FOR FRAK'S SAKE THIS IS GOING TOO PEECEE FRAKKING FAR!!

You mean ban all demonstrably high-risk groups. I don't grant the homosexual community special recognition in this subject because they have been a prominent social/political issue over the last few decades. In this context, they are simply "high risk group."

Well, I imagine garamet is a fan of scissors.

According to the stats, hepatitis is a far more common contaminant than HIV.

If I were, you'd be singing soprano.

Are you truly a retard or just acting like one? Did I farking say that *I* provided any figures or others? Did you even READ what I wrote?

Yes. You wrote "gayness gives you AIDS." Several times. Occasionally in VERY LARGE LETTERS.

Since that's all you've got, pardon me if I just concentrate on the serious discussion that's broken out in spite of you.

If we meet your criteria, we've already eliminated all heterosexuals, regardless of race.

About the only group that remains is non-black lesbians who have never used IV drugs, have no tattoos, have never visited England or a third-world country, and have never had sex with anyone who has.

They also need to be non-diabetic, have no cardiac history, and not be on any of a very large list of medications. And there are other factors I can't think of offhand.

Then you have to consider blood type and Rh-factors.

You're talking about a very, very, very small pool of donors.

And you'd still want to interrogate them.

And practicing Jehovahs. They're clean as a whistle.

Okay, I can respect that point of view.
But I think a far more sensible system would be to screen people for high-risk behavior, rather than high risk groups.

But if I'm not mistaken, they're against transfusions.

I have not uttered those words here, not even once. So you not only prove to be a twister of words, a stupid old hag, but you also prove that you are a LIAR of the highest extremes.

I am sorry but you are not having a serious discussion, you are just riling up people with your dodges and twists, and completely ignoring what others are saying.

Would you care to restate your reasons for starting this thread? No? Then I'm not interested. Go pester someone else.

Just as I suspected. You DODGE the questions presented to you and you FAIL at answering anything that requires you to actually be challenged.

I ask again: where did you see me making the disparaging remarks about gays in VERY BIG LETTERS?

Go ahead, try answering that question, I DARE you, old hag.

Then, and I promise, I'll give the answer (if it was not obvious already) as to why I started this thread.

How often get what you want from the people you insult IRL?

Yes, I know. You don't have the courage to insult people IRL.

Anyway, you've already answered my question. Time for you to go bask in the thread Face just started for you.

I never ask for anything because unlike your sorry life, I tend to have everything.

More like there aren't any people I know that are worthy to be insulted IRL. People IRL tend to be smarter, wittier, funnier and nicer than you can ever hope to be (here).

I see that you AGAIN DODGED MY CHALLENGE THAT YOU PROVE WHERE I SAID ANYTHING DISPARAGING IN LARGE LETTERS TO THE GAY PEOPLE.

I am still waiting on that answer.

Come on Garamet, you mentioned I said those remarks in VERY LARGE LETTERS, several times. Time to link those up. Show me that I said those things, in this thread. And don't take the idotic route of saying I edited them out. I didn't.

You certainly can back up such a simple yet bold claim, can't you? You don't even need the research outside this board.

Show me I said those. NOW.

Derailing your own thread? Did you learn that from KIRK?

I realize it bothers you that you expected this thread to be nothing but anti-gay slurs, and instead it turned into a real conversation, but I guess you just misjudged your audience.

Now, quick. Go hit the Urban Dictionary for some more salient phrases...

You are the one that made a baseless accusation. I am neither derailing the thread nor doing anything against rules. Just asking a simple question and putting forth a challenge. Can you answer it?

I am sorry, I expected it to be nothing of that sort. I posted this thread and my intial comments before I went to bed last night and didn't come to WF until later today. By then whatever needed to be discussed (in RR fashion) was already in progress.

No I did not. I am asking again, for you to LINK, just LINK to such said disparaging comments that I made, as you claimed, in LARGE LETTERS. It'll be easy no? Just THIS thread. Go ahead, show me.

You dodge the given question and challenge, AGAIN?

Still waiting.

Wait.

God, just shut the fuck up, both of you.

^ Or you'll do what?

You require threats to behave youreself?

Is that the superior maturity you're so proud of?

So you don't have anything to back your statement up?

Thought so.

Don't you ever farking DARE to call yourself truthful or mature again. You just proved here that you are as bad, if not WORSE, than the people you hate here. You are always pinning Sokar as someone that bothers you, but he at least has the class to back up what he claims and stands his ground.

Unlike you, of course, that RUNS at the slightest challenge.. and of course, you are full of FAIL.

Have a nice day, dumbfuck.

Posting as a UK blood donor who's banned from donating in the US, that makes perfect sense to me.
See, I'm banned in the US because of the whole 'mad cow' business. But I'd given up eating meat long before that was a glint on the horizon.

I really don't see that there's any great risk in taking a donation from a gay bloke who tells the truth about being celibate for a year. And the fact that he might not be telling the truth is reason to test the donation, not reason to ban him.

Oh, and we only ban for six months after tattoos and piercings.

:IMHO!:

No, I just find it interesting which posters have to resort to barking orders.

You don't see me complying with your "request," do you?

Yup. It's my understanding that they're also advancing research in artificial blood substitutes as a result. I don't completely agree with their reasoning, but I think their research deserves a closer look.

I have no doubt there will eventually be viable blood substitutes in the not-too-distant future. Already it's possible to get multiple uses out of a single pint of donated blood.

Wonder Megatron will find to bitch about then?