Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: PinkNews.co.uk founder records It Gets Better video on being gay, Jewish and condemning gay cures

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Well said, Ben …

    We need more decent and successful people (of all faith backgrounds and none) to speak out and show that being LGBT and out is a good thing …

    Hopefully schools will also be listening and seeking to support rather than condemn young people …

    Powerful and inspiring video …

    It gets better …. is a great campaign …

  2. Spanner1960 3 Feb 2012, 7:30pm

    My ex was gay, Jewish and Indian. Beat that.

    1. I don’t understand? Is there a contest?

      1. Spanner1960 4 Feb 2012, 1:27pm

        Well Cohen appears to think so.

    2. James Pittman 3 Feb 2012, 8:51pm

      People generally belong to loads of different social groups. It don’t think it matters how many we belong to, just as long as people feel comfortable enough to be themselves.

    3. Benjamin Cohen 4 Feb 2012, 12:09am

      As it happens Spanner, I happen to actually be Gay, Jewish, Indian (my late Grandfather was Indian) and disabled (I have MS). Beat that!

      1. Spanner1960 4 Feb 2012, 1:29pm

        Fairy Nuff. I would say “We all have our cross to bear”, but it might offend the religious types. ;)

      2. Sorry to hear about your disability, Ben.

        Fortunately, your speech and your upper body are intact.

        As a Red Cross volunteer swimming instructor in my younger days, I worked with physically disabled men and women (MS, CP, amputees) in the pool where they could enjoy freedom of movement while protected by a flotation device. They loved it, and so did I.

  3. James Pittman 3 Feb 2012, 8:46pm

    Great message for young people. There are so many young people who are gay and religious. Its a shame that some people talk as if the two things are mutually exclusive. My partner is Christian and growing up as a gay Christian was an internal struggle for him. I think young people should know that it’s not just OK to be gay, but it is also OK to be gay and religious and that there will be plenty of people out there who will accept them for both those things.

    1. James Pittman 3 Feb 2012, 8:47pm

      Well not just young people, anyone really I guess!

  4. I don’t believe in forcing my sexuality or life onto others, Ben feels its right for him to do so, fair play, but this ‘its get project’ is just another farce. Sorry no offence but its just not the way to do it, don’t shout about it.

    1. Assuming you are gay …

      Everyone is different …

      I think Ben is to be congratulated for a measured and real contribution that demonstrates that being LGBT is not a choice and is not something to be ashamed of …

      I think talking about ones orientation, appropriately, with respect to ones self and others is a good thing …

      I personally have no shame in being gay … nor do I force my orientation onto others … but if its appropriate to discuss it, then I have absolutely no hesitation in doing so …

    2. Who’s forcing their sexuality onto anyone? Are you being propositioned by anyone gay? Forced at gunpoint to enter gay clubs? Made to sing the opening bars of “YMCA” against your will?
      I think your aversion is not people “forcing their sexuality onto you” but talking about it at all.
      To compare like with like, every day in the office my straight co-workers get to talk about their straight relationships, which straight media stars they fancy, the latest straight rom-com they saw, their various sexual conquests, the list goes on. If I so much as hold my boyfriend’s hand in public I have to brace myself for a torrent of abuse from total strangers.
      But I don’t complain that the straights are forcing their sexuality on me merely by discussing their straight relationships.

    3. Hodge Podge 4 Feb 2012, 12:55pm

      It’s not about you JJ, it’s about the high school kids who have no-one to talk to, who live with homophobic parents and in bigoted communities. If I have a problem with these videos it’s that they tell kids “just wait until you move out” rather than taking steps to improve their life and make connections today, but thank god they exist all the same.

      This is from someone who grew up relying on the internet to keep me sane.

    4. Spanner1960 4 Feb 2012, 1:31pm

      Who is forcing anything? All people want is to be accepted as equals. Or would you think that being turned down for a job because you are gay is “forcing” your sexuality on an employer?

  5. Robin Adams 3 Feb 2012, 10:36pm

    Thanks for this Ben!

  6. Lovely video.

    It would have been nice to mention a support service for atheist young people though. Next video eh?

  7. @ Ben –

    I am delighted to see you doing your share by giving us, the public, an insight into to your own experience.

    :)

  8. Yesterday unfortunately, I was listening to some BBC interviews with discredited therapist Lesley Pilkington promoting her unevidenced theories about homosexuality being caused by some hurt in childhood and how it was possible to steer people away from the gay lifestyle.
    I was trying to discover the outcome of her appeal which was supposed to have been heard on Wednesday but found nothing .

    1. I had a college friend parrot that self-same theory back to me over Christmas, asking if it was true and I was shocked as I always assumed she was less credulous than that.
      She asked me point blank if I’d been abused as a child and if my being gay resulted from it. Could you imagine anyone blurting that out to someone straight as a casual icebreaker? It shows how pernicious these bogus theories are.

      1. Have just posted my views about Lesley Pilkington on this blog I found when trying to find out the outcome of the appeal on the 30th January

        Be interested to see what you guys think:

        http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2012/01/30/lesley-pilkington-gay-conversion-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-67376

        1. Good summary of the main consensus on gay cures, though the main article you linked does seem to push the idea that calling Lesley Pilkington out on her bogus cures was entrapment.
          It begs the question, how else would you discover if she was pushing potentially harmful therapies?
          In mainstream medicine people get struck off for that all the time. You don’t get people complaining that someone was struck off for being caught prescribing an all banana diet as a lukemia cure.

          1. Absolutely Flapjack …

            I think the idea of Patrick Strudwick using entrapment is actually irrelevant to whether the therapy was bogus or not …

            Good investigative journalism has to use subterfuge and covert means to establish the facts of harmful practices. Of course covert journalism should be ethical – and there is nothing in Patrick Strudwicks practices that appears to be unethical, whereas there is much that is immoral in Lesley Pilkingtons practice.

            In mainstream medicine anyone encouraging a patient to engage in such phony practices would rightly be struck off.

        2. Unfortunately, Stu, I went to that site. And I added a humungously long reply. Can I just say thank you for your comment and sorry about mine?

          1. @Dazzer

            I have just gone and read your comment. You have nothing to apologise for.

            Thank you for your comments. They spoke very loudly of the difficulties that some gay Christians experience (sometimes from people with the best of intentions but who are ignorant).

            It will be useful for some people to read your comments.

            Thanks again.

      2. Completely agree.

        It’s a horrible argument that homosexuality is caused by hurt in childhood.

        It obviously isn’t, but people who are gay and suffered hurt in childhood, are the ones who are most likely to be unhappy and therefore struggling with things, so more likely to latch onto the baloney

        When in reality they need help to a) come to terms with being gay, and b) overcome the hurt of their childhood.

  9. Kudod to Ben for putting his head above the parapet and speaking out on these issues which are grist to the mill for PN after all.

  10. Sister Goodlove 4 Feb 2012, 12:24pm

    I want him. He’s gorgeous. And speaks beautifully.

  11. I think the name of this campaign gives false hope.

    It *may* get better, but it depends what you’re hoping for and how much upheaval you’re prepared to endure in order to achieve it.

    And there are some things that can’t change or get better at all~

    1. I entirely disagree, Peter

      When I was younger I was ashamed and frightened of my orientation … if I had known of real, level headed, successful gay people who I could relate to and aspire to emulate – then my angst would have been improved …

      We have a responsibility to help young people (and older people) who are disillusioned, confused or in despair due to their orientation …

      When you have comments such as those of the Archbishop of York and the Rabbi whose article is published on PN … its imperative there is (at least) balance to give real and reasonable perspective …

      Its not about giving young or old people false hope – its telling them how it is for some people. It isnt always the guilt trip, difficult, negative issues that some like to perpetuate, being gay does not stop success, does not stop one being happy, does not stop fulfillment – its the attitudes that others have about LGBT issues that cause such negativity – we need to counteract that, as Ben has …

      1. You again~

        You entirely disagree, but are you sure you even countered anything I said~

        I know it isn’t actually about giving false hope.. I get that it’s meant to be encouraging and what not.

        But the name states an absolute which isn’t at all necessarily true, I’m just saying~

        1. @Peter S

          Me again, yes ..

          I do entirely disagree …

          I gave some reasons why I disagree …

          You clearly don’t agree with me, and thats fine

          Thats called right of reply #justsaying

          1. But you didn’t disagree with me at all by any of those so-called reasons you gave.

            And who said I disagree with what you said?
            Positive role models – good. Helping people – good. Combating anti gay people – good.

            Have another look at what I actually said, and if you have something to say about that, say it. Otherwise create a new message of your own and not a reply to mine.

            You don’t have to send a reply if you have nothing relevant to add, you know.

          2. I have disagreed with you Peter …

            I gave reasons as to why I think the campaign is good

            I think the title of it is edifying …

            If you don’t thats fine … You have said so, and I am merely articulating my views (something we are both entitled to do)

          3. Talking about why the content of the campaign is good has nothing to do with what I said, and therefore didn’t disagree with me.

            In your mind, I said something negative and you said something positive, and you seem to think that constitutes a disagreement, but it doesn’t work like that.

            I only spoke of the name of the thing, which you may well find edifying, but is not an absolute truth. That was all~

          4. @Peter

            Please do not tell me what I think and dont think.

            I find your position wrong.

            Thats my view, yours is different.

            I gave some reasons as to why I find the campaign beneficial (you may agree with some of those) – whether or not they prove my disagreement with you is not the point.

            I disagree with you. I feel the campaign is useful and the title is helpful and beneficial.

            If you disagree on the title then so what … if you agree with the content?

            If it matters prove how the title is disillusioning …

          5. No no no. That isn’t how it goes.

            I make a remark about how the title is not an absolute truth. Merely this and nothing more.

            If you so want to ‘disagree’ with me, you have to explain how that statement is false. Nothing else counts as disagreement here.

            Basically I made the remarks because it doesn’t get better for me, and nothing in any of it would have helped me at any point in my life..

          6. hey u guys ……. it may get better for some but not for others.

            In fact it may get worse for some ..

            But wouldn’t you ‘ave thought after the suicides of at least two kids who made videos backing this It Gets Better Campaign that Benjamin would have known better than to associate his thoughtful and helpful video with a campaign which takes as its starting point (its very axiom) Society’s prejudice // heteronormativity // heterosexism // homophobia

            When Stonewall sought to appropriate the kudos of this USA campaign — after the train wreck of their disgraceful battle _against_ (if you don’t mind) same sex marriage – at least they were aware of the implications of It gets Better. Hence the modification to It Gets Better Today. But, if you think about it, that’s a kludge that doesn’t work at all. Just a papering over the problem of taking for granted the widespread prejudice which exists

          7. @Peter S

            You keep saying it could never get better for you being gay …

            Why?

          8. @Hari – All so very true.
            __________________________

            @ Stu – I can’t be bothered with all that here, just accept that that is how many of us feel.

          9. @Peter

            Perhaps you should accept that it can be good for many of us and its a good thing to try and encourage others …

          10. I think if you scroll up a bit, you’ll find I never said otherwise…

            Why do you always have to reply when you have nothing relevant to reply about?

            Just do one will you~

          11. Ah well, you are entitled to your subjective view … I and others perceive it differently and are perfectly entitled to comment so … whether you like it or not …

            Why did you feel the need to add a negative comment on the title of the programme ….

            It was a non-comment …

          12. Though we are indeed each entitled to our own subjective views, I haven’t expressed any subjective point of view here. Yet another randomly superfluous comment, how tiresome~

            The statement that it is not necessarily true that being gay gets better is entirely objective, and not subjective. If you wish to disagree with the objectivity of that statement, you need to explain why it is actually an absolute that being gay definitely gets better..

            I initially posted the comment because it applies to my own experience, which at the time I decided to express.

            Note how I didn’t post it as a reply to any message you had sent, because it had nothing to do with you. What I don’t get is why you doggedly have to reply to me with things that have no bearing on anything I have said..

            Why are you getting poised as you read this to write yet another non-reply to my supposed non-comment? What is the point. What is it with you…

          13. @Peter

            Strange how when posting my own experience (which was the first thing I mentioned in response to your comment) its irerelevant …

            Its quite clear from you previous comments on PN as long as someone either agrees with you or shares your experience, they can mention it … but if someone dares to point out something linked to the same subject – their opinion is irrelevant if its not identical to your own …

          14. I thought you would pick up on the word ‘experience’..

            Of course the difference is I only used my experience to make an unchallengable point (that being gay doesn’t necessarily get better).

            You constantly reply with your experiences in an attempt to undermine other people messages. I don’t go around doing that.

            In your experience, being gay gets better. In mine, it doesn’t. Therefore my point still holds that being gay may get better, but may not. It is not an absolute.

            It’s an unassailable point~

          15. Peter S, you should respect the fact that PN forums belong to Stu, who holds the balancing judgment on all topics under discussion.

            Stu’s monopoly of these forums renders their impartiality zilch and damages PN’s credibility as an open and balanced forum.

            Stu is the unofficial self-appointed site moderator, like it or not, and his left-wing, PC, never-to-be-disputed vision of the world is final on all matters, period.

            PN will even indulge Stu from time to time by publishing articles of his that describe ways to isolate those who, he perceives, steps out of line.

            Remember that.

          16. I should also point out that if someone dares question, maintains a stand or holds fast against his tiresome nit-picking, Stu is likely to resort to desperate measures by unleashing his attack dog, W6_Dalek.

            W6 has the unique ability to be simultaneously ferocious and harmless, and I suspect he is stirring from his slumber even as I type.

            5-4-3-2…

          17. @Samuel B

            No I was up early this morning for my hospital appointment … have done some voluntary work and about to settle into some writing … will occasionally peruse PN and probably add some comment …

            Since you seem so concerned about my daily routine, more than happy to keep you abreast of what I get up to … You seem to be so focussed on me as an individual…. Seems not to correlate with the impression you seek as someone high powered in retail and with such a busy social and sex life that you seem so keen to share …

            Again, won’t be perpetuating a debate with you Samuel … single comments to you (regardless of what you say …. not going to play your games!)

          18. Hospital appointment? Tick

            Voluntary work? Tick

            You certainly know how to go after the sympathy vote, I’ll give you that.

            I just find it odd how some seem to need to keep reminding everyone how charitable and virtuous they are.

            Genuinely virtuous people, of course, have humility and go about their angelic work quietly because the reward they receive on a spiritual level is enough for them.

            But nice to know you are getting out more these days and finding less time to devote to PN, as recent site stats indicate; down from 450-odd postings 2 weeks ago to just 380 postings this past week.

            Assuming you only devote 8 solid hours a day – not 12, as I recently speculated – to posting to PN seven days a week, last week you averaged one post EVERY 9 MINUTES, which BEATS your previous week’s record of one post every 12 minutes!!

            Keep going, Stu. At this rate you’ll be responding to your own posts an no one else will get a look in edge ways!!

          19. Peter asked:

            “Why are you getting poised as you read this to write yet another non-reply to my supposed non-comment? What is the point. What is it with you…”

            Because, Peter, that is what Stu does, to just about everyone. And thank God I am not the only one any longer pointing this out.

            He goes on and on about balance, but what is balanced about these comment forums when he haunts them morning, noon and night and moderates, sorry, hogs the debate and ensures it maintains a left wing PC bias by challenging any dissent with endless, meaningly questions?

            He is like a robot fed a limited amount of data, but as far as Sta is concerned that data is the sum total of all knowledge that ever existed.

            And don’t even get me started on how he unleashes his inarticulate pit ball, sorry, Dalek, when someone dares to step out of line and maintain a stand against his nonsensical PC filtered verbiage…

          20. What part of “back off” don’t you understand Samuel? You are the aggressor here no one else. You are the resident bully and I intend to stand up to you whoever you choose as your next victim.

            First me then Stu and probably countess others in the past, you have no shame or sense of responsibility.

          21. “Rob, Will, Jock S Trap, James E, Riondo, Roland, Danlad72, and myself that makes 8 not including Stu……….are all eight of us wrong I wonder?”

            Sorry while I split my sides laughing!!!! It’s just saying all those names in one breath, like when you say “Mork & Mindy”, “Abbot & Costello” and “Pinky & Perky”. Just can’t help myself.

            All cut from the same PC cloth, of course, and two words spring instantly to mind. “Lynch”. “Mob”.

            With a rag bag army like that behind you, of course, the battle has long been signed and sealed. That’s why W6 scrambling around in utter desperation while consulting the PC book of dirty tricks yet again to see what below-the-gutter level tricks are left, if any.

            Someone buy the boy a mirror, quick!

          22. Interesting that you have delieratley posted this reply in the wrong thread, but I guess it is to be expected given how devious you are Samuel.

            As I say the truth will out in the long run – I have no time for bullies who think they are better than anyone else. You are just a pathetic West End shop boy who is full of his own self importance with a bad attitude.

            Take the hint and back off bully boy your worldview is not welcome here as I have demonstrated.

          23. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 1:04am

            That’s all from The Hinge & Brackett show tonight, folks.

            Sleep tight!! :)

          24. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 8:17pm

            “I have a science degree, I have studied HIV and I continue to keep myself well informed – what is so wrong with this? ”

            Partly because you contradict yourself and your own opinions conflict with each other, that’s why!!!

            On the one hand you try to make HIV seem like a normal condition because the drugs are so wonderful that people suffer no more nasty effects.

            Why? Because you claim not to suffer any nasty side effects. Well, lucky you, W6. In reality different combos work for different people in different ways.

            No two people will react in exactly the same way, and a lot of HIV positve men ARE suffering terrible withdrawals and toxic load from these drugs.

            But the most blatant contradiction is your mental condition, which itself can be a significant symptom of using these drugs, at worse HIV-related dementia.

            Even without the drugs gay men can develop mental problems due to the intense depression inherent with an HIV diagnosis.

            You can’t have it both ways, W6…

          25. Where have I ever suggested I make the claims about meds are based just on my own experience – never is the answer, you assume this, whereas I have said many times I base my opinion on the views of 600+ individuals that post on a UK based forum, some of which have been +ve for 25yrs or more, experience from close friends and of course expert opinion.

            Which cohort of +ve men are you referring to, which study are you quoting from? It is really idiotic to make such a general statement and not be able to back I up. Which medications are you referring to, are there any underlying health conditions in this cohort you quote.

            How long have they been on this toxic treatment, I could go on and on but it falls on deaf ears. I have qualified the effect of meds on individuals many times, but you ignore this. Provide the proof about HIV related dementia and HIV drug induced dementia, but please choose evidence that is based on the UK health system…….

          26. …..only 45% of diagnosed individuals with HIV in the US are in continuous care, which means very much poorer outcomes through poor adherence, the use of older medication due to cost, and the development of drug resistance.

            This is in stark contrast to the UK in 2012. You seem to suggest that all clinicians are giving false hope and that there is no detailed monitoring – this simply is not true.

            I have gone through this ad nauseum but you are the expert on these matters not the clinicians, the health advisors or indeed the 600+ indviduals that confirm that modern treatment is effective, and in the majority of cases is free of any short term or longer term debilitating side effects.

            Provide your proof that I am wrong and I will publicly apologise to you, but do provide evidence as things like this cannot be proven on common sense or gut feelings……I look forward to reading your evidence and clinical findings!

          27. Yadda, yadda, yadda…

          28. I rest my case Samuel…….put up or shut up!

    2. So it would appear you are keen to sustain and perculate a message of being gay a negative thing …

      Whereas I am keen to promote the optimism and life enhancing experiences that I have had being gay (and many many others also have)

      Thats not a bad thing …

      You may call your opinion realism … I call it negativity …

      I give a counter view (not necessarily on the specific points, but nonetheless related) – you don’t like it … fine …

      My experience and that of many others is different to yours – and theres no reason to assume that other gay people will not have a happy and fulfilling experience because of or in spite of their orientation

      1. No. Just no. Are you simple?

        I didn’t even give any opinion here.. being gay may not get better for everyone. This is fact, not opinion~

        Your messages would be relevant if I had said being gay doesn’t get better for anyone.. But I didn’t say that, and you’re making yourself appear foolish~

        1. Ah well, c’est la vie …

          If you don’t think saying “I think the name of this campaign gives false hope. It *may* get better, but it depends what you’re hoping for and how much upheaval you’re prepared to endure in order to achieve it. And there are some things that can’t change or get better at all~” is expressing an opinion, then your definition of opinion is somewhat different to the one in my dictionary …

          Seems you have friends in Samuel B …. you certainly don’t need enemies with friends like him …

          1. Dictionary.com defines opinion as:

            1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
            2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

            My original message was an opinion in the sense of definition 2, but not in the sense of definition 1 – which is the sense you are talking about.

            ‘It gets better’ stated in these absolute terms is an (foolish) opinion, because it is demonstrably false.

            However what I said is manifestly true – and therefore not merely an opinion.

            You will inevitably ask for my proof of this, but that’s just silliness. You really are away with the fairies if you need evidence of a case where being gay doesn’t get better~

          2. @Peter

            No I’m not going to ask you for proof

            If you want to live in a mire of pessimism thats for you to choose

            I have pplenty of evidence from my own experience and almost everyone I know who is gay that It gets better ….

          3. Judging by the comment ratings, it seems likely that plenty of people agree with me too…

            Which means my point STILL holds.

          4. @Peter

            Comment ratings are easily manipulated …

            Even if they are not manipulated (which given one of the contributors I suspect they are) then it makes no difference to me … I am happy in my own skin, don’t seek approval from anyone, confident in my opinions and happy to learn where I make errors – but based on evidence …

            No matter how the thumbs etc go, my opinion can be changed if there is good reason otherwise my opinion is mine – some will disagree, some will not – both positions may (and potentially some middle ground) may well be valid – all are opinions that can be voiced, provided they are not hateful …

            Unfortunately, some commentators on here prefer to concentrate on personal demeaning remarks – that speaks more of them, than of me …

          5. But in this case here, it is true with 100% certainty that being gay does not get better for everyone, and hence the name of the ‘it gets better’ campaign is not as absolute as it sounds.

            This was my only point, and it is undeniably true. You can’t deny it with any reasoning, you just don’t like it because it sounds negative. But it is still the truth.

          6. With all due respect Peter S why are you trying to put a negative spin on this worthwhile project. You seem totally caught up in absolutes, as was shown in your criticsism of the way the HPA report thier statistics. Whilst we are all entitled to our opinions it seems to me that you only wish to engage to criticsise and detract from the important central point.

            Nothing in life is absolute, and to be so small minded to try and detract from a very worthwhile project is frankly pathetic! The title does not imply that it gets better for everyone and to suggest that inserting the word It “may” get better is hardly a stronge slogan of hope.

            Perhaps if you were not such a selfish, closetted gay man and embraced your sexuality you may see things from a very different prespective!

          7. …..and if you want to engage in ratings I suggest you look at the wider level of interest this campaign is getting on Twitter. Social networks juch as Twitter can make a big difference in the world we live in, much more so than your quest for absolutes and pedantic view of life.

          8. @W6_bloke – I was just thinking aloud~ I said something negative because I felt negative~

            You saying there are no absolutes in life only backs up what I have said here and in that other HPA thread you mention. People speak in absolutes where there are none, and it gripes a bit.

            I wasn’t suggesting any change they should make to the name of this campaign though, I wasn’t offering a solution~

            PS. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

          9. And I only mentioned the ratings to help make the point that apparently there are others for whom being gay doesn’t get better. It supported my position and so was relevant.

          10. Perhaps it would have been helpful to have explained earlier that you were “thinking aloud” as this may have qualified the reason why you made your comment, which on the surface does appear to be very negative.

            It is very unfortunate that you feel “hope” is the first step to disappointment.

            On the subject of ratings sadly you will find that there are individuals who like to manipulate the ratings where they have an issue with a particular contributor – both myself and Stu have been the subject of this practice, so sadly I would suggest that there is no absolute in the ratings your comments have received.

          11. I wasn’t aware of the ratings manipulation. I don’t normally pay any attention to them anyway.

            But even without manipulation, I was aware that just because someone agrees with my point, it doesn’t necessarily mean it applies to them.

            I only meant to suggest that it might be indicative that I’m not the only one for whom being gay doesn’t get better, it doesn’t count as evidence.

            But I don’t even feel evidence is required here anyway~

          12. @Peter

            I wasnt trying to attack you personally, merely expressing an opinion (off the cuff) …

            We both have personal views and both are relevant

            My impression is that your view of being gay is a negative one (I may be wrong) … My view is that it can be negative, but that much of being gay is something to celebrate and be optimistic about. Thats my experience. Your experience is yours. Its sometimes useful to contrast different experiences to have a more holistic view.

            Nonetheless the comments were off the cuff.

          13. The problem with you Stu is that you broaden an argument beyond what is being discussed by the other party without even acknowledging that that is what you are doing~

            Once and for all, if you come back to read this again, do you disagree that being gay may not get better for everyone?

            If so, I’ll just have a little laugh at you and move on.

          14. @Peter

            Such an adult approach “I will have a little laugh at you” … no wonder you see things negatively if thats your attitude to life …

            It can get better for anyone being gay *IF* they choose to deal with any of the baggage that either they or society cause them to have in relation to it …

          15. lol

          16. Samuel B. 7 Feb 2012, 7:42pm

            Don’t be intimidated by Stu and his rabid lap dog W6_Dalek and stick to your guns, Peter S.

            Unofficial PN site moderator Stu would nit-pick at every last atom of flesh on your bones to enforce his PC worldview on everyone who visits these forums.

            And he and W6 gang up on anyone who dares put an opposing viewpoint across.

            Same old tricks, and same old manipulation of the thumb ratings the minute W6 rears his ultra-shrill head.

            Same old same old, only thing is the pair of them have used the same old tricks too many times now and are exposed for the left-wing PC disinfo shills they really are.

            It’s all getting a little boring now. Zzzz…

          17. Back off Samuel your personal comments are not required here so move along and have your pissing contest elsewhere.

          18. If you have nothing to add to this debate (and I note you have commended Ben on this initiative) why are you making these personal comments??? I do not remember referring to you personally in this particular comment thread!

          19. @W6_Bloke

            Thanks.

            Some people … their behaviour is so clear and they indict themselves by their own words – engaging them in argument is a waste of time … and just plays to their games …

            I’m not going to play Samuels little infantile games any more … but neither is he going to bully me or intimidate me into changing my commentary or style … if he doesnt like what I say or how I say it, tough … I don’t need his approval or consent to say anything.

          20. I can see how you two make poor Samuel feel the way he does..

          21. Samuel is a bully through and through who thinks he has carte blanche to make personal comments based on his speculation and gut feeling of others, he is not interested in balanced debate borne out of evidence and research.

            By all means form your own personal opinion but you may want to hold your judgement until you see him in full flow.

          22. Can you point out exactly where I have been personal, W6? All observations I have made of you are based on the evidence you present based on your rantings, I mean postings.

            You come across as someone foaming at the mouth and who doesn’t engage the brain before you open it most of the time, hence the pit ball/Dalek references.

            You are clearly here to shill for Stu because you manage to find your way into these obscure recesses on the forums long after these articles have moved off the main page – and lo and behold, that’s also when the thumb scoring goes haywire!!!

            Simply objectionable to then accuse others of using your dirty manipulative tricks.

            You’ve called me many vile personal names on other forums, and you even resort to calling Peter “selfish” and “closetted” in this discussion. Where’s your evidence to back this up based on what he has posted?

            Exactly. What a nasty piece of work you are, and great to see your alliance with Stu crumbling at the foundations for all to see.

          23. @ Samuel Are you just plain stupid of have the skin of a rhino? You are not particularly well liked on this site, I can name at least half a dozen commentators who have made comments about the way you troll these threads.

            You are the only commentator on this site that has made personnel comments about me that are frankly bordering on hate and ridicule. In my world this is not acceptable, but you call this being PC amd think you can get away with it.

            This is why I dislike you so much, and anyone who thinks the Internet gives them free reign to be so personal deserves to be challenged – so take the hint.

          24. “if he doesnt like what I say or how I say it, ”

            Stu STILL doesn’t get it. It’s not what he says or how he says it; EVERYONE has a right to express their opinion. No, it’s his constant blitzing of this site with endless cross-questioning fired at anyone he disagrees with until they back off.

            Stu, people are fed up with your monopolisation of these forums. These forums are intended to be open and impartial, geddit?

            You have made these boards all about you and your opinions, and anyone who dares disagree with you or put an alternative opinion across had better be warned because you just will not back off.

            That is not just grossly unfair; it borders on bullying, intimidation and harrassment because the intention is to provoke and antagonise.

            It is the same method used in PC groupspeak training, where those who question the PC concensus are verbally beaten until they submit and get into line.

            Well most of us choose not to conform to the PC line and are telling you enough is enough!!

          25. “…you are not particularly well liked on this site, I can name at least half a dozen commentators”

            For clarity’s sake, W6 can only actually name two other people – Will and Rob – who are part of the rag bag crew that spring up the shore up the loony PC brigade whenever Stu is out in force.

            In previous “debates” I have had with Stu and where W6 has butted in, I have had vocal support from PN stalwarts, and the thumbs-up have gone in my favour.

            Conversely, therte has been no one defending Stu, and as soon as W6 is summoned to the scene the thumbing system, as I say, goes haywire.

            I don’t know how he does it because the system is robust enough not to be manipulated from computers using the same network, and so it is not a question of nipping down to the cyber cafe as is the usual stock in trade for the likes of W6.

            Indeed I am submitting a complaint to PN based on PDF evidence I have accumulated to show how the thumb-scoring rapidly changes as soon as W6 arrives on the scene.

          26. Generalisations again Samuel “most of us choose not to conform to the PC line” who are these individuals Samuel, you are the only commentator I know who constantly goes on about PC……..name your supporters or just shut up – now prove the point that “most” agree with you by naming commentators who consistently agree with you!

            You will decline this request as you always do when pushed provide factual evidence!

          27. For clarity sake here is the list of individuals who are not your fans Samuel:
            Rob, Will, Jock S Trap, James E, Riondo, Roland, Danlad72, and myself that makes 8 not including Stu……….are all eight of us wrong I wonder? I think the only commentators who have supported you Samuel are Spanner, James! And now possibly Peter S.

            Certainly in James! he tends to get negative comments as does Spanner.

            This is proof you are not as well liked here Samuel as you suggest – but exaggeration has always been your mode of operation.

            “The truth will out”

          28. Samuel makes his behaviour perfectly clear without anyone else even having to say a word …

            I am more than appreciative of the many words of encouragement and thanks that I receive on here …

            But thats not why I am here … nor is it to play games with people determined to character assassinate based on their gut feelings (and presuming everyone else agrees with them – I don’t see everyone queuing up to support those who wish to ridicule me) – not that it matters …

            Why am I here … because I enjoy debating the subjects – no more no less …

            Samuel means nothing to me – he is but a clanging emptyness in the wind and he can play all he likes it has no impact on me … and nor will he …

            Sigh

          29. I totally agree with you Stu, and I think you are held in high regard by the majority of contributors / readers. Samuel is a nuisance and I really cannot abide his bullying and devious tactics.

            I have strong views on certain subjects, but never ave I witnessed such hostility from one individual it has been a real wake up call for me.

            I am careful to debate my chosen subjects in a factual & responsible manner, yet this seems to be the reason Sam B has been so vitriolic towards me, and latterly yourself.

            That’s it from me on this particular thread.

          30. I seem to find myself agreeing with everything Samuel just said – I had already noticed every bit of it for myself~!

            It’s all very well putting forward an opposing point where there is room for one.. But Stu keeps coming back to talk about random drivel that has nothing to do with everything and then W6 eventually turns up to support him in some coarse fashion..

            Some of us have a negative feeling about certain things that we may wish to express openly for which we cannot be told we are wrong..

            There’s no harm in countering a negative view with a positive one, but don’t present it as a rebuttal if it isn’t one. It just gets ridiculous, like treading water.

          31. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 8:36am

            Thanks Peter. The only reason people like us are pointing this out now is because it has become so transparent that there is an agenda at play to subvert debate and toe anyone dissenting against the PC “group think” concensus into line.

            That’s how it works on similar boards the world over, and how the PC lobby that numbers an extreme minority sets out to convince people that their narrow, blinkered and inherently destructive worldview is the general, mainstream one.

            W6’s interest here, as well as providing back up to the likes of Stu, is tied to the HIV lobby and hammering their PC “groupthink” line whenever an thread appears.

            Yeah, like me you feel gnawed away at because that’s how they challenged all opposing viewpoints; by nit-picking and cross-questioning you until you give up or toe the line.

            Well, about time more people are seeing through this charade, but this is just the beginning. W6 is wrong on most things but even he astutely observes, above:

            “THE TRUTH WILL OUT”…

          32. @Peter

            If saying that “It gets better” for me and many people is drivel … then it speaks volumes of you and your attitudes …

            If you support Samuel paranoia that I seem to “control” and “unleash” w6 on here … when I have no idea who he is and only ever spoken to him on here … If you endorse his insulting attitude using name calling as means of scoring points eg “dalek” …. if you support gut feeling approaches rather than actually providing evidence to support your argument … if you support his manipulation of arguments (without facts) … if you support his bullying and aggression … if you believe his attitude is appropriate …

            Well it speaks volumes and demonstrates neither of you have the decency to be calm, measured or approach a discussion in an honourable manner. Instead preferring personal attack, to demean others and score right wing agenda points whilst claiming others are doing the opposite (when in fact my politics are not left wing or PC) …

            I’m not …

          33. … going to let Samuel play games with my comments any longer … in the past I have bitten and responded, and this is also the last time I play games with his lackeys (like you) …

            I may be posting less this week – thats because I am busier …and most of the subjects are less interesting to me this week …

            No one, not Samuel, not you, not anyone else will dictate which stories I will comment on, what I will say or how often I will comment …

            I do not back down to bullying , aggression or intimidation tactics. Its the typical bluster and bullying of right wing agitators that Samuel displays – it makes me laugh at the ridiculous charade he engages in – particularly as my politics are not those his gut feeling makes him assume.

            I hope some day, Peter, that you are able to adjust your world view (with or without help) to see that being gay does get better (and that this includes you).

          34. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 9:18am

            PS: Just to warn you of another trick the PC militia pull to diminish all opposition:- everyone who disagrees or dissents with their worldview/agenda is really just one stupid, ignorant person acting under a multitude of aliases to reinforce his delusions.

            That’s right Peter, “or should I say Samuel B”, or just about everyone else who is not a programmed PC shill. We are all one and the same person!

            I have actually been contributing to these threads under my name for about four years now, for the record.

            By contrast W6 is a recent recruit to add to a rank of vicious, mlitantly left wing baiters that also include the likes of Rob and Will.

            Shill and bait while you still can, guys…

          35. Don’t be silly Stu..

            Saying that ‘it gets better’ being gay for you and many others isn’t the part that’s drivel.

            It’s drivel when you say it gets better for everyone~ For some people they would need to dump all their old friends and/or family and get an entirely new set of people in their life.. And that can be so much upheaval and strife that it doesn’t even count as ‘getting better’ at all…

            You can post as much as you like here, I wouldn’t even want to tell you not to~~ But I feel you shouldn’t just reply to ‘disagree’ with someone when you have nothing that contradicts what was said, that’s ridiculous Stu..

            And btw, it’s also silly to say it *will* get better if you deal with your baggage about being gay, and if you deal with how society makes you feel..

            It can cause problems for you with friends, family, other people you meet and have to deal with in life.

            You’re basically saying it will get better if you just get over all the things that ruin your life… yeah great~

          36. @Peter

            No thats not what I am saying …

            I am saying being gay is not something that has to be a negative thing …

            Thats a choice everyone makes …

            I used to believe it was negative, I used to believe that I would get a negative reaction from many people … My experience is my fears of the negative reactions were not those I encountered … Many friends and other gay people I know also had imagined negative experiences which turned out to be far from the truth …

            As for saying it is “silly” to say if you “get over” things that it gets better … I would regard that as not being silly but a psychological fact …

            Having had a lot to get over in the past few years. its an immutable fact, in my experience …

          37. So it got better for you and your gay friends.. that’s great Stu. How wonderful for you all.

            I already know full well how all my straight friends regard it. They are very demeaning and derogatory about it. It would change things with us. I have even been brave enough to argue with them about it in the past and the best I could argue them down to is ‘I don’t care what the gays do, but they’re just… ‘wrong”.

            And that’s just one example…I could just drop them as friends, and be forced to ‘get over it’. But that wouldn’t make me feel like it got better Stu.. In that case I’d say ‘it got worse’…

            Just because your experience was that it got better, doesn’t mean it will for me or others. Hence, It may get better, it may not. You can’t use your experience to disprove mine.

            Whether or not it gets better is a personal evaluation. You can’t insist that it will get better. It just doesn’t work like that, unfortunately.

            I really don’t see why you refuse to accept that~~

          38. @Peter

            I have never tried to use my experience to disprove yours …

            Nor would I, because they are unique situations …

            Equally you can not use yours to disprove mine … they are still unique situations …

            You know, you may be right about the reaction that you may get from your friends … you may not …

            I thought my parents would disown me from comments they had made in the past and repeated … they loved my ex … they are 100% behind me … and it was not the scenario I expected when I both came out and later introduced them to my bf …

            Not to say that your experience will necessarily be different to that which you reasonably expect (but it might …) …. It might also help you be comfortable in who you are …

            Thats a decision for you …. and I hope you don’t regret making the choice you make …

            You may not like my comment in response to yours … but nonetheless it is my view …

            I wholly support Bens comments in his video and I strongly believe that …

          39. … it can and does get better for most people …

            They will be exceptions that make the rule, maybe you are one of them …

            I strongly believe they is nothing wrong with being gay … It is a fantastic thing … I love being gay … Those who do experience problems with it (and I used to have severe angst about it) are largely due to either others attitudes or perceptions of what others attitudes will be ….

            It gets better …. if you want it to … for most people …

          40. Well you had been refusing up until now to accept it may not get better for everyone.. And I’m pretty sure you did put forward your own experience as your reasoning, which I told you you cannot do. I never tried to do that

            There have already been 2 openly gay people around my group of friends over the years, and they both got left in the cold. They weren’t accepted into the core group. And as I explained, they have made their feelings towards gays very clear. It’s just something to mock and ridicule to them. They would look at me with different eyes, it’s a certainty.. To them, gays are not even real men.

            And you can’t say it will get better for ‘most’ gay people either.. You can’t back that up. I would accept ‘many’ or ‘some’, but not ‘most’. That’s too bold a statement because it is an unknown.

            But now that you accept that it might not get better for everyone, which was just obvious from the start, wasn’t this whole thing pointless? How silly to have spent so long trying to deny~

          41. While I think about it, I don’t think being gay is negative, and yes it is pretty much all about other people’s attitudes. That is the whole problem. And you can’t always change that. Sometimes you’re just stuck with the problem.

          42. @Peter

            I don’t regard it as pointless in either of us portraying our views … you may disagree, but I think expressing views openly and honestly is a good thing

          43. So you still genuinely believe it was worth a shot to try to deny over and again that being gay definitely gets better for everyone..?

            Even though you have finally acknowledged that it (obviously) isn’t true.. It still seems like it was worth a shot to you..?

            wow…

          44. Correction:

            So you still genuinely believe it was worth a shot to try to *insist* over and again that being gay definitely gets better for everyone..?

          45. In that case we didn’t actually have a disagreement at all! I don’t deny you any of the points you make there.

            But because my sexual experience has been so extremely minimal, it’s almost inconceivable that I would have HIV. But there is always a freak chance, I suppose.

            Believe me, I am very mindful of the risks.. I’m not an HIV denier by any means~

            But let’s face it, there are only certain ways of getting the virus into your blood stream, and I avoid all those.

          46. Ignore the previous post. It was misplaced.

          47. Well Stu, I am sure silently you do realise what a fool you’ve been.

            And this pleases me.

          48. What the hell does any of this have to do with comments to support combatting homophobia?

            Ben has made a great video which Stu and Samuel have both congratulated him for – they therefore agree to an extent.

            Whether “It gets better” is real for everyone or not is largely irrelevant – it will for some people. It won’t for others. Both Peter S and Stu have valid points – in that it will get better for some and won’t for others. Whether it was worth an argument is debatable but both Peter S and Stu are as bad as each other in dragging it out.

            All I can see from Samuel in this series of postings is attempting to attack Stu and W6_bloke … sometimes in a very aggressive and snide manner.

            Samuel has not won me as an ally – his persistant and personalised attacks are unwarranted (certainly with the repetition he makes).

            To quote statistics to Samuel … on this story there are 146 comments currently and 22 of them are by you (almost all attacking!)

          49. @Peter S

            No I do not see myself as having been a fool – my perception is somewhat different to your view it would appear …

            However, the fact that you take pleasure in your perceiving someone else to be a fool speaks volumes of your character traits and humanity … perhaps it explains why your friends would not support you (if they share a similar personality to you) if you chose to be more open and honest about your orientation …

          50. Now I have made a fool of myself …

            I apologise for using the same tactics as Samuel …

            He goads me into using his childish ploys …

            I am horrified at what I have just done by posting a flase post … its not in my morals …

            Taking a break from this thread for now

            No doubt I will suffer much ridicule from Samuel …

            He still wont bully me

          51. You’re a real enigma Stu~

            ‘Both Peter S and Stu have valid points – in that it will get better for some and won’t for others.’

            Why was it so difficult to make such a reasonable concession in your own name?

            If you had originally made such a point amongst your first reply, we likely wouldn’t have had that pointless circular debate about largely nothing, and could probably have come away more like friends.

            I don’t really want to make you feel bad Stu, and I’m not actually pleased about it if you feel bad now~~~~

            I would just ask you to try not to get caught up in denying anything and everything negative at all costs.

            By all means say positive things in response to the negative, but I don’t think it hurts to acknowledge the limitations of positive things either. Limitations are just a part of life.

            Don’t be upset (:

          52. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 6:10pm

            Stu writes (note unique adoption of a space gap before the three dots at end of sentence, as per his standard style):

            “They will be exceptions that make the rule, maybe you are one of them …”

            “Marcus” writes (note unique adoption of a space gap before the three dots as per his standard style throughout his postings):

            “No I do not see myself as having been a fool – my perception is somewhat different to your view it would appear …”

            Stu, unless you have been to your solicitor this morning to change your name by deed poll, can you please tell the PN audience what on earth you are doing openly masquerading as another person? …

            At least you appear to have now accepted that your bully boys only dig your hole even deeper …

            But if you’re going to scrape the bottom of the barrel and create an alias to support you (after all, who else will?), at least do so convingly and cover your tracks …

            Another piece of evidence for the dossier to show how Stu abuses and subverts theis forum …

          53. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 6:22pm

            “So you still genuinely believe it was worth a shot to try to *insist* over and again that being gay definitely gets better for everyone..?”

            Yes he does, Peter, because as unofficial moderator of these forums his agenda is to subvert all opposing viewpoints and repeat the PC mantra on any given topic over and over until you either acept it or give up the fight, thereby handing him victory …

            What is so exciting is that the likes of you, me and others are now holding fast and picking Stu up on every little nit-pick and empty challenge …

            Just 3 days ago Stu dared hold someone to account for alluding to a synagogue as a church, even though the person had said no such thing …

            But he maintained his stand, before everyone ese got on board and laid into him for his arrogance and he quickly shut up …

            Likewise we must all stand together and hold firm until he gets the message that his PC indoctrination of these boards and intent to filter out all opposing views is not wanted …

          54. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 6:31pm

            “Now I have made a fool of myself …

            I am horrified at what I have just done by posting a flase post … its not in my morals …”

            Well strike me Pink!! An admission before I even had a chance to wade in with the clear evidence linking “Marcus’s” punctuational style with Stu’s.

            Well, game set and match I’d say.

            “Taking a break from this thread for now …”

            I don’t really think you have much choice in that now, love, now your credibilty is in tatters.

            This board is PDF’ed and will serve as proof that Stu – just like his cohort W6, unless Stu is ALSO W6, of course – resorts to the kind of tricks he accuses others of.

            No doubt he has also been in on the rigging of the thumb up/down rating system.

            You really couldn’t make it up!

          55. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 6:51pm

            …then not only should you NOT have made your mental condition a defining feature of who you are, but you should NOT be entering into debates like these where people will have opinions different to your own.

            You clearly can’t handle such debates, or should I say debate per se because debate is not what you do or seem to know how to do, and like it or loathe it people are bound to conclude that your debating style is correlated to the mental condition you keep reminding us of.

            You are clearly playing the sympathy card when you do this, but it is a devious, underhand ploy to try and stymie and stifle proper debate rather than engaging intelligently with all opinions and respecting opposing points of view.

            The longer you remain on these boards, W6, the less likely your condition is to improve. But that is your choice:- just don’t expect others to make allowances for that when you are snarling and on the attack all of the time.

          56. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 7:13pm

            For what it’s worth – and personally I wouldn’t give tuppence to wade through W6’s expert hypothesis on all things HIV – here is a link to the comment board wherein we had our, ahem, intense debate:

            http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=26479

            The irony being that that this debate took part in the article Stu recently wrote for PN which, in not so may words but reading between the lines, called for the banning of anyone he disagrees with.

            As the always good value AdrianT commented in the same thread:

            “Stuart’s case is a call to halt free speech. I don’t buy it.”

            To get to the debate between W6 and I, unfortunately you have to wade through a heck of a lot of Stu’s pious PC sermonising, but it blasts off in my main contribution to the debate two-thirds or so of the way down.

            Oh yes, and you will have to open many of W6’s postings along the way to keep reading because being so unpopular they were rendered invisible, although of course I received the blame for that…

          57. You do make me laugh Samuel, the things you say. I love the devilish glee of that post, haha~

            I bet you will cherish that PDF!

            Talk about all one’s Christmases coming at once eh? xD

          58. I have a science degree, I have studied HIV and I continue to keep myself well informed – what is so wrong with this? The problem here is that you beleive that all my knowledge is selectively filtered, how you can suggest this when you have very little knowledge of HIV yourself – who are you to question my knowledge or that of experts? If you put forward reasoned factual opinions I would have much more respect for you.

            You have decided (wrongly) that I am an HIV / pharma shill, and you will never be convinced otherwise, despite all the evidence I put before you.

            Your odd world view where all you see is collusion, corruption, agendas, infiltration and everything is PC is frankly ridiculous, you are living in a bubble which makes you appear out of touch with reality, perhaps reality is too much for you to face?

          59. @ Peter “You do make me laugh Samuel, the things you say. I love the devilish glee of that post, haha~”

            This is exactly what Samuel is all about, to troll and take great delight in his baiting.

            This to me is immature and shows he takes delight in agitating and ridiculing others………not a very pleasant trait in my book, but you may think differently Peter, and seem to want to encourage him in his quest to discredit both myself and Stu.

            No wonder you cannot be comfortable with your sexuality because you probably follow your herd of homophobic mates and when pushed make homophobic comments – it seems you have no backbone to be true to yourself.

            I was married (to a female) so I know the score, it takes courage to start again. Your life must be blighted by your denial, how will you ever be happy? It is a real shame that you lack the courage to be yourself!

          60. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 9:07pm

            Actually, Peter, more in sorrow than glee. I geneuinely feel sorry for the likes of W6 and Stu who subscribe to a limited, distorted and counterproductive PC worldview and have little conception of truth.

            As I said, the truth will out, and when confronted by individuals like these it is important to stick to your guns and speak your truth, no matter how intimidating the confrontation becomes.

            Look what happened to Stu when the light of truth became too much for him to bear? He crumbled when he ran out of Stasi-like mind manipulation techniques/tricks and places to hide as the truth outed him for the charlatan he exposed himself to be.

            It’s just tragic that gay men via boards such as PN are being used to reinforce a PC agenda by whipping us into a frenzy and make us demand the kind of laws that will only instill and reinforce levels of control on all apsects of the way we live.

          61. Yes I do get what you’re saying Samuel. And I have been reading that other debate you had with W6 before Christmas.. It seems your encounters with him have been quite similar to mine in the past.

            It’s when he starts foaming at the mouth and ranting nonsensically. It can be difficult to know how to respond, or even whether to~

            I was surprised to find out you were actually friendly with Stu a month ago!

          62. @ Peter S as you have read the exchanges between myself and Samuel, you will have also noted that I have put my hand up & said this exchange was not my finest hour, & acknowledged that Samuel & I are as bad as each other, I also apologised to Stu………………no such apology from Samuel I think I am right in saying.

            Samuel is very good at providing only part of the picture & he often just picks sound bytes that are taken out of context to profer some sort of evidence to his claims of fact. Now this is a direct quote from the very first comments thread I witnessed & engaged in with Samuel – remember I dont know him & he does not know me…………..he was replying to another commentator called Roland, in response to his now familiar attack on HIV charities:

            “So you are part of the rot is what you are saying, Roland? As I implied in my last message, the THT is too entrenched in its ways……” here is the direct link : http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=252

          63. ………….sorry the link does not work, but you can check out the HoL debate under Health, page 5.

            This very first combative comment has set the tone. Roland volunteers for THT and Samuel ridiculed him because of this. I too volunteer for THT but have always kept this to myself before now, because Samuel would have been even more vitriolic towards me. From this very first exchange I knew I would have to hold firm on my assertions about HIV. Now so what I here you say, but I moderate a forum and such disrespect for others is not tolerated. Samuel will call it sensoring I call it moderation. Samuel has been ever more combative since this time, & naturally I have defended my position. He has since ridiculed both myself and Stu for saying that we volunteer – in his mind we are trying to profer ourselves as virtuous, the truth is that Samuel has asked for this information and it has been given, only to be ridiculed!

          64. You may not appreciate the divide that exists between HIV + and – individuals within the gay community, it is palpable on many websites, and I have been abused in my own home because of my status. Samuel wishes to perpetuate stigma, which ultimately leads to fear and also abuse, both physical and verbal. He refutes that stigma exists and he therefore suggests that HIV charities have a PC agenda and therefore because of my opinions I have a PC agenda……but where are the facts in all of this??? It is pure conjecture and speculation.

            Samuel engages in HIV debates but shows he has little knowledge time and again, he says I have my head in the sand, he has not got past the late 80’s early 90’s in terms of HIV treatment & care. We have differing views on prevention, again something I have studied, but of course my studies are worthless compared to his gut feelings and common sense. How can you debate with someone who’s argument comes from just gut feelings?

          65. @ Peter S I am a very open individual I feel comfortable in my skin but I know many many people who are not – they deserve better, and it is despicable that Samuel feels that stigma towards HIV+ individuals is worth perpetuating in order that health promotion campaigns can scare people into using condoms – he has been presented with evidence by Stu on this point but he scoffs at it as being adacdemic, where do you start with someone so entrenched and so rigid in his point of view?

            Samuel also beleives that I have no genuine interest in HIV prevention and that I have an agenda to reduce stigma and fear for my own sake and to prevent other +ve people stigmatised – this is not the case, but he is convinced about this, where is his evidence?

            Anything I have used to back up my argument has been ridiculed or scoffed at, so I have resorted to plaijn brute force and taken a more aggressive tone with Samuel, he baits people and he is a troll, simple as!

          66. The most disturbing thing about Samuel is that he posts complete clap trap about HIV, and this is dangerous to anyone reading his rubbish. He questions everything form testing accuracy to the views of well respected HIV experts – he is right everyone else is wrong. He never stops to think that a vulnerable person may be reading his postings and feel even more ashamed, isolated or distresed because he perpetuates out of date information, or cherry picks sound bites to suit his argument.

            Someone has to provide the balanced view and becasue of my training it is totally wrong to allow myths and mis-representation to be allowed to go unchallenged. This is what he calls PC, its not PC at all, it is passing on vital knowledge to others. He cannot provide any evidence that I have been misleading in my postings about HIV, I have challenged him many times……

            Enough of this from me, I know myself and Samuel will not bully me!

          67. Samuel B. 9 Feb 2012, 1:03am

            Zzzzz….

          68. @ Samuel – I am really disgusted at the treatment you have metered out to Stu. You have made many assumptions about him & why he is off sick – you have even wished him a speedy recovery, & yet you have continued to mock him, corner him & ultimately make him seem foolish. You saw an opportunity to join in an exchange between him & Peter S & you had to get stuck right in with your verbal boot. I am sure you feel very pleased with yourself, but the truth is you have no idea what effect your baiting could be having on an individual – you were told to back off 3 times, yet no you kept going & going.

            I hate bullies – you are a bully there is no doubt in my mind. You are like an opportunisitc infection, prey on people until they are weakened & then snuff the life out of them! I am very sure Stu is made of strongewr stuff, but have you ever stopped to think about your actions – EVER???? You use the faceless internet to troll & bully others this evidence is seen everywhere here. You are sick..

        2. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 9:27am

          “I may be posting less this week – thats because I am busier …and most of the subjects are less interesting to me this week …”

          No, Stu, it is because the light of truth is too strong to bear and you know you have been exposed good and proper.

          As I have made clear before, I reject all political systems and am neither left nor right:- I am a humanitarian who believes in freedom and fairness, virtues that you seem determined to stamp out.

          I have never been on these boards looking for trouble. I have contributed at junctures where I have felt compelled to do so, but of late I have smelt an injustice on these boards that, frankly, stinks to high heaven.

          The fact that not only are you a full-time resident/moderator/shill/whatever on here pretending to kill some time while you take “unpaid sick leave” from the governhment, but that you will also roll your sleeves up and pen an article which, on the surface, appears to ask a reasonable enough question, until you realise that you are…

          1. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 9:40am

            working to a PC agenda that seeks ultimately to police all thoughts and make all dissenting opinions that don’t conform to “group think” a thought crime:

            http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/12/20/comment-should-the-law-protect-us-from-insults/

            Yes, insults today but – drip, drip – tomorrow the criminalisation of freedom of thought itself.

            Stu may say he is fading from view but there will be another PC zealot to take his place and attempt to steer and control the debate using the same underhand methods.

            But so long as people wise up to these methods then it is so easy to turn the tables back on them and not play into their hands, as this thread alone demonstrates.

            Just keep to the facts and restrain from out-and-out insults. However, if the PC moderator behaves like a pit bull or rants like a Dalek, you have every right to make that comparison.

            No, play them at their game and it ends up being them hurling the insults and obsceneties and being hoist by their own petard every time.

          2. @Samuel

            I can’t believe I am biting again …

            This is the final comment I am making to you – but far from the last I will make on PN – so your “fading from view” rhetoric is baseless and lies …

            I also find your accusations that I am lying offensive, typical of your charade that claims to be debate and ridiculous – I am laughing at you.

            You have no idea of who I am or what I am doing, and I have been busier this week – so do not try and pretend that my decrease in frequency on PN has anything to do with your commentary or bile. Although if you are so inadequate that you need the reasurance of your assumptions of your own power over others posting on PN then continue to live in your own world of delusions …

            You seem infatuated with me, the number of posts, repeatedly putting up my ONE article (which you congratulated), determined to seek to undermine ME – not concentrating on the subjects of debate …. I appreciate the attention – but I’m not interested in you and nor …

          3. … would I ever be in someone with the aggressive, unpleasant vitriol and bullying attitude that comes from your comments.

            You claim not to be right wing – I don’t believe you …

            You claim I am PC – I am not – you don’t believe me …

            End of … not debating with you any longer … although I will still be on PN as much as I went, as often as I want, stating my opinions, with evidence, and being prepared to be challenged and where appropriate amend my opinion …

            There is NOTHING to be gained from debating with someone who behaves in the manner you do …

            but that is not going to stop me debating …

            Your games and you mean nothing to me.

          4. You contribute away all you like, Stu. But do note that when you seek to challenge someone’s opinion on a point you do not agree and begin nit-picking and gnawing away at that person to the point where the constsnt challenging turns into harrassment, then intimidation, then – when you finally unleash your pit bull for back-up – out and out bullying, then be sure that your modus operandi will be laid bare for all visitors to these boards to see and wake up to.

            It really is not all about you anymore, Stu…

          5. @Samuel B

            I am me … jJust me … if anyone chooses to back me up – thats for them to decide … I have no control over anyone else …

            I will continue to post …

            No doubt you will continue to bicker and insult and launch personal attack …

            I will treat you with the contempt you deserve, unless and until the unlikely event that you are not engaging in personal attack and actually have something relevant and thought provoking to say …

            hugs xx

          6. Samuel be warned – I will ask you one more time – please refrain from referring to me as a dog or a Dalek or any of the other very personal terms you have used to describe me. If you make any further referrences to me in such terms you will regret it. I will not put up with your constant bullying so take note – this is the third time I have told you to back off, I will not say it again, but I will take appropriate steps to prevent you from making your eroneous and hateful references about me.

            This stops now – if you choose to carry on this personal crusade against me I will involve organisations from outside PN as I beleive your actions towards me are boardering on hate crime, no one should expect to come & use these comment threads to suffer your constant bullying which in my case has been founded on the basis that I am HIV postive, that I beleive it is right that more people with HIV should feel comfortable being able to disclose thier status & not be stigmatised by others.

          7. W6, when he calls you lap dog, he means to say that you are a sycophant of Stu’s. When he calls you a dalek he means that you’re mindless in your support of Stu. And when he calls you a pit bull, he means you are aggressive about it.

            It’s nothing more in it than that, and doesn’t seem that harsh to me~~

          8. Ever since I started making comments on PN, (which in the main have been related to HIV) you have constantly posted inaccurate out of date information that is designed to discredit both myself, HIV charities & many of the experts & scientific opinions working in the HIV sector. You often refer to US studies, when only 45% of +ve individuals access care in the US (therefore outcomes are poorer)

            There is enough poor information & stigma relating to HIV & if you think it is useful to question modern HIV treatment & care, the motivations of the HIV charities, then you are no better than the HIV denialists that exist, who have cost people their lives.

            I am hearing of more and more people presenting with late HIV diagnosis with CD4 cell counts well below 100, PCP and KS are the increase (these are AIDS defining illnesses that we should not be seeing in the UK) – if you think this is a good thing then I feel very sorry for you, and your claims to be a humanitarian are just rubbish.

          9. ““I may be posting less this week – thats because I am busier …and most of the subjects are less interesting to me this week …””

            LOL, I guess we all knew deep down it was too good to be true. I count a dozen postings today so far alone, including comments on every new story so far posted on the main page.

            No baiting or nit-picking, yet, but that’s only a matter of time.

            Nevertheless, Stu’s inherent stubbornness, righteousness and refusal to lay off Peter and concede he is either deliberately pretending to not understand the point Peter is clearly making or is simply determined to wear Peter down and have the last word is a farce bordering on tragedy for the rest of us who have to stomach this drivel.

            At the rate Stu is going so far this week, he is well on track for beating his own record for most-number-of-postings-in-one-week.

            If you are well enough to click away at a keyboard non-stop every waking hour, you are well enough to get a job.

            Hot air from Stu’s direction? Much.

          10. @ Peter S How about questioning my sanity & suggesting I should be sectioned? Is that not very damaging, particularly as Samuel knows I have mental health problems? How can anyone make such remarks – this guy has never met me yet suggests I be sectioned, do you think this is a fair way to treat someone? Samuel has openly stated he has been baiting me and has had a great laugh at my expense!

            You may have problems with your sexual identify, but try adding the stigma attached to both mental health and HIV and then you might think differently! NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS RUBBISH, would you like to be constantly ridiculed just for posting accruate information relating to a subject that you have a good deal of knowledge on?

            Bullying is bullying, and it needs to stop – if you see no problem with the way Samuel has treated me and more latterly Stu then I can only conclude you have very different values to me, and you would not be someone I would wish to associate with.

          11. “Ever since I started making comments on PN, (which in the main have been related to HIV) you have constantly posted inaccurate out of date information that is designed to discredit both myself, HIV charities & many of the experts & scientific opinions working in the HIV sector.”

            W6, when you set yourself up PN’s official site moderator on all things HIV and as lead spokesperson for the HIV sector, expect to have your policies and agenda questioned, and the atrocious failures in HIV prevention criticised.

            Why should those funded by taxpayers money not be open to scrutiny and held to account for their failures?

            How dare you play the victim card and accuse me of victimising your HIV status. YOU are the one doing that every time you profess to speak for all HIV-infected men, most of whom I know OWN their status and take responsibility for their condition.

            Again, tell me where I have personally insulted you with profanities like “screaming queen” which you have hurled…

          12. Samuel has wrongly accused me of being a paid HIV & Pharma sector shill – where is his evidence for this? I know my subject matter well, I am an expert HIV patient (we exist to help others and to manage our own treatment & care with minimal input from clinicians – is this not a good thing?) yet Samuel beleives I am here just to “subvert and provide dis-information” why would I do this, where is my motivation?

            I have suggested that Samuel read a recent report on the PAN London HIV Prevention Programme as it makes disturbing reading – yet it is obvious from his comments on HIV that he has not read the report because in essence he does not beleive scientific or eveidence based thinking has any place in HIV prevention, he sees it as common sense and gut feeling.

          13. …hurled my way with great gusto on other debates. That not only insults myself, but any effiminate gay men whose only connection to gay society is via PN, and who dare not come out for fear of the type of ridicule you dish out willy nilly.

            Thanks to you, Peter’s opinion that it doesn’t get better for everyone is proven 100% true by your wholesale attack on effeminate gay men.

            Compare that to someone calling you a pitbull, which suitably describes your aggression on here, and Dalek, which sums up the amount of ranting and raving you do.

            They are not personal insults; they are observations based on the evidence you betray yourself with merely by opening your mouth.

            You are Stu and your own worst enemy, and crying to organisations will be met with the contempt and derision you so richly deserved, even those who subscribe to your narrow-minded, PC world view.

            You are just about the least desirable person I could imagine anyone having the misfortune to be stuck in a lift with.

          14. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 1:02pm

            “If you make any further referrences to me in such terms you will regret it.”

            First they attack you, then they abuse you, then they threaten you, then you win…

            Ho hum.

          15. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 1:12pm

            “How about questioning my sanity & suggesting I should be sectioned? Is that not very damaging, particularly as Samuel knows I have mental health problems? How can anyone make such remarks – this guy has never met me yet suggests I be sectioned…”

            When you feed the above verbiage through a truth translator, what actually occurred was this.

            After one of W6’s particularly long-winded and incessant rants (no, you don’t want to go there, trust me), I made the comment:

            “Surely the case for sectioning W6 has never been stronger?”

            Now, I know nothing of W6 other than the fact that he has declared his HIV status to all and sundry, period.

            If W6 could only step out of himself for one minute or gain a sense of self-awareness and a realisation of the buffoon he presents to the world on this forum as he stamps his feet and throws his toys in all directions, he would see the humour in my words.

            For anyone to suggest for one second I was being remotely serious is the cause for concern here.

          16. Here here Samuel. It’s clear you are a very logical thinker, you speak a lot of sense. That’s very refreshing to see on here after speaking with these other 2!

            W6, you have to admit you do tend to come out guns blazing with a lot of angry off-topic ranting and raving, don’t you.. And there are usually insults involved right off the bat~

            You can hardly call foul when someone uses a few harmless words back at you like dalek and lap dog can you??

            If you start being rude to people immediately, you’re bound to cause a flame war. And if you willingly enter into that, you need to be a little more thick skinned than to let words like that get to you so much~

          17. If Samuel bothered to read the report highlighted he would soon realise that prevention is more than the small media ads we see in the gay press, and that a good prevention policy is about engaging individuals not making HIV something to be scared about. This is the crux of his problem with me – and he suggests that HIV positive people should face stigma in order to “tell the truth about HIV”. Which truth I wonder, the truth as it was 15 / 20 years ago or the truth in 2012.

            This started out as a difference of opinion and I have always provided factual up to date information uopn which I have formed my opinions, yet Samuel contests I am providing dis-information & have a hiden agenda – I have no agenda other than to counter his eroneous, potentially damaging out of date information that he peddles as fact – 90% of what he posts about HIV is out of date or information from the States where they have a very different care model and outcomes are poorer!

          18. Peter S – by all means form your opinion about me, but Samuel has engaged in a very personal attack on me from day one, and stupidly I have taken his bait and argued back. He is very good at his devious use of the English language and he makes this into an art form that makes him apprear to be the injured party here.

            He started his insults on me in the HoL comment debate on HIV and he hasnt stopped since. He has now moved on to Stu, and because you have taken issue with Stu he has held onto your coat tails to form some kind of alliance with you.

            Quite frankly I do not care how you or he perceives me as a person but what I will not allow is for him to stigmatise and discredit HIV care and treatment in the UK. I have named 8 other individuals who find Samuels comments ridiculous and he has been refferred to in far worst terms than I have used towards him. Samuel is the one who has portrayed himself as an effeminate gay man, feather boas n the like………not me!

          19. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 1:36pm

            Btw Peter, good to welcome another voice of sanity and common sense to this debate to provide some balance. I detect a momentum stirring…

          20. It seems to me that both Samuel and yourself Peter are just here to aggitate and have very little to bring to the debate. You and Stu have previously had a very long disagreement about the use of HPA statistics – at the end of the day the stats are not the issue, the real issue was the number of new HIV infections and how many undiagnosed infections there are. In your pedantic view the stats do not apply to you at all so why comment, rather like the situation within this thread – you have put a remark out there to aggitate and come across as someone who is always right, just the same as Samuel – noether of you are willing to be challenged, and you both cling onto your points of view despite the evidence placed before you.

            I will always defend myslef against bullies like Samuel and if so I will defend myself against you as well. Samuel is just here to troll and aggitate, he has as good as admitted that fact!

            Enjoy your new found “friend”.

          21. W6: People don’t always send a message here to further the topic of the article necessarily. In my case I have made some messages about things that irritate me. These posts sound negative, but it isn’t to agitate. Rather just to get something off my chest.

            The dreaded HPA statistic debate.. This was one of those things I describe above. That statistic was about me and other secret gays like me, but could not take us into account as it was based solely on those who admit being gay.

            This had the effect of falsely worsening a statistic about my group (gay men), which angered me.

            Perhaps if people like me could have been counted, it would be more like ‘1 in 30 or 40 gays have HIV’ – nobody knows.

            No evidence of anything has been provided to me in either of these debates. Not one piece~

          22. I agree that using terms like 1 in 7 gay men in London have HIV or 1 in 20 gay men have HIV are not helpful, and I pointed this out at the time.

            The absolute figures are what is important when it comes to HIV, but from what I remember you became so wrapped up in the semantics of the point as it related to you personally that you lost sight in my view of the bigger wider issue, that HIV is a growing problem – and no one is immune, not even you.

            You challenged me on this point, but you can be the most careful person in the world and be at risk of contracting HIV. Now that may not sit comfortably with you but the risk is still there.

            Like you prefer not to identify as a gay man, from what I remember you beleive that it is not necessary for you to take aqn STI test – personally I think you are burying your head in the sand, which could seriously damage your health.

            Again I pointed this oput at the time, but you were not interested in my comments and made remarks that were not helpful

          23. In that case we didn’t actually have a disagreement at all! I don’t deny you any of the points you make there.

            But because my sexual experience has been so extremely minimal, it’s almost inconceivable that I would have HIV. But there is always a freak chance, I suppose.

            Believe me, I am very mindful of the risks.. I’m not an HIV denier by any means~

            But let’s face it, there are only certain ways of getting the virus into your blood stream, and I avoid all those.

          24. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 6:43pm

            “I know my subject matter well, I am an expert HIV patient (we exist to help others and to manage our own treatment & care with minimal input from clinicians – is this not a good thing?)…”

            Good God, W6, you hang yourself by your own ill-chosen words.

            Expert? By whose criteria?

            You exist to help others?

            Wouldn’t it be a better idea if you existed to help yourself first, and then when you are in a more stable frame of mind and less bitter place, THEN you may be of some use to others?

            As it stands, the greatest deterrent to contracting HIV itself I can imagine rests with the spectre that you may come running and telling me what is good for me and what meds I should intoxicate myself with and how I should live my life because as a self-appointed “expert” you know better than anyone else!!

            With all due respect, you’re not in the right mental space to even be able to give people the commitment they’d require of you.

            And if you now lay into me for picking up on your condition…

          25. Such arrogance from you Samuel, you are the only person I know who can form opinions about individuals from the writings on a comments thread.

            You know very little about me, my educational or employment background yet you have deemed to create an image of me that is totally incorrect and is a character assassination.

            Have you no heard of the “expert patient program”? Obviously not, but things like this mean nothing to you because you criticise most organisations. You have stigmatised HIV and now you ridicule and stigmatise mental health.

            How is this humanitarian in any shape or form, quite simply if things don’t directly impact on you then it’s ok to ridicule and stigmatise. You seem intolerant to individuals who may have difficulties that you will never understand. You keep referring to the sympathy card, but the truth is you are just point scoring.

            If you can provide any evdence where anything I have said in relation to HIV is incorrect then please do so…….

          26. ……it s impossible to reason with you because you discredit any firm of scientific evidence, preferring common seance anfpd gut feeling. For any health reacted debate surely science and proven fact are the tools by wgphch clinicians are guided.

            You have questioned the British HIV association guidelines on treatment, you question well designed studies and you question the very individuals who live with HIV.

            It is impossible to debate with you because your world view and gut feeling are always correct, where is your proof, are we just expected to let yours unfounded opinions go unchallenged, particularly in reaction to subjects like HIV, where stigma and fear still rule the day.

            I know my stuff and unless you can prove otherwise you are just point scoring and trying to discredit me, why is this?

            You have made any assumptions about me and your paranoid speculation is way off the mark, yet you peddle all this as factual – provide the evidence to back up your claims……

          27. You have implied that individuals with mental health difficulties are somehow unable to be rational and engage in rational debates. You have assumed the role of mental health expert and suggested that I am incapable of understanding my condition – you have no shame, and yet you claim to be a humanitarian…..

            You carry in with your crusade against me if you wish but hear this, I will not tolerate your character assassination any longer, if you can prove you are the injured party here then I will openly apologise to you, because I know that you cannot find the evidence, and you will pass it off as you just having a laugh at my expense.

            Prove that you are correct in your assumptions about me or shut up, I am confident of my position – end of!

          28. @ Peter S perhaps you can list all the transmission routes of HIV. I have today conversed with a recently diagnosed individual from an HIV forum I help moderate, he was of a similar opinion to you, he took no risks, yet he has HIV. Are all those 25% of undiagnosed indviduals of the same opinion that they have never taken risks, or are they just in denial – probably a mixture of the two, yet there are approx 22,000 undiagnosed individuals in the UK.

            Samuel please do not make comment on this point it is intended for Peter to respond to if he wishes to……..

          29. Samuel B. 8 Feb 2012, 8:45pm

            “I know my stuff ”

            “I am the HIBV expert…”

            Anyone wo claims to know everything there is about an infinitely complex phenomenon such as HIV is, by definition, dangerous and deluded.

            And by yhat definition, W6, no one has any duty to take anything you say on board or to indulge your demands for evidence concerning this or that, no matter how much your screech and bleat and flap your wings.

            Your stated condition nor your behaviour on these boards, like it or loathe it, inspires confidence in your ability to rationalise the facts as they allegedly stand.

            You are totally lacking in any degree of credibility whatsoever, and I have already countered all of your blinkered claims on the link provided above.

            This is most certainly NOT the place to resume a debate that ended weeks ago.

          30. Well W6, in terms of sexual transmission, I am led to believe that for HIV to get into the blood through oral sex, you would need to have some type of open wound in the mouth or down the throat. Or perhaps if you engage in oral sex too soon after brushing teeth.

            To get HIV from receiving a blow job, the other guy would have to have a bleeding mouth, and you would have to have an open wound on the penis…….

            As I’ve told you before, I have never had anal sex yet.
            And I have only ever given one blow job.. Pitiful maybe, but true nonetheless! And when I have received blow jobs, there was never any blood involved~

            How do you rate my chances of having HIV?

          31. This is your opinion Samuel….. you claim to be the expert on W6_bloke. Well you really are a very talented individual who knows more about me than myself, my psychiatrist and the friends around me. Who am I Samuel,as you now seem to think I am now Stu, where is your evidence for this view, just in your head.

            I would check your quotes as I have never said “I am the expert”….. I said I am an expert patient, which is a real life scheme run by some NHS trusts and Local Authorities.

            In essence Samuel you are saying that that attainment of a recognised qualification means nothing, perhaps this is because you have no recognised qualifications……if you left school without any GCSE’s that is a real shame, but do not suggest someone attaining a given level of knowledge or understanding cannot provide opinions and correct your poor information – again you are point scoring and avoiding my call for you to prove I am wrong and you are right!

          32. @ Peter S precum and semen contain HIV, and the level of HIV will depend on the viral load. Undiagnosed individuals can have VL”s in the 100’s of thousands, so they can be very infectious.

            You are correct about blood and open wounds, but an undiagnosed STI increases the risk of HIV transmission (chlamydia which is the fastest growing STI often has no symptoms in men). The tonsils are designed to catch bacteria and viruses, so HIV can be transmitted this way. 5% of all HIV infections are considered to be from oral sex, but it is considered low risk. The problem being there are many variables that can result in an infection that isn’t expected.

            Your risk is very low, but I cannot for the life of me understand why a regular STI and HIV screen is so difficult especially with community testing. Now you may not beleive my account here because I know nothing according to Samuel……take your pick, and be careful, friend today, foe tomorrow with Samuel!

          33. @ Peter S

            It is interesting that you answered my question – Samuel would have either ignored it or just tried to deflect attention away from it – both Stu and I have asked him many direct questions, but in 80% of the time he chooses not to answer. He is very inqusitive of others but very short on information about himself, what is there to be concerned about I have to ask. I put a picture up he ridicules it…………..it just goes on and on, and I am sick to the teeth by his constant crap.

            I wonder why you felt you wanted to answer my question? Could it be because you believe I have something to offer I wonder? Samuel has made up his mind that everything I offer is PC and therefore must be discredited at all costs, even when it it backed up by balanced research (although I filter everything apparently to suit my own end). Where does this end I have to ask – he will not silence me or continue to ridicule and stigmatise me!

            I suggest you tread carefully!

          34. You asked me that question last time too and I answered it. You must have missed it.

            I never said you don’t know about HIV issues, and I think you and Samuel are in flame war mode and you’ve made each other angry with aggressive replies :P

            I always answer points made by the other side in a discussion. I hate it when the other side just ignores you.. As far as I’m concerned, you don’t have a debate if you just ignore what the other side is saying~~ (Stu does that quite a bit.. frustratingly).

            I don’t think me and Samuel could get into a flame war though, because we neither of us mind when other people say negative things~

          35. Samuel B. 9 Feb 2012, 9:02am

            The point about asking questions, though, is that where W6 and Stu are concerned, it is often used as a device to nit-pick, to bait, to gnaw away at the opponent till he concedes defeat, to deflect from the original debate, to regurtitate, or the answer is already self-explanatory.

            In the HIV debate,W6 pushed and pushed at me to reveal how I would employ harder-hitting tactics in a campaign, and in a debate two weeks ago Stu demanded to know what my “solution” would be for the “Muslim problem” in the UK (as I have been at constant pains to point out, these were HIS choice of words!).

            In each case I gave up a few hours to provide a detailed account taking up three full posts of text for each. My HIV response was so concise and compelling W6 didn’t even bother acknowledging it and immediately changed tack, because he had nothing to attack.

            More recently, I realised I was just wasting my time because Stu paid scant lip service to my opinions, and because the debate had already…

          36. Samuel B. 9 Feb 2012, 9:15am

            left the main page I thought, WFT, I am not here to humour or indulge Stu with his endless pressing questions/baiting when no one else is following this.

            When you find yourself in a cul de sac, Peter – as this debate is fast becoming as W6 tries to divert it into yet another been there, done that HIV thread – what do you do?

            Unlike Stu and W6, I do not have an awful lot of time on my hands to burn, and if I did I would not spend all my free time being obsessive about posting on here.

            I have a full-time job in Oxford Street afterall and I deal with a lot of obnoxious people every day. Why would I also want to expose myself to intense negativity on a near-constant basis when I get home from work?

            But so long as Stu is around unofficially moderating these boards, and W6 as spokeman for the HIV sector is deceiving and PC sermonising about HIV, an opposing voice is needed to counter their monopolisation and manipulation.

            Late for work now, but needed to be said.

          37. @ Peter – this is the whole basis of my argument with Samuel – “deceiving and PC sermonising about HIV” This is his view about me, no one else takes his view (not even you as you apprecaite I might know what Im actually talking about). I have asked Samuel several times to explain where I have deceived people & posted eroneous information on these comments threads relating to HIV. He has never once provided proof of my deception, but instead has deflected away from the answer by just questioning expert well researched opinions, in his mind everything is a conspiracy from the State, Voluntary Sector, Business etc etc. He lives in a vacuum & seems unable to deal with lifes realities!

            In my opinion the use of the term “deceiving” is deliberate & is used to provoke; he will argue he is just much better at expressing himself than my “gutteral use of language”. Where does this individual get off – he is just offensive through & through – if you are happy to associate with this – good luck!

          38. “I have a full-time job in Oxford Street afterall and I deal with a lot of obnoxious people every day” this from the highly successful retail manager about his customers – the very people that keep him in his wages, totally unreal. Of course I would perhaps expect such comments from a low paid retail assistant, but not from a manager of a high profile retail concession in a high profile central London store. Clap trap – I will use Samuel’s famous techniques & use my gut feeling.

            Samuel is no more than a poorly paid retail assistant who has no educational attainment & thus he is stuck in a dead end job which he hates – in order to compensate for all his obnoxious customers he comes on these boards to bully others because he is so inadequate & suffers from “small person syndrome”. Is any of this true? – possibly not, but this is what my gut feeling is telling me, yet this is how Samuel reads the world. I have very little evidence to form this opinion so it is quite easily be wrong!

          39. What Samuel does not know he lets his odd world view make up in his head, & this then becomes entrenched as fact…………..and he will never be convinced otherwise. He has created a character assaination on me, but cannot see that his views about me are very likely to be incorrect. I have many many other gut feelings about Samuel, but it certainly would not be correct to post them here as I most certainly would be barred from using these comments boards. This demonstrated my second point – if you want free speach and to have open and inclusive comments threads then the contributors must exercise some form of restraint and responsibility – I see none of this coming from Samuel.

            He claims everything is subverted, its all a conspiracy – and he mocks me for my mental health difficulties. He is the paranoid delusional individual, & a vile bully! (I can say that becuase that is what my gut reaction towards him is). Take your own medicine Samuel!

          40. Lo and behold everyone, “Stu” has recommenced monitoring and policing these boards as “Marcus”. Has this person no shame whatsoever?!

  12. “The curious case of apparently heterosexual Christians (and, of course, adherents to other faiths) getting their knickers in a right old twist about homosexuality is as old as the hills.
    Oddly, it doesn’t automatically lend itself to compelling radio because to combat the “Because God says so” refrain you have to be either supremely confident of what does and does not constitute ‘religious offence’ and/or be at least as au fait with the scripture as your interlocutor.
    Rarely has this observation seemed more pertinent than it does today. Talking to Lesley Pilkington, who believes she can ‘convert’ homosexuals (although she doesn’t like the word ‘convert’), must rank among the strangest experiences of my broadcasting career.
    There was an almost perfect symmetry to her position: some gay people are desperately unhappy about their proclivities and attractions so we offer to help them ‘feel’ differently. It would be wrong not to help people who are so demonstrably unhappy.” (Cont’d)

  13. (Cont’d)
    “Of course, it completely overlooks the fact that the unhappiness only exists because of the disapproval and the disapproval is common (though not exclusive) to the religious. In other words the best way to address homosexual unhappiness would be to shoot down the people who cause it – not to give the very same people an opportunity to ‘cure’ gays.
    Only one thing is certain: I could have talked to her for weeks, matched her Biblical reference for Biblical reference and cited several million people who reject absolutely the notion that their sexuality is negotiable or reversible. And she wouldn’t have budged an inch.”
    http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-latest-lbc-presenter-blogs-4001/entry/81/8252

  14. LBC radio interview with Lesley Plkington

    “People are not born homosexual they are born heterosexual”

    http://www.christianconcern.com/media/lbc-radio-lesley-pilkington-talks-about-her-case

    1. i had a look at the site and felt quite dirty it’s like the BNP

      1. There are remarkable similarities between the two – which is concerning …

      2. The radio interview is so worth listening to, you really get the picture of how seriously bonkers this lady really is, she needs help.

        1. @Pavlos

          Indeed, I suspect she thinks she comes across as earnest and honourable … when the exact opposite is the truth …

          She comes across as the sort of person who ignores the basic first remise of any clinician or counsellor “Do no harm” and she comes across as deranged

        2. i think LBC radio and 5Live did a very good job of exposing her medieval approach to sciences

  15. proudtrans 4 Feb 2012, 2:19pm

    More support for Trans (not transsexual) youth is what is needed. A “gay” person is really a trans person in denial.

    1. G away keith,

      1. Wow. That’s the first time I’ve heard that theory. But the only time I’ve liked women’s clothes is when Jane Fonda’s wearing them.

        1. I know what you mean…Barbarella’s spacewoman clothes, Pygar the blind angel does it for me.

          1. Oh he was a very pretty man, Pavlos. You have great taste.

          2. Pygar the blind angel – woof!

  16. Just adding to the general congratulations, Mr Cohen. That was an articulate, intelligent and – best of all – kind ‘It Gets Better’ contribution. Thank you for doing it.

  17. Well done Ben. This is what’s needed to fight these fools! All this stupid talk of cures is scary! I know it’s always been there, people thinking this way, but it’s just popped up from almost no where! Wish someone would bury these idiots!

  18. The scam called “gay cure’ is a mixture of the Christian and Jewish religions and psychiatry which is like mixing gas and fire, it only blows up like a homemade terrorist bomb. That what these Christians and Jews are terrorist who destroy the lives of LGBT people based of failed religions and psychiatry which kills people. If any body is insane it is these people who use their voodoo called “gay cure” to destroy the live of children and gay people for money. These terrorist need to be stopped at all cost to keep them from harming or destroying another child or man or woman with their nutty mix of religion and psychiatry. Together they are like mixing gas and fire, the result is disaster. Stop these Christian and Jewish terrorist before they kill or harm any more gay people. One way to stop them is sue them for all they got for the harm they cause to gays. This will put their money making scam out of business. Report them and put them in prison where they belong.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all