Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Tribesman]

The closeminded the scourge of America! GRIDS? Never heard of it. I was in my teens in the 80's. I remember it as AIDS. Is GRIDS something that was created in your neck of the woods? Just who is 'they'? I also recall a preponderance of AIDS in the gay community as reported and growing more so in the heterosexual community. In the 80's there was very little known concerning AIDS.

Aids replaced grids as a term in the US in about 82 I think.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Aids replaced grids as a term in the US in about 82 I think.

Can not say I have heard AIDS referred to as GRIDS. In 82 the scientific community did not have a name at all for AIDS if I remember correctly. It was possibly proposed to be labeled as GRIDS not as Soopman portends the acronym originated or even adopted. Darn open minded people.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Can not say I have heard AIDS referred to as GRIDS. In 82 the scientific community did not have a name at all for AIDS if I remember correctly. It was possibly proposed to be labeled as GRIDS not as Soopman portends the acronym originated or even adopted. Darn open minded people.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/sc...ficials&st=cse

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/sc...ficials&st=cse

What is your point Mookie? The coined term GRID was hardly visable on the map. Specifically from the closed minded(soopaman) scientists.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What is your point Mookie? The coined term GRID was hardly visable on the map. Specifically from the closed minded(soopaman) scientists.

It was prevalent enough for it to be included in a 1982 article in the New York Times.

Seriously, what is with people around here completely refusing to admit they were wrong about something, no matter how damning the evidence to the contrary is provided? Especially over something so trivial. "I've never heard of it referred to as GRID, it was never called that" *is then provided 1982 article from a major U.S. newspaper referring to researchers calling it GRID* "Yeah, what's your point?"

Sheeshk.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It was prevalent enough for it to be included in a 1982 article in the New York Times.

Seriously, what is with people around here completely refusing to admit they were wrong about something, no matter how damning the evidence to the contrary is provided? Especially over something so trivial. "I've never heard of it referred to as GRID, it was never called that" *is then provided 1982 article from a major U.S. newspaper referring to researchers calling it GRID* "Yeah, what's your point?"

Sheeshk.

The coined term was used less than a year by scientists. Not closed minded American as sooperman suggests.http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=236 Read from my first post a few back. Again, the coined term was hardly visable on the map. In 82 I was 16 years old getting the news on AIDS as it happened. I never heard GRID used when talking of AIDS. SO what is your point? Google works on my computer as well as yours. There are other articles on the subject other than ONE that does what? Proves me wrong.

Sheeezzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x590.htm

The History of AIDS and ARC

The terms AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and ARC (AIDS-related complex) are historical artifacts, dating from the period between the recognition of an immunosuppression syndrome in gay men and the identification of HIV. In 1981 physicians in San Francisco and New York City began to see a pattern of unusual infections and cancers in young and otherwise healthy homosexual men. The first report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) focused on the men's infection with an atypical pneumonia and a cancer that had been previously seen only in elderly men of Mediterranean descent.[133]
Early research quickly pointed to common trends among cases, but these were obscured by many extraneous factors. The most suggestive of these was the use of drugs, such as inhalant stimulants, by some of the affected men. As these leads were being pursued, more cases of the syndrome were diagnosed. While epidemiologically inconsistent with the toxin hypothesis, they had the same distribution as hepatitis B. Many victims were positive for hepatitis B acquired in the bathhouses. The most crucial evidence for an infectious agent was the appearance of the disease in persons who had no visible link with the bathhouses.
While a toxic agent might have caused the disease among homosexuals and intravenous drug users, it did not explain the development of the disease among recipients of blood and blood products. Initially a mystery, these cases were soon traced back to the blood donors: homosexual men dead or dying of AIDS. The traditional test for an infectious agent was satisfied, and the parallel to hepatitis B was complete. When the antibody test for HIV became available, it was found in frozen blood samples that had been saved during the study of hepatitis B in the late 1970s.
There was some controversy over what to call this syndrome. Terms such as GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) were considered but rejected in favor of the more neutral AIDS.134 The CDC promulgated a broad surveillance definition of what it called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome to facilitate the reporting and investigation of this new syndrome:

For the limited purposes of epidemiologic surveillance, CDC defines a case of AIDS as a reliable diagnosed disease that is at least moderately indicative of an underlying cellular immunodeficiency in a person who has had no known cause of underlying cellular immunodeficiency or any other underlying reduced resistance reported to be associated with that disease.[135]
As cases were reported and analyzed under the broad CDC definition, common patterns emerged. It was found that various combinations of unusual infections, indirect measures of immune system function, and a rare cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, characterized most of the reported cases. This lead the CDC to revise its definition of AIDS to reflect the most common manifestations presented by the reported cases.[136] The revised criteria took the form of a list of the unusual infections and cancers, abnormal immune system tests, and other diagnostic findings that were significantly correlated with symptomatic HIV infection.

These revised criteria were sufficiently restrictive to create a class of persons who were infected with HIV and had symptomatic disease but did not meet the CDC criteria for AIDS. These persons were identified as having ARC. Persons with ARC were not reportable, and their numbers did not count toward the CDC's running total of AIDS cases. Persons with ARC also had difficulty in qualifying for categorical programs funded for treating AIDS patients. Moreover, persons who were positive for the then newly discovered HIV but had no symptomatic disease were not reported and followed to track the epidemiology of the disease.
In 1987 the CDC definition of AIDS was broadened to include neurological symptoms, wasting syndrome, and more common infections such as tuberculosis.[137] This redefined many persons with ARC as persons with AIDS. In our view, once it was possible to test for the presence of HIV and it was proved that persons with AIDS or ARC were infected with HIV, then the presence of HIV or its antibodies should have become the reportable condition. Most states, however, persist in requiring AIDS cases to be reported but do not require the reporting of HIV-infected persons. This masks the epidemiology of the disease in women who do not fit the male-oriented standards for HIV.[138] Given that the latency of AIDS may exceed ten years, counting AIDS cases rather than HIV infection makes it difficult to predict accurately the movement of the disease into new population groups. If the CDC again revises the definition of AIDS to include low T4-cell counts, it is estimated the number of persons with AIDS will double.
[133]Karposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among homosexual men--New York City and California. MMWR 1981 Jul 3; 30(25):305-8.
134Shilts R: And the Band Played On. 1987.
[135]Leads from MMWR, current trends; update: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)--United States. JAMA 1983; 250:1016.
[136]CDC: Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 1987; 36(suppl 1S).
[137]CDC: Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 1987; 36(suppl 1S).
[138]Chu SY; Buehler JW; Berkelman RL: Impact of the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic on mortality in women of reproductive age, United States. JAMA 1990; 264:225-29.

[mookiemookie]

I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.

Thanks for the innocent correction.

[Tribesman]

The coined term was used less than a year by scientists. Not closed minded American as sooperman suggests

look at the context there as you appear way off.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I have to point out that as a relative newcomer you, as they say, ain't seen nothin' yet. In the great scheme of General Topics this has actually been fairly tame.

Thanks for the heads up Steve.

Am putting on hard hat and safety goggles for future reading.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.

He'll be back.

Let's play a little drinking game. Everytime Mookie checks this thread after this post; everybody take one drink. Every time he posts after this post everybody take two drinks.

Three drinks if he posts another funny gif.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

look at the context there as you appear way off.

You lost me. Much as I lost you. What's wrong with the context?

[Tribesman]

What's wrong with the context?

It seems he is not going on about closed minded scientists who had quickly rectified their error, he is going on about people who still seem to hold a 30year old erroneous viewpoint.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It seems he is not going on about closed minded scientists who had quickly rectified their error, he is going on about people who still seem to hold a 30year old erroneous viewpoint.

This is how I read the context of soopamans post. However, bundling all "closed minded folks" as believing the erroneous viewpoint does not fly.

[Tribesman]

This is how I read the context of soopamans post. However, bundling all "closed minded folks" as believing the erroneous viewpoint does not fly.

Indeed, but in the context it was used it appeared to be bundling one person on account of their views.