?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous 10

Jul. 14th, 2007

by Maurice Chevalier

O^ mon Paris ville ide'ale
  O my Paris ideal city
Il faut quitter de`s ce soir
  It is necessary to leave as of this evening
Adieu, ma belle capitale,
  Good-bye, my beautiful capital,
Adieu, non, au revoir !
  Good-bye, not, goodbye!

Paris je t'aime, je t'aime, je t'aime
  Paris I love you, I love you, I love you
Avec ivresse,
  With intoxication,
Comme une mai^tresse !
  How a mistress!
Tu m'oublieras bien vite et pourtant
  You will forget me well quickly and yet
Mon coeur est tout chavire' en te quittant !
  My heart is very capsized by leaving you!
Je peux te dire
  I can say to you
qu'avec ton sourire
  that with your smile
Tu m'as pris l'a^me
  You took the heart to me
Ainsi qu'une femme
  As well as a woman
Tout en moi est a` toi pour toujours
  All in me is with you for always
Paris je t'aime, oui ! d'amour !
  Paris I love you, yes! of love!

Paris je t'aime, je t'aime, , je t'aime je t'aime mais voyons !
  Paris I love you, I love you, I love you I love you but let us see!
puisque j'te dis que je t'aime, allons !
  since I say to you that I love you, let us go!
Pour les caresses
  For the caresses
De milles mai^tresses
  Miles mistresses
Elles m'oublieront bien vite et pourtant
  They will forget me well quickly and yet
Moi j'leur faisais j'me souviendrais bien longtemps
  Me I made them I would remember well a long time
L'une apre`s et l'une
  One afterwards and one
La blonde et la brune
  The blonde and the brown one
M'ont fait sans phrase
  Made me without sentence
Gou^ter mille extases
  To taste thousand extases
J'te l'jure que j't'appartiens pour toujours,
  I you swear it that I belong to you for always,
Paris, je t'aime -- et comment ! - d'amour !
  Paris, I love you - and how! - of love!

You'll never miss me when I'm gone
Paris the title but I miss you.
You took a lot of pains in teaching me.
Why must we say adieu?

I've seen your mad days
and some of your wild days.
down where the Seine flows
and where the champaigne flows.
You taught me all that a kiss could be.
Paris your judgement was good enough for me.
With you each night meant
the thrill of excitement.
Monarch and ladies
that love were as Hades
If I've been happy then you're to blame.
Oh Paris, please stay the same.

I've seen your blonde girls
With beautiful blonde curls
Sweet Paris daughters
In all of your quarters.
They taught me all that a kiss could be
Paris your ladies were good enough for me.

I've met brunettes here
and little grisettes here.
I've lost my station
and my reputation.
If I've been happy then you're to blame.
Oh ladies, please stay the same.

I'm like my master now I'm leaving you
He said so am I Paris
I try to follow in his footsteps too.
A few may remember me.

I've seen your viled maids.
I've see your wild maids.
Both shy and sporty.
Tried all under forty.
They taught me all that a kiss could be.
Paris your servants were good enough for me.

Arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf arf

arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf arf
arf arf arf arf

If I've been happy than you're to blame.
Oh Paris, please stay the same.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A33pyES1YgA
http://www.myspace.com/mauricechevalierchateuse

May. 1st, 2007

By Edwin J. Bernard

Criminal HIV Transmission by Edwin J. Bernard
NAM Publications, London 2007
http://nam.org.uk
ISBN 978-0-9551678-3-6
9780955167836
NAM
Lincoln House
1 Brixton Road
London
SW9 6DE

Apr. 30th, 2007

Censoring. Blocking.

I've been blocked and the word we normally use to describe that kind of behavior is censorship. But I'm going to write a response on my own site. And those people who are not in favor of censorship can go there. And those in favor will discover they are safe from my words if they stay in that forum. While they may be safe from my words, my words do not cause human immmunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. See also Shared Project Lists at http://carmun.com/grouphome.php?groupid=166 and see also http://community.livejournal.com/gaywriters

Apr. 29th, 2007

-draft. frequently asked questions.

Thank you guys! I'm grateful for your ideas, comments, challenges!

Subject: TOGETHER, now, get tested for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases.
Testing for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases now will give you the information. Both you and the guy can get tested TOGETHER. If testing detects nothing you'll have a benchmark. When you test again if test results change a benchmark will be good information for optimal treatment.

Subject: Ambiguity. Denial. We can stop the spread of the epidemic of sexually transmitted infections.
>> I guess my question is...is there any chance I could catch something
>> based on what happened?

> Assuming you are wondering what could happen because of the "mess", under
> normal circumstances you should be OK. However, if some of the "mess" was
> ingested or entered orifices, possible complications may include
> Hepatitis or parasites, but it sounds remote in your case.
Assuming... ...under normal circumstances... ...should be OK. ...if... ...but it sounds... All these words leave ambiguity when we have epidemic sexually transmitted infections in our communities. The spread of infections can be stopped by overcoming the denial.

> Dude, please don't help. Your continuous, heavy-handed posts are somewhat
> irritating, and in no way realistic to the reality of most gay mens lives.

Subject: Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> Go get tested, know for sure. I mean, regular tests are probably part of
> your normal routine anyway right?

> No-one here can give you a definitive yes/no. A. We're on the internet.
> Not there when it happened. B. We don't have all the facts. If he was
> clean, then no, no chance you can catch something from him. If he's not
> clean, well....how do you know either way?=20

> Go get tested.
Or get tested TOGETHER. If not, let him know your test results. By letting him know, it can prompt him to get tested too rather than his results remaining the unknown.

Do you know anybody who died or got sick from human immunodeficiency virus or other sexually transmitted diseases? There are too many dead gay men for whom it was reality. There are too many sick gay men for whom it is reality. If you're forthcoming about the topic there's going to be denial and the perceiving of it a heavy handed matter. On the other hand accepting the challenge does stimulate the little grey cells. Being upfront signifies concern for our community, reducing ambiguity between sex partners. The strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections is less heavy handed than dying or getting sick.

> And it's still not working within the reality of gay men's day to day
> lives. Thinking you can alter that behaviour is naive and will easily
> lead to frustation, or your message being ignored.
>
> An effective message needs to fit into what is already there. Many people
> have casual sex. For various reasons. This will not stop. Asking people
> to wait a number of weeks before the initial sexual contact is simply
> going to be laughed at.
>
> Safer sex. Lube + Condoms/gloves/Dams.
>
> Unless you happen to have the universal reset button around here anywhere
> so we can reprogram the world to fit your idea?

> I understand where you're coming from, and I can appreciate your opinion,
> and I do thank you for your advice.
>
> However, I do feel it's a little irresponsible to tell people to get
> tested together before they have sex. While, in theory, this is a good
> idea, most (if not all) gay men I know are not going to spend time doing
> that with someone they only intend to hook up with on a one-time basis.
> And, gay couples, I would bet, have already had sex numerous times before
> they end up getting tested together. To me, it's in the same boat as
> preaching abstinence to people. It's irresponsible, because people are
> GOING to have sex. It's in our nature.
>
> If you do know someone who has died from hiv or aids or any other
> sexually transmitted disease, I'm very sorry for your loss, but I think
> that your ideas about testing, while they may be good ideas, aren't
> necessarily practical.

Subject: Re: Detecting infections now is optimal. Treatment early is better than later. Infecting other people.
> It might be prudent to get tested, but most STI's don't show for a few
> months, which is why you should be getting tested every 3 months.

> After the test results come back you'll have your solid answer I suppose.

> It might...
> ...but most...
"It Might" and "but most" leaves ambiguity. Exposures to infections can happen from any, not only the last sexual contact. Testing does no harm. Delaying testing delays detecting infections, so early treatment is delayed and continue the spread of infections in our community.

> I am well aware of the terminology I used, thank you. I do own a
> dictionary and thesaurus.

> Also if this was very recent, testing won't do harm and it won't do any
> good either if the tests can't detect it yet. Though I do agree that
> testing is necessary to get treatment and to prevent the spread of
> infection in our community.

> I am not telling him outright to get tested simply because it is not my
> right to do so and tell someone what they should do. He's a big boy and
> can make his own decisions for himself.

> I notice how you also left out the fact that I said he should be getting
> tested every 3 months, convenient on your part, but also unintelligent
> because I clearly stated he should be getting tested regularly.
Thank you! I looked up several of the words to read how ambiguity is differentiated from certainty.

It's a matter of optimal sexual health. By getting tested now a benchmark establishes a better idea of when exposure occurred even if nothing is detected at this point in time. Regular testing doesn't work because when infections are detected it's too late for sex partners who got exposed before the next regular testing. You would have to know the date the exposure occurred. You would have to know the latency of what sexually transmitted infections you're testing. Not all STDs have the same latencies. If you needed a blood transfusion would you wait until the next regular testing or would you want blood tested before being transfused?

> And if you read his comment to mine he will be getting tested. His
> benchmark has already been established long before this incident and your
> opinion of the matter occured.
>
> You are not listening to the entire comments that are posted in response
> to yours. If you were you would better understand the whole concept of
> the comment and not isolate certain terms that are used.
>
> Your logic in itself is flawed at best and dumb at worst. You wish him to
> establish a benchmark, when the benchmark has already been established
> and you also want him to spend money on something that won't be detected
> anyway.
>
> STD's/STI's take 2-6 weeks before showing up on blood work. AIDS and HIV
> take 3-12 months after exposure for the anitbodies to appear in the blood
> work. Getting tested now will only tell him if he had an STD/STI before
> his "messy" excursion. It won't tell him anything until it has made it
> into the bloodstream.

Two names. Joseph Lister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister%2C_1st_Baron_Lister Ignaz Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

> As you will see, or have seen, if you stay with these any of these gay-related "communities", dsaklad functions like a loop tape: obsessively preaching something he perceives as a moral imperative to clarify all ambiguity as he sees it.
Not a moral imperative, a medical imperative. If somebody repeats the same question that has the same answer I gave the same answer. It's a best medical practices imperative on the order of wash your hands before dealing with a patient, test blood before a transfusion, get tested for tuberculosis before entering a classroom.

You could see that depending on your point of view about testing. Or you could see it as responding to the same frequently asked questions.

> Everyone is entitled to his opinion and that's where it begins and ends.

> The heavy-handed moralizing
Please give an example...
Could it be your moralizing about how you perceive me?

> in his posts only get louder, angrier and more thunderous with his every attempt to whittle everyone's language sharper and clearer.
Marginalizing somebody with a different point of view is heavy handed. Asserting a point of view does not prevent you from disagreeing or ignoring it and going on to what really interests you. How much time did you take before you came to your opinion about me? Wouldn't it be a good idea to take time in forming an opinion about people in this medium or even in general?

Subject: Re: Ambiguity. Denial. We can stop the spread of the epidemic of sexually transmitted infections.
> Please stop this. I know you feel you are doing a service to this
> community and the larger gay community everywhere.
I see it more as challenging an idea about which I have questions too.

> It's getting tiresome. You really should just stop. You'd find, I think,
> if you cared enough to ask, that the communities here are growing tired
> of your trollish preaching.
That does not prevent you from writing about what really interests you and not responding to my writing. Unless what really interests you in censoring.

> P.S. In case you're curious as to how I know your name: Dude,
> you're infamous. I'm in other... shall we say... groups where you reside.
> Granted, you aren't as tiresome there, but you are talked about.
> Plenty.

All of which is good because one could make the case that a similar thing happened to Joseph Lister in his place and time. And again I don't cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome or human immunodeficiency virus.

Do you know any other people about whom others have said such things? Maybe somebody very close to you you know better than anybody else? As advocates for fairness it's a good idea to practice fairness.

Subject: Re: TOGETHER, now, get tested for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases.
Testing for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases now will give you the information. Both you and the guy can get tested TOGETHER. If testing detects nothing you'll have a benchmark. When you test again if test results change a benchmark will be good information for optimal treatment.

> He said he wore a condom the whole time until he pulled out.
Testing detects infections from all exposures.

> Why do you think it's necessary to spend hundreds of dollars for A VARIETY of STD tests?
For the same reasons that literally several billion people spend money on medical tests. How many people spend money on medical tests?... even if you just deal with the first and second world. Preventative medicine. Catch things early.

Subject: Re: Knowing means getting tested TOGETHER. Anything else is not knowing.
> I doubt it - I've never been with anyone who had anything but I've had
> plenty of messy fucks before with my various ex boyfriends and I've never
> gotten anything, even a UTI, even when bare backing.

> I doubt...
Doubt leaves ambiguity.

> ...it - I've never been with anyone who had anything...
> ...I've never gotten anything...
How would you or your sex partners know anything? Both you and your sex partners would have to get tested TOGETHER.

> I hate to burst your bubble, but some of us out here are responsible.
The predicament is knowing who.

> Before I will bareback *anyone* we both get tested.
That's exactly right. That's good. That's my whole point.
Would you have sex with somebody you meet who tells you he has an infection and that if you get it you could die a painful prolonged death?

> When I am not in a monogamous relationship I am tested once ever 6 months as part of my biannual physical.
If infections are detected it's already too late for your sexual contacts who got exposed.

> Your goals here are laudable, however your methods are becoming intrusive. If you continue to push the way you do, you will end up labeled as a spammer or troll.
Labels I'll live with, getting or spreading an infection harms our community. When we actually have to step over the dead bodies on the way to get tested, then the people left will get tested.

> A better approach would be to create a website detailing information on the benefits of regular testing as well as being tested along with your partner then ask for a link to that site be placed on the informational sections of other websites and communities.
Generally, people are not going to do the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex. It's a thought experiment. See also http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com

> And if you read his comment to mine he will be getting tested. His benchmark has already been established long before this incident and your opinion of the matter occured.
It's not a benchmark until BOTH sex partners get or he get his test results.

> You are not listening to the entire comments that are posted in response to yours. If you were you would better understand the whole concept of the comment and not isolate certain terms that are used.
For example, see replies to mine.

> Your logic in itself is flawed at best and dumb at worst. You wish him to establish a benchmark, when the benchmark has already been established
After getting tested then there's a benchmark. Before getting tested you don't know your test results.

> and you also want him to spend money on something that won't be detected anyway.
Epidemic STDs are why we have free testing.

> STD's/STI's take 2-6 weeks before showing up on blood work.
How do you know which exposure?... How do you know when?...

> AIDS and HIV take 3-12 months after exposure for the anitbodies to appear in the blood work.
That's a myth used to delay getting tested. If that meant anything the blood supply would not be safe for people needing transfusions. Having any STD taxes the immune system and increases the risk when exposed to another infection.

> Getting tested now will only tell him if he had an STD/STI before his "messy" excursion. It won't tell him anything until it has made it into the bloodstream.
Even if that were the case, getting tested now will be optimal for treatment for any subsequent infections because the information pins down a span of time. It's a benchmark.

> I understand where you're coming from, and I can appreciate your opinion, and I do thank you for your advice.
I would be interested in how it works out for you.

> However, I do feel it's a little irresponsible to tell people to get tested together before they have sex. While, in theory, this is a good idea, most (if not all) gay men I know are not going to spend time doing that with someone they only intend to hook up with on a one-time basis.
The people you refer to are not going to do the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER BEFORE we have sex.

> And, gay couples, I would bet, have already had sex numerous times before they end up getting tested together.
Most do not get tested.

> To me, it's in the same boat as preaching abstinence to people. It's irresponsible, because people are GOING to have sex. It's in our nature.
Abstinence only works until the next time.

> If you do know someone who has died from hiv or aids or any other sexually transmitted disease, I'm very sorry for your loss, but I think that your ideas about testing, while they may be good ideas, aren't necessarily practical.
The strategy goes against nature. We're programmed by nature to go ahead. Some people have something in them that let's them take action before the possible consequences. Perhaps a certain kind of genetic combination that allows a behavior modification.

> And it's still not working within the reality of gay men's day to day lives. Thinking you can alter that behaviour is naive and will easily lead to frustation, or your message being ignored.
It's a powerful force. Most people will not change their behavior.

> An effective message needs to fit into what is already there. Many people have casual sex. For various reasons. This will not stop. Asking people to wait a number of weeks before the initial sexual contact is simply going to be laughed at.
The people you refer to will not do the strategy of getting tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex for A VARIETY of STDs. You can get test results within a day or two.

> Safer sex. Lube Condoms/gloves/Dams.
Compare one test with the diligence of attempting to use safer sex practices and condoms every single time from beginning to end with never ever even a tiny exception.

> Assuming you are wondering what could happen because of the "mess", under normal circumstances you should be OK. However, if some of the "mess" was ingested or entered orifices, possible complications may include Hepatitis or parasites, but it sounds remote in your case.
"if", "possible", "sounds" leave ambiguity.

> Well, seeing as STIs/STDs have been thuroughly covered here, I don't have all that much to say. As long as you put the sheets (or whatever surface covering ya'll were on) in the wash/sink/whatever, and then washed your hands thuroughly, then you really shouldn't catch anything.
"as long as", "you really shouldn't"

> Now if you have any small cuts anywhere (or you stuck your messy fingers right in your mouth) which may have come in contact with "the mess", then I would be concerned.
"if"

> It might be prudent to have a test for parasitic/bacterial infections as all kinds of weird stuff lives in the "mess" which is meant to only leave the body and go back in (or else it does lots of bad stuff).

> Think of it this way: You don't have anything bad going down, you're good to snag another (presumably) cute boy; You do have something, the worst that happens is you have to take some anti-biotics to get rid of the worm.
The worst is passing along infections to another person when it could have been prevented.

> The preacher's
We should be familiar with labels and how people use them in ad hominem attacks.

> repetition aside, my hunch
If only hunches could cure fatal diseases, huh? or prevent people from getting infected. Wouldn't that be good!

> would be that you are safe, I mean you wore a condom.
The correct word is always... safer. There's never zero risk.

> Without you being more specific it's hard to say. Get tested for peace of mind if you're worried.

> I'd say you shouldn't have to worry about dying of anything (like HIV, ect).
That's what the people who died thought. That's what the people who got sick thought.

> P.S. Here's an STD chart along with risks! http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/stdbasics/stdchart.asp
The difficulty is that people do not just do one thing and stop. Before and during you don't know what can happen. Using a chart showing modules of sexual practices is another myth used to delay getting tested. During sex the heart beats faster. The mind numbs. Our full powers of observation and ability to remember afterward are not at hand.

http://community.livejournal.com/gay_sex_tips/518655.html
> 2007-04-28 19:07:00
> Add to memories! Tell a Friend!
> Current mood: worried
> Question...
> So..
> I hooked up with this guy (he was the bottom), and during, I noticed that things were getting a little bit messy. No big deal, I figured, these things are to be expected sometimes. I just kept going. But then, after it was over, I noticed that it was A LOT messier
than I had originally thought.
> I wore a condom the entire time, except for after I pulled out to cum, and immediately after he left, I got in the shower and SCRUBBED for dear life.
> I guess my question is...is there any chance I could catch something based on what happened?
> (Deleted post)

> Re: TOGETHER, now, get tested for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases.
> 2007-04-29 01:37 am UTC
> He said he wore a condom the whole time until he pulled out. Why do you think it's necessary to spend hundreds of dollars for a VARIETY of STD tests?
> (Parent)
For the same reasons that literally several billion people spend money on medical tests. How many people spend money on medical tests?... even if you just deal with the first and second world. Preventative medicine. Catch things early.

> 2007-04-29 12:31 am UTC
> I doubt it - I've never been with anyone who had anything but I've had plenty of messy fucks before with my various ex boyfriends and I've never gotten anything, even a UTI, even when bare backing.
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 02:18 am UTC
> Thanks for your help. :)
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 01:08 am UTC
> It might be prudent to get tested, but most STI's don't show for a few months, which is why you should be getting tested every 3 months.
> After the test results come back you'll have your solid answer I suppose.
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 02:19 am UTC
> Thanks. I'm due to get tested soon anyhow, so it's definitely a good idea.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 03:35 am UTC
> No problem! =)
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 01:28 am UTC
> Go get tested, know for sure. I mean, regular tests are probably part of your normal routine anyway right?
> No-one here can give you a definitive yes/no.
> A. We're on the internet. Not there when it happened.
> B. We don't have all the facts. If he was clean, then no, no chance you can catch something from him. If he's not clean, well....how do you know either way?
> Go get tested.
> (Thread)
> (Deleted post)
> (Deleted post)
> (Deleted post)
> (Deleted post)

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-04-29 01:18 pm UTC
> As you will see, or have seen, if you stay with these any of these gay-related "communities", dsaklad functions like a loop tape: obsessively preaching something he perceives as a moral imperative to clarify all ambiguity as he sees it.
> Everyone is entitled to his opinion and that's where it begins and ends.
> The heavy-handed moralizing in his posts only get louder, angrier and more thunderous with his every attempt to whittle everyone's language sharper and clearer.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-04-30 01:30 am UTC
> I see you deleted his string. Good idea, that is how I handle him. He cries censorship but I cry repetition.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-04-30 07:24 pm UTC
> No, I can only delete my own posts, I don't have the ability to delete anything he posts. He alone has that ability, along the moderator, of course.
> I did nothing and wouldn't even if I could.
> I just find him intolerable and had only one go-round with him and he's not rational. He asked me to supply him with something, I did, and he repeated the request as if I'd said nothing.
> Go figure!
> (Parent) (Thread)
What did you supply?...

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-04-30 10:35 pm UTC
> I believe, if you delete your own posts then everything that he posts in reply to you will also be deleted ;)
> Not to be too pedantic but that ALSO means if you are replying to the originator's comment and this guy comments about what you commented; if you then delete your reply, his is gone as well.
> I use this technique whenever I find that someone is reply to my own input with idiocy. Then, if I want, I just post a new reply to the originator.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-05-01 01:37 am UTC
> Not sure if this helps...
> dsaklad was the first reply to the OP. His comment attracted my reply which apparently caused him to delete his post. But my reply to his post remains visible.
> (Parent)

> Re: Get tested TOGETHER.
> 2007-05-01 05:08 am UTC
> Now I'm not 100% sure but I don't think it works that way. My posts remained while his were "deleted", but the only time I've ever used the "delete" option has been in place of an "edit" function LJ doesn't give you. That is, if I make some screw up in a post I can highlight everything I said, "copy" the highlighted text, *delete* the original, click "Reply" once again and "paste" my original text in that. Then I can edit the screw up in the *original* "Reply" and just click "Post Comment".
> It looks pretty seamless except for someone who saw the original and noticed whatever changed if they see it again after that very roundabout way to "edit" something. But it's only "Deleted" for as long as it takes to do the "edit."
> But I doubt I have any control over anyone else's posts at all. If it runs down a series of "replies" and someone "Deleted" his posts it just looks really senseless seeing only half the thread without any context.
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 02:19 am UTC
> Good, sound advice. Thank you! :)
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 01:33 am UTC
>> I guess my question is...is there any chance I could catch something based on what happened?
> Assuming you are wondering what could happen because of the "mess", under normal circumstances you should be OK. However, if some of the "mess" was ingested or entered orifices, possible complications may include Hepatitis or parasites, but it sounds remote in your
case.
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 02:20 am UTC
> Wow...thanks for the info. I'll definitely get tested.
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 02:58 am UTC
> Well, seeing as STIs/STDs have been thuroughly covered here, I don't have all that much to say. As long as you put the sheets (or whatever surface covering ya'll were on) in the wash/sink/whatever, and then washed your hands thuroughly, then you really shouldn't catch anything. Now if you have any small cuts anywhere (or you stuck your messy fingers right in your mouth) which may have come in contact with "the mess", then I would be concerned. It might be prudent to have a test for parasitic/bacterial infections as all kinds of weird stuff lives in the "mess" which is meant to only leave the body and go back in (or else it does lots of bad stuff). Think of it this way: You don't have anything bad going down, you're good to snag another (presumably) cute boy; You do have something, the worst that happens is you have to take some anti-biotics to get rid of the worm.
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 07:54 pm UTC
> What is an STI?
> (Parent) (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 09:02 pm UTC
> Sexually transmitted infection.
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 03:01 am UTC
> The preacher's repetition aside, my hunch would be that you are safe, I mean you wore a condom. Without you being more specific it's hard to say. Get tested for peace of mind if you're worried.
> (Reply to this)
If only hunches could cure fatal diseases, huh? or prevent people from getting infected. Wouldn't that be good!

> 2007-04-29 04:24 am UTC
> The only STD's I'm aware of transmitted fecally (other than skin to skin like HPV or Herpes..) are the Hepatitis ones. I too have topped the messy bottom syndrome, but other then getting tested, there's not much you can do.
> Contrary to dsaklad's dissection of the human language, I'd say you shouldn't have to worry about dying of anything (like HIV, ect).
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 04:24 am UTC
> P.S. Here's an STD chart along with risks!
http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/stdbasics/stdchart.asp
> (Parent) (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 06:02 am UTC
> Oh! Thanks for the breakdown! If people read this post it should help understand things better.
> Too many people have misconceived notions when it comes to STD's these days!
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 08:02 pm UTC
> You can sometimes get an STD even when wearing a condom through contact with the scrotum, but it is fairly rare since the scrotum does not ahve a mucous membrane and so is less suscebtible to these microbes.
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 05:28 pm UTC
> e.colli?
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-29 08:00 pm UTC
> Escheria coli (E. coli) is a bacterium that does live in the gut. It can be transmitted through fecal contact, but it won't harm you unless it gets into your mouth, say if you hadn't washed your hands. It isn't considered an STD usually.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> 2007-04-30 03:25 am UTC
> oh, i know it isn't an STD. however, if you had messy buttsex it is something to watchout for. a finger, a mouth, a penis, a whatever near or around it can always be cause for concern.
> (Parent)

> 2007-04-29 11:48 pm UTC
> I'd very much like to know what this seemingly recent phenomenon of creating and deleting your own posts is. The simple question is, "Why make them if in the first place you don't think they are worth allowing them to remain?"
> Something is not right somewhere.
> (Thread)

> 2007-04-30 12:27 am UTC
> I guess that dsaklad or whomever guy deleted all his comments to my post...that IS weird.
> I thought for a moment that MY post had been deleted! I would never do that.
> (Parent) (Thread)

> 2007-04-30 01:33 am UTC
> dsaklads arguments are so repetitive, with so many strawman arguments, and probably internally homophobic that I disregrad and delete any posts that I have the power over when he infects my string with his rhetoric :)
> (Parent) (Thread)
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman If you would, please give an example of a strawman argument I wrote so I can correct it.

> 2007-04-30 07:36 pm UTC
> It's all repetitive crap and the same set-ups he indulges in again and again.
> (Parent)

> 2007-05-01 10:21 pm UTC
> In the interest of full disclosure, I did post one comment to [info] dsaklad which I immediately deleted -- my sole purpose was to communicate, privately to him, something that he needed to know.
> It apparently worked as I intended; he's gone away now. Let us hope for good.
> (Parent)
http://community.livejournal.com/gay_sex_tips/518655.html

Nov. 5th, 2006

zaklad

http://www.filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php/123302

Dec. 24th, 2005

the metalevel

i'm developing ways of collaborating, contributing to the forums'
exchanges around this medium. better ways than what i've figured
out so far.

my writing needs to be a lot better, more interesting. overcoming
blocks to more freely express the ideas in me is a great challenge.

feedback, comment, questions and suggestions welcome !
critique, debate, counterpoint, challenges, disagreement,
dissent, kibbitzing welcome !

metalevel writings
i've avoided metalevel exchanges. apparently enganging in
metalevel exchanges foment inflamatory contributions rather than
moderating back to the original idea or ideas of topics, subjects
for the original exchanges.

and i'd aim to be funnier ! or a better straightman !
or a better foil !

Dec. 23rd, 2005

(no subject)

Hearsay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

How do you differentiate hearsay from original ideas?...

Jul. 12th, 2005

Ventilator and method

Ventilator and method
United States Patent 4121579
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4121579.html
Bird; Forrest M. (Palm Springs, CA)
Abstract: A ventilator with an inhalation phase and an exhalation phase in its operative cycle having an inlet adapted to be connected to a supply of gas under pressure and first, second and third outlets.
2830580 Apr., 1958 Saklad et al. 128/145.
3234932 Feb., 1966 Bird et al. 128/145.
3972327 Aug., 1976 Ernst et al. 128/145.

Nov. 8th, 2004

(no subject)

Steven A. Saklad
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:80u_Zj8DdPAJ:straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/latest/story/0,4390,236002-1077227940,00.html+saklad+%22paul+hartman%22&hl=en&start=1

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041108/APN/411080506

________________________________________________
Schmios
http://www.offoffoff.com/etc/2001/schmio.php3

May. 27th, 2004

Warner genealogy

Warner genealogy
http://zork.net/~dsaklad/edwardmkempnerjr.jpg
http://zork.net/~dsaklad/maisel1.jpg
http://zork.net/~dsaklad/Untitled-12.jpg

Previous 10