Linux-Advocacy Digest #238, Volume #35 Thu, 14 Jun 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Opera ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Why Linux Is no shit to Windows domination of the desktop (SSunbird)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Rick)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Rick)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Rick)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Rick)
Re: the world thinks there is only windows. yahoo sucks. (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (John LaVoy)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:09:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:06:12 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Thaddius Maximus"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The Dutch would have a surplus of food if they weren't so freakin'
>> > fascinated with using every square inch of farmland to grow tulips!
>> >
>> Ok, I have been following your anti-Europe rants in the hope that you
>> would be slightly more sensible, but now you've done it. FYI farmland in
>> the Netherlands is predominantly mixed agriculture, mostly cows, corn and
>> wheat. There is a big stretch of 1 (that is ONE) province out of 12 that
>> is *predominantly* bulbs (province of Zuid-Holland, around the town of
>> Lisse). Next time, get an education because I won't be providing it
>> anymore to you (for free even!).
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>> Mart (Dutch, and proud of it too)
>>
>> --
>> Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
>> Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
>> Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
>> Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades
>
>Well, it won't be long until the One Worlders will have us under one
>roof and all of us paying one tax. :-(
Not horribly likely; more likely, a central registrant somewhere
in Washington, D.C. -- or somewhere else! -- will merely record all of
the approximately 7,600 city, state, and county tax rates.
Presumably, someone could set this up; then the merchants would
be required to compute the appropriate tax rate for each and
every transaction, and send the amounts to their respective recipients.
No registration, no tax revenues from the Internet. (This in itself
is a powerful incentive to have city, state, and counties register.)
It is also more convenient for the user, as most users do not bother
to pay their sales tax (as I understand it, we users are required to
pay if the sales tax is not otherwise collected -- but nobody really
bothers to collect).
Not sure how this would handle sales to out-of-US foreigners, or
what issues would ensue regarding tarrif changes and disputes.
There are also issues with unitary taxes -- in fact, this entire
system implies unitary taxes, after a fashion. Similar issues
will ensue in other countries such as Canada and Mexico; one might
defer country-to-country taxes to something under U.N. auspices
in New York, although more likely foreign-to-destination taxes
will be handled by the destination country (who is the payee of
said taxes, after all).
Most likely, the Department of Commerce would be the ultimate administrator.
>From the looks of it, it's a relatively simple database, but may be
time-consuming to set up depending on how much publicity the announcement
gets for solicitation of tax laws and rates -- and how complicated
things get (for example, various taxes may have to be collected depending
on the type of item shipped, and the types are determined by the
taxing authority, not by the shipper, which could really complicate
things for, say, potato chips versus computer chips versus
freshly-cooked air-shipped fish-and-chips. [IINM, California taxes
hot food differently from prepackaged or cold food.])
It's still also the foxes guarding the chicken coop; it's not clear
how the various cities, counties, and states will collect
disputed taxes, although they might petition the DoC if they
suspect a merchant isn't paying the proper amount of taxes; the
usual civil suit process will then establish things.
Of course it's messy -- but then, taxes are always messy.
It's what started our country, after all -- a 2 percent stamp tax.
>
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 45d:12h:47m actually running Linux.
[select one]
I am, you are, he, she, and it is, but they're not.
No neutrons were harmed during this message.
This is my other .sig.
You're going to do *what* *where* *when*?
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
This is not a .sig.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
[ ] Check here to always trust monopolistic software.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:08:26 +1200
"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> So Todd, what you are saying is if I wrote a piano concerto in E minor,
> and I sold manuscripts of it so that people could play it at home, some
> how, I am giving away my "intellectual property"? no, I am not.
No, you're selling it. See the word "sold" in your sentence?
>
> Same situation with the sourcecode. If you wanted, you could sell binary
> version if you wish. Under the GPL, all you required to do it supply
> the souce code on request, hence, on a website you don't have to give
> away binary versions for free. You don't have to have the source code on
> your site, you can simply have it on a "on request" basis. You still
> own the source code, except, all you are doing is allowing people to
> look at it if they wish.
Which means they don't have to buy your binary. They can just request your
source, compile it and then redistribute it.
>
> For example, Microsoft could opensource MS Office, and still sell
> copies. They could simply say, "here is the source code, but don't
> expect any support or free development tools". They don't have to give
> access to the binary version. They can simply say that if you wish to
> purchase the binary version you have to pay for it on CD. Since most
> people prefer buying software on CD w/ documentation and full support,
> they will still make money.
>
Yes they could. But if they open source it, then any monkey who wants to
can compile a copy and sell those binaries. There's a flaw in your business
model, in that most people don't give away their assets. The source is the
precursor to the binaries, so giving away the source is giving away the most
important bit.
How many Linux companies are making money selling distributions?
------------------------------
From: SSunbird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no shit to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:04:31 -0500
drsquare wrote:
> What's the difference?
hoooooooooooooooo boy.
that's a long discussion. check out alt.polyamory for some kind of
hint what polyamory is. polygamy, well, i believe technically that
is about having multiple marriage partners and usually its one man -
multiple women. polyamory, firstly, is not about marriage at all.
a lot of people that I have known that practise it are far from
traditional in their viewpoints on relationships. in at least
some ways. some polyamorists will have multiple life-partners, and
others have only one but they have "secondary" relationships that
are like friendships or maybe more than that but usually with
some kind of bedroom activity. sometimes these will involve
the primary partner(s) and sometimes no.
reason i brought it up is that the person i thought that
might be is (or has been) polyamorous not polygamous.
ssunbird
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:29:12 -0700
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, drsquare wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:28:58 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (SSunbird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >mike wrote:
> >
> >> >huh. five letters. i wonder.
> >> I'm guessing frans.
> >
> >it did say polygamous and not polyamorous.
>
> What's the difference?
Do you know the difference between buying and leasing? Like that.
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:41:10 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:15:43 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > >> U.S. AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
> > >
> > >Are theses AIDS statistics or HIV disease statistics?
> > >Do you know the difference?
> >
> > No, he doesn't.
>
> Waht part of "U.S. AIDS CASES" do you not understand?
>
Do you know the differnece between HIV disease and end stage AIDS? Its
an easy question. Answer it. Then we may find out if yo have any idea
about the numbers you are quoting.
> >
> > >> EXPOSURE CATEGORY Sub-totals # of AIDS CASES
> > >> Men who have sex with men - 326,051
> > >
> > >What kind of sex is this? Oral, anal, what.
> > >Are these new or old cases?
> >
> > He doesn't know. The people who came up with the statistics don't
> > know. That is why the statistics are worthless.
>
> They tell us that Gays infect each other FAR FAR FAR more frequenty
> than heterosexual.
>
I repeat... What kind of sex is this? Oral, anal, what. The question is
impirtant in interpreting these numbers. These numbers do NOT tell us
that homosexuals infect each other more frequently than heterosexuals.
They DO tell us there are more homosexuals withthe disease. The US is
somewhat unique in that it's main HIV+ population is homosexual.
> >
> > >> Injecting drug use - -
> > >> MALE 126,889 -
> > >> FEMALE 46,804 -
> > >> TOTAL - 173,693
> > >
> > >Can you tell us why the number for men is higher for men Here?
> >
> > No, he can't. Neither can the people who came up with the statistics.
> >
> > >> Men who have sex w/men and inject drugs - 43,640
> > >> Hemophilia/coagulation disorder - -
> > >> MALE 4,663 -
> > >> FEMALE 248 -
> > >> TOTAL - 4,911
> > >
> > >.. these people have AIDS?
> >
> > It doesn't say. The statistics are worthless.
> >
Actually, these are merely numbers. And you didnt answer... why do you
thnk the number of men of the IV drug use risk group was larger than
women? Do you have any idea? Tis is a question that is important to
understand the spread of the disease.
> > >> Risk not reported or identified - -
> > >> MALE 41,037 -
> > >> FEMALE 15,533 -
> > >> TOTAL - 56,572
> > >>
> > >> - center for disease control, 1999
> > >
> > >Without some more information thee numbers are useless, and really dont
> > >say anything.
> >
> > Looks like Kuntis loses again. Unfortuanetly, I had to killfile him
> > after he pasted all those pointless statistics over and over again...
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
<onnoxious sig snipped>
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:43:38 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > drsquare wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:15:43 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> U.S. AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
> > > > >
> > > > >Are theses AIDS statistics or HIV disease statistics?
> > > > >Do you know the difference?
> > > >
> > > > No, he doesn't.
> > >
> > > Waht part of "U.S. AIDS CASES" do you not understand?
> >
> > What part of the word "reference", or "citation" if you want, do you not
> > understand?
>
> What part of U.S. Center for Disease Control did you not comprehend?
>
Im going to ask again. Are you sure these are numbres of people with end
stage AIDS, or are they numbers of HIV+ people or people showing HIV/AID
related complex?
> > I guess you just know how to ctrl-c'n'ctrl-v.
> > In the given form your "references" are not a basis for discussion. They
> > are assumptions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> EXPOSURE CATEGORY Sub-totals # of AIDS CASES
> > > > >> Men who have sex with men - 326,051
> > > > >
> > > > >What kind of sex is this? Oral, anal, what.
> > > > >Are these new or old cases?
> > > >
> > > > He doesn't know. The people who came up with the statistics don't
> > > > know. That is why the statistics are worthless.
> > >
> > > They tell us that Gays infect each other FAR FAR FAR more frequenty
> > > than heterosexual.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> Injecting drug use - -
> > > > >> MALE 126,889 -
> > > > >> FEMALE 46,804 -
> > > > >> TOTAL - 173,693
> > > > >
> > > > >Can you tell us why the number for men is higher for men Here?
> > > >
> > > > No, he can't. Neither can the people who came up with the statistics.
> > > >
> > > > >> Men who have sex w/men and inject drugs - 43,640
> > > > >> Hemophilia/coagulation disorder - -
> > > > >> MALE 4,663 -
> > > > >> FEMALE 248 -
> > > > >> TOTAL - 4,911
> > > > >
> > > > >.. these people have AIDS?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't say. The statistics are worthless.
> > > >
> > > > >> Risk not reported or identified - -
> > > > >> MALE 41,037 -
> > > > >> FEMALE 15,533 -
> > > > >> TOTAL - 56,572
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - center for disease control, 1999
> > > > >
> > > > >Without some more information thee numbers are useless, and really dont
> > > > >say anything.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like Kuntis loses again. Unfortuanetly, I had to killfile him
> > > > after he pasted all those pointless statistics over and over again...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
>
> --
<obnoxious sig snipped>
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:46:37 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > drsquare wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:32:03 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > > ("S.T. Pickrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >drsquare wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> That part that they're equally transferrable through homosexual and
> > > > > >> heterosexual sex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In Africa and Asia you're certainly right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In North America, it seems more homosexuals get it. Whether the
> > > > > >gap will close or not is another issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do they? Have you got any EVIDENCE? No, you haven't. So fuck off until
> > > > > you have.
> > > >
> > > > U.S. AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
> > > >
> > > > EXPOSURE CATEGORY Sub-totals # of AIDS CASES
> > > > Men who have sex with men - 326,051
> > > > Injecting drug use - -
> > > > MALE 126,889 -
> > > > FEMALE 46,804 -
> > > > TOTAL - 173,693
> > > > Men who have sex w/men and inject drugs - 43,640
> > > > Hemophilia/coagulation disorder - -
> > > > MALE 4,663 -
> > > > FEMALE 248 -
> > > > TOTAL - 4,911
> > > > Heterosexual contact - -
> > > > MALE 23,361 -
> > > > FEMALE 43,128 -
> > > > TOTAL - 66,490
> > > > Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue - -
> > > > MALE 4,784 -
> > > > FEMALE 3,598 -
> > > > TOTAL - 8,382
> > > > Risk not reported or identified - -
> > > > MALE 41,037 -
> > > > FEMALE 15,533 -
> > > > TOTAL - 56,572
> > > >
> > > > - center for disease control, 1999
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > >
> > > Once again, without more information, these numbers are useless.
> >
> > There will be a reason for Mr. Kulekiss not to provide anything of use.
> > Let's see.
>
> They provide the documentation that 2% of the population accounts for
> 50% of all of the AIDS cases.
>
> why is that?
>
Well, becasue the disease gained its foothold in THIS country in the
homosexual and IV drug using communities, in a timeframe that allowed
sex with multiple partners. In other parts of the world you will find
the statistics reversed. You will also find that, until quite recently,
the largest reports of new HIV cases were in teenagers, particularly
girls.
you really should take a blood borne pathogen course, and a course in
epidemiology.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:50:11 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > drsquare wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:32:03 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > ("S.T. Pickrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >drsquare wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> That part that they're equally transferrable through homosexual and
> > > > >> heterosexual sex.
> > > > >
> > > > >In Africa and Asia you're certainly right.
> > > > >
> > > > >In North America, it seems more homosexuals get it. Whether the
> > > > >gap will close or not is another issue.
> > > >
> > > > Do they? Have you got any EVIDENCE? No, you haven't. So fuck off until
> > > > you have.
> > >
> > > U.S. AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
> > >
> > > EXPOSURE CATEGORY Sub-totals # of AIDS CASES
> > > Men who have sex with men - 326,051
> > > Injecting drug use - -
> > > MALE 126,889 -
> > > FEMALE 46,804 -
> > > TOTAL - 173,693
> > > Men who have sex w/men and inject drugs - 43,640
> > > Hemophilia/coagulation disorder - -
> > > MALE 4,663 -
> > > FEMALE 248 -
> > > TOTAL - 4,911
> > > Heterosexual contact - -
> > > MALE 23,361 -
> > > FEMALE 43,128 -
> > > TOTAL - 66,490
> > > Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue - -
> > > MALE 4,784 -
> > > FEMALE 3,598 -
> > > TOTAL - 8,382
> > > Risk not reported or identified - -
> > > MALE 41,037 -
> > > FEMALE 15,533 -
> > > TOTAL - 56,572
> > >
> > > - center for disease control, 1999
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
> > Once again, without more information, these numbers are useless.
>
> they tell us that 2% of the population accounts for more than 50% of all AIDS cases.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Without proper questions, this information is useless. It tells us less
than nothing. When HIV was first isolated, it was thought only
homosexulas could contract this disease. Those people were very wrong.
It is a disease of behaviors. if heterosexual people engage in the same
activities as homosexual (anal sex, multiple partners, sex with IV
users, etc.) they are as much at risk for contracting HOV as anyone
else.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:53:22 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the world thinks there is only windows. yahoo sucks.
Zsolt wrote:
>
> top@pp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 14 Jun 2001 00:12:49 -0700 presented us with the
>wisdom:
>
> >
> > Lets all write to yahoo and complain. I am just had it with
> > sites like yahoo that only supports windows.
> >
> > click on this site and you'll get an error that it is only supported
> > on windoz.
>
> Nope.
> I just clicked on the link, running Mandrake 7.2, reading this with KNode,
> so it brings up Konqueror as a browser and that has no problem whatsoever.
> I see all the adds, forms etc. the links work also - didn't get any error message...
>
> What browser did you try to use ?
>
> >
> > http://vision.yahoo.com/?id=1457763&aid=5016
> >
I can second that. I did find the pop-up warning in Netscape though.
Maybe there is something somewhere on the screen we are not seeing, as I
could also see a web page with links and everything on that page in
Netscape.
Cheers.
------------------------------
From: John LaVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:18:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drsquare wrote:
> Look, I don't agree with sky or with many conservatives regardign anything
> related to sexual behavior, but there is nothing to be gained from being
> obtuse. The site, if it isn't perfectly accurate, certainly is accurate when
> it comes to representing trends.
>
> OK, a few points about the site:
>
> 1) It only mentions being about cases in the US. The US is but a small
> percentage (~4%) of the world. Testing 4% of people will not give an
> accurate result.
That's what is being discussed, i.e. the developed world
>
> 2) It only mentions cases of AIDS, not instances of HIV. There are
> probably many more with HIV who have not developed AIDS yet.
But there is no reason to suspect that hets develop AIDS at a different rate
than gays. If het AIDS increases by a certain percent, it is likely that gay
cases will increase proportionately.
>
> 3) The date only seems to go up to 1997, and is therefore obsolete.
Not bad for medical stats. Not obsolete
> 4) It does not mention how the statistics were obtained.
There is no reason to doubt the numbers.
> 5) It does not mention any independent bodies who verified the data.
Its from teh CDC. That would be the touchstone for most people
> 6) The data was collected by a body from a predominantly homophobic
> country, therefore making the statistics next to useless.
Completely irrelevant.
> I'd like to see your replies to the above points.
There isn't any real question that gay men contract HIV at a higher rate than
het men. unprotected gay sexc is still a major vector for the disease. But this
is irrelevant to anything importnat. The key is to effect change in gay sexual
patterns. The recent reports indicating a spike in the gay AIDS rate and the
rise in unprotected sex indicates that the message is not getting through. But
it doesn't mean that there =is anything inherently bad or wicked about
homosexuality, only that there is a disease which disproportionaly affects gay
men.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:55:54 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > drsquare wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:15:43 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > >> U.S. AIDS CASES BY EXPOSURE CATEGORY
> > > >
> > > >Are theses AIDS statistics or HIV disease statistics?
> > > >Do you know the difference?
> > >
> > > No, he doesn't.
> >
> > Waht part of "U.S. AIDS CASES" do you not understand?
> >
>
> Do you know the differnece between HIV disease and end stage AIDS? Its
What part of US ____AIDS_____ CASES do you not understand?
> an easy question. Answer it. Then we may find out if yo have any idea
> about the numbers you are quoting.
>
> > >
> > > >> EXPOSURE CATEGORY Sub-totals # of AIDS CASES
> > > >> Men who have sex with men - 326,051
> > > >
> > > >What kind of sex is this? Oral, anal, what.
> > > >Are these new or old cases?
> > >
> > > He doesn't know. The people who came up with the statistics don't
> > > know. That is why the statistics are worthless.
> >
> > They tell us that Gays infect each other FAR FAR FAR more frequenty
> > than heterosexual.
> >
>
> I repeat... What kind of sex is this? Oral, anal, what. The question is
> impirtant in interpreting these numbers. These numbers do NOT tell us
> that homosexuals infect each other more frequently than heterosexuals.
> They DO tell us there are more homosexuals withthe disease. The US is
> somewhat unique in that it's main HIV+ population is homosexual.
>
> > >
> > > >> Injecting drug use - -
> > > >> MALE 126,889 -
> > > >> FEMALE 46,804 -
> > > >> TOTAL - 173,693
> > > >
> > > >Can you tell us why the number for men is higher for men Here?
> > >
> > > No, he can't. Neither can the people who came up with the statistics.
> > >
> > > >> Men who have sex w/men and inject drugs - 43,640
> > > >> Hemophilia/coagulation disorder - -
> > > >> MALE 4,663 -
> > > >> FEMALE 248 -
> > > >> TOTAL - 4,911
> > > >
> > > >.. these people have AIDS?
> > >
> > > It doesn't say. The statistics are worthless.
> > >
>
> Actually, these are merely numbers. And you didnt answer... why do you
> thnk the number of men of the IV drug use risk group was larger than
> women? Do you have any idea? Tis is a question that is important to
> understand the spread of the disease.
>
> > > >> Risk not reported or identified - -
> > > >> MALE 41,037 -
> > > >> FEMALE 15,533 -
> > > >> TOTAL - 56,572
> > > >>
> > > >> - center for disease control, 1999
> > > >
> > > >Without some more information thee numbers are useless, and really dont
> > > >say anything.
> > >
> > > Looks like Kuntis loses again. Unfortuanetly, I had to killfile him
> > > after he pasted all those pointless statistics over and over again...
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> <onnoxious sig snipped>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
