Posts by p forrester jarvie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
well i just aint quite hep to all this in-house talk, obviously!
but i was - even still am - distressed that RB checked in with nary a boowakashah or a by-yr-leave and referred to my attempts to front up with my enormous curiosity & doubts about the almost definitively treacherous historical layer-cake of what has come to be the hiv/aids industry, as 'crap'..
would that he had a moment to back up that wee deposit!
second only in distressfulness is the 'rich in observations' person, who most manifestly seems NOT, bypassing as s/he does in a trice all of my cautionary overtures and anticipating that i be but some gross and unwieldy MINDSET..
-
i am muchly tempted to say now: so if yer swell gay dudes ain't equally fuelled by testosterone also, just what are they fulled by? stigmasterone? or what? this is victimary rhetoric at its worst, surely...
-
Mind your brains don't fall out your open mind, little p. Selective skepticism is worse than none at all, I think.
read: make sure your desire for respectability doesn't fall out of your panoptically-charged response-ability to all who truly hover within the space opened up by the possibility of a free discussion
-
do i have to refer the class to first things essayings on why the grammar of proselytization is superior to that of toleration"? Or is every last one of us desjockeys here present today wholly satisfied that they know e v e r y t h i n g they need to KNOW about the history and progressive formulation of HIV/AIDS science & culture?
i can't think of a more basic & apposite question right now
-
selective skepticism? please elaborate?
u mean my skepticism is meant to be OTHERWISE?
hideous kinky! -
the general pop is those not yet endowed with the blessings of being counted among the identity groups, those who, iow, must bear the guilt of the unmarked toward the marked, and if you don't think these already constitute a religion, then there's a chaff-dsipenser lurking in every last spoonful of your cornflakes..
-
the discussion is now obviously, officially religious in nature
and the tolerati must contemplate their bowl of toenails anew -
RB, define, for the loving moment, tolerance
-
and here is a paragraph that neatly reminds of, rounds up and drives back home even, the nature of what 'inflames' my greatest curiosity.. unbarrowed variety, natch!
By the early ‘90s, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the average American ran no risk of contracting AIDS. In order to convince the average taxpayer that the risk still existed, the disease lobby had to look elsewhere for a credible threat, preferably far away, preferably a place full of already threatening diseases. In many ways, it was inevitable that once AIDS was recognized as confined to easily identifiable populations in America, it would have to be seen as threatening the general population some place else. If AIDS did not pose a threat to the general population anywhere, it was a medically insignificant event not worthy of government-funded research. Since the CDC and the rest of the medical establishment which fed at the government trough could not make a credible case that this was about to happen in America, they needed to make the case that it was happening someplace else if funding was to be saved..Enter: The Creation Of African AIDS!
-
ahh, sorry, it does not link to the expanded articles by all those people after all! But if you scroll down to the bottom of that page there is a little cluster of links that will open up a whole world of new considerations for your inspection in no time flat.. That dude Mullis is a very interesting character btw.