| Dennis Kemmerer 2004-09-28, 4:17 am |
| "Dib" <dib@mysteriousmysteries.org> wrote in message
news:Pak5d.28$ls6.17@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:2rllr2F1854kuU1@uni-berlin.de...
(It's bad netiquette to snip stuff from a reply and not note it.)
>
> I read it was up to 58%, though perhaps it has dropped for the newest
> infections.
A typo on my part. However, the rhetorical question still stands - since
when is 58% an 'overwheming majority?'
>
> And I've repeatedly said I'm discussing U.S. infections.
And I've repeatedly said that discussion is of limited interest. Besides, I
seem to recall your throwing some Australian figures into the discussion as
well.
> And in another
> thread or maybe this one I repeated what I'd heard from several sources,
> that while the number of infections among U.S. women has been
> increasing significantly in the last few years, that among those women
> a majority caught it from their bisexual male partners. So although
> technically it is a "heterosexual" infection, it really is directly
> linked to MSM
I think you have some hidden need to blame somebody. Sounds just like the
religious goons.
> (also, I thought I had made it clear I was discussing
> MSM infections in this thread). And some of you try to obsfucate the
> thing even further when I say "X% of homosexual men have HIV" and
> you reply with "Yes, but the rate of infection among homosexual
> womyn is much lower than the average, therefore...". Perhaps I could
> have been clearer, but I assumed everyone knew I was talking about
> homosexual MEN, and the U.S.
Um, MSM. We've been over the difference between 'homosexuals' and 'MSM' a
number of times.
> What kind of logic game are you
> playing here,
You've aptly demonstrated in numerous previous posts that you wouldn't know
logic if it bit you in the XXX.
> that if the homosexual male HIV rate is 100x the
> average and the lesbian rate 1/100th the average that it cancels
> out and means there is no problem? It's really is baffling, since
> you leftists
You have some serious issues with assumptions and generalizations.
> take even the tiniest above-average rate for any
> disease or disorder among any particular minority group and blow
> it all out of proportion into a "crisis" deserving of billions of
> dollars of government money (administered by you, of course) to
> correct. If the rate of diabetes among African-Americans is 2%
> higher than average, it is an earth-shattering crisis, if not
> proof of a vast white conspiracy to exterminate blacks by forcing
> them to eat too many twinkies.
Hmmm, I seem to recall Bush recently allocating some number of billions of
dollars to AIDS research/prevention/treatment. I'd hardly call him a
leftist.
Overall, an interesting rant, but nobody's taking your b.s. too seriously
any more.
|