AIDS Class Action Lawsuit

[Oli]

What's "derriere" gotta do with grain anyhow?

Since you used the word I merely thought that you should at least learn how to spell it.
I've already most of the point. But you keep making assumptions. Since you're too stupid to realise the depths of your stupidity then I'll leave you to it.

 

[Woody]

Since you used the word I merely thought that you should at least learn how to spell it.

Yes SIR, teacher SIR. Is class dismissed yet?

I've already most of the point. But you keep making assumptions. Since you're too stupid to realise the depths of your stupidity then I'll leave you to it.

ok fine, I'm still waiting to hear something intelligent from you, instead of petty little quibbles and it just isn't happening. I'm bored. You go to my ignore list. goodbye.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

ITS BRILLIANT... but you are limited to 4000 dollars per person in the claim...

so you will need alot of lists of the victums.... each one is 4000.

and you will need to show that the defendants, used deception, fraud, or lies to perpertrate this iinjustice... THAT THEY CAUSED IT... or helped to cause it.

thats the problem... they didnt do anything to make people gay..

they just promote their existance.... once each person desides to be gay....

so they promote the sin, once the sin is already being commited by free indivduals..


i would like to sue soy and milk producers... i dont drink that stuff anymore.. why?

estrogen... since i have gotten off milk and estrogen, my sense of manlyness is much improved... and in testing.. ive have noticed that drinking alot of milk, or especially soy milk.... makes me more in touch with my feminie side.

this... feminaization of boys... is done to all children.. in cereal.. in all types of foods... its chemical manipulation.. and at the very least,, you can sue to force them to put warnings on the labels...
the victums in such a case... would be in the 300 million victum range.

-MT

 

[MetaKron]

LOL!! Do you stare at your navel in amazement each morning or are you just impressed by your own spam? Love & Kisses

I think that Woody plays "peeping Tom" all the time by peeking down the front of his own trousers. That idea of his is one of the stupidest that I have ever read.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

I think that Woody plays "peeping Tom" all the time by peeking down the front of his own trousers. That idea of his is one of the stupidest that I have ever read.

WHY IS IT SO STUPID???

its true.... they promote gayness... and doing so.. promotes gay sex... which directly leads to aids infection....

this fact cannot be disputed.... but blame... is another matter.

-MT

 

[James R]

Woody:

Plaintiffs: AIDS victims (listed Exhibit 1)

Defendants: Gay-activist organizations and their officers (listed Exhibit 2)

Whereas, AIDS victims incur roughly $400 thousand in AIDS-realted medical expenses prior to their deaths. (Exhibit 3)

Burden of proof: to show that gay-activist organizations (who are they?) directly cause these expenses.

Whereas, defendants through malfeasance purposefully obstructed investigation and communication of AIDS risks to known high-risk groups. (Exhibit 4)

Evidence?

Whereas, defendents through malfeasance, published false and misleading information to minimize the perceived risks associated with activities known to cause AIDS.

Evidence?

Risks include a greatly diminished lifespan for homosexual men and women.

That's not a risk. That's a consequence.

Homosexual men are many times more likely to contract AIDS than their heterosexual counterparts, as well as veneral diseases, and several other health risks. (Exhibit 5)

And this is the fault of "gay activist organizations"? How? Evidentiary nexus?

Whereas, defendants encouraged plaintiffs to continue in known high-risk activities, placing their health in jeopardy, without their full understanding of the risks involved. (Exhibit 4)

Evidence?

Whereas, defendants continue to persist in advocating activity to the general public that exposes them to grave risks. This persistance is well known at the public school level, whereby children are encouraged to participate in same-sex relationships. (Exhibit 5)

Evidence?

Whereas, the defendants through malfeasance, obstructed the control of a known epidemic by public heatlh officials. (Exhibit 6)

Evidence?

Looks like you'll need to collect some evidence before you file your claim, Woody.

 

[redarmy11]

I'm thinking about provoking Sciforums liberal elements with more inflammatory bullshit yada yada yada

Do the following groups have a significant impact on the AIDS figures and, if so, will you be launching similar lawsuits against them? Why / why not?

(a) promiscuous heterosexuals;
(b) intravenous drug users;
(c) African and Islamic females who have been genitally mutilated.

 

[Woody]

Woody:



Burden of proof: to show that gay-activist organizations (who are they?) directly cause these expenses.



Evidence?



Evidence?



That's not a risk. That's a consequence.



And this is the fault of "gay activist organizations"? How? Evidentiary nexus?



Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?

Looks like you'll need to collect some evidence before you file your claim, Woody.

Excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, and excellent (5 of them?). Where have you been getting your information that says otherwise, so that I might add them to the plaintiff list. I'll take sworn statements too.

The one I like best -- "dieing from smoking is not a risk, it's a consequence." Sounds kinda like "That's not a threat, that's a promise"

 

[Woody]

Do the following groups have a significant impact on the AIDS figures and, if so, will you be launching similar lawsuits against them? Why / why not?

(a) promiscuous heterosexuals;
(b) intravenous drug users;
(c) African and Islamic females who have been genitally mutilated.

Yes, choices are involved, but can't you say the same thing about smokers that get cancer? Choices are involved there too, but look who is telling them it's ok through glamorous advertising and such. At least a pack of cigarettes comes with a warning label. What kind of a warning comes from the pro-gay organizations that promote homosexual lifestyle? It's typically a scenario of cover-up and denial for political gain: eg "AIDS" the only "protected epidemic".

If you don't think the AIDS disease has been protected, take a closer look, and it's the gay activists that have been screaming about "privacy." If AIDS was just another disease like small-pox, don't you think this epidemic would have been handled like all the rest? Don't you think there would be less AIDS victims around, if unknowing gay sex partners had the right to know who has it?

With AIDS victims costing $400,000 a pop, I think it's time for someone to be accountable. Yeah, I know, "accountability" is a real bad word for liberals.

 

[Woody]

I think that Woody plays "peeping Tom" all the time by peeking down the front of his own trousers. That idea of his is one of the stupidest that I have ever read.

Perhaps, you should pay for all the AIDS victims. I like that idea. $400,000,000 will only take care of 1,000 AIDS victims -- not nearly enough for all the AIDS victims.

 

[Giambattista]

He's one of those people that would heckle Ryan White as he died of AIDS. All the millions dying of it in sub-Saharan Africa are STRAIGHT.

Yeah, I posted some facts about how Africa has twice the number of AIDS carriers than all the rest of the world combined, but apparently it didn't convince him that black people are evil. He simply told me how the African-American couple next door were some of the nicest people he has ever met.

Funny how gay people with AIDS have received " in their own persons the due penalty for their error " but all the millions of Africans with the same disease are somehow not so guilty.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

And I guess everything else I wrote after that has become "hate mail".

Woody's a fraud. Period.

 

[Woody]

GB said,

but all the millions of Africans with the same disease are somehow not so guilty.

But they are equally guilty. They are all fornicators:

Quick definitions (fornication)
noun: voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other

My bible says " no fornicator will enter the kingdom of god." So they all go to the same hell, regardless of which sex they choose to do it with. God is no respecter of persons.

If my response confuses you regarding african americans versus homosexuals. They are both human, but a homosexual is not homosexual unless there is sex involved. African americans are born with their race. Everyone chooses whether they will control their sexual desires or not. EVeryone includes me. Some people are genetically predisposed to alchoholism, but that does not excuse their behavior.

THe bible does not say african americans are going to hell because they are african americans. But it says drunkards and homosexuals are going to hell. I believe the bible.

Another interesting fact from the bible: Moses married an ethiopian woman -- that's right she was black. I guess that pretty well busts the so-called "bible justified" slavery in the 1800s, doesn't it. Somebody just open a bible. :bugeye:

Woody's a fraud. Period.

What did you expect me to be?

 

[James R]

Woody:

Excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, and excellent (5 of them?). Where have you been getting your information that says otherwise, so that I might add them to the plaintiff list. I'll take sworn statements too.

It seems you don't understand the legal system. It is up to the Plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. That means you have the burden of proof.

So, got any evidence yet?

 

[Woody]

Woody:


It seems you don't understand the legal system. It is up to the Plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. That means you have the burden of proof.

So, got any evidence yet?

Yes, I do, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort to put it all together, and to ascribe the fault to one specific group, or person.

For example: "AIDS as a the protected disease" -- I think it would be easy to prove this epidemic was treated differently from other epidemics in order to protect the rights of privacy for homosexuals that have AIDS. I'd say it is also pretty easy to prove the rights of privacy were abused -- resulting in other homosexuals getting AIDS from a partner that knew he had it, but didn't tell. Who specifically should be blamed, and how much should they be blamed? It seems as though the unknowing victim had a right to know as well.

If someone has been diagnosed with tuberculosis or small pox, don't other people around them have the right to know that? With AIDS, they do not have the right to know.

 

[redarmy11]

Woody, do you really think that 'gay activist organisations and their officers' (your named defendants) could initiate and maintain a cover up this big against the wider public interest? Does 'their officers' include the US government and public health officials, who are responsible for disseminating health information? Do you think these organisations are actively collaborating with these militant gay activists - if not, exactly what is their role? Finally, if governments (and I presume this is a global conspiracy?) are so keen to downplay the truth why would they want to risk exposure by prosecuting gay men for "reckless HIV transmission"? Wouldn't this militate against their secret agenda?

 

[Zephyr]

Woody, do you understand that people living in Africa are not African Americans (unless they're also American citizens, but that would be a tiny minority)? I don't understand how you went from AIDS in Africa to AIDS among African Americans...

 

[Giambattista]

But they are equally guilty. They are all fornicators:

They are ALL fornicators??? ALL equally guilty???
That's a very bold, presumptuous statement. It's also incorrect.

In at least some of these cases (probably many), it is the husbands who are the unfaithful fornicators. Sometimes the women are aware, sometimes they are not. Men cheating on their wives is nothing new. And even when the women know what's going on, they are often afraid and powerless to do anything about it. You see, men in Africa have a very similar attitude towards women that men in the middle-east have had since the olden days. One could almost say it's a very Biblical attitude.

Furthermore, approximately 2 million of those suffering from AIDS in Africa are children. Were these children fornicating, and receiving the just punishment for their iniquities? You seem to be of the same mindset as, say, Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, who sees any little maladie or misfortune suffered by gay people (or replace "gay" with any other undesirable group) as being some type of divine reward or punishment.

Oh, and let us not forget the millions more children who have been orphaned or abandoned because AIDS has taken their parents away.

My bible says " no fornicator will enter the kingdom of god." So they all go to the same hell, regardless of which sex they choose to do it with. God is no respecter of persons.

My Bible also speaks of concubines, and how they are distinct from normal wives. Many men had concubines, including Abraham, Jacob, David, and of course, Solomon.
These men were also polygamists, which was never outlawed in the Bible. Biblically speaking, you can be married to more than one wife. It's not committing adultery.

And what exactly is marriage? Fornication may be defined as sex outside of marriage, but who defines marriage? The Bible outlines no ceremony for marriage, nor does it make clear any legal contracts (such as marriage licenses, etc.) that one must undergo in order to have a "true" marriage.

What do you need for marriage? Love? A contract on a piece of paper? Do you need the say-so of a judge, or the blessing of a priest?

What if two people decide, because of their strong feelings toward each other, to simply declare themselves married, without any pomp or ceremony? (like common-law marriage) Is that less authentic than a big, fancy, "proper" wedding?
Who approves or defines how two people go about being married? Two people may have lived together for twenty years, and consider themselves happily married, without having had any official marriage ceremony. This technicality would lead a number of people to say that this couple are fornicators, living in sin.

If my response confuses you regarding african americans versus homosexuals. They are both human, but a homosexual is not homosexual unless there is sex involved.

Is a heterosexual still a heterosexual even if they are abstaining from sexual relationships?
What if two men or women are involved in a romantic relationship, without sex? What are they then? Homosexuals? Potential homosexuals? Sinners? Good friends?
You said they aren't homosexuals unless there is sex involved. So, I'm curious to know just what exactly they would be considered.

Another interesting fact from the bible: Moses married an ethiopian woman -- that's right she was black. I guess that pretty well busts the so-called "bible justified" slavery in the 1800s, doesn't it. Somebody just open a bible. :bugeye:

No, it doesn't really bust the so-called "Bible justified" slavery in the 1800's. The racist side of it, perhaps, but slavery was not even condemned in the New Testament. Slavery and racism are distinct entities.

What did you expect me to be?

You're right, Woody. I was mistaken to have expected anything more from you.

 

[Woody]

Woody, do you really think that 'gay activist organisations and their officers' (your named defendants) could initiate and maintain a cover up this big against the wider public interest? Does 'their officers' include the US government and public health officials, who are responsible for disseminating health information? Do you think these organisations are actively collaborating with these militant gay activists - if not, exactly what is their role? Finally, if governments (and I presume this is a global conspiracy?) are so keen to downplay the truth why would they want to risk exposure by prosecuting gay men for "reckless HIV transmission"? Wouldn't this militate against their secret agenda?

No it is not international, it only happens in the USA. THis is not a "conspiracy theory." Rather it is an issue where the political right to privacy takes precedence over the society's right to be free of an epidemic.

I only ask one question: Why aren't AIDS carriers placed in quarantine -- isn't that standard policy for an epidemic disease? Why has an exception been made for AIDS carriers?

This policy hurts the gay population more than anyone. Is somebody trying to help them get AIDS?

 

[Roman]

For example: "AIDS as a the protected disease" -- I think it would be easy to prove this epidemic was treated differently from other epidemics in order to protect the rights of privacy for homosexuals that have AIDS.

Quite the opposite. The 1980's gay community was extremely cooperative with health officials, doctors and the CDC. Maybe you should research your claims?

No no, that wouldn't do at all, would it? Wallowing in ignorance smells good huh? Like shit, isn't that right Woody.

 

[Woody]

Quite the opposite. The 1980's gay community was extremely cooperative with health officials, doctors and the CDC. Maybe you should research your claims?

No no, that wouldn't do at all, would it? Wallowing in ignorance smells good huh? Like shit, isn't that right Woody.

No that isn't right at all. I ask again:

I only ask one question: Why aren't AIDS carriers placed in quarantine -- isn't that standard federal policy for an epidemic disease? Why has an exception been made for AIDS carriers?

You failed to answer the question.

Gay-activists haven't really helped anyone control AIDS, not even for themselves: From San Franciso Indy Media in year 2001:

AIDS Quarantine Flap Results In Multiple Felony Charges Against Controversial Activists

San Francisco -- Two AIDS activists were arrested today following a hearing on temporary restraining orders stemming from a series of allegedly harassing phone calls. Michael Petrelis and ACT UP San Francisco member David Pasquarelli shouted "Stop AIDS Quarantine" as police placed them under arrest. Charged with numerous felonies, Pasquarelli and Petrelis are being held for an exorbitant half million dollars bail each for their involvement in a national campaign to speak out against federal quarantine of people with AIDS.

ACT UP San Francisco members fear that the recent terrorist attacks will foster an atmosphere where million dollar bails and felony charges will become the norm for actions that should be First Amendment protected speech. ACT UP members vow to continue their efforts to bring attention to the pending quarantine legislation, including increasing pressure on local officials to exercise their power today to protect future generations tomorrow from this quarantine act. The next hearing for Pasquarelli and Petrelis is set for December 20 at 10:30 AM in Dept. 206, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco.

Roman, do you even know who ACT UP is? Zeesh, what an ignorant bloat!

ACT UP does have it's behavioral disorders. Kinda like you -- isn't that right Roman?

In BC (Canada) they fought Bill 34 in 1987:

It is important to state at the outset that we support the principle that medical health officers should be given effective powers to deal with individuals who are wilfully or carelessly exposing others to communicable diseases or conditions such as AIDS. We oppose Bill 34 as it is presently worded, but we do not oppose the idea that government is entitled to take serious measures to prevent irresponsible behaviour that spreads a deadly disease.

So What's the alternative in Canada for controlling the spread of AIDS?

Well actually, contrary to your unsupported claim, the gay activists weren't helping in the 80s, and it looked more like this:

from source:

AIDS ‘Bill of Rights’ Spurned by Activists
By Chris Bull

Gay Community News, March 26-April 1, 1989

According to Jim Mangia, NAP’s lesbian and gay organizing co-chair, the bill seeks to outlaw mandatory testing, quarantine and criminal penalties for people who “transmit” HIV.

The bill didn't go far enough in removing the quarantine order. So today we have an AIDS epidemic.

Tell me, what is wrong with everyone getting an AIDS test?

Without the appropriate health measures in place, the word "GAY" becomes an acronym for "Got AIDS Yet?"