Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/4/2004 6:20:15 PM EDT
I keep telling you pervs......


From Drudge, as always:

Fourth HIV Case Found in California Porn Industry
Tue May 4, 2004 06:06 PM ET

By Gina Keating
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A fourth adult film performer has tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS but the case is unrelated to an outbreak that virtually shut down pornography production last month, an industry health care official said on Tuesday.

A transsexual actress who goes by the stage name Jennifer tested positive for HIV on Tuesday and had last performed a sex scene on Feb. 27 with two male actors who have since tested negative, according to Sharon Mitchell of the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation.

The foundation runs an HIV screening program that tests porn actors every three weeks for sexually transmitted diseases and issues certificates that allow them to work.

The actors involved in the latest case will be tested again to rule out any possibility of further transmission of the deadly virus, Mitchell said.

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."

Last month, HIV infections of three other porn stars prompted a 60-day shutdown of adult productions that employ 6,000 people, including about 1,200 performers. The suburban San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles is the hub of the U.S. porn industry.

Last month's HIV outbreak prompted calls for unprecedented inspections of the multibillion-dollar industry and mandatory condom use -- a proposition that critics said would drive the industry underground or out of the state.

California Assemblyman Tim Leslie, a Republican, has said the HIV outbreak showed that the industry's self-regulation measures are failing.

Leslie is promoting a bill that would require testing of actors for sexually-transmitted diseases two weeks before every film shoot. The bill, which state lawmakers were expected to approve in a committee vote on Tuesday, also would bar infected actors from performing.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 6:29:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
I keep telling you pervs......


From Drudge, as always:

Fourth HIV Case Found in California Porn Industry
Tue May 4, 2004 06:06 PM ET

By Gina Keating
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A fourth adult film performer has tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS but the case is unrelated to an outbreak that virtually shut down pornography production last month, an industry health care official said on Tuesday.

A transsexual actress who goes by the stage name Jennifer tested positive for HIV on Tuesday and had last performed a sex scene on Feb. 27 with two male actors who have since tested negative, according to Sharon Mitchell of the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation.

The foundation runs an HIV screening program that tests porn actors every three weeks for sexually transmitted diseases and issues certificates that allow them to work.

The actors involved in the latest case will be tested again to rule out any possibility of further transmission of the deadly virus, Mitchell said.

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."

Last month, HIV infections of three other porn stars prompted a 60-day shutdown of adult productions that employ 6,000 people, including about 1,200 performers. The suburban San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles is the hub of the U.S. porn industry.

Last month's HIV outbreak prompted calls for unprecedented inspections of the multibillion-dollar industry and mandatory condom use -- a proposition that critics said would drive the industry underground or out of the state.

California Assemblyman Tim Leslie, a Republican, has said the HIV outbreak showed that the industry's self-regulation measures are failing.

Leslie is promoting a bill that would require testing of actors for sexually-transmitted diseases two weeks before every film shoot. The bill, which state lawmakers were expected to approve in a committee vote on Tuesday, also would bar infected actors from performing.



Who cares?
Don't scare us like that!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 6:32:36 PM EDT
You reap what you sow.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:00:49 PM EDT
This falls under the "Self Cleaning Oven" category.......
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:44:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
This falls under the "Self Cleaning Oven" category.......





God's judgement is a bitch!
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:08:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
This falls under the "Self Cleaning Oven" category.......



Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:11:03 AM EDT
Or bleach in the gene pool...
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:18:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
This falls under the "Self Cleaning Oven" category.......



thats good...thats real good...
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:19:08 AM EDT

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."




WTF does that mean?!! They think HIV is passed via genetics???? Did I miss something??
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:21:16 AM EDT
All things have risks. Why does it suprise anyone that STDs are a risk in the porn world? I know, because your puritan moralist side is showing. You like the fact that some are being infected because it justifies your perception that the porn industry is basically evil. You look at these people and say "I've got not sympathy for you, you knew the risks when you entered the industry." There is some legitamacy to this statement, but you may still be a hypocrite. In order to verify whether or not you are a hypocrite, how did you react to Dale Ernhardts death. Did you say, that was a shame, or 'Fuck'm, he new the risks'.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:22:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 6:22:35 AM EDT by DriftPunch]

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."




WTF does that mean?!! They think HIV is passed via genetics???? Did I miss something??

Settle down, it's an analogy(pun?!).
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:23:38 AM EDT
Why is this news? Testing a few weeks ahead won't solve anything. I believe I read before that the virus can lay dormant for a long time and suddenly become active. Any way you slice it, it's a high risk business. It only takes one person to have an outside contact and bring it on the set.
This is like natives walking on hot coals complaining that their feet are burned or a sword swallower complaining of a sore throat. (No pun intended.)
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:26:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 6:27:23 AM EDT by arowneragain]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
All things have risks. Why does it suprise anyone that STDs are a risk in the porn world? I know, because your puritan moralist side is showing. You like the fact that some are being infected because it justifies your perception that the porn industry is basically evil. You look at these people and say "I've got not sympathy for you, you knew the risks when you entered the industry." There is some legitamacy to this statement, but you may still be a hypocrite. In order to verify whether or not you are a hypocrite, how did you react to Dale Ernhardts death. Did you say, that was a shame, or 'Fuck'm, he new the risks'.




Yes, I believe the porn industry is evil, even though the vast majority of participantsare disease free.

And Earndheart's death didn't bother me any more than any other traffic fatality, maybe less as I had to listen to my roomate at the time whine about it, and accomodate him as he hijacked my computer to buy memorabilia online like there was no tomorrow.

I should mention here that I don't care for nascar. YMMV.


ETA: never thought racing was evil, though, Just a waste of time and gasoline. I'd be more interested in races that actually went somewhere; i.e. cannonball run.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:29:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
how did you react to Dale Ernhardts death. Did you say, that was a shame, or 'Fuck'm, he new the risks'.



actually...I said...who's Dale Ernhardt...
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:32:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
This falls under the "Self Cleaning Oven" category.......





Classic...absolutely classic!

On a serious note: I'm shocked, truly shocked that porn stars are testing positive for HIV...SHOCKING!
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:34:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RAVYN:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
how did you react to Dale Ernhardts death. Did you say, that was a shame, or 'Fuck'm, he new the risks'.



actually...I said...who's Dale Ernhardt...

I've got not use for NASCAR either, and was only trying to make a point about the 'what you reap is what you sow' attitude. In fact I HATE NASCAR, but I can still see that his death was worthy of sympathy for those involved.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:37:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By RAVYN:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
how did you react to Dale Ernhardts death. Did you say, that was a shame, or 'Fuck'm, he new the risks'.



actually...I said...who's Dale Ernhardt...

I've got not use for NASCAR either, and was only trying to make a point about the 'what you reap is what you sow' attitude. In fact I HATE NASCAR, but I can still see that his death was worthy of sympathy for those involved.



I get your Drift...Punch

I was only fukkin wicha.

I agree with the point of your post.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:43:24 AM EDT
Who are the names of the other 3 that are infected? Have they released that info yet?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:56:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 00_buckshot:
Who are the names of the other 3 that are infected? Have they released that info yet?



I only know that Kobi Tai wasn't one of them...WHEW!

Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:57:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."




WTF does that mean?!! They think HIV is passed via genetics???? Did I miss something??

Settle down, it's an analogy(pun?!).



I'm not 'spun up'. I'm just amazed/confused by that statement.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 7:01:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rn45:
Why is this news? Testing a few weeks ahead won't solve anything. I believe I read before that the virus can lay dormant for a long time and suddenly become active. Any way you slice it, it's a high risk business. It only takes one person to have an outside contact and bring it on the set.
This is like natives walking on hot coals complaining that their feet are burned or a sword swallower complaining of a sore throat. (No pun intended.)



I believe they are using more sensitive testing such as viral load testing which will show positive results relatively soon, eliminating that long period. The HIV virus does not really lie dormant during that time. There may not be a lot of the virus circulating in the blood but it can be found in lymph nodes very early. Eventually you reach a point where the body starts to loose the battle.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 7:16:12 AM EDT
This thread is worthless without pics.....................OOPS!.....nevermind
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:42:42 AM EDT
Regardless of whether or not it was brought upon them through wreckless behavior, AIDS sounds like a horrible, lingering death and one I think that no one should have to go through. It would be better if we could find a cure for such diseases.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:58:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By DPeacher:

"This is an open and shut case of genealogy," she said. "We think it's contained."




WTF does that mean?!! They think HIV is passed via genetics???? Did I miss something??

Settle down, it's an analogy(pun?!).



I'm not 'spun up'. I'm just amazed/confused by that statement.



Dpreacher -

I think the geneology mention is related to the HIV strain. There's not just one version of HIV, it mutates occassionally. They can compare which strain a person has to determine if it's related to the HIV strain another person has, or if it's a completely different strain.

I think that's why they're saying it's not related to the other three, plus the fact that #4 hasn't worked with the other 3 or anyone who has worked with them.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:03:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:12:23 AM EDT
Not this one I hope


Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:14:22 AM EDT
Geneology and genetics are quite different. Geneology is the art/science of developing a family history, etc... A huge family tree is normal way of displaying it. Relatives are linked from one generation to the next.

In this case, the analogy is good, because they can (and sounds like did) develop a 'sex scene' contact tree that told them what they needed to know about who did what to whom.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:21:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:
It would be better if we could find a cure for such diseases.



Give me a break. It's the most preventable disease in the history of the fuckin' planet.

Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:23:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:
Regardless of whether or not it was brought upon them through wreckless behavior, AIDS sounds like a horrible, lingering death and one I think that no one should have to go through. It would be better if we could find a cure for such diseases.



As Chris Rock once said, "There's no money in the cure". Even though he said it during one of his comedy shows the reality of the matter is it couldn't be more true. They find ways for you to live with diseases rather than cure them. There is more money to be made that way.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:30:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

A transsexual actress who goes by the stage name Jennifer tested positive for HIV on Tuesday and had last performed a sex scene on Feb. 27 with two male actors who have since tested negative, according to Sharon Mitchell of the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation.



YUCK!
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:36:05 AM EDT
OK, I got it. bastiat, and DriftPunch, thanks for helping me understand. I know the difference between geneology and genetics, but for some reason, I read/intrepreted the statement in a very unclear manner. Thanks for the focus.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:38:20 AM EDT
Dale who?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:45:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 9:48:35 AM EDT by DriftPunch]

Originally Posted By Scottman:

Give me a break. It's the most preventable disease in the history of the fuckin' planet.




That's an argument of convience used as a political reason NOT to do anything about the disease at hand. By the same rationale, we could easily say that we will put little effort into dealing with the problems associated with obesity. After all, don't want those problems, don't get fat... (note I'm 33 years old, 6' 1" and 180, so it would be very easy for me to take this position) Being in a position of denial is unwise.

Like any disease, the problem must be attacked on two fronts. Both prevention and the search for a cure.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:45:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scottman:

Originally Posted By Boomer:
It would be better if we could find a cure for such diseases.



Give me a break. It's the most preventable disease in the history of the fuckin' planet.




Give you a break for what? I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your assertion that in general HIV/AIDS is a very preventable disease. But it exists, and human nature being what it is the disease is going to continue to exist. Not that I think it should be the huge national priority activists want it to be, but I believe it would be for the best if we were able to find a cure for it. You disagree with that?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:47:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 9:48:09 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
Miss the delete button..
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:14:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 10:18:47 AM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By Scottman:

Give me a break. It's the most preventable disease in the history of the fuckin' planet.




That's an argument of convience used as a political reason NOT to do anything about the disease at hand....
Like any disease, the problem must be attacked on two fronts. Both prevention and the search for a cure.



According to the CDC, if men would stop having sex with other men, it would go away! Of the 18,798 men who contract HIV/AIDS in 2002- 11,701 had homosexualcontact but did not use intravenous drugs, 943 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs (accounting for 2/3's of all HIV infections among men in 2002) another 2,757 had not had homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs. Only 17.2% of males diagnosed with AIDS in 2002 hetrosexual contact and did not use intrvenous drugs.

Also, of the 206,557 men living with HIV/AIDS in 2002 - 125,268 had homosexual contact but did not use intravenous drugs, 16,314 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs, 35,380 did not have homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs, and 26,843 had hetrosexual contact and did not use intravenous drugs.

The number of women contracting or living with HIV/AIDS in this country is about 1/3 the number of men contracting or living with HIV/AIDS.

Face it, AIDS is a disease primarly relegated to homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Here is where I got my information:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf

And:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/addendum/tableA1.htm
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:22:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 10:23:49 AM EDT by Boomer]
So exactly how do you propose to stop homosexual activity and intravenous drug use? Oh wait, I can hear it now. HIV/AIDS is God's solution.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:23:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 10:25:07 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:30:01 AM EDT
Yup, lets get this clear, AIDS is not just for the gayers... it might be more prevalent there, but that doesn't stop straight people getting it.

"Nope, can't happen to me" is what gets you killed

Abstinence, monogamy and protection, etc.

/Phil
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:38:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:
So exactly how do you propose to stop homosexual activity and intravenous drug use?



I don't make any proposals for stopping homosexual activity, or intravenous drug use. I'm simply pointing out the CDC's own statistical findings as to who is contracting HIV/AIDS


Oh wait, I can hear it now. HIV/AIDS is God's solution.


Actually, no HIV/AIDS is not God's solution. God's solution is to not use drugs, and to not have sex until you marry a person of the opposite gender, and then only have sex with that person. Abstainence, Monogomy and don't be junkie.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 10:53:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:


Actually, no HIV/AIDS is not God's solution. God's solution is to not use drugs, and to not have sex until you marry a person of the opposite gender, and then only have sex with that person. Abstainence, Monogomy and don't be junkie.



The problem with that is that there are TONS of women who thought they were doing ExACTLY that, and still got HIV/AIDS.

Look at India's trucking industry, for an example. Most for the drivers are men, and most of them are married. Most of them have sex with prostitues (who have AIDS) when they are out on the road. They then go home to their dutiful wives, who don't sleep around, who don't do drugs and who are in faithful and monogamous relationship with their husband - and give it to them.



The problem in Africa is similar.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 11:02:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the CDC, if men would stop having sex with other men, it would go away! Of the 18,798 men who contract HIV/AIDS in 2002- 11,701 had homosexualcontact but did not use intravenous drugs, 943 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs (accounting for 2/3's of all HIV infections among men in 2002) another 2,757 had not had homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs. Only 17.2% of males diagnosed with AIDS in 2002 hetrosexual contact and did not use intrvenous drugs.

Also, of the 206,557 men living with HIV/AIDS in 2002 - 125,268 had homosexual contact but did not use intravenous drugs, 16,314 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs, 35,380 did not have homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs, and 26,843 had hetrosexual contact and did not use intravenous drugs.

The number of women contracting or living with HIV/AIDS in this country is about 1/3 the number of men contracting or living with HIV/AIDS.

Face it, AIDS is a disease primarly relegated to homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Here is where I got my information:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf

And:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/addendum/tableA1.htm



You make no sense what-so-ever. You mention that the CDC states if men quit having sex with each other that AIDs would go away. Can you please direct me to the spot in your references where it states that. Then a few lines down you babble about statistics. You state in one spot that 26, 843 HIV males did not use drugs and were heterosexual. You do not mention positive females with AIDs that are heterosexual and were not exposed to IV infected patients. Did it not fit into your arguement? Finally to top it off you state that AIDs is primarily relegated to homosexuals and IV drug users.

So answer me this.

The statistics in your reference and in your own words state that IV drug abuse is a common source of contacting AIDs. Yet you state "the CDC states if men quit having sex with each other that AIDs would go away."
Also there are heterosexual people that contract AID's that do not fit into either category. Even without the Homosexual population you still have heterosexual and IVDA infecting sources. As such how will AID's magically disappear if men quit having sex with each other?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 11:25:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Atencio:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the CDC, if men would stop having sex with other men, it would go away! Of the 18,798 men who contract HIV/AIDS in 2002- 11,701 had homosexualcontact but did not use intravenous drugs, 943 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs (accounting for 2/3's of all HIV infections among men in 2002) another 2,757 had not had homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs. Only 17.2% of males diagnosed with AIDS in 2002 hetrosexual contact and did not use intrvenous drugs.

Also, of the 206,557 men living with HIV/AIDS in 2002 - 125,268 had homosexual contact but did not use intravenous drugs, 16,314 had homosexual contact and did use intravenous drugs, 35,380 did not have homosexual contact but did use intravenous drugs, and 26,843 had hetrosexual contact and did not use intravenous drugs.

The number of women contracting or living with HIV/AIDS in this country is about 1/3 the number of men contracting or living with HIV/AIDS.

Face it, AIDS is a disease primarly relegated to homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Here is where I got my information:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf

And:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/addendum/tableA1.htm



You make no sense what-so-ever. You mention that the CDC states if men quit having sex with each other that AIDs would go away. Can you please direct me to the spot in your references where it states that. Then a few lines down you babble about statistics. You state in one spot that 26, 843 HIV males did not use drugs and were heterosexual. You do not mention positive females with AIDs that are heterosexual and were not exposed to IV infected patients. Did it not fit into your arguement? Finally to top it off you state that AIDs is primarily relegated to homosexuals and IV drug users.

So answer me this.

The statistics in your reference and in your own words state that IV drug abuse is a common source of contacting AIDs. Yet you state "the CDC states if men quit having sex with each other that AIDs would go away."
Also there are heterosexual people that contract AID's that do not fit into either category. Even without the Homosexual population you still have heterosexual and IVDA infecting sources. As such how will AID's magically disappear if men quit having sex with each other?



The numbers don't lie, and I didn't make them up. This incident with the porn stars started with male/male sexual contact, and has been spread a second time by male/male sexual contact.

The CDC's numbers do not take create a seperate category for bi-sexual contact. They state those who had male/male contact, and they state thouse who had male/female contact. They do not indicate any individuals who had both hetrosexual and homosexual contact. This is a glaring hole in their statistics that could potentially account for the spread of HIV/AIDS to females with hetrosexual contact.

Also, according to AMA your chances of contract HIV/AIDS through hetrosexual vaginal intercourse are 1 in 1,000.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 11:35:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 11:37:26 AM EDT by Atencio]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The CDC's numbers do not take create a seperate category for bi-sexual contact. They state those who had male/male contact, and they state thouse who had male/female contact. They do not indicate any individuals who had both hetrosexual and homosexual contact. This is a glaring hole in their statistics that could potentially account for the spread of HIV/AIDS to females with hetrosexual contact.

Also, according to AMA your chances of contract HIV/AIDS through hetrosexual vaginal intercourse are 1 in 1,000.



Your first reference most certainly does so have categories taking into account bisexual contact under table 16 through table 18.

It lists with seperate male and female categories:
Sex with IVDA
Sex with bisexual male
Sex with person who has Hemophila
Sex with HIV-infected transfusion recepient
Sex with HIV person, risk not specified
Recepient of tainted blood transfusion or tissue
HIV infection- not specified
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 11:52:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Atencio:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The CDC's numbers do not take create a seperate category for bi-sexual contact. They state those who had male/male contact, and they state thouse who had male/female contact. They do not indicate any individuals who had both hetrosexual and homosexual contact. This is a glaring hole in their statistics that could potentially account for the spread of HIV/AIDS to females with hetrosexual contact.

Also, according to AMA your chances of contract HIV/AIDS through hetrosexual vaginal intercourse are 1 in 1,000.



Your first reference most certainly does so have categories taking into account bisexual contact under table 16 through table 18.

It lists with seperate male and female categories:
Sex with IVDA
Sex with bisexual male
Sex with person who has Hemophila
Sex with HIV-infected transfusion recepient
Sex with HIV person, risk not specified
Recepient of tainted blood transfusion or tissue
HIV infection- not specified



OK, I'm convinced! I'm a stupid, arrogant, jerk that is only blaming HIV/AIDS on the poor innocent homosexuals, because of the unmitigated hatred that I feel towards homosexuals.

Gays are not the largest segment of our population with HIV/AIDS. Gay's do not have the largest per capita rate of HIV/AIDS infection in this country. It is all a right-wing plot by homophoic, hate mongering, religious fanatics like me who only want to victimize gay people because they are different.

So there you go, you are right, I am wrong. Keep the quote, put it on your headstone.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 11:54:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
OK, I'm convinced! I'm a stupid, arrogant, jerk that is only blaming HIV/AIDS on the poor innocent homosexuals, because of the unmitigated hatred that I feel towards homosexuals.

Gays are not the largest segment of our population with HIV/AIDS. Gay's do not have the largest per capita rate of HIV/AIDS infection in this country. It is all a right-wing plot by homophoic, hate mongering, religious fanatics like me who only want to victimize gay people because they are different.

So there you go, you are right, I am wrong. Keep the quote, put it on your headstone.






It takes a big man to admit a mistake, and you did it in style!
Top Top