 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2007Het AIDS numbers over-stated, naturally
AIDS Cases Drop, but Bad Data to Blame Nov 19, 9:51 PM By MARIA CHENG HealthResources.net LONDON (AP) - The number of AIDS cases worldwide fell by more than 6 million cases this year to 33.2 million, global health officials said Tuesday. But the decline is mostly on paper. Previous estimates were largely inflated, and the new numbers are the result of a new methodology. They show AIDS cases in 2007 were down from almost 39.5 million last year, according to the World Health Organization and the United Nations AIDS agency. Although the decline is largely due to revised numbers, U.N. officials said it still showed the AIDS pandemic was losing momentum. "For the first time, we are seeing a decline in global AIDS deaths," said Dr. Kevin De Cock, director of WHO's AIDS department. The two agencies will issue their annual AIDS report Wednesday after convening an expert meeting last week in Geneva to examine their data collection methods. Much of the drop is due to revised numbers from India - which earlier this year slashed its numbers in half, from about 6 million cases to about 3 million - and to new data from several countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Previous AIDS numbers were largely based on the numbers of infected pregnant women at clinics, as well as projecting the AIDS rates of certain high-risk groups like drug users to the entire population at risk. Officials said those numbers were flawed, and are now incorporating more data like national household surveys. U.N. officials could not rule out future downward corrections. WHO and UNAIDS experts reported 2.5 million newly infected people in 2007. Just a few years ago, that figure was about 5 million. While the global AIDS numbers are falling, there are huge regional differences. Sub-Sarahan Africa remains the epicenter of the epidemic. AIDS is still the leading cause of death in there, where it affects men, women and children. Elsewhere in the world, AIDS outbreaks are mostly concentrated in gay men, intravenous drug users, and sex workers. But the U.N. said progress was being made, and that the global epidemic peaked in the late 1990s. "There are some encouraging elements in the data," said De Cock. He said the dropping numbers were proof that some of the UN's strategies to fight AIDS were working. Not everyone agrees. Some critics have accused the U.N. of inflating its AIDS numbers, and say the revised figures are long overdue. "They've finally got caught with their pants down," said Dr. Jim Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley. Chin is a former WHO staffer and the author of "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness." He said that it was difficult to tell whether the lowered numbers were evidence that AIDS treatment and prevention strategies were working, or whether the decrease was just due to a natural correction of previous overestimates. Even with the revised figures, "the numbers are probably still on the high side," said Daniel Halperin, an AIDS epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. Halperin attended the WHO/UNAIDS meeting last week that reviewed the figures, and said that the estimates were getting closer. Chin and Halperin said AIDS officials may be reluctant to admit that fewer people are infected because it may translate into less funding for efforts to fight the disease. "On the one hand, it would be a mistake to radically decrease funding for HIV," Halperin said. "But on the other hand, why not put more money into family planning or climate change?" Other experts said that even with the decreased figures, much more is needed to stop the AIDS pandemic. "We are still failing to respond to the crisis," said Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "The overall prevalence of AIDS may have stabilized, but we are still seeing millions of new infections and it is not time yet to step back from this battle." >AIDS Cases Drop, but Bad Data to Blame >Nov 19, 9:51 PM [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >almost 39.5 million last year, according to the World Health Organization >and the United Nations AIDS agency." Oh well, at least they're slowly getting there. With a bit more "new methodology" perhaps they'll be able to achieve the real figure: zero!  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >AIDS Cases Drop, but Bad Data to Blame > >Nov 19, 9:51 PM [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > With a bit more "new methodology" perhaps they'll be able to achieve > the real figure: zero! The real figure is not zero, and dropping to an estimate of around 33 million from a value roughly 6 million higher does not mean the previous value was "largely inflated" (that's "newspaper speak"). They simply improved how they estimate the number of cases. Nobody expects the numbers to be very precise given the poor medical care in some parts of the world. >> With a bit more "new methodology" perhaps they'll be able to achieve >> the real figure: zero! >The real figure is not zero, and dropping to an estimate of around 33 million >from a value roughly 6 million higher does not mean the previous value >was "largely inflated" (that's "newspaper speak"). They simply improved >how they estimate the number of cases. Nobody expects the numbers to >be very precise given the poor medical care in some parts of the world. LOL. Funny how these improvements seem to result in lower figures. And, given the resources that have been pumped into keeping the HIV/AIDS gravy train going I do expect the figures to be accurate. The whole HIV=AIDS theory is based on one inaccuracy after another. Even in countries where medical care is above average the AIDS figures are suspicious. How confident are you about the accuracy of US AIDS figures? Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> With a bit more "new methodology" perhaps they'll be able to achieve > >> the real figure: zero! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LOL. Funny how these improvements seem to result in lower figures. Improvements generally lead to different figures - in general equally likely to go either way. <idiocy snipped> >> LOL. Funny how these improvements seem to result in lower figures. >Improvements generally lead to different figures - in general equally >likely to go either way. But usually downwards when it comes to HIV and AIDS statistics. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? ><idiocy snipped> It's always interesting to see which points people snip and ignore. [Cue one of the lurkers from the HIV/AIDS industry -- yes I know you're there -- to de-lurk again and do a 1MByte cut 'in past job]. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 >[Cue one of the lurkers from the HIV/AIDS industry -- yes I know >you're there -- to de-lurk again and do a 1MByte cut 'in past job]. LOL. Bad spell checker. It popped up offering to correct "cut 'n' paste" to "cut'in past." I accidentally accepted. :( Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> LOL. Funny how these improvements seem to result in lower figures. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But usually downwards when it comes to HIV and AIDS statistics. > Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Because it probably isn't? You had only one example, and you need a number of cases (not selectively picked) to say anything meaningful. > ><idiocy snipped> > > It's always interesting to see which points people snip and ignore. Some of us ignore consiracy theories - when you start mouthing off about alleged "gravy trains", you can expect to be ignored. > ... > Some of us ignore consiracy theories - when you start mouthing off > about alleged "gravy trains", you can expect to be ignored. I wonder that you talk about conspiracy theories. There is no conspiracy theory needed to explain what is going on. Did you notice what happend in Japan during the S.M.O.N. 'virus' epidemics. People out there can read this story at http://virusmyth.net/aids/data/besmon.htm. It's history. Afterwards you can go to you local medical library, get "The Lancet" issues cited and verify the matter. No conspiracy theory is needed - just a repetition of history. Max > > ... > > Some of us ignore consiracy theories - when you start mouthing off > > about alleged "gravy trains", you can expect to be ignored. > > I wonder that you talk about conspiracy theories. You wonder why I ignored a post after it's author started to rant about "gravy trains" (which sure sounds like a conspiracy theory to me as the implication is obviously that people are faking results to line their pockets)? > There is no conspiracy theory needed to explain what is going > on. Did you notice what happend in Japan during the S.M.O.N. 'virus' > epidemics. People out there can read this story at > http://virusmyth.net/aids/data/besmon.htm. Yawn. > It's history. Afterwards you can go to you local medical library, > get "The Lancet" issues cited and verify the matter. The "history" (if true) is merely that people looked for a virus as a cause of a disorder and then found they had looked in the wrong place. Big deal. It has nothing to do with HIV. > No conspiracy theory is needed - just a repetition of history. What repetition? We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. >> I wonder that you talk about conspiracy theories. >You wonder why I ignored a post after it's author started to rant >about "gravy trains" (which sure sounds like a conspiracy theory to >me as the implication is obviously that people are faking results to >line their pockets)? I don't think I've ever called it a conspiracy theory. That term carries too much baggage with it. But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. For the rest, they are just sheep following a trail of one inaccuracy after another. >We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. What test is that? Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> I wonder that you talk about conspiracy theories. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think I've ever called it a conspiracy theory. That term > carries too much baggage with it. I don't care what you've called it. > But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by > selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. > For the rest, they are just sheep following a trail of one inaccuracy > after another. Conspiracy theory. > >We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. > > What test is that? You don't know? >> I don't think I've ever called it a conspiracy theory. That term >> carries too much baggage with it. >I don't care what you've called it. >> But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by >> selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. >> For the rest, they are just sheep following a trail of one inaccuracy >> after another. >Conspiracy theory. Well, if that's what you want to label it I won't object. It was mislabeling that created the HIV religion. I guess it's difficult to break such a long-standing bad habit. >>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. >>What test is that? >You don't know? No. Are you just playing for time, or are you going to tell us? Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by > >> selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It was mislabeling that created the HIV religion. I guess it's > difficult to break such a long-standing bad habit. Looks like I nailed it. > >>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. > >>What test is that? > >You don't know? > No. Are you just playing for time, or are you going to tell us? Idiot. >>>> But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by >>>> selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. >>>> For the rest, they are just sheep following a trail of one inaccuracy >>>> after another. >>>Conspiracy theory. >>Well, if that's what you want to label it I won't object. >> >>It was mislabeling that created the HIV religion. I guess it's >>difficult to break such a long-standing bad habit. >Looks like I nailed it. The term "conspiracy theory" suggests that it's more organised than I think it is. >>>>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. >>>>What test is that? >>>You don't know? >> No. Are you just playing for time, or are you going to tell us? >Idiot. So, you're not going to tell us. :( Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >>>> But many of those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry are driven by > >>>> selfish motivations. For some it's money, political or moral issues. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The term "conspiracy theory" suggests that it's more organised than I > think it is. Conspiracy theories are rarely organized, being prumulgated by a bunch of random nuts. > >>>>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. > >>>>What test is that? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, you're not going to tell us. :( No, I'm not - you can find it easily enough with google. Do your own search. >> The term "conspiracy theory" suggests that it's more organised than I >> think it is. >Conspiracy theories are rarely organized, being prumulgated by a bunch >of random nuts. Conspiracies, by definition, are organised. The term "conspiracy theory" was originated here by you. You obviously have more knowledge and a better understanding of it than I do, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the matter. >>>>>>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. >>>>>>What test is that? >>>>>You don't know? >>>> No. Are you just playing for time, or are you going to tell us? >>>Idiot. >>So, you're not going to tell us. :( >No, I'm not - you can find it easily enough with google. Do your own >search. LOL. Yes, the HIV test that isn't a test for HIV is a bit difficult to explain away. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> The term "conspiracy theory" suggests that it's more organised than I > >> think it is. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Conspiracies, by definition, are organised. Conspiracy theories are not. <snip> >> Conspiracies, by definition, are organised. >Conspiracy theories are not. You're the one who mentioned conspiracy theories, not me. ><snip> Oh yes, you've conveniently snipped the bit that indicated you couldn't find a single Google link to substantiate your claim that "We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it." I'm surprised your friends from Pharma Inc. haven't done their usual post 'n' dash yet. Perhaps they're out searching the streets for more victims. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> Conspiracies, by definition, are organised. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > couldn't find a single Google link to substantiate your claim that "We > have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it." Oh come off it - I didn't bother to look because it's common knowledge and suggested you look it up yourself. Type HIV test into google's search box and you'll get 48,500,000 matches. Try <http://www.hivtest.org/>. > I'm surprised your friends from Pharma Inc. haven't done their usual > post 'n' dash yet. Perhaps they're out searching the streets for more > victims. What are you ranting about now? >>><snip> >> Oh yes, you've conveniently snipped the bit that indicated you >> couldn't find a single Google link to substantiate your claim that "We >> have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it." >Oh come off it - I didn't bother to look because it's common >knowledge and suggested you look it up yourself. Type [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Try <http://www.hivtest.org/>. Okay, I've looked. This sub-page <http://www.hivtest.org/subindex.cfm?FuseAction=faq#tests> explains: "How do HIV tests work? Once HIV enters the body, the immune system starts to produce antibodies (chemicals that are part of the immune system that recognize invaders like bacteria and viruses and mobilize the body's attempt to fight infection). In the case of HIV, these antibodies cannot fight off the infection, but their presence is used to tell whether a person has HIV in his or her body. In other words, most HIV tests look for the HIV antibodies rather than looking for HIV itself. There are tests that look for HIV's genetic material directly, but these are not in widespread use." And in case you missed the important bit, here it is again: "In other words, most HIV tests look for the HIV antibodies rather than looking for HIV itself." And the test's that are suppose to "look for HIV's genetic material directly" are based on meaningless guesswork because no one can find HIV from which to create a base for comparison. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> On 22 Nov 2007 22:31:43 -0800, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> > And in case you missed the important bit, here it is again: > > "In other words, most HIV tests look for the HIV antibodies rather > than looking for HIV itself." Antibody tests are used to detect all sorts of viruses. It's kind of standard. Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus and closely examine it with an electron microscope? Or rather, are you willing to pay for that? > And the test's that are suppose to "look for HIV's genetic material > directly" are based on meaningless guesswork because no one can find > HIV from which to create a base for comparison. Guess again. >> And in case you missed the important bit, here it is again: >> >> "In other words, most HIV tests look for the HIV antibodies rather >> than looking for HIV itself." >Antibody tests are used to detect all sorts of viruses. Presumably ones that exist. Not that it matters, anyway. In <87fxyz16ez.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> you wrote "We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it." A worthless antibody test doesn't count. >Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus and closely >examine it with an electron microscope? Or rather, are you willing to >pay for that? Are you suggesting that I should personally fund research that should have been carried out 25 years ago? As if there isn't enough money aboard the HIV gravy train already! >> And the test's that are suppose to "look for HIV's genetic material >> directly" are based on meaningless guesswork because no one can find >> HIV from which to create a base for comparison. >Guess again. Yes, that seems to be the entire basis of HIV research. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> And in case you missed the important bit, here it is again: > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Presumably ones that exist. That's the general idea. > Not that it matters, anyway. In <87fxyz16ez.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> > you wrote "We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence > about it." A worthless antibody test doesn't count. Nonsense. > >Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus and closely > >examine it with an electron microscope? Or rather, are you willing to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been carried out 25 years ago? As if there isn't enough money > aboard the HIV gravy train already! They have pictures of the HIV taken with electron microscopes. What they don't do is to use an electron microscope to examine samples from each person who gets tested. If that's what you want, you can pay for it. > >> And the test's that are suppose to "look for HIV's genetic material > >> directly" are based on meaningless guesswork because no one can find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, that seems to be the entire basis of HIV research. No, it seems to be the entire basis of your idiotic posts. >>>Antibody tests are used to detect all sorts of viruses. >> Presumably ones that exist. >That's the general idea. Maybe, but there isn't anything to back up the idea that HIV is a virus or that HIV even exists. >> Not that it matters, anyway. In <87fxyz16ez.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> >> you wrote "We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence >> about it." A worthless antibody test doesn't count. >Nonsense. A test for something that may, but probably is not, HIV antibodies is not the same as a test for HIV. >>>Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus and closely >>>examine it with an electron microscope? Or rather, are you willing to >>>pay for that? >> Are you suggesting that I should personally fund research that should >> have been carried out 25 years ago? As if there isn't enough money >> aboard the HIV gravy train already! >They have pictures of the HIV taken with electron microscopes. No "they" don't. >What they don't do is to use an electron microscope to examine samples from >each person who gets tested. If that's what you want, you can pay for >it. It would be a waste of money. You can't find what isn't there. >>>Guess again. >>Yes, that seems to be the entire basis of HIV research. >No, it seems to be the entire basis of your idiotic posts. I'm an 'idiot' who was diagnosed 'HIV+' thirteen years ago. During that time I have remained healthy and haven't taken ANY 'HIV medication.' Had I followed the advice that followers to the HIV religion advocate it's likely that I would be dead by now, or at the very least taking unnecessary and poisonous medication and suffering from its horrendous side-effects. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >>>Antibody tests are used to detect all sorts of viruses. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe, but there isn't anything to back up the idea that HIV is a > virus or that HIV even exists. Idiot - HIV is an acronym and the 'V' stands for virus. Here's a picture of HIV coming out of a white blood cell. <http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg> <lots of idiocy snipped> > I'm an 'idiot' who was diagnosed 'HIV+' thirteen years ago. During > that time I have remained healthy and haven't taken ANY 'HIV > medication.' A few people (very few) seem to be able to keep the virus under control for unknown reasons. Maybe you are one of them or maybe the lab screwed up and misdiagnosed you. Some of the cheaper HIV tests generate a few false-positives and an additional test is then required to confirm it. >>Maybe, but there isn't anything to back up the idea that HIV is a >>virus or that HIV even exists. >Idiot - HIV is an acronym and the 'V' stands for virus. We've had this argument here before: 'HIV *must* be a virus because the V stands for Virus.' It's just as silly now as it was then. >Here's a picture of HIV coming out of a white blood cell. ><http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg> Looks like someone's been playing with Photoshop again. The last time I saw a picture of 'HIV' it was green, purple and yellow, now it's blue. Very pretty. And how, precisely, has someone shown that these blue blobs lead to AIDS? ><lots of idiocy snipped> >> I'm an 'idiot' who was diagnosed 'HIV+' thirteen years ago. During >> that time I have remained healthy and haven't taken ANY 'HIV >> medication.' >A few people (very few) seem to be able to keep the virus under >control for unknown reasons. Maybe you are one of them or maybe the >lab screwed up and misdiagnosed you. Some of the cheaper HIV tests >generate a few false-positives and an additional test is then >required to confirm it. I've had quite a few 'HIV tests' done at different hospitals and they've all come back positive. Anyway, I have 'HIV viral load,' and surely it would be impossible to have that without also having the virus itself? :) :) :) According to HIV theory I should be a very sick person. I'm not. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >>Maybe, but there isn't anything to back up the idea that HIV is a > >>virus or that HIV even exists. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We've had this argument here before: 'HIV *must* be a virus because > the V stands for Virus.' It's just as silly now as it was then. No, moron, the "V" stands for virus because the researchers who discovered it (and named it) had in fact found a virus. > >Here's a picture of HIV coming out of a white blood cell. > ><http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg> > > Looks like someone's been playing with Photoshop again. The last time > I saw a picture of 'HIV' it was green, purple and yellow, now it's > blue. Very pretty. You do know that images produced with an electron microscope can be color coded to make features stand out, don't you? > And how, precisely, has someone shown that these blue blobs lead to > AIDS? Read the research papers if you are really interested. Don't expect me to try to educate you. > >A few people (very few) seem to be able to keep the virus under > >control for unknown reasons. Maybe you are one of them or maybe the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > According to HIV theory I should be a very sick person. I'm not. Some recent research seems to have found that some genetic factors that are related to your experience. Look at <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/20/MNGT7R3OH21.DTL&hw=H IV+elite&sn=001&sc=1000> for a summary. BTW, there is no "HIV theory" that says you should be very sick - there is a lot of variation in how people react. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > Idiot - HIV is an acronym and the 'V' stands for virus. > > Here's a picture of HIV coming out of a white blood cell. LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus The picture showed the virus (lots of them, actually) as well as a white blood cell. So, we can chalk up another of your numerous lies. > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > white blood cell. So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > lies. Read your own url title sh.t-eater, it spells it out clearly, T cells "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > ><http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg> So, we can chalk up another of your numerous lies and failures, lol > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Read your own url title sh.t-eater, it spells it out clearly, T cells Read the text that went with the picture (and the string 'hiv' in the URL). The text immediately below the picture clearly calls it "an infected white blood cell". Of course, you'd have to read to notice (and BTW, the string "hiv" appears in the URL too). > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > > > ><http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg> > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > lies and failures, lol Death is such a liar that he'll lie about what is right in front of his face. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > lies and failures, lol > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > > lies and failures, lol In the last several messages "Death" has been reduced to quotes of quotes with the replies to his posts snipped. You can guess why. His real problem, of course, is quite likely repressed homosexuality. See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual orientation: : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. : > > Get some professional help. : > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) (For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is a message ID.) > > > > > > LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus > > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > > > lies and failures, lol > > > > > > > LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > > > > lies and failures, lol "Death" is desperate - he is so stupid that he didn't even read the below the picture that clearly indicated which features were HIV. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > LOL, that is a T-cell, not the HIVirus > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > > > > > lies and failures, lol > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > > > So, we can chalk up another of your numerous > > > > > > > lies and failures, lol "Death" is desperate - he is so stupid that he didn't even read the text below the picture that clearly indicated which features were HIV (a statement he is snipping.) "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus ... yes > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus ... > > yes Then you can put your money where your mouth is. BTW, you once again snipped mid-sentence. Here's the full quote (very short): : Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus and closely : examine it with an electron microscope? Or rather, are you willing to : pay for that? "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > : Would you prefer that they isolate an HIV virus ... yes, after 25 years is that too much to ask? What was the name of that HIVirus test that didn't test for the HIVirus? I'm still waiting. > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What was the name of that HIVirus test that didn't test > for the HIVirus? I'm still waiting. Read the URL I gave you for the tests used to detect the presence of HIV. See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual orientation: : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. : > > Get some professional help. : > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) (For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is a message ID.) "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > yes, after 25 years is that too much to ask? > > What was the name of that HIVirus test that didn't test > > for the HIVirus? I'm still waiting. > > Read the URL I gave you for the tests used to detect the presence > of HIV. Not one word about detecting HIVirus, only anti-bodies. Chalk up another failure for you sh.t-eater. > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not one word about detecting HIVirus, only anti-bodies. > Chalk up another failure for you sh.t-eater. Idiot. Learn to read. > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Idiot. Learn to read. How would that change an anti-body test into an HIVirus test? You do understand the difference between a virus and an anti-body? Never mind, silly question, you have proven 3 times you don't. > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You do understand the difference between a virus and an anti-body? > Never mind, silly question, you have proven 3 times you don't. Specific antibody tests are used to detect HIV. Read up on biology if you don't understand. > > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You do understand the difference between a virus and an anti-body? > > Never mind, silly question, you have proven 3 times you don't. > > > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > You do understand the difference between a virus and an anti-body? > > > Never mind, silly question, you have proven 3 times you don't. He's back to posting quotes of quotes because he lost the "argument" and can't admit it. > > > > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > He's back to posting quotes of quotes because he lost the "argument" and > can't admit it. Then name that HIV test. How many more times should I ask for you to produce such a simple thing? There can't be an argument until you say something and stand behind it, sh.t-eater. So far you have only posted a anti-body test, so what! Nothing there to discuss, so name that HIV test and be done with it. > > He's back to posting quotes of quotes because he lost the "argument" and > > can't admit it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So far you have only posted a anti-body test, so what! > Nothing there to discuss, so name that HIV test and be done with it. ROTFLMO - you were given a link to a CDC sponsored site and you ignored it. What a fool you are! >Specific antibody tests are used to detect HIV. Read up on biology >if you don't understand. Maybe in the twisted world of HIV research, however in the real world HIV antibody tests do not "detect HIV." Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >Specific antibody tests are used to detect HIV. Read up on biology > >if you don't understand. > > Maybe in the twisted world of HIV research, however in the real world > HIV antibody tests do not "detect HIV." Yes they do - they detect the presense of HIV because without HIV you don't get the antibodies. It is idiotic of you to try to deny it. >>>Specific antibody tests are used to detect HIV. Read up on biology >>>if you don't understand. >> Maybe in the twisted world of HIV research, however in the real world >> HIV antibody tests do not "detect HIV." >Yes they do - they detect the presense of HIV because without HIV you >don't get the antibodies. You do. That's one of the reasons the test is flawed. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >>>Specific antibody tests are used to detect HIV. Read up on biology > >>>if you don't understand. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You do. That's one of the reasons the test is flawed. If you want to make that claim, cite some legitimate medical research. Oh, and BTW, the article I cited listed a number of tests. If one has a non-zero false-positive rate but is significantly cheaper, you use that first and the much more expensive test to confirm the results. >>>Yes they do - they detect the presense of HIV because without HIV you >>>don't get the antibodies. >> You do. That's one of the reasons the test is flawed. >If you want to make that claim, cite some legitimate medical research. >Oh, and BTW, the article I cited listed a number of tests. If one has >a non-zero false-positive rate but is significantly cheaper, you use >that first and the much more expensive test to confirm the results. Type 'false positive hiv test' into Google and you'll get lots of examples of how flawed the 'HIV test' is. You even seem to acknowledge the problem by mentioning "non-zero false-positive," which seems like more HIV gobbledygook to me. I don't believe in the 'keep testing until you get the result you want' methodology. Testing for HIV using an unproven anti-body test could be compared to sticking your hand in a bucket of water to determine whether or not it's raining outside. Oh, and what other sort of 'HIV test' would you like to discuss? How about PCR? Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >>>Yes they do - they detect the presense of HIV because without HIV you > >>>don't get the antibodies. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Type 'false positive hiv test' into Google and you'll get lots of > examples of how flawed the 'HIV test' is. You can't produce a URL? :-) BTW, if you type "UFO", you'll also get a lot of Google hits and can find people claiming to have been abducted by one. > You even seem to acknowledge the problem by mentioning "non-zero > false-positive," which seems like more HIV gobbledygook to me. I > don't believe in the 'keep testing until you get the result you want' > methodology. No, it is standard terminology and hardly specific to HIV. For some conditions, you have a cheap test that generates some false positives and an accurate expensive test. If the cheap test doesn't have any false negatives, you can use it first and only pay for the expensive test when the cheap one shows something. That cuts costs when you are doing the test for screening. > Testing for HIV using an unproven anti-body test could be compared to > sticking your hand in a bucket of water to determine whether or not > it's raining outside. How idiotic can you be? <snip> >> Type 'false positive hiv test' into Google and you'll get lots of >> examples of how flawed the 'HIV test' is. >You can't produce a URL? :-) BTW, if you type "UFO", you'll also >get a lot of Google hits and can find people claiming to have been >abducted by one. I thought you might like to take your pick. >> You even seem to acknowledge the problem by mentioning "non-zero >> false-positive," which seems like more HIV gobbledygook to me. I >> don't believe in the 'keep testing until you get the result you want' >> methodology. >No, it is standard terminology and hardly specific to HIV. For >some conditions, you have a cheap test that generates some false >positives and an accurate expensive test. If the cheap test doesn't >have any false negatives, you can use it first and only pay for >the expensive test when the cheap one shows something. That cuts >costs when you are doing the test for screening. At least we agree the 'HIV test' isn't specific for HIV. >> Testing for HIV using an unproven anti-body test could be compared to >> sticking your hand in a bucket of water to determine whether or not >> it's raining outside. >How idiotic can you be? It's the 'HIV test' that's idiotic. ><snip> I didn't think you'd want to discuss PCR. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> Type 'false positive hiv test' into Google and you'll get lots of > >> examples of how flawed the 'HIV test' is. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I thought you might like to take your pick. In other words, you have you could only find crackpot sites. > >No, it is standard terminology and hardly specific to HIV. For > >some conditions, you have a cheap test that generates some false [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At least we agree the 'HIV test' isn't specific for HIV. Oh, it's pretty damn specific - otherwise nobody would bother with it. > >> Testing for HIV using an unproven anti-body test could be compared to > >> sticking your hand in a bucket of water to determine whether or not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's the 'HIV test' that's idiotic. No, it is you who are idiotic. "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > So, you're not going to tell us. :( It isn't like I didn't tell ya. It didn't take long for (Idiot) to appear and no answer again. The farmers here are well acquainted with the Elsia test for crops. http://entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/VPJ_Lab/VPJ_Pages/VPJ_IIM.html > "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It isn't like I didn't tell ya. > It didn't take long for (Idiot) to appear and no answer again. Death is a liar. He has some severe personal issues, but one was particularly funny. See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual orientation (whether he meant to say that or not): : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. : > > Get some professional help. : > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) (For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is a message ID.) >> "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message >> > No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> >>>>>>>>We have a test for HIV and plenty of evidence about it. >>>>>>>What test is that? >>>>>>You don't know? >>>>> No. Are you just playing for time, or are you going to tell us? >>>>Idiot. >>> So, you're not going to tell us. :( >> It isn't like I didn't tell ya. >> It didn't take long for (Idiot) to appear and no answer again. >Death is a liar. He has some severe personal issues, but one was >particularly funny. See the post ><news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" >(replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual >orientation (whether he meant to say that or not): You can't be bothered to search Google for a link about this "test for HIV" you mention, but you're quite happy to trawl through Google Groups to make a point about an unrelated topic. Your interpretation of what you quoted differs from mine, anyway. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > >> > No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > HIV" you mention, but you're quite happy to trawl through Google > Groups to make a point about an unrelated topic. I didn't "trawl through Google Groups" but simply set up a canned response I have in a file for use whenever "Death" gets out of line, and inserted that file into a post. Your lack of reasoning ability, however, is quite clear as you made a whole series of false assumptions. >> You can't be bothered to search Google for a link about this "test for >> HIV" you mention, but you're quite happy to trawl through Google >> Groups to make a point about an unrelated topic. >I didn't "trawl through Google Groups" but simply set up a canned >response I have in a file for use whenever "Death" gets out of line, >and inserted that file into a post. How organised of you. Death must really have got under your skin. >Your lack of reasoning ability, however, is quite clear as you made >a whole series of false assumptions. I didn't realise you were so obsessive about Death. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> You can't be bothered to search Google for a link about this "test for > >> HIV" you mention, but you're quite happy to trawl through Google [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How organised of you. Death must really have got under your skin. Nope - we just had a long exchange and one of his rants managed to include a statement where it came out differently than he probably intended. > >Your lack of reasoning ability, however, is quite clear as you made > >a whole series of false assumptions. > I didn't realise you were so obsessive about Death. I'm not. It's a short file that I use when he starts replying to all my posts - he's the one with the obsession. > > "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual > orientation (whether he meant to say that or not): A faggot sh.t-sex fantasy > : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from > : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is > : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. > : > > Get some professional help. > : > > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> Indeed, that is your claim, that I am a filthy faggot too. > It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, > thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) Again, indeed, and you were the one making that reference, sh.t-eater. > > > "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Again, indeed, and you were the one making that reference, sh.t-eater. Liar - the word "too" was used by you, as anyone can tell from the URI I provided. See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual orientation: : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. : > > Get some professional help. : > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) (For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is a message ID.) >See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where >"Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >(For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is >a message ID.) Now that I've had time to read through much of the newsgroup thread you've quoted from it's become clearer to me how deceitful you are. Death was not referring to you being "a faggot too," meaning as well as him. Death was paraphrasing your previous messages in the thread about what you referred to as his "repressed homosexuality." This is evident from the last sentence of Death's message which follows your "<snip>:" "Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. That little girl whine is your stock n trade." Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where > >"Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. > That little girl whine is your stock n trade." Thank you Martin, Noone is quite dishonest and it has zero creditability. He was attacked by several faggots on my behalf on another topic for its dishonest tactics. The sh.t-eater makes blanket statements and runs from the statements when challenged on them. What he calls a canned response is, avoidance. He crams his ears full of bullshit so as not to hear. That little girl whine is his stock n trade...... but you'll learn that on your own in time. > > This is evident from the last sentence of Death's message which > > follows your "<snip>:" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you Martin, Noone is quite dishonest and it has zero creditability. "Death" is thanking Martin for a misquote as Martin added the quotation marks. > He was attacked by several faggots on my behalf on another topic for > its dishonest tactics. Another lie - two idiots were mad at me, and one of them claims to be either straight or bi. Death is deparate to look for any level of support, even from complete nutjobs like Martin. How desparate can you be? >> > This is evident from the last sentence of Death's message which >> > follows your "<snip>:" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Death" is thanking Martin for a misquote as Martin added the >quotation marks. Erm, yes. I used "quotation marks" to indicate I was quoting Death. That's why they're called "quotation marks." The full message is available here: <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/6078f2f589b2f78>. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >> > This is evident from the last sentence of Death's message which > >> > follows your "<snip>:" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The full message is available here: > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/6078f2f589b2f78>. It contains exactly what I said it does. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > "Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. > > > That little girl whine is your stock n trade." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Death" is thanking Martin for a misquote as Martin added the > quotation marks. Indeed, the quotation marks are not mine, but the words are. You snipped the second line and Martin reinstated it, I thank him again for pointing out your hypocrisy > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You snipped the second line and Martin reinstated it, I thank him again > for pointing out your hypocrisy As I said, it was a misquote - the "> > > >" at the start of the line indicated what 'Death' was supposed to have said and the extra quotes were therefore presented by Martin as being in Death's post, so Martin in fact misquoted, just as I said. I snipped the second line because the first line contained the Freudian slip. The second line does was simply a lie as there was no "little girl whine" at all. > > > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > As I said, it was a misquote - .... No misquote, he just added quotation marks. The meaning or words did not change, you are a c.nt. > > > Indeed, the quotation marks are not mine, but the words are. > > > You snipped the second line and Martin reinstated it, I thank him again [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No misquote, he just added quotation marks. > The meaning or words did not change, you are a c.nt. It was a misquote - the quoations marks he added weren't in the original as I said (here's what you snipped): :: As I said, it was a misquote - the "> > > >" at the start of the :: line indicated what 'Death' was supposed to have said and the extra :: quotes were therefore presented by Martin as being in Death's post, :: so Martin in fact misquoted, just as I said. Now, read it 10 times until you understand. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > Indeed, the quotation marks are not mine, but the words are. > > > > You snipped the second line and Martin reinstated it, I thank him again [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It was a misquote - ... How can it be a misquote idiot when it is attributed to me and is word for word as I wrote it? > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > How can it be a misquote idiot when it is attributed to me > and is word for word as I wrote it? He added quotation marks that you hadn't used. Without those quotation marks, the meaning is different. See the post <news:b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> where "Death" (replying to another post) inadvertantly stated his real sexual orientation: : > > Your posts are are reasonable indication that you suffer from : > > repressed homosexuality - your continual ranting about it is : > > a very good indication that you have real issues to deal with. : > > Get some professional help. : > : > Yeah yeah, blah blah blah you are a faggot too. <snip> It seems there was a Freudian slip where the word "too" crept out, thus confirming that 'Death' is gay. :-) (For those not familiar with URIs, the string that follows "news:" is a message ID.) Note that if the text beginning with "yeah yeah" was quoted, it could be taken as dialog that you were writing as opposed to a statement you were making. You might not like my conclusion based on what you said, but you can't blame me for your lack of punctuation. :-) "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > He added quotation marks that you hadn't used. Without those > quotation marks, the meaning is different. Ah, got ya. By quoting me word for word, the meaning changes, ok........lol, idiot. > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, got ya. > By quoting me word for word, the meaning changes, ok........lol, idiot. Yep, because he double quoted, changing a statement by you into a quotation that he pretended you had made. >Yep, because he double quoted, changing a statement by you into a >quotation that he pretended you had made. That's a lie. I did not double quote. Perhaps you should read up on quotation marks here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark>. Specifically this: "Single or double quotation marks denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style single or double is an absolute rule, though double quotation marks are preferred in the United States, and both single and double quotation marks are used in the United Kingdom." Note that I've used quotation marks to show that I have quoted from elsewhere. Or perhaps you prefer this: <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html>. There are even some exercises for you to try. Or this: <http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp>. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >Yep, because he double quoted, changing a statement by you into a > >quotation that he pretended you had made. > > That's a lie. No, you did double quote - the leading '>' is a usenet quoting convention (that you wikipedia artilce is silent about). Basically > "foo" has the same meaning as '"foo"' which is in both cases a double quote. > I did not double quote. Perhaps you should read up on quotation marks > here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark>. Specifically [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > States, and both single and double quotation marks are used in the > United Kingdom." Irrelevant - the issue was double quoting, with the first level of quotes due to the '>' characters and the second due to the quotation marks. Perhaps you should stick to the topic. >No, you did double quote - the leading '>' is a usenet quoting convention >(that you wikipedia artilce is silent about). Basically [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >which is in both cases a double quote. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole. There was no leading ">" in the quote I made. As I have already said, I went to an achieve copy of the message and quoted directly from that. I believe I quoted Death correctly, and Death agrees. Not that it matters, anyway, because the original article may be viewed here: <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/6078f2f589b2f78>. >> I did not double quote. Perhaps you should read up on quotation marks >> here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark>. Specifically [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> States, and both single and double quotation marks are used in the >> United Kingdom." >Irrelevant - the issue was double quoting, with the first level of >quotes due to the '>' characters and the second due to the quotation >marks. Perhaps you should stick to the topic. That's irrelevant because I didn't use a ">" when I quoted Death. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >No, you did double quote - the leading '>' is a usenet quoting convention > >(that you wikipedia artilce is silent about). Basically [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I went to an achieve copy of the message and quoted directly from > that. I remember there being one and you aren't producing either a message ID or a URL to prove otherwise. > I believe I quoted Death correctly, and Death agrees. Death is a liar, but the question was not Death's words but the punctuation you added. > Not that it matters, anyway, because the original article may be > viewed here: > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/6078f2f589b2f78>. Which is not your post, so it is irrelevant. > >Irrelevant - the issue was double quoting, with the first level of > >quotes due to the '>' characters and the second due to the quotation > >marks. Perhaps you should stick to the topic. > > That's irrelevant because I didn't use a ">" when I quoted Death. So, why don't you produce *your* original message instead of throwing out red herrings? >> There was no leading ">" in the quote I made. As I have already said, >> I went to an achieve copy of the message and quoted directly from >> that. >I remember there being one and you aren't producing either a message ID >or a URL to prove otherwise. I have already provided both. Here they are again. URL: <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/msg/6078f2f589b2f78> Message-ID: Message-ID: <b730j.1519$Tq2.63@bignews8.bellsouth.net> >> I believe I quoted Death correctly, and Death agrees. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message