Wow, Vroom, I used to think we were a generally ok guy who I might have disagreed with more than I agreed with, but I didn’t think you’d ever actually become a whiney little piss-ant. If you have something you’d like to discuss with me, ask me or tell me on-topic, feel free. But you either seem uncapable or uninterested.
And now you’re just acting pathetic.
Sad.
Damici, speaking of being whiny, H2 and I have been sparring off an on for the last month or so. Unbunch your panties man.
a.) Stop using my own damn lines or versions thereof when you address me (reference the “panties in a twist” comment I made to you earlier).
b.) I am not and have not been disussing anything that has anything whatsoever to do with H2. I’m disussing you and your inability to discuss anything on a mature level. You’re now all steamed and whiney because you presumably have some subject matter you’d like me to address, but you won’t specify what it is. Spell it out, or go play in traffic.
Damici,
I explained my concerns and they appeared to fly about a mile over your head. Obviously then my concerns were unfounded, so there is no real point in discussing them.
This thread, for all intents and purposes, died several pages ago – even before you started to participate in it. Howabout we just let it rest in peace already?
However, I am laughing at you for trying to tell me what language I can and can’t use… especially when it’s common vernacular around here.
Are you taking trolling lessons from H2 by any chance?
There is a school of thought that aids is an metabolic syndrome, initiated by a virus.
But to say its a scam, well, i have no words.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici,
I explained my concerns and they appeared to fly about a mile over your head. Obviously then my concerns were unfounded, so there is no real point in discussing them.
This thread, for all intents and purposes, died several pages ago – even before you started to participate in it. Howabout we just let it rest in peace already?
However, I am laughing at you for trying to tell me what language I can and can’t use… especially when it’s common vernacular around here.
Are you taking trolling lessons from H2 by any chance?[/quote]
Vroom,
As rude, whiney and immature as you’ve been acting, I actually decided to do you the favor of going back a few pages and seeing if I had somehow missed a specific question that you had asked. I hadn’t. In fact, you got all menstrual when I quoted myself, but that self-quote actually entirely answered what you had been asking of me at that moment. YOUR bad for not reading it the first time I quoted it, thereby forcing me to have to re-post it with quotation marks around it.
I’ll say it again: IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING QUESTION, YOU LITTLE FUCKING PISS-ANT, ASK IT! I’M ALL EARS, AND AM WILLING TO ANSWER IT, AS I HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL PAGES NOW.
Oh, and I will no longer do you the favor of looking back through several pages of dialogue where you “claim” you’ve already asked me a question that I’m somehow “dodging.” I’ve looked, as I said, and haven’t found a damn thing that I failed to answer. I WILL NOT look again.
You want to ask me something? ASK.
[quote]Damici wrote:
As rude, whiney and immature as you’ve been acting…[/quote]
As usual, you might just find your words are more applicable to you than me…
Hello, panties in a wad? Like I said, I was raising an issue in a circumspect way and you totally can’t figure it out, so that is fine. Try to relax, this can’t be good for your blood pressure.
Thanks for the invite. Perhaps I have no actual desire to converse with you on the subject…
Did you ever think of that? A clue, saying “the conversation was over pages ago” doesn’t mean I want to rehash it with you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici wrote:
As rude, whiney and immature as you’ve been acting…
As usual, you might just find your words are more applicable to you than me…
I’ll say it again: IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING QUESTION, YOU LITTLE FUCKING PISS-ANT, ASK IT! I’M ALL EARS, AND AM WILLING TO ANSWER IT, AS I HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL PAGES NOW.
Hello, panties in a wad? Like I said, I was raising an issue in a circumspect way and you totally can’t figure it out, so that is fine. Try to relax, this can’t be good for your blood pressure.
You want to ask me something? ASK.
Thanks for the invite. Perhaps I have no actual desire to converse with you on the subject…
Did you ever think of that? A clue, saying “the conversation was over pages ago” doesn’t mean I want to rehash it with you.[/quote]
You give up? I thought so. 
It must suck to look like an incapable fool on a public forum. The traffic is still waiting for you outside; go play in it.
[quote]Damici wrote:
You give up? I thought so. It must suck to look like an incapable fool on a public forum. The traffic is still waiting for you outside; go play in it.
[/quote]
Are you still in your teens by any chance?
I love it when people that can’t even figure out what is being discussed try to lecture me…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici wrote:
You give up? I thought so. It must suck to look like an incapable fool on a public forum. The traffic is still waiting for you outside; go play in it.
Are you still in your teens by any chance?
I love it when people that can’t even figure out what is being discussed try to lecture me…[/quote]
I love it even more when two people were once having a rational enough debate/discussion and then one goes off on a hissy-fit, crying for the other to answer his question, which has already been answered, and then refusing to clarify what else it is that he’s looking for. THAT’S mature. Wow! 
You get real testy when you lose, Vroom. Nothing new, though. We’ve all seen it before.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I love it even more when two people were once having a rational enough debate/discussion and then one goes off on a hissy-fit, crying for the other to answer his question, which has already been answered, and then refusing to clarify what else it is that he’s looking for. THAT’S mature. Wow!
You get real testy when you lose, Vroom. Nothing new, though. We’ve all seen it before. :)[/quote]
It’s good thing this conversation is already dead.
Look, buddy, you missed what I was talking about. That was all the answer I needed. It provided the information I was looking for. No further clarification was required.
I don’t suppose that makes sense?
Anyway, I wasn’t aware there was anything to win or lose on this thread. The only thing in this thread I could imagine being upset over is the intent of some of the folks that want to let certain groups suffer because of who is in those groups.
Since you couldn’t figure out what I was asking for earlier, I’m pretty sure that does not include you. So, I’m not upset and I don’t see how I could have lost.
Does this make any sense at all?
Luckily, I do in fact have all the time in the world to banter back and forth on this, but I think perhaps we should just call it a day and let the thread die.
What do you say?
fuck me am i reading all that site
[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici wrote:
I love it even more when two people were once having a rational enough debate/discussion and then one goes off on a hissy-fit, crying for the other to answer his question, which has already been answered, and then refusing to clarify what else it is that he’s looking for. THAT’S mature. Wow!
You get real testy when you lose, Vroom. Nothing new, though. We’ve all seen it before.
It’s good thing this conversation is already dead.
Look, buddy, you missed what I was talking about. That was all the answer I needed. It provided the information I was looking for. No further clarification was required.
I don’t suppose that makes sense?
Anyway, I wasn’t aware there was anything to win or lose on this thread. The only thing in this thread I could imagine being upset over is the intent of some of the folks that want to let certain groups suffer because of who is in those groups.
Since you couldn’t figure out what I was asking for earlier, I’m pretty sure that does not include you. So, I’m not upset and I don’t see how I could have lost.
Does this make any sense at all?
Luckily, I do in fact have all the time in the world to banter back and forth on this, but I think perhaps we should just call it a day and let the thread die.
What do you say?[/quote]
Vroom, you inarticulate fuckwad, why didn’t you just specify that that was what you were getting at? Am I supposed to be so in awe of you that I’m going to bend over backwards to try to read your shit-filled, slow-moving mind when there’s a question lodged deep inside it somewhere that you’re either incapable of articulating or feel you’re too good to bother specifying? Why the fuck would I bother doing so for you, you rude little twit?? The conversation was going fine until you decided to say, “I asked a (totally nebulous) question (which you DIDN’T), now figure out what the hell it is and anwer it!”
Oh, and if you actually posed a QUESTION along those lines anywhere in the previous zillion or so pages, feel free to find it and quote it for me, complete with the question mark that accompanied it. I’m waiting with baited breath. Go fishing.
And GROW – UP.
C’mon Vroom, you know you were just playing Damici. You love to fire people up and piss 'em off. Its fun to do to guys like you, but he seems to be a pretty straight shooter, so quit fucking with him.
Why not use your energy for a guy like Kliplemet? He posts dozens of pics of Japanese Anime with tentacle rape and childlike faces on womens’ bodies. Says he never whacks off to 'em. Uh…yeah…
Wouldn’t that be a better use of your talents?
[quote]Damici wrote:
Vroom, you inarticulate fuckwad, why didn’t you just specify that that was what you were getting at? Am I supposed to be so in awe of you that I’m going to bend over backwards to try to read your shit-filled, slow-moving mind when there’s a question lodged deep inside it somewhere that you’re either incapable of articulating or feel you’re too good to bother specifying? Why the fuck would I bother doing so for you, you rude little twit?? The conversation was going fine until you decided to say, “I asked a (totally nebulous) question (which you DIDN’T), now figure out what the hell it is and anwer it!”
Oh, and if you actually posed a QUESTION along those lines anywhere in the previous zillion or so pages, feel free to find it and quote it for me, complete with the question mark that accompanied it. I’m waiting with baited breath. Go fishing.
And GROW – UP.[/quote]
Ahahahaha. And you are calling me upset? I’m going to frame this one!
Dunce.
Anyway, rant on, I’ve extended the olive branch a few times… not that I’d expect you to notice. Ciao!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
some stuff…
[/quote]
Hey, it’s all your fault anyway H2!
Damaci and I were starting to talk about stuff and then he got caught in the crossfire between you and I… or so I thought anyway.
Hmm, though that would mean I share the blame too… oh well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Damici wrote:
Vroom, you inarticulate fuckwad, why didn’t you just specify that that was what you were getting at? Am I supposed to be so in awe of you that I’m going to bend over backwards to try to read your shit-filled, slow-moving mind when there’s a question lodged deep inside it somewhere that you’re either incapable of articulating or feel you’re too good to bother specifying? Why the fuck would I bother doing so for you, you rude little twit?? The conversation was going fine until you decided to say, “I asked a (totally nebulous) question (which you DIDN’T), now figure out what the hell it is and anwer it!”
Oh, and if you actually posed a QUESTION along those lines anywhere in the previous zillion or so pages, feel free to find it and quote it for me, complete with the question mark that accompanied it. I’m waiting with baited breath. Go fishing.
And GROW – UP.
Ahahahaha. And you are calling me upset? I’m going to frame this one!
Dunce.
Anyway, rant on, I’ve extended the olive branch a few times… not that I’d expect you to notice. Ciao![/quote]
You’ve extended the olive branch? You ARE joking, right?? After I very politely made many, MANY attempts to say, “Just ask me what you’d like to ask and I’ll kindly answer it?” Uh, no, shit-for-brains. I – I – tried in vain to extend numerous olive branches, only to have you pretend you were to good to continue a meaningful dialogue by asking me a straight question (or any question).
Your rudeness and your stupidity are becoming astounding. You of all people are throwing out the word “dunce,” remarking on other people’s intelligence when it is obvious that you are the one who is more incredibly self-consicous about your own perceived intelligence than anyone on this entire forum. Witness the fact that your avatar used to be a picture of you in “thinker” pose, and now it’s a light bulb, as if everyone is supposed to see it (either one of the two) and think, “OOOH, Vroom is so thoughtful, insightful and SMART!”
Yeah, except Vroom can’t carry on a debate in adult-like fashion.
Get over yourself.
So sad.
Oh look, it’s the missing questions that you are so unable to find…
And this…
[quote]Let’s stop beating around the bush. We all know AIDS exists. We all know HIV exists. We all know those groups that are at highest risk.
What are you, or the authors of the studies you are referencing, suggesting that we do or don’t do? I mean, short of that, why are we still having this conversation anyway?[/quote]
So, when I asked for CLARIFICATION, you basically repeated yourself. Care to take a look at the questions and clarify your answer with respect to them as I originally asked?
You can root around on page 5 (I think) to get the context of this stuff.
Imbecile!
Oh, look, an olive branch if I ever saw one…
[quote]Luckily, I do in fact have all the time in the world to banter back and forth on this, but I think perhaps we should just call it a day and let the thread die.
What do you say?[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh look, it’s the missing questions that you are so unable to find…
Does this mean that we should ignore the disease, because it really only hits groups that we traditionally haven’t cared very much about? This is where this line of reasoning tends to lead us…
And this…
Let’s stop beating around the bush. We all know AIDS exists. We all know HIV exists. We all know those groups that are at highest risk.
What are you, or the authors of the studies you are referencing, suggesting that we do or don’t do? I mean, short of that, why are we still having this conversation anyway?
So, when I asked for CLARIFICATION, you basically repeated yourself. Care to take a look at the questions and clarify your answer with respect to them as I originally asked?
You can root around on page 5 (I think) to get the context of this stuff.
Imbecile![/quote]
Vroom, oh you who like to criticize OTHERS’ reading comprehension . . . The quote of mine that I already quoted you once answered ALL of that. For further clarification, though, because maybe the third time will help it sink into your thick little skull, I’ll quote it yet AGAIN, with an additional sentence or two that I had immediately before and after the LAST quote (all from a previous post). Please read it carefully and then give the little hamster in your head time to spin his wheel for a bit. Your answer is aaaaaall here:
"He (meaning Fumento) basically says that pretending it’s ‘everyone’s problem’ (which it’s not, based on the facts and numbers) doesn’t help anyone, and actually causes funding that should be heavily targeted almost solely on the gay and intravenous drug using communities in this country to be stupidly wasted on the heterosexual community.
He also points out that gay rights and AIDS activist groups are, understandably, upset about his conclusions because their ability to drum up funding for AIDS research is dependant on everyone, including the majority of Americans (most of whom are straight and don’t use intravenous drugs) believing that it’s something that could affect them, and therefore supporting funding for it. While the truth about HIV’s very low levels of existence in the straight, non-drug-using community will probably have the unfortunate effect of reducing public (and private) monies that are spent on AIDS research, he points out that diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s and many others kill FAR more people than AIDS does, yet often don’t get nearly as much funding, so perhaps a refocusing of funding would be a sensible thing.
Just things to ponder. Seriously."
UNQUOTE.
(Note, for the record, that that post ended with “Just things to ponder. Seriously.” This implies that I do not claim that I know for a fact that this is what should be done, but after reading Fumento’s writings, I believe it deserves “serious” consideration, and I tend to lean toward believing that that’s what should be done, though I suppose I remain willing to be convinced otherwise). What “that” is, again, gentle reader, in idiot-proof form, is:
1.) Targeting monies that are spent on AIDS research and prevention (mainly prevention, I suppose) much more heavily toward the gay and inner city communities (inner cities are apparently where the most dense intravenous drug using populations are) and less toward the middle class hetero populace.
2.) Given that AIDS kills far, far fewer people than cancer and many other diseases, yet receives a disporportionate amount of funding for research, readjusting our disease research monies more heavily toward those diseases that are a bigger problem, i.e. that kill more people (and in some cases are less preventable), like cancer.
(But that was all spelled out in the above quote rather nicely).
Clear, nimrod? We done?