Y'all have me scared with all this HIV talk, because

[alfredog]

I recently had a "first-time" experience with Babydoll in NYC, who played it very safe, but you never know...

The rates of infection around here are terrifying. I am so attracted to beautiful tgirls and would like to seriously date one, but the risks seem too too extreme. I've seen too many friends die of AIDS to feel carefree about going with a girl who is likely to have slept with more than a few gay men.

And I've also witnessed the rage and spitefulness of infected people who have no problem sharing their disease with others.

Man, I'm shook. I know I'm the guy who complained about tgirls racially profiling us black men a few weeks back, but I can hardly blame them if their primary concern is AIDS. A high-risk group is a high-risk group.

I guess its just dinner, a movie and a kiss on the forehead from now on.

[ricorusso]

You shouldn't stop enjoying life because of the fear of AIDS. All we can do is be selective about who we sleep with and wrap it up when we finally do. It's really not that hard. Yes, we are in a high risk group but it's important to still have fun and make connections with people.

So if you want just dinner and movie that is fine, but if you want more just be careful. That's it.

Now let's hear about how Babydoll works that huge peice of meat.

Any details?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Anyone who has sex is at risk-

If you dont want to be at risk for any STD's then abstain.

Then again if you don't want to be in a car crash then dont tide in a car.
If you dont want to be in a plane crach then dont ride a plane.
If you don't want to get food poisining then don't get food.

Life is about calculated risks and taking precautions. Anything can happen at any time.

Be educated, not ignorant, and not live in fear.

Other wise develop agoraphobia and never leave your house-

but wait, most household accidents do happen in the bathroom ;)

[Spanky]

Then again if you don't want to be in a car crash then dont tide in a car.



Allanah,
If you had a friend that was about to take a ride in a car with someone under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and you knew that the driver had taken drink and drugs, would you tell your friend or would you let your friend risk his/her life by getting in the car?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

that is a different scenario

[Spanky]

that is a different scenario

I beg to differ Allanah. It's not too different at all in my opinion.

[Johnny Cocksville]

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=6425:1488

[AllanahStarrNYC]

sweetie

under your assumption

all escorts would be hiv positive- untrue

if you do not take responsibility for your own actions- then you are as much to blame

im sorry

but it's about time this culture gave up all this victim crap

"oh, i got fucked 20 times in the ass with out a condom, and now i am hiv positive, poor me"

hunny yes no one deserves hiv and i feel bad that peopke have to go throught that but if you dont have any common sense then you are an idiot.

you took the risk and if u got the consequence wll then u have to deal with it and get on with it.

it's like plastic surgery-

realisitically, i can die anytime i go under aneasthesia
i know that-
but its a risk i take- A CALCULATED RISKS

the same everyone should do with sex

[Spanky]

sweetie

under your assumption

all escorts would be hiv positive- untrue

if you do not take responsibility for your own actions- then you are as much to blame

im sorry

but it's about time this culture gave up all this victim crap

"oh, i got fucked 20 times in the ass with out a condom, and now i am hiv positive, poor me"

hunny yes no one deserves hiv and i feel bad that peopke have to go throught that but if you dont have any common sense then you are an idiot.

you took the risk and if u got the consequence wll then u have to deal with it and get on with it.

it's like plastic surgery-

realisitically, i can die anytime i go under aneasthesia
i know that-
but its a risk i take- A CALCULATED RISKS

the same everyone should do with sex

Allanah, you have taken my comments and turned them completely into another thread. Of course people should wear condoms; I never said that they shouldn't.

However, knowing that someone who is HIV+ and escorts and not doing anything about it is a disgrace. Allanah I admire you a lot however I disagree with you on this. I am disappointed in you.

It's the very same as my drunk driving analogy (see above).

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

And I've also witnessed the rage and spitefulness of infected people who have no problem sharing their disease with others.


That alone, HAS KEPT me from doing ALOT OF SHIT.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

Anyone who has sex is at risk-

If you dont want to be at risk for any STD's then abstain.

Then again if you don't want to be in a car crash then dont tide in a car.
If you dont want to be in a plane crach then dont ride a plane.
If you don't want to get food poisining then don't get food.

Life is about calculated risks and taking precautions. Anything can happen at any time.

I rarely get into conversations like these, but I just had to say, that this is some SCARY LOGIC. According to this logic, everything is "BLACK or WHITE", WHEN IN REALITY most of our lives deal in Grey Matter.

Spanky is right, the drunk driving analogy is no different from two people jumping in the same bed when one of the people in is "unsafe".

[Spanky]

I rarely get into conversations like these, but I just had to say, that this is some SCARY LOGIC. According to this logic, everything is "BLACK or WHITE", WHEN IN REALITY most of our lives deal in Grey Matter.


Spanky is right, the drunk driving analogy is no different from two people jumping in the same bed when one of the people in is "unsafe".

Thanks Big Booty Shemale Lover! Nice to know that there are rational people out there willing to step up to the plate.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

lol-

so i am irrational for advocating that you protect yourself and use your own judgement? things can happen at any time, darlings-a lot of things in life are black and white. and anythign can happen at any time- bothing is certain.

why who is to say that i can go walk out side right now and not get run over?

it is possible isnt it?

thats why i look on both sides of the street.

you people need to get over it and use your own judgements and stop crying wolf- assume your own responsibility and stop trying to blame things on everyone else.

call my logic scary darling- but i am a risk take, fearless, and have cojones to take chances in life. i would live the way i do or be what i am if i didnt.

some of u need to grow some balls.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

furthermore, u clsiffy escorts only.

hunny there are more people fucking without condoms than escorts.. most escorts, if not all i know, are extrmeely safe. people go out every weekend fuck and do god knows what without condoms.

u think because someone is in a "monogamous" relationship they are safe. PLEASE. i HAVE A FRIEND WHOSE FASTHER GAVE HSI MOTHER HERPES FROM SLEEPING AROUND.

Get a clue hunny, this is 2005. u think everyone is honest and mos tof them who ar emarried and have extra marital affairs and see escorts tell their wives.

let me ask you- HVE U EVER CHEATED ON YOUR GF?

u guys kill me sometimes.

oh an escort who has hiv is despicable! wait but a man who is married, supposedely monogamous, fucks around on his partnet, does risky behavious, then brings is home- i bet its the escorts fault too right?

it's both their faults.

[Blacknight]

HIV is a some scary shit. And other Disease are scary as hell getting them too.

I know this one TS that has HIV and she used to escort back in the day too.. and to think that she may have had the disease a long time before she went out and got tested....that def some food for thought....

Also I dont want to drop names but there are some TS out there that have Hepatitis C. It rare for it to be transmitted sexually but can be. Most people get it from IV drug use. But the Damage that it can cause on your liver is tremendous...in the end it just causes liver failure and you die

Moral of story....A new awareness of Hep C needs to begin

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

lol-

so i am irrational for advocating that you protect yourself and use your own judgement?

No, thats not irrational. But this is:



Anyone who has sex is at risk-
Then again if you don't want to be in a car crash then dont tide in a car.
If you don't want to get food poisining then don't get food.


You use way too many generalizations when you type things. I'm pretty sure you would do a better job explaining your ideas in person. But then again, we all could. Nevertheless, when I type a message in here, I won't use these silly generalizations like you're doing. You oversimplify things.
If you don't want to get food poisoning, then don't get food? What the hell is that? Thats one of the silliest "if-then" logic statements I've ever read.
This is what I mean by "grey matter", or gray area.
Anyone with any type of intelligence would know that, eating food you found in someone's garbage is RISKIER, and more likely to give you food poisoning than eating a home-cooked meal. Not getting food at all would be absurd, and you know THIS. Thats what makes it absurd.
So in other words, the examples you use to express yourself are just silly.


Now, if all you were saying is "protect yourself and use good judgement about everything", then yes, I agree. But if you read that other "stuff" you typed earlier, thats not the impression one would get. By reading your above response, it looks like you're a person who simply doesn't want to acknowledge that some things are naturally just RISKIER than others.





things can happen at any time, darlings-a lot of things in life are black and white. and anythign can happen at any time- nothing is certain.

Ok first you say alot of things are black and white which means they're certain. But then you say, nothing is certain. Which one is it?
Things that are black and white, or "black or white" per se' are definitive truths, such as "yes and no", "right and left", and "true and false", etc... and also numerical values. These are definitive truths which can be proven. They can be proven standing alone, or proven relatively, which means "in relation to", such as numbers in sequence. They're certain. Theres no "in between". (grey matter)


There are people out there who will sleep with anyone, and unprotected, don't care. They don't care what they're partner has, or what they have themselves, they'll sleep with everybody, they don't care.

Then there are those who practice celibacy, they will sleep with no one, no where, no time, ever.
These two extreme types are opposite, and debatably, equal. For this example, these would be the "black or white".

And finally, there are those people, who won't sleep with just anyone, they'll sleep with people who they know, or think they know. They protect themselves, they have significant others who some are faithful to, some more than others. These people try to look for mates, some want long term, some want short term relationships. These people sometimes masturbate, they don't practice celibacy nor will they sleep with just anyone without caring at all. Most of the people in this society fall under this category.
This is your "grey area".


Get it? Got it? Good.

Things can happen at any time, yes. There are also things we can control, if we choose to.

Your logic is scary, if you think the drunk driving scenario is any different than two people getting in the same bed when one is HIV positive.

Spanky was right. If your friend was about to get in a car with a drunk driver, you would warn her right?
But if a guy is about to get into bed with someone with HIV and he doesn't know-- its ok? He should own up, and be responsible? Yeah. Right. Just like your friend.

Your simplifications of situations are juvenile at best. And you tell us to grow some balls? You need a bigger pair yourself. At least guys like me and Spanky have enough balls to warn our fellow man if we see him blindly about to walk off a cliff, unlike some people.






:roll:

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I'm just going to say one last thing to you-
about the food poisining analogy.

I have gottwn food poising 4 times from fine places, at the airport, and once in London. I wasn;t diggin through a trahs can- I was simply eating food.

I think u are bright enough to figure out that I was making the comaprison that everything in life has a risks. I am sorry darling, but I dont know who you go to bed with and what your hiv status is, and I dont care because we will never have unsafe sex.

And when u want to talk about balls, strap them in every days, get a lot of plastic surgery, live as the opposite sex, get your whole face electrolysised, and then lets talka bout courage.

Enough- I am done with this topic.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Oh and Im sorry Spanky and Love- the big computer system that I had that kept track of every transsexuals HIV status, crashed, so I am sorry, I can't help you guys make your own sexual decisions. You are gonna have to make your own educated, smart decisions about who you sleep with and the precautions you use rom now on! Darn it! That camera sustem I use to have in every trannys bedroom as well, failed, so I can warn you about the drunk driver IF I AM THERE- but Im so sorry, I can't warn you about WHO you fuck becuse I just dont know. Exactly like I don't know either of you in person- FELLOW HUMANS. ;)

ps

THANKS FOR THE INSULTS, I ENJOY THAT NOW AND THEN.

[Spanky]

so i am irrational for advocating that you protect yourself and use your own judgement? things can happen at any time, darlings-a lot of things in life are black and white. and anythign can happen at any time- bothing is certain.

Allanah, I don't know if you actually comprehend this thread or not. Maybe you do and you're playing coy by trying to flip the subject matter with every message you write.

This thread is not about whether condoms should be used or not. I'm pretty sure that we all agree that condoms should be used at all times. The issue here is that if a transexual is HIV+, should they continue to escort? If they choose to do so then they should let their clientele know. By not telling them, they are putting their clienteles' lives at risk.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING NOW?


why who is to say that i can go walk out side right now and not get run over?

it is possible isnt it?

thats why i look on both sides of the street.

Allow me to use your own analogy to help you understand. If you are crossing the street and a bus is coming straight for you, would you like someone to warn you of impending death or would you prefer to have the bus hit you?



some of u need to grow some balls.

Whose ass did you pull that comment out of? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm very surprised that you choose to exhibit an ignorant point of view on this subject. I'm curious about your motives.

ONCE AGAIN, TO RE-CAP: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT USING OR NOT USING CONDOMS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO REPLY, PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO FLIP THE SUBJECT MATTER.

Thank you.

[Ecstatic]

This thread is not about whether condoms should be used or not. I'm pretty sure that we all agree that condoms should be used at all times. The issue here is that if a transexual is HIV+, should they continue to escort? If they choose to do so then they should let their clientele know. By not telling them, they are putting their clienteles' lives at risk.
You've both made valid points, but I think you're not agreeing on what the central topic of discussion in this thread is. Allanah says that everyone must take responsibility for his or her own safety, and you agree that condoms should be used at all times. You're stating that an HIV-positive escort should either stop escorting (preferred) or inform her clients that she is HIV-positive. However, any provider who did openly disclose that information would probably have few if any clients, which brings Allanah back around to the simple fact that each person must take responsibility for himself.

You appear to be pushing Allanah further, trying to get her to first state that her sadly departed friend was HIV-positive and escorted knowing her condition, then to proclaim this "fact" to the world at large to warn everyone of this person's condition. Allanah has replied, rightfully and several times, that this is not "fact," it's hearsay, and no one should denigrate another by spreading hearsay. There are legal issues of libel, ethical issues of social responsibility, and more involved. It is not our responsibility to reveal another's presumed medical status to the world, and especially not without proof. Statements made by others and quoted in the press do not constitute proof.

We are talking about the supposed "duty to warn" others of someone's HIV-positive status. The legal and ethical arguments are quite extensive--just google "duty to warn HIV status" for samples. For instance, concerning employers and co-workers, The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource (http://www.thebody.com/pos_work/issues.html) offers this:

Treat all human blood as if it is infectious. You are responsible for protecting yourself from exposure to bloodborne pathogens in handling blood spills or workplace accidents. Your employer is under no obligation to inform you when one of your co-workers has HIV disease. Your employer is obligated to maintain confidentiality of every employee's medical information. Your protection from exposure is your own behavior, including using universal precautions in first aid. Universal precautions in first aid include always using a barrier between yourself and human blood, and treating all blood as if it is infectious.

Another example, from the GLAD website regarding Connecticut state laws (http://www.glad.org/rights/connecticut_hiv.shtml):

Connecticut law contains a broad prohibition against the disclosure by any person, without a release, of “confidential HIV-related information.” CGSA §19a-583 (a).

.................................

Many courts have found that a person has a constitutional privacy right to the nondisclosure of HIV status. Courts have based this right on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution which creates a privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of certain types of personal information.

Even--or especially--physicians with factual medical knowledge at their fingertips are constrained by law; again, to cite Connecticut law:

Connecticut law permits both public health officers and physicians, under certain circumstances, to inform or warn partners that they may have been exposed to HIV. CGSA §19a-584. The term “partner” means an “identified spouse or sex partner of the protected individual or a person identified as having shared hypodermic needles or syringes with the protected individual.” §19a-581 (10). The requirements for such a disclosure by a public health officer are that:

- There is a reasonable belief of a significant risk of transmission to the partner;

- The public health officer has counseled the individual regarding the need to notify a partner and reasonably believes that the individual will not disclose to the partner; and

- The public health officer has informed the protected individual of his or her intent to make the disclosure.

A physician may only warn or inform a known partner if both the partner and the individual with HIV are under the physician’s care. A physician may also disclose confidential HIV related information to a public health officer for the purpose of warning partners, if the physician takes the same steps with respect to his or her patient as public health officers must take above.

In making such a warning, the physician or public health official shall not disclose the identity of the HIV-infected individual and, where practicable, shall make such disclosure in person.

As much as we may want to know the HIV and AIDS status of any potential sexual partner, Allanah is right legally, ethically and morally: our responsibility is to protect ourselves, not to disseminate information about others, especially when that information is hearsay.

[thanos]

:banghead

[Quinn]

LMAO...

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Thank you Ecstatic-

You siad it 1,000,000 times than I ever could have.

Kiss*

[Ecstatic]

You're most welcome, Allanah. I thought you had said it very clearly--and with good humor--but another voice doesn't hurt.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

[quote=Spanky]
We are talking about the supposed "duty to warn" others of someone's HIV-positive status. The legal and ethical arguments are quite extensive--just google "duty to warn HIV status" for samples. For instance, concerning employers and co-workers, The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource (http://www.thebody.com/pos_work/issues.html) offers this:

Treat all human blood as if it is infectious. You are responsible for protecting yourself from exposure to bloodborne pathogens in handling blood spills or workplace accidents. Your employer is under no obligation to inform you when one of your co-workers has HIV disease. Your employer is obligated to maintain confidentiality of every employee's medical information. Your protection from exposure is your own behavior, including using universal precautions in first aid. Universal precautions in first aid include always using a barrier between yourself and human blood, and treating all blood as if it is infectious.

It is in extremely poor taste to compare disclosure and confidentiality codes of conduct in the workplace, to alerting a friend that they may be about to endager their lives by sleeping with an HIV infected escort.
Codes of Conduct in the workplace are set forth to provide all employees with equal and fair treatment without regards to race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. Most employers today advertise themselves wholly with 'EOE', which means they practice equal opportunities for all persons employed. Confidentiality of medical information by the employer, is to ensure this equal and fair treatment, and eliminate the possible ALIENATION that an employee may experience due to their medical information being disclosed. This is why we have disclosure acts, because in the workplace, work production can continue normally without a persons medical history being disclosed. As long as an employee can perform the duties assigned by her/him, with or without limited assistance, their medical state has little to no relevance because it isn't needed to be known in order to continue production. Confidentialty seizes the possibility of unneeded occurences which can possibly disrupt work and production.

Workplace Codes of Conduct to ensure all people get treated fairly, and telling a friend to think twice about drinking the Jim Jones poisoned Kool-Aid? Not even remotely the similar.






Another example, from the GLAD website regarding Connecticut state laws (http://www.glad.org/rights/connecticut_hiv.shtml):
Connecticut law contains a broad prohibition against the disclosure by any person, without a release, of “confidential HIV-related information.” CGSA §19a-583 (a).
.................................
Many courts have found that a person has a constitutional privacy right to the nondisclosure of HIV status. Courts have based this right on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution which creates a privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of certain types of personal information.

Even--or especially--physicians with factual medical knowledge at their fingertips are constrained by law; again, to cite Connecticut law:
Connecticut law permits both public health officers and physicians, under certain circumstances, to inform or warn partners that they may have been exposed to HIV. CGSA §19a-584. The term “partner” means an “identified spouse or sex partner of the protected individual or a person identified as having shared hypodermic needles or syringes with the protected individual.” §19a-581 (10). The requirements for such a disclosure by a public health officer are that:
In making such a warning, the physician or public health official shall not disclose the identity of the HIV-infected individual and, where practicable, shall make such disclosure in person.

Another poor example. Due to the fact really that physicians are licensed practitioners who took an oath foregoing into the actual practice. Their Code of Ethics is to protect themselves, just as much, if not, more than their actual patients. Their overall demeanor is to provide similar outcome and circumstance as a business, no disclosure whatsoever of a persons medical information, even sometimes without the patients CONSENT.
Public Health Officials have certain clauses which is meant to protect the official, and the AMA, most public health organizations, businesses and pharmaceutial companies. Confidentiality of medical information by physicians and medical health practitioners eliminates or at least minimizes the possibility of lawsuits by patients who may undergo public exposure, possible hate crimes, and other possible punitive damage.


I mean, this is all in common sense. A physician must adhere and fulfill a certain role if she/he expects to remain a physican for a duration of any substantial tenure.
The last time I checked, I haven't taken such oaths. I am allowed to tell a friend that there are landmines in the area where he or she is about to walk.








As much as we may want to know the HIV and AIDS status of any potential sexual partner, Allanah is right legally, ethically and morally: our responsibility is to protect ourselves, not to disseminate information about others, especially when that information is hearsay.


At BEST, Allanah is partially right, on certain legal levels. Business Law, but only on legal businesses, because many business laws adhere to relations between employer and employee, which was meant to be foundationally two distince entities. Escorting isn't even legal in most places, where sometimes the employer is the employee of himself or herself. In essence, the attempt to apply business laws to an illegal practice isn't even applicable. You'd get laughed out of court.

So Allanah is partially right on a legal level, but ethically right? Your opinion really. And morally right? I won't even comment.

Ecstatic you are failing to realize the foundations of moral obligations and legal obligations. You are thinking on a small scale my friend. You're intertwining morality and legalities; unjustly, because, what may be illegal isn't necessarily immoral, and vice versa.
Its illegal in my state to drive a car without a seatbelt, but that doesn't mean driving without a seatbelt is immoral.
Its not illegal to cheat on your wife, but yet, its IMMORAL.
Morals are deeper than laws, laws are arbitrary and made by man. Morals are right, and not because man said so, but because it constitutes the good in all things.

When you abandon what you know is morally right, and trade it in for legal permissions, you cater to the destruction of humanity.

[Ecstatic]

:roll:

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Thank you for enforcing YOUR code of ethics and moral beliefs on ALL of us and tell us what we should do.

I almost thought I was at a neo-christian republican rally for a minute.
See lover, you nailed the problem eith the right wing propoganda right on the head- not to get off topic. Being concerened with what everyonedoes in everyone elses bed, instea dof being concerend with that you do in your own.

How are we supposed to know which escorts are HIV positive? How are we to know who is having sex with who? You can totally hire an escort and just share their company and nothign sexual might happen.
What then you are reffering to, is prostitution. Is that morally wrong as well?

And to correct what you said about escorting- escorting is completley legal in evert state in the US. You just need a liscene to escort in some of them.
Legally speaking- solicitation and escorting are two different things.
I can sell you my time love, not my body.


All of your arguments could have made some sense before- but now they are left completley unfounded. I am glad Esctatic whipped your butt on this one.

[Spanky]

I am glad Esctatic whipped your butt on this one.

LMAO

Is this an attempt at dry humor Allanah? :shock:

Reality check: Ecstatic didn't whip anyone's butt. :lol:

Allanah, I don't think that you made one single ounce of sense in this whole thread. Of course this is just my own humbe opinion.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I thank you for your humble opinion.

[Spanky]

I would be willing to bet that Allanah maintains such an irrational and immoral opinion on this topic because she personally knows transexual girls that are HIV+ and continue to escort.

By the way, this is speculation. I am not making any accusations

[Dina Delicious]

>>>>>>

[Spanky]

whoa wait a minute here spanky that accusation is truly uncalled for


I am not making any accusations

[Dina Delicious]

.......

[NickTheQuick]

...

[Dina Delicious]

if i wasnt part german id really tear you a new one nick

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

Thank you for enforcing YOUR code of ethics and moral beliefs on ALL of us and tell us what we should do.

I almost thought I was at a neo-christian republican rally for a minute.
See lover, you nailed the problem eith the right wing propoganda right on the head- not to get off topic. Being concerened with what everyonedoes in everyone elses bed, instea dof being concerend with that you do in your own.

How are we supposed to know which escorts are HIV positive? How are we to know who is having sex with who? You can totally hire an escort and just share their company and nothign sexual might happen.
What then you are reffering to, is prostitution. Is that morally wrong as well?

And to correct what you said about escorting- escorting is completley legal in evert state in the US. You just need a liscene to escort in some of them.
Legally speaking- solicitation and escorting are two different things.
I can sell you my time love, not my body.


All of your arguments could have made some sense before- but now they are left completley unfounded. I am glad Esctatic whipped your butt on this one.


"Whipped my butt"? Not hardly. Anyone with a keyboard can google up something and post it here.
You can miss me with your "politically correct" mumbo-jumbo.
As much as you wouldn't like to think so, your way of thinking is undoubtedly in the minority of the rest of the human race.
Your "politically correct" expressions for things which have an illegal nature are just symbolic of your shallow thinking process. Whether you're selling your time, or your body-- A pre-driven vehicle is still a used car, no matter what label you want to use to shine it up.

In my line of work, I tell people all the time that, they don't have to AGREE with what i'm telling them, but they MUST understand.
You seem to fail to understand, and understanding is the first step.
But all in all, I can tell by your response you can't really comprehend everything I am saying, and most of the material mentioned has went over your head or has ascended your level of thinking. Its obvious because this thread is now 3 pages deep and you still haven't dispelled any of my statements. Judging by the content of your posts so far, you won't be able to do so.

At best you may recognize a few words in my response, such as "escort" or "business", and feel as though thats a premise you can handle, but nevertheless you again fall short on the ability to comprehend and attack my points one by one directly as I have done with both Yours and Ecstatic.

If you look for loopholes and/or continue to believe certain things just to suit your own personal needs you'll only damage your mental well-being.

You went off on a tangent at least twice in your initial post, which caused some people to question what the actual topic was that was being discussed.

I'm going to leave you in your own thought process, before I shatter it.
I usually don't argue with people of obviously lesser intelligence, so I won't do it here. Its time the smarter one stepped aside and let the chips fall where they may. You believe what you want to believe, while guys like me will continue to spread intelligence to the nation in the areas in which it is called upon.
The people who read this thread can see who speaks the truth and who is just just trying to protect themselves for the sake of "business" purposes.

:roll:

Good luck on that journey.

[Ecstatic]

I didn't set out to whip anybody's butt, and I really don't care what you choose to believe, either Spanky or Big Booty. However, a word of caution to anyone with pretensions of higher intelligence who writes phrases such as "most of the material mentioned has went over your head or has ascended your level of thinking": "has went" is extremely poor grammar, and "has ascended your level" is nonsense, though it could be taken to mean either "has ascended to your level" or "has transcended your level" (which I know is what you intended).

My examples are but two of a multiplicity of examples from several different social contexts, but the underlying principle which both Allanah and Dina have expressed is that, to quote Dina who truly cut to the chase:


it is not my bizzz too out anyone
it is my bizzzzzzz to protect myself and myself only

That is to say, short of actual hard evidence proof (and outing someone is still dubious legally and ethically), it's hearsay, an invasion of privacy, and quite possibly libel to "out" someone as being HIV-positive or AIDS-positive, especially in a public forum. To privately confide in a friend who has just informed you that he plans to sleep with someone who you suspect is HIV-positive is one thing; that's your opinion privately shared with another. But to publically out someone without proof is simply wrong. Study the case law as closely as you wish. What is moral, ethical and legally sanctioned is to protect yourself. If you have good reason to suspect someone and privately confide in a friend who could suffer from contact with that individual, that would be a good thing in my estimation. But to publically out someone, without proof, in a public forum is unjustified and unethical. To expect someone who is quite public and who earns her living in that or a closely related sphere (viz. Allanah outing another transsexual) would be doubly unethical simply because she could be perceived as doing so to further her welfare at the expense of another.

Your comments exhibit an extremely limited comprehension of law, ethics, and morality when you insist that one person should expose another, particularly without proof. Too many people could and quite probably would be wrongfully accused, and thus injury to those parties could well ensue. Protect yourself. That's the bottom line.

I have no more to say on this topic.

[Vicki Richter]

Ecstatic, being married and all. How would you feel about sleeping with HIV infected escorts? If you knew they were HIV positive, would you still see them or choose a girl where you didn't know her status? I mean there is more at risk than just your personal health right?

I've said many times escorts should be required to get tested and publish their status because not doing so, knowing they are infected, and still performing as a sex worker is wreckless endangerment. I talked to legal cousel at a large adult company (bigger than any I have worked for) and validated that is the case for video work at least. Since escorting is already illegal in and of itself, I am not sure there is a prescedent there.

Maybe today there should be a price for knowing your partners status. Would you be willing to pay more $ for the reassurance that your partner didn't have HIV?

[Tadmirer]

Okay - my turn at the brick wall -

All these pages of discourse can be boiled down to this -

Should each individual bear responsibility for our own behavior..........YES.

Should each individual evaluate the personal risk/gain of any activity .............YES.

Should any individual spread vicious rumors about someone else.............NO.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Oh Yes Spanky

I happen to know all the escorts who are HIV positive

I also solved the meaning of life, found the missing link, and split the atom.

How dare you accuse me of knowing such. I have no idea what any escorts HIV status is because I don't ask them- it is not my business, I am not sleeping with any of them.

Darling take your meds, your not thinking clearly.

And Lover, thank you for emlightening me with your supreme knowledge-and letting us those who are the meek, and of "lesser: intelligence, be divinely inspired by your intelligence and rhetoric I BOW DOWN TO THEE OH MIGHTY ONE.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Hey Spanky

By the way- SPECULATION is what started lets see THE SALEM WITCH HUNTS, THE McCARTHY HEARINGS, ETC..

Which witch are you looking to burn or which witch hunt are you looking to start?

[Ecstatic]

Ecstatic, being married and all. How would you feel about sleeping with HIV infected escorts? If you knew they were HIV positive, would you still see them or choose a girl where you didn't know her status? I mean there is more at risk than just your personal health right?
Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her. Yet choosing a girl whose status I don't know implies potential risk, indeed. Less risk statistically that sleeping with someone who I knew to be HIV-positive, but not knowing is something of a crap shoot, which I'm sure is part of your point here. And I always practice safe sex (which of course is never 100% safe, but is within "acceptible mission parameters." As for more than my personal health, yes, if I became infected and passed the virus on to another partner (my wife or another escort), there's definitely more than my own safety involved. However, despite appearances (heehee), I'm really quite selective with whom I sleep, so that is some reassurance.


I've said many times escorts should be required to get tested and publish their status because not doing so, knowing they are infected, and still performing as a sex worker is wreckless endangerment. I talked to legal cousel at a large adult company (bigger than any I have worked for) and validated that is the case for video work at least. Since escorting is already illegal in and of itself, I am not sure there is a prescedent there.

Maybe today there should be a price for knowing your partners status. Would you be willing to pay more $ for the reassurance that your partner didn't have HIV?
Yes, I would. I think that would be fair and quite reasonable, and that prostitution should not be illegal in the US but licensed and that regular testing and credentials would be part of the process. That's the way it is in the Netherlands, isn't it?

Only one girl (my favorite girl, incidentally) has volunteered to show me her test results, though I haven't asked for the results specifically, although I have asked girls if they've been tested and the result has been "yes, and I'm negative": but that's not proof, only assertion. I do trust these girls to be telling me the truth, but I also trust in laytex for protection.

Perhaps you could once again share the info regarding the AIM (iirc) test that the adult film industry uses? I think I would like to take that test because it's the most accurate, isn't it?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

In a perfect world that would great- but prostitution will never be
legalized nor regulated in this country.

hence, why we have to have these discussions and arguments.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

[b][color=indigo]I didn't set out to whip anybody's butt, and I really don't care what you choose to believe, either Spanky or Big Booty. However, a word of caution to anyone with pretensions of higher intelligence who writes phrases such as "most of the material mentioned has went over your head or has ascended your level of thinking": "has went" is extremely poor grammar, and "has ascended your level" is nonsense, though it could be taken to mean either "has ascended to your level" or "has transcended your level" (which I know is what you intended).



A word of caution? You're funny. You can't think of anything else to tackle my arguments directly, so you look for other things, which are irrelevant to the subject, such as my grammar. This is typical of the losing side of a debate. The losing side generally will "look" for other things to try to use to discredit the opposition, because of a LACK of any RELEVANT material.
Typical, and yes predictable.

As many "grammatical errors" which have taken place in this thread not once did I address them, because it is IRRELEVANT. Some of Allanah's responses are barely legible at times, but I attacked the IDEA behind the GRAMMAR, because thats what mattered most.

Now

I have respect for my fellow members here at HungAngels. But I could literally destroy you both in a debate simulantaneously. You both have troubles sticking to the subject matter at hand, and also have faulty premises and questionable conclusions formed by unstable logic.

Since i'm finished with Allanah, it would be more presentable for you not to deviate from the subject of discussion.

Take all the time you need to respond, my point has been expressed so theres no need to further repeat it.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

LOL finished with Allanah

That's a good one. Booty- u are a kidder.
Yes I am a horrid typist. SUE ME.

[Ecstatic]

Now this is indeed humorous. First you accuse me of arguing ad hominem (though failing to identify the supposed fallacy as such):

You can't think of anything else to tackle my arguments directly, so you look for other things, which are irrelevant to the subject, such as my grammar.
Then you turn about and commit the same logical fallacy yourself:


But I could literally destroy you both in a debate simulantaneously. You both have troubles sticking to the subject matter at hand, and also have faulty premises and questionable conclusions formed by unstable logic.
Upon what premise do you assert that you could "destroy" me in a debate? You have established none, but have merely asserted superiority. An assertion, I might add, wholly without merit.


This is typical of the losing side of a debate. The losing side generally will "look" for other things to try to use to discredit the opposition, because of a LACK of any RELEVANT material.
Typical, and yes predictable.

As many "grammatical errors" which have taken place in this thread not once did I address them, because it is IRRELEVANT. Some of Allanah's responses are barely legible at times, but I attacked the IDEA behind the GRAMMAR, because thats what mattered most.

And when the grammar is purely a matter of mechanics, in a forum such as this, the accepted custom is to let the grammar slide. But you have asserted a bold claim to your intellectual and discursive superiority over both Allanah and me, a claim without merit, which then brings your grammatical missteps to bear precisely because you have asserted your superiority. Allanah has made no such claim, and neither have I. I am content to debate the substance of an argument, but once the argument slips into an attack "to the man" as you did by claiming superiority (in fact, I'd classify your fallacy as ad hominem abusive or argumentum ad personam as you have unfairly insulted Allanah and me:


I usually don't argue with people of obviously lesser intelligence, so I won't do it here. Its time the smarter one stepped aside and let the chips fall where they may.
That is very insulting. Just for clarification, an argument ad hominem has the following form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

You posit that I exhibited this tendency by attacking your grammar rather than the substance of your prior statement; however, since that prior statement consisted of an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim to superior intellect yet was presented with erronous grammar and usage, my pointing out that failure was not a fallacious attack ad hominem but a substantive assertion regarding the fallacy of your overstated claim regarding your superior intelligence: a claim which you have now reiterated. I am not impressed.

However, it does beg the question: why do you feel it necessary to pound your chest and assert your superior intellect? I have made no such claim.


Since i'm finished with Allanah, it would be more presentable for you not to deviate from the subject of discussion.
Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself and not accusing someone of HIV positive status without proof and in violation of that individual's privacy ("bearing false witness" to use a Biblical turn of phrase, as that is what unsubstantiated, unproven claims regarding someone else's HIV status constitute and which is therefore regarded as both immoral and illegal). I have not deviated from the discussion (although in this response I have deviated from my prior statement to refrain from further response: but again, I am responding to an attack ad hominem, not to the substance of the debate as we will be forever polarized on those issues it seems).


Take all the time you need to respond, my point has been expressed so theres no need to further repeat it.
In that case, why are you persisting? And asking myself the same question, I step aside. If you want to claim victory, be my guest.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself and not accusing someone of HIV positive status without proof and in violation of that individual's privacy ("bearing false witness" to use a Biblical turn of phrase, as that is what unsubstantiated, unproven claims regarding someone else's HIV status constitute and which is therefore regarded as both immoral and illegal). I have not deviated from the discussion (although in this response I have deviated from my prior statement to refrain from further response: but again, I am responding to an attack ad hominem, not to the substance of the debate as we will be forever polarized on those issues it seems).



And along with all that jargon, and run-on sentences your points remain invalid, because they are subjective to being victimized by your own personal biases. What did you look through one of your little logic books? LMAO.

If that wasn't such a pitiful attempt to make yourself sound authoritive I might have laughed a little at your effort.

Disclaimer: Take notes. To all the people watching at home, this is another sub-standard secondary re-attempt to establish credibility by the losing side: Make yourself appear, and/or sound more authoritive.--Another tactic by the losing side of a debate. The first attempt didn't work; this is Plan B.Disclaimer; edit.

Now

Anyone with debate skills knows how not to lose the audience. I will not lose the audience with all the jargon; I know the terms, it was a part of my training.
You argue on the basis of an invalid foundation by circulating an argument around the irrelevant material. You just typed many pseudo-profundity statements, (they appear to be actually speaking a deep truth but really in actuality aren't saying much of anything). Your idealogies along with Allanahs have bordered the lines of being surreal because they are non sequitor statements. That means your conclusions dont follow logically from the premises that precede it.

Now they say, to, "keep your friends close, your enemies, CLOSER."
If I had a friend like you, who wouldnt tell me if I was about to endanger my life by sleeping with someone who is HIV positive....................................with friends like this, who needs enemies?

A person, can tell a friend, that they may be endangering their lives, without the information become some public phenomena or a world news event. I can tell my friend of the possible dangers that surround a particular course of action. Any human being with a sound mind, who has a real friend, wouldnt want to stand at the edge of a lake and watch their friend needlessly drown and die.
I tell my friend of the possible dangers, and I let THEM DECIDE for themselves if they still choose to do whatever they may. As I do this, I have fulfilled my duties as a real true friend, because I care about them.
I would hope my friend would do the same for me.

Also some of you in here always add the tag-on "without proof".
This is where you fail.

A "warning" doesn't have to be proven. You don't have to provide proof for a simple warning. You can give a warning to your friend in the form of a suggestion, or advice--because a warning, is simply making someone aware of a possibility that they failed to take into account because of a lack of knowledge.
When it comes to impending DOOM, one can only "warn" another up to a certain extent, before the DOOM or devastation has to actually be EXPERIENCED for the warning to be proven to be a "true" fact.


And another mishap explanation:

[quote=Ecstatic]
[b][color=indigo]Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....


The substance of your post didnt deal with the above. You deviated from the subject and the rest was all repetition. You abandoned the topic in that post, now in this post you totally evade the issue by quoting logic terms.

....and for the record, killing you in a debate has proved to be rather easy. I've been beating a dead horse with these last 3 posts.

I can use your own arguments against you, because you're inconsistent.


These two things.............



[b][color=indigo]....... with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....





[b][color=indigo]Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.


................prove my point exactly. You wouldnt even do it yourself. Taking responsibility for oneself involves the use of all and any possible knowledge. Saving a life is far more important than "keeping secrets" for the sake of some bullshit business practice. If it wasn't imporant, then it wouldnt matter whether you slept with her or not.

Your arguments are a joke. You advocate silence but in reality would change your endeavors if you were given the knowledge. Borderline hypocrisy.

The next time you consider entering a debate.........


...............................don't. You brought a knife to a gun-fight.......








and the knife wasn't even sharp.




[b][color=indigo]Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.


OPEN and SHUT CASE.

[Ecstatic]

I will add just a little fuel to your pointless, chest-beating bonfire; take the points or leave them, it's up to you. Why you have turned this discussion into a personal vendetta against me is baffling, illogical, and absurd.


And along with all that jargon, and run-on sentences your points remain invalid, because they are subjective to being victimized by your own personal biases. What did you look through one of your little logic books? LMAO.

If that wasn't such a pitiful attempt to make yourself sound authoritive I might have laughed a little at your effort.
Here we go with an attack to the man rather than the argument once again. Thank you for proving your own case against yourself. Firstly, I wrote no run-on sentences, but apparently any compound-complex sentence longer than fifteen words is too confusing for you to follow. Secondly, and far more significantly, you claim without substance that my statements are subjective and "victimized by my own personal biases." Nevermind the illogic that a statement cannot be victimized (it's not a sentient creature), you have failed to identify those supposed biases and are merely claiming that that's what they are.

"My little logic book": for what it's worth, I taught college English for 10 years, earned my BA summa cum laude and my MA with a 4.0 GPA. I have no insecurities regarding my academic or intellectual credentials. Please do not attempt to put down another forum member's intellect or knowledge base; it is crude, cheap, and boorish, not to mention utterly without foundation.

Disclaimer: Take notes. To all the people watching at home, this is another sub-standard secondary re-attempt to establish credibility by the losing side: Make yourself appear, and/or sound more authoritive.--Another tactic by the losing side of a debate. The first attempt didn't work; this is Plan B.Disclaimer; edit.
Note: you have aptly described your own actions. Furthermore, you are claiming a victory where none exists: when two sides refuse to agree upon the conclusion of a debate, yet the issues remain open, there is no victor. Proclaiming that you have won is a very weak tactic indeed.


Now

Anyone with debate skills knows how not to lose the audience. I will not lose the audience with all the jargon; I know the terms, it was a part of my training.
That's wonderful. Care to share you training with the group?

You argue on the basis of an invalid foundation by circulating an argument around the irrelevant material. You just typed many pseudo-profundity statements, (they appear to be actually speaking a deep truth but really in actuality aren't saying much of anything). Your idealogies along with Allanahs have bordered the lines of being surreal because they are non sequitor statements. That means your conclusions dont follow logically from the premises that precede it.

Circular reasoning: you are arguing that by stating that something is fact, it is fact: you claim that my comments are "psuedo-profound" and therefore dismiss them as such. I can only assume this is because you cannot or choose not to address the issues themselves, but instead choose to attack the rhetoric.


Now they say, to, "keep your friends close, your enemies, CLOSER."
If I had a friend like you, who wouldnt tell me if I was about to endanger my life by sleeping with someone who is HIV positive....................................with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Apparently, you have failed to read what I wrote:

If you have good reason to suspect someone and privately confide in a friend who could suffer from contact with that individual, that would be a good thing in my estimation. But to publically out someone, without proof, in a public forum is unjustified and unethical.

Note: If I were your friend, and I strongly suspected (or thought I knew) that a girl you were going to sleep with was HIV positive, I would tell you. That's what I stated. However, I don't think such suspicions should be publically proclaimed about other people; that slippery slope (there's another little logic book reference for you) is precisely what leads to libel, slander, witchhunts, and persecution of the innocent. It's not my place to say "so-and-so is infected": I'm no authority and I could be wrong, and I could damage that person's reputation and source of income by doing so.


A person, can tell a friend, that they may be endangering their lives, without the information become some public phenomena or a world news event. I can tell my friend of the possible dangers that surround a particular course of action. Any human being with a sound mind, who has a real friend, wouldnt want to stand at the edge of a lake and watch their friend needlessly drown and die.
I tell my friend of the possible dangers, and I let THEM DECIDE for themselves if they still choose to do whatever they may. As I do this, I have fulfilled my duties as a real true friend, because I care about them.
I would hope my friend would do the same for me.

See above; I said I would do this. It's a different situation, and quite different to expecting Allanah to report on all the TS escorts and entertainers she happens to know: that would be irresponsible and reprehensible on her part.


Also some of you in here always add the tag-on "without proof".
This is where you fail.

A "warning" doesn't have to be proven. You don't have to provide proof for a simple warning. You can give a warning to your friend in the form of a suggestion, or advice--because a warning, is simply making someone aware of a possibility that they failed to take into account because of a lack of knowledge.
When it comes to impending DOOM, one can only "warn" another up to a certain extent, before the DOOM or devastation has to actually be EXPERIENCED for the warning to be proven to be a "true" fact.
Yes, you can warn your friend based on your suppositions. And you can warn them of the potential danger inherent in engaging in sexual activity with anyone (escort, girlfriend, or wife). But expecting someone to expose someone else based on hearsay or suppostition is unethical and immoral. The playing field has changed.


And another mishap explanation:



Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....


The substance of your post didnt deal with the above. You deviated from the subject and the rest was all repetition. You abandoned the topic in that post, now in this post you totally evade the issue by quoting logic terms.
Anyone can read the post in question for himself. I had stated my position quite clearly and in some detail earlier in this thread, and in the post in question reiterated the core principles: 1) that it is everyone's responsibility to protect himself, 2) that it is a good thing to warn a friend of danger if you have reasonable suspicion that danger exists, and 3) that it is not ethical to assert that you have knowledge which is unsubstantiated that any given individual is HIV-positive in a public forum. I stand by those three principles. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Protect yourself. Warn your friends if you suspect risk. Do not publically accuse someone of being HIV-positive when you have no substantial proof of that condition being in fact true.


....and for the record, killing you in a debate has proved to be rather easy. I've been beating a dead horse with these last 3 posts.

I can use your own arguments against you, because you're inconsistent.
No, you're consistent at claiming that you're right and I'm wrong, and that you've somehow won this debate and easily defeated me, when in fact all you've done is convinced yourself that you've won an easy victory and that your position is right.



These two things.............



....... with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....





Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.


................prove my point exactly. You wouldnt even do it yourself. Taking responsibility for oneself involves the use of all and any possible knowledge. Saving a life is far more important than "keeping secrets" for the sake of some bullshit business practice. If it wasn't imporant, then it wouldnt matter whether you slept with her or not.
Here is a true example of non sequitor logic: if my primary objective is to take responsibility for myself, then not sleeping with someone who I know is HIV positive is most definitely taking responsibility for myself. In what way does this demostrate inconsistency or illogic on my part? The conclusion ("I would not sleep with someone I know to be HIV positive") follows necessarily from the premise ("the primary importance is to take responsibility for oneself").


Your arguments are a joke. You advocate silence but in reality would change your endeavors if you were given the knowledge. Borderline hypocrisy.
I advocate taking responsibility for yourself, warning a friend if I truly suspected a risk, and not accusing someone of that for which I have no proof. In no way is that hypocritical. Being "given the knowledge" assumes either that a) it is true, and therefore I should take heed, or b) it might be true, and it would be advisable to take heed. But the fact that I would act on that knowledge (or, if suspect, investigate further) in no way invalidates the principle that publically accusing someone of being HIV positive when you don't have proof and have only hearsay is unethical.


The next time you consider entering a debate.........

...............................don't. You brought a knife to a gun-fight.......

and the knife wasn't even sharp.

OPEN and SHUT CASE.
Ah, my dear old friend the argument ad hominem: conclude your argument by viciously attacking your opponent. That will convince everyone you're right and I'm wrong.

Careful. You'll cut yourself . . . or shoot yourself in the foot.

[Dina Delicious]

..........

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

WOW two very smart men i give you both credit for stating your opinions so passionately(did I spell that write)i hope im not running on sentence here!! lol but i do respect both of you.see the power of open debate and the free world
we get to see other side of you this arguement will never be one but i wish you both health and happiness
Dina

Thanks for the compliment Dina. As far as health and happiness, likewise.


Ecstatic you can carry on in your redundance. Also i'm quite familair with all the logic terms, your "slippery slope", your "question-begging", Allanah's "false dichotomy" with her fallcious if-then statements accompanied by you and your "red herrings". Trust in all, I'm light years ahead of you in the art of discussion and properly defending standpoints.

You taught college level English, and you can't represent yourself verbally any better than you have done here tonight?
Now THATS information you should DEFINITELY KEEP CONFIDENTIAL.




Care to share you training with the group?



....and you want to compare brainpans? You feel the need to be specific and voice your intellectual accomplishments based on your exposed incompetence in an area you once thought you excelled.
I let my discourse alone represent my intellect because my arguments are formed from trained thought. I am also a college graduate, but I never felt the need to say it here, because unlike you, my logic was never in question.
All I will say in here, is that I work for the government, and it is my job daily to counter verbal opposition in debate-like settings.


Again, I leave you to your redundance.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Ecstatic u are indeed a master of the the English language..

And have rehasged all the old memories I had from highschool in debate class with Dr. McClary

I always sucked at the L.D. and team debates so I stuck to Oral Intrepretations and Humorous Interpretation competitions. An excellent job- probablyt he best dissertation I have read ever on this board.

[Spanky]

As Big Booty Shemale Lover and I have stated before, this topic has deviated many times from the subject at hand.

Allanah's comments actually make me laugh. They are so ridiculous that they make no sense whatsoever.

Ecstatic's comments are boring at best.

And now, if I may allow myself to deviate from the topic at hand...

Click this link and read: http://www.toddlertime.com/narcissism/what-is-npd.htm

Based on the information provided by the link above, of Allanah Starr and Ecstatic, who would you consider to be "cerebral" and who would you consider to be "somatic". :lol:

[Ecstatic]

Ah, gee, shucks...I think you're swell, too, Allanah. Seriously, thank you for the compliment. I only felt moved to state what I believe is true.

[Ecstatic]

I am quite tired of Big Booty's chest-beating and repetitious claims to intellectual superiority which he supports by berating others. The debate is one thing; a subject as important and volatile as this merits discussion and open examination of alternate points of view, even if you've already considered the subject in depth and have long since reached your conclusions. But stooping to personal attacks, vitriol, and lame claims to superiority have gone well beyond the scope of the debate and do not merit even a cursory retort.

Spanky, sorry if I bore you. My comments are not intended for your entertainment. I suggest you engage in some other activity if you find my posts boring. You may find me narcissistic, but I have striven to avoid making any grandiose claims about myself and have certainly not exaggerated or lied about my achievements, nor have I put anyone else down to enhance my image in this forum. I have stated fact and opinion and critiqued faulty logic where I thought appropriate, no more and no less. I stand by the three fundamental principles I have emphasized throughout this exercise: 1) everyone is responsible for his own protection (whether this means using laytex condoms or abstaining from sex altogether is up to the individual); 2) if I have what seems to me to be sound reason to suspect someone is HIV-positive, I would advise a friend of that potential danger privately; 3) publically declaring that someone is HIV-positive, particularly without proof positive, is unethical and inappropriate. The rest I leave to you.

[Spanky]

I am quite tired of Big Booty's chest-beating and repetitious claims to intellectual superiority which he supports by berating others. The debate is one thing; a subject as important and volatile as this merits discussion and open examination of alternate points of view, even if you've already considered the subject in depth and have long since reached your conclusions. But stooping to personal attacks, vitriol, and lame claims to superiority have gone well beyond the scope of the debate and do not merit even a cursory retort.

Spanky, sorry if I bore you. My comments are not intended for your entertainment. I suggest you engage in some other activity if you find my posts boring. You may find me narcissistic, but I have striven to avoid making any grandiose claims about myself and have certainly not exaggerated or lied about my achievements, nor have I put anyone else down to enhance my image in this forum. I have stated fact and opinion and critiqued faulty logic where I thought appropriate, no more and no less. I stand by the three fundamental principles I have emphasized throughout this exercise: 1) everyone is responsible for his own protection (whether this means using laytex condoms or abstaining from sex altogether is up to the individual); 2) if I have what seems to me to be sound reason to suspect someone is HIV-positive, I would advise a friend of that potential danger privately; 3) publically declaring that someone is HIV-positive, particularly without proof positive, is unethical and inappropriate. The rest I leave to you.


Does your need to reply to messages with such verbosity derive from any sense of personal insecurity? I'm curious.

[Ecstatic]

No.