Fun Tails

Well, I'm somewhat comforted to know that I'm not the only one so displeased with my classroom material that they've resorted to writing their own stuff.Let's hear your thoughts on 'Waiting for Superman' when you get a chance.

I don't know what you're talking about. In the year 2320, which I visited on my way here, this film is considered the pinnacle of Martin Lawrence's 105-year career and is studied religiously by historians, children and artists for its nuanced and provocative look at race, science, economics and family dynamics. The Head of Sony Publicity knows nothing. He's like that guy who gave away the Star Wars merchandise rights to Lucas: Stuck in the mercantile and artistic normality of an irrelevant past. EDIT: Speaking of which, didn't this used to be a time travel thread? How'd your time travel story turn out?

-Good villains are unpredictable. -They usually have a good idea of what they want. (That's not the same as saying they have a plan. Some of the best villains have no plan, but they KNOW what they would like to achieve) -Good villains have intensity. Not the same as zaniness or manic behaviour. Intensity means they give that feeling of action about to spring at you. -Quirks can help a villain, but they are not necessary and can damage him/ her. For instance, in 'Once upon a time in Mexico' one villain kills any chef who cooks a certain pork dish well. It's a very WTF? moment and never clicks as natural to the character. On the other hand, Blofeld always stroking his cat in the Bond movies is a big part of why he's a memorable villain. -Villains know what to say and when to shut up. Some villains benefit from good monologues, like Magneto or a raging diatribe like Pacino in Devil's Advocate. Some are best when they shut up. Some are best when they can engage the hero in wordplay. -MOST IMPORTANT of all, your villain must be formidable. I remember watching the Sam Jackson 'Shaft' and waiting for the real villain to show up and being ultimately disappointed that some cowardly, spoiled brat was the focus of the movie. Nazgul or Captain Hook, on the other hand... (fuck, I swear that pun was accidental.) They make you believe that they can end you very easily.

I have returned! I know to all of you it seems like I am here three years after I disappeared from this thread, but that's you. I just grabbed the nearest time train and hopped down here. It's only been a few minutes for me since my last post here. I must say that I am disappointed t to look in on this thread and find that no one has mentioned Martin Lawrence's 'Black Knight'. You people have no idea what good moviemaking is. :shakes head in disgust and walks away weeping:

All I know is I'm going to go the rest of my life with an announcer by my side and whenever I score he has to yell, 'Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll!!!!!!!!!!'

How about we make being gay into a sport? We could even keep score with gayness points.

OK, first off, it's good to get some somewhat good news in this area. -------------- I think one other reason I was so willing to criticize the Bush AIDS initiative was guilt by association. There are a lot of religious groups who push for absitinence only programs in Africa and everywhere else. They made a Uganda a big talking point by saying that one region of Uganda that had used absitinence only programs had seen a huge decline int he infection rate. They were using the data falsely, ignoring the other reasons the rate went down, such as the deaths of those infected before the use of anti-retrovirals etc. And, since I associate Bush with religous extremists, I was all too willing to believe that he had put together a program with large abstinence provisions. ------------- As for the effectiveness of abstinence, I can't speak for how it affects HIV transmission, but I know that in the US, students who go through abstinence-only sex-ed have higher pregancy rates.

Fritz, I'm sorry. I had read about the 33% figure for abstinence, I just didn't know it was 33% of just the 20% set aside for prevention. Thanks for the info, though I feel kinda dumb.

Lets review some facts that everyone accepts:\ -This was not premeditated. -The punch was not intended to kill. -The victim died 20 hours after. That is manslaughter. The penalty is 5 years. Why is this case a big deal? Because the victim was gay?

I am very comfortable with this thread being focused on Africa because it *is* the major battleground. India is set to become another battleground soon, but for now, it's Africa where the casualties are greatest. ---------------------------- Nickolas, you seem to assume that HIV positive men in Africa (or elsewhere) are aware of their status. That is most definitely not the case. Because of the stigma and discrimination associated with HIV in many information poor countries, many men will not even *get* tested because they are afraid that someone might find out that they got tested and just the act of getting tested is stigmatized enough to cause quite a bit of discrimination. Most HIV+ men in many areas aren't aware of their status and will not try to find out. Approaching the problem of HIV and AIDS through abstinence is a waste of money (whether its US taxpayer money or otherwise). To me, the ABC methodology (abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms) needs to be updated. The priorities should be COndoms and Education to reduce stigma. This has already started. Programs to defeat stigma are much more common and the hope is that they will lead to more people knowing their status.

Saying that AIDS will end if people practiced abstinence is like saying there would be peace on earth if people would just stop fighting. What is your response to the claim that abstinence is impractical and cannot work? If you can show me evidence that abstinence can be put into practice in a large scale, I would kiss your boots. Most likely, though, you'll have to admit that abstinence is a waste of money and the billions that Bush is pouring into abstinence programs in Africa because of his ideology is wasted. It could actually do some good if it were focused on preventative measures that were more practical. I have to ask... HIV devastated the US gay community in the late eighties. Today, AIDS is ever present but its not 'the gay plague' in the US anymore. Is that because gays learned abstinence or because their sex got safer? ------- *TR*, I would really be interested in hearing from you or someone with experience about how gay people living with AIDS go about love and sex. I have no HIV+ acquintances (that I know of) so it's an area my knowledge is lacking in, though I would like to learn more.

You seem to strangely dismiss the idea of safer sex as a tool.

I feel that yourstatement ignores history. All medical advances have reached the poor, even if it's been on a slight delay. There was a time when only milionaires could have facelifts. Now suburban women (and men) have facelifts and liposuction and any other plastic surgery all the time. Same with stuff like Lasik eye surgery and gastric bypass surgery. Hell, in my own lifetime I remember when only the rich had contact lenses. Go back even further in time and only the rich had *spectacles*. Go *forward* in time a little from today and I'm sure that you'll find that poor people quite easily have access to in vitrio treatment for short-sightedness.

But, but, but the US govt has poured billions into fighting AIDS in Africa. It's in the lead in trying to change behavior that would spread the disease. It has- Oh what's that? The US is spending most of its money on absolutely useless and unproven 'abstinence' and other faith-based efforts? Almost nothing on programs that use condoms? Well, I guess Africa just has to suck it up and pay the price so the religious extremists can use it as a guinea pig to showcase their style of AIDS fighting. The kind they could never impose at home.

Ah, but the real world state of the science is transitory. One day, there will be safe procedures for doing many thing in vitrio. We need to deal with the philosophical framework that will guide this situation. We can't put it off by saying 'we;re not there yet'.