ZACK IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>

>>You and Reg

>>do like to twist things...but

>>then I suspect you both

>>have the same mental illness.

>

>Theron,

>

>You have used the term "mental

>illness" several times in this

>and another thread to describe

>someone with whom you disagree.

> I seriously doubt that

>you have the credentials to

>diagnose physical or mental illness

>however, if you do, using

>that term as a descriptor

>in this venue leaves your

>competence and ethics suspect.

>

>If it isn't meant in the

>medical sense then as an

>individual with over 30 years

>in health care (including mental

>health) and as the primary

>care giver for someone with

>mental illness, I resent your

>cavalier use of the term

>as a droplet in your

>pissing contest.

 

I didn't want anything to do with what I considered to initially

have been a "non-issue", narcissistic thread, but it has turned

out to be quite interesting and educational. My favorite classes

in high school and college were history and government. I began

thinking about the Constitution...remembering some things I

already knew and learning a few things along the way.

 

Also, I don't care if Reg has two or twenty personalities...they

all seem to be intelligent, consistent and fair-minded characters. They have breathed life into many a boring thread.

 

Theron, I am a rapid-cycling "mixed-state" manic-depressive.

Mental illness isn't a joking matter...it can be scary as hell.

I had someone call me a "nutcase" recently in another thread.

Not exactly what someone with a mental illness enjoys hearing, but I'm a big boy...I can handle it. This person wasn't agreeing

with me either when he resorted to name-calling, insults and

psycho-analyzing. And honestly, to me, the more often you choose

to go down this path, the less sincere all your hugs and smiley faces appear to be. I just can't see you sitting there with a

big smile on your face as you are typing up some of your posts.

 

I do believe you are an intelligent, well-meaning man, but I don't think you know how to just let something go. You have put

a lot of energy into your quest to dismantle the REG. You have

also added fuel to the fire along the way. I'm sure I would have

to respond if someone was attacking me...my "ego" reaction

would be to annihilate my opponent...kind of a "self-preservation" instinct. It takes to two keep this thing going, but only one to put an end to it.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Can you guess who wrote both

>of these statements?

 

I guess it was someone who loves to slam other people for doing the exact same things that he does. Did I get it right? :-)

 

>And before anyone brings it up,

>I'd like to make it

>clear that I am you,

>as well as every other

>poster who has defended you

>or criticized Theron or both,

>including . . . .

 

That is great. There is no more important principle in my philosophy than "Know thyself." :-) However, I think it is wrong of you to allocate all of those identities to yourself. Can I be Boston Guy? :-)

 

>Now on to the real subject

>of this post. I

>think you referred to the

>COLA case in another post.

> Although it's clear you

>don't have the "skills" to

>interpret the constitution and are

>just some know-it-all, I want

>to know your opinion of

>the appellate decision in that

>case. Do you agree

>with it, and if not

>why not?

 

 

Well, it's been a while since I read the circuit court's decision. If I recall correctly, it was in the Spring '01 edition of the Annals of the American Society of Know-It-Alls. :-) Nevertheless, what I would say is that I agree with the decision but not with the result. Federal judges certainly deserve a COLA as much as any other federal employees. But the circuit court based their decision on the Supreme Court's decision in "Will" and I don't see any flaw in their analysis of that decision. It all comes down to the footnote in "Will" in which the Supremes observed that the Framers specifically rejected an inflation-indexing scheme for judges and left that issue totally up to Congress. I don't think either court mentioned it, but they were obviously referring to Federalist LXXIX (paragraph 2), which says that. Which just goes to prove, as I always say, that anyone who can read can understand the Constitution. :-)

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Also, I don't care if Reg

>has two or twenty personalities...they

>

>all seem to be intelligent, consistent

>and fair-minded characters. They have

>breathed life into many a

>boring thread.

 

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Hi Jeff :-)

 

Thank you for sharing the personal information you did share. Reading your post today, and considering Barry's post earlier, I feel I need to stop using the word mental illness. I do not like to do or say things that might hurt innocent people, and I can see now that when I classifiy Reg in that way how it could affect others.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Well, it's been a while since

>I read the circuit court's

>decision. If I recall

>correctly, it was in the

>Spring '01 edition of the

>Annals of the American Society

>of Know-It-Alls. :-)

>Nevertheless, what I would say

>is that I agree with

>the decision but not with

>the result. Federal judges

>certainly deserve a COLA as

>much as any other federal

>employees. But the circuit

>court based their decision on

>the Supreme Court's decision in

>"Will" and I don't see

>any flaw in their analysis

>of that decision. It

>all comes down to the

>footnote in "Will" in which

>the Supremes observed that the

>Framers specifically rejected an inflation-indexing

>scheme for judges and left

>that issue totally up to

>Congress. I don't think

>either court mentioned it, but

>they were obviously referring to

>Federalist LXXIX (paragraph 2), which

>says that. Which just

>goes to prove, as I

>always say, that anyone who

>can read can understand the

>Constitution. :-)

 

No Reg, you have not shown that anyone who can read can undertand the Constitution. All you have shown is that you might understand this ONE issue. But I do think you have really been "itching" to support your statement because you are a know it all, after all, with a deep need to be right, and you are so very wrong in so very many ways.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Oh, Jeff, I don't smile to much where Reg is concerned. I've got a lot of love in my heart for people, but there is one thing I despise and that is negative people like Reg that seem to enjoy hurting others for sport -- and he is the biggest bully on the block. Yes, I have put a lot of energy into exposing him, but then Reg, in his name and 4 or 5 others, puts a great deal of energy in creating and spreading his poision throughout the message center. I cannot agree the posts he submits as himself, and the other names, are positive, I am sorry.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Boston Guy]

Nope

 

>Can I be Boston Guy?

> :-)

>

 

Nope... I'm already taken. :-)

[Guest Theron]

RE: Nope

 

Just so you do know Boston Guy, I never thought that. I've been clear about the names of the people I believe may be Reg in this thread. Reg just thew your name in to be clever.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Boston Guy]

RE: Nope

 

Theron, he was making a joke.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

How many rounds?

 

http://media.bigstep.com/shop/4/11/10352114/upload/968997101537.jpg

[Barry]

RE: TOO MANY

 

luv the pic Jizz :-) who is who in the picture?

[Guest pickwick]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Oh, so in that case, Pickwick,

>who may very well be

>Reg, has asked Reg to

>demonstrate is knowledge of the

>Constitution by offering up one

>opinions about the COLA case.

 

 

Theron, I don't care and I doubt that anyone else cares whether you think I am Reg or someone else or not. Like Jeff, I find Reg's posts informative and entertaining and will continue talking to him whether you like it or not.

 

Reg has his faults, but he said earlier in this thread that he would not argue with you about the Zack matter any longer and he has kept to that. You on the other hand jumped into a polite and interesting discussion between him and Jizz to yell at him over an innocuous comment about understanding the constitution. That has to be the flimsiest excuse for picking a fight with someone that I have ever seen, even flimsier than the excuse you used to pick a fight with me. The last time you picked a quarrel with Reg you claimed to be defending the reputation of a fellow hooker. Who are you supposed to be defending this time, the ABA? As a longtime member of that organization I assure you we do not need or want you to yell at anyone on our behalf.

 

I have never been a hooker myself and I don't claim to be an expert in how someone in that business sells himself to clients. But unless the pictures in your ad are very out of date I have been in the business world a lot longer than you have, and my experience tells me that picking these pointless fights is not the way to persuade a lot of people that you are someone they would enjoy spending time with. Just my opinion. I doubt you will pay any more attention to it than you have to the five or six other people who have said something similar.

[Guest pickwick]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>It

>all comes down to the

>footnote in "Will" in which

>the Supremes observed that the

>Framers specifically rejected an inflation-indexing

>scheme for judges and left

>that issue totally up to

>Congress. I don't think

>either court mentioned it, but

>they were obviously referring to

>Federalist LXXIX (paragraph 2), which

>says that. Which just

>goes to prove, as I

>always say, that anyone who

>can read can understand the

>Constitution. :-)

 

Agreed. But neither court adverted to the first three sentences of paragraph 2 in which the Framers warned against allowing the compensation of judges to be subject to "fluctuations in the value of money." It is true they left the issue up to Congress as they said in the following sentence, but it seems to me that the clear implication is that Congress has a duty not to let that happen and they have not carried out that duty, hence the lawsuit we are discussing. Okay, perhaps even without COLA the salaries of federal judges do not meet the standard of "penurious," but they are not what they used to be. As an analogy you should consider the situation of Mark Racicot, who reportedly turned down an offer from Bush to become Attorney General because he couldn't afford to live in D.C. and send his kids to college on the salary from that job.

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Theron, I don't care and I

>doubt that anyone else cares

>whether you think I am

>Reg or someone else or

>not. Like Jeff, I

>find Reg's posts informative and

>entertaining and will continue talking

>to him whether you like

>it or not.

 

lol, that will be like talkin to yourself then Pickwick, since you may very well be one and the same, and interestingly, a review of the message center does not show you invest a lot of time talking directly to Reg., you do jump in for him quite a bit, though. But then I suspect that is what the screen name was created to do.

 

>

>Reg has his faults, but he

>said earlier in this thread

>that he would not argue

>with you about the Zack

>matter any longer and he

>has kept to that.

>You on the other hand

>jumped into a polite and

>interesting discussion between him and

>Jizz to yell at him

>over an innocuous comment about

>understanding the constitution. That

>has to be the flimsiest

>excuse for picking a fight

>with someone that I have

>ever seen, even flimsier than

>the excuse you used to

>pick a fight with me.

 

No in your case, you were implying that researching arrests and reporting the results of arrest were "obstruction of justice," but despite your persistent claim failed to ever offer any support for that statement, despite being asked numerous times to do it. You made a statement, defended it, then avoided coming forward with facts to support what you said, and tried to twist the issue to deflect it -- just like Reg does when he is wrong about something ;-) As far as the other statement goes, Reg sure did make an effort to deflect the issue, and bring it around in another way, Citing Article III, which had nothing to do with the conversation, and then assuming the role of Pickwick, to invite himself to tell us about one case, to make it appear his statement was correct...that anyone who can read English can understand the Constitution. The statement was wrong, and his attempt to deflect it and be right only shows it was not so flimsy to point out to him.

 

Oh, and yes, it was to protect the reputation of another peson that first engaged me with Reg, or you, since I think you are one and the same. As a result of that I did a review of the Message Center to see what type of person I was dealing with...and guess what I found...an know it all bully that likes to tear others down for sport. I've always despised people like that.

 

>I have never been a hooker

>myself and I don't claim

>to be an expert in

>how someone in that business

>sells himself to clients.

>But unless the pictures in

>your ad are very out

>of date I have been

>in the business world a

>lot longer than you have,

>and my experience tells me

>that picking these pointless fights

>is not the way to

>persuade a lot of people

>that you are someone they

>would enjoy spending time with.

> Just my opinion.

>I doubt you will pay

>any more attention to it

>than you have to the

>five or six other people

>who have said something similar.

 

Well, let me make this clear, please: I am not here to promote myself as an escort. I'm in the message center as a person, and in that capacity I will communcate my honest feelings. I do not feel a need to put up an image to try and promote myself. If I obtained business as a result of this site, well cool. It is not my plan though. I'm here to participate in discussions, with very little concern about how it may affect my career as an escort. I was doing well before I came to this site, am doing well now, and frankly, just do not have a desire to put up a false front to attract clients.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: Nope

 

Hi B.G. :-)

 

Oh yes, I think it was a joke, too...but crafted for a reason, and that is to deflect from the issue that he has multiple names by making it humorous.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[+ deej]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Care to explain?

 

No.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: TOO MANY

 

don't know barry. sorry. if you right click the picture and copy link (delete everything after .com or .org) it will take you to the site and maybe they'll have more pics.

 

jizz

 

p.s.: google.com or yahoo.com are two search engines (of many) in which you could enter last names only and then find first name and then entries that interest you.

 

p.p.s.: have fun searching

[Barry]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>>Care to explain?

>

>No.

 

Ah....a succinct reply. How refreshing. thanx Deej

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: an embarrassed jizz

 

Hey Jizz, It's me again.

 

I appreciate your story of young Johnny from Whipperville.

 

Your Johnny character "vaguely remembers some information about HIV/AIDS transmission he saw in a magazine once or twice. Well, Johnny just opened up a checking account and has a debit card. He stumbles on Dick’s site and decides to spend $2.95 for a hot sexy live fuck scene. Johnny has never heard the term bareback, has forgotten that he had once read he should always use a condom for fucking… "

 

Hey Jizz, your story ends here. What happens next? Does Johnny have sex with Tommy from down the street? Does Tommy use condoms?

 

I'll continue your story. Johnny and Tommy are both on the internet. Tommy makes lots of gay friends online. But unlike Johnny, Tommy and his friends aren't naive about safer sex. They see safer gay sex being promoted everywhere on the internet. They've also been taught by teachers and Health Care officials about the prevention of HIV.

 

They all visit Hung Redneck's site. He is a promoter of bareback sex. But all these kids have been taught to use condoms during intercourse. They've been taught to ask about their partner's HIV status--taught to limit their number of sex partners--taught to not take semen in their mouths.

 

Some of these kids find Dick's site amusing. He talks a lot of nasty shit. Stuff like, "My big, hairy man is gonna seed my hole and make me fag out like a good boy." The most scientific data Dick uses is "bareback." Dick lacks the power to persuade any of them to lower their safer sex practices.

 

All of these kids "stumble" onto Hooboy's site. They think it's very cool. These bright kids are intriqued by a post from Jizzdepappi titled "I swallow, do you?" They read further. Jizz is a former member of ACT UP. Jizz proclaims "I have swallowed for the past 22 years and I've never contracted AIDS." Jizz believes that swallowing semen is "no risk". He uses big words like "seroconversion." He sounds intelligent, sincere, and really convincing.

 

Unlike Jizz, Hung Redneck sounded stupid. Dick might have persuaded Johnny, but none of Johnny's friends. All the smart kids admire and believe Jizzdepapi. Because of Jizz, these kids dismiss much that had been taught to them by teachers and scientists and health care workers. All these kids now believe that swallowing cum is no risk at all.

 

They all go out and repeat Jizz's actions. They all swallow lots of cum from HIV positive men. They have a great time--tastes yummy--no harm, no foul--life is good. However, the next day they see a brand new post on HooBoy's Site. It states researchers claim the risk factor of HIV infection from oral sex is 3-8%. These kids fucking panic. They all wonder if they are now HIV positive. They are angry and confused for having listened to Jizz.

 

I'll end the story here.

 

Jizz, why would you persuade anyone to LOWER his "safer sex" standards? Are you 100% certain that oral sex is "no risk"? Are you that smug? That confident to proclaim it to the world?

 

I suspect you'll say you have not tried to persuade anyone to do anything against his own will---we all make our own choices. (Hung Redneck says the same thing.) However, your "I swallow, do you? " post was unprovoked. No one sought your advice. You posted it freely and boldly. For everyone that is persuaded by your words or your actions--for everyone that repeats exactly what you do---I hope you are right. I hope that swallowing the semen of HIV infected men can never, never, never infect anyone.

 

Jizz, you state a big problem with Hung Redneck's actions. You say, "The problem I and other posters have is that he is not STATING the risks."

 

Jizz, please state the risks. Comfort me and the others involved in the battle against AIDS. Go above HungRedneck. Tell me the risks for swallowing sperm. State the facts. I want to hear you say "Swallowing sperm from HIV positive men is 0% risk. It absolutely can never infect anyone."

 

Tell me it's Zero Risk. If you can't, then give me the true risk factors. Is it 5 in 100---5 in a 1,000----5 in 1,000,000? Then I'll ask you to apply the same logic to your own post that you apply to Hung Redneck. How "deadly" is Jizz's advice. How many people has Jizz "murdered"? How "evil" are your actions?

 

You never finished your story. What happened to your poor, naive Johnny from Whipperville. And tell me what happened to my bright, well educated Tommy? My Tommy who followed your advice. Is he one of the "5 in 100 "or "5 in a million"?

 

Jizz, there are excellent reasons to convince others to raise their "safer sex" standards. But I'll be damned if I can think of one good reason to persuade anyone to lower his sex practices. No reason to shout to the world, "Forget about what professionals have taught you. Swallow all you want!!!" But, I know of two excellent reasons to simply keep my mouth shut. I would think you'd know them as well.

 

If you don't know then I'll share in another post.

 

Moving on, I thank you for clearing up some information. You originally stated, "I have swallowed for the past 22 years."

Jizz now admits, "I did not state something very important in that thread, though it was not an intentional omission. I have not swallowed semen for 22 years...eight (of those) years, I was celibate......I hope I have not caused you any embarrassment and regret any irritation I have caused you."

 

Jizz, I really am muddled here. How would these actions cause me "embarrassment"? I'll take that word at face value and say, certainly, I am not embarrassed by you stating misinformation about yourself. And I'm not irritated by it either. It was a simple 8 year oversight on your part.

 

What I do find irritating is you calling Hung Redneck a liar.

 

You say, "Mostly, Dick was honest; he did tell one lie...He said that Kiki would have not have a problem with his behavior. I think it’s clear from the statement that Kiki co-signed that that is not the case."

 

Sorry Jizz, but calling Redneck's statement a lie is just plain wrong. Just like when you said, "Kiki would not have tuned in tonight," you and he were stating opinions. You're both guilty of pure speculation. Only Kiki can say what Kiki would be thinking/doing/saying (if he were still alive) today.

 

You and Redneck both chose to speak for the dead. Neither of you are prophets. Neither of you are liars.

 

One thing I need to clear up. I earlier stated that I only found one thing truly offensive in Redneck's posts--where he said the thought of a man's dick covered in latex "disgusting." And now you've pointed out that Dick also made a comment that unless a client asks for a condom, he doesn't provide one. You think that's sick. Yes, that is fucked up. Condoms should always be the rule, unless both men clearly and soberly agree to break that rule.

 

The scenario you illustrate--someone too high to ask for condoms--yes, I see now his actions could be lethal. I also worry about a client who initially insists on condoms, but through the session, the client becomes too high or "too whatever" to keep checking that condoms are being used. I hope Redneck is responsible enough to insure condoms are used throughout the hour (or the evening).

 

By my earlier post, I indirectly condoned his irresponsible behavior. I read all of Redneck's posts but I foolishly overlooked or misunderstood that statement. Thanks for pointing that out. I now have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

 

But that said, I would still have trouble calling anyone evil. I'd like to be a man who doesn't judge another by his worst actions. Reduce him to his worst traits.

I'd like to be a man who assumes the best of everyone and sees the goodness in all of us. I know I'm not that man but I'd love to be that man.

 

Maybe you have a tendency to assume the less desirable traits in others. But I don't label you a pessimist. I label you as intelligent and caring and polite. You appreciate other points of view and debates that enlighten. And you're strong enough to handle healthy criticism along the way. Thanks.

 

P.S. I really would like to hear you state the facts on swallowing and its risk factor.

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: an embarrassed jizz

 

Response to #118

 

Zach, I'm glad you are continuing this discussion. I too was

wondering how someone who freely admits to swallowing for the

past 22 years(less 8 years?), could so harshly attack someone

else for their risky behavior.

 

A tendency to assume less desirable traits in others? There's no

better example than Jizz's posts on "FFF ruminates...". And to

say I held myself up as an "exemplar"...and to attack me for MY

"glaring faults". puh-LEEZE!!

 

As I stated in one of my posts to the HUNG REDNECK thread, I

think that the resulting discussion has been great. Hopefully,

it has made people re-evaluate their own behaviors. So many gay

men make attempts to justify risky behavior. But it seems

to me that a certain amount of denial would be necessary to do so.

 

Jeff4hire@aaol.com

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: an embarrassed jizz

 

Here’s the context of the “I Swallow. Do You?” thread, as I see it.

 

Why did I start the thread? “…(I) would love to hear others' practices and experiences…” Why did I want to hear this? It's always good to hear people speak with candor; I went first.

 

Do I proclaim myself expert in this thread; no, I state my personal practices, and also, contrary to your query, never proclaim swallowing to be no-risk behavior. As a matter of fact, I state in this thread that “…I also would not try to convince anyone who believed otherwise (that swallowing is moderate- or high-risk)…”

 

I distinguish between the public stance of ACT UP and discussions we had among ourselves about risk levels. Our public message always encouraged people to not swallow semen. If ACT UP were still active in Connecticut, we would convey the same message.

 

Were othe posters free to post dissenting views in the thread?Yes. Did they? Yes. Did I try to dissuade them? No.

 

Could a young, impressionable teen read my comments and get the wrong impression about swallowing cum? Yes. I had thought of posting a thread for use by message center posters and hadn’t thought about others finding this post.

 

Did I think it would be good for people to weigh in with their own experiences and opinions? Yes. Did I consider this a closed forum? Yes. Was I wrong? Yes

 

Did I promote this thread for commercial purposes? No. Did I try to convince people they should swallow or did I use graphic descriptions designed to convince people they should swallow? No.

 

Maybe someone could answer these questions for me. Does Dick's cam allow participants to weight in with objections to the sexual behavior depicted? Will Dick try to persuade them to or dissuade them from participating in bareback fucking?

 

I never claimed to be an expert on sexual behavior. If you would like to state two good reasons to not swallow besides the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS, please do so. You have expertise I do not. (P.S.: Are there only two?) You ask why I would try to persuade anyone to lower their sexual standards. I don't. I stated what I do and wanted to hear what others had to say.

 

On to Johny and Tommy. I posited a young boy who would NOT discuss safer-sex guidelines with anyone before his first sexual experience. Does Johny exist? Yes. Is there also the case for Tommy, knowledgeable about safer-sex practices? Yes. Will Johny and Tommy connect on the internet or in reality? Likely. Will every teen have a chance to talk to a knowledgeable peer about safer-sex practices before their first sexual experience? No.

 

It is true that Dick and I are not prophets. I just can’t see claiming that a dead activist would approve of a livecam promoting behavior that might have been responsible for his death.

 

Is my omission about an 8-year gap in swallowing as the AIDS crisi developed significant? Yes. Does it change any factors regarding my decision to continue swallowing? By then, much research had been done. I was comfortable swallowing cum and considered the risk factor acceptable for myself.

 

 

>Z… I would still have trouble calling anyone evil.

 

So do I. I very clearly and at great length explained in the previous two posts why I never called Dick evil.

 

 

 

>Z… I'd like to be a man who doesn't judge another by his worst actions

 

I made very strong statements about Dick’s commercial enterprise. I said little about his person and, when I did, even moved those comments to another post.

 

 

>Z… P.S. I really would like to hear you state the facts on swallowing and its risk factor.

 

(Copied from above:) …” Do I proclaim myself expert in this thread; no, I state my personal practices, and also, contrary to your query, never proclaimed swallowing to be no-risk behavior. If asked tomorrow, I would tell people that I think swallowing is of moderate risk. I would not volunteer that I swallow but if asked, I would not deny it.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

what's that smiley?

 

sorry about smiley on a dead serious topic. should have been a colon and parentheses.

 

jeff, i would suggest that our spat is a little insignificant now but i'm sure you'll think of another comment to weigh in with.

 

can everyone else please resist the bait?

 

thanks

jizz

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: what's that smiley?

 

>sorry about smiley on a dead

>serious topic. should have been

>a colon and parentheses.

>

>jeff, i would suggest that our

>spat is a little insignificant

>now but i'm sure you'll

>think of another comment to

>weigh in with.

 

My point is that everything you have said regarding swallowing

cum sounds like a rationalization for your own risky behavior.I'm

sure HUNG REDNECK has his own rationalization for his even

"riskier" behavior. But you have both decided whatever the risk,

big or small, that it is worth it to you for your sexual pleasure.

 

Also, you haven't contracted HIV, YET! You could "sero-convert"

tomorrow. I hope you don't, but it is possible. My best

friend didn't test positive until 3 years after unprotected

sex with his HIV positive boyfriend(who at the time thought he

negative). You could have sucked off one of your "PAPIS", who may

be HIVpos, after having flossed your teeth or maybe you had a

tiny sore of which you were unaware.

 

I may not agree with HUNG'S barebacking or your swallowing, but

labeling such behavior "evil" is extreme. I would speak out to

discourage both practices. Guys will continue to bareback and

swallow regardless of the risk factors. And I stand by my state-

ment that a certain amount of denial is necessary to live with

these choices.

 

Regarding the insignificance of our "spat", I mentioned that to

illustrate how you have been quick judge someone's entire

character based upon one word or, as in HUNG'S case, an unsafe

sex practice. Plain and simple, it borders on hypocritical.

 

It's not always pleasant to have someone hold up a mirror

reflecting the reality of our behavior back at us. I always look

to see what I can learn about myself, maybe I have been mistaken

in this belief or that one. After all, we are human...we are

fallible.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: what's that smiley?

 

>... It's not always pleasant to have someone hold up a mirror

reflecting the reality of our behavior back at us... we are fallible...

 

this is very true, jeff. i assume that is why you never addressed post #63 on "FFF ruminates..." thread, which i very carefully composed concerning comments you made and my honest attempt to end the flaming. i did this over 2 weeks ago and am still waiting for your response.

 

until there's a little honesty on your part, i won't be taking any of your comments on any topic seriously. i'll check "FFF ruminates..." thread occasionally to see if u ever addressed my concerns.

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: an embarrassed jizz

 

Thanks Jeff. I appreciate the good words.

 

I haven't read the FFF Ruminates thread. Sorry if Jizz was picking on you. But, you look like a boy who can take care of himself.

 

Be good, Zach