On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.

And the less promiscuous that past is, the less
likely that one will catch AIDS.

No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to
support or validate
your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one
from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to
distinguish between the differences.

So, you are of the theory that if you have a "sexual past" that it's
not worth being more careful now? Sort of like the defeatist analogy,
"Hell, I smoked for the last 10 years, so what's the point of stopping
now?"

You fail to consider statistical probability. The more partners you
have, the more likely you will find one who has AIDS. If you practice
monogamy, even now, will greatly lower your overall chances of
catching the disease.


Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible
or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to
wait until marriage to engage in sexual
relations.



Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly
adhere to abstinence.

Why? Is the human race not capable of mastering its little urges?

Let's put it another way, Abstinence is a great incentive to those who
want to live, rather than risk contracting a deadly disease. Call it a
matter of priority.

_
*There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Which means nothing if you've never been
exposed to it.


Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments.

I'm sorry your comprehensive skills are so poor.


Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared
with someone who you have a much deeper
emotional bond with. Not something for two
people, who are barely friends, who are simply
looking to kill a few hours.



Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave.

How? I'm sorry if your morally bankrupt viewpoint clashes with my
solid moral foundation. But there's always hope for you. It's not too
late to change.

*Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS
assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history.

It's not an "all or nothing" proposition.


You're losing yourself again.

No, I'm evidently losing you, as you once again failed to comprehend
my point.

I'll explain it again at a level you should be able to understand.
Monogamy may not 100% eliminate the risk of AIDS for those with a
sordid sexual past, but it will REDUCE the chances of catching AIDS,
as the risk exposure is minimized to a great degree.


Onec again, your rattle has nothing to
with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the
chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual
past history.

You seem hell bent on confusing the term "decreases" with
"eliminates".


While total abstinence before marriage is a
concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic
generation, the simple truth is that the less
partners you have had, the less your chances
of catching AIDS.


Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only
yourself appears to be unconvinced.

I admit it's tough trying to get through to someone with your apparent
learning comprehension disability.


It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the
transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower
than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident.

Which means what in the grand scheme of things?

The facts are quite simple. The less sex you
engage in, the lesser your chances of getting
AIDS.


Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you
present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist.

It's not my fault that a great percentage of the population does not
take the AIDS issue seriously enough to override their hedonistic
desires, and they continue to engage in risky sexual practices. I have
no pity for them if they learn the lesson the hard way.


Those who contract the disease have only
themselves, by virtue of their activities, to
blame in most cases.


The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung
cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line
because of her smoking while she was pregnant.

Ah, another hypocritical statement from someone who once claimed to
be unconcerned with the personal lives of others. To make it even more
laughable, I can add this to the growing list of things you have
worked to find out about me, which are 100% wrong.

My wife smoked up until she became pregnant. Then something (God?)
changed her chemistry such that the taste of a cigarette became
physically sickening. She quit immediately and never went back, and
she's almost 6 years now smoke free.

So you can add this to the growing list of gaffes that you have made
about my personal life (Which you claimed to not care about)
including:

Abuse at the hands of my grandfather.
My wife's name being Kimberly T. Hall.
My wife being a teacher.
My wife and I being separated/divorced.
My not being allowed to see my daughter, except under supervision.
My home address being wrong on my FCC license.

I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember all of them. You make far
too many "oopses" to count.

If you are going to hold
people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in
your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your
soap box is nothing more than a mirage.

So you espouse that no one has any right to criticize events, or
behavior based on the likelihood that they also have "baggage" of
their own?

Gee, it's a good thing that the major media, and politicians don't
have to abide by this, or we'd hear nothing but quiet every day.


I am quite certain that my risk of contracting
AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by
a meteor.


Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor,
that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim.

Exactly.



I am far more concerned with
cancer and heart disease as these pose a
much greater risk to the members of my
family.


Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by
virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking.

Despite research that links certain lifestyle choices to increases in
cancer or heart disease risk, there are also certain genetic
predispositions. There are no genetic predispositions to catching
AIDS.

AIDS risk can be reduced to minuscule levels if people would take the
proactive step in modifying their lifestyles.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.

And the less promiscuous that past is, the less

likely that one will catch AIDS.

No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to
support or validate
your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one
from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to
distinguish between the differences.

So, you are of the theory that if you have a

"sexual past" that it's not worth being more

careful now?



You reach your own incorrect conclusions concerning the majority of
people of who you have disagreed. This is part of your flawed logic and
communication deficit. I won't go in to detail (unless asked) as it has
been shown throughout your posting history that you have one bitch of a
time comprehending other's communications, indicating a severe deficit
in one of your nodes. Your postings are littered with "So did you
mean..."..."so what you really are saying...".."Just what did you
mean?"....

Sort of like the defeatist analogy,

Exactly. You proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are your own worst
enemy.

"Hell, I smoked for the last 10 years, so

what's the point of stopping now?"


Ask Kimberly.

You fail to consider statistical probability.


No,I counted it,,but you immediately discount it when applied to your
self and posts. I said that the malicous sock puppets and your posts are
the majority to accuse cbers of anarchy and use the term frequently. You
asked "what of it"? I invoked your oft cried "statistical
probability"...yet it ceased the postings.
You also said there is no "george"..I invoked that leaves only you, as
ONLY you and he have EVER posted about Amish country when I mentioned I
visited there...statistical probability.
It can not be selettively applied in corelation with your beliefs,
David, as the word "statistical" connotates the opposite anddoes not
take into account belief.

The

more partners you have, the more likely you

will find one who has AIDS.



Or green eyes.

If you practice

monogamy,


There you go again,,invoking something that is not a reality. The fact
is the majority of people have NOT practiced monogamy.

even now, will greatly lower your

overall chances of catching the disease.



Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible

or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to
wait until marriage to engage in sexual

relations.

Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly
adhere to abstinence.

Why?

Sheeehs!

Is the human race not capable of mastering

its little urges?


Apparently not, Dave, since you hold yourself above the rest.

Let's put it another way, Abstinence is a great

incentive to those who want to live, rather than
risk contracting a deadly disease. Call it a

matter of priority.


No. Call it education. Education, as I have been telling you since your
breakdown's appearance in this group, is the key to everything that
plagues you.
_
=A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Which means nothing if you've never been

exposed to it.

Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments.

I'm sorry your comprehensive skills are so

poor.


And that is getting funnier and funnier with each mistaken word you
misuse in your posts.

Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared

with someone who you have a much deeper

emotional bond with. Not something for two

people, who are barely friends, who are simply
looking to kill a few hours.

Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave.

How? I'm sorry if your morally bankrupt

viewpoint clashes with my solid moral

foundation.


What's the matter, Dave? Things going on outside the group we should
know about g?




. But there's always hope for you. It's not too

late to change.

=A0Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS
assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history.

It's not an "all or nothing" proposition.


But that's exactly what it is. Stay celibate, or screw at your own risk.
_
You're losing yourself again.

No, I'm evidently losing you, as you once

again failed to comprehend my point.


Only because your sentence structure and points are valid only to
yourself, illustrated in part, by your never-comprehending anyone who
tries teaching you those things you don't already know. For some unknown
reason, you become defensive when instructed or informed of a subject of
whcih you are not familiar. Your feelings and ego become so hurt, you
defensively defend the reasons -why- you present an incorrect
position...(roger beeps) and incorrectly fool (into a false soothing
state) your narcisstic self with statements that those who instructed
you, were making lucky guesses. You're a mess, David, and on a downward
spiral. I never saw one who actually suffers pain when they are wrong,
until I came across yourself.



I'll explain it again at a level you should be

able to understand.


Are you going to "quantify" it, for another's benefit, also, Dave?

Monogamy may not 100% eliminate the risk

of AIDS for those with a sordid sexual past,

but it will REDUCE the chances of catching

AIDS, as the risk exposure is minimized to a

great degree.


Once again, your rattle has nothing to
with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the
chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual
past history.

You seem hell bent on confusing the term

"decreases" with "eliminates".


You seem hell bent on believing monogamy somehow reduces the chance of
your past history affecting you.


While total abstinence before marriage is a

concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic

generation, the simple truth is that the less

partners you have had, the less your chances

of catching AIDS.

Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only
yourself appears to be unconvinced. I admit it's tough trying to get
through to
someone with your apparent learning comprehension disability.
_
It would depend upon the act. For example,
the chance of the transmission of AIDS while
a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower than your chances of
getting killed in an automobile accident.

Which means what in the grand scheme of

.things?


Which means the chance of catching AIDS from receiving head from a
prostitute is no more greater than you catching it from having
intercourse in your past.


The facts are quite simple. The less sex you

engage in, the lesser your chances of getting

AIDS.


That's bull****..unless, of course, in your self-titled, self-invoked,
unsolicited puritan and high moral world, sex is defined only by the act
of intercourse.
Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you
present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist.

It's not my fault that a great percentage of the

population does not take the AIDS issue

seriously enough to override their hedonistic

desires, and they continue to engage in risky

sexual practices.


Exactly, It's your fault for not having the cognitive ability to
distinguish between reality and your conjured daydream of utopia and how
it "ought to be". .such practice has dogged you for some time..


I have no pity for them if they learn the lesson

the hard way.


Same can be said for those who smoke in your
family.

Those who contract the disease have only

themselves, by virtue of their activities, to

blame in most cases.

The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung
cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line
because of her smoking while she was pregnant.

Ah, another hypocritical statement from

someone who once claimed to be

unconcerned with the personal lives of others.


No hypocritical staetement at all. In fact, if your disability permitted
you to remember all you initiate, you would find you were told on more
than one occasion to take your personal issues to email or to remain on
subject. This was your inititated game of getting personal. You were
warned you would receive back what you hurl, only ten fold....something
at which I am quite adept.

To make it even more laughable, I can add

this to the growing list of things you have

worked to find out about me, which are 100%

wrong.

Which is why you have the need to explain it away,,,because only one
thing matters to you,,what others think.


My wife smoked up until she became

pregnant. Then something (God?) changed

her chemistry such that the taste of a cigarette
became physically sickening. She quit

immediately and never went back, and she's

almost 6 years now smoke free.


Gee Dave,,,that's not the way she told it,,,,but hey....you go on
explaining away my mistakes,


So you can add this to the growing list of

gaffes that you have made about my personal

life (Which you claimed to not care about)

including:

Abuse at the hands of my grandfather.


Entered after your self-qualifications to make a diagnosis reserved only
for physicians, however, your own mental diminished capacitive state
record lifted the veil
on your preoccupation with those you admire.


My wife's name being Kimberly T. Hall.

It is.

My wife being a teacher.

She was.

My wife and I being separated/divorced.


That was incorrect. The rest are true. You were separated.

My not being allowed to see my daughter,

except under supervision.


(shrug) Something led to the counseling.

My home address being wrong on my FCC

license.


It is wrong. It doesn't match your license plate. Do I have your express
and implied and explicit permission to publicly post such information
here and let the masses have their input?

I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember all

of them. You make far too many "oopses" to

count.


See above.

If you are going to hold
people to the flame for all their abhorrant
behavior, you must begin in your own backyard, lest you have no right to
confront others and your soap box is nothing more than a mirage.

So you espouse that no one has any right to

criticize events, or behavior based on the

likelihood that they also have "baggage" of

their own?


Not when it comes down to the initiating party becoming so frustrated,
they resort to threats.

Gee, it's a good thing that the major media,

and politicians don't have to abide by this, or

.we'd hear nothing but quiet every day.

The media deals with threats on a regular basis, which is why yours was
laughed at.

I am quite certain that my risk of contracting

AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by

a meteor.

Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor,
that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim.

Exactly.

I am far more concerned with

cancer and heart disease as these pose a

much greater risk to the members of my

family.

Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by
virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking.

Despite research that links certain lifestyle

choices to increases in cancer or heart

disease risk, there are also certain genetic

predispositions.


That can be changed with proper diet AND exercise from early on. This
has been proved.

There are no genetic predispositions to

catching AIDS.


Welllllllllll, since YOU brought it up,,,you made the claim gays are
more prone to catching AIDS,,,and since scientists and researchers have
found homosexuality to be a genetic trait, your claims continue to be
flubs.

AIDS risk can be reduced to minuscule levels

if people would take the proactive step in

modifying their lifestyles.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

But it was also -your- claim that one can not teach certain cultures
anything..this was one of your arguments for bombing Afghanistan,,,,or
was it Iraq? : )

On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:59:19 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
You know, you are hopeless.

I should follow my own advice: "Try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and
he'll swear that you're crazy".


You go ahead and believe what you want. It really makes no difference
to me in the grand scheme of things.

You have failed to carry on an intelligent debate with anyone on this
board. You are incapable of such. When the facts fall against you you
change the topic and get personal.

Roger beeps do not relate to AIDS. My wife once smoking means little
in a discussion of failed liberal ideological issues. Speeding means
little to a discussion about breaking federal communications law.

Deflection. That's been your mantra from the start. When you get your
head handed to you with regard to one topic, you abruptly change it to
one where you feel you have better traction. It's a disingenuous
tactic, one usually associated with someone who's a cad.

My last word on this subject.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:59:19 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

You know, you are hopeless.

Apology accepted.

Dave Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
When you get your head handed to you with

regard to one topic

Pot,,kettle,,black.

I'm not sure what has you hopping around like the easter bunny who has
to take a very bad ****, but I can guess.


Was it the application of your invoked "statistical probability" factor
to yourself after you made the comment "there is no George"?


Was it your goof concerning your misuse and misapplication of the word
"Quantify"?


Was it your self-contradiction where you first claimed an "endorsement"
of religion by the people, then turned around in the same post and
claimed there was no endorsement of such?


Perhaps it was because you were accusing me of being wrong in all my
claims concerning you, but refused to give explicit permission to post
such "wrong" information.


Then again, it could have been your claim that sex, in regards to
catching an STD, is not an all or nothing proposition, when that is most
certainly what it is,,,,,stay celibate or screw at your own risk.

Or the Bush failures you asked for, was provided, then you vanished.

Maybe it was that old habit you have of denying the existence of
everything you are not aware, such as your claim that there is no
reference point in which to measure global warming. then again, it could
have been the fact that your own party acknowledges such, and just like
your chosen hobby, you have no clue concerning those who govern your
world.

Then again, it was probably the fact you were conned into admitting you
were a criminal (your word) by breaking Pa traffic law.


Yep. You sure handed me my head. I can't wait for you to do it again. In
the meantime, enoy your rest, take a few deep breaths, regroup, refresh,
douche, powder, whatever you have to do to cleanse your wickedness and
become a proper contributing member to society instead of a law breaking
criminal who is on the level of crackheads and vagrants (also your
words).