Just say what you mean Daily Mail - George Michael

13

Comments

  • dickronsondickronson Posts: 2,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bela wrote: »
    You're misinterpreting what Splot is saying. The 'dozy' is referrring to not being able to spot the DM's very transparent agenda in that piece, all full of faux concern and worry for him while dropping sly hints about what they think is the real reason for his ill-health and seclusion.

    This. If people really can't see whats being implied here, (and its certainly not the first time they've done this where George's illness is concerned) then they just don't understand how the media works.
  • andy1231andy1231 Posts: 5,100
    Forum Member
    OMG!! I don't read the Daily Sport cause its full of boobs and bums... would say T**s and A**s
    Just like I never read news of the world cause its full of aliens landing
    I don't need to read them to know theyre shitte

    But how do you know that ? It's like saying "I hate Brussell Sprouts" because everyone hates them, without actualy trying them. If youv'e never read the paper how do you personaly know its shitte ? Or are you just jumping on the Lets hate the Daily Mail bandwaggon ?
  • vauxhall1964vauxhall1964 Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    andy1231 wrote: »
    But how do you know that ? It's like saying "I hate Brussell Sprouts" because everyone hates them, without actualy trying them. If youv'e never read the paper how do you personaly know its shitte ? Or are you just jumping on the Lets hate the Daily Mail bandwaggon ?

    Has it not occurred to you that you can know what the Daily Mail is up to without having a subscription to it? I despise the rag; i wouldn't wipe my arse with it. And how can I hold this opinion without being a reader of it? Simple:
    a) My parents buy and I'm 'exposed' to it there
    b) It's in the waiting room of my dentist; i'm 'exposed' to it there
    c) Links to articles in it feature in the press cutting email I get each day in my place of work
    d) I read the most infamous articles on the DM website (I certainly wouldn't hand over my own cash for it)
    e) I frequently read on sites like this and in the media about what the Mail are up to from the Stephen Gately incident to the 'Ed Milliband's father hates Britain' attack.

    So lots of us loathe the paper though we never buy it... but boy, do we know how it operates and what poison it's printing.
  • RadiomaniacRadiomaniac Posts: 43,510
    Forum Member
    Has it not occurred to you that you can know what the Daily Mail is up to without having a subscription to it? I despise the rag; i wouldn't wipe my arse with it. And how can I hold this opinion without being a reader of it? Simple:
    a) My parents buy and I'm 'exposed' to it there
    b) It's in the waiting room of my dentist; i'm 'exposed' to it there
    c) Links to articles in it feature in the press cutting email I get each day in my place of work
    d) I read the most infamous articles on the DM website (I certainly wouldn't hand over my own cash for it)
    e) I frequently read on sites like this and in the media about what the Mail are up to from the Stephen Gately incident to the 'Ed Milliband's father hates Britain' attack.

    So lots of us loathe the paper though we never buy it... but boy, do we know how it operates and what poison it's printing.

    Not only all of that, but you only need to have seen a couple of issues in the past to know their style, that goes for almost any publication, they rarely change.
  • Jon RossJon Ross Posts: 3,322
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not sure why anyone would assume a gay man probably has HIV. Only gay men who have unprotected anal sex (also known as bareback) are at high risk of contracting HIV and most gay men don't penetrate the anus (I learned this from the erudite Stephen Fry), it's a minority who do. So it would be wrong for anybody, either at the Daily Mail or on this forum, to assume Sir George would be at any significant risk of having HIV as we don't know what his sexual practices are.
  • Lucy Van PeltLucy Van Pelt Posts: 11,591
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jon Ross wrote: »
    I'm not sure why anyone would assume a gay man probably has HIV. Only gay men who have unprotected anal sex (also known as bareback) are at high risk of contracting HIV and most gay men don't penetrate the anus (I learned this from the erudite Stephen Fry), it's a minority who do. So it would be wrong for anybody, either at the Daily Mail or on this forum, to assume Sir George would be at any significant risk of having HIV as we don't know what his sexual practices are.

    He made no secret of the fact he had been 'cottaging' long before he got caught by that cop in the USA, his behaviour has also become increasingly erractic over the past few years

    none of want him to have HIV but there are pointers which suggest he may have( and that is NOT being homophobic or supporting the daily mail)

    whatever he has he is a talented and sadly troubled guy and I hope he is alright
  • donna255donna255 Posts: 10,138
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The great love of his life who he dedicated his albums too died of AIDS way back.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jon Ross wrote: »
    I'm not sure why anyone would assume a gay man probably has HIV. Only gay men who have unprotected anal sex (also known as bareback) are at high risk of contracting HIV and most gay men don't penetrate the anus (I learned this from the erudite Stephen Fry), it's a minority who do. So it would be wrong for anybody, either at the Daily Mail or on this forum, to assume Sir George would be at any significant risk of having HIV as we don't know what his sexual practices are.

    Oral sex is a risk also.
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    scone wrote: »
    Oral sex is a risk also.

    Somewhat less of a risk though IIRC.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    Somewhat less of a risk though IIRC.

    Yes, less risky, but the chance is still there
  • DiamondDollDiamondDoll Posts: 21,460
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Adore GM.

    He will be singing at my funeral.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvM2Cmi-YRU
  • MoggioMoggio Posts: 4,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    Somewhat less of a risk though IIRC.

    Not just somewhat less of a risk but a massive less of a risk. The chances of getting HIV from oral sex are so minimal they're pretty insignificant.
  • Safi74Safi74 Posts: 5,580
    Forum Member
    Adore GM.

    He will be singing at my funeral.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvM2Cmi-YRU

    Snap! Although I'd like his whole back catalogue, with a final mix of Wake Me Up Before You Go Go and The Edge of Heaven!!!!
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Even if he DOES have HIV, isnt most forms of HIV controlled by drugs these days??
    I got the impression if caught early enough, in most cases HIV can be "arrested" at that stage & development to full AIDS is a lot less frequent these days??
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Moggio wrote: »
    Not just somewhat less of a risk but a massive less of a risk. The chances of getting HIV from oral sex are so minimal they're pretty insignificant.

    How is it insignificant when it's a risk, no matter how minimal. If a man with HIV ejaculates into your mouth then it becomes even more risky, if you have any kind of cut n your mouth then this too increases the risk, let's not be complacent about it, it is possible and people have actually contracted HIV from giving oral sex, so it can't be ignored and labelled as "insignificant"
  • vauxhall1964vauxhall1964 Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    scone wrote: »
    How is it insignificant when it's a risk, no matter how minimal. QUOTE]

    It's a question of degree. There is risk, a minimal risk that my house will be hit be lightning during the next thunder storm. Making that risk 'insignificant'. Oral sex is not a significant risk for HIV transmission: fact.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How is it insignificant when it's a risk, no matter how minimal. QUOTE]

    It's a question of degree. There is risk, a minimal risk that my house will be hit be lightning during the next thunder storm. Making that risk 'insignificant'. Oral sex is not a significant risk for HIV transmission: fact.

    It's also not an insignificant risk: FACT

    There is a word, it's called complacency.
  • dd68dd68 Posts: 17,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DM can't even spell!
  • MoggioMoggio Posts: 4,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    scone wrote: »
    It's also not an insignificant risk: FACT

    There is a word, it's called complacency.

    How many confirmed cases of HIV transmission via oral sex are there? Not many I bet. I'd take a guess the risk of transmission via oral sex is close to 0%.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Moggio wrote: »
    How many confirmed cases of HIV transmission via oral sex are there? Not many I bet. I'd take a guess the risk of transmission via oral sex is close to 0%.

    The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has placed the number of new HIV cases attributable to oral sex at as high as 1 in 10

    http://sti.bmj.com/content/77/5/307.full

    6-8% not 0
  • Shazla09Shazla09 Posts: 29,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think this thread has exacerbated any inference the DM may/may not have made.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sw2963 wrote: »
    I think this thread has exacerbated any inference the DM may/may not have made.

    I never read anywhere in the article that GM has HIV or seen anything that pointed to a possibility that he may have it. I'm just talking about HIV in general.
  • Shazla09Shazla09 Posts: 29,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    scone wrote: »
    I never read anywhere in the article that GM has HIV or seen anything that pointed to a possibility that he may have it. I'm just talking about HIV in general.

    I understand scone I wasn't really referring to yourself just maybe the OP's statement at the top although no harm was intended. Wondering if it was contentious. Only my opinion of course.
  • MoggioMoggio Posts: 4,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    scone wrote: »
    The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has placed the number of new HIV cases attributable to oral sex at as high as 1 in 10

    http://sti.bmj.com/content/77/5/307.full

    6-8% not 0

    Read it again. It's not 6-8%.
  • sconescone Posts: 14,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Moggio wrote: »
    Read it again. It's not 6-8%.

    I think you need to read it again

    In conclusion, unprotected oral sex carries a risk for the transmission of HIV. Owing to the frequency with which it is practised and given the fact that those with the highest risk of acquiring HIV often have protected anal or vaginal sex, it is possible that it may lead to 6–8% of new HIV infections.

    It is possible

    Transmission of HIV via oral sex has always been considered a possibility, but one of low risk. In several cohorts of patients with primary infection, transmission via oral sex seemed to be the only route in a small but real proportion of patients. In a very rigorous study, Dillon and colleagues appear to have clearly pinpointed oral transmission in approximately 7% of primary infection cases. Originally, 16.4% of cases were thought to be due to oral transmission; however, on careful review, more than half of these cases had other possible risk factors.

    Source

    If your viral load is high then the risk is even higher of your partner catching HIV
Sign In or Register to comment.