sniper

Apparently he only blew a 0.02,which is a quarter of the legal limit. I thought you had to be at least half the legal limit to get charged, but perhaps he had other medications he was on. OR....this was at Sandy Hook, aka the nude beach area of NJ which is pretty cruisy...hmmm....

I wouldn't be sure of that. It was kind of a mindfuck to hit puberty and realize I was gay just as the AIDS crisis hit.

I waver between thinking that and thinking if I had I might be dead.

There used to be a place near MSG that had one pair of booths where the entire window between them could be removed.

I would be shocked if he's under 50. I think he's been around since the first days of the web and was not a twink then.

The idea that it not being curable or having a vaccine yet is evidence of some conspiracy requires believing THOUSANDS of people at various independent research facilities worldwide have all been actively suppressing this cure or vaccine, and that simply makes zero sense whatsoever. Someone would have leaked it out by now.

The idea that it not being curable or having a vaccine yet is evidence of some conspiracy requires believing THOUSANDS of people at various independent research facilities worldwide have all been actively suppressing this cure or vaccine, and that simply makes zero sense whatsoever. Someone would have leaked it out by now.

It's not always girls at the check in from what I recall. I would imagine it's not currently a regular-enough gig that Tim can guarantee who's able to show up on a given night.

It's not always girls at the check in from what I recall. I would imagine it's not currently a regular-enough gig that Tim can guarantee who's able to show up on a given night.

That there are reasons for particular behavior patterns doesn't mean those behavior patterns in themselves don't have consequences. If you drink because your parents didn't love you or you drink just because you like drinking, and get behind the wheel of a car amd crash it, it was still your drinking that caused the accident.

If he tried to get cash for those shares tomorrow he'd get a fraction of that total. Once you're into the billions and your assets are company stock, there's a large error bar around your net worth estimate. Note he has likely borrowed extensively against those shares via margin accounts(one of the ways the rich get richer, avoiding taxes while alive then bumping up the stock basis upon death when they pass it on to their heirs.)

There were multiple factors. This was pretty clearly one of them. It's not a moral judgment on non-monogamy, it's a clinical matter of transmission risk. Absent those large numbers of overlapping/repeating partners the virus would not have spread as widely as it did. A large part of the reason that it didn't get a foothold in the straight population is that straight people in aggregate, even when they have a lot of partners, tend not to go back to past ones(with exceptions obviously), meaning less opportunity for spread.

Yes, but many of those people they were hopping into bed with only had two partners - their spouse and the person they cheated with. What changed in the 70s was many more people with hundreds of partners MANY OF WHOM had a similar number of partners, and then going back to each other periodically. That's where the exponential rise in exposure possibility occurs. When there's a closed chain of partners, even if they're all having sex willy-nilly back and forth, if nobody in that chain is actually infected, it's not a problem. But then there are overlapping chains there's much more opportunity to spread. The 60s and 70s had a large number of people becoming more active, plus a larger portion of them having the means to travel and get those chains overlapping. From a perspective of disease transmission potential, it was just vastly different than prior eras. And it was straight people too. Swingers clubs in the Poconos, Plato's Retreat in NYC...

Well the membership is so cheap you would probably save more than the fee, and you could donate the savings to opposing their agenda. Take em down from the inside...

She had a bit more staying power than that but basically, Superstar for a couple of years in the early 80s, still around in the late 80s, off the (US, at least) charts by the early 90s. I didn't follow her career so other parts of the world may have a different impression.

Sheena Easton was very big for a relatively short time; it's not surprising the world is divided into "who's that?" and "how can you not know?"

The full-moon-less February thing is wrong. Every so many years we have a February with no full moon because the moon takes more than 28 days to orbit the earth. But 1865 wasn't one of them. 2018 was. Also, it's dependent on your time zone. https://www.wral.com/weather/blogpost/4470081/#:~:text=Gene%2C%20thanks%20for%20your%20question,between%20the%20years%201700%2D2035.&text=Since%20the%20next%20full%20moon,moon%20in%20February%20that%20year.

There's the fact that promiscuous people exist, which there always have been, and the fraction of the population that is promiscuous, which didn't really take off until the 70s. That's an exponential jump in exposure opportunity. There's also the fact that most people who got it died of it in somewhat short order. The long haulers were relatively rare. And people didn't always know WHAT people died of back then.

Nobody is taking the time to collect this data. Doctors aren't putting that in the charts, and patients aren't volunteering it, and the virus is currently too widespread and too many people being idiots to pinpoint exactly where they got it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.

You have to remember people for the most part were not nearly as promiscuous back then as people became in the 60s and 70s after the BC Pill and Stonewall. There really was an explosion in the number of transmission vectors. The number of different partners is a huge factor in whether it spreads or not. And while there were certainly some people in all decades who really got around, you still have to have it to spread it.

I almost never see an AARP discount where there isn't also a AAA discount, and you can't stack them, so if you have one you don't need the other for discounts at least. BTW it should be noted that while AARP markets itself to 50 and up, there is no actual age requirement to be a member. So if you're a carless 20something, go ahead and sign up!

You might be better off starting with the Rentmen site, as a significant fraction of those guys have training experience. I would think many would be interested in that kind of gig.

That's possibly the most unflattering picture of his face I've ever seen. Then again maybe his awkward phase is his 20s. I'm not a twink chaser but when he was 18 he was much more easy on the eyes. That happens sometimes...guys who were hot teenagers look bad by 30.

I find this a lottle concerning. If you really don't want sex or a relationship that's one thing, but do make sure you're not just rationalizing, well, chickening out on life. I say this as someone who has realized that's what he's been doing.

I found him extremely attractive until he got those ridiculous forearm and hand tattoos.