Posts made by MrMazda

Perhaps I'm a little mean in that regard. When I see torrents where users are begging for seed bonus points, I just take out the begging

It makes life more appealing that way…

Posted from: hxxp://www.positivenation.co.uk/news_world/article.php?article_id=159

In the first ruling of its kind in the world, the Geneva Court of Justice has quashed an 18-month prison sentence given to a 34-year-old HIV-positive African migrant who was convicted of HIV exposure by a lower court in December 2008, after accepting expert testimony from Professor Bernard Hirschel – one of the authors of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS consensus statement on the effect of treatment on transmission – that the risk of sexual HIV transmission during unprotected sex on successful treatment is one in 100,000.

The case began in Lausanne in March 2006. The man, originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was convicted of having unprotected sex without disclosing his HIV status to a female complainant. Although the woman was not infected, Article 231 of the Swiss Penal Code allows prosecutions against HIV-positive individuals for having unprotected sex, with or without disclosure. Individuals can also be prosecuted under Article 122, for “an attempt to engender grievous bodily harm”.

The man was also found guilty of several other crimes, including theft, fraud and sexual harassment, and was sentenced to three years in prison. A February 2007 appeal reduced this to 28 months.

A second complaint last year led to the man standing trial again, in Geneva in November 2008. According to a report in The Geneva Tribune, an expert medical witness had testified that although treatment greatly reduces the risk of transmission, there remained a residual risk.

Although the man’s lawyer, Nicole Riedle, had entered the statement by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS into evidence, and Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, had wanted to suspend the hearing in order to consult with the Commission, the lower Geneva court declined to accept any further evidence and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison in December 2008.

Late last month, Mr Bertossa told the Geneva Court of Justice that he was persuaded by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS that the risk of transmission for an HIV-positive individual on successful treatment was less than one in 100,000 and that – under the circumstances – he wanted to drop the charges.

On Monday, the Geneva Court of Justice acquitted the man, who was freed after spending almost three months in prison.

Significantly, it was Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, who called for the appeal. He told Le Temps that despite the fact that there is still some debate regarding the residual risks of transmission in people on successful treatment this should not influence justice: “One shouldn’t convict people for hypothetical risks,” he said.

Professor Hirschel said that he was very pleased with the outcome. It was, he said, the main reason that he and his colleagues were motivated to issue their January 2008 statement.

Deborah Glejser of Swiss civil society organisation, Groupe SIDA Geneve, said that although the law allows for prosecutions for unprotected sex even when disclosure has taken place, in practice, prosecutions for HIV exposure usually only take place when there is no disclosure, and that a suspended sentence (for a first offence with no aggravating circumstance) is the norm.

Switzerland is made up of 26 cantons, of which Geneva is considered to be the most “liberal”, according to Ms. Glejser. However, since there is no real centralised information about cases, it is not easy to give a comprehensive picture of the pattern of prosecutions and sentences across Switzerland.

She added that Monday’s ruling suggests that, in Switzerland, effectively treated HIV-positive individuals should no longer be prosecuted for having unprotected sex. Having already been contacted by advocates from around the world, she hoped that this ruling will have consequences for other jurisdictions that have HIV exposure laws.

Last May, a five member US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces panel discussed the effect of treatment on transmission following the appeal of an HIV-positive soldier who had previously pleaded guilty to HIV exposure, following unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV status. Although the majority did not agree, and did not allow the accused soldier’s guilty plea to be set aside, two members of the panel found the medical expert’s testimony – that it was highly unlikely that the soldier could have infected either women because of his low viral load – valid enough to question HIV exposure laws.

And last July, a Canadian court explored the Swiss statement following a submission from Clato Mabior’s defence team that, at the time he had unprotected sex with six women without disclosing his HIV status to them, he did not believe he was infectious. Although expert testimony concluded that Mr Mabior may have been uninfectious for some of the time, this was not enough to convince the judge, who noted that neither the CDC nor WHO/UNAIDS agreed with the Swiss, and that the crimes of which Mr Mabior was accused took place prior to there being any public statement on the effect of treatment on transmission.

Following Monday’s ruling, however, Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, believes it is only a matter of time before other jurisdictions realise that prosecutions for HIV exposure should not take place when the accused is on successful antiretroviral therapy. He told Radio Lac: “There are some medical advances which can change the law. I think that in other [parts of Switzerland] or in other countries, the same conclusions should apply to their laws.”

Thomas Lyssy from the Swiss AIDS Federation, told aidsmap that they were “very pleased with the judgment of the court. We certainly hope that this precedent will be followed in other Swiss cantons in future cases of a comparable nature.”
References: aidsmap and Edwin J Bernard

@fancydude:

How would a porn star know he got HIV from being a rent boy when almost no one in porn is tested?

Granted, the series I mentioned in the post above, most of them admitted to being rent boys, due to the whole "no royalties" thing and porn doesn't pay enough to live. But I really wonder HOW one would know for sure who passed on the HIV???  If a person has sex with 10 people (seemingly low in the Gay community) and I have sex with him, I've had sex with 11 people; in turn if I've had sex with 10 people, the first person mentioned has had sex with 20 people.  or whatever the exponential math is.  Again, how would you know who is responsible?

According to Dr. Chris Steingart M.D. (Registered HIV Specialist) there are two different types of tests that are run to determine the exact strain of the virus. The first is known as a Western Blot. This test breaks the virus down into one of two categories. There is what is referred to as "Type 1"[nb]Type 1 HIV is generally more docile by comparison, however it does have varying degrees of severity, depending on the person's body chemistry and immune system.[/nb], which is more commonly found within North America, more particularly (but not necessarily exclusive to) gay men. There is also what is referred to as "Type 2"[nb]Type 2 tends to be a little more aggressive than Type 1, which makes for a particularly nasty threat if a person with Type 1 should become co-infected with Type 2 or vice versa.[/nb], which is more commonly found within African and Caribbean Communities[nb]The #1 problem that still lies with African and Caribbean communities is the availability of the drugs. In countries like Kenya, the question is more "Who doesn't have HIV?". In those countries, they are currently living in the days of the 80's in North America. In fact, AIDS related deaths account for 87.8% of death that occur in that region.[/nb]. The second test is referred to as a "Ginotype" test. This test breaks down the DNA strands of the HIV virus itself after it has bombarded the CD4 cell to determine its genetic makeup. This allows for the lab technician to be able to determine certain properties of the virus such as its origin, drug resistances, aggressiveness of the strain, incubation period for the virus to fuse with the CD4 cell, and a basic fingerprint of the virus itself. A Ginotype test in most cases can accurately predict whether or not the virus came from a particular origin by comparing its DNA. The only problem with this is that the virus does sometimes make "mistakes" when it begins to duplicate its DNA to overpower that of the CD4 cell. This results in a "mutation"[nb]Mutations can also occur if you are HIV positive and you have gone an extended period (generally several days) without your medication, giving the virus a chance to adapt itself to the medication. This problem brings on a whole new world of possible issues when you get into the subject of co-infection[/nb] if you will of the virus, or a slight alteration. In this case, the Ginotype test could verify that it is most likely the source of the virus based on its overall DNA structure, similar to testing a person's DNA to see if they are the parent of a child. The only problem that comes into play when mutation occurs is it leaves a small amount of margin for error, which means it's sometimes not always possible to scientifically prove 100% where the virus was transmitted from.

@Apollopaul:

@MrMazda:

On the most part I prefer the natural look. There are cetrain regions however that I would much prefer to be at least tirmmed (like the gigantic BUSH that encompasses the pubes)

I thought the bush was the pubes?, A PENIS FOREST??  :laugh: :plane:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

No. The version that I posted in this post is the official copyrighted version that I posted on YouTube with the express permission of the owner of Past Lives Productions Inc. (the production company that produced the video). The producer/director are both wanting the real version to be seen widely. The version posted is the official version and NOT the one that violates the copyright.

Indeed it does look like something I could have a lot of hot hot fun with Me likie

mmmmmmmmaybe…..

Hi Family,

I've been asked to distribute this video as widely as possible as the artist has tried to take on his own version and breach the copyright contract by doing so. It's one of the few rap tunes I have any tolerance for.

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHr1JmxkBc

Enjoy!

I couldn't really tell you what the ads say as I don't have ads on the site as I've donated multiple times and as such, have the power to turn ads off completely.

Apparently it seems I have some rather interesting luck. 1 month shy of the 1 year marker since I was flying down the highway and suddenly get cut off, causing me to smash up a 2009 Pontiac G6 and write my car off from the suspension damage caused by slamming into the ditch and I get hit again. This time though it was priceless. Let's compare:

Last Year (February 22, 2010 @ 2:05 PM EST) This is what I was left with:

As for the 2009 Pontiac G6 that I hit, it was a write off just from the damage caused by my car slamming into theirs. On impact, I was successfully able to trigger all 6 of the other car's airbags, and pushed the frame of the other car part way through the driver's side door, forcing the other driver to have to slide across to the passenger's side of the car in order to get out. I was quite amused, being as I paid cash for the car, so I didn't owe anything on it.

That may seem all fine and dandy, but now here's the interesting part. I frankenstein'd that car into a 1996 Mercury Sable (as shown below) and re-certified it as a safe car, with a clean title. Yesterday comes around and the funniest thing happens. I'm on my way to work, getting off HWY 401 (the #1 busiest highway in Southern Ontario) at Kennedy Road (which BTW is a 6-lane off ramp) to make my way from the highway to the production office/studio. There are two right turn lanes. I got into the left of the two because I knew within the next couple of blocks, I was going to be turning left. The light turns green, so I start to round the corner. Half way through the intersection, some guy in a 1999 Acura Integra decided to come from the right right turn lane across to the far left lanes, trying to make 3 lane changes IN the intersection. Now here's where things start to get funny.

As he ran his car into mine, I pressed his rear driver's side fender in, bending the edge of the wheel well in towards his back tire, ripped his rear bumper off of his car, and pressed his trunk up a little. Sounds pretty bad, eh? Well… here's where things start to get funny. Below is the pictures of the damage to my car that I took once I reached my destination at the production office.

The First:

And for those of you who cannot see the damage marks through the salt splatter on the front bumper, I've attached a closer shot outlining where the scuff was left in my bumper.

The Second:

Now here's where things get funnier… After I get out of the car, the guy starts screaming at me. I told him that if he wanted to be like that, I would call the police because he'll be the one at fault. He went into a panic, got back into his car that was barely drivable and took off. A short while later, the Toronto Police showed up at the scene to investigate the matter. When asked if I got a plate number, I took the guy's bumper out of my trunk and asked "Does this help you any?" Needless to say, criminal charges were laid, but not quite for what all you may think. Had the driver fessed up to what he had done, I would have been willing to drive away and call it a day. Instead, he got charged with the following:

• Dangerous Driving (a criminal offense)

• Driving on a suspended driver's license (a $5000 fine all unto itself)

• Failure to carry insurance while operating a motor vehicle (a $5000 fine all unto itself)

• Failure to remain at the scene of a motor vehicle collision (a criminal offense)

• Failure to report a motor vehicle collision (a criminal offense)

• Impaired Driving (due to open alcohol containers in his car… also a criminal offense... and a $10,000 fine)

• Possession of a controlled substance (because he had over $1000 worth of cocaine on his back seat in the open… also a criminal offense)

What a funny way to go out, isn't it? :rotfl:

@Apollopaul:

I think I'm going  :crazy: :xpl: :whistle: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

What do you mean going?

I don't use lube for that… That's where foreskin is great

Whoopi Goldberg puts it best when she said

If you don't like gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person!

Can I volunteer to be the guinea pig?

@Apollopaul:

:crazy2: :crazy: If the human race does develop time travel, there would have to be rules put in place, to avoid screwing up the past

You would seem to think… Then again in Canada, we have the Highway Traffic Act that's supposed to regulate how people operate a motor vehicle. February 22, 2010 is one example of how "the rules" are not always followed.

@fancydude:

Apollopaul  - I said that I HEAR about such things.  While it is fine for you to point out the other side, I was illustrating my point with an example, not writing a thesis about NAFTA violations.  You are correct, the USA is the guilty party far more than Canada in that relationship, but you dont' have to be so hostile.  What I said did not need to be rebutted, since it was just an example about a much broader issue…..thanks

Don't mind him… He's just a little unmedicated... Or rather, hasn't been medicated enough. Not sure which

Another uncommon use for a common household item is Coca Cola. Pepsi doesn't cut it for some reason, it has to be Coca Cola

Take a 591mL bottle of Coca Cola and open it. Place your thumb over the top of the bottle and aim it at your windshield and begin to shake it really hard. The pressure from the gases will cause the Coca Cola to go fizzing out the top of the bottle and onto your windshield. Let sit for 3 - 5 seconds on your windshield and bye bye bug guts!

This also works for bird poo as well strangely enough.

Indeed it has… But you have no avatar

@fancydude:

Reply #5 Mr. M - where does one even find out such info about Marilyn Manson?  I'd never heard that.  Which I'm not doubting you but wow!

Mr. AP - true enough, if you're not flexible, yeah I agree even 15" won't be enough.  But it would be a lot easier for him to "get flexible" through exercise & stretching to eventually suck most of it than it would be for a guy with a standard 6" or 7" right?  He'd certainly have enough incentive to do the exercise based on the comments here!  Then again, a guy with 15" probably would never have need to suck himself off….........

It was in a newspaper article my cousin gave me

Mmmm… tastes soooooo good