weren't infected - the wives of hemophiliacs being among them,
since they were exposed between the time their partners were infected (mainly
during 1981-82) and when the hemophilia community was tested (between 1985-86).
why look, here's one such study by my personal physician (from pubmed):
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1998 Jan 1;17(1):42-5
Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission and viral load in hemophilic patients.
Ragni MV, Faruki H, Kingsley LA
Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and The
Hemophilia
Center of Western Pennsylvania, 15213-4306, USA.
Only one fifth or fewer of the female sexual partners of HIV-1-infected men with
hemophilia
become infected. The risk factors associated with heterosexual transmission of
HIV-1 are not
well understood. To investigate the hypothesis that HIV-1 viral load may be
related to
heterosexual HIV-1 transmission, we measured HIV-1 RNA by polymerase chain
reaction
(PCR) in frozen samples from 39 men with hemophilia and HIV-1 infection obtained
between 20
and 62 months after HIV-1 seroconversion, during at least a 6-month relationship
with a female
sexual partner. The median time from the hemophilic viral load determination to
the estimated
date of transmission to the female partner was 9 months (range, 4-41 months).
The proportion of
HIV-positive hemophilic men with >100,000 HIV RNA copies/ml was significantly
higher in
transmitters (TR) (3 of 5 [60%]), than in nontransmitters (NTR) (3 of 34 [9%]; p
= 0.027).
There were no differences between TR and NTR in age at seroconversion (32.4
years each), in
time from seroconversion to AIDS (67 versus 79 months), in mean CD4 number
(245/microl]
versus 260/microl); nor in the proportion who developed AIDS (4 of 5 [80%]
versus 24 of 34
[71%]). These findings appear to suggest that high HIV viral load in
HIV-infected hemophilic
men increases the risk of HIV transmission to heterosexual partners. Viral load
determinations
may be helpful in counseling hemophilic couples regarding transmission to female
partners.
PMID: 9436757, UI: 98097257
oh well, keep trying, maybe you'll stumble on something new and interesting.
have a happy holiday season all.
take care, be well
donpaul lucas
hiv+ 18 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
13 years anti-viral veteran
(this post sealed with the three-fold law)
DGiunti
<egla...@earthlink.com> writes:
>
>These people must be studied and a practicable explanation of why the women
>simply don't catch HIV and die of AIDS must be filed.
One of the reasons that porno females don't get HIV infected much from their
work is in the nature of the work itself. In the porno industry no man ever
cums inside his partner. Ejaculation is always external and filmed. I have
read references to the 'scene' as the money shot.
David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
What is the question? Gertrude Stein's last words
No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts
On Display in the UK http://www.web-gallery.co.uk
eglanders
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:3A4640F5...@erie.net...
> namaste sparky,
>
> eglanders wrote:
>
> > Don't take my word for any of this. Visit the following link:
> > http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/
> >
> > Apparently, fans of the adult porn industry have been keeping a running
list
> > of performers who've died of AIDS. The number is now well over 60 but
here's
> > the rub: only one female made the list -- and more, even her cause of
death
> > by AIDS isn't documented. To those of you who visit this list and
recognize
> > some of the names -- ie. "John Holmes"...Mark Wallace -- what will also
be
> > clear is that many of these males were long-time stars in heterosexual
> > films, that is, films where they had unprotected sex with strictly
females.
>
> interesting how you changed your observation from your earlier post to
> rec.arts.movies.erotica, where you wrote:
>
> "In (sic) just doesn't make any sense. I counted 70 male performers
(mostly gay)
> and, as I say, just one female.
>
The fact you think there's something wrong with someone amending their
observation is telling. Objective people do this all the time. But you
wouldn't do so under any circumstances, would you?
> it also seems like you're relying on others to help you write your posts:
Are you getting denser? It wouldn't seem possible, yet, you make a statement
like the above based on the following reasoning. I won't comment further.
Intelligent readers will read the following and know at once the manifold
problems you have with the language and clear thinking.
And here you're down right incoherent. My post was not meant as a scientific
study -- in fact, at the end I call for scientific studies on this
unexplainable phenomena. You, on the other hand, attack the information I
provide at once. You apparently have no information to the otherwise,
haven't given the topic a moment's thought, yet attack it as false and
absurd out of hand. Moreover, you take me to task for not presenting the
information in a strictly scientific format. Clearly, your attitude is one
that is meant to block and destroy any notions contrary to your own. And it
should be added that even the most rigorous scientific truths start out with
opinions such as mine. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are the
type of person who has long stood in the way of new ideas.
The only ignorant thing here is your comparison of porn queens to the wives
of hemophlliacs. Your suggestion that the study results of one might explain
the other is an opinion of profound stupidity. These two groups have
nothing in common -- on any level. And this is typical of how fringe
supporters of the orthdoxy like yourself make all scentists look bad. Simply
put, you mimic the words of the status quo without thinking about what
you're saying. And this is because you haven't the analytical ability to
sort out what is being said.
>
> why look, here's one such study by my personal physician (from pubmed):
Yes, an I'm not at all surprised at this. Lacking a reasoned explanation to
the question I ask you try and shoe-horn in something totally unrelated,
something written by a physician and scientist who just happens to be your
physcian. I say it again, people like you would be an impediment if they had
any real influence. Fortunately, people like you never gain an real
influence in anything.
EG
eglanders
"DGiunti" <dgi...@aol.community> wrote in message
news:20001224150036...@nso-bj.aol.com...
> In article <%Un16.2324$3B5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"eglanders"
> <egla...@earthlink.com> writes:
>
> >
> >These people must be studied and a practicable explanation of why the
women
> >simply don't catch HIV and die of AIDS must be filed.
>
> One of the reasons that porno females don't get HIV infected much from
their
> work is in the nature of the work itself. In the porno industry no man
ever
> cums inside his partner. Ejaculation is always external and filmed. I
have
> read references to the 'scene' as the money shot.
>
The "money shot" is a technique of gay porn films too; moreover, the idea
that "no man ever cums inside his partner" is both irrelevant and absurd in
any event.
EG
EG
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
> "don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
> news:3A4640F5...@erie.net.
> > namaste sparky,
>> > Don't take my word for any of this. Visit the following link:
>> > http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/
>> > Apparently, fans of the adult porn industry have been keeping a running
>> > list of performers who've died of AIDS. The number is now well over 60 but
>> > here's the rub: only one female made the list -- and more, even her cause
of
>> > death by AIDS isn't documented. To those of you who visit this list and
>> > recognize some of the names -- ie. "John Holmes"...Mark Wallace -- what
will also
>> > be clear is that many of these males were long-time stars in heterosexual
>> > films, that is, films where they had unprotected sex with strictly
>> > females.
> > interesting how you changed your observation from your earlier post to
> > rec.arts.movies.erotica, where you wrote:
> > "In (sic) just doesn't make any sense. I counted 70 male performers
> > (mostly gay) and, as I say, just one female.
> The fact you think there's something wrong with someone amending their
> observation is telling. Objective people do this all the time.
no, what's actually telling is your feeble attempt at changing your original
observation of "mostly gay" to "many are heterosexual". since one of the
original high risk categories was gay men, of cousre one would expect
the majority of those in the porn industry who were infected with hiv
(and later died), to be gay. besides, you only named two "heterosexual"
male porn stars who died of aids - hardly "many" (2 of 70).
> But you wouldn't do so under any circumstances, would you?
ohhhhh, that's just harsh!
>> it also seems like you're relying on others to help you write your posts:
> Are you getting denser? It wouldn't seem possible, yet, you make a statement
> like the above based on the following reasoning. I won't comment further.
> Intelligent readers will read the following and know at once the manifold
> problems you have with the language and clear thinking.
> > Crs4uxx <crs...@aol.com> responded to your post in
> > rec.arts.movies.erotica:
> > "And that one female (lisa Deleeuw )is still not a confirmed death of
> > aids.Nobody has come up with any proof despite many requests for info."
c'mon sparky, really. your original post to rec.arts.movies.erotica never
mentioned
the fact that lisa deleeuw's death due to aids was not confirmed as such. you
had
to relie on another source (unverified, by the way) for that tid-bit.
your call for a scietific study is unnecessary, as i've shown. the study i
quoted
gives good reason for your so-called "unexplained phenomena".
> You, on the other hand, attack the information I provide at once.
> You apparently have no information to the otherwise, haven't given
> the topic a moment's thought, yet attack it as false and
>absurd out of hand. Moreover, you take me to task for not presenting the
> information in a strictly scientific format. Clearly, your attitude is one
> that is meant to block and destroy any notions contrary to your own.
no, my attitude is one of making you look the fool you so enjoy playing.
> And it should be added that even the most rigorous scientific truths
> start out with opinions such as mine.
no, they don't, just for the reasons i outlined above. since you're
apparently trying to find out why there is an inconsistency
in hiv infections between male and female porn stars, as well as
between gay and straight male porn stars, all of the information
i've asked for is relevant. as it stands, this is just speculation on
your part and wouldn't be taken seriously by any scientist or
researcher.
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are the
> type of person who has long stood in the way of new ideas.
nope, i'm just the type of person who likes to stand in the way of
self-admitted trolls.
why would that be? "how can anybody compare the poor innocent wives of
hemophiliacs with porn stars?" that's a pathetic attempt at gaining an emotional
edge? (just for those new to m.h.a. - i'm an hiv+ hemophiliac, married for 27
years to the same woman - read on).
> Your suggestion that the study results of one might explain
> the other is an opinion of profound stupidity. These two groups have
> nothing in common -- on any level.
read for content, won't you? your theory is that women who had sex with
hundreds of men, some of whom later died of aids should be at astronomical
risk for contracing hiv. the wives of hiv infected hemophiliacs had hundreds of
sexual contacts with known hiv infected individuals. what's so hard to
understand about the comparison?
> And this is typical of how fringe supporters of the orthdoxy like yourself
> make all scentists look bad.
fringe supporter? hahahahahahaha! if you didn't know better, this wouldn't
be so funny. good to see you've not lost what little sense of humor you
had.
> Simply put, you mimic the words of the status quo without thinking
> about what you're saying. And this is because you haven't the
> analytical ability to sort out what is being said.
ouch, now that hurt. say you're sorry, or else. you think the folks
at rec.arts.movies.erotica might find my information enlightening?
>> why look, here's one such study by my personal physician (from pubmed):
> Yes, an I'm not at all surprised at this. Lacking a reasoned explanation to
> the question I ask you try and shoe-horn in something totally unrelated,
> something written by a physician and scientist who just happens to be your
> physcian.
yep, my personal physician. see my response above and try to explain how
my comparison doesn't fit. and this time take your time and try a little
logic.
> I say it again, people like you would be an impediment if they had
> any real influence. Fortunately, people like you never gain an real
> influence in anything.
> EG
you should have laid off the "holiday spirits" until after you finished your
post, sparky. that way you wouldn't have had so many typo's.
since my wife and i (me being one of the nontransmitters) were part
of the study listed below, readers can determine for themselves who
has/will have more influence on the world of aids - me or
a self-admitted troll.
> J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1998 Jan 1;17(1):42-5
> Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission and viral load in hemophilic patients.
> Ragni MV, Faruki H, Kingsley LA
> Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and
> The Hemophilia Center of Western Pennsylvania, 15213-4306, USA.
> Only one fifth or fewer of the female sexual partners of HIV-1-infected men
> with hemophilia become infected. The risk factors associated with
> heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 are not well understood. To investigate
> the hypothesis that HIV-1 viral load may be related to heterosexual HIV-1
> transmission, we measured HIV-1 RNA by polymerase chain reaction
>(PCR) in frozen samples from 39 men with hemophilia and HIV-1 infection
> obtained between 20 and 62 months after HIV-1 seroconversion, during
> at least a 6-month relationship with a female sexual partner. The median
> time from the hemophilic viral load determination to the estimated
> date of transmission to the female partner was 9 months (range, 4-41
> months). The proportion of HIV-positive hemophilic men with >100,000
> HIV RNA copies/ml was significantly higher in transmitters (TR)
> (3 of 5 [60%]), than in nontransmitters (NTR) (3 of 34 [9%]; p = 0.027).
> There were no differences between TR and NTR in age at seroconversion
> (32.4 years each), in time from seroconversion to AIDS (67 versus 79
> months), in mean CD4 number (245/microl] versus 260/microl); nor in the
> proportion who developed AIDS (4 of 5 [80%] versus 24 of 34
> [71%]). These findings appear to suggest that high HIV viral load in
> HIV-infected hemophilic men increases the risk of HIV transmission to
> heterosexual partners. Viral load determinations may be helpful in
> counseling hemophilic couples regarding transmission to female
> partners.
> PMID: 9436757, UI: 98097257
take care, be well
eglanders
> the majority of those in the porn industry who were infected with hiv
> (and later died), to be gay. besides, you only named two "heterosexual"
> male porn stars who died of aids - hardly "many" (2 of 70).
>
Complete gibberish. What on earth are you trying to say, man? But I must
admit, it's an effective debate tactic of yours -- resort to incoherency
whenever you have no point. And you clearly haven't any in the above
paragraph, do you?
> > But you wouldn't do so under any circumstances, would you?
>
> ohhhhh, that's just harsh!
Not to put too fine a point on it... but you have no point at all. There is
no discrepancy in what I wrote, you're just too stupid to realize this.
Others will come along and attack the substance of what I say with reasoned
argument. Right now they're taking their time to look into the matter,
consider it; they'd really like to know if there's anything to be learned
from it. You on the hand have no talent or stomach for intelligent
discourse, it annoys you, so you yell and scream and stamp your feet. Point
your finger and stamp your feet some more. This is you way of pretending to
be a scientist.
>
> >> it also seems like you're relying on others to help you write your
posts:
>
> > Are you getting denser? It wouldn't seem possible, yet, you make a
statement
> > like the above based on the following reasoning. I won't comment
further.
> > Intelligent readers will read the following and know at once the
manifold
> > problems you have with the language and clear thinking.
>
> > > Crs4uxx <crs...@aol.com> responded to your post in
> > > rec.arts.movies.erotica:
>
> > > "And that one female (lisa Deleeuw )is still not a confirmed death of
> > > aids.Nobody has come up with any proof despite many requests for
info."
>
> c'mon sparky, really. your original post to rec.arts.movies.erotica never
> mentioned
> the fact that lisa deleeuw's death due to aids was not confirmed as such.
you
> had
> to relie on another source (unverified, by the way) for that tid-bit.
>
Yes! and I did relie (sic) on it -- but what of it? Can you really be so
dense as to think there's something wrong with it? Why do you keep beating
that dead horse after I've admitted this is precisely what I did -- but
there's nothing wrong it? Stop and think about what you're doing, will you?
No one but people as stupid as you are concerned with such things. The huge
issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS. Do you really think your
stupid nit-picking about how I arrived at this opinion sways people either
way? People want to know if the opinion has any merit. The tactics you so
relentlessly use to divert readers from serious discussion of the question
shows people how stupid and mule-headed a certain class of the orthodoxy is.
A lower class of the orthodoxy, I might add.
> >And here you're down right incoherent. My post was not meant
> > as a scientific study -- in fact, at the end I call for scientific
> > studies on this unexplainable phenomena.
>
> your call for a scietific study is unnecessary, as i've shown. the study i
> quoted
> gives good reason for your so-called "unexplained phenomena".
And this says it all... about you. What combination of arrogance and
stupidity would possess you or anyone to say a sciefitic (sic) study is
unnecessary? Once again, mule-headed stupidity on your part. You would have
us take data gleaned from the study of the spouses of one risk group and
apply it to another. Don't deny it, this is exactly what you do. And it's
truly fascinating, your stupidity, that is...a wonder to behold, it truly
is. How is it possible that after being in this group for almost a decade
you write such stupid things?
the most rigorous scientific truths
> > start out with opinions such as mine.
>
> no, they don't, just for the reasons i outlined above. since you're
> apparently trying to find out why there is an inconsistency
> in hiv infections between male and female porn stars, as well as
> between gay and straight male porn stars, all of the information
> i've asked for is relevant. as it stands, this is just speculation on
> your part and wouldn't be taken seriously by any scientist or
> researcher.
>
Yes, it *is* just speculation on my part, you dolt! Do I make claim that it
is anything else? Do I write it is a scientific truth? that I've conducted
studies and have found it to be so? Why can't you get it? Speculation is not
some evil grinch we should band together and stamp out. Indeed, as I say
below, all science begins with speculation.
> read for content, won't you? your theory is that women who had sex with
> hundreds of men, some of whom later died of aids should be at astronomical
> risk for contracing hiv. the wives of hiv infected hemophiliacs had
hundreds of
> sexual contacts with known hiv infected individuals. what's so hard to
> understand about the comparison?
I understand the comparison, I'm just trying to point out to you that such a
comparison has no scientific validity. What's so hard to understand about
that, Einstein?
And below you compound your ignorance about such things so I snipped it all.
Lucas, my suggestion to you is to put a cork in it for awhile. My
observation was a meaningful one worthy of serious discussion. Your response
isn't that at all. As I say, you seem more interested in producing heat than
light with your posts. Stupidity like yours is harmful and gets in the way
of things. Please shut up so serious discussion can be had on the issue.
Sparky
D.G.Brown
funding for such a project.
"If the police arrest a mime ,do they tell him he has the right to remian
silent?" George Carlin
eglanders
"D.G.Brown" <D.G.Brow...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:926u0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Sounds like a good idea to me, but I think a probelm might be how to get
the
> funding for such a project.
The odd thing is that with the billons spent on AIDS research, not a dime
has already been spent looking at this group. Why is this?
Sparky
don lucas
namaste,
having nothing of any significance to add, eglanders wrote:
<portions of original snipped to save bandwidth>
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
>> no, what's actually telling is your feeble attempt at changing your
>> original observation of "mostly gay" to "many are heterosexual".
>> since one of the original high risk categories was gay men, of
>> course one would expect the majority of those in the porn industry
>> who were infected with hiv (and later died), to be gay. besides,
>> you only named two "heterosexual" male porn stars who died
>> of aids - hardly "many" (2 of 70).
> Complete gibberish. What on earth are you trying to say, man?
> But I must admit, it's an effective debate tactic of yours --
> resort to incoherency whenever you have no point. And you
> clearly haven't any in the above paragraph, do you?
in typical troll fashion, sparky decides that rather than attempt
to debate the subject, he tries to elicit a response by flaming.
unfortunately, he hasn't learned anything in his numerous
forays (at least in his mind. just another example of his
unwarranted, self inflated impression of his writing and
debating skills) into discussions on m.h.a. under various
guises. all so predictable, since he can't defend his position,
which becomes apparent the more we read.
>> ohhhhh, that's just harsh!
> Not to put too fine a point on it... but you have no point at all.
> There is no discrepancy in what I wrote, you're just too
> stupid to realize this.
yet he doesn't defend his position that 2 of 70 is "many".
> Others will come along and attack the substance of what
> I say with reasoned argument. Right now they're taking
> their time to look into the matter, consider it; they'd really
> like to know if there's anything to be learned from it.
poor misguided soul! "right now" others are ignoring him. on
the other hand, i'm interested in keeping my record going. i've
run this troll off m.h.a. numerous times before with his tail
between his legs. this time will be no different. he'll put up a
valiant effort (again, in his inflated estimation), then disappear
to create a new persona (and get a new server - by the way
sparky, why did your web site get kicked off geocities?), haunt
his usual newsgroups, then try his luck back here.
> You on the hand have no talent or stomach for intelligent
> discourse, it annoys you, so you yell and scream and stamp
> your feet. Point your finger and stamp your feet some more.
> This is you way of pretending to be a scientist.
let's see who has "the talent or stomach for intelligent
discourse", shall we?
>> c'mon sparky, really. your original post to rec.arts.movies.erotica
>> never mentioned the fact that lisa deleeuw's death due to aids
>> was not confirmed as such. you had to relie on another source
>> (unverified, by the way) for that tid-bit.
> Yes! and I did relie (sic) on it -- but what of it? Can you really be
> so dense as to think there's something wrong with it? Why do
> you keep beating that dead horse after I've admitted this is
> precisely what I did -- but there's nothing wrong it? Stop and
> think about what you're doing, will you? No one but people
> as stupid as you are concerned with such things.
i did! and sparky fell into it beautifully! my question is, why is he making
such an issue of it? it's not so much because i questioned where he got his
information - it's because i accused him of using someone else's material.
a creative writer would not need to do this.
> The huge issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS.
yet, sparky doesn't address the point i raised about why some
who are at risk may not become infected. instead, he deletes my
argument, dismissing it as irrelevant.
> Do you really think your stupid nit-picking about how I arrived at
> this opinion sways people either way? People want to know if
> the opinion has any merit. The tactics you so relentlessly use to
> divert readers from serious discussion of the question shows
> people how stupid and mule-headed a certain class of the orthodoxy
> is. A lower class of the orthodoxy, I might add.
more arm waving and flaming, since there is no substance to his
arguments. basic troll tactic.
>> your call for a scientific study is unnecessary, as i've shown. the
>> study i quoted gives good reason for your so-called "unexplained
>> phenomena".
> And this says it all... about you. What combination of arrogance and
> stupidity would possess you or anyone to say a sciefitic (sic) study is
> unnecessary? Once again, mule-headed stupidity on your part. You
> would have us take data gleaned from the study of the spouses of
> one risk group and apply it to another. Don't deny it, this is exactly
> what you do. And it's truly fascinating, your stupidity, that is...a
> wonder to behold, it truly is. How is it possible that after being in this
> group for almost a decade you write such stupid things?
rather than admit his ignorance of the issue, sparky again kicks
into hand waving and flaming without backing his position. no reasoned
response, no logical explanation why there is no way to compare the
wives of hiv+ hemophiliacs (high risk group from heterosexual
contact) and female porn stars (another "perceived" high risk group
from sexual contact).
>> no, they don't, just for the reasons i outlined above. since you're
>> apparently trying to find out why there is an inconsistency
>> in hiv infections between male and female porn stars, as well as
>> between gay and straight male porn stars, all of the information
>> i've asked for is relevant. as it stands, this is just speculation on
>> your part and wouldn't be taken seriously by any scientist or
>> researcher.
> Yes, it *is* just speculation on my part, you dolt! Do I make (a) (sic)
> claim that it is anything else? Do I write it is a scientific truth? (sic)
> that I've conducted studies and have found it to be so? Why can't
> you get it? Speculation is not some evil grinch we should band together
> and stamp out. Indeed, as I say below, all science begins with speculation.
here the "writer" makes a grievous error. science begins with observation
not speculation. observation includes all the information i've asked for.
speculation is merely mental masturbation.
>> read for content, won't you? your theory is that women who had
>> sex with hundreds of men, some of whom later died of aids should
>> be at astronomical risk for contracting hiv. the wives of hiv infected
>> hemophiliacs had hundreds of sexual contacts with known hiv
>> infected individuals. what's so hard to understand about the
>> comparison?
> I understand the comparison, I'm just trying to point out to you that
> such a comparison has no scientific validity. What's so hard to
> understand about that, Einstein?
without giving any rhyme or reason why there is no scientific
validity for the comparison, more hand waving.
> And below you compound your ignorance about such things
> so I snipped it all.
of course he did. another basic troll tactic - accuse someone else of
obfuscation, while he does it.
> Lucas, my suggestion to you is to put a cork in it for awhile.
and my suggestion to sparky is - go back to your other haunts where
not as much is known about hiv/aids. then you can rant and rave to
your heart's content, without anyone knowing the depths of your
ignorance of the subject.
> My observation was a meaningful one worthy of serious discussion.
as i pointed out, it was speculation by sparky, not observation. in any
case, why does sparky delete the attempt at serious discussion?
> Your response isn't that at all.
still without an explaination why.
> As I say, you seem more interested in producing heat than
> light with your posts. Stupidity like yours is harmful and gets
> in the way of things.
nope, i just get in the way of foolish gibberish by one of our visiting
trolls.
> Please shut up so serious discussion can be had on the issue.
> Sparky
i notice the other thread sparky started on the subject has gotten
no response. just an indication of how interested this group is in
"serious" discussion with this troll. maybe a different newsgroups
(one not as familiar with sparky) would be more inclined to respond.
we'll see.
eglanders
>
> namaste,
>
> having nothing of any significance to add, eglanders wrote:
As if you'd know something of significance if it bit you on the nose... Don,
listen to me very closely. You're not a very bright person. You've reached
the outer limits of your intellectual potential. This is why you've made it
your life's work to block new and original thinking whenever it appears
here. This is all I have to say to you. I'll not humor you while you
publicly felate yourself. Anyone else who cares to continue this discussion
I'll engage. You will have to felate yourself without my audience.
Sparky...
Dave Brader
Dave
eglanders <egla...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:o6Q16.12998$3B5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bob Lee
HIV as compared to their male counterparts. Please read the following:
There is a webpage with a retrovirus "trivia" contest originating from
Cold Spring Harbor Press at:
http://sciclio.cshl.org/del.books/retroans.htm
One of the questions of this trivia contest is to name the 5 "human
rumor viruses." The answers are given on the above site as "Esp-1;
RD114; HL-23; HEL-12, HeLa virus, Spiegelman's particles." Whether
ESP-1 is a "human rumor virus" or is, in fact, an important lead in
tracking down the origin of HIV remains to be seen. There are
references to ESP-1 in the literature:
Dmochowski L, Bowen JM.
Viruses and human cancer: the history and current status of ESP-1.
Prog Exp Tumor Res. 1978;21:160-95. Review.
Eckner RJ, Priori ES, Mirand EA, Dmochowski L.
ESP-1 helper virus: characterization of type-specific envelope
specificities distinct from those of the murine leukemia viruses.
Bibl Haematol. 1975;(40):607-9.
Eckner RJ, Priori ES, Mirand EA, Dmochowski L.
Studies on the biological and antigenic properties of ESP-1 type C virus
particles.
Cancer Res. 1974 Oct;34(10):2521-9.
Priori ES, Dmochowski L, Myers B, Shigematsu T, Wilbur JR.
Studies on a human cell line (ESP-1) producing type C virus particles.
Bibl Haematol. 1973;39:720-31.
Wu AM, Ting RC, Yang SS, Gallo RC, Paran M.
RNA tumor virus and reverse transcriptase. I. Biochemical studies on the
ESP-1 particles. II. Role of the reverse transcriptase in murine RNA
tumor virus.
Bibl Haematol. 1973;39:506-17.
Dmochowski L, Priori ES.
Present status of studies on an RNA (ESP-1) virus isolated from human
lymphoma.
Przegl Lek. 1972;29(6):647-8.
Shigematsu T, Priori ES, Dmochowski L, Wilbur JR.
Immunoelectron microscopic studies of type C virus particles in ESP-1
and HEK-1-HRLV cell lines.
Nature. 1971 Dec 17;234(5329):412-4.
ESP-1 cell line is/was a Burkitt's lymphoma cell line. Substantial
controversy erupted relative to ESP-1 cell line as this was a human cell
line but was showing mouse leukemia group-specific antigens in it. For
more information on this see the following references:
Kufe, D.; Hehlmann, R. and Spiegelman, S. (1973) "RNA related to that of
a murine leukemia virus in Burkitt's tumors and nasopharyngeal
carcinomas." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 70:0005-9
Kufe, D. W.; Peters, W. P. and Spiegelman, S. (1973) "Unique nuclear DNA
sequences in the involved tissues of Hodgkin's and Burkitt's lymphomas."
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 70:3810-3814
Gilden, R. V.; Parks, W. P.; Huebner, R. J. and Todaro, G. J. (1971)
"Murine leukaemia virus group-specific antigen in the C-type
virus-containing human cell line, ESP-1." Nature (London) 233:102-103
Shigematsu, T.; Priori, E. S.; Dmochowski, L.; Wilbur, J. R. (1971)
"Immunoelectron microscopic studies of type C virus particles in ESP-1
and HEK-1-HRLV cells lines." Nature (London) 234:412-414
Dmochowski, L. and Bowen, J. M. (1978) "Viruses and human cancer -
History and current status of ESP-1." Prog. Exp. Tumor Res. 21:160-195
Gallo, R. C.; Sarin, P. S.; Allen, P. T.; Newton, W. A.; Priori, E. S.
Bowen, J. M. and Dmochowski, L. (1971) "Reverse transcriptase in type C
virus particles of human origin." Nature (London) New Biol. 232:140-142
Gelderblom, H.; Molling, K. and Watson, K. F. (1972b) "Detection of
oncornaviruses of presumably human origin." Abstracts of 7th meeting of
the European Tumor Virus Group, pg.28
Young, D.; Samuels, J. and Clarke, J. K. (1973) "A foamy virus of
possible human origin isolated in BHK-21 cells." Arch. Ges. Virusforsch.
42:228-234
Miller, N.; Saxinger, W.; Reitz, M.; Gallagher, R.; Wu, A.; Gallo, R.
and Gillespie, D. (1974) "Systematics of RNA tumor viruses and
virus-like particles of human origin." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)
71:3177-3181
A short but well documented report of ESP-1, Burkitt's lymphoma, and
related issues is here:
http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/openforum/section1/forum3/1170
But what is ESP-1? Why is that name used?
Two sources mention ESP-1. One source hints that ESP-1 is related to
Murine Anti-tissue-type Plasminogen Activator
[http://www.americandiagnostica.com/products/list_details.cfm?id=416]
and another hints ESP-1 in an acronym standing for "estradiol-stimulated
protein ESP1"
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=Protein&list_uids=00347020&dopt=GenPept].
What do we see in the literature related to both estradiol-stimulated
protein and plasminogen activators that are related to HIV/AIDS?
Related to "plasminogen activator" and HIV/AIDS:
Sidenius N, Sier CF, Ullum H, Pedersen BK, Lepri AC, Blasi F,
Eugen-Olsen J.
Serum level of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor is
a strong and independent predictor of survival in human immunodeficiency
virus infection.
Blood. 2000 Dec 15;96(13):4091-5.
Handley MA, Steigbigel RT, Morrison SA.
A role for urokinase-type plasminogen activator in human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection of macrophages.
J Virol. 1996 Jul;70(7):4451-6.
Schved JF, Gris JC, Arnaud A, Martinez P, Sanchez N, Wautier JL, Sarlat
C.
von Willebrand factor antigen, tissue-type plasminogen activator
antigen, and risk of death in human immunodeficiency virus 1-related
clinical disease: independent prognostic relevance of tissue-type
plasminogen activator.
J Lab Clin Med. 1992 Sep;120(3):411-9.
Related to estradiol-stimulated protein:
Fontana JA, Mezu AB, Cooper BN, Miranda D.
Retinoid modulation of estradiol-stimulated growth and of protein
synthesis and secretion in human breast carcinoma cells.
Cancer Res. 1990 Apr 1;50(7):1997-2002.
Bhakoo HS, Katzenellenbogen BS.
Progesterone antagonism of estradiol-stimulated uterine 'induced
protein' synthesis.
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1977 Aug;8(2):105-20.
Interesting... we see some relatedness of the plasminogen activators
and estradiol to HIV/AIDS. Doing a quick Boolean scan of PubMed for
"estrogen and plasminogen", I find there are 400 articles on the
PubMed/NIH system. Doing a Boolean search for "estrogen and plasminogen
and immunodeficiency" there are ZERO articles showing up. Doing a
Boolean search of PubMed for "estradiol and plasminogen", I find there
are 271 articles on the PubMed/NIH system. Doing a Boolean search for
"plasminogen and immunodeficiency" reveals 48 studies; a Boolean search
for "estradiol and immunodeficiency" reveals 40 studies. But, as I have
mentioned, there are ZERO studies on the system which incorporate the
relatedness of estrogen/estradiol, plasminogens, and immunodeficiency.
In a previous short piece I wrote
[http://www.jeffrense.com/general3/proges.htm], I alluded to the
relationship of progesterone receptors and bovine immunodeficiency
virus. A Boolean search of PubMed/NIH using "plasminogen and receptors
and progesterone" reveals 94 articles. The same Boolean search using
"plasminogen and receptors and progesterone and immunodeficiency"
reveals ZERO articles. Clearly there is a huge gap in the literature
wherein the relationship of plasminogens,
estrogen/progesterone/estradiol, and immunodeficiency must be
elucidated.
That this is a useful direction is suggested by the following articles:
Smith SM, Baskin GB, Marx PA.
Estrogen protects against vaginal transmission of simian
immunodeficiency virus.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Sep;182(3):708-15.
[No authors listed]
Estrogen may protect against HIV.
Aids Patient Care STDS. 2000 Apr;14(4):226.
Mascola JR, Stiegler G, VanCott TC, Katinger H, Carpenter CB, Hanson CE,
Beary H, Hayes D, Frankel SS, Birx DL, Lewis MG.
Protection of macaques against vaginal transmission of a pathogenic
HIV-1/SIV chimeric virus by passive infusion of neutralizing antibodies.
Nat Med. 2000 Feb;6(2):207-10.
Mauck CK, Callahan MM, Baker J, Arbogast K, Veazey R, Stock R, Pan Z,
Morrison CS, Chen-Mok M, Archer DF, Gabelnick HL.
The effect of one injection of Depo-Provera on the human vaginal
epithelium and cervical ectopy.
Contraception. 1999 Jul;60(1):15-24.
Marx PA, Spira AI, Gettie A, Dailey PJ, Veazey RS, Lackner AA, Mahoney
CJ, Miller CJ, Claypool LE, Ho DD, Alexander NJ.
Progesterone implants enhance SIV vaginal transmission and early virus
load.
Nat Med. 1996 Oct;2(10):1084-9.
Wilson LA, Murphey-Corb M, Martin LN, Harrison RM, Ratterree MS, Bohm
RP.
Identification of SIV env-specific CTL in the jejunal mucosa in
vaginally exposed, seronegative rhesus macaques.
J Med Primatol. 2000 Aug;29(3-4):173-81.
Clearly there is a relationship between estrogen/progesterone/estradiol,
plasminogens, and immunodeficiency. This relationship was deduced given
the relatedness of the ESP-1 cell line, Burkitt's lymphoma, and historic
investigations. Supporting this line of study to begin and be extended
is this:
Peraldi MN, Maslo C, Berrou J, Rondeau E, Rozenbaum W, Sraer JD.
Tissue-type plasminogen activator activity in HIV-associated HUS.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998 Apr;13(4):919-23.
Who will put estradiol/estrogen/progesterone together with plasminogen
and immunodeficiency research? More directly, who will figure out that
the estrogen/progesterone/estradiol receptors are associated with
cytokines and immunodeficiency virus binding?
A Boolean search of PubMed employing "plasminogen and cytokine and
immunodeficiency" yields only 8 articles. A particularly interesting
article is:
Cai J, Zheng T, Lotz M, Zhang Y, Masood R, Gill P.
Glucocorticoids induce Kaposi's sarcoma cell proliferation through the
regulation of transforming growth factor-beta.
Blood. 1997 Mar 1;89(5):1491-500.
A particularly interesting article:
Giacomini E, Chersi A, Giordani L, Luzzati AL.
Possible role of the plasminogen receptor as a site of interaction of
the human immunodeficiency virus p24 immunosuppressive heptapeptide Ch7
with the host immune system.
Scand J Immunol. 2000 Feb;51(2):164-7.
A Boolean search of PubMed using "Urokinase and immunodeficiency"
reveals 15 articles. A Boolean search of PubMed using "Urokinase and
progesterone" reveals 83 articles. "Urokinase and estrogen" shows 125
articles; "Urokinase and estradiol" shows 66 articles.
Finally, ending with a return to the mouse...
Fowles LF, Stacey KJ, Marks D, Hamilton JA, Hume DA.
Regulation of urokinase plasminogen activator gene transcription in the
RAW264 murine macrophage cell line by macrophage colony-stimulating
factor (CSF-1) is dependent upon the level of cell-surface receptor.
Biochem J. 2000 Apr 1;347 Pt 1:313-20.
GET ON THE STICK, YOU MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS! Put these things together.
If you would not ignore your own history and make certain things taboo
from discussion, you would be able to see where to go.
eglanders wrote:
--
Robert E. Lee, M.S., M.S.W., L.C.S.W.
Author "AIDS: An Explosion of the Biological Time-bomb?" c2000
Author "AIDS in America: Our Chances, Our Choices" c1987
website: http://www.bhc.edu/eastcampus/leeb/aids/index.html
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
now that you've gotten that out of your system, do you feel better?
now that you've had your little ranting hissy fit, maybe you'd like to
get to the "serious discussion" you say you'd like to have.
here's your "new and original" thought:
eglanders wrote:
"Don't take my word for any of this. Visit the following link:
http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/
Apparently, fans of the adult porn industry have been keeping a
running list of performers who've died of AIDS. The number is
now well over 60 but here's the rub: only one female made the list
-- and more, even her cause of death by AIDS isn't documented.
To those of you who visit this list and recognize some of the names
-- ie. "John Holmes"...Mark Wallace -- what will also be clear is
that many of these males were long-time stars in heterosexual
films, that is, films where they had unprotected sex with strictly
females."
eglanders also wrote:
"The huge issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS."
to boil this down, so even the simplest of folks can understand,
you have speculated on why a group of women who have had
male/female sexual relations with someone who is hiv+, does not
become infected.
in an effort to explain one possibility i posted a study (re-posted at
the end of this post) on a group of women who had male/female
sexual relations with someone who is hiv+ and didn't get infected.
you then railed on and on about how these two groups are not
comparable, without giving any reason why. you even stooped
to trying to get an emotional edge by writing:
" The only ignorant thing here is your comparison of porn queens
to the wives of hemophiliacs."
of course, being an hiv+ hemophiliac, married for over 27 years
to the same woman and part of the study listed below, i can
confidently say this comparison is valid.
so, what remains to be answered is - why do you feel that
these two groups are not comparable? if indeed you're
interested in "serious discussion", why won't you defend
your position with a "serious" response?
the answer is, plain and simple, you can't. you haven't the
ability or the knowledge to do so. your numerous visits to
m.h.a. under various guises has shown this to be true time
and again. the bottom line is, you're a troll, without even an
elementary knowledge of hiv/aids.
you fancy yourself a creative writer, but the posts in this thread,
and the other thread you started with my name in the title are
little more than re-hashes of your former trollings. (by the way,
what happened to " This is all I have to say to you."?).
get some new material - be creative, imaginative! don't rely
on what you think are "tried and true" methods to get your
point across. stretch out, be daring. maybe, actually try to
defend your position. research a bit, think, then write. read
what you've written. if necessary, re-write, re-read, etc.,
until you know that you've put forth your best effort. you
might even accomplish what you want - being a writer that
people want to read, not just someone who sits at the
keyboard typing out words, stringing sentences together.
c'mon sparky, try it! show m.h.a. that you're not just a troll,
hacking away.
take care, be well
donpaul lucas
hiv+ 18 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
13 years anti-viral veteran
(this post sealed with the three-fold law)
<abstract from pubmed>
eglanders
> namaste sparky,
>
> eglanders wrote:
>
> > "don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A478A42...@erie.net...
> > >
> > > namaste,
> > >
> > > having nothing of any significance to add, eglanders wrote:
> >
> > As if you'd know something of significance if it bit you on the nose...
Don,
> > listen to me very closely. You're not a very bright person. You've
reached
> > the outer limits of your intellectual potential. This is why you've made
it
> > your life's work to block new and original thinking whenever it appears
> > here. This is all I have to say to you. I'll not humor you while you
> > publicly felate yourself. Anyone else who cares to continue this
discussion
> > I'll engage. You will have to felate yourself without my audience.
> >
> > Sparky...
>
> now that you've gotten that out of your system, do you feel better?
> now that you've had your little ranting hissy fit, maybe you'd like to
> get to the "serious discussion" you say you'd like to have.
>
reseach Deja News, give speeches about the typos in my posts, go back years
to find stuff I posted then. The reason why you do these things is apparent
on its face -- you seek to discredit me, not my argument. Therefore, its a
waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you. You think antics like
this this are the cornerstone of enlightened debate. You're wrong. No one
thinks you're clever when you do such things. If you want people to think
you're clever address the issues.
eglanders also wrote:
>
> "The huge issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS."
>
> to boil this down, so even the simplest of folks can understand,
> you have speculated on why a group of women who have had
> male/female sexual relations with someone who is hiv+, does not
> become infected.
>
> > so, what remains to be answered is - why do you feel that
> these two groups are not comparable? if indeed you're
> interested in "serious discussion", why won't you defend
> your position with a "serious" response?
Because this is not the way science is done. Why can't you see how absurd
your point is?
>
> the answer is, plain and simple, you can't. you haven't the
> ability or the knowledge to do so. your numerous visits to
> m.h.a. under various guises has shown this to be true time
> and again. the bottom line is, you're a troll, without even an
> elementary knowledge of hiv/aids.
And...?
>
> you fancy yourself a creative writer, but the posts in this thread,
> and the other thread you started with my name in the title are
> little more than re-hashes of your former trollings. (by the way,
> what happened to " This is all I have to say to you."?).
>
Oh, boy...
And here I'll stop. Is it possible you're too dense to see what you do? I
mean, really, I'm beginning to think you don't have the discernment of a
child. Watch how everyone else responds to my post. You're the only one so
dense as to turn it into a personal holy war.
You comparison between wives of hemophliacs and porn queen has no scientific
validity at all. Will someone please explain that to this dolt?
Sparky
Brian Mailman
> Watch how everyone else responds to my post.
Or doesn't.
B/
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
> "don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
> news:3A48B923...@erie.net...
> namaste sparky,
>
> eglanders wrote:
>
>> > "don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3A478A42...@erie.net...
>> > > namaste,
>> > > having nothing of any significance to add, eglanders wrote:
>> > As if you'd know something of significance if it bit you on the nose...
>> > Don, listen to me very closely. You're not a very bright person.
>> > You've reached the outer limits of your intellectual potential.
>> > This is why you've made it your life's work to block new and
>> > original thinking whenever it appears here. This is all I have to
>> > say to you. I'll not humor you while you publicly felate yourself.
>> > Anyone else who cares to continue this discussion I'll engage.
>> > You will have to felate yourself without my audience.
>> > Sparky...
>> now that you've gotten that out of your system, do you feel better?
>> now that you've had your little ranting hissy fit, maybe you'd like to
>> get to the "serious discussion" you say you'd like to have.
> The only thing I ask is that you address the issues.
which i did.
> You don't do this. You reseach (sic) Deja News, give speeches
> about the typos in my posts,
pot, kettle, black. problem is, if we keep pointing out each others typo's,
you'll come out on the short end of the stick because i get more careful
in discussions with others, you get sloppier.
> go back years to find stuff I posted then. The reason why you do these
> things is apparent on its face -- you seek to discredit me, not my argument.
you really don't have a clue, do you? you haven't presented an argument.
you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
argument in a minute.
> Therefore, its a waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you.
> You think antics like this this (sic - see what i mean) are the cornerstone
> of enlightened debate.
"You're not a very bright person. "You've reached the outer limits of your
intellectual potential. ", "dolt", "your feeble attempts at intellectual
sophistication.", "You, on the other hand, figure to be a head waiter
or women's hair stylist", "buffoon" - do these constitute "enlightened
debate" in your world?
> You're wrong. No one thinks you're clever when you do such things.
> If you want people to think you're clever address the issues.
i have, as is shown below. now, it's your turn.
>> eglanders also wrote:
>> "The huge issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS."
>> to boil this down, so even the simplest of folks can understand,
>> you have speculated on why a group of women who have had
>> male/female sexual relations with someone who is hiv+, does not
>> become infected.
-------------------------
<reinserted portion snipped by you. not sure why you snipped it,
but the continuity was severely damaged by your unmarked snip>
>> in an effort to explain one possibility i posted a study (re-posted
>> at the end of this post) on a group of women who had male/female
>> sexual relations with someone who is hiv+ and didn't get infected.
>> you then railed on and on about how these two groups are not
>> comparable, without giving any reason why. you even stooped
>> to trying to get an emotional edge by writing:
>> " The only ignorant thing here is your comparison of porn queens
>> to the wives of hemophiliacs."
>> of course, being an hiv+ hemophiliac, married for over 27 years
>> to the same woman and part of the study listed below, i can
>> confidently say this comparison is valid.
----------------
>> so, what remains to be answered is - why do you feel that
>> these two groups are not comparable? if indeed you're
>> interested in "serious discussion", why won't you defend
>> your position with a "serious" response?
> Because this is not the way science is done. Why can't you see
> how absurd your point is?
i suppose, because i'm a "dolt". why not explain it so that even
i can understand it.
>> the answer is, plain and simple, you can't. you haven't the
>> ability or the knowledge to do so. your numerous visits to
>> m.h.a. under various guises has shown this to be true time
>> and again. the bottom line is, you're a troll, without even an
>> elementary knowledge of hiv/aids.
> And...?
need i say more on this subject?
>> you fancy yourself a creative writer, but the posts in this thread,
>> and the other thread you started with my name in the title are
>> little more than re-hashes of your former trollings. (by the way,
>> what happened to " This is all I have to say to you."?).
> Oh, boy...
> And here I'll stop. Is it possible you're too dense to see what you do? I
> mean, really, I'm beginning to think you don't have the discernment of a
> child. Watch how everyone else responds to my post.
you mean like brian mailman's response?
> You're the only one so dense as to turn it into a personal holy war.
let's see, you've attacked my wife, you've attacked me - you're right,
why on earth should i take that personally?
> You (sic - oops, there's another one) comparison between wives
> of hemophliacs (sic, geez, you're right, this is getting too ridiculous)
> and porn queen has no scientific validity at all. Will someone please
> explain that to this dolt?
Sparky
actually, what i'm waiting for is you to explain it. i hate to beat a dead
horse (that's not true - you know me better than that. it's what i do -
keep bringing you back to the point you try to avoid, because you
can't defend your position) but why aren't these two groups
comparable? you keep saying that it has no validity, there is no way to
compare these two groups, but you can't give a reason why. to
paraphrase you "just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so".
the ball's in your court sparky, take a whack at it.
entropy
unprotected vaginal intercourse is not a surprise considering the
scientific data presented in Fumento's writings.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
eglanders
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote
> namaste
> > pot, kettle, black. problem is, if we keep pointing out each others
typo's,
> you'll come out on the short end of the stick because i get more careful
> in discussions with others, you get sloppier.
Typos (note the spelling, Don) come and go. No one considers them a big
deal. But repeated grammatical errors like yours *are* a big deal. Unlike
typos they show an ignorance of basic grammar. When are you going to do
something about this, Don? If it's your goal in life to become a typo flamer
don't you think you should at least first improve your English grammar?
>
> > go back years to find stuff I posted then. The reason why you do these
> > things is apparent on its face -- you seek to discredit me, not my
argument.
>
> you really don't have a clue, do you? haven't presented an argument.
> you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
> argument in a minute.
How can your reposts (note the spelling, Don) verify information in posts
I've yet written? What kind of overweening stupidity is this? Your reposts
are just a tactic to prevent open discussion of issues you wish not to be
discussed. Specifically, female porn stars and AIDS. The reposts you mention
say nothing of this, cannot be connected to this issue in any way (since
I've never brought it up before), yet you go to the archives, drudge up
these posts, and glut the bandwidth with them. Now, really, Don, when are
you going wake up and realize that what you do is not in the spirit of
honest give and take? Most people who employ the tactics of the fascist and
censor realize it. You appear to be too stupid or brainwashed by your
establishment puppeteers to realize this is precisely what you do. Your
tactics impede open discussion. They are meant to detract, confuse, draw the
unwise reader away from the issues. First you assault us with reams of
research data that has nothing to do with the issue of female porn stars.
Then you start with your endless posts about typos -- while making
embarrassing grammatical errors in each one! Anything from having folks
discuss what you fear the most -- that the establishment's take on things
might not be 100% correct.
As I say, you're gambling with your life that the establishment *is* 100%
correct. In fact, scratch that. After 13 years of taking the meds the gamble
is over. In another post you tell us how your body is collapsing, falling
apart limb by limb. The ravages you describe are not those usually
associated with AIDS, they are things that happen to very old men at the end
of their lives. Still, you refuse to make the connection between these
ravages and the toxins that are causing them. And we should expect that you
will go to your grave extolling the virtues of these toxins to one and all.
In other words, what your wonderful genius of a doctor didn't warn you about
is the day the meds began destroying your health. It was not maliciousness
on his part, just plain ignorance. No one told him -- or maybe he was
gambling that if by some miracle you survived longer than most of his
patients other drugs would come along to undo the long range harm the harsh
toxins he was prescribing would -- must -- ultimately have on your body.
Whatever he was thinking he didn't give it to you straight, Don. He didn't
tell you all you should have been told. You were not an informed consumer.
Then again, guinea pigs are rarely informed consumers.
And here I'll stop. Of course, you'll ignore all the issues contained in the
above and start combing the text for typos (note the spelling, Don) but we
know this. Still, the above is your MO in a nutshell no matter if you find a
typo in every word. Nothing else you write here need be seriously
considered.
Sparky
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote
>> namaste
>> pot, kettle, black. problem is, if we keep pointing out each others
>> typo's, you'll come out on the short end of the stick because i get
>> more careful in discussions with others, you get sloppier.
> Typos (note the spelling, Don) come and go.
spelling noted and the error in reasoning is yours. "typo's" - contraction of
*typo*graphical error*s*.
>> > go back years to find stuff I posted then. The reason why you do
>> > these things is apparent on its face -- you seek to discredit me, not
>> > my argument.
>> you really don't have a clue, do you? haven't presented an argument.
>> you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
>> argument in a minute.
> How can your reposts (note the spelling, Don)
<snip>
potatoe/potato, re-posts/spot-on. by the way, here's my response the
way it appeared in the original:
you really don't have a clue, do you? you haven't presented an argument.
you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
argument in a minute.
i notice that the "you" that starts my second sentence has been snipped.
i just point this out since you make such an issue of my using sentence
fragments. since you've decided to glut m.h.a with various versions of
this post, i'll deal with it in another post.
<section on my health status snipped and inserted into the thread
that deals with that>
>And here I'll stop. Of course, you'll ignore all the issues contained
> in the above and start combing the text for typos (note the spelling,
> Don) but we know this. Still, the above is your MO in a nutshell
> no matter if you find a typo in every word. Nothing else you write
> here need be seriously considered.
> Sparky
let's get back on track, shall we?
sparky wrote:
> Therefore, its a waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you.
> You think antics like this this (sic - see what i mean) are the cornerstone
> of enlightened debate.
"You're not a very bright person. "You've reached the outer limits of your
intellectual potential. ", "dolt", "your feeble attempts at intellectual
sophistication.", "You, on the other hand, figure to be a head waiter
or women's hair stylist", "buffoon" - do these constitute "enlightened
debate" in your world?
> You're wrong. No one thinks you're clever when you do such things.
> If you want people to think you're clever address the issues.
i have, as is shown below. now, it's your turn.
> "The huge issue here is why female porn stars don't get AIDS."
eglanders
> namaste sparky,
>
> > spelling noted and the error in reasoning is yours. "typo's" -
contraction of
> *typo*graphical error*s*.
>
I've cut everything but Don's sentence above and paragraph below. These two
items are typical of the man's deceitfulness and stupidity so nothing else
is needed. In the sentence directly above he -- the master of the typo
flame -- attempts to make a case for why writing the plural of "typo" as
"typo's" is correct. In doing this he would have us ignore grammatical rules
held since the dawn of our language to accommodate his stupidity. Do we
write the plural of apple "apple's"? Moreover, how then do we write the word
"typo" in its possessive form -- "typos"? Using his hair-brain logic I
suppose we would....
>
> actually, what I'm waiting for is you to explain it. I hate to beat a dead
> horse (that's not true - you know me better than that. it's what I do -
> keep bringing you back to the point you try to avoid, because you
> can't defend your position) but why aren't these two groups
> comparable? you keep saying that it has no validity, there is no way to
> compare these two groups, but you can't give a reason why. to
> paraphrase you "just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so".
> the ball's in your court sparky, take a whack at it.
After sorting out his misuse of parentheses directly above, it appears what
Don is trying to ask us is what's wrong with comparing apples to oranges --
oops, forgive me, that would be apple's to orange's. Can anyone from the
establishment help him here? I've explained it to him already but he refuses
to listen to me.
Sparky
don lucas
eglanders wrote:
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:3A4A1745...@erie.net...
>> namaste sparky,
>> spelling noted and the error in reasoning is yours. "typo's" -
>> contraction of *typo*graphical error*s*.
> I've cut everything but Don's sentence above and paragraph
> below. These two items are typical of the man's deceitfulness
> and stupidity so nothing else is needed.
speaking of deceit, let's take another look at how far you'll go
in an effort to win a point, any point. are you really this
desparate?
Subject: Re: The Truth About AIDS & Porn Stars...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:35:16 GMT
From: "eglanders" <egla...@earthlink.com>
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10
"don lucas" <lu...@erie.net> wrote:
<all but the relevant part snipped>
> you really don't have a clue, do you? haven't presented an argument.
> you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
> argument in a minute.
here's how the original read:
Subject: Re: The Truth About AIDS & Porn Stars...
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:05:52 -0500
From: don lucas <lu...@erie.net>
Organization: personal
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9
<again, just the relevant part>
you really don't have a clue, do you? you haven't presented an argument.
you never do. my re-posts just verify that fact. more on your lack of an
argument in a minute.
when i was re-reading my response to you, this caught my attention
because elsewhere you berate me for using sentence fragments. what
would possess someone to snip a word out of a post in an effort to go
on a rampage about sentence fragments? one can only wonder where
else you took the liberty to "edit" posts. maybe you'd like to explain
this?
time to write a new troll warning.
Gary Stein
There is no need for anyone here to "seek to discredit" you sparky you do
such a good job of that yourself there simply is no need for others to do
so.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)
Brian Mailman
Yay! You're back!!
Hope they've put all the pieces back in the right order...
B/
Gary Stein
"Brian Mailman" <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in message
news:3A4F7E89...@sfo.com...
> Gary Stein wrote:
>
> Yay! You're back!!
>
> Hope they've put all the pieces back in the right order...
Nope but we are working on it, thanks for the kind words Brian.
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)
>
> B/