Posts made by MrMazda

I know I'm a little late on this, but Happy New Year to all.

It's funny how the one thing that was never mentioned in the whole article is how well the staff at the school knew the parents of the kid. I say this as it was a support staff member of my high-school that outed me to my parents under such circumstances. In my case however, they only did so because I trusted and confided in this particular staff member and they got to know my parents well enough to know that it wouldn't cause any harm at all to do so, and would actually make explaining certain things easier.

It all boils down to circumstance in the end, and how well the parents were known, etc. The argument that it could have made a bad situation worse is true, but misleading since there is a great chance that the staff knew the parents and knew the situation. I'm not sure I could formulate an opinion on either side on this one.

This reminds me of a video I found on YouTube that made the point of "Being a hater doesn't make you straighter". Guess it was right after all lol

@leatherbear:

LAGOS, Nigeria – A bill originally designed to outlaw gay marriage in Nigeria likely has consequences far beyond its initial scope – criminalizing gay groups and organizations could jeopardize millions of dollars of Western aid geared toward stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa's most populous nation.

WOAH!! Back the f*** up a second!! Where does the Nigerian government get their facts from? According to Statistics Canada, in 2003, the number of heterosexual females known to be infected with HIV on a worldwide group officially raised above that of any other category of person. This was primarily stemmed from the HIV epidemic in that geographical region, namely the whole part about that geographical region's days of "HIV in the 80's" being what they're living now. It is was also noted that the greatest percentage of heterosexual females infected were located in this general geographical region of the world.

All that being said, the question is this: "How would banning of gay marriage help prevent the spread of HIV when the majority of the cases in that area are in heterosexual females, unless the government is only examining the statistics within North America where the greatest population infected with HIV is in fact homosexual males, or they are otherwise uneducated on the matter and use one of the common myths of HIV as an excuse?"

@leatherbear:

There are nearly 1.2 million people who have HIV in the U.S., but just 28 percent of them have what is called a "suppressed viral load," which means that they have less than 200 copies of HIV per millilitre of blood, the report said.

I'd like to know where this report received their facts. According to medical science that is known to anyone who is HIV+ and is receiving medical treatment for it (such as myself), it is known that the point of having the virus "suppressed" is to have what is referred to as an "undetectable" viral load, which actually equates to less than 50 copies of the HIV virus per 1mL of blood. Anything over that is a detectable load, which bears a count. I think the study may have confused this information with the first guideline required for AIDS diagnosis with respect to the CD4 count.

Having a lot of experience in dealing with media, the law, criminal HIV transmission, etc. I would really love to see the "disclosure" as it were from the court case simply for the fact of there is one critical element of precedent that is not yet set in the field of criminal HIV transmission. It is more than just a question of did the person disclose or not. It is also a question of whether or not status was asked in conversation, as well as would the "victim" have consented to sexual engagement had they known their status, or for that matter that they would have consented knowing that there was a possibility that they could have contracted HIV from someone and not reached the point of seroconversion in some cases.

That being said, there's also the responsibility of both parties to use a condom, just for the simple fact that you can never be sure of what someone has for a variety of reasons. This also is something that I tend to question when reading such a thing. Don't get me wrong though, if a person knows their status, lies about it, and fails to use a condom, that is a whole other ball of wax on a number of levels than for example, not being asked for your status (generally because the person in question doesn't care) and not disclosing it, but insisting on the use of a condom as not to transmit HIV. In the case of the first example, I would agree that such a sentence for one single case is barely enough, however that brings us to yet another problem.

No clear guideline in terms of criminal HIV transmission has ever been set when it comes to sentencing, the "test of fact" with respect to the medical risk or circumstances determining not only whether or not to convict, but also what is deemed the "standard or maximum guideline" as is outlined with other sexual and/or violent related offences. That brings me to the second point of curiosity to see the disclosure and reference the case…

The different risk factors involved in the case should directly impact on such things, however as historical pattern has shown, they don't. What were the more in depth details of the case? this is most essential to know just for the simple fact of proving yet another example of how judgments on the topic, as well as the standards used in which to determine the sentencing both remain inconsistent...

Don't mind the small rant, it's just this particular type of article hits a little too close to home for it not to spark some curiosity with respect to the details on exactly how things went down, while at the same time also outraging me for a number of personal reasons just reading about such a subject. The only other thing I will say is I've spent WAAAAY too much time in a courtroom recently.

Of me or the Dachshund?

Now that I know about this lube and I'm intrigued by it, I want to know where I can get my hands on a bottle.

Yummy Yummy Yummy… You make me want cum in my bummy....

I generally can use either one… It really depends on the mood that I'm in at the time. Sometimes I even switch in the process just for fun.

I do not know if such a thing exists in your country, however you can get a prepaid credit card. That way, your credit information and credit card number remains safe, but you can provide them with a credit card number for when they need to bill you. You only need to make sure that there is enough cash on the prepaid credit card before it gets charged.

Perhaps this may be a viable solution for you?

If you're experiencing this type of problem when using Quick Torrent Maker, it is because you are using Windows 7 and have installed Quick Torrent Maker in the C:\Program Files directory. There are two ways in which to correct this:

1. Uninstall (delete) QTM, and re-install it to C:\QTM instead.

2. Open QTM by right clicking the "qtm.exe" file, then clicking "Run as Administrator".

To make a long story short, due to a technical design with the NTFS file system in Windows Vista and Windows 7, the program itself is not given sufficient access rights by default to modify an administrator folder. When you run the program as an administrator, it allows the program to write to an administrator protected folder. This is the case with C:\Program Files, due to a write-protect flag set for your system security.

In the case of QTM, it is safe to grant it administrator rights since the only thing it needs to write to the installation path is the .torrent file when it re-downloads it for you. With administrator rights, or installed in C:\QTM, QTM should work with either uTorrent or BitTorrent successfully. If you experience any further troubles with QTM, please let me know and I can look into seeing if I can duplicate and trace the error to a specific cause.

Bubble butt! Bubble butt!

I look forward to seeing it, although depending on how long it takes to upload, it may take me a while before I get to it on account of having to go be in court all week next week and the week after.

What about a vampire doctor?

That's too funny

Considering that a lot of them still fly a confederate flag in their back yard in that neck of the woods, that's a shocker actually… I know this because I have seen this with my own eyes when I lived in that neck of the woods.

Excellent… Every signature counts.

:rotfl:

Hello [you],

Have you had a chance to check out our latest Forum Board HIV/AIDS? Some of what is to come there may blow your mind when you see the stuff that the textbooks don't teach you.  :afr:

http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?board=145.0