Readers' Submissions

What BKKSW Is Thinking

  • Written by BKKSteve
  • September 29th, 2006
  • 7 min read


By BKKSW

Wow, what a rant from Korski again. Everything from the evils of Zionist Jews to rants about Dana’s fictional accounts of not wearing condoms. (I can picture the spittle flying) Entertaining I’m sure, but some people have trouble distinguishing real life from fantasy and clearly Korski takes himself way too seriously and is way past that blurry line. At least we were spared his “qualification” paragraph(s) about how many students he “lectures” and degrees he holds as a way to bolster his credibility (though he had to slip it in anyway..:), and this time he even posted some links to factual data which I must say is appreciated. However, as I mentioned before out of several million hits on HIV/AIDS on any search engine anyone from any side of any argument could find sources to back up their assertions.

It’s especially effective when you ignore the strong points against your argument and distort the ones you can find something on, especially when the original writer (me) has already shown and agreed on all his major points, only the spin differs. For instance he highlights he point that condoms are very effective (which I’ve already done) and then ignores the part about them not being foolproof. Stunning! Or lectures about the motivation of a pro-life site like I never already said they had an agenda. Geez.. They might have an agenda but they did site a study by the University of Texas: http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html who analyzed ELEVEN DIFFERENT STUDIES to come up with their figure of a 31% average failure rate. Quite a difference between 31% and 2%, but being a reasonable man I realize both sources probably have agendas so mentally I’m going to settle somewhere in the middle of that figure. Maybe towards the high side if using condoms obtained in Asia. Sounds reasonable? For Korski’s benefit let’s go with his 2% breakage rate (using USA sold condoms)? Hmm.. so a 2% change of being exposed to HIV/AIDS assuming the partner you’re with is infected. Hmmm.. choose your universe. If the lottery had such odds I’d be spending my paycheck on lottery tickets.

And no, if you’re waiting for me to call Korski names, associate him to any evil religious order, or paint him to be the devil himself (Chavez already beat me to it earlier this week) you’re going to be disappointed. I simply think he takes things way too personally and is very used to the power and final word of a lectern which is self-illusionary at best. For the record, I have also taught at universities and have several graduate degrees and am currently working on a dissertation for my Ph.D. (You’d never guess the subject..;o) Five universities to be exact, in the states, the U.K. and Asia. The subjects aren’t important, the fact that I’m familiar enough with this type of person is as they often assume they’re the only professor in the room. My beliefs on this subject I’ve backed up with links and data but today I’ll share some personal experience(s). He also makes a big point (but a very old and weak point used when you’ve “got nothin”) that I post anonymously which is true for my regular submissions, but only because I have little interest in the sort of feedback like Korski’s, my days are normally too busy doing productive things. Can you imagine having your inbox fill up with angry rants from self centered egotists? However, anyone paying attention knows how to get a hold of me if they must and many of you know me from other places. Anyway, I’m going to keep things simple.

First, Korski’s original rant centered on my recommendation for monthly HIV/AIDS testing for mongers and branched out into hyperbole from there, so this will be my focus with the exception of one single sidebar. The sidebar first: Korski claims that it’s highly improbable to contract HIV/AIDS through oral sex, sores, or anything but IV drug use and anal sex. This is where I’ll site personal experience(s). I spent three years as a Department Head of a Medical Center, which department isn’t important only that I was involved in all the board meetings, policies, and studies at the highest levels. Hospitals have very strict reporting requirements for ANY possible breech of protocol which results in exposure to HIV/AIDS. Any contact of any body fluids from patient to health care worker or health care worker to patient, that make contact with a sore, eye, mouth, or anything but healthy skin surfaces must be reported. Any accidental pricks from used needles or surgical tools as well. Once reported the exposed person goes through a series of HIV/AIDS testing at 30 days (sound familiar?), 60 days and 90 days and finally at 180 days. If the odds are so slim why do you think they do this? I’ve also been a patient. 38 surgeries and 3 years of rehab. During the first few surgeries I received over 150 units of blood (yes, I know an average human only holds 5 liters but I was ‘leaking..:) After that I researched and learned everything I could about HIV/AIDS, especially after my best friend died of AIDS a year later after receiving tainted blood during a surgery. Does it influence the features I select for my work? Do I err on the side of caution? Without a doubt. After all, it’s my life we’re talking about.. and yours.

Back to my original recommendation for mongers being tested every 30 days that started this entire thing. It was pleasing to note that right after my latest submission the US Centers for Disease Control issued a report recommending HIV/AIDS testing for EVERYONE because: WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government recommended near-universal testing for the AIDS</p>" type="hidden"> News</a> | <a href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=%22AIDS%22&c=news_photos&fr=yqovly2">News Photos</a> | <a href="http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=%22AIDS%22&fr=yqovly3">Images</a> | <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22AIDS%22&fr=yqovly4">Web</a></p>" type="hidden"> AIDS virus on Thursday, saying too many people are missed by the current practice of focusing on people who seem to be at high risk.” If you won’t take my word for it then please listen to perhaps the most knowledgeable institution on the subject in the world. The rest of the article can be read here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060921/hl_nm/aids_testing_dc_1 though it only reiterates what we’ve already gone over on both sides of the issue.

This is my last word on the subject, not much more needs to be said. Korski, I’ll buy you a drink at the get together for submitters just to show you this isn’t personal and I certainly hope you haven’t taken it that way. This is all in fun and for entertainment purposes only. In fact, I’m going to bring you a box of condoms (extra small) just to show you where my heart is…

Until next time…

BTW – For those of you who were thinking of buying the Fuji Finepix F30 but haven’t done so yet you might want to hold off.. maybe. Fuji just announced a new model the F31d due out in November that is basically the same camera with the exception of “Face Priority” focus / exposure which can detect faces and expose for them (letting the background / foreground exposure fall where it may) which takes only .05 seconds to achieve. This new feature might or might not be useful to you depending on your style of photography. The article can be read here. If there are any questions concerning photography I can be reached as usual at [email protected]

Stickman's thoughts:

Ok gentlemen, let's leave this little discussion at that…or you two can revert to email for future exchanges.