Well, it could be flattering to British viewers, why not? The WHO says so: look, in the Independent, two days ago:
"Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits
A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts
By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008
A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, IT WAS CONFINED TO HIGH-RISK GROUPS INCLUDING MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.
Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."
[...]
Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.
Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.
Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.
"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."
Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and REDUCING THE NUMBER of sexual partners.
There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."
But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.
"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?"
ONE OF THE DANGER AREAS FOR THE AIDS STRATEGY WAS AMONG MEN WHO HAD SEX WITH MEN. He said: " We face a bit of a CRISIS [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is NOT declining and in some places has INCREASED.
"In the developing world, it has been NEGLECTED. We h
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Do I really need to "spell out for you" how "AIDS in Heaven" or, and I'm quoting here,
The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2880/bbcspeciallyenhancedfreub4.jpg
might be offensive or homophobic?
Here's what I think: You have a lot of time on your hands. I have some time now because I just finished my semester. You write offensive things, people may explain to you how they're offensive, point by point, and then you ask them to explain it again. It's a tactic used by politicians for millenia. And it seems, many Queenzoners as well.
(And hey, if this is an inappropriate thread, I can always start a new one called "Zebonka's Greatest Homphobic Hits" that's no problem.)
I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking.
The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it.
Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person").
When you Zebonka justify your crack about "arse sex" and cite the red herring theory about the HIV virus's spreading in 1969, and then conflate that with Freddie's contracting HIV because he had gay sex, I have trouble wrapping my head around your logic. But you do follow through with your idea that Freddie's "fuck it"/Typhoid Mary behavior led to his death.
I'm sure no one else here will come along and correct you on that, but if you have a copy of Mercury and Me, pick it up and read about his sex life post-1982, when AIDS surfaced as AIDS. He may not have been 100% safe, but he sure wasn't as crazy as he was 1979-1984.
I hardly ever come here, I'm a busy guy, and when I have been here on the boards in the last couple of months, I will see one of your 5,000-plus posts. Most of them are the just wisecracks of a late teenager, but some of them are hateful and offensive and it seems you need to be taught or made aware that your jokes not only hurt people's feelings. You are resistant to this.
That ole pesky chestnut of "words and motives are actually quite separate things" you drag out in your last point? Many, many people disagree. But you do have company. Right now in Jamaica--just a random recent example--there's a controversy going on about "Murder Music"--i.e., reggae songs that talk about the killing of gays. Groups in Canada and the UK group has made that connection between words and motives enough to call for boycots and denying entry into their countries.
http://www.freemuse.org/sw28060.asp
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1369875,00.html
(old article, but well-written)
Perhaps you would fall on the sides of the reggae stars who say it's part of their art to makes songs about the killing of gay people? Or you could argue there's no connection between the lyrics they write about and the much higher rate of hate crimes (i.e., killing of gays because they're gay) Maybe you could invite them to come on these boards?
The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2880/bbcspeciallyenhancedfreub4.jpg
might be offensive or homophobic?
Here's what I think: You have a lot of time on your hands. I have some time now because I just finished my semester. You write offensive things, people may explain to you how they're offensive, point by point, and then you ask them to explain it again. It's a tactic used by politicians for millenia. And it seems, many Queenzoners as well.
(And hey, if this is an inappropriate thread, I can always start a new one called "Zebonka's Greatest Homphobic Hits" that's no problem.)
I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking.
The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it.
Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person").
When you Zebonka justify your crack about "arse sex" and cite the red herring theory about the HIV virus's spreading in 1969, and then conflate that with Freddie's contracting HIV because he had gay sex, I have trouble wrapping my head around your logic. But you do follow through with your idea that Freddie's "fuck it"/Typhoid Mary behavior led to his death.
I'm sure no one else here will come along and correct you on that, but if you have a copy of Mercury and Me, pick it up and read about his sex life post-1982, when AIDS surfaced as AIDS. He may not have been 100% safe, but he sure wasn't as crazy as he was 1979-1984.
I hardly ever come here, I'm a busy guy, and when I have been here on the boards in the last couple of months, I will see one of your 5,000-plus posts. Most of them are the just wisecracks of a late teenager, but some of them are hateful and offensive and it seems you need to be taught or made aware that your jokes not only hurt people's feelings. You are resistant to this.
That ole pesky chestnut of "words and motives are actually quite separate things" you drag out in your last point? Many, many people disagree. But you do have company. Right now in Jamaica--just a random recent example--there's a controversy going on about "Murder Music"--i.e., reggae songs that talk about the killing of gays. Groups in Canada and the UK group has made that connection between words and motives enough to call for boycots and denying entry into their countries.
http://www.freemuse.org/sw28060.asp
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1369875,00.html
(old article, but well-written)
Perhaps you would fall on the sides of the reggae stars who say it's part of their art to makes songs about the killing of gay people? Or you could argue there's no connection between the lyrics they write about and the much higher rate of hate crimes (i.e., killing of gays because they're gay) Maybe you could invite them to come on these boards?
I don't really know what you're trying to say Yara but I think you've misunderstood my point. If indeed Fred had to hide both his ethnic background and sexuality from the British simply to fit in, then it doesn't say much about British tolerance.
Hang on a second. Freddie was gay?
I didn't, Holly2003. Your words: "his gay lifestyle", which was very promiscuous as it was, and unfortunately still is, usually the case among gays.
Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected.
I don't think Freddie HAD to hide anything. He made a choice of not making any of this public. He made his own judgement - I think revealing my ethnicity and coming out as gay will undermine my career - and that's it.
I don't blame the "British" for that.
I don't blame Freddie for anything.
It's easy to make moral judgements in other people's shoes.
What I do say is: there's an interesting topic to be discussed without victimizing a guy who, through his behavior, did cause a lot of harm to himself - this is universal. This is art: if you tell this story, anyone can relate to it, because every single one of us have to make personal decisions and choices.
If your choice turns out to be the wrong one, well, it may well be the case that you have only yourself to blame.
But a movie shouldn't be a moral lesson: it should be an attempt at addressing Freddie's life in such a way as to make it universal, because there are elements in his life that anyone can relate to - from his sexual behavior to his friendships and tastes.
Ok?
But I see your point, Holly2003, and I respect it. I just don't agree with it, at least not the way it was expressed.
If I misunderstood you, of course, sorry. :-)))
Take care!
Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected.
I don't think Freddie HAD to hide anything. He made a choice of not making any of this public. He made his own judgement - I think revealing my ethnicity and coming out as gay will undermine my career - and that's it.
I don't blame the "British" for that.
I don't blame Freddie for anything.
It's easy to make moral judgements in other people's shoes.
What I do say is: there's an interesting topic to be discussed without victimizing a guy who, through his behavior, did cause a lot of harm to himself - this is universal. This is art: if you tell this story, anyone can relate to it, because every single one of us have to make personal decisions and choices.
If your choice turns out to be the wrong one, well, it may well be the case that you have only yourself to blame.
But a movie shouldn't be a moral lesson: it should be an attempt at addressing Freddie's life in such a way as to make it universal, because there are elements in his life that anyone can relate to - from his sexual behavior to his friendships and tastes.
Ok?
But I see your point, Holly2003, and I respect it. I just don't agree with it, at least not the way it was expressed.
If I misunderstood you, of course, sorry. :-)))
Take care!
"usually the case among gays"
Yara, watch it!
Yara, watch it!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"usually the case among gays"
Yara, watch it![/QUOTE]
LOL. Take issue with the World Health Organization and the Independent, not me! ;-))
Question is: sexual responsibility. Gays have been less responsible throughout times and that's why they were, and still are, a high risk group. ;-)
Problem is not being gay. Is about personal decisions and choices.
Take care, Dan, now I have to study something absolutely different and shift my mind to topology. lol
Take care you all!
Yara, watch it![/QUOTE]
LOL. Take issue with the World Health Organization and the Independent, not me! ;-))
Question is: sexual responsibility. Gays have been less responsible throughout times and that's why they were, and still are, a high risk group. ;-)
Problem is not being gay. Is about personal decisions and choices.
Take care, Dan, now I have to study something absolutely different and shift my mind to topology. lol
Take care you all!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Two of my posts were lost or taken down--they were up here last night.
[/QUOTE]
With any luck, the forum will recover from the loss.
[/QUOTE]
With any luck, the forum will recover from the loss.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Un-fucking unbelievable.
Freddie was a raging homosexual.
Don't you guys get it?
He was a raging homosexual *and* a great musician.
...and a whole lot of other angry drivel[/QUOTE]
Holy friggin defensive! Let's calm the flame war, as this thread should be about the movie.
Of course we get that he was a raging homosexual, but that was just one aspect of him. The problem is that he's known far more for his sexuality than he is as a musician. Most people couldn't name 5 songs he wrote, but they have a fairly good idea of what his partying life was like. These things should at least be equal, and they're not, and probably never will be - particularly in North America. It's about 90/10 from what I've seen.
Like I said, a biopic full of graphic details (however true or not) about his private life is what will make money. The creators of this movie know that most people won't care about the brilliance it took to create that string of eclectic albums in the 70s and that he's the only rock singer ever to do an opera album. But again, maybe they even aren't aware, nor do they have to be to make a movie. To the general public, sex sells. Musical quality doesn't.
Freddie was a raging homosexual.
Don't you guys get it?
He was a raging homosexual *and* a great musician.
...and a whole lot of other angry drivel[/QUOTE]
Holy friggin defensive! Let's calm the flame war, as this thread should be about the movie.
Of course we get that he was a raging homosexual, but that was just one aspect of him. The problem is that he's known far more for his sexuality than he is as a musician. Most people couldn't name 5 songs he wrote, but they have a fairly good idea of what his partying life was like. These things should at least be equal, and they're not, and probably never will be - particularly in North America. It's about 90/10 from what I've seen.
Like I said, a biopic full of graphic details (however true or not) about his private life is what will make money. The creators of this movie know that most people won't care about the brilliance it took to create that string of eclectic albums in the 70s and that he's the only rock singer ever to do an opera album. But again, maybe they even aren't aware, nor do they have to be to make a movie. To the general public, sex sells. Musical quality doesn't.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hang on a second. Freddie was gay?[/QUOTE]
I think he did drugs, too! :-o
I think he did drugs, too! :-o
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected.
[/QUOTE]
I think what's so crystal clear, reading Freddie's interviews, and even reading written work from Jim and his friends, is that he never really felt properly loved, he was always looking for a connection with someone, which made him bed hop even after AIDS was hitting his social group.
This one quote was interesting, but I don't know exactly where it originated:
"Oh God, I pray I'll never get AIDS. So many friends have it. Some have died, others won't be last much longer. I'm terrified that I'll be next. Immediately after each time I have sex I think, 'Suppose that was the one? Suppose the virus is now in my body? I jump in the shower and scrub myself clean, although I know it's useless and anyway it's too late."
Clearly this is the angle that must be taken when discussing this story. Like with most people 'slut' isn't an appropriate blanket term -- as most people have an ultimate goal with what their doing, even if it's attention, self-harm, or just a need to be wanted.
Showing how desperate he was to be loved as a motivation for his irresponsible behavior would add much more heartbreak to the story as well, for previously mentioned JH reasons.
Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected.
[/QUOTE]
I think what's so crystal clear, reading Freddie's interviews, and even reading written work from Jim and his friends, is that he never really felt properly loved, he was always looking for a connection with someone, which made him bed hop even after AIDS was hitting his social group.
This one quote was interesting, but I don't know exactly where it originated:
"Oh God, I pray I'll never get AIDS. So many friends have it. Some have died, others won't be last much longer. I'm terrified that I'll be next. Immediately after each time I have sex I think, 'Suppose that was the one? Suppose the virus is now in my body? I jump in the shower and scrub myself clean, although I know it's useless and anyway it's too late."
Clearly this is the angle that must be taken when discussing this story. Like with most people 'slut' isn't an appropriate blanket term -- as most people have an ultimate goal with what their doing, even if it's attention, self-harm, or just a need to be wanted.
Showing how desperate he was to be loved as a motivation for his irresponsible behavior would add much more heartbreak to the story as well, for previously mentioned JH reasons.
Daniel, thank you for coming forth with some truly disturbing tales of Freddie's addiction to coke. As much as it bothers me, I can't say I deny the stories; although it is not impossible that the stories were exagerated a bit due to years of carrying the story through verbal exchange. People are known to over tell things time and again, and time and again they can begin to believe themselves. But, as stated above, I cannot deny these tales you have come forth with. They are rather believable -- although picturing Freddie doing these things is really, well, weird and awkward.
I suppose it's because all of his music is so un-drug related -- and his interviews hardly show serious signs of drug abuse. And yes, I am aware of what YourValentine said about his sniffling, but, looking back at it now, I don't see much of anything to work off of. He looks too clean and sober. Therefore, I wish to confirm my belief that the man was, overall, in control of his actions. Put it this way, he obviously quit the drugs without use of rehab (not that we know of). 1986-87 are the years where I notice him really settling down (with Jim, of course)...and just by listening to interviews of those years you will notice that many of the things he has to say is in regard to his promiscuous life style and how he was able to move on. Of course, one could say it was the AIDS that changed him -- but do we know that for sure? Maybe the tragedy of the situation was that he learned to change, and then found out he still had to pay for his previous life style.
Watch the following (it's in three parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk2baWtmfJA
I wish to end this post by saying that I am in no way denying Freddie was an addicted coke user. I am merely trying to say that there is still reason to believe he wasn't THAT serious, especially when we consider what has happened to other rock stars.
I suppose it's because all of his music is so un-drug related -- and his interviews hardly show serious signs of drug abuse. And yes, I am aware of what YourValentine said about his sniffling, but, looking back at it now, I don't see much of anything to work off of. He looks too clean and sober. Therefore, I wish to confirm my belief that the man was, overall, in control of his actions. Put it this way, he obviously quit the drugs without use of rehab (not that we know of). 1986-87 are the years where I notice him really settling down (with Jim, of course)...and just by listening to interviews of those years you will notice that many of the things he has to say is in regard to his promiscuous life style and how he was able to move on. Of course, one could say it was the AIDS that changed him -- but do we know that for sure? Maybe the tragedy of the situation was that he learned to change, and then found out he still had to pay for his previous life style.
Watch the following (it's in three parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk2baWtmfJA
I wish to end this post by saying that I am in no way denying Freddie was an addicted coke user. I am merely trying to say that there is still reason to believe he wasn't THAT serious, especially when we consider what has happened to other rock stars.
Ignoring a stifled "why are you bothering with this idiot?", that I can hear being mumbled next to me...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Do I really need to "spell out for you" how "AIDS in Heaven" or, and I'm quoting here,
The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2880/bbcspeciallyenhancedfreub4.jpg
might be offensive or homophobic?
[/QUOTE]
Offensive? No, I don't need that spelled out at all. I fully realise some oversensitive shit-piles out there might get up in arms over a picture of a prosthetic mummy that happens to be called "BBC Specially Enhanced Freddie", even though anyone with a brain would probably avoid clicking it as it's likely going to be Rick Astley anyway.
I can well imagine some weak souls getting offended,
but I'm afraid I still don't get your homophobia angle. Sexuality doesn't even come into the majority of my posts.
And yeah, you're probably going to quote "Arse sex" again so I'll get in first and ask you : did Freddie Mercury, or did he not, have lots of arse sex? Does it matter much if I go 'anal sex' or 'arse sex'? It's the same thing, doesn't matter what name you give it.
This is an idea you're clearly too intellectually crippled to get a hold on, but basically - I can write any old thing, right now. Cabbages.
It doesn't have to bear any reflection on my thoughts or feelings. I could wax lyrical on what I really think about AIDS or whatnot, but what's the point? It's all been said before by people more involved in this situation than I.
Your steadfast, close-minded and foolish insistence that what I write down is done so with utter malice towards gay people, is amusing in the extreme. It's your interpretation, and while I won't for a minute suggest you have some sort of deep seated issue that you're dodging, the fact remains that you are seeing homophobia where it does not exist.
I cannot speak for anyone else, though. I've seen homophobia before and it's ugly. More people should be more active against it; but uhm... you're preaching to the converted, so to speak.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking.
The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... I'd say you wander close to having a point here.
You were on the money, more or less, when you speculated that I have a lot of spare time. Frankly, yep. I do.
'Doing it for quite some time' would imply a conscious effort to keep it going for a long period of time. Fact is, I really see them as isolated instances of boredom and dissatisfaction. I get bored with some of the utterly inane threads sometimes... particularly in General Discussion. There comes a point where I see the umpteenth vapid thread of the month and you know what? Nope - it doesn't bother me to post (as I described earlier) a prosthetic mummy head with a false file name. Anything is better than mindless banter about what colour John's shorts were at Wembley.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person").
[/QUOTE]
This is largely a worthless statement. First of all, you are again using that homophobia word which does not apply to me.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not insulted or bothered, as I never take umbrage at being called something I'm not. I know the truth, whereas your version of the
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Do I really need to "spell out for you" how "AIDS in Heaven" or, and I'm quoting here,
The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2880/bbcspeciallyenhancedfreub4.jpg
might be offensive or homophobic?
[/QUOTE]
Offensive? No, I don't need that spelled out at all. I fully realise some oversensitive shit-piles out there might get up in arms over a picture of a prosthetic mummy that happens to be called "BBC Specially Enhanced Freddie", even though anyone with a brain would probably avoid clicking it as it's likely going to be Rick Astley anyway.
I can well imagine some weak souls getting offended,
but I'm afraid I still don't get your homophobia angle. Sexuality doesn't even come into the majority of my posts.
And yeah, you're probably going to quote "Arse sex" again so I'll get in first and ask you : did Freddie Mercury, or did he not, have lots of arse sex? Does it matter much if I go 'anal sex' or 'arse sex'? It's the same thing, doesn't matter what name you give it.
This is an idea you're clearly too intellectually crippled to get a hold on, but basically - I can write any old thing, right now. Cabbages.
It doesn't have to bear any reflection on my thoughts or feelings. I could wax lyrical on what I really think about AIDS or whatnot, but what's the point? It's all been said before by people more involved in this situation than I.
Your steadfast, close-minded and foolish insistence that what I write down is done so with utter malice towards gay people, is amusing in the extreme. It's your interpretation, and while I won't for a minute suggest you have some sort of deep seated issue that you're dodging, the fact remains that you are seeing homophobia where it does not exist.
I cannot speak for anyone else, though. I've seen homophobia before and it's ugly. More people should be more active against it; but uhm... you're preaching to the converted, so to speak.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking.
The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... I'd say you wander close to having a point here.
You were on the money, more or less, when you speculated that I have a lot of spare time. Frankly, yep. I do.
'Doing it for quite some time' would imply a conscious effort to keep it going for a long period of time. Fact is, I really see them as isolated instances of boredom and dissatisfaction. I get bored with some of the utterly inane threads sometimes... particularly in General Discussion. There comes a point where I see the umpteenth vapid thread of the month and you know what? Nope - it doesn't bother me to post (as I described earlier) a prosthetic mummy head with a false file name. Anything is better than mindless banter about what colour John's shorts were at Wembley.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person").
[/QUOTE]
This is largely a worthless statement. First of all, you are again using that homophobia word which does not apply to me.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not insulted or bothered, as I never take umbrage at being called something I'm not. I know the truth, whereas your version of the
we should lynch gays
Sir GH, you can call it "angry drivel" if you like, but I tend to get riled up when people insult gay people. It's not the civilized thing to do, or humane, and it's particularly bizarre on a site called "Queenzone."