BergenGuy

On 2/8/2023 at 9:54 PM, BergenGuy said:

I was thinking the same thing.  It is great to do things as a couple, but it should result in neglecting one's own health.

Big oops!  That was supposed to read "It is great to do things as a couple, but it SHOULDN'T result in neglecting one's own health."

On 2/7/2023 at 7:49 PM, BootmanLA said:

Or rather, I can't wrap my head around the idea of a *sane intelligent non-controlling* man being disappointed etc. 

I was thinking the same thing.  It is great to do things as a couple, but it should result in neglecting one's own health.

Inserting paragraph breaks would make this much, much easier to read!  A solid block of text is very difficult to follow.

19 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Which is why I have come around, over the years, on "queer". Yes, it's a slur in origin. But it's also one of the few words I can imagine that covers all the people involved, without having to keep adding on letters (LGBTQIAMNOP). 

I get what you're saying.  But, at the risk of setting off a firestorm in here, I do have to question whether that many "initials" can possibly be lumped into the same category and still have that category mean anything for policy-making purposes other than "not 100.000% hetero."

23 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I avoid using that one, more because I don't want to inadvertently leave any of the letters, qualifiers out.  For me, it's plain old "gay" or, more bluntly, queer - which moniker I don't mind being called at all.

Since the "+" seems to be a catchall, it seems to me that "LGBT+" should be sufficient.

10 hours ago, RawPlug said:

I’m old enough to remember when “queer” was one of the worst insults that could be hurled my way. Now it’s been reclaimed but there are still guys who detest it. So what to do?  Not use it because a handful of older guys still find it offensive?

I'm one of those "older guys" who find it offensive.  And, I'd wager that there's more than a handful of us.  Personally, I don't feel connected with any organization that has "queer" in the title.  In fact, I feel excluded.  

6 hours ago, Dee82 said:

Only bad thing about Arizona is that its hot as hell most of the time.

Another bad thing about Arizona is water shortages, which will only get worse.  Before settling there, make sure to investigate the long-term water supply situation in that area.

On 12/16/2022 at 2:11 PM, tighthole64 said:

They have already been targeting drag shows! If a parent chooses to bring a younger child, that's THEIR choice!

Republicans are all about parental choice only when it suits their agenda.

On 11/10/2022 at 8:27 AM, ellentonboy said:

just the way NYC appeared at that time

Well, yes and no.  In some ways, the producers make it appear like something out of the 1960s, with a lot of open windows (not an AC in view), manual typewriters and so forth.  And, NYC wasn't as clean in 1981 as it appears on film.  The city was still dealing with the financial crisis of the mid-1970s.  Stripped and abandoned cars were a common sight.  But, they did a good job of setting an ominous mood.

On 11/8/2022 at 8:39 AM, ellentonboy said:

Of course the time frame is sad, the advent of AIDS.

AIDS, of course, is the horror in this season, and pretty much telegraphed as such early in the first episode.  1981 is the year of the first reports of the then-unnamed condition, including the famous New York Times article.  Various characters talk about the feeling of a coming darkness.  Even the number of murders that the police are investigating in the first few episodes, five, matches the number of cases reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (a month before the NYT article).  I'm sure I'm missing other parallels.  

On 11/8/2022 at 8:39 AM, ellentonboy said:

I was really thrilled to hear AHS decided to use NYC as it's backdrop and the time era is really interesting. 

Funny that you should say that.  This is occurring with my adult lifetime, and shortly before I moved to the NY area.  Yet, it seems like so long ago and such a different world that it could be 1961 instead 1981.

22 hours ago, NYBBGUY58 said:

I stupidly deleted the Word file with my latest updates.

Ouch!  So sorry to hear that!

This is from a NYC Department of Heath FAQ:

Quote

 

Can I get the vaccine at the same time as other vaccines?

The JYNNEOS vaccine may be given before, after or at the same time as most vaccines. However, people at increased risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart), particularly young adult males, might consider waiting four weeks after their JYNNEOS vaccine to get a dose of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. However, if vaccination is recommended due to a known exposure to monkeypox, you should get the JYNNEOS vaccine even if you recently got the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

 

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/monkeypox/jynneos-vaccine-faq.pdf

The CDC uses similar, but somewhat stronger, messaging about young males waiting between the two vaccines:

Quote

People, particularly adolescent or young adult males, might consider waiting 4 weeks after orthopoxvirus vaccination (either JYNNEOS or ACAM2000) before receiving a Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, because of the observed risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis after receipt of ACAM2000 orthopoxvirus vaccine and mRNA (i.e., Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines and the unknown risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis after JYNNEOS administration.

[think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/interim-considerations/jynneos-vaccine.html

4 hours ago, freshxtop5 said:

Your writing is so good! Man I would love to get fucked by Ric that is for sure. 

@chi4loads should be an editor, scriptwriter or a professor of creative writing (if he isn't already).  Even putting aside the sizzling hot subject material, his writing style is superb.  I really admire the masterful way that he handles multiple characters, introducing them as needed to keep the chapters exciting while letting others recede so that he prevents the reader from being overwhelmed.  He also writes a coherent story line.  What happens later in the series doesn't contradict something that happened earlier.

3 hours ago, AlwaysOpen said:

A vaccine is a layer of protection. A tool in the toolbox if you will.

Thanks for pointing out that just because a vaccine (or any other protective mechanism) isn't 100% perfect, it is still very valuable.

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

To this day, Mr. Obama still holds documents that have been sought by the National Archives (allegedly held by the former President under the premise of their use in an Obama Library, which still has not happened) and there has been no mention of or action bye the FBI. 

Obama turned over ALL documents to the Archives.  The Archives then moved some NON-CLASSIFIED documents to an Archives warehouse in the Chicago area.  It didn't return them to Obama personally.

On 8/12/22, the Archives issued this statement:

Quote

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

On 9/8/22, it issued this statement regarding the claim that Obama is holding documents being sought by the Archives:

Quote

Some news outlets and individuals on social media are mistakenly reporting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirmed that a large number of boxes of Presidential records are missing from the Barack Obama administration. This is false. NARA has never issued any such statement and is not aware of any missing boxes of Presidential records from the Obama administration.

Source:  [think before following links] https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

On 8/25/2022 at 11:26 AM, bbbbob said:

Does anyone else feel the same or am I being over cautious.

It seems to me that the only thing that is important is YOUR comfort level.  It doesn't matter if every other guy is out there fucking around unconcerned.  We have fought for the right to have sex.  But, equally important is the right not to have sex.  If you're not comfortable with the risk, then act accordingly.  You're the one who bears the consequences of your actions, not any of us.

On 8/20/2022 at 10:05 PM, JC3275 said:

Women just ruin it for me.  Up until then, great story!  Keep it up!

Agreed.  I don't like stories with female characters.  It really does kill a hardon.

On 8/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, tighthole64 said:

Sadly it's similar to pharmacists, or clerks that refuse to sell birth control to individuals!

The pharmacists and clerks are claiming a religious exemption, so they get away with their outrageous behavior without risk to their jobs.  The phlebotomists have no such excuse. 

On 7/30/2022 at 9:44 PM, BootmanLA said:

If I'm reading the thread right, you seem to be saying that people who married in California found themselves "un-married".

No, I wasn't saying that.  I was responding to the part of the original comment that seemed to imply that it would be unlikely that we could have a situation where gays in existing marriages could remain married while future marriages would be denied.

14 minutes ago, TotalTop said:

No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth.

Do you have reputable statistics to support that claim?  Because, I have statistics that prove just the opposite.

The CDC estimates that the death rate from abortions between 2013 and 2018 was 0.41 per 100,000 abortions.  Compare this to the risk from pregnancy, where the maternal death rate was 23.8 per 1000,000 live births in 2020.  It is far riskier to be pregnant than to obtain an abortion.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/08/study-banning-abortion-would-boost-maternal-mortality-double-digits

But, basically, it doesn't matter what you or I think.  We're not the ones who are pregnant.  The decision to have an abortion should be between the woman and her doctor.  Period.

59 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Even allowing existing marriages to continue until one of the partners passes, therefore ending the marriage*, and at the same time making new ones illegal - two entirely different answers to an absurdly perverse issue - is completely nuts .... right ???  

Not so absurd.  That was the situation in California for a while.

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Since the right for two men to be legally married was established years ago, and thousands upon thousands of men have legally married, exactly what could Clancy take away?

Well, besides taking away the right for people of the same sex to get married in the future, the court could also take away the right to have one's marriage in a given state be recognized in another.

You seem focused on what happens to existing couples.  I'm concerned about people who want to get married in the future, too.

22 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

By and large, the Republicans don't want to DO anything - they want to hamstring government enough that it fails to function, which benefits them,

Exactly, it is easier to maintain the status quo than to implement change.  

And, I agree, I don't think that they'll try to pass a nationwide ban on same-sex marriage.  Marriage has been traditionally regulated at the state level and it would be a stretch to argue that the ability to ban same-sex marriage falls under the interstate commerce authority of Congress.  Windsor wasn't decided on the basis of privacy, so it might (repeat, might) be relatively safe.  But, I can see us returning to a situation where same-sex marriage is legal in some states, but not in others.  At one time, the fact that big business would oppose such a situation would have been enough to prevent it.  But, the Taliban wannabes in control of the GOP don't even care about that.

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Unless a future Democratic majority in the Senate is willing to end the filibuster, it will take 60 votes in the Senate to do anything progressive, and I'm not sure that with 2 GOP senators per conservative state that we will ever again reach that 60 vote threshold.

I predict that the next time Republicans control the White House, House of Representatives and Senate that they will end the filibuster themselves in order to pass a nationwide abortion ban and other regressive legislation knowing that it will take a triple sweep by the Democrats to undo the legislation.  It won't happen in 2023, even if they take the Senate and House because there's no advantage in ending the filibuster if they don't control the White House.  But, they might in 2025.

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

That assumes that the political system is impervious to a determined majority.

If the Supreme Court rules next year that legislatures have sole authority over elections, being even an overwhelming majority won't matter.

On 7/15/2022 at 12:17 PM, TotalTop said:

Women also die from supposedly "safe and legal" abortions all the time

Not "all the time".  The CDC estimates that the death rate from abortions between 2013 and 2018 was 0.41 per 100,000 abortions.  Compare this to the risk from pregnancy, where the maternal death rate was 23.8 per 1000,000 live births in 2020.  It is far riskier to be pregnant than to obtain an abortion.

[think before following links] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/08/study-banning-abortion-would-boost-maternal-mortality-double-digits