If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted: While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the risk. Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the risk. That last is a form of promiscuity. Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay? If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. Really? Got figures? At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is unprotected promiscuity. Of course, another mode of transmission is birth to an infected mother. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Hatunen wrote:
AIDS is certainly a lifestyle disease, but that lifestyle is unprotected promiscuity, not homesexuality per se. Ya know what? you got it exactly! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the risk. That last is a form of promiscuity. Promiscuity suggests it's a choice, where in cases of rape and child abuse it's not. Sadly the later is very common in Africa. Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay? How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said??? If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. Really? Got figures? I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at. At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is unprotected promiscuity. It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is minuscule. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:13:24 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: While the mechanics of HIV transmission tend to favor the activities of homosexuals (really, mostly only one specific practice) the disease remains a disease of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se. No, it's a disease that primarily affects gay men (spec. anal sex), IV drug users, and any woman that has had sex with either, or someone previously infected. Promiscuity has only a marginal impact of the risk. That last is a form of promiscuity. Promiscuity suggests it's a choice, where in cases of rape and child abuse it's not. Sadly the later is very common in Africa. While child abuse and rape can be actions for th transmission of HIV, they aren't common enough to maintain the sort of near epidemic thate ther has been with HIV. Widespread dissemination by widespread unprotected promiscuous acts is the problem. An epidemic requires generalized spreading. Without the unprotected promiscuity, there woule be few infected drug needles and few rapists or drug abusers that were infected. Not to mention that those infected by child abuse and rape are not likely to spread it further; for the virus they are pretty much dead ends. Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay? How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said??? The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay. While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally, there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not the cause of widespread HIV infection. If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. Really? Got figures? I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at. Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you? At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is unprotected promiscuity. It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is minuscule. Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here? OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons". The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the 1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that favored the transmission of the disease. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and it would have almost disappeared from the general population, both gay and straight. Africa has a different sort of problem. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay? How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said??? The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay. Ummm... no, I wasn't saying that. While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally, there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not the cause of widespread HIV infection. I don't believe promiscuity the right target. You can't stop people ****ing! If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. Really? Got figures? I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at. Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you? Dave, sit down, and relax for a second. The word "unprotected" has recently been added, and makes a hell of a difference. I know that's what you meant, but I didn't. At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is unprotected promiscuity. It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is minuscule. Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here? I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me. I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons". The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the 1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that favored the transmission of the disease. My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot less chance of catching anything else. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and it would have almost disappeared from the general population, both gay and straight. Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic church doesn't seem to keen on them. I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't stop them shagging around. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote: Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:26:24 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:42:26 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:26:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Even in Africa you will find the disease is usually spread in one of these ways. Are you saying all those African HIV-infected men are gay? How on earth could you extract THAT from what I said??? The only other choices you left was that tehy were drug abuses or that they got infected by screwing infected woemen; since you have already precluded the possibility of the latter, that being part of promiscuity, and I assume you don't claim them all to be drug abusers, the ony choice you left was that they are gay. Ummm... no, I wasn't saying that. While HIV can be gotten by non-promiscous, but not monogamous sex, it can only be widely spread by promiscuous sex. Naturally, there are cases of all kinds that can be cited, but they are not the cause of widespread HIV infection. I don't believe promiscuity the right target. You can't stop people ****ing! Promiscuity is not simply ****ing. And do try to rememeber that I corrected myself to the term "protected promiscuity'. If you somehow think promiscuity is more common in Africa than Europe (leading to the higher incidence of aids), you are wrong. Really? Got figures? I don't honestly believe people in Africa are more sexually active than in Europe, if that's what you are getting at. I've just been reading my latest issue of the Economist and it has a rather interesting review of a book, "Lust in Translation: The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee", by one Pamela Druckman. It appears that the author has found some upublished data at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine which shows that the most asulterous countries in the world are in Africa, and the review cites Togo where 37% of married or cohabiting men say that have had another sexual partner in the last twelve months. Also cited are Switzerland at 3% and Australia at 2.5%. Which part "UNPROTECTED promiscuity" is escaping you? Dave, sit down, and relax for a second. The word "unprotected" has recently been added, and makes a hell of a difference. I know that's what you meant, but I didn't. At some point I modified that to "unprotected promiscuity". I'm not sure drug use is necessarily a "lifestyle", but I'll concede the point. Nevertheless, the lifestyle that results in transmision of the disease, aside from dirty needles, is unprotected promiscuity. It's from fluid transmission, not promiscuity. You can be promiscuous as you like if you take precautions, and the risk increase is minuscule. Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here? I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me. I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor. Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity going on. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons". The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the 1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that favored the transmission of the disease. My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot less chance of catching anything else. while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to bet my life on them. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and it would have almost disappeared from the general population, both gay and straight. Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic church doesn't seem to keen on them. I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't stop them shagging around. But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a lifestyle disease. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:31:11 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here? I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me. I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor. Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity going on. OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using them, and they are know to break. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons". The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the 1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that favored the transmission of the disease. My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot less chance of catching anything else. while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to bet my life on them. HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it plus many other nasties. I still can't figure out why this isn't promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer than we have been alive. A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less enjoyable for both sides. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and it would have almost disappeared from the general population, both gay and straight. Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic church doesn't seem to keen on them. I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't stop them shagging around. But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a lifestyle disease. There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:38:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote: Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:31:11 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:32 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:34:03 -0700, Hatunen has scripted: Don't tell me you're agreeing with me here? I might be, in fact it wouldn't surprise me. I simply disagree completely with the notion that promiscuity spreads aids. Ignorance is a far bigger factor. Let's stick with unprotected promiscuity, shall we? Ignorance doesn't matter a whit if there is no unprotected promiscuity going on. OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using them, and they are know to break. I hope you're not trying to justify not using them. OTH having sex once in the wrong way with the wrong person can almost guarantee getting the disease. On an indivudiual basis, that's true, and includes two of the women infected by males that I have cited previously. But If AIDS is not already widespread there won't be many "wrong persons". The 1970s were fabulous fun, but we weren't spreading HIV. I still insist that, as a public health problem, AIDS is a disease of unprotected promiscuity. Unprotecrted promiscuity results in lots of infected people who use drugs and rape people and abuse children. In the USA AIDS became a widespread problem in the 1980s because (1) for a few years no one could figure out what it was and (2) promiscuity was rampant, and not only aomong the gay community, but the gay community was indulgin in behavior that favored the transmission of the disease. My point really is that aids can be damn near halted if the man is circumcised and washes/****es after sex. Any man that does this his whole sexual life has next to zero change of catching aids, and a lot less chance of catching anything else. while I'm sure those actions are helpful I'm nto sure I'd want to bet my life on them. HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it plus many other nasties. As long as you don't have any cuts or lesions or whatever. I still can't figure out why this isn't promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer than we have been alive. A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less enjoyable for both sides. So if you remain monogamous, you shouldn't have to worry. Choosing to focus on promiscuity makes it sound like the disease is selective based on one's moral behaviour, when it is not. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the simple fact is that HIV would be a rare condition in America were it not for the unprotected promiscuity of the early 1980s. That promiscuity has declined considerably since, and, in America, at least, AIDS is declining. Were it not for the effective drug treatments available, I suspect most HIV victims would have died by now and it would have almost disappeared from the general population, both gay and straight. Unprotected. Well condoms are partial protection, but the Catholic church doesn't seem to keen on them. I don't believe discouraging promiscuity is an effective form of halting the disease. You can't stop people shagging, and you can't stop them shagging around. But you can, at least, promote protected promiscuity. But this whole thread was a response to some comments about AIDS being a lifestyle disease. There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation. A lot of people claim it is. I knew that little HIV-infected boy that the Pope kissed on the papal visit to San Francisco a couple of decades ago (the kids's name esacpes me for the moment). The boy had gotten it from a blood transfusion, and his mother really hated gays as a result. Of course, it was probable that the blood used did come from a gay man, it being the early 1980s, but he probably didn't know he was infected when he donated the blood. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:19:35 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted: On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:38:31 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician wrote: OK, but condoms are not such great things. Men especially hate using them, and they are know to break. I hope you're not trying to justify not using them. Just pointing out that they suck. Apparently the pope doesn't believe Africans should use them either. HIV can't penetrate flesh. A wash and a wee will clear any penis of it plus many other nasties. As long as you don't have any cuts or lesions or whatever. That's usually only a problem with anal sex. I still can't figure out why this isn't promoted as a basic form of hygiene. It has been well known for longer than we have been alive. A condom is better, but they aren't reliable, and make the sex less enjoyable for both sides. So if you remain monogamous, you shouldn't have to worry. Well, that's a bit idealistic. People will bonk around. There is a correlation, but that isn't causation. There is also it's correlation with homosexuals, but that too isn't causation. A lot of people claim it is. I knew that little HIV-infected boy that the Pope kissed on the papal visit to San Francisco a couple of decades ago (the kids's name esacpes me for the moment). The boy had gotten it from a blood transfusion, and his mother really hated gays as a result. Of course, it was probable that the blood used did come from a gay man, it being the early 1980s, but he probably didn't know he was infected when he donated the blood. I never figured out why gays bother people so much. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost | Brian K | USA & Canada | 0 | February 8th, 2007 07:35 AM |
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost | Brian K | Europe | 8 | February 6th, 2007 12:50 AM |
AIDS is predominately a lifestyle disease - of fags - Repost | Brian K | USA & Canada | 12 | February 6th, 2007 12:50 AM |