Orwellian

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The 'mineral water'
reference is a paraphrase of something said by Jacques Anquetil. Are
you telling me that the words of a legend of the sport do not belong on
this page but your words do?

Let us remember that Anquetil also had kids with his wife and step-daughter.
Would you think his advice on morals might be something that we could teach
children as well? (Remember this is a discussion and not a personal insult.)

Quoted message said:

At one time penicillin was the "Latest pharmacological wonder". If it
where found that penicillin enhanced performance would we insist that
riders never use it?

No one would begrudge anyone the use of EPO to cure medical conditions.
Lance probably used EPO during his chemotherapy in order to survive the
damage to his red blood cells. A friend who just had serious cancer
treatments did as well.

But using it for an unfair advantage is something else altogether. Surely
you see that David Millar talking to kids about drugs is of very limited
ethical use? What's he going to say? "I was more interested in winning than
in winning clean"? Do you think that's a message that kids need - I cheated
for the money?

Quoted message said:

There is a knee-jerk reaction in thinking any sort of pharmacological
help is bad. I think drug policy should be oriented toward protecting
the athlete and not simply eliminating anything that may enhance
performance.

Of course there's always that possibility. And in the latest Letters column
in cyclingnews.com I make more or less the same point.

Quoted message said:

IF it were proven that some level of EPO use actually had health
benefits for the rider, than I would find its use acceptable.

Of course EPO has "health benefits". In fact using it to cheat in endurance
sports is probably a very small percentage of one percent of the market.

Quoted message said:

Sports is already a competition to see who responds best to training,
diet, rest, etc. IF their is a healthy way to employ medication, I
see no problem with this becoming another part of athletic preparation.

Well I do see a problem. Where's the cutoff? People were abusing caffeine
because they believed that more caffeine equated to better performance.
Unfortunately caffeine is in so many things that it was possible to get over
the limit using perfectly normal every day foods. Furthermore research
showed that "more" was no better than "some" and it added to the possibility
of serious medical conditions.

TK: "But using it for an unfair advantage is something else altogether.
Surely
you see that David Millar talking to kids about drugs is of very
limited
ethical use? What's he going to say? "I was more interested in winning
than
in winning clean"? Do you think that's a message that kids need - I
cheated
for the money?"

I agree with you on this one Tom, but the only problem is it is
actually _worse_ than you indicate here. It's not that DM is simply of
"limited ethical use," it's that he is a *model for how doping leads to
success*. His prior notoriety and income, AND his return to the sport
and what must be at least a six-figure contract to do recreation for a
living, tell us everything you need to know, no matter what his mouth
might be saying.

-RJ

I have more respect for DeCanio than for Millar.

-RJ

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

(In Texas, at least): "Tax money is for redistricting, not for
schoolbooks"?

Is it just me or didn't we just note that although American schools spend
more per pupil than many other countries, they test lower. Maybe, JUST
MAYBE, the problem is with the teachers and not the textbooks?

The problem is with the administrators. And the parents.

Well, it's plain to see what union you belong to. Remember that I was
engaged and then married to a teacher for about 9 years. I saw teachers all
the time up close and personal. I also saw the administrators who were for
the most part a great deal more competent than the teachers under them.

Parents are a problem all right. They have to work their asses off in order
to pay the taxes to pay those dumb-assed teachers who are more interested in
teaching Johnny how to put a condom on a cucumber than to teach him
multiplication tables. Why multiplication tables along with HISTORY and most
English courses don't exist anymore.

Tom Kunich said:

Well, it's plain to see what union you belong to.

No union. Retired. Last union membership was in the 60's. You say these
things about me, and you're never, ever right. Remember once that you
said you _knew_ I was a teacher, and I explained that actually, I am a
retired plumber?

Quoted message said:

Remember that I was
engaged and then married to a teacher for about 9 years.

Gosh, TK, not everyone knows or wants (in the first place) to know your
personal history. Messy divorce-- I do remember that, though. 'Splains
a lot, there.

Quoted message said:

Parents are a problem all right. They have to work their asses off in order
to pay the taxes to pay those dumb-assed teachers who are more interested in
teaching Johnny how to put a condom on a cucumber than to teach him
multiplication tables. Why multiplication tables along with HISTORY and most
English courses don't exist anymore.

Hey dumbass (thyself), the teachers don't set the curriculum. I already
said that. Multiplication tables don't exist? Wrong wrong wrong.
History? Ditto. No English? You are just making this all up, aren't
you? Parroting neocon rant... (workers bad, bosses good)

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Hey TK! Read the article at this link, if you will, and come on back
to discuss. Please?

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

--D-y

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

On 1/30/06 4:38 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9331cd.asp

All condoms have flaws or holes. These aren¹t poked into them intentionally
by someone. They occur naturally in all latex condoms.
The average hole size is 5 microns. A sperm is only 2.5 microns. An HIV
virus that causes AIDS is only .1 micron. (1) In one test, 33% (1/3) of the
latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles! (2) The diagram at above shows
these sizes to scale.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

___________________________________________

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

Perhaps you ought to keep a little more up to day. Even Harpo has it right.
Condoms don't protect you from HIV infections though they might reduce the
chances of one slightly.

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
> _broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
> control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

Perhaps you ought to keep a little more up to day. Even Harpo has it right.
Condoms don't protect you from HIV infections though they might reduce the
chances of one slightly.

Is this like those helmet arguments?

Ron

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
> _broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
> control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

Perhaps you ought to keep a little more up to day. Even Harpo has it right.
Condoms don't protect you from HIV infections though they might reduce the
chances of one slightly.

You assert these things, but don't offer anything to substantiate them. Like
something from the FDA or CDC, for instance. The most recent stuff from both of
those agencies indicate that they reduce the rate of infection far more than
"slightly."

From the most recent CDC posting on the subject:

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in
preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

(snip)

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in
preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and considerably
more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of
HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of
latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and
conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV
has been scientifically established in real-life studies of sexually active
couples as well as in laboratory studies.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm

If you have something more "up to day," you're welcome to post it.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Is this like those helmet arguments?

Ron

"Put a helmet on that soldier!!!!!!" Ahem.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
> > _broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
> > control and STD prevention.
>
> Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
> latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

Perhaps you ought to keep a little more up to day. Even Harpo has it right.
Condoms don't protect you from HIV infections though they might reduce the
chances of one slightly.

You assert these things, but don't offer anything to substantiate them.

Howard, that's why I started filtering out his posts -- it's not worth
reading stuff from someone when they seem to sometimes or often just
make stuff up.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

RonSonic said:

Is this like those helmet arguments?

Sort of. Except here, Kunich is ignoring science and reason. --D-y

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
> > _broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides
> > birth
> > control and STD prevention.
>
> Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common
> in
> latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

Perhaps you ought to keep a little more up to day. Even Harpo has it
right.
Condoms don't protect you from HIV infections though they might reduce
the
chances of one slightly.

You assert these things, but don't offer anything to substantiate them.
Like
something from the FDA or CDC, for instance. The most recent stuff from
both of
those agencies indicate that they reduce the rate of infection far more
than
"slightly."

From the most recent CDC posting on the subject:

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective
in
preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

(snip)

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective
in
preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and
considerably
more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for
prevention of
HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the
effectiveness of
latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both
comprehensive and
conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission
of HIV
has been scientifically established in real-life studies of sexually
active
couples as well as in laboratory studies.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm

Studies conducted on STATISTICS. Of course most people would have considered
that it's far more likely that there were substantial behavioral changes and
not just condoms.

But then you really can't ask the questions you'd like to can you?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

RonSonic said:

Is this like those helmet arguments?

Sort of. Except here, Kunich is ignoring science and reason. --D-y

And the difference is ...?

--
Michael Press

On 1/30/06 6:41 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
_broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

The CDC doesn't agree with what you're implying, Tom.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html

___________________________________________

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain
"holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for
natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact
latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms,
including HIV, as well as sperm.

___________________________________________

Right...........
An "opinion" of a CDC study. And you find this on someone's homepage??
How about this homie??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

On 1/30/06 6:45 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Skid Marx said:

On 1/30/06 4:38 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> And, I think it's _Janie_ they're teaching to put the condom on a
> _broomstick_, for at least a couple of very good reasons, besides birth
> control and STD prevention.

Not to disillusion you but HIV virus are smaller than the holes common in
latex condoms.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9331cd.asp

All condoms have flaws or holes. These aren¹t poked into them intentionally
by someone. They occur naturally in all latex condoms.
The average hole size is 5 microns. A sperm is only 2.5 microns. An HIV
virus that causes AIDS is only .1 micron. (1) In one test, 33% (1/3) of the
latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles! (2) The diagram at above shows
these sizes to scale.

http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms.html
______________________________________________

Can HIV leak through microscopic holes in latex condoms?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a study in
the July-August 1992 issue of "STD" which examined whether
HIV-sized glass beads could be forced through latex condoms
under stressful laboratory conditions. These conditions
included higher concentrations of the "virus" (glass beads)
than in semen, a fluid that doesn't stick together as much as
semen, and forces that simulated 10 minutes of thrusting AFTER
ejaculation. Most latex condoms leaked absolutely nothing.
The worst condom found would still reduce exposure risk by
10,000-fold, i.e., only 1 HIV virus might "leak" through only
1 of every 90 condoms. Other tests have shown that under
"normal" conditions, HIV does not pass through a latex condom
that is not torn or broken.

______________________________________________

1 study............
Read on homeslice... Do you want more??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

In article said:

1 study............
Read on homeslice... Do you want more??

http://www.aegis.org/news/lt/1989/LT890904.html

That looks like *one* study, shoeshine boy.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Howard, that's why I started filtering out his posts -- it's not worth
reading stuff from someone when they seem to sometimes or often just
make stuff up.

Are you saying he's John Lott?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?