Is The Bird Flu In The United States And The Government Hasn't Told You?

[Guest Robert Sturgeon]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:46:25 -0600, "Jeff McCann"

<NoSpam@NoThanks.Org> wrote:

>

>"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message

>news:vj2ds25d6a6hk1276qbqgbt6fuplgfviv3@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:33:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann"

>> <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org> wrote:

>>

>> (snips)

>>

>>>> The most recent one saying it was hyped was April 2006 but I don't

>>>> have time to search that long. But there haven't been as many bird flu

>>>> articles written since around that time and before because people have

>>>> long since realized that the threat of bird flu is a load of media

>>>> hype designed to sell a few papers. There will be NO pandemic.

>>>

>>>Maybe you are right. But then, many "experts" continued to deny the

>>>existence of AIDS/ HIV long after the virus already existed and was

>>>spreading in the human population.

>>

>> I don't remember that. I DO remember homosexuals refusing

>> to take the obvious steps required to halt its spread (such

>> as using condoms and refraining from promiscuous sex), and

>> instead demanding that the government come up with a cure

>> that would allow them to continue business-as-usual, in so

>> far as homosexual sex was concerned. So they, in effect,

>> killed themselves in large numbers while blaming Other

>> People for their troubles. "It's all the damned

>> straight-laced Republicans' fault!" No, it wasn't. But in

>> a rather efficient, relentless way, the people MOST

>> responsible for the spread of AIDS were the very same people

>> who were most likely to be killed by AIDS. Sometimes Nature

>> works like that. The rest of us just said, "Well, so...?"

>

>Yeah, I remember that, too. As long as it was just a "gay disease" it was

>pretty easy and convenient for some to just blame the victims and turn a

>blind eye to it. But the same could be said of most heart disease, lung or

>cervical cancer, etc,.which are closely coupled to individual behavior or

>lifestyle choice, too. Fortunately, some of us have a different attitude

>about diseases.

 

It was a disease that is obviously spread mostly by behavior

practiced and advocated by homosexuals, who then blamed

people who actually had nothing whatsoever to do with

spreading it. It was like the fellow who said, "After every

shooting spree, they want to take the guns away from the

people who didn't do it." Exactly WHAT attitude about that

did you expect me to have? Did you expect the general

public to support spending billions of Dollars defeating a

disease which could have been defeated without spending a

dime -- if people had only been willing to reverse their

tendency of having unprotected (and often anonymous) sex

with multiple partners? Even by the mid-eighties, how AIDS

got spread was no longer a "secret." Stopping it would have

been easy if the homosexual activists had tried. But every

time the City of San Francisco tried to close down a gay

bath house (prime locations for spreading AIDS) the

activists resisted. For a long time, the activists resisted

anything that would interfere with their "lifestyle." Of

course, after a while so many of them were dead that the

reality of the situation broke through the mental defenses

of the survivors.

 

That's what happened. Complaining about the "attitude" of

some guy living out in the San Joaquin Valley, who had

absolutely nothing to do with the whole mess, is a typical

"liberal" response.

>>>Moreover, H5N1 continues to spread in

>>>the avian population, and demonstrates an alarming lethality in bird to

>>>human transmission form. If it retains that characteristic after mutating

>>>to, say, a respiratory human to human transmissible form, the implications

>>>are unpleasant to contemplate.

>>

>> It hasn't mutated into the human-to-human form. It may not

>> mutate into the human-to-human form. And if it does, there

>> is a good chance that the effects of the mutation will also

>> lessen its human lethality. Mutations often have more than

>> one effect.

>

>Yep, it might mutate into harmlessness, but it is equally likely to become

>even more dangerous in some way. The attention being paid to it in

>scientific and governmental quarters is warranted; your apparent dismissal

>is not.

 

I'm not dismissing anything. I AM saying -- there is no way

to know when it might mutate, how it might mutate, and

whether or not its mutation will make it more dangerous or

less dangerous. You can get all worked up about such

phantoms if you like. I think I'll stick to real dangers

that exist now. Note -- I don't work for the Center for

Disease Control, or anything remotely like that. THEY

certainly SHOULD be working on the matter, and I'm sure they

are. I'm not.

>>> On the other hand, I have participated in

>>>two practice exercises focused on conducting mass vaccination or treatment

>>>of epidemic diseases, so it not like the government hasn't taken any steps

>>>to get ready, either.

>>

>> What is it that you expect Bush to do about it BEFORE it

>> happens? He can't order a "flu shot" for a disease that

>> doesn't even exist. I know some people don't much like

>> Bush. I don't either. But, really, this version of "It's

>> all Bush's fault" is ridiculous.

>

>You've really become quite the knee-jerk Rightward clown, Robert.

 

Compliments will get you nowhere.

> My

>comment pointed out that the government has been taking precautionary or

>prepatory steps all along. Bush was never even mentioned and the comment

>was approving, not critical. Yet you imagine I made some sort of attack on

>Bush. I don't know which you deserve more, my pity or my contempt.

 

I don't want your pity, but I am very comfortable with your

contempt, since that is what I have for you. Reciprocity

seems quite proper in this instance.

 

--

Robert Sturgeon

Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Guest Jeff McCann]

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

news:bgmds2lgo98k1g6s6172ga8d3g0frsfofg@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:46:25 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

> wrote:

>

>>>

>>> I don't remember that. I DO remember homosexuals refusing

>>> to take the obvious steps required to halt its spread (such

>>> as using condoms and refraining from promiscuous sex), and

>>> instead demanding that the government come up with a cure

>>> that would allow them to continue business-as-usual, in so

>>> far as homosexual sex was concerned. So they, in effect,

>>> killed themselves in large numbers while blaming Other

>>> People for their troubles. "It's all the damned

>>> straight-laced Republicans' fault!" No, it wasn't. But in

>>> a rather efficient, relentless way, the people MOST

>>> responsible for the spread of AIDS were the very same people

>>> who were most likely to be killed by AIDS. Sometimes Nature

>>> works like that. The rest of us just said, "Well, so...?"

>>

>>Yeah, I remember that, too. As long as it was just a "gay disease" it was

>>pretty easy and convenient for some to just blame the victims and turn a

>>blind eye to it. But the same could be said of most heart disease, lung

>>or

>>cervical cancer, etc,.which are closely coupled to individual behavior or

>>lifestyle choice, too. Fortunately, some of us have a different attitude

>>about diseases.

>

> You are calling a sexually transmitted disease the same as over eating

> and so forth? Btw..cervical cancer may well indeed be a STD..at least

> the most common type.

 

Which reflects a behavior or lifestyle choice by the woman to have sex with

persons who could transmit the disease to her. Virgins entering into

faithful marriages seldom develop STDs. No, HIV and heart disease or

diabetes aren't the "same thing." But they all share the same attribute of

being diseases that are largely a consequence of lifestyle or behavioral

choices. The role of communicability factors doesn't have anything at all

to do with the large role played by behavioral choices in determining

whether the victim is afflicted by the disease. Explain how Robert's

screed, above, reworded from HIV to heart disease, below, suddenly makes any

less sense.

 

I DO remember obese people and smokers refusing to take the obvious steps

required to halt the development of heart disease (such as not smoking,

exercising more and refraining from unhealthy diets), and instead demanding

that the government come up with treatments that would allow them to

continue business-as-usual, in so far as their unhealthy lifestyle was

concerned. So they, in effect, killed themselves in large numbers while

blaming Other People for their troubles. "It's all the damned fast food /

tobacco industry's fault!" No, it wasn't. But in a rather efficient,

relentless way, the people MOST responsible for the development of their own

heart disease were the very same people who were most likely to be killed by

heart disease. Sometimes Nature works like that. The rest of us just said,

"Well, so...?"

> Heads up Jeff..having too many burgers before going out on at

> date..doesnt give your date a death sentence if you fuck her/him without

> taking precautions.

 

No, and that is completely irrelevant. The latter is possibly aggravated

battery, but that's another matter altogether. The issue here is blaming

the victim because of disapproval of the behavior or lifestyle that plays a

major role in determining the likelihood of getting the disease. If people

weren't sexually promiscuous, they would not be exposed to any STD or

unwanted pregnancy. But we know that straight people tend to brave, on

average, more than one sexual partner. Sexual behavior, of whatever sort,

is remarkably resistant to change. Nonetheless, many gays have learned to

take precautions, and their advocacy and interest groups all try to promote

this, Robert's ignorance notwithstanding. Do you suppose that if AIDS first

broke out amongst straight, middle class high-schoolers (a fairly

promiscuous population at the time AIDS first emerged) and folks kids' began

getting sick and dying from it in large numbers, the attitudes of many

people would be somewhat different today?

> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

 

Strawman. So?

> Your liberal blather is once again noted.

 

And your NeoCon strawmen and irrelevancies are, once again, refuted.

 

Many Rightards are so hung up about homosexuality that they just can't move

past that one mode of transmission to deal responsibly with the public

health problems associated with HIV. The obvious operational subtext is

that homosexuals deserve to be punished with HIV for there immoral behavior.

[Guest Gunner]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:07:31 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

wrote:

>

>> Heads up Jeff..having too many burgers before going out on at

>> date..doesnt give your date a death sentence if you fuck her/him without

>> taking precautions.

>

>No, and that is completely irrelevant. The latter is possibly aggravated

>battery, but that's another matter altogether. The issue here is blaming

>the victim because of disapproval of the behavior or lifestyle that plays a

>major role in determining the likelihood of getting the disease. If people

>weren't sexually promiscuous, they would not be exposed to any STD or

>unwanted pregnancy. But we know that straight people tend to brave, on

>average, more than one sexual partner. Sexual behavior, of whatever sort,

>is remarkably resistant to change. Nonetheless, many gays have learned to

>take precautions, and their advocacy and interest groups all try to promote

>this, Robert's ignorance notwithstanding. Do you suppose that if AIDS first

>broke out amongst straight, middle class high-schoolers (a fairly

>promiscuous population at the time AIDS first emerged) and folks kids' began

>getting sick and dying from it in large numbers, the attitudes of many

>people would be somewhat different today?

>

>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>

>Strawman. So?

 

 

Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

 

Gunner

 

Political Correctness

 

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and

rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,

which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible

to pick up a turd by the clean end.

[Guest strabo]

DBM wrote:

> Quotes from posts allegedly made by 'Darn Good intelligence'...

>

> "...Chances of the virus mutating into a form transmitable between humans

> are very low. The media's been raving about bird flu for years now and

> nothing ever happens - it's just a way of selling a few papers..."

>

> Are you aware that 'Human to Human' transmission of H5N1 was confirmed in

> 2006? The strain was confined to a small group of 8 people. 7 died.

> That's an 87.5% kill rate. Oh, and before you dismiss it out of hand, it

> was a 'chain infection' that infected 3 consecutive humans, or in other

> words, the bare minimum to qualify as 'sustained Human spread'...

>

> "...There are plenty of scientists out there who agree that the threat to

> humans from bird flu is very low and has been blown out of all proportion to

> sell a few papers..."

>

> Try naming them. Can you get past a dozen? There are plenty of scientists

> who ~are~ concerned about H5N1. Check out the 'interviews' section of the

> CBC 'Black Dawn' website.

>

> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/nextpandemic/interviews.html

>

> "...The most recent one saying it was hyped was April 2006 but I don't have

> time to search that long. But there haven't been as many bird flu articles

> written since around that time and before because people have long since

> realized that the threat of bird flu is a load of media hype designed to

> sell a few papers. There will be NO pandemic..."

>

> Are you aware that H5N1 killed more people in 2006 than in the previous 3

> years combined?

>

> 'Bird Flu Deaths in 2006 Exceed Prior 3 Years Combined'

> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_ax92NXZ59w&refer=asia

>

> Your claim that "...there haven't been as many 'bird flu articles' written

> since around that time..." (April 2006) may only be correct for articles

> that claim Bird Flu is 'hype'. There have been ~plenty~ of Bird Flu

> articles written about the danger of a Pandemic, especially about what the

> average Citizen can do to protect themselves and their loved ones. You

> obviously aren't reading enough, or at least, aren't reading in the right

> places. Check out the CurEvents.com Flu Clinic. They post links to all of

> the news articles they cite.

>

> Are you aware that the Romanian Government initiated an 'armed quarantine'

> of over 10,000 citizens in Bucharest (the Capital City of Romania) in late

> May 2006? The quarantine came ~after~ the H2H2H cluster mentioned above.

> The quarantine was lifted after a few days amid heavy political bickering -

> officially, although livestock was infected, there were ~no~ Human

> infections.

>

> "...Yes, H5N1 has been around for ages now. If it was going to start a

> pandemic I believe it would've done so by now. This latest story about

> chickens dying on a Suffolk farm in UK is just more media hype desgined to

> sell a few papers. I can't say for certain that H5N! wont cause a pandemic

> but i dont believe it will..."

>

> It was turkeys that died in the UK. And if you can't say for certain that

> H5N1 won't cause a Pandemic, ~why~ are you talking as if it's no big deal,

> or in your own words "...media hype designed to sell a few papers..."? Then

> again, what makes you think 'H5N1 is hype' articles aren't written for the

> sole purpose of selling papers? Or in the case of the Internet, to make

> money from webpage adverts?

>

> H5N1 can't start a Pandemic until and unless it mutates into a form capable

> of doing so (that is, easily infecting Humans). Mutation takes time, but

> H5N1 has come a long way since the first strain discovered. Dangerously

> far...

>

> Avian Influenza: "Shelter-In-Place"...

> http://ottawa.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=issues&document=avi

> an_influenza_advice

>

> --

> Yours, DBM - dbmacpherson@uq.net.au

> From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...

>

So what's your point?

 

 

 

 

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups

----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Guest Jeff McCann]

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

news:jmjgs258mpdjjh3659vpm6c4ek161n5ta0@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:07:31 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>> Heads up Jeff..having too many burgers before going out on at

>>> date..doesnt give your date a death sentence if you fuck her/him without

>>> taking precautions.

>>

>>No, and that is completely irrelevant. The latter is possibly aggravated

>>battery, but that's another matter altogether. The issue here is blaming

>>the victim because of disapproval of the behavior or lifestyle that plays

>>a

>>major role in determining the likelihood of getting the disease. If

>>people

>>weren't sexually promiscuous, they would not be exposed to any STD or

>>unwanted pregnancy. But we know that straight people tend to brave, on

>>average, more than one sexual partner. Sexual behavior, of whatever sort,

>>is remarkably resistant to change. Nonetheless, many gays have learned to

>>take precautions, and their advocacy and interest groups all try to

>>promote

>>this, Robert's ignorance notwithstanding. Do you suppose that if AIDS

>>first

>>broke out amongst straight, middle class high-schoolers (a fairly

>>promiscuous population at the time AIDS first emerged) and folks kids'

>>began

>>getting sick and dying from it in large numbers, the attitudes of many

>>people would be somewhat different today?

>>

>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>

>>Strawman. So?

>

>

> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

 

Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse your

opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the usual

unmarked snippage).

 

Jeff

[Guest strabo]

Jeff McCann wrote:

> "Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

> news:bgmds2lgo98k1g6s6172ga8d3g0frsfofg@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:46:25 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>> wrote:

>>

<snipped>

>> You are calling a sexually transmitted disease the same as over eating

>> and so forth? Btw..cervical cancer may well indeed be a STD..at least

>> the most common type.

>

> Which reflects a behavior or lifestyle choice by the woman to have sex with

> persons who could transmit the disease to her. Virgins entering into

> faithful marriages seldom develop STDs. No, HIV and heart disease or

> diabetes aren't the "same thing." But they all share the same attribute of

> being diseases that are largely a consequence of lifestyle or behavioral

> choices. The role of communicability factors doesn't have anything at all

> to do with the large role played by behavioral choices in determining

> whether the victim is afflicted by the disease. Explain how Robert's

> screed, above, reworded from HIV to heart disease, below, suddenly makes any

> less sense.

>

> I DO remember obese people and smokers refusing to take the obvious steps

> required to halt the development of heart disease (such as not smoking,

> exercising more and refraining from unhealthy diets), and instead demanding

> that the government come up with treatments that would allow them to

> continue business-as-usual, in so far as their unhealthy lifestyle was

> concerned. So they, in effect, killed themselves in large numbers while

> blaming Other People for their troubles. "It's all the damned fast food /

> tobacco industry's fault!" No, it wasn't. But in a rather efficient,

> relentless way, the people MOST responsible for the development of their own

> heart disease were the very same people who were most likely to be killed by

> heart disease. Sometimes Nature works like that. The rest of us just said,

> "Well, so...?"

>

>> Heads up Jeff..having too many burgers before going out on at

>> date..doesnt give your date a death sentence if you fuck her/him without

>> taking precautions.

>

> No, and that is completely irrelevant. The latter is possibly aggravated

> battery, but that's another matter altogether. The issue here is blaming

> the victim because of disapproval of the behavior or lifestyle that plays a

> major role in determining the likelihood of getting the disease.

 

 

Behavior and the Single Girl

 

There was a criminal case this past year in a Canadian court that

involved a publicly drunk (documented) 22 year old woman and alleged

rape. The defendant and witnesses said she consented to sex; she said

she was incapacitated and thus could not give consent.

 

The judge ruled that since she was free to choose the state of

drunkeness she at least contributed to intercourse. Barring other

evidence, the defendant was freed.

 

Can consent to one action carry over to another? When is consent

implied and when is it express?

 

And what of capacity? In this case the plaintiff pleaded diminished

capacity but the judge addressed the principle of the free agent and

primary and responsibility.

 

Given the well-documented nature of sexual proclivities between males

and females over thousands of years, the evidence of physiology, the

influence of steroids and alcohol on the human mind and body, of course

he walked. As we should all walk in such circumstances.

 

So when does consent end and assault begin? When does behavior

solicit not just attention but action?

 

A woman who decides to go jogging alone at night in Central Park does

not ask to be assaulted but if it did happen should her lack of

responsibility be considered?

 

Whether or not there is a societal prejudice, the individual bears

responsibility for his behavior and in some cases, the results.

 

 

> If people

> weren't sexually promiscuous, they would not be exposed to any STD or

> unwanted pregnancy. But we know that straight people tend to brave, on

> average, more than one sexual partner.

 

Two wrongs make a right?

>Sexual behavior, of whatever sort,

> is remarkably resistant to change. Nonetheless, many gays have learned to

> take precautions, and their advocacy and interest groups all try to promote

> this, Robert's ignorance notwithstanding. Do you suppose that if AIDS first

> broke out amongst straight, middle class high-schoolers (a fairly

> promiscuous population at the time AIDS first emerged) and folks kids' began

> getting sick and dying from it in large numbers, the attitudes of many

> people would be somewhat different today?

>

 

>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>

> Strawman. So?

>

>> Your liberal blather is once again noted.

>

> And your NeoCon strawmen and irrelevancies are, once again, refuted.

>

> Many Rightards are so hung up about homosexuality that they just can't move

> past that one mode of transmission to deal responsibly with the public

> health problems associated with HIV. The obvious operational subtext is

> that homosexuals deserve to be punished with HIV for there immoral behavior.

>

 

STD; the Pride and the Prejudice

 

The liberalization and relative acceptance of homosexuality is a shock

to most people. Why? Because to the public, homosexuality is associated

with bad judgment, physically dirty behavior, and an increased potential

for acquiring and spreading disease.

 

This conclusion comes from the knowledge of germ contamination that

developed in the west a hundred years ago. Prior to that homosexuality

was somewhat acceptable. Today, most people are repulsed by the thought

of homosexuality. Add to this the religious sanctions that have long

existed and one should be able to see why the public cannot view HIV

objectively.

 

But STDs in general have long had a special place in moral philosophy

and group survival. Sailors, whore mongers, circus folk and homosexuals

held the distinction as deviate groups when it came to sex, and the

everyday people ostracized them as morally and physically tainted.

 

From the 1700s to 1940 syphilis was the major STD. Syphilis was a

fatal disease and it was passed on through birth. The symptoms of skin

and neural affliction were evident by the 2nd stage and mental

decrepitude by the third. Persons so afflicted became instant objects of

derision and object lessons of the first order. The association with

insanity was not an empty prejudice but a lesson in survival.

 

But the prejudice held true for clap and other diseases associated with

sex. Why? Because 1)sex is a voluntary activity and 2)sex practiced

only within marriage could in theory be kept free of disease. This is

provable within those groups that forbid pre-marital sex, incest,

adultery and prostitution. Abstinence or approved practices within

closed circles will minimize exposure and for most diseases, eliminate

them.

 

Regardless of the personal meaning to an individual, prejudice is a

societal survival mechanism.

 

Anthropologists and medical doctors need not look hard for evidence

of preventatives to STDs. The loss of personal freedom happens when

the individual desires to go against the grain. Until recently

few people desired the freedom to gamble with society's future.

 

Today, with medicinal 'magic' potions and a big dose of holier-than-thou

political hucksterism, the traditional passers-on of disease are held

as victims of prejudice and praised as exemplary recipients of 'civil

rights'. Encouraged to do whatever makes them happy at the moment, the

young now mindlessly screw anything and take pride in their herpes

diagnoses.

 

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups

----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Guest Gunner]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

wrote:

>>>

>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>

>>>Strawman. So?

>>

>>

>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

>

>Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse your

>opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the usual

>unmarked snippage).

>

>Jeff

 

 

Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

 

Gunner

 

Political Correctness

 

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and

rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,

which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible

to pick up a turd by the clean end.

[Guest J. Carroll]

Gunner wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

> wrote:

>

>>>>

>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>

>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>

>>>

>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as

>>> hell.

>>

>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse

>> your opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along

>> with the usual unmarked snippage).

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>

No Mark,

He is saying you are a pultroon.

He's correct.

 

--

 

John R. Carroll

Machining Solution Software, Inc.

Los Angeles San Francisco

http://www.machiningsolution.com

[Guest Notan]

Gunner wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

> wrote:

>

>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>

>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse your

>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the usual

>> unmarked snippage).

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

 

Handed down, from generation to generation...

 

--

Notan

[Guest Gunner]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:06:32 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:

>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>>

>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as

>>>> hell.

>>>

>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse

>>> your opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along

>>> with the usual unmarked snippage).

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>>

>No Mark,

>He is saying you are a pultroon.

>He's correct.

 

 

Than that explains why you are a buffoon. Pultroon was already taken.

 

Gunner

 

Political Correctness

 

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and

rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,

which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible

to pick up a turd by the clean end.

[Guest Gunner]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:20:03 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

wrote:

>Gunner wrote:

>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>

>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse your

>>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the usual

>>> unmarked snippage).

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>

>Handed down, from generation to generation...

 

 

Just like HIV as Jeff claims?

 

Gunner

 

Political Correctness

 

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and

rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,

which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible

to pick up a turd by the clean end.

[Guest Notan]

Gunner wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:20:03 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

> wrote:

>

>> Gunner wrote:

>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as hell.

>>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse your

>>>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the usual

>>>> unmarked snippage).

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>> Handed down, from generation to generation...

>

>

> Just like HIV as Jeff claims?

 

I should've put some "sarcasm quotes" around my post...

 

It's contagious, in that fat grandma feeds her kids fat foods, who feed their

kids fat foods, etc.

 

--

Notan

[Guest Jeff McCann]

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

news:7p8js25dq3agi8b8gg4ii2avrrvr25tajk@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:20:03 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

> wrote:

>

>>Gunner wrote:

>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>>

>>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as

>>>>> hell.

>>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse

>>>> your

>>>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the

>>>> usual

>>>> unmarked snippage).

>>>>

>>>> Jeff

>>>

>>>

>>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>>

>>Handed down, from generation to generation...

>

>

> Just like HIV as Jeff claims?

 

Resorting to lying won't help you any, Gunner.

 

Jeff

[Guest Gunner]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:53:35 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

wrote:

>

>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

>news:7p8js25dq3agi8b8gg4ii2avrrvr25tajk@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:20:03 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>Gunner wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as

>>>>>> hell.

>>>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse

>>>>> your

>>>>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the

>>>>> usual

>>>>> unmarked snippage).

>>>>>

>>>>> Jeff

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>>>

>>>Handed down, from generation to generation...

>>

>>

>> Just like HIV as Jeff claims?

>

>Resorting to lying won't help you any, Gunner.

>

>Jeff

>

Still claiming bad nutrition is contagious?

 

Gunner

 

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

[Guest Jeff McCann]

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

news:2efls29tngrhanq05mcm7q8skak4i60glo@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:53:35 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message

>>news:7p8js25dq3agi8b8gg4ii2avrrvr25tajk@4ax.com...

>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:20:03 -0700, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Gunner wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Cholesterol isn't contagious.

>>>>>>>> Strawman. So?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Your swerving and goal post changes are noted..and found funny as

>>>>>>> hell.

>>>>>> Typical Neocon loser tactic. When you've lost the debate, accuse

>>>>>> your

>>>>>> opponent of some trumped up misconduct or unfairness (along with the

>>>>>> usual

>>>>>> unmarked snippage).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Jeff

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Are you saying bad diet is contagious?

>>>>

>>>>Handed down, from generation to generation...

>>>

>>>

>>> Just like HIV as Jeff claims?

>>

>>Resorting to lying won't help you any, Gunner.

>>

>>Jeff

>>

> Still claiming bad nutrition is contagious?

 

Repeatedly resorting to lying won't help you any, either, Gunner.

 

Jeff

[Guest Andrealphus]

X-No-Archive:

As a gay man i know that gay men are,

for the most part rude, delusional and thieves. I have

lost 6 doilies, 3 bottles of Channel #5, many poppers,

and several pairs of panties to gay visitors. I kept my

collectible original-rubber John Holmes explorer under

lock and key.I do not allow them in my sleeping room

anymore. I met some nice guys at the glory hole where i

used to hang out.I quit going, the floors get kinda messy

and i got tired of having wet knees every night. But most gay

men are very rude and i do not have very much in common with

them. A gay man stole my autographed Jeff Striker poster and

it was the rare one where they computer enhanced his package!

One guy even stole my Preparation H. Things like designer anal

lube and poppers are expensive, I cannot afford to buy them every

day!! Rush is 14 Dollars a bottle now.

[Guest Andrealphus]

In News 1171666203.931287.287030@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, bob&carole

at bob&carole@ifrance.com, typed this:

> As a gay man

 

Do tell