CuriousByNature

Fanciful or not, that is what I remember reading in a guidebook. I think the square may date from the 17th century but was known by a different name originally. The use of 'soho' as a hunting call apparently dated to late 15th century to 16th century Tudor times when that area still had woodlands.

Not sure how accurate this is, but I read somewhere that Soho was once a hunting ground in Tudor times, and that the word 'soho' may have been a hunting cry. There was a square built that was eventually called Soho Square sometime in the mid 1700s, but I don't know if the name of the area came from the name of the square, or vice versa.

They are searching for a way to be relevant. Even though they are no longer part of the inner circle of the Royal Family, they are still magnitudes of degrees better off than the average person, yet they portray themselves as having similar struggles to everyone else. They really seem to be out of touch. I have no doubt their struggles are real, but they are not the same struggles as mine or yours. Part of the issue is that many Americans seem to gravitate towards royalty as if they are trophies, and put them on pedestals to get in their good graces. Harry and Megan no longer have royal gravitas - they are now simply a young, good-looking, rich couple with a family living in a privileged situation. Had they truly wanted to have a quieter life outside of all the limelight and paparazzi, they should have stayed here in Canada. The fact that they chose to live amongst the celebrities in Southern California suggests to me their deeper desire to remain in the public eye but without any duties or obligations that are expected of those who are royal. I wish them well, but I think they need to be more honest about their motivations for the change that they made.

I think I read somewhere that giant sequoias, when fully grown, are very resistant to fires. I can't recall if it is the thickness of the bark that provides the protection, or something else. It's likely General Sherman has withstood numerous fires over the centuries, and hopefully will continue to do so for many more to come.

Even though I am in Ontario, I am not too familiar with how the coverage here is for seniors because all of my relatives have died at home or in the hospital, without going into care. Except for one aunt and one great uncle in BC who had different circumstances. My aunt was quite well-off and went into something called 'independent living' at a pretty posh place when she was in her late 70s. If I remember correctly she was paying about $6,000 per month and it was not subsidized at all because she didn't need care, but chose to be in a place where she could have all her meals made for her, socialize with others, etc. She eventually died before needing any extra assistance. My great uncle was not well off and went into assisted living when he could no longer live on his own. It wasn't by choice, but by necessity. The family was concerned because the costs were normally around $8000 a month and I think his pensions came to less that $2000 or $2500. He was able to get a subsidized room at a care centre for either 85% or 90% of his net monthly income, if my memory is accurate. He ended up needing even more care at a nursing home, and I assume that was subsidized as well. The idea of spending retirement on a cruise ship has it's attractions, but I do not think the various article promoting it tell the whole story. One cannot compare the costs of a nursing home and a cruise - a cruise will not provide the level of support that people in extended care or even assisted living might need. It is more accurate to compare the costs of independent living communities to that of a cruise ship. Even at a posh place, like where my aunt lived, the cost was about $6000 per month. Some cruise companies say that the cruise fare runs around $100-$125 per day, but it is important to remember that these quotes are likely per person, double occupancy. And may be for an inside cabin at those rates. Single supplements are often 100% of the fare cost, so it is likely that a daily rate for a basic cabin could be in the $200 range quite easily, and even $300+ for a balcony stateroom. Then there are port taxes and charges for every leg of the journey that must also be included. Medical care on board may be available, but I do not believe it is generally included in the fare either. Nor are most beverages included on most cruise lines - even most non-alcoholic beverages are charged on lines such as Princess, Holland America and Royal Caribbean. On high-end lines like Oceania, Azamara, and Regent, there are many more things included - but expect to pay closer to $1000 per day. I have heard that a lot of lines have rewards for frequent cruisers, such as free laundry and dry cleaning, but those benefits are likely outweighed by the additional costs such as fuel surcharges, automatic tipping and taking part in the odd shore excursion. I have read that a single person cruising for a year on a mid-range ship, in an outside/balcony cabin (not a suite) should be prepared to spend approximately $100,000-$150,000 per year depending upon their discretionary spending onboard. And no subsidy for those who don't have the necessary income

Thank you 😊 I do what I can 😉

I really hope you meant to write 'draped' instead of 'trapped'. If not, congrats on being able to escape. 😆

But he lived a good, long life. It's not like he was only sixteen going on seventeen. Okay, I'm done. 😉

And their town motto is "Tomball. Texan for fun"... seriously.

Yup... his hills are no longer alive with the sound of music.

I'm hoping he just said he had cancer to throw the person off... fingers crossed.

And the Canadian border agent would answer with, 'YER RAHTS don't matter up here in Canada, eh.'

Looks absolutely nothing like Trini Lopez

So maybe his profile is "young, dumb, and full of.... BS"

I know this is off topic, but where in Croatia were you? It's on my bucket list...

So it is not HIV stigmatization, but rather, assuming a person is guilty of lying/misleading without sufficient evidence. The OP shared his experience, and given that information, people have commented. The OP never identified the provider on this board. If you doubt the truthfulness of his claims that is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are stigmatizing anyone.

Yes, I was also thinking that same thing. Though the OP also asked what he should do and who he might contact, and that has obviously brought out some debate. In any case, I completely agree that the OP's current situation is paramount. And the OP is not trying to shirk his own responsibility in any way - he states that he considers himself at fault for not using PreP. While there is always personal responsibility, we know that it is a two-way street. The other thing that I am mindful of is that there are many people out there who are inexperienced, or may not have knowledge of PreP, etc. These individuals are particularly at risk from those who would mislead them about their status.

Exactly! But apparently we should all give him a 'pass' because he might feel stigmatized. Boo hoo. I doubt he's crying over those he has harmed, and is likely continuing to harm. You hit the nail on the head, @Monarchy79

With all due respect, you appear to be missing my point. The provider is actively deceiving others about something. That is wrong. Thirty years ago his actions would have resulted in people's deaths - thankfully that is likely not the case any longer, given the treatments available today. He should be held to the same standard of truthfulness people would expect of anyone else regardless of his orientation and HIV status. This is not about stigmatizing anyone for their health - it is about calling a lying spade a spade.

I'm not sure how this can be considered HIV stigmatization. The issue isn't that the provider is HIV positive. The issue is that the provider is a deceptive liar who is knowingly putting people at risk. It doesn't matter if it is HIV, tuberculosis, ebola or any other transmissible infection. Hell, in my book the provider is a modern-day Typhoid Mary.

Haha - I wondered if in Australia that means that nobody wears white during the summer. I could live anywhere because I rarely ever wear white anyway - I'm way too clumsy an eater to wear anything that could show stains so easily.

Routledge is awesome - one of the UK's national treasures IMO.

I would think that naming someone could be legally problematic for the OP, but I don't think it would be inappropriate to name the city. My heart goes out to @Jacque. Anyone who knowingly puts others at higher risk is selfish beyond words. Thankfully, as others have noted, treatment options today can give many infected people the same quality of life as those who are negative.

I understand that patients are monitored while on PreP to catch any signs of impact on the kidneys/liver.

Ultimately age is just a number, so if they call themselves 34 when they're actually 44, that might not be a big deal. But using photos from when they were 34, when they are actually 44 and look different from the photos, would be a bigger issue in my opinion.