Why does sex education fail so often?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jeffrey
    replied
    Munch painted screams, not carpets, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodent1
    replied
    Originally posted by Izzycam View Post
    My god Rodent where do you get these sayings from, I didn't have a clue what you were on about until I googled it.
    Tenants, generally ....

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Izzycam View Post
    "Oh aren't there enough aid sufferers yet"

    Jeffrey ,what do you mean by these comments please, I don't know whether I have misinterpreted them but they come across as shortsighted.
    I'm sure that you're not deliberately misunderestanding. It's hardly shortsighted of me, or anyone else, to want the innocent to be protected. The comment which you quote (a protest against another member's reprehensible jibe) was not the first to be taken out of context lately!

    Leave a comment:


  • Izzycam
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    Simple. I do not want more people (of either gender) to die of ignorance. You don't either, I guess. 'Diversity' is of no use to the dead. Why then encourage practices known to involve substantially-increased risk?
    "Oh aren't there enough aid sufferers yet"

    Jeffrey ,what do you mean by these comments please, I don't know whether I have misinterpreted them but they come across as shortsighted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Izzycam
    replied
    Originally posted by Rodent1 View Post
    And what do we encourage the young girls to do ?
    Munch carpets ?

    My god Rodent where do you get these sayings from, I didn't have a clue what you were on about until I googled it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Alfie Patten update

    It wasn't his baby, after all: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8056700.stm
    (Perhaps it was his son who dunnit?)

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    No, I was merely responding to others' posts: #199, #200, #203.
    Your response (above) makes some sense in relation to #199, where the question of STDs is revisited (although not entirely seriously, it has to be said). As a 'response' to #200 and #203, one can but conclude that you have missed the point, or chosen to substitute your own. I would disagree that it is a useful 'response' since it does not engage with what is put forward in those posts; it avoids it.

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    Simple. I do not want more people (of either gender) to die of ignorance. You don't either, I guess. 'Diversity' is of no use to the dead. Why then encourage practices known to involve substantially-increased risk?
    (1) Read alongside your comment in another thread (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...nor#post134575, posts 5 and 6) which seemed to me to imply that homosexuality carried with it connotation of paedophilia, it did not appear to me that your concern was for the sexual health of the participants in the postulated birth-rate reduction experiment (which in any case was probably not meant as a serious suggestion), but was just another example of gay-bashing.

    (2) "Sex" can include activities which do not carry with them a substantially increased risk of HIV transmission.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    It wasn't encouragement. It was a joke, as has already been explained. You chose not to see it as such.
    No, I was merely responding to others' posts: #199, #200, #203.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    Simple. I do not want more people (of either gender) to die of ignorance. You don't either, I guess. 'Diversity' is of no use to the dead. Why then encourage practices known to involve substantially-increased risk?
    It wasn't encouragement. It was a joke, as has already been explained. You chose not to see it as such.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    Oh, aren't there enough AIDS sufferers for your liking yet?
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    How does this comment fit in with LLZ's diversity policy?
    Simple. I do not want more people (of either gender) to die of ignorance. You don't either, I guess. 'Diversity' is of no use to the dead. Why then encourage practices known to involve substantially-increased risk?

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    Originally posted by Rodent1 View Post
    I don't believe a few comments qualifies as "obsess" does it ?
    No, but you made the "carpet munch" comment, Lawcruncher attempted to divert the discussion into a rhetorical cul-de-sac, but you then tried to revive the topic. Not necessarily evidence of obsesssion, but you did seem uncommonly keen to talk/think about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodent1
    replied
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    Quite. And it's sad, frustrated middle-aged men like you who obsess about it.
    When does middle aged begin, and when does it end ?
    I don't believe a few comments qualifies as "obsess" does it ?
    Monday morning and you are as cantankerous as ever

    Leave a comment:


  • agent46
    replied
    Originally posted by Rodent1 View Post
    Agreed !

    And women that munch them !
    Quite. And it's sad, frustrated middle-aged men like you who obsess about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodent1
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    It is mostly men who lay carpets.
    Agreed !

    And women that munch them !

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X