dk

I really don’t care about control studies done by academic pin heads. There is a plethora of data collected by the CDC that indicates we have a problem. For the last 20 years the MSM community has been saturated with the message, “put a condom on it”. Still the death toll moves up an up. Recent declines in new AIDs cases, and deaths are due to antiretroviral therapies, not an end to the epidemic. After 20 years the CDC is just now beginning to track HIV. The progress reported by the HHS is primarily due to antiretroviral therapies, new reporting standards issued in 1993, and no-reporting of HIV.

dk

Dear Ales here is a link California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB. I'm not sure what your problem is, other than a poor math background. All I can say is I'm glad you're not arguing on my side of this discussion. The theorem is pretty well know.


<a href="http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/central_limit_theorem/clt.html" target="_blank">The Central Limit Theorem, by Asc Prof. Stanton PHD </a>
Asc. Prof. of Mathmatics Dr. Stanton says, "The central limit theorem explains why many distributions tend to be close to the normal distribution."

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

lpetrich

dk does a lot of moaning and groaning about violence in schools; he seems to think that there was some sort of Good Old Days when everbody was a saintly pacifist. Yes, pacifist.

Does that include military and police and court and road-department bureaucracies? And also business bureaucracies?

I fail to see how she is supposed to be so *evil*. Which makes me wonder what the Clinton-haters would have said if it had been Hillary Clinton who died in those kamikaze hijackings instead of Barbara Olson.

A totally irrelevant comment. My position is simple: the DoI pictures a variety of deity that is contrary to what one finds in the Bible. I wonder what dk would think if one of his favorite villains (those lib-buh-ruhls) used the defense that "God told me to"; I'm using that as an analogy to explain my position.

A rather childish quibble.

Also, there was a very ingenious end run out of lack of mention in the Constitution that was used after the Sputnik launch:

National Defense.

Thus, we saw a whole lot of "National Defense" initiatives back then, such as roads and education subsidies.

dk

dk: Lpetrich seems to be in denial. I have simply and credibly demonstrated that many bourgeois school districts suffer from a real and deadly threat of violence. Now inner city urban schools under the tutelage of liberal national leaders, black caucus, politicians and administration have been locked down for 15 years because of gang violence. As far back as 1970s Democratic Senator Patrick Monahan was throwing up red flags about the black family being destroyed by the Great Society. This is a national disgrace, lets be honest now.
a dk: Yes it does.
dk: I didn’t use the word evil, and I don’t hate the Clintons. I find Hillary’s “It takes a community to raise a child” ideology very dangerous. I think it’s ludicrous to believe that government bureaucrats are suited to protect, love and raise children.
dk: Just about as irrelevant as your comment.
dk: Does this ring a bell, “Section. 2. Clause 1:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”, like ding dong, ding dong. Hey but the constitution didn’t mention the Air Force or Marines, so I guess you believe they are unconstitutional.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Ales

This only sentence excludes you automatically from any serious discussion. Any serious discussion can only be based on reliable scientific data. The fact, that you despise of widely acknowledged The Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, and even the prestigious The New England Journal of Medicine, which I believe is for life scientists of similar importance as for physicists The Physical Review Letters, in which I happen to have an article, is, implies that any reasonalble discussion with you is not possible. It also seems that despite you wanted to have the brain transplantation as I suggested to you, the doctors missed your donor for a donor of a colon:

It would explain why you are not able to distinguish between these two sentences:

Dk: "The central limit theorem states that any distribution with a finite mean and variance tends to a Gaussian distribution.
Stanton: "The central limit theorem explains why many distributions tend to be close to the normal distribution."

The statement of CLT of Stanton is of course the same as mine. Notice the (D) in my definition, it signifies convergence in distribution. I thought you would object something relevant against the rigorous proof, that HIV will die off (exponentially fast) in "Sodoma", (I forgot to mention also gerontophiles who are also present in this model ), if Sodomites are properly using condoms. Your objection could be that infection rate could be higher for homosexual intercourses of men, I would reply that it could be compensated by the less inection rate of lesbians or that a person who dies of AIDS may not leave a healthy offspring, you perhaps noticed it-probability is your hobby and you like proving that homosexuality is immoral by this-but you immediately realized, that I have to make more precise what I said: If a healthy individual dies, it leaves behind a healthy offspring, if HIV positive dies of something not related to HIV (e.g. is too old), it leaves behind a HIV positive (remember the lack of memory property of exponential distribution), only if HIV positive dies of AIDS it leaves a healthy offspring, it is a better description of the Contact process. I also supposed each individual had sexual intercourses with one partner at the same rate as the respondents of the aforementioned studies, say 3 times a week, but in our case we have to multiply this number by 2 d, e.g. each has sex 18 times a weak. It seems to me that any plausible sexual behaviour is "pathwise dominated by the evolution of this Contact process", I thought you would mention some sexual behaviour that proves I am wrong.
But since you are not able to realize, that you were totally wrong even in the case, you spoke about N(m,s^2), and I cannot imagine anything more sure, and since I made many arguments about "Honesty of sexual education" to which you did not answer, and I am not sure you even read or understand them, I consider further discussion with you is not purposeful. If I do not answer to your next post, it will mean that I am commiserate with you but that I think it would be purposeless.

dk

Control studies are done to simulate real world conditions. In the real world there are no controls, so when a control study decade after decade contradicts reality there is something wrong with the control study. For whatever the reason, condoms have failed to stem the epidemic of STDs. HHS have saturated the public with condom education, again and again. The proof is in the pudding, not the control study.

dk

I'm going out of town for a couple of weeks and don't know if I'll have time to check back in till I get back.

I'm coming to the conclusion PC makes honesty impossible,

tronvillain

davidH, you've provided no reason to doubt the results of the quoted studies. In fact, the studies themselves provide an explanation for the continued spread of HIV: nonexistent, inconsistent, or incorrect condom use. Where is the contradiction? As far as I can tell, it exists only in your head.

Boro Nut

That's right. Knowledge of sex came quite early to us on Teesside. I can clearly recall our first sex education class at primary school, as part of the new national curriculum, which covered the subject of contraception. This is all the more surprising given it was a Catholic school and the headmistress was a nun.

After the obligatory discussion about the preferred rhythm method, our teacher Miss Hetherington (much to her disgust) produced a range of contraceptives like dutch caps, condoms, IUD's, spermicides and jellies, lecturing us at length on their uses, and informed us how they could be obtained from any high-street pharmacist.

We were totally bemused of course. I mean to say, we were only seven at the time, and we never went out much. How could they expect us to understand the concept of a pharmacy?

By that stage we had already been well instructed by Sharon Duff behind the bike sheds, who by age seven was considerably better informed and equipped than Miss Hetherington. She also had the edge in teaching skills, as she was clearly more at ease with the subject matter, and was happy to augment any exchange of information with a practical demonstration.

As I remember, it was Sharon who pointed out that Miss Hetherington had forgotten about anal intercourse.

Boro Nut

GPLindsey

It's late and I can't find the Bible quote, but the perfect response to fundamentalists who say that masterbation is sinful per the Bible is to point out that they are leaving important details out. As I recall, the character who God zapped because he spilled his seed did so because he was trying to avoid impregnating his dead wife's sister who he married (or something like that). SO, you can say that, if you are in the circumstance that your wife has died and you married her sister, and you jerked your Gerkin to avoid getting her pregnant, THEN it is a sin to masterbate!! God would not put extraneous detail in the Bible, so all of these circumstances have to apply before masterbation can be viewed as a sin!!

By the way, two Fundie 14 yr old girls are walking home from Church.
Girl 1: "I found a contraceptive on the patio last night."
Girl 2: "What's a patio?"

The truth comes out!