Former 'Bama player

[AU alum 2]

Speaking of literary devices, did anyone else find irony in the fact that he played for the Sasketchewan Roughriders?

Also I noticed three typos. One being 'Sasketchewan Roughrigers' another being 'British Colubia', and the third being 'the University of Alabama' without clarifying which campus. I assume it was uat based on the story.

Wow. Good catch there. And, actually, I wonder if "University of Alabama" isn't an oxymoron in itself.

With the accent on moron?

[DKW 86 7,450]

Seriously, HIV positive?

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

88% of males get HIV/Aids from homosexual sex or IV drug use.

65% of females get it from "heterosexual sex."

I searched this this morning and truly didnt find any real easy to read stats on heterosexual infection. Basically what I found out was that if you are female and get hiv/aids, you get it from a male that is either bisexual or iv drug user. If you are a male, you get it from homosexual contact or iv drug use.

This one chart fails to cover the bisexual male angle, (as does almost every statistic gatheriing site I found today. Wonder why? lol The politics of this will be shown in a minute.) but the results are staggering. If you do not have contact with homosexaul/bisexual partners nor iv drug use partners, you are pretty much out of the loop. If the chart is correct, then assume there are bisexuals or untruthful reporting from the source. Only 11% of males get hiv/aids from hetero contact. What about those that get it from women that had contact with bisexual or iv drug using males? NO statistics here given, so the 11% must have a component of second hand exposure from females that had contact with bisexual or iv drug using males. How much of the 11%? Who knows but for the sake of argument assume that heterosexual exposure has to include other exposure factors: receptive anal sex and other high risk factors as well as bisexual, iv drug use secondary exposure factors. Basically what I am telling you is that: Of the 11%, once you extract the secondary exposure from bisexual and IV drug using male partners of "heterosexual" females, and then account for high risk factors such as sharing adult toys and "receptive" anal sex. You can almost ignore a heterosexual male with low risk partners ever getting hiv/aids.

For the females, 65% of those infected were infected through heterosexual sex. RIGHT! That would mean that only a fraction of the male 11% would be accounting for infection 65% of the females. RIGHT! Actually, one could assume that the female infections were secondary bisexual male/iv drug use males and that would set the raw numbers to something like this:

Around 77% of adults and adolescents living with AIDS(/hiv) are men.

1.4M are infected.

1.08M are males.

.32M are females.

119,000 males were infected "heterosexually."

208,000 females were infected "heterosexually."

Once you account for the bisexual/iv drug use factors and the decptive practices of others like Mr. Smith, lets cut the numbers in half. Just as a starting place. You get:

59.5K males were infected "heterosexually."

104K females were infected "heterosexually."

Review: Out of 300M US citizens, most that have practiced sexual activity since 1981, we have a pretty good picture that 164k were infected using heterosexual practices, some albeit were high risk practices. That means that: only .000546% of the population got aids from truly heterosexual partners. What if I am 100% wrong? Then .001092% of the population got aids from truly heterosexual partners.

Want to have more fun with this? If you as a strictly heterosexual averaged only 6 sex acts a year ( some of us were too young, some too old, etc.) since 1981 and the heterosexual poulation averaged only 200M then we would have a total of 1200000000 sex acts and still would have produced only 164000 infections. You would have a .000137% average chance of infection per sex act with strictly heterosexual partners.

I'll let the rest of you do the math on where I was really going with all this as per Trevis Smith.