Dean Blundell producer in hot water for discussing jury duty

[fuji]

Surrey...? Other members here can decide for themselves the value of your contributions to this discussion. By the way, if I'm a 'liar', 'bigot', 'disagreeable', 'repulsive', etc., then why do you follow me around the site posting after me...? What is it that you find so compelling about my point of view here...? Sincerely, Jon .

Why wouldn't I? You are a bigot. Just, you're insincere about it.

 

[acutus]

Why wouldn't I? You are a bigot. Just, you're insincere about it.

Refer to Post #: 46 and review as required. Your repetative and tiresome exhortations and attempts at personal insult speaks for itself and demostrates that you have little to offer to the discussion. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[fuji]

Refer to Post #: 46 and review as required. Your repetative and tiresome exhortations and attempts at personal insult speaks for itself and demostrates that you have little to offer to the discussion. Sincerely, Jon .

Calling you what you honestly are isn't an insult. I believe everyone should be proud of who they are. I feel sorry for people like you who go around denying their own nature

 

[Mervyn]

It is a basic rule of justice that an accused person is to be regarded as "innocent until proved guilty". Of course, that changes if the trial does indeed prove he is guilty, now the shoe is on the other foot.

But in the present case, the suggestion is that, because of this juror's behaviour, the trial was flawed, and therefore the guy should never have been found guilty. That being so, he has the right to be regarded, once more, as "innocent until proved guilty", i.e as a person who is wrongfully accused.

He should not be regarded as a rapist, i.e as a person who have been found guilty of rape - until he has been convicted at his second trial.

Perhaps the jury in his second trial will see the evidence differently, and will return a verdict of not guilty. That's why there are re-trials when the first trial is bad.

Actually, one of the Jurists has been accused of inappropriately discussing the case , and the defence has asked for a Judicial review, and as someone who strongly believes in innocent before proven guilty, that also applies to this Jury member , and since he hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong as yet, then the trial is valid, and therefor the verdict of guilty is also valid.

 

[acutus]

Calling you what you honestly are isn't an insult. I believe everyone should be proud of who they are. I feel sorry for people like you who go around denying their own nature

I suppose that this discussion is all about you and your feelings towards another man on this site now... Clearly you believe that your repetative and tedious remarks are absolutely fascinating to the membership here.... Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Actually, one of the Jurists has been accused of inappropriately discussing the case , and the defence has asked for a Judicial review, and as someone who strongly believes in innocent before proven guilty, that also applies to this Jury member , and since he hasn't been proven to have done anything wrong as yet, then the trial is valid, and therefor the verdict of guilty is also valid.

This is a reasonable perspective on this case, in my view. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[fuji]

I suppose that this discussion is all about you and your feelings towards another man on this site now... Clearly you believe that your repetative and tedious remarks are absolutely fascinating to the membership here.... Sincerely, Jon .

Oh get off your horse and fess up. You are a straight up bigot. You want a crack down on the activities homosexuals can engage in, and then turn around and demand that everyone tolerate your intolerance.

 

[Boss Nass]

I am not 'bigoted' against homosexuals.

Really?

I happen not to support nor condone homosexual behaviour.

Which makes you, undeniably, a bigot. Do you condone people with red hair? Do you support people born with attached earlobes? Like homosexuality, both are things that a person is born with, and has no choice in.

If you believe otherwise, that homosexuality is a choice, then you're an idiot as well as a bigot.

 

[acutus]

Really?



Which makes you, undeniably, a bigot. Do you condone people with red hair? Do you support people born with attached earlobes? Like homosexuality, both are things that a person is born with, and has no choice in.

If you believe otherwise, that homosexuality is a choice, then you're an idiot as well as a bigot.

How...? Why am I a bigot...? I don't support the Homos folks behaviour/lifestyle as something that is healthy or normal and I don't believe their lies about the true cause of AIDS. I have a different view on this issue than you do. And so what...? You're entitled to have another point of view on this or any other issue as you wish. In my view, the far more serious and over ridingly important issue is the absolutely freedom that everyone should have to speak and express themselves freely and openly.

The Homo folks and their supporters are, in my view, the most intolerant people in Society. They appear absolutely incapable of tolerating anyone speaking or expressing any dissenting view of their Homo dogma( Homosexual is 'good' and 'healthy' and 'normal' because AIDS is caused by monkeys in the jungle) and any expressed dissenting point of view regarding Homosexual conduct and ideology is forbidden. Anyone expressing a dissenting perspective that challenges the Homo dogma is attacked personally and shouted down in an attempt to silence the dissenting expression that challenges their ideology.

Everyone has a opinion and everyone should be allowed to speak and express themselves and their perspectives freely. If you don't share my point of view on this or any other issue than I would encourage you to develop your own point of view and opinions and express them openly and freely as you wish. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[mur11]

How...? Why am I a bigot...? I don't support the Homos folks behaviour/lifestyle as something that is healthy or normal and I don't believe their lies about the true cause of AIDS. I have a different view on this issue than you do. And so what...? You're entitled to have another point of view on this or any other issue as you wish. In my view, the far more serious and over ridingly important issue is the absolutely freedom that everyone should have to speak and express themselves freely and openly.

The Homo folks and their supporters are, in my view, the most intolerant people in Society. They appear absolutely incapable of tolerating anyone speaking or expressing any dissenting view of their Homo dogma( Homosexual is 'good' and 'healthy' and 'normal' because AIDS is caused by monkeys in the jungle) and any expressed dissenting point of view regarding Homosexual conduct and ideology is forbidden. Anyone expressing a dissenting perspective that challenges the Homo dogma is attacked personally and shouted down in an attempt to silence the dissenting expression that challenges their ideology.

Everyone has a opinion and everyone should be allowed to speak and express themselves and their perspectives freely. If you don't share my point of view on this or any other issue than I would encourage you to develop your own point of view and opinions and express them openly and freely as you wish. Sincerely, Jon .

Like he said, bigot
You are a bigot. End of story.

 

[acutus]

What are these lies that homosexuals are saying about the cause of AIDS?

What do you believe is the truth that contradicts said lies?

As noted in the post immediately before yours, the Homo folks' dogma is to blame monkeys in the jungle for AIDS, when in fact AIDS was first discovered up the anus and in the rectum of Homosexual men in and around the early 1980's. There is an earlier discussion on this topic. If you wish I can try to post the link for you, although you may be able to do a search for this Thread on your own. The Thread is entitled: 'It's a scary place for LGBT people in Russia right now'. The previous discussion should be able to provide you with a little background regarding the different perspectives on this point amongst the membership here on this site. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Like he said, bigot
You are a bigot. End of story.

Here`s the link for the earlier discusion: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ary-place-for-LGBT-people-in-Russia-right-now You can start with Post #: 579 . It would appear that you`ve had a reasonable period of time to respond to my post... or was that the end of your story...? Do you need more time to reply? Sincerely, Jon .

 

[mur11]

Here`s the link for the earlier discusion: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ary-place-for-LGBT-people-in-Russia-right-now You can start with Post #: 579 . It would appear that you`ve had a reasonable period of time to respond to my post... or was that the end of your story...? Do you need more time to reply? Sincerely, Jon .

Not at all.
It`s been awhile since I have more enriching and important things to do than to troll on a site espousing bigoted and homophobic views, but as I recall that thread is about 20 pages or so of you making scientifically unproven claims, others (including me) challenging your bigoted views, asking you to produce one scientific source to prove those views, you failing at very turn to do so, and then attacking our scientific sources.
A few samples if I recall:
Your assertion that homosexuals endanger you personally as a (presumably) staunch heterosexual
Your assertion that HIV/AIDS magically sprang into existence from the anus of those bad bad `homos` despite scientific evidence to the contrary
Your assertion that the `homo lifestyle` (which you can`t seem to define) endangers humanity
Your inference that all homosexuals spread AIDS knowingly as a way to attack heterosexuals

All of these assertions and inferences you cannot prove despite people almost begging you to participate in an intellectually honest argument
I believe the only minor point you scored was that there was no morphological basis for homosexuality, which is so far removed from your main argument (`teh gays are bad and spread AIDS rabble rabble`) to make it irrelevant, although if it makes you feel better for being a bigot, that`s your journey I guess.
And then there`s the utterly charming claim that you made in another thread that homosexuals `smell different` and that dogs can pick up on the `gay scent`

LOL

 

[acutus]

Not at all.
It's been awhile since I have more enriching and important things to do than to troll on a site espousing bigoted and homophobic views, but as I recall that thread is about 20 pages or so of you making scientifically unproven claims, others (including me) challenging your bigoted views, asking you to produce one scientific source to prove those views, you failing at very turn to do so, and then attacking our scientific sources.
A few samples if I recall:
Your assertion that homosexuals endanger you personally as a (presumably) staunch heterosexual
Your assertion that HIV/AIDS magically sprang into existence from the anus of those bad bad 'homos' despite scientific evidence to the contrary
Your assertion that the 'homo lifestyle' (which you can't seem to define) endangers humanity
Your inference that all homosexuals spread AIDS knowingly as a way to attack heterosexuals

All of these assertions and inferences you cannot prove despite people almost begging you to participate in an intellectually honest argument
I believe the only minor point you scored was that there was no morphological basis for homosexuality, which is so far removed from your main argument ('teh gays are bad and spread AIDS rabble rabble') to make it irrelevant, although if it makes you feel better for being a bigot, that's your journey I guess.
And then there's the utterly charming claim that you made in another thread that homosexuals 'smell different' and that dogs can pick up on the 'gay scent'

LOL

You are hardly worth acknowledging let alone responding to, but, here you are, 'trolling' away and accusing another members of this site of being 'bigoted' and 'homophobic'. So let me break it down for you... I'm confident in relying on the hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary biology defining Life as we know it to be on this planet, along with at least a couple of million years of distinct Human evolutionary biology and development together with tens of thousands of years of Human culture to support my point of view. If you and/or the Homo folks and their supportors have a different intepretation of the facts of Human reproduction, Human evolution and Evolutionary Biology that are clearly well established and accepted, then it's up to you folks to provide the evidence. Science and common, adult sense requires you to prove your case- not make assertions and then 'challenge' others to prove you wrong.

My perspective on this issue as you know is that there is no evolutionary, biological, reproductive, morphological or physiological context for men having sex with one and other. The fact and reality that men having anal sex with one and other produces AIDS supports my position as outlined. If you feel that you have evidence to the contrary then I'd invite you to put it forward. So... why not go back and re-read Post #: 579 in the cited Thread and show us where my reasoning and references are incorrect in relation to the argument presented.

I have no idea what you're referring to with your remarks about what Homosexuals smell like or what dogs can smell.... You'd have to explain that to me, as well. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Without using such inflammatory language, it would be fair to say that AIDS first came to the attention of medical community in 1981 as homosexual men were dying from an unknown disease. At that time no one had any idea as to what the disease was.
Interestingly, it was in 1982 when some haemophiliacs, after having blood transfusions, manifested the disease is when it was first understood to be a blood borne virus. So in fact it was from the blood samples of homosexual men and haemophiliacs that the virus was discovered. This of course has to be qualified as LAV which was the name given to the first virus when researchers at the Pasteur Institute first published their findings. No doubt you are aware that presently there are several variants of that virus and the name has been changed to the more popularly known HIV-1 and HIV-2.

Many medical researchers are of the opinion that AIDS existed long before this, some as early as 1930, others saying in the 1950's or 1960's. These theories are of course conjecture since definitive proof through a blood sample is not possible.

It would then appear that your use of the phrase "up the anus and in the rectum" is done for provocation and not elucidation. Scientist found the virus in blood samples, not fecal matter. We now know that anal sex between homosexual men was the method of transmission, but that did not lead to the discovery of the virus.

But where the virus first became noticed and where it originated are two different things. It would be akin to spotting a ship on the ocean, discovery of the ship at sea does not tell you it's port of origin.

There is a theory that SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) was the precursor to AIDS and that the virus mutated to form the AIDS virus, similar to the way the AIDS virus presently has several mutations.

Do you reject the idea that the AIDS originated as a mutation of SIV?
And if you do reject that idea where do you believe AIDS originated (please understand I am asking about the point of origination not discovery)?


For reference my sources of information are the Pasteur Institute in France and the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta who collaborated extensively on the early research into AIDS.

Homosexual men began complaining about flu like symptoms, malaise, lack of appetite and oozing, pus filled lesions appearing all over their bodys in the early 1980's. Upon further medical investigation, a brand new desease was discovered that was peculiar to Homosexual men who were engaging in anal sex with one and other. This new... ' syndrome' was called AIDS, or 'acquired' immune deficiency 'syndrome'. At the time, the Homo folks were hysterically pointing fingers at just about anybody and anything else for their self inflicted anal desease, such as intravenous drug users and Hatian people and a secret U.S. military plot to secretly infect, poison and kill all the people on the planet for an as yet a still secret reason.

That there are similar immune deficiency type symdromes that are known to occur in other animals is not new or surprising. The moral issue for me and other like minded folks about Homosexual behaviour/lifestyle is their absolute refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Men having anal sex with one and other causes AIDS. This is an undeniable fact that the Homos folks and their supporters have always steadfastly denied. This denial is, in my view, profoundly dishonest and unhealthy in itself, the behaviour, notwithstanding and to continue to insist that their behaviour is in anyway 'good' or 'healthy' or 'normal' in clear defiance of the facts is, in my view, weak, pathetic and disgraceful.

This is a moral perspective that is, in my view, fair and reasonable given the facts and how this issue has 'evolved'( for lack of a better word). It is the Truth that is of paramount importance to me and I believe the rest of Human culture and the Truth takes precedence over anyone's hurt feelings or the lies they tell themselves and others about the consequences of their behaviour on all of Humanity. I'd suggest that you have a read through the earlier thread on this topic. This issue is likely to heat up again what with the upcoming Olympics. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Who the hell is Dean Blundell?

 

[fuji]

How...? Why am I a bigot...? I don't support the Homos folks behaviour/lifestyle as something that is healthy or normal and I don't believe their lies about the true cause of AIDS. I have a different view on this issue than you do. And so what...? You're entitled to have another point of view on this or any other issue as you wish. In my view, the far more serious and over ridingly important issue is the absolutely freedom that everyone should have to speak and express themselves freely and openly.

The Homo folks and their supporters are, in my view, the most intolerant people in Society. They appear absolutely incapable of tolerating anyone speaking or expressing any dissenting view of their Homo dogma( Homosexual is 'good' and 'healthy' and 'normal' because AIDS is caused by monkeys in the jungle) and any expressed dissenting point of view regarding Homosexual conduct and ideology is forbidden. Anyone expressing a dissenting perspective that challenges the Homo dogma is attacked personally and shouted down in an attempt to silence the dissenting expression that challenges their ideology.

Everyone has a opinion and everyone should be allowed to speak and express themselves and their perspectives freely. If you don't share my point of view on this or any other issue than I would encourage you to develop your own point of view and opinions and express them openly and freely as you wish. Sincerely, Jon .

OK so we can add kook to bigot.

You can certainly express your kooky, bigoted views freely, and we can freely point out that this makes you a kooky bigot.

 

[mandrill]

I think the time has come for me to block Acutus on a permanent basis and go have my morning coffee.

 

[acutus]

Who the hell is Dean Blundell?

Lol... Yeah... That's what I thought too when I first saw this Thread. I'd never heard of him before either. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

OK, that sounds good, let's work on truth. And I take it that you would not include yourself in that group you characterized with the phrase "lies they tell themselves". So if you became aware of facts you would have no choice but to change your opinion to coincide with the truth, lest you become one of those that lies to themselves.





That is factually incorrect, that is not the truth. While the disease was noticed in the United States in homosexual men in 1981, it was certainly not peculiar to them. The truth is that it was the combined groups of haemophiliacs and homosexual men that led to the discovery of the virus. A young girl suffering from haemophilia who contracts AIDS in 1982 makes it clear that the disease is not peculiar to homosexual men. You ignored my truthful comment about haemophiliacs being critical to the discovery of the disease. Ignoring truth cannot be good.

Since then the disease has spread to people from every walk of life. Again the truth is that it is a disease and it is not peculiar to a single group. The truth is, that present epidemiology of AIDS is that hetrosexuals are the largest group of people suffering from this disease.

I also notice that you do not use the term virus. Perhaps it is just the wording you have chosen, do you admit the truth that AIDS is caused by a virus?




Virus right? These other animals, simian apes in particular are infected with a virus. The animals are not referred to as having a syndrome, they have a viral infection. That is the truth.




Well that does not seem to be the truth. Since the virus and mechanisms of transmission through bodily fluids has become known it is homosexual men who were at the forefront of advocating condom use and safe practices.

In fact the truth is it is hetrosexuals that currently have the lowest rate of compliance with safe sex practices and proven by the increased rates of AIDS within that cohort.





And here is where you absolutely leave truth on the platform as your train of thought leaves the station. You ignored my question previously about the discovery of AIDS not being the same as the origin of AIDS and it is the vital core issue from a purely scientific perspective.

The truth is AIDS is caused a virus. The truth is no matter how much anal sex two men engage in they cannot create a virus. Lest of course you believe homosexual men have the power to create life itself, and somehow I doubt that is your belief. One can transmit the virus to another but they cannot create the virus.

Surely you will admit the truth that homosexual men cannot create a form of life. Why that would mean they are Gods!



What do you mean by "issue has evolved"? Do you mean virus? Do you mean the fact that a virus evolved?

There is no issue that evolved in a dialectic sense. There is a body of over 30 years of extensive scientific research that has resulted in the knowledge of facts, truthful facts. Certainly not all is known and research continues into both treatment and prevention.

I would also suggest that exhibiting some compassion for another human being dying from a disease, regardless of where you believe the disease came from, would do you far more good then them.

Finally we get back to the original questions that I asked you, but were never clearly answered. I certainly don't want you thinking I have misinterpreted what you said, and since I am not that bright, and there seems to be some confusion over the terms AIDS versus virus, could you tell me the truth about:

Do you reject the idea that HIV-1 and HIV-2 originated as a mutation of SIV?
And if you do reject that idea where do you believe the virus originated (please understand I am asking about the point of origination not discovery or mechanism of transmission)?

This is quite a mouthful, isn't it...? So, Yes... Lets start with the Truth. I believe that I've been clear in my previous posts and I suspect that you too now have some idea of my perspective on this issue. My question is and was: Why is an individual 'bigoted' if they happen not to agree with or otherwise don't share the perspective or opinion of another individual or group of individuals? There are all kinds of individuals and groups of individuals in my World- whether they be political or religious or philosophical or cultural or ethnic or etc. - that have points of views and perspectives and opinions and behaviours and conducts that I don't agree with... and so what? Does this make me a 'bigot'....? Please explain any unresolved incongruences in my point of view that you feel are present. Sincerely, Jon .