PDA

View Full Version : FDA To Ban Gay Sperm Donation



PanzerJaeger
05-06-2005, 07:06
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050505/D89TAFB00.html

I cannot find a negative in this. And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes; its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool. :thumbsup:

Ja'chyra
05-06-2005, 08:34
How do you know if the sperm are gay? Are they pink or something?

Adrian II
05-06-2005, 10:17
"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years."Yup, another triumph for junk science.

Lazul
05-06-2005, 10:58
so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?
Couse, if it isnt natural, and not in the genes and sperm, there is no need to ban gay sperm since then there is nothing like gay sperm!?

bmolsson
05-06-2005, 11:00
How do you know if the sperm are gay? Are they pink or something?

I guess you ask them, since it's after all their choice...... ~;)

Beirut
05-06-2005, 11:11
:beadyeyes2: "Jones! The bio-sexo-molecular-differentiator is broken. You'll have to sort the samples by taste test again!"

:fainting: "Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!"

Beirut
05-06-2005, 11:26
:singer: :guitarist: :drummer: :gorgeous: :guitarist: :kiss2: :yes:

I got a job at the FDA
I gotta keep the bad sperm away
If I find out that your shmoo is gay
You’ll be told that you cannot stay

Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
I do it in the heterosexual way
While I’m working at the FDA

I got a job at the FDA
Where conservative views hold sway
And if you spank to magazines that are gay
You cannot donate to the bank today

Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
I do it in the heterosexual way
While I’m working at the FDA

I lost my job at the FDA
‘Cause I thought of the boss night and day
His cute buns made my emotions sway
I fell in love with him I gotta say
While I was working at the FDA… da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da

Oh I got fired from the FDA
Oh I got fired from the FDA
I did in the homosexual way
I’m not working at the FDA

bmolsson
05-06-2005, 11:49
Rofl !!!

Ja'chyra
05-06-2005, 13:15
lol

Gawain of Orkeny
05-06-2005, 13:42
so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?

Not this silly talk again. So is murder natural so I guess theres nothing wrong with it. This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you?

English assassin
05-06-2005, 14:00
This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you

Simple. Tell them they get a free CD for donating. The ones who choose the Village People are gay.

This would also enable you to throw away the samples from Metalica fans...

Beruit, you are Tom Lehrer in disguise, right?

JAG
05-06-2005, 15:50
Beruit - very good and very funny, nice job.

And this law shows just how much the US is driving itself into the social gutter.

A.Saturnus
05-06-2005, 16:11
The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus.

Black people have also a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS. Will the FDA have the balls for consitency?

ichi
05-06-2005, 16:19
New Fox TV reality show "Queer Eye for the Straight Sperm"

sort of adds new meaning to the phrase "coming out of the closet"


Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

now that's funny

Ser Clegane
05-06-2005, 16:25
Hmm ... in this context I would like to mention that AFAIK the Red Cross in Germany does not accept blood donations from homosexual men.

Even if this FDA regulation might appear silly at the first glance, the rationale seems to be the same as for the Red Cross.

So while some people might argue that this is an over-reaction by the FDA (and the Red Cross), it would be wrong IMO to consider this case as some sinister plot of the US administration to discriminate gays.

EDIT: personally, I rather have a problem with statements of this kind:


its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool. :thumbsup:

as they eerily remind me of something...

Lazul
05-06-2005, 18:25
Not this silly talk again. So is murder natural so I guess theres nothing wrong with it. This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you?


you know Gawy, murder hurts people, being gay doesnt (unless your Very sensitive or homophobic) ... huge diff. :bow:

Navaros
05-06-2005, 18:28
this is the first time in history that the evil entity called FDA has ever done anything right

but even with this, they didn't do it right since the ban is only retroactive for 5 years. instead, it should be an all-encompassing ban.

Byzantine Prince
05-06-2005, 19:56
you know Gawy, murder hurts people, being gay doesnt (unless your Very sensitive or homophobic) ... huge diff. :bow:
I don't think he wants to accept the difference.

Redleg
05-06-2005, 20:33
Beruit - very good and very funny, nice job.

And this law shows just how much the US is driving itself into the social gutter.


This law does no such thing - however if you want to show where the United States is driving itself into the social gutter pick something better.

This law is just an over-reaction to a health risk - however I do believe that the freezing process of the sperm for storage would kill the virus.

However if you want to go down that road of social gutter - I can just as easily point out laws and ideas in England that is leading your nation down the social gutter. Ie racism is more on the raise in Europe then the in the United States. (And a few other social ills.)

If your going to start on how the United States is going into the gutter socially - point out the lack of proper parenting, the raise in youth gang violence, and several other indiciators of massive social upheavel. This particlur law is a nothing law by an organization that habitually makes such legal medical rulings.

|OCS|Virus
05-06-2005, 23:42
I would like to see more scientific proof that gay men will have gay chilren. If this guy is 6'1" and 220 lbs body builder, and happens to be gay, I say let him donate, I think this is far more effective in securing healthy gene lines, and producing healthy children. Because I don't think being gay is genetic, although I would consider the possibility if someone could show some evidence.

hrvojej
05-07-2005, 00:31
And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes;
I don't think that the argument was that it's genetic, or at least I haven't heard any serious evidence that it is genetic. Rather, the argument was that it can be developmental - as in, it occurs/can occur during the development of the fetus, regardless of its genetic makeup.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-07-2005, 01:28
I thought the consensus was that it was mostly hormonal, with some environmental influences.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-07-2005, 02:41
I would like to see more scientific proof that gay men will have gay chilren.

Wait a minute here. This law has nothing to do with genetics or gays passing their genes onto others. Its about stopping aids. Their not worried about more gay people bieng born. Where did you guys come up witht this ides?

Probably from this post


so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?
Couse, if it isnt natural, and not in the genes and sperm, there is no need to ban gay sperm since then there is nothing like gay sperm!?

It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

BDC
05-07-2005, 09:05
Wow, pseudoscience is gradually clawing more and more into the mainstream.

Fragony
05-07-2005, 11:15
Yup, another triumph for junk science.

Awww AdrianII, we ban gays from blood-donorship for exactly the same reason.

Lazul
05-07-2005, 11:31
It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

oh, so they dont normally test sperm for AIDS? I mean, hetro-sperm can very well have AIDS as well.
So maybe, they shouldnt ban gay-sperm, but start testing all sperm for AIDS.

:bow:

Fragony
05-07-2005, 11:45
oh, so they dont normally test sperm for AIDS? I mean, hetro-sperm can very well have AIDS as well.
So maybe, they shouldnt ban gay-sperm, but start testing all sperm for AIDS.

:bow:

But the chance is a lot lower, and there are a lot of sexual diseases we don't know enough about. And gays are more likely to develope mystery meat, it is not a nice gesture towards gays, but let's think of the children first.

Beirut
05-07-2005, 11:55
It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

This is completely true. I find it incredibly selfish of gay men, who, especially at the height of the AIDS crisis, insisted that their rights to be donors, be it blood or sperm, outweighed the potential risks to the recipients.

We're not discussing whether they can use a public toilet or get into their favorite restaurant, or be eligible for insurance, we're talking about donating bodily fluids that can pose a dangerous health risk to the recipient. There is no inherent right to (a) be a donor, or (b) force someone to accept what is donated.

If they refuse me because I smoked pot once (cough-cough), do I have the right to force them to take my precious bodily fluids and then force them to give them to either an aspiring mother or a sick person? I think not.

Now, if gay men were denied the right to receive blood, that is an entirely different matter. As for gay men receiving sperm, I have never to my knowledge heard that that is a problem whatsoever.

Adrian II
05-07-2005, 14:46
Awww AdrianII, we ban gays from blood-donorship for exactly the same reason.No, we don't engage in junk science in this respect. Sanquin, the Dutch national 'bloodbank', asks potential donors a series of questions about their lifestyle, including sexual behaviour. It is the responsibility of the donor to be truthful when filling out the form. It doesn't ask about sexual preference. And rightly so, because sexual preference as such is not a risk factor; certain behaviour is, whether engaged in by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Devastatin Dave
05-07-2005, 14:52
This is completely true. I find it incredibly selfish of gay men, who, especially at the height of the AIDS crisis, insisted that their rights to be donors, be it blood or sperm, outweighed the potential risks to the recipients.

We're not discussing whether they can use a public toilet or get into their favorite restaurant, or be eligible for insurance, we're talking about donating bodily fluids that can pose a dangerous health risk to the recipient. There is no inherent right to (a) be a donor, or (b) force someone to accept what is donated.

If they refuse me because I smoked pot once (cough-cough), do I have the right to force them to take my precious bodily fluids and then force them to give them to either an aspiring mother or a sick person? I think not.

Now, if gay men were denied the right to receive blood, that is an entirely different matter. As for gay men receiving sperm, I have never to my knowledge heard that that is a problem whatsoever.

Well said. Sometimes you have to use common sense instead of political correctness. This should not be consider gay bashing, liberal vs conservative, etc. Much like if a sperm bank wanted to get sperm for make future NBA players, I doubt they would want mine since I'm short. ~;)

A.Saturnus
05-07-2005, 17:02
Awww AdrianII, we ban gays from blood-donorship for exactly the same reason.

Actually we ban (sexual active) gay men from blood-donorship because of media-made hysteria about AIDS. Blood shortage is a bigger health problem than AIDS in Europe. In the US that may be different since the AIDS problem is more rampant there.
Concerning sperm, one can afford to be more restrictive, of course, since no one needs sperm to survive. Though, what if someone wants a homosexual to be the father of her children?

Byzantine Prince
05-07-2005, 17:16
Concerning sperm, one can afford to be more restrictive, of course, since no one needs sperm to survive.
Are you sure about that? I've heard sperm can help releave cancer. ~;)

Devastatin Dave
05-07-2005, 19:26
Though, what if someone wants a homosexual to be the father of her children?

Then they should have their head examined first.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-07-2005, 19:29
Are you sure about that? I've heard sperm can help releave cancer. ~;)

It's a strange dilemma really-Ejaculating decreases the risk of prostate cancer, yet swallowing semen increases the risk of throat cancer...

Idomeneas
05-07-2005, 20:31
It's a strange dilemma really-Ejaculating decreases the risk of prostate cancer, yet swallowing semen increases the risk of throat cancer...

i hope girls wont hear about that :inquisitive:

Byzantine Prince
05-07-2005, 20:39
That has to be a joke BKS. Now way something as cool as sperm causes cancer. :sick:

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-07-2005, 20:39
Pretty much everything causes cancer...

Ironside
05-07-2005, 22:27
Pretty much everything causes cancer...

I do have a god one in that department.

FACT:
Breathing causes cancer.

hrvojej
05-07-2005, 22:38
Pretty much everything causes cancer...
Water does too...

Gawain of Orkeny
05-08-2005, 01:22
Actually we ban (sexual active) gay men from blood-donorship because of media-made hysteria about AIDS. Blood shortage is a bigger health problem than AIDS in Europe. In the US that may be different since the AIDS problem is more rampant there.

Then how is it we have no blood shortages? So is it your position that gay men dont have a higher insidence of aids? Doesnt the red cross screen donated blood for aids anyway?

bmolsson
05-08-2005, 06:07
I am amazed how much you guy's know about sperms and there usage. Could a thread be more gay...... ~;)

discovery1
05-08-2005, 06:17
Then how is it we have no blood shortages? So is it your position that gay men dont have a higher insidence of aids? Doesnt the red cross screen donated blood for aids anyway?

Las Vegas has a fairly large shortage, or at least their reserves are really low.


Hmm, I guess I should comment on the subject.

If the rationale behind banning gays from giving blood is true, then I suppose they should be banned from giving sperm. Does anyone know how many men give their sperm? If the number is small enough then maybe it would be practicle to test every donation for AIDS, thus the ban wouldn't be needed.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-08-2005, 06:32
If women want sperm from a gay man let them work for it ~:)

Beirut
05-08-2005, 12:52
:rolleyes2: "Oh honey, boobs and bikinis just don't do it for moi. You'll have to work harder than that. Dress up like Russell Crow, get me drunk and I'll think about it."

A.Saturnus
05-08-2005, 15:01
Then how is it we have no blood shortages? So is it your position that gay men dont have a higher insidence of aids? Doesnt the red cross screen donated blood for aids anyway?

Blood shortages are nothing unheard of in the US:
http://www.americasblood.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=display.showPage&pageID=282
http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=3209296
http://www.burbank.com/blood.shtml
http://www.redcrossalabama.org/news/04/040105.htm
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2004/07/16/blood.html

Please give blood!

It is not my position that gay men don't have a higher incidence of AIDS. It is my position that the chance is higher that your health is affected by blood shortage than by AIDS infection via blood donation. At least in Europe. And yes, the Red Cross screens donated blood for AIDS, among other things. I would be surprised if the same weren't true for sperm donations.

Adrian II
05-08-2005, 16:22
And yes, the Red Cross screens donated blood for AIDS, among other things. I would be surprised if the same weren't true for sperm donations.In the case of blood, the Red Cross and affiliates state that they routinely screen donated blood unless there is no time for that due to an emergency or a shortage of the kind you describe. In that case, all they can do is trust the donors' honesty as to their lifestyles. These lifestyle criteria would apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, so in The Netherlands we don't ban gays from donating blood; we ban all those who engage to high-risk behaviour.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-08-2005, 16:27
I know we have had mnor shortages here and there but if you need a transfusion here you can be sure you will get one.


t is my position that the chance is higher that your health is affected by blood shortage than by AIDS infection via blood donation.

Wow it must be horrible over there.


And yes, the Red Cross screens donated blood for AIDS, among other things. I would be surprised if the same weren't true for sperm donations.

Well if their really as worried as they say wouldnt making them screen all samples be the law to write and not this one?

A.Saturnus
05-08-2005, 20:18
In the case of blood, the Red Cross and affiliates state that they routinely screen donated blood unless there is no time for that due to an emergency or a shortage of the kind you describe. In that case, all they can do is trust the donors' honesty as to their lifestyles. These lifestyle criteria would apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, so in The Netherlands we don't ban gays from donating blood; we ban all those who engage to high-risk behaviour.

Yes, of course. Gays are nowhere banned from giving blood. Just for simplicity I spoke of sexually active gay men because I assume that most of them do engage in high-risk behaviour. No Red Cross worker will ask your sexual preferences.
There's no need to trust the donors' honesty, only to trust the fact that the receiver will die unless he or she gets blood transfusion. If I have the choice between die now and risking AIDS, I'd hope for a cure in the next ~10 years.


I know we have had mnor shortages here and there but if you need a transfusion here you can be sure you will get one.

It is probably rare that people die because there's no transfusion available. But if you look at the links I posted, you'll see that at least in one case, the Red Cross has asked hospitals to delay non-emergency operations. Now, I've worked in a hospital and operations get delayed very often. Availability of blood transfusions is surely among the reasons for these delays. Well, in some cases a delay really doesn't matter, but in general, delays reduce survival rate of operations. It may not seem obvious, but blood shortages are killing people. Again, please give blood.


Wow it must be horrible over there.

I don't know where the problem is more serious, but I know that the AIDS incidency in Europe is lower than in the US. We do not really have an AIDS problem.


Well if their really as worried as they say wouldnt making them screen all samples be the law to write and not this one?

Ermm, I'm not sure I get you. A law to write what? If you're wondering why they worry in spite of screening, it's a double check. Screening donations for illnesses has a finite certainty.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-09-2005, 01:18
I don't know where the problem is more serious, but I know that the AIDS incidency in Europe is lower than in the US. We do not really have an AIDS problem.

Well no one dies here because of a lack of available blood and you claim that blood shortages over there are more of a probleem than aids. So I can only deduce that people are dying over there because of shortages of blood. Thats horrible. Either that or no one dies of aids over there in which case its we who have the problem.

Butcher
05-09-2005, 12:45
here in the U.K, you cannot give blood if you have had anal sex with a man. With a women, it seems, it's perfectly ok.. work that one out!

Fragony
05-09-2005, 12:52
here in the U.K, you cannot give blood if you have had anal sex with a man. With a women, it seems, it's perfectly ok.. work that one out!

Hardly a one night stand thing, anal sex with a female (or you are just lucky). Gay men however tend to have a more varied menu.

A.Saturnus
05-09-2005, 17:45
Well no one dies here because of a lack of available blood and you claim that blood shortages over there are more of a probleem than aids. So I can only deduce that people are dying over there because of shortages of blood. Thats horrible. Either that or no one dies of aids over there in which case its we who have the problem.


It is probably rare that people die because there's no transfusion available. But if you look at the links I posted, you'll see that at least in one case, the Red Cross has asked hospitals to delay non-emergency operations. Now, I've worked in a hospital and operations get delayed very often. Availability of blood transfusions is surely among the reasons for these delays. Well, in some cases a delay really doesn't matter, but in general, delays reduce survival rate of operations. It may not seem obvious, but blood shortages are killing people. Again, please give blood.

The important part are the last two sentences. Please give blood.

Fragony
05-09-2005, 17:58
Please give blood sure, but shouldn't we at least make sure that the blood is good? We have nill knowledge about a lot of sexual diseases, but we should give blood anyway? There are a lot more heterosexual men then there are homosexual men, from a practical point of view, why are we even having this conversation? Since when do we accept questionable science when it comes to things such important as our children? I don't want to be the one saying 'ooops' , heck we didn't expect two heads but there really wasn't any medical knowledge to back up our claims, but isn't it interesting? As long as gays have a possible higher chance of contracting sexual sauerkraut, why even rationalise it before it is investigated?

A.Saturnus
05-09-2005, 18:21
Please give blood sure, but shouldn't we at least make sure that the blood is good? We have nill knowledge about a lot of sexual diseases, but we should give blood anyway? There are a lot more heterosexual men then there are homosexual men, from a practical point of view, why are we even having this conversation? Since when do we accept questionable science when it comes to things such important as our children? I don't want to be the one saying 'ooops' , heck we didn't expect two heads but there really wasn't any medical knowledge to back up our claims, but isn't it interesting? As long as gays have a possible higher chance of contracting sexual sauerkraut, why even rationalise it before it is investigated?

I thought I answered that several times by now. The argument "let's err on the save side" doesn't work here because there isn't a save side. People die on both sides. Simplified we have the following scenarios:
We let high-risk people give blood. In spite of our tests, we use more blood transfusions that are stained with diseases. The receivers' health is negatively affected by this. Some die.
We don't let high-risk people give blood. We have less blood for transfusion. Operations are delayed because of blood shortage. The receivers' healt is negatively affected by this. Some die.

Unfortunately as it is, we have to make a choice between these. It is awfully complicated to make the right choice because it involves a lot of statistical evidence and medical knowledge. But if we make a mistake, more people will die than necessary.

Fragony
05-09-2005, 18:31
I thought I answered that several times by now. The argument "let's err on the save side" doesn't work here because there isn't a save side. People die on both sides. Simplified we have the following scenarios:
We let high-risk people give blood. In spite of our tests, we use more blood transfusions that are stained with diseases. The receivers' health is negatively affected by this. Some die.
We don't let high-risk people give blood. We have less blood for transfusion. Operations are delayed because of blood shortage. The receivers' healt is negatively affected by this. Some die.

Unfortunately as it is, we have to make a choice between these. It is awfully complicated to make the right choice because it involves a lot of statistical evidence and medical knowledge. But if we make a mistake, more people will die than necessary.

The lack of blood is new to me, I never knew of that. But is that a reason to lower our standards of what is acceptable? If there is a lack of blood then that is a problem on it's own, not something we should compromise by taking extra risks. Consider the alternative, we let the red stuff go wild and before we know it we have something we can never trace back, and then we really have a problem. This is all part of the medical paradox, the better the healthcare the sicker we get. Being careless with something we do not know enough about is not smart to say the least.

A.Saturnus
05-10-2005, 00:08
The lack of blood is new to me, I never knew of that. But is that a reason to lower our standards of what is acceptable? If there is a lack of blood then that is a problem on it's own, not something we should compromise by taking extra risks. Consider the alternative, we let the red stuff go wild and before we know it we have something we can never trace back, and then we really have a problem. This is all part of the medical paradox, the better the healthcare the sicker we get. Being careless with something we do not know enough about is not smart to say the least.

You make something vague out of what is actually quite precise. It's a mathematical equation. It got lots of parameters like the certainty of AIDS tests, incidency of AIDS, chance of spreading via transfusion, number of blood donors, number of blood transfusion needed, effect of operation delay etc. Most of these parameters we don't know. The Red Cross may know more but there are limits of course. Early limits.
This equation has an extremum somewhere. That is what we want because there, the least people die or get hurt.
You say we shouldn't make a compromise, even not if it can save lifes? It is not a compromise, it is an optimisation task. And we must do it in uncertainty. And you're right, we must not be careless, because that would cost lives.

Of course, it's in our hands to minimize the problem: by giving blood.

Papewaio
05-10-2005, 02:50
Health screens make sense. Since it can take awhile for AIDS to show it also makes sense to have the donar tested a few months after donating before the sperm gets cleared.

So screen on number of partners is fair. Screening based on sexuality is Eugenics... what next pink triangles again?

Seamus Fermanagh
10-23-2013, 21:59
Re-read this thread and had several good chuckles.

Thought I would give it a bump to show both the surprising consistency of material in the BR over the years -- you will recognize many of the posters -- as well as to recall a few of the "missing" voices that added such je ne sais quoi to the discussion.

Enjoy.

Montmorency
10-24-2013, 00:16
Fragony used to be more articulate.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-24-2013, 00:20
Fragony used to be more articulate.

Perhaps, or maybe he spent a touch longer with the editing. Pape' seems to be pretty consistent, though I don't know if he'd gone Kojak at that point.

Papewaio
10-24-2013, 01:04
PJs stance on some of this may have changed. Not the health side, just the sexuality of the donors being a non issue.

Beskar
10-24-2013, 03:23
Sounded like OP PJ wanted homosexuals out of the gene pool, or I might have misunderstood it...

PanzerJaeger
10-24-2013, 06:10
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050505/D89TAFB00.html

I cannot find a negative in this. And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes; its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool. :thumbsup:

Wow. I'm ashamed of what I wrote, and it takes a lot to elicit that particular emotion from me. I am not that person anymore. For what it's worth, that was eight years ago and I was going through some personal stuff that caused me to lash out over issues related to that.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 08:07
Wow. I'm ashamed of what I wrote, and it takes a lot to elicit that particular emotion from me. I am not that person anymore. For what it's worth, that was eight years ago and I was going through some personal stuff that caused me to lash out over issues related to that.

If I would look at some things I posted here 8 years ago I would really dislike myself. Growing up aren't we

Sigurd
10-24-2013, 11:28
Me thinks people are more articulate while they go to university. After.. its steady down hill.

Andres
10-24-2013, 11:38
Me thinks people are more articulate while they go to university. After.. its steady down hill.

Me agrees.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 12:13
I am just as articulate, much better at it really. But I mind my words more nowadays. Reading back this thread, i must admit, i am pretty good, 'mystery meat' LOL. I don't remember writing that but it's pretty hilarious.

And I miss AdrianII slapping me around. And Louis. Why did he just suddenly disapear.

Sarmatian
10-24-2013, 12:36
Pape's consistent, Frags is... well... Frags and PJ was anti-gay. Heh...

Do you guys realize that we couldn't run for office EVER? All it would take to bury us is in the backroom.

Gawain wins the thread, though, with:


If women want sperm from a gay man let them work for it ~:)

Fragony
10-24-2013, 13:16
Fun to read, but why was it digged up? Could read more of this. If someone digs up another one don't be surprised if you see me posting something really offensive, I am not like that anymore.

Greyblades
10-24-2013, 13:26
I am not like that anymore.

Hmm... :quiet:

Nah, too easy.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 13:42
Hmm... :quiet:

Nah, too easy.

Too easy to notice that you don't like me, there is an ignore button for that. So put me on ignore, presto

Greyblades
10-24-2013, 13:47
I was joking.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 13:53
I was joking.

You joke a lot, a good nose needs only half a fart to smell it

Greyblades
10-24-2013, 14:13
Dude I dont even ignore ICSD or AVG, you're not even close to being offensive enough to put on ignore.
You're habit of starting threads without context on the other hand, is obnoxious enough to make you the butt of jokes.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-24-2013, 14:17
Pape's consistent, Frags is... well... Frags and PJ was anti-gay. Heh...

Do you guys realize that we couldn't run for office EVER? All it would take to bury us is in the backroom.

Gawain wins the thread, though, with:

He was a character and a half. Some of his duels with RedHarvest, Adrian II, and others are almost operatic.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 14:22
Dude I dont even ignore ICSD or AVG, you're not even close to being offensive enough to put on ignore.
You're habit of starting threads without context on the other hand, is obnoxious enough to make you the butt of jokes.

Me being obnoxious is a very good reason to put me on ignore. It doesn't have to be offensive. You being annoyed should do, so why do you respond to my posts in the first place? There is a perfectly fine way to deny my very existance and it's called 'ignore function'. Nothing obnoxious anymore *poof* gone

Greyblades
10-24-2013, 14:30
Me being obnoxious is a very good reason to put me on ignore. It doesn't have to be offensive. You being annoyed should do, so why do you respond to my posts in the first place? There is a perfectly fine way to deny my very existance and it's called 'ignore function'. Nothing obnoxious anymore *poof* gone

I dont ignore you for the same reason I dont put ICSD and AVG on ignore, you sometimes have something interesting to say and I would be missing out if I put you on ignore.

Now if that something didn't take 20 posts before you explain what you're talking about, well, we'd probably not be having this conversation.

Fragony
10-24-2013, 14:42
I dont ignore you for the same reason I dont put ICSD and AVG on ignore, you sometimes have something interesting to say and I would be missing out if I put you on ignore.

Now if that something didn't take 20 posts before you explain what you're talking about, well, we'd probably not be having this conversation.

Oh I sometimes do, even having something interesting to say. just put me me on ignore will ya, saves everyone frustration.

Ronin
10-24-2013, 15:48
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050505/D89TAFB00.html

I cannot find a negative in this. And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes; its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool. :thumbsup:

world numbers on overpopulation say otherwise.

Sarmatian
10-24-2013, 15:54
He was a character and a half. Some of his duels with RedHarvest, Adrian II, and others are almost operatic.

Exhume more interesting ones, please.

Seamus Fermanagh
10-24-2013, 17:16
I may go back and scan for a few that I remember as particularly interesting. I will try not to do it a lot and try to pick those that reflect recurrent issues and the like, since I enjoy reflecting on some of these things but don't want our mods thumping me for too much resurthreadia.

Beskar
10-24-2013, 17:17
and I was so looking forward to issuing those infractions too...!