AIDS IS A NON WHITE DISEASE

[Rongi]

According to the kkk. Read this unbelievably moronic article and feel free to purchase some of their stylin shirts

http://www.christianbooksandthings.com/cbtees9.jpg

USA USA USA

"AIDS Plague Worse than Bubonic and affects races differently

Some health experts are warning that AIDS may become the largest epidemic in history ? even more so than the Black Plague which killed an estimated 45 million people. Dr. Desmond Johns, with the United Nations? AIDS office, says, "The epidemic continues to grow out of proportion to the magnitude of our response."

The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that for the first time more black "heterosexuals" had the disease than gay white men did. This included any Hispanics with Negro blood. Hispanics of Caucasian ancestry were not affected severely.

Most people do not want to admit that AIDS is a racial disease. The biology of the races is different and they react to the virus differently when they are exposed to it.

AIDS is the name coined for a strain of Kaposi Sarcoma, a type of cancer. In a book titled "AIDS, A Basic Guide for Clinicians it talks on page 123 about the term Aids being coined, but does not say why. It says there was an outbreak of it among homosexuals and Haitians. It states that during the past three decades prior to 1984 there is "an increased prevalence of Kaposi sarcoma in Equatorial Africa". It is mostly prevalent among Ashkenazic Jews as stated by Dr. Moritz Kaposi who the disease is named after. The KS virus is able to mutate into variants. AIDS is one of those variants.

LANCET is Britain?s leading medical journal and holds a high position of authority world wide. In March of 1987 it reported that a British AIDS research group had discovered that Caucasians have an immunity cell type unique to them. None of the other races have it. It is called the GC-2 Gene. The other races have what is called a GC-1 Fast Track Gene.

The Readers Digest commenting on this same subject stated that, "A team led by Anthony Pinching of St. Mary?s Hospital Medical School in London looked at six combinations of an inherited protein found on some human and animal cell surfaces. The researcher concluded that one of the protein combinations makes the people who carry it highly resistant to AIDS, while another makes them highly vulnerable. The work may shed light on why the disease is spreading so rapidly among heterosexuals in Central Africa. Blacks from that region are nearly ten times likelier than Caucasians to carry the ?most susceptible.? protein."

Dr. Wayne Greaves of Howard University said, "Because of the high prevalence of infection among women and young children, I see AIDS limiting the black population. Unless we can interrupt transmission somehow, we may soon be looking at zero population growth for blacks."

Henri Norris, director of the Multi-Cultural Alliance for the Prevention of AIDS stated in the New York Times that "Blacks make up 73 % of all heterosexual transmission cases...More than half of all women with AIDS are black...More than half the children with AIDS are black."

According to the latest U.N. report, in Sub-Saharan Africa there are at least 8.6 million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 with the AIDS virus - 67% are female. In South Asia, 1.1 million youths are infected -62 percent of them female. Thoraya Obaid, the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund said among the agency's core message was "abstinence". Sadly, in these non-Christian countries, girls are often married off or encouraged to have sex at a very young age. Women are not respected in these cultures. Unfortunately, the U.N. will not publicize the fact in Africa and Asia that abstaining from sex - while helpful - is not full proof prevention. For non-whites, AIDS can be acquired through casual contact with carriers.

As more people become award of the high death rate among Negroes and other nonwhites it is almost certain that AIDS will be looked upon more and more as a disease of not only homosexuals, but a disease of nonwhites. With this awareness it is also equally certain that whites will begin to do what ever may be necessary to avoid contact with non-whites. Of course whites who engage in interracial sex will become infected also.

In the January 10,1989 edition of The Washington Post an article appeared under the title, "Racial Segregation Predicted" and states that the implications of AIDS is, "mind-boggling, posing the worst threat to black Americans since the days of virulent segregation" ? and that is exactly where we are headed if AIDS becomes known more and more as what it is ? a racial disease.

Young people must be warned of the terrible consequences they may face as a result of socializing with non-whites. And interracial couples should be especially avoided. AIDS is a disease of non-whites. It originated from a mutated cancer almost exclusive to Jews and now spread throughout the races. Remember, the national media talks about the high rate of AIDS among heterosexuals in order scare white people into donating to homosexual and inner city programs. The increase in heterosexual population is among non-white heterosexuals NOT white heterosexuals. Even white homosexuals have a natural immunity to the disease simply because of their race. They contract it however, because they continually expose themselves to the virus via their filthy lifestyle and in addition often sleep with non-white homosexuals.

Those with the GC-1 (germinal center) gene (non-whites) are in greater danger of contacting the HIV virus through casual contact such as toilet seats, drinking glasses, sneezing etc. Blacks are in the greatest danger of getting AIDS in this manner. This is the reason for the AIDS epidemic in Africa and also why AIDS, even in the US is the number one cause of death for blacks.

Though we are considered racist for pointing this out, the fact is blacks should be alerted to the danger they face from HIV. Phil Wilson with the African American AIDS Policy and Training Institute at the University of Southern California said "More black churches, fraternities, sororities and organizations like the NAACP need to speak out on AIDS." Surprisingly, those who want to avoid being called racist, are actually causing the death of blacks for not warning them of the danger. It is politically incorrect.

It must be noted, however, that technically no one dies of AIDS. AIDS simply destroys the immune system and death can come about from any number of diseases that can infect the body. For this reason, sometimes doctors will list the cause of death to be TB (which is on the rise) or pneumonia, when this would not have come about if the immune system was not first destroyed by the AIDS virus. Deaths brought about from AIDS are probably much higher than reported.

White people as a whole are just not getting AIDS ? no matter how many middle class Baptist grandmas they try to find to plaster on the news. Those people who do get it by way of innocent means such as blood transfusions have the politicians to blame for not isolating carriers and developing testing procedures on a mass basis. Better yet, we need geographical separation at least on a neighborhood and school basis and we need to teach our people the health dangers of social integration."

http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm

By the way, before any of you ask, the only reason i went on KKK.com is because some lady who works in the bias crimes squad claimed that if you ever type in swastika.com or kkk.com it will redirect you to their website.

[Pharaoh]

I haven't seen any evidence that black people are any more genetically inclined to get AIDS, but it's true that the vast majority of people with AIDS in the US are either black, gay or inject drugs.

Half of new AIDS cases in the US last year were among black Americans even though they make up only 13% of the US population, but I think higher rates of promiscuity is the more likely cause.

Only 6% of people with AIDS are white people who got it through having heterosexual sex. And there's a politically correct silence about more black people getting AIDS, which doesn't help black people at all, it gives them a false impression of what's happening.

[mburbank]

Okay, you don't know what a Liberal is, and now it's pretty clear you have no idea what the word 'silence' means. Who did not know that AIDS was spreading faster amongst Black Americans than white, you? Must be the politically correct silence.

Higher rates of promiscuity? Maybe, but isn't that just a side efect of higher rates of inferiority? Lets face it, More Blacks get AIDS because they are more bad than Whites. They use drugs more, the screw around more, and all those guys are 'on the down low' whenever white pussy is in short supply. All of that behavior is BAD. BAD=AIDS. Everybody knows it, they're all just too politically correct to say it. AIDS is a half of a way to die, but if you're monogamous, straight, and you don't do drugs you won't get it. We are better than them, and as a result, more of them die horrible, prolonged painful deaths. It's not up to me to say if they deserve it or not. That's up to God.

[Geggy]

AIDS came from monkeys in Africa...don't you already know that?!

[mburbank]

And if God won't punish you for Monkey Fucking, what will He punish you for?

[Geggy]

That's different because God don't judge!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm not sure who's worse, Rongi for posting a thread in all caps, informing us that the KKK doesn't like black people, or Pharaoh for that stupid response.

:(

[mburbank]

I'm just pissed nobody told me the KKK doesn't like black people. What the fuck am I supposed to do with this robe now?

[Pharaoh]

I'm not sure who's worse, Rongi for posting a thread in all caps, informing us that the KKK doesn't like black people, or Pharaoh for that stupid response. :(

What's so stupid about it?

Information about AIDS has failed to get across to black people that they are at the greatest risk. Anyone would assume form AIDS campaigns that white heterosexuals are the most likely to get AIDS.


'HIV/Aids is now the biggest cause of death among young black women in America - but too little is being done to combat it, a leading research organisation has said.

In states like Alabama and others in the country's Deep South, non-white women make up 13% of the population - but make up nearly 70% of Aids infections.

Meanwhile, half of the new HIV victims in the US are people under the age of 25 - and most of them are black, and for black women aged 24-35, Aids is the number one cause of death.

Dr Judith Auerbach, director of public policy for the American Foundation for Aids Research (Amfar) told BBC World Service's Analysis programme that this statistic was "staggering."

"Part of what's staggering is that most Americans - including young women, and young black women in particular - are unaware of this fact," she added.

"How we've got there is probably the result of some neglect in recognising who's really at risk in this country at this point in time."

"Part of what's so shocking is the disproportionate increase in rates, and specifically among African-American women, such that it leads to death."
Link here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652778.stm)


And the reason why blacks aren't targetted in AIDS campaigns, is political correctness, they don't want to portray AIDS as a black disease.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And the reason why blacks aren't targetted in AIDS campaigns, is political correctness, they don't want to portray AIDS as a black disease.

You've obviously never been to America, particularly DC. You can't turn around here without seeing an AIDS education billboard with a black couple dancing and laughing or something.

The rate is highest in this city than anywhere else in the country among the African-American community. So it certainly is targeted as a "black disease" here, at least a black problem.

The reason your response was stupid is because you took a ridiculous thread and made it even more ridiculous by trying to validate the KKK's point. THat's why you're stupid, stupid head.

[mburbank]

Kev, we're actually in America. How could we possibly know more about what things are like here than a guy from England? If he says the reason word hasn't gotten out is because of political correctness not wanting to say Black people have more AIDS than white people, who are we to disagree?

I myself have never seen any AIDS education that didn't imply it was a Disease of white heterosexuals. Sure, it started in Africa, spread to the gay and intervenous drug community, but after that, I have always been told, it lept to the white heterosexual community and there it has stayed.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I myself have never seen any AIDS education that didn't imply it was a Disease of white heterosexuals.

That's because the liberal multiculturalists don't want to be un-pc!!! They wouldn't DARE target the black community, it would break their PC code!!!*


* Except in DC apparently, where they have giant billboards specifically doin this, right next to giant Hennessey advertisements.

[El Blanco]

They took down the Kools ad?


Everyone has AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!
Everyone has AIDS!

And so this is the end of our story
And everyone is dead from AIDS
It took from me my best friend
My only true pal
My only bright star (he died of AIDS)

Well I'm gonna march on Washington
Lead the fight and charge the brigades
There's a hero inside of all of us
I'll make them see everyone has AIDS

My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades

Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20

[Pharaoh]

And the reason why blacks aren't targetted in AIDS campaigns, is political correctness, they don't want to portray AIDS as a black disease.

You've obviously never been to America, particularly DC. You can't turn around here without seeing an AIDS education billboard with a black couple dancing and laughing or something.

The rate is highest in this city than anywhere else in the country among the African-American community. So it certainly is targeted as a "black disease" here, at least a black problem.

The reason your response was stupid is because you took a ridiculous thread and made it even more ridiculous by trying to validate the KKK's point. THat's why you're stupid, stupid head.

I have been to America actually, three times, I've got friends who live in New York and Connecticut, and I didn't notice any AIDS campaigns aimed at black people last time I was there.

The KKK's main point is that black people are somehow biologically more vulnerable to getting AIDS and I said I don't agree with that. But I do think that black people should be alerted more to the danger they face from AIDS because they don't seem to be getting the message.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's because they're constantly listening to that rap music, am I right? wink, wink

[Dr. Boogie]

Half of new AIDS cases in the US last year were among black Americans even though they make up only 13% of the US population, but I think higher rates of promiscuity is the more likely cause.

Only 6% of people with AIDS are white people who got it through having heterosexual sex. And there's a politically correct silence about more black people getting AIDS, which doesn't help black people at all, it gives them a false impression of what's happening.

I feel it's worth pointing out that if you replace the world "black" with "gay", you have Pharaoh's response to the thread about gay people not being well-adjusted.

[El Blanco]

I have been to America actually, three times, I've got friends who live in New York and Connecticut, and I didn't notice any AIDS campaigns aimed at black people last time I was there.

Were you watching UPN?

[kahljorn]

"The KKK's main point is that black people are somehow biologically more vulnerable to getting AIDS and I said I don't agree with that."

You disagree with the most important and probably most realistic thing the entire article said?
Some ethnic groups actually are more likely to develop certain diseases than other ethnicities. That's why when you look up various diseases you'll notice most of them say stuff like, "You're at risk if you're a white male between 18-25".

[Pharaoh]

"The KKK's main point is that black people are somehow biologically more vulnerable to getting AIDS and I said I don't agree with that."

You disagree with the most important and probably most realistic thing the entire article said?
Some ethnic groups actually are more likely to develop certain diseases than other ethnicities. That's why when you look up various diseases you'll notice most of them say stuff like, "You're at risk if you're a white male between 18-25".

Are you kidding?

You really think 'non-whites are in greater danger of contacting the HIV virus through casual contact such as toilet seats, drinking glasses, sneezing etc.' and that's the 'reason for the AIDS epidemic in Africa and also why AIDS, even in the US is the number one cause of death for blacks.'?

[mburbank]

"I didn't notice any AIDS campaigns aimed at black people last time I was there. "
-Cornrow

Did you notice a lot of AIDS campaigns aimed at anyone? 'Cause if you did, you are a wierd vacationer. And don't come to my country anymore. We're all ready full up on idiots.

[kahljorn]

I don't think aids can be contacted through toilet seats or "Casual contact", so that's clearly not the part I'm talking about. I was, however, talking about "The biology of the races is different and they react to the virus differently when they are exposed to it. "

It's a very true thing that some races are more likely to contract certain things than other races and there's usually actual reasons supporting this(even if they aren't necessarily inate, like homosexuals being more likely to get it because they take it in the ass). I wasn't saying I believed it, just that it was the only valid point in the entire article that wasn't shrouded by bigotry.

Just as an example:
http://www.webmd.com/hw/cancer/zr1002.asp

"Testicular cancer is most common among white males and is considered uncommon in men of African and Asian descent.1 Although rare, testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer in men between the ages of 20 and 34.2 It is considered to be among the most curable types of cancer, especially when it is detected at an early stage."

[Pharaoh]

"I didn't notice any AIDS campaigns aimed at black people last time I was there. "
-Cornrow

Did you notice a lot of AIDS campaigns aimed at anyone? 'Cause if you did, you are a wierd vacationer. And don't come to my country anymore. We're all ready full up on idiots.

Obviously nothing more can be done to stop the spread of AIDS among black Americans then. I mean at least the KKK are suggesting something. You lot suggest nothing. Maybe the KKK (and kahljorn) do have a point about black people being more susceptible to AIDS. If so, it should be made better known, because I have never heard that theory.

And a few words of advice, butman. When you accuse someone of being an idiot, at least make sure you don't spell any words wrong in same sentence. It's weird and already, not 'wierd' and 'all ready'. Alright?

[MLE]

For one thing, butbank is a much better play on his name. If you're going to do it, do it in a way that's tolerable.

Also, if you'd been paying attention in other threads, max has admitted defeat in the local spelling contest, so that's really mean of you to pick on him for that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Obviously nothing more can be done to stop the spread of AIDS among black Americans then. I mean at least the KKK are suggesting something. You lot suggest nothing.

YEAH, SERIOUSLY GUYS. IF YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION LIKE THE KKK, THEN......

And just a reminder-- HIV campaigns are targeted directly towards African-Americans.

[Pharaoh]

AIDS spread so rapidly because of the gay promiscuous lifestyle which came about after gay liberation. And it was liberals who brought about that gay liberation, therefore they are responsible for the rapid spread of AIDS and the deaths of thousands of gays and now black people.

The likes of the KKK are an insignificant annoyance to black people compared to the thousands of blacks that are now being killed because of liberal policies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You are an idiot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Gosh darn it...

ok, please explain what liberal policies are causing black people to get AIDS??? (please keep in mind when you respond that campaigns here in the states are specifically geared and targeted towards that community)

[Pharaoh]

Liberals promoted gay rights and encouraged the gay lifestyle. And that's what started AIDS off in the first place.

[Emu]

Funny, I thought HIV was a virus.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Liberals promoted gay rights and encouraged the gay lifestyle. And that's what started AIDS off in the first place.

You didn't answer my question.

[homoperfect]

As for whites being less inclined to contract the AIDs virus, this is true to a point. AIDs does show traits of the black plague. From past accounts and current research scientist have found that both viruses affect the immune system in the same way. When the plague hit europe aprox. 500yrs ago(not too worried about the date) some people were not aflicted by the virus. A study on the virus has tracked those who are decendants of surviving plague persons and studied their genes. scientists have shown that ,from the exposure to the plague, those exposed developed a gene making it less likely to contract the virus. Scientist hope to find a way to duplicate this gene and increase it's effectiveness in order to prevent the contraction of the AIDs virus.

AIDs has been often confused to be soley a homosexual virus. AIDs can be spread threw the exchange of needles and blood as well as sexual intercourse. Homosexuals, especially men, have a higher chance to contract it being the fluids are exposed much easier. Homosexual females have a lower chance of contracting the virus as womens fluids are exposed less and penitration is less likely. Heterosexual couples are almost at an equal stance with homosexual men. No specific group or party is soley responsible for the spread of the virus. Our ignorance of its existance was the issue. If we would've been aware of AIDs we would have taken more care to contain it.

[Pharaoh]

You didn't answer my question.

My point wasn't particularly that liberals now are causing black people to get AIDS, but that they had a hand in the rapid spread of AIDS when it first appeared because they encouraged the gay lifestyle.

[homoperfect]

Well, I think it's unwise to make such claims without evidence to justify your claim. I am also disturbed by the idea that "Liberals" encourage people to be Homosexuals. my understanding of this statement , tell me if I'm wrong, is that you believe homosexuality is a choice rather than something about ones being that one can't escape. I also find it interesting when persons use the term "lifestyle". I would like to know what you mean by this use of language and what you imply by using it.

[Pharaoh]

I didn't say liberals encourage people to be homosexuals, I believe most gays are born that way. They do however encourage and support a gay lifestyle of hedonistic, promiscuous sex, and that's well known to spread AIDS.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And WHAT precisely do they do, unlike consevatives, that encourages "hedonistic" behavior....?

Come on, say gay marriage......SAY IT!

[Pharaoh]

Gay marriage. There, I said it. Or rather typed it.
I don't think that's going to stop the spread of AIDS though.

Our loony leftie council here in Brighton pays for the gay pride march here every year, and if you saw it you'd see how liberals encourage hedonistic behaviour.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I thought we were talking about blacks, gays, and AIDS in America?

You're right though, parades get me hot.

[ziggytrix]

Wouldn't treating them like normal people and letting gays get married encourage them to NOT be more promiscuous than a heterosexual person?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You're forgetting about the gay pride parades, Ziggy. People see that stuff and it's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again.

[mburbank]

See, I knew if he was provoked enough, he'd come out and say that Liberals and AIDS are the same thing. Now we'll have to kill him.

Man, I remember back in the day, when we caused Whooping Cough. Good times. Good times.

Fagroah, you should be grateful for liberals! I know you hate us more than you simply dislike Black People, but you have to hate fags even worse, and we've been killing them off for you so you don't have to get your lilly white hands dirty! You better apologize before me and the other liberals get together and find a way to give knuckle draggging trogladytic hooligans a penis disease! 'Cause we can do it, crafty bastards that we are!

[Spectre X]

Is Pharaoh claiming that gay marriage encourages promoscuity?

[homoperfect]

Gay pride parades are a joke. The major reason that they seem as appauling as they do is because some homosexuals like to act that way to piss off those who are anti homosexual. I am a strong believer that these only hurt the homosexual community. I do not support them. The image of homosexuals is the promiscuous behaviors. Keep in mind, just as in the heterosexual community we do have promiscuous peoples but we are much more diverse than you may think. I am a homosexual christian. though I have tried the permiscuous life I found it wasn't for me. sex becomes dull and boring after awhile and starts to mean nothing. I find I become more conservative as time moves on. There are large groups of homosexuals who only seek long term relationships. The promiscuity is not encouraged by liberals nor is it promoted. I am still unable to see how you came to such a conclusion. It seems you are making judgements on the stereo types and do not understand homosexuality beyond the stereotype. the stereo type pisses me off. you can see in early film that these stereotypes were formed to poke fun and degrade homosexuality. just as there are feminine gay males, there are feminine heterosexual males as well. promiscuity, fashion conciousness, lisps, ect exist in both the hetero and homosexual comunities. It is unfair to judge homosexuals based on the same unwarrented qualities that are ever present in the heterosexual community as well.

as for homosexuals being born vs. choice..... I think perhaps your wording on the situation needs to be a bit better. From your wording I recieved the impression otherwise.

[homoperfect]

oh, and by the way.... the current views held by our current administration is abstinance not protection. At least The "liberals" encourage protection if you do have sex as opposed to supporting an idealistic soulution.

[Pharaoh]

Is Pharaoh claiming that gay marriage encourages promoscuity?

Are you incapable of reading my posts for yourself or what :confused

Anyway, to save you the great trouble of doing so, no I'm not against gay marriage, and if it stops gays being so sexually promiscuous and spreading AIDS then that's great.

In fact we should allow black people to marry too. Maybe that would stop them from spreading AIDS as well. Although, hold on, of course they can already marry and they're still getting AIDS at an alarming rate. So obviously the fact that you can get married doesn't make much difference.

[homoperfect]

Is Pharaoh claiming that gay marriage encourages promoscuity?

Are you incapable of reading my posts for yourself or what :confused

Anyway, to save you the great trouble of doing so, no I'm not against gay marriage, and if it stops gays being so sexually promiscuous and spreading AIDS then that's great.

In fact we should allow black people to marry too. Maybe that would stop them from spreading AIDS as well. Although, hold on, of course they can already marry and they're still getting AIDS at an alarming rate. So obviously the fact that you can get married doesn't make much difference.

Marriage has nothing to do with AIDs. I would also urge you to look at your wording. Either, judging from the way you have explain things, you are contradicting your self or you are having trouble wording your statements to express your views. You do come off rather anti-homosexual. the stereotyping and generalizations you have made express this. yet you say you have no problem with it. I have already stated the scientific explination for why blacks are more prone to contract the virus. And as homosexuals do not have the avenue of marriage it is rather dishearting. You have to adjust to the ideas that you will never have marriage. Marriage is thought of as an expression of monogamy. that you will spend the rest of your life with this person and love only them. does this mean it isn't possible to do the same without marriage? no, it doesn't. but a commitment is less likely to be recognized by our society. with the institution of gay marriage we would be encouraging monogamous relationships. In this sense, monogamy may connect marriage with AIDs(but it wouldn't make any drastic impact on the spread of AIDs)

[Pharaoh]

I have already stated the scientific explination for why blacks are more prone to contract the virus.

You've stated what you think, but where's your evidence for that explanation? What you think counts for nothing unless you can back it up. Apart from the KKK article here I've only read that sexual promiscuity has spread AIDS in Africa and among black Americans, the same reason it's spread so much among gays. You don't know what you're talking about, you're just spouting a load of bullshit.

[homoperfect]

Well, actually it is scientific. they have aired a program on CNN, Discovery, MSNBC, MPT, PBS, Discoery health.... as well as radio programs on NPR... Time magazine.. AS well as all the major gay magazines and health magazines including scientific america. I also have two aunts who do research at fort deitrich and a sister who works a the NIAID.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/clues.html

But I wont tell you much more... I'll let you check it out for your self.

[homoperfect]

oh, but don't make any hasty decisions on just one resource....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1361607/posts

http://www.menssexhealth.com/printerFriendly.asp?id=516072

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/516072.html

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/Articles/News/0,10141,516072,00.html

http://www.dailysentinel.com/health/content/shared-auto/healthnews/viru/516072.html

http://mpelembe.mappibiz.com/Archives_03/Aids_Immunity.html

[kahljorn]

When you read things in the future, pharoh, you might try to cut out anything that seems inobjective and focus on just that, especially when it is the foundation of the rest of the article. Usually when you do that you get a really good grasp of where the article's coming from, and then you can understand it better and actually develop intelligent things to say about it.

[Pharaoh]

That long list of links is all for basically the same article. Anyway though, even if 10% of white people have extra protection against AIDS that no way explains why four times as many black Americans have AIDS.

It's basically just a politically correct excuse for black promiscuity and it's the sort of thing that stops black people from ever changing their behaviour and stopping the spread of AIDS amongst themselves.

[Dole]

Sidestepping the main thrust of your completely implausible argument for one sec, if thats possible..

Our loony leftie council here in Brighton pays for the gay pride march here every year, and if you saw it you'd see how liberals encourage hedonistic behaviour.

Tough shit. There has been a gay community in Brighton for over 100 years. You've been here 5 minutes. If they want to have a day thats an excuse for a big party in a town that has a huge (for this country) gay community then they have every right to. Especially when their lifestyle has only been legal for a few decades and where there is still paranoid, misinformed prejudice from a significant portion of the population.

You chose to come here. You're in the minority here. So, to coin a phrase I don't often use: love it or leave it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's basically just a politically correct excuse for black promiscuity and it's the sort of thing that stops black people from ever changing their behaviour and stopping the spread of AIDS amongst themselves.

What would you suggest be done? What "liberal policies" could be overturned to specifically help black people?

I want you to connect the dots here, because you've done a pretty poor job thus far.

"Liberals like gays, so they allow gays to have parades, and now black people have a lot of AIDS."

So aside from reaching the same conclusions as the KKK (who you credited earlier for having a position or something), what policy would you recommend? *

* Keeping in mind, once again, that we have large campaigns here in America SPECIFICALLY addressing AIDS among the African-American community.

Uh....http://www.blackaids.org/

[homoperfect]

at least three of them are the same article. but the groups supporting this article are different. also take note to the bottom resources. among them are: Brigham young university, The Center for disease control and prevention, as well as

SOURCES: Alison P. Galvani, Ph.D., epidemiologist, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley; Cheryl Ann Winkler, Ph.D., principal investigator, human genetics, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Md.; Nov. 17-21, 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

also notice this:
"HON Foundation is a NGA in special consultative status with the economical and social council of the United Nations"

Links are also provided on the web page to the HON Foundation that explains the relations between HON and the UN.

the differnt sites who are endorsing this are in agreement that this is a Valid claim. And some of the sites offer different resources concerning AIDs research as well as direct research to the above listed resources.

[homoperfect]

Alright, keep in mind that AIDs cases and deaths start off as HIV. You won't die of HIV. only when it develops into the AIDs virus then do you die. Though a gay community may have more cases of HIV than a black community, The black community has a higher mortality rate. White homosexuals, when contracting HIV, self-Advocate for themselves. Black would rather die than disclose their disease. also keep in mind the economic gap between whites and blacks.

Homosexuals are the most economiclly advantaged group in the U.S. 21% of homosexual households make greater than $100,000 per year while 28% make between $100,000 to $50,000 per year. The homosexual population makes more than the latino and african-American comunities combined and they only account for %10 percent of the U.S. population.

The average AIDs patient take a combination a medicines that add up to $14,000 per year. Persons in the advanced stages pay anywhere from $20,000- $27,000 per year.

The average national income is $42,000. the black community averages $11,500 less than the national average. that's $30,00 per year. I doubt they'll be recieving AIDs/HIV treatments.

[The One and Only...]

Why I Quit HIV

by Rebecca V. Culshaw
by Rebecca V. Culshaw

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life – as well as the lives of many of my peers – has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.

To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.

My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question – even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.

Why have we as a society been so quick to accept a theory for which so little solid evidence exists? Why do we take proclamations by government institutions like the NIH and the CDC, via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak the connection really is between HIV and AIDS, and this is the manner in which scientifically insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.

When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My own family was immediately affected by this panic, since my mother had had several blood transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of three late miscarriages she had experienced. In the early days, we feared mosquito bites, kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still recall the panic I felt after looking up in a public restroom and seeing some graffiti that read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."

But I was only ten years old then, and over time the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch" as we had initially believed. Fear of going to the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone we didn’t know really, really well. As a teenager who was in no way promiscuous, I didn’t have much to worry about.

That all changed – or so I thought – when I was twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the results, convinced that I would soon die, and that it would be "all my fault." This was despite the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn’t use drugs, and wasn’t promiscuous – low-risk by any definition. As it happened, the test was negative, and, having felt I had been granted a reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.

Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common – other than HIV – was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn’t necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.

By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn’t have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.

Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn’t convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.

So why is it that only now have I decided that enough is enough, and I can no longer in any capacity continue to support the paradigm on which my entire career has been built?

As a mathematician, I was taught early on about the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you consider its definition, is far from clear, and is in fact not even a consistent entity. The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test – in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.

The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher – between 6.7 and 8.8% – than would be the approximately 1–2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.

Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.

Returning for a moment to the mathematical modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me was the lack of agreement on how to accurately represent the actual biological mechanism of immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a dramatic loss of the immune system’s T-cells, said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why then could no one agree on how to mathematically model the dynamics of the fundamental disease process – that is, how are T-cells actually killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it’s too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became clear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.

As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn’t. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history – certainly it is the best-funded – yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn’t in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people – if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo's seminal 1984 paper in which he claims "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.

This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV – but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don’t exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.

There is good reason to believe the antibody tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot (WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person’s HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.

I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to their astounding lack of specificity and standardization. I can buy the idea that anonymous screening of the blood supply for some nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative test may not be accurate (whatever that means), but a positive one can create utter havoc and destruction in a person’s life – all for a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do not feel it is going too far to say that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.

The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused residency in and even entry into some countries, even been charged with assault or murder for having consensual sex; babies have been taken from their mothers and had toxic medications forced down their throats. There is no precedent for this type of behavior, as it is all in the name of a completely unproven, fundamentally flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection with an allegedly deadly virus – a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything.

As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.

After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.

For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness. And the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans – as honest academics and scientists – the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.

What's so unbelievable about this? Couldn't this maybe correlate with sex education, the availability of contraception, and a greater understanding of how it got passed around?

Bleh.....

[homoperfect]

I would not argue that the rapid spread of AIDs in the 70's and 80's was a flaw in our knowledge, a failure to educate, and the neglect to encourage protection. I too believe this is the case.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Que?

[Pharaoh]

Sidestepping the main thrust of your completely implausible argument for one sec, if thats possible..

Our loony leftie council here in Brighton pays for the gay pride march here every year, and if you saw it you'd see how liberals encourage hedonistic behaviour.

Tough shit. There has been a gay community in Brighton for over 100 years. You've been here 5 minutes. If they want to have a day thats an excuse for a big party in a town that has a huge (for this country) gay community then they have every right to. Especially when their lifestyle has only been legal for a few decades and where there is still paranoid, misinformed prejudice from a significant portion of the population.

You chose to come here. You're in the minority here. So, to coin a phrase I don't often use: love it or leave it.

Don't worry Dope, I do leave it, I stay safely in Hove. Obviously you love it though. Yeah, I can just see you dancing around your pink handbag, with all the other trannies, like the mousy, bikini girl in your Faster Pussycat! avatar. :lol

[MLE]

Fallacy of Personal Attack :rolleyes

[Dr. Boogie]

Is it even worth pointing that out to a man who argues that liberals and gays are giving AIDS to the black community?

[mburbank]

Pharah sounds as if he's frightened that gayness mught be contageous, or might reach out and scar him in some way.

[Dole]

Don't worry Dope, I do leave it, I stay safely in Hove. Obviously you love it though. Yeah, I can just see you dancing around your pink handbag, with all the other trannies, like the mousy, bikini girl in your Faster Pussycat! avatar.

Dudearent you from MANCHESTER? and you moved to BRIGHTON?. Kind of a strange coincidence, yes? You just can't get enough of the liberal gays! Where do you holiday? San Francisco? Mykonos?

And incidentally, it has been historically proven here that anyone who ends a post with ":lol" is always the only person to whom their posts are even vaguely amusing. Like the people who laugh loudly at their own jokes in pubs. I will keep an ear out for loud Mancunian laughter followed by uncomfortable silence in my local hostelries.

[glowbelly]

dole would look fabulous dancing around a pink handbag :eek

[Dole]

Hey I would, and I'd do it too! Er...if I could dance.

[Dr. Boogie]

I just got back from looking up "Mancunian." What have you people done with your lives?

[Abcdxxxx]

I can't really read through this thread, because it makes my stomach turn... so this isn't meant for debate as much as just a general comment.

It should go without saying, AIDS/HIV has effected every color, gender, religion, political affiliation, height, weight, age, nationality....whatever. The disporportionate numbers show a lapse in preventative behavior - and that is all they show. Not just the lack of protection, but the lack of awareness one has the disease, and the acceptance to let your status be known. The pills are debate able...the causes, and origins are debatable.... what isn't debateable is that the disease spreads through careless behavior involving a transmission of fluids. I get the feeling from reading these posts that we're not all grasping that.

I lived in SF during the worst of the AIDS crisis, and let me tell you... most victims were dead long before they even had a chance to figure out how they got sick. Now people can live years and years, and appear healthy. One more reason why you're seeing greater numbers in Black Americans, or Africans is because they are being tested in greater numbers then ever before. If they set up mandatory testing for hipsters in open relationships, you'd see a huge boom in priviledged white 20-somethings with obscure record collections coming down with the disease. Who do you know that's using condoms 100% all the time? Who do you know that hasn't been cheated on? Who do you know that hasn't engaged in risky behavior with a partner that didn't disclose their entire sexual history? Who uses protection for oral sex? How do we know HIV testing is accurate? That's the problem. I hate to sound doom and gloom but I predict there will be another HIV outbreak in the next 10 years, from mainly dormant cases.

[Rongi]

I'm not sure who's worse, Rongi for posting a thread in all caps, informing us that the KKK doesn't like black people, or Pharaoh for that stupid response.

:(

i posted it in all caps because it was such a rediculous thing of them to say

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks for the update, buddy.

[Rongi]

no problem :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm sorry, that was unnecessary of me. :(

[Rongi]

looking back on it maybe this wasnt such a great idea. i just thought this article was silly and i should share it with you guys.

[homoperfect]

adcdxxxx, I agree with you. I was attacking the original post that concerned racism. The KKK has information and twisted it to their own use. The numbers they use are not full acurate and the information used has been stretched to their needs. My goal was to point out the truth and explain how the conlusions of their truth and the real truth are different.

[kahljorn]

Kind of like what everyone else on this forum does when there's something they disagree with.

WELCOME TO THE GROUP PAL.

[Ant10708]

Pharaoh is still allowed to 'debate' things?

[sadie]

shhh. you're supposed to pretend he's still viable.

[Pharaoh]

shhh. you're supposed to pretend he's still viable.

Hmmm, you obviously don't understand what viable means.

Something that's viable is something that's capable of being done. It's feasible or practicable. Such as a viable solution to a problem.

Or in the case of a viable fetus, it's capable of being born alive and surviving outside the womb.

To say a person is viable or not viable makes absolutely no sense at all though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Actually, one definition for viable is "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness."


shhh. you're supposed to pretend he's still capable of success or continuing effectiveness.

Yeah, that works.

[mburbank]

Say, that's a good point! A joke is only funny if it's possible and true. So when I say you are a geriatric ape vagina, that's not funny. But when I say you paralyzed by shame and self hatred over your lust for men, that's hysterical! And insightful.

[Pharaoh]

Actually, one definition for viable is "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness."


Yes, for something such as a solution, method or plan. You can't possibly have a viable person though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Right, and if you were brain dead, you might infer that she was talking about you as a human being, rather than the arguments and points you make. I can see how you were confused.

[mburbank]

As a professional writer I just want to chime in and say I think comparing you to a fetus incapable of sustaing life outside the womb is well within the poetic liscence of a joke.

Did you hear the one about the talking Dog?

No. It couldn't be funny because dogs don't talk.

[Pharaoh]

As a professional writer I just want to chime in and say I think comparing you to a fetus incapable of sustaing life outside the womb is well within the poetic liscence of a joke.


Sustaing? Liscence?
As a professional writer you are a joke, butwank. :lol

[mburbank]

No, silly, I write jokes, and then people send me checks for writing them. They also pay editors to spot spelling mistakes and correct them before they get published.

Some of those editors are gay though, so WATCH OUT!

OH NO! You're gay now. You caught gay from reading about it. Now you have to go be in a gay parade.

You are totally not viable. Seriously.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, to imply that someone is "gay" simply isn't clear enough. What does that mean? Is he happy? Did he write The Beggars Opera??? Is he given to social pleasures???

That just makes no sense. I don't follow.

[mburbank]

WHAT?! KEVIN, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE NOISE OF THE GAY PARADE PHARAH IS PRANCING IN!

[Pharaoh]

:die

Butwank Pharaoh

[KevinTheOmnivore]

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE NOW USED EVERY EMOTICON WE HAVE!

[mburbank]

What's funny about a bloody dot murdering a laughing dot?

[sadie]

this page made me giggle.

[Ant10708]

Max are any of your writings available for us to read?

[mburbank]

Tons. If you do a Google search of "Max Burbank" you'll find all sorts of links. Some of it's paid, a lot of it isn't. Much of the paid stuff you'd have to go on ebay and look for old magazines, some of which are referenced online, but not available online. A lot of other work is scripts for live performances, and none of that is on line.

If you do this, do an advanced search and subtract 're' and 'dr' . Re so you won't get every Re-Max office in Burbank California, and Dr. because the other well known Max Burbank is a Canadian Dr, specializing in imagining technology.

Of course, the largest single archive of my stuff is right here at I-mockery., under 'shorts' and 'vissionary darkness'.

[Dole]

specializing in imagining technology.


hey...I could do that! Erm.....holographic fridges!

[mburbank]

oops. 'imaging'. I need to stop drinking at work. At least I didn't say 'imagineering'.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

What's funny about a bloody dot murdering a laughing dot?

mburbnak = loser of the debates!

[mburbank]

I'll say!

[Dole]

those emoticons sure showed you who is boss round these parts, burbank!

[Emu]

:bestthread

[mburbank]

I know! I wish I could figure out how to use 'em! I mean sometimes, you feel a certain way, and just... you try to find the right... wordage or how to word up a thing about the feeling of the situation.... and you get all frustrated 'cause you can't make the words do the things you want the words to do to do a describation... describatory...

Thank God there's computer pictures for situations like that!

[davinxtk]

I know! I wish I could figure out how to use 'em! I mean sometimes, you feel a certain way, and just... you try to find the right... wordage or how to word up a thing about the feeling of the situation.... and you get all frustrated 'cause you can't make the words do the things you want the words to do to do a describation... describatory...

Thank God there's computer pictures for situations like that!


GOD DAMNIT MAX STOP DOING THINGS LIKE THIS TO MY BRAIN

DRUGS HAVE ALREADY DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE, THEY DON'T NEED YOUR HELP!

[Pharaoh]

I know! I wish I could figure out how to use 'em! I mean sometimes, you feel a certain way, and just... you try to find the right... wordage or how to word up a thing about the feeling of the situation.... and you get all frustrated 'cause you can't make the words do the things you want the words to do to do a describation... describatory...

Thank God there's computer pictures for situations like that!

A picture is worth a thousand words, butwank. Or even more if they're your words. Maybe a million's more like it.
So, why don't you just post a photo of a lump of shit instead of wasting your time writing anything?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You forgot to put ":lol :moon" at the end of your sentences.

[mburbank]

Or maybe even a jillion gillion words, butwank! A million jillion wazillion!

[Dr. Boogie]

A picture is worth a thousand words, butwank. Or even more if they're your words.

So you're saying that Max has the rights over some amount of words? What are these words? Bear in mind that him misspelling a word is not him creating a word of his own. Both Mock and I can attest to that.

[Dole]

A picture is worth a thousand words, butwank. Or even more if they're your words. Maybe a million's more like it.
So, why don't you just post a photo of a lump of shit instead of wasting your time writing anything?

Comeback of the millenium.

[Pharaoh]

A picture is worth a thousand words, butwank. Or even more if they're your words.

So you're saying that Max has the rights over some amount of words? What are these words? Bear in mind that him misspelling a word is not him creating a word of his own. Both Mock and I can attest to that.

Weird.

[mburbank]

Now THAT was the comeback of the Millenium.

[Dr. Boogie]

I think we're overloading him with information. Perhaps if we want him to actually answer questions we ask him, we should restrict our posts to just the question, and no other material that might distract and confuse our gentle visitor.

[Pharaoh]

I think we're overloading him with information. Perhaps if we want him to actually answer questions we ask him, we should restrict our posts to just the question, and no other material that might distract and confuse our gentle visitor.

Well let me ask you a question. When you were asked at school to write something 'in your own words', did you think you had to invent your own words to write it?

When I say your words, obviously I don't mean words you've invented.

I mean, what are you on?

[Dr. Boogie]

I think we're overloading him with information. Perhaps if we want him to actually answer questions we ask him, we should restrict our posts to just the question, and no other material that might distract and confuse our gentle visitor.

Well let me ask you a question. When you were asked at school to write something 'in your own words', did you think you had to invent your own words to write it?

When I say your words, obviously I don't mean words you've invented.

I mean, what are you on?

Man, for someone who makes a career out of criticizing message board semantics, you sure can't take what you dish out.

As for what I'm on, I'm on fire, baby!

[mburbank]

Pharah, you are such dense pork. Seriously, you are like a black hole of pig meat, nothing can escape the event horizon of your porcine, hammer headed stupidity. You're just a bulky confused beast rippling your opinions like rolls of bristly pink pig flesh, stamping your tiny little trotters in the dirt.

You just don't get a single solitary aspect of what's going on around you. It must be so frustrating!

[glowbelly]

maybe we should give him some pizza :D

[Chojin]

It's weird and already, not 'wierd' and 'all ready'. Alright?
Actually, 'already' was a slang term only recently brought into dictionaries. 'All ready' is a correct term and has been used for longer.

But don't let me rain on your english superiority diversion.

[Pharaoh]

It's weird and already, not 'wierd' and 'all ready'. Alright?
Actually, 'already' was a slang term only recently brought into dictionaries. 'All ready' is a correct term and has been used for longer.

But don't let me rain on your english superiority diversion.

I don't see any rain, Chojin, because that is a load of absolute rubbish.

The word 'already' has been in use for at least 700 years, that's 300 years before the first English dictionary even came out.

Already is a compound word of all + ready. There are thousands of English compound words, and they're nothing to do with slang. Other examples are: another, anybody, anyhow, anyone, anything, anywhere.

Many compound words such as already have a different meaning than the two words used separately, so you can't just use one or the other.

All ready is an adjective phrase meaning all prepared, whereas already is an adverb meaning previously.

So, 'We're all ready full up on idiots' doesn't make any sense, whereas 'We're already full up on idiots' clearly does.


I think possibly you're getting confused because of the comparatively recent colloquial American use of 'already' as an intensive word to express impatience, as in 'enough already!'.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Alright, or ALL RIGHT, this thread is retarded (and I don't mean that in the "Affected with mental retardation" sense, but rather, the "To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede" sense).

START TALKING ABOUT AIDS AGAIN! >:

[mburbank]

I'M SORRY KEVIN, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE WHUFFLING OF PHARAH TRUFFLE HUNTING!

[Ant10708]

and not the English language and grammar.

[Dr. Boogie]

Did you know...

The English language was not actually created in England. It was imported from the Middle East by knights returning from the Second Crusade. The indigenous cultures in the region had languages of their own, but the language that would become known as English was concocted just in case there was ever a need for a spare language in the region. That is why there are still many English-speaking people in the Middle East today.



Countdown to anticipated Pharaoh response: T-minus 10...

[Pharaoh]

I'm still hunting for your truffles, butwank, I can smell them but I've yet to see them. :orgasm

And that's interesting Dr. Boogie, it's a good job we had the Crusades then.

[Emu]

"it's ... good ... we had the Crusades then."

omg context