It's also important to know the risks of the activities that you're doing before you go and do them. In a case like this, doing such a thing in the workplace is probably the worst idea ever, especially considering that employers can fire you for such a thing, even if up until that point they've had nothing on you and you've passed your 3 month probationary period.
WOW!
I don't know what legislature that falls under in the USA, but I know in Canada, such an action would be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 17, which states that all persons are entitled to fair and equal treatment.
That is a rather interesting twist. It would be interesting to take a careful examination of the full email headers to see where they may have originated from and if there could possibly be any connection to the now debunked law-firm, or if the emails are genuinely a forgery. Something tells me though that the emails are no forgery and that further sleazy business practice is still being conducted under an alter-ego. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a scammer has pulled such a stunt.
One way to spruce things up a little involves some chocolate sauce, strawberries, and whip cream… I think you should have an erotic enough mind to figure out where I'm going with that 
Oh no… Does that mean that if I hug my female friend because she's a basket case after being walked out on by her ex, leaving her a single mother of a 1 year old child would turn me straight? :rotfl:
And I also heard that it was because of a higher disease rate statistically. That was decided a long time ago, so this should be reviewed.
True, but misleading… The CDC[nb]Centre for Disease Control[/nb] (Winnipeg, Manitoba) quarterly report released July 2001 noted that within North America, the largest group to be affected by communicable disease was actually that of the heterosexual female, when all such diseases were taken into account. What's more interesting is that the report went on to state that the only one single category that had a higher risk and infection rating among gay men was that of HIV, however although the infection rate for HIV was highest in gay men, by April 2001, on a global scale, both the infection rate for HIV as well as the highest population of infected persons with HIV were actually that of the heterosexual female.
On this simple fact alone, one could argue that although this point holds true within North America for HIV infection rates only, imposing such a restriction would be branding being gay as a societal taboo. When all things get taken into account, HIV is not the only potentially life threatening infection out there. Two of the other life threatening and often over-looked diseases to beware of are Hepatitis C and Herpes, both of which are statistically more likely to occur in a heterosexual. With Hepatitis C in particular, it is also noted that the hardest hit category is the intervenes drug user, which holds absolutely no co-relation whatsoever to sexual orientation. Since there is no causal link between being a heroin user for example and being a gay man, that again is a gist that such legislation needs to be examined a little more closely.
I'm not saying that I'm against having certain rules in place for gay men, however I believe that such rules need to be based on scientific fact, and not misconception or out-dated information, which no longer holds any validity. Such examples include if you're an MSM[nb]Men who Sleep with Men… These are not necessarily gay men, as not all persons who fit into the category of MSM identify as being gay.[/nb] for example, it would make logical sense that a screening be done for HIV prior to being allowed to donate blood. By the same token, if you're in intervenes drug user for example, it would also make sense to impose a rule to screen for HIV and Hepatitis C prior to being allowed to donate blood. These rules would be based solely on the fact that persons who meet those criteria are statistically most likely to become infected with those diseases, therefore for safety reasons, tests must be conducted in order to ensure the safety of the blood.
The whole thing of not allowing an MSM to donate blood solely for the fact that they are an MSM makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since there are ways that currently exist for making sure such a procedure is safe to perform before doing so, and otherwise denying MSM's the ability to donate blood only further reduces the availability of valuable resources that are always in demand. Why is it that people often linger in fear of a stigma created by ignorance when a little proper education on such subjects would prove to be more valuable in the end?
This does actually lead me to think that places like Auschwitz (I hope I spelled that right) do actually have a purpose in the end… Although once used for such atrocities as the massacre in masses of the Jewish population, perhaps it could serve as a place in which to deal with homophobes... When you think about it, it would serve as an incentive to help stop the spread of such hatred, wouldn't it?
You never realize just how good you've got it until you find out how it could otherwise have been.
OMG!! It's the modern day Saddam Hussein… Or was it Adolf Hitler that lead the Holocaust? I don't quite remember.
WOW… Ya know someone's got a bug up their ass about something that shouldn't be such a big issue when they require things that no other place including the passport office of all places doesn't require.
@mgr:
Looks like it was an internal routing problem in our data center - but we did not get a notification but a miraculously working server again
Are you by chance referring to the SMS that I sent a certain administrator?
Remind me never to get all macho and pissy with a little old lady… It could result in a VERY expensive car repair.
hxxp://www.thatvideosite.com/video/old_lady_will_not_be_hurried <-- See what I mean?
That's rather interesting actually
i don't think that's the reason the law was passed. i think it's more because the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases SEEM to be more prevalent among us homosexuals. however, it was already proven that women experience pretty much the same thing, except that it doesn't get reported as frequently.
sigh.
The original reason that law passed in the early 80's was due to HIV. At the time it was referred to as GRID (Gay Related Infectious Disease). The first case in North America was first spotted in the gay community in southern California. The first traceable case traced back to a gay airline studard who was well… a slut to say the least. This of course before they knew anything really about HIV, or that it can also be transmitted to heterosexuals as well. That's part of why it is no longer referred to as GRID.
To be more precise, it was in the mid 1980's when the term "GRID" was disbanded as scientists and doctors came to discover more about what it really was, and replaced it with the term HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) around the time that AZT and DDT were introduced. It was also around that time that it was discovered that HIV can be passed through heterosexual contact, which is another part of why the term GRID was disbanded in that time.
I don't mean to sound rude but hunny… let me tell you a little something about the justice system. They don't give a flying fuck about anything other than extortion like you wouldn't believe
My results came in at 36% with the title "Very Kinky"… LOL
That's far beyond pathetic to say the least.
I agree with the elderly woman. This reeks of extortion. She's a 70-year old woman for pete sake. I'd be willing to bet that she likely knows very little about computers and has her wireless connection setup however her ISP provided it to her. The sad thing is that at this day and age, most ISP's either do not use security, or encourage the use of WEP encryption. In the case of a 70-year old woman, I highly doubt that she's even aware of such risks of improperly securing your wireless connection, or even how to properly do so.
Such a case only leads me to believe that they're trying to extort money from people who obviously in this case, don't know any better and most likely have done no wrong doing. I can understand if they tried to move forward with such charges against a younger individual who has been around computers their whole lives and knows them like the back of their hand, and fully knows how to properly secure a network system, but this just simply isn't the case. Personally, in a case like this, I think it should be the responsibility of the ISP to take the blow for such things because they did not properly provide their customer with proper security settings in which to defend themselves against such actions.
I love it… Where can I find more of this topic?