dear lockntross, juggernaught, critter, and onnotangu
- Thread starter Special
- Start date
.
JuggerNaught said:
(sigh)
Cheesedick, do you know what virulent means?
Did you read the study you posted? You just browsed through it, didn't you? See, what the study showed was that HIV survived the process, but they determined that it didn't really tell them a single fucking thing. They could not determine if the virus was virulent or not, and guess what? If it wasn't, it wouldn't do shit to you if you drank the water.
NolMan said:
these conclusions have not already been supported, ,they've been proven.
here...let me help you..
Now if you need any help with the really big words, like sharing, water, effective or viral transfer, just drop me an email at
jugg@juggisrightandno|manisaboogereatingmoronwhoswrong.com
Aestis said:100s of studies say no
1 says i don't know
jugg says yes
That's the jist of it. The study doesn't even say yes. It says that it should be looked into, because they are unable to determine for themselves. So JuggerNaught, naturally, assumes that it said yes. I think it likely that he didn't understand the report.
Sojourn said:
so you're saying that its possible? not necessarily going to happen, but possible?
wow, that sounds familiar, like i've heard it somewhere before...
Wow, I just read through this entire horrid thread. Please help me now...
AIDS argument = stupid. Please end now.
Critter = Attention Whore
Juggernaut = Guy that used to be cool, but acts like a jerk all the time now.
LockNTross=Some guy I don't know
Onnotangu=A pretty cool guy in my perspective who occasionally says something stupid.
In conclusion, goodbye Critter and Juggernaut.
AIDS argument = stupid. Please end now.
Critter = Attention Whore
Juggernaut = Guy that used to be cool, but acts like a jerk all the time now.
LockNTross=Some guy I don't know
Onnotangu=A pretty cool guy in my perspective who occasionally says something stupid.
In conclusion, goodbye Critter and Juggernaut.
JuggerNaught said:
Do you even know what a conclusion is? That conclusion was from that very same study that you say proves it.
Clearly it is you that need help with big words like conclusion.
con·clu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-klzhn)
n.
1. The close or last part; the end or finish.
2. The result or outcome of an act or process.
3. A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. See Synonyms at decision.
4. A final arrangement or settlement, as of a treaty.
5. Abbr. con. Law. The close of a plea or deed.
6. Logic.
-a- The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism.
-b- The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction.
JuggerNaught said:
btw you really do learn to read, it is noLman. I kind of understand tho, it really must be difficult for someone with a condition like yours remember all the names of the people who own you.
hey jugs, maybe you should actually look at the original study and findings from Barre-Sinoussi, et al. That quote was taken out of context and is referring to LAV whose relationship to AIDs and HIV is still questionable at this point.
holy shit!
edit: you could've left well enough alone, but now you're wrong about yet another thing. just in case you conveniently forgot:
holy shit!
edit: you could've left well enough alone, but now you're wrong about yet another thing. just in case you conveniently forgot:
Last edited:
JuggerNaught said:
What part of this do you not understand? The conclusion drawn in that report (a single report, mind you) is that "it might be possible" and then they follow through with "it should be looked into further." Neither one of those statements are conclusive, and since it was done in 1985 you would think that in itself would show you just how inconclusive the report is. They've had almost 18 years to further the study and there is nothing out there that even suggests it.
Maybe does not mean Yes. Maybe that's why you're single.
NolMan said:
need that email address updated for easy clickability?