Conference 7.286::digital

    I saw that in Livewire too...surprised the heck outta me.  I worked
    on the corporate-wide AIDS education program with Paul Ross (AIDS
    Program Manager) for Digital for over a year; it was intended to 
    be available to convey corporate policy, AIDS facts, workplace and 
    interpersonal relations issues, etc., and able to be updated and 
    customized for particular states or areas.  I never heard that it was 
    to be "mandatory."  I'm not on the corporate task force any more, so 
    things could've changed...but I find it hard to believe.

	deb

    If it's "mandatory" ... word has yet to reach the field.
    
    Yours truly,
    The Field

I ran across a reference to DEC (among other companies) in an article on
reactions to AIDS in corporate America a little while ago.  I think it was a NJ
newspaper article during Thanksgiving.  I wouldn't be surprised if both that
article and the USA Today article were the results of similar news releases.

Seeing that reference in that context (not a computer industry article, not a
New England source) was special to me.  It meant we're doing *something* right.

It was the first time I'd felt really proud of this company in I-don't-know-how-
long.
				/AHM

    
    Digital has been one of the pioneers in AIDS education inthe workplace
    issues, and is a memeber (charter member, I think) of the Corporate
    AIDS Consortium - comprised of many New England-area companies (such as
    Lotus, Polaroid, New England Telephone, and several banks).
    
    I have written to Paul Ross to get the latest 'scoop' on the
    "mandatory" nature of our AIDS education, and will post a reply when I
    can...either his message (with permission) or a paraphrase thereof.
    
    	deb

    
    	I will wait until I hear the specifics about our "AIDS policy"
    	and whether or not training is mandatory before I decide whether
    	to say we as a company are doing the right thing.
    
    	John
    

	I saw the article - I was also surprised at the mention
	of a "mandatory" education program. I tend to think this
	was a reporting error (we *are* talking about USA Today
	here:-). Or possibly it's a mandatory program for managers,
	so they are prepared to deal with having employees with
	AIDS.

	The most interesting thing I saw in the article was that
	Digital is the *only* U.S. corporation with a full-time
	AIDS office (so far).

	Mike

    Given the appalling level of ignorance about AIDS that I have
    personally come across and bearing in mind the speed with which the
    disease is spreading through society, I think that a mandatory
    education program might not be such a bad idea. 

    There seems to be a large number of people who are convinced that
    conventional heterosexual sex cannot spread the disease and I feel that
    learning this is wrong in an education program would be better than
    learning by experience.

    Jamie.

    
    
    If anyone is interested, there is (used to be, at least), a video tape
    available through Mr. Ross's office which presents DEC's perspective on
    dealing with AIDS in the workplace.  It is called "The Next Step:  HIV
    in the 90's".  It's very well done.  The tape was put together The San
    Francisco AIDS Foundation with financial support from:
    
    	DEC
    	Pacific Bell
    	Bank of America
    	Daiser Permamente
    	Wells Fargo Bank
    	MCI
    	Levi Strauss
    	Syntex Corp.
    	Chevron Corp.
    	Ford Corp.
    	Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies
    	Modine Manufacturing Comp.
    	Exxon
    	McKesson Corp.
    	National Medical Enterprises, Inc.
    
    
    If you are in the Chicago area and would like to borrow my copy, send
    mail.  If not, contact Paul Ross's office (the last I looked, he's in
    ELF).
    
    	Greg

            	
    	(re-edited)
    
    	re .7
    
    	 I am not convinced that conventional sex
    	 (heterosexual) cannot spread the AIDS virus.
    	
    	Now convince me that mandatory education on this topic is a good
    	thing for me.
    	
    	And even if I am mistaken in my beliefs about the spread of AIDS,
    	and if I choose to stay ignorant of the facts, tell me what gives
    	you the right to force facts down my throat with mandatory
    	education.
    
    	Every time that I hear the word "mandatory", I automatically get
    	very defensive.
    
    	John
    

    I got mandatory education on export licenses and several other things.
    I survived and I'm sure you will survive should it happen.

    Jamie.

    
    	re .10
    
    	I certainly don't appreciate your attempt at a flip answer.
    	Your mandatory education was most probably related to your 
    	job duties. Entirely different.
    
    	John

    
    	Instead of the flip answers like .10, please try to answer my
    	questions on what gives you the right to mandatorily educate
    	me.
    
    	John

    As I have nothing whatsoever to do with the movement of materials I
    cannot see what I received mandatory education in export licenses for.
    
    Everyone in this country however had to spend a morning being bored to
    death by it, just to keep the American government happy.. So what's
    your gripe about spending a morning being bored to death by something
    that doesn't concern you in the slightest, or are you someone special
    that these little things shouldn't happen to?  Or, horror of horrors,
    is your freedom being even further eroded?  
    
    Jamie.

    
    	I do not know which country you work in. It certainly is not
    	the United States.
    
    	My gripe is important only in the context of your attempt to
    	force something on me. You are attempting to force something
    	on me, not the other way around. Tell me why you think that
    	this is ok to do.
    
    	John

    If you actually read what I said then you will discover that I did not
    say that I would be force feeding you anything. You said that, not me,
    and I am not going to explain something that you said, that's your job.

    I said only said that it might be a good idea.

    But as I pointed out I had mandatory education at the behest of a
    foreign government, the American one, and I survived it. Now if you can
    explain to me how the American Government thinks that it has the right
    to pass laws in other countries I would be most interested in
    listening.

    However you may find, if you look at history, that when a communicable
    disease reaches epidemic proportions a lot of freedoms get put on the
    back burner for a while.

    Jamie.           

    Mandatory is a hot button of mine as well. I usually ignore
    such demands. I haven't been bitten yet. I attend more events
    such as this when the word mandatory is left out. It's just a
    matter of principle.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    re last few...
      Mandatory education doesn't necessarily mean that you have to learn,
    many people listen but they don't hear, others look but do not see.
    This training 'if' mandatory is there to help you to help others, maybe
    not physically but psychologically. 
    How would you act if you found that a person in your group was HIV+
    (that doesn't mean that they have aids just HIV)* ?? 
    This awareness may make them and you feel a little more comfortable.
    
     Alan
    
    note *, Totally hyperthetical situation, not aimed at the people that
    you work with or near....
     

    
    	Was the mandatory education required by:
    	1. Your country
    	2. The United States
    	3. Your employer ?
    
    	The correct answer will probably be 1 or 3. But that does not
    	matter anyway; it is a red herring. 
    	
    	The real question, one that you have been unable to answer,
    	concerns the matter of mandatory AIDS education. You said that you
    	thought this was a good idea. Mandatory means required or
    	obligatory, with a penalty for refusal attached. AIDS education
    	may or may not be good; mndatory education is bad.
    
    	What gives you the right to require me to be educated on something
    	that I do not care to be?
    
    	John

    
    	re. 17
    
    	Whether or not a person achieves the objectives of a training class
    	is not the question here.
    	
    	Should I be required to attend courses on <pick your favorite
    	affliction here>? Why single out AIDS?
    
    	And other than treating people professionally, what is my 
    	obligation as an employee to help other employes psychologically?
        Where does it start and where does it end?
    
    	John

>    	(re-edited)
>    
>    	re .7
>    
>    	 I am not convinced that conventional sex
>    	 (heterosexual) cannot spread the AIDS virus.
>    	
>    	Now convince me that mandatory education on this topic is a good
>    	thing for me.
    	
 

	Well John, it looks like you have had some education, as you are
	convinced that conventional sex can spread the AIDS virus.....
	........maybe you can volunteer to take the classes?

	Heather

As convincing anyone that mandartory education is a "GOOD" thing consider
that in the U.S.A. and probably most other countries, it IS mandatory
that each person attend school from the ages of 6 to 18. It doesnt
seem to hurt them any in fact just the opposite is true.

- George

	re .20

	Heather,
	
	My choice of words in that particular reply was an attempt to 
	capture the essence of reply .7..it was not entirely my own
	choice of words. So I'm not sure of the point that you are trying 
	to make.

	Whether or not I choose to take the course should be voluntary..
	that is the point I am trying to make. I want to know why some
	people think that it is ok to make that training mandatory.

	John

    Re .21 ..... little correction in order.  The required age to attend
    school in the U.S. is different in every state.  Usually 14-16 years
    of age.  I seriously doubt that even one requires a person to stay in
    school until 18.
    
    Anyhow, I would have a serious problem with any mandatory AIDS
    education effort which ignores the moral issues surrounding the
    spread of AIDS.  Any program which would deal with the
    secular-humanistic mechanics of the problem is of zero interest to
    me, inadequate, probably wrong, and a violation of my religious
    beliefs.

    In addition to what I said previously, I would not be surprised if
    Digital's AIDS education was 'non-voluntary' for managers and
    supervisors.  There are a lot of legal issues relating to HIV in 
    the workplace, for example:  What are the legal "reasonable
    accommodations" employers are required to make to handicapped persons?
    Is AIDS legally a handicap?  Is ARC?  Is being HIV+?  What can you
    legally say when one of your subordinates asks you if co-worker X has
    AIDS?  What can you legally do if after X announces that s/he has AIDS
    but wants to continue designing the software, but team member Herman
    refuses to work with him/her any more?  How do you handle the situation
    in your group if X dies suddenly without telling anyone but you s/he
    had AIDS?

    These are just rhetorical questions to indicate that there are a lot
    of ramifications to HIV in the workplace that managers/supervisors have
    not faced with other illnesses.  Companies have been sued (and lost!) 
    for inappropriate and illegal treatment of sick employees.  In an
    effort to avoid that, it wouldn't surprise me that the company would
    want all managers to know what "the right thing" is so they will be
    prepared if the situation arises, and won't be caught unaware doing
    the wrong thing and ending up in court.

    Company AIDS education does not get  into any moral or religious
    aspects or judgments...it is purely factual (AIDS stats, how it is and
    is not transmitted, what you do and do not have to worry about, what
    company policy is, stages of HIV infection, state/country laws, etc.).
    It is usually conducted by the AIDS program manager, a doctor and a 
    personnel manager.  There is usually a 1/2 hour video that's shown going 
    over basic medical/biological facts about cells, and also including 
    personal profiels of people with AIDS.  Sometimes there are role-plays 
    or actual PWAs in the room to answer questions and relate their business
    experiences with HIV.  It is conducted entirely on a *professional*
    level.
    
    Earlier someone mentioned that Digital was the only company with an
    AIDS manager.  This is incorrect...Polaroid definitely has one; and I
    think N.E. Telephone does, too.  It is true that Digital is among the
    scant 20% of US companies who are doing *anything* about HIV in the
    workplace issues.  Digital is recognized in national and international 
    circles as a leader in business-related HIV issues.

    
    	If company AIDS education consists of facts, stats, etc., then it
    	can be easily disseminated in the form of brochures, etc. Even an
    	"AIDS Hotline", if you will. As long as it is voluntary.
    
    	I agree that managers need to take more of these types of courses
    	than IC's, but then, that's part of being a manager.
    
    	As a contrast, I worked in a DEC facility that contained chemicals
    	that are extremely toxic and, of course, fatal. I worked there for
    	approximately five years. Not once was I required to be educated on
    	the potential effects of these chemicals. Instead, Digital has a
    	"Right to Know" policy under which it legally covers itself. How
    	does it make sense on the one hand to make AIDS education mandatory
    	and on the other hand make it a matter of personal choice whether
    	or not to find out about the toxic effects of chemicals that are
    	present in the workplace? 
    
    	One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if
    	my co-worker has AIDS?
    
    	John 

    .........absolutely.

re: .26

>    	One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if
>    	my co-worker has AIDS?
    
Only if you plan on having sexual intercourse with him/her or a blood 
transfusion from him/her.

- George

    
    	re .28
    
    	Did David Acer have sexual intercourse or give a blood transfusion
    	(in the accepted sense of the term "blood transfusion") to the
    	patients that he infected?
    
    	Are sexual intercourse or a blood transfusion the ONLY possible
    	ways that you can contract AIDS from another person? These methods
    	are generally voluntary. What about contracting it involuntarily?
    	Sounds like I'm making a case for AIDS education...maybe I am,
    	but I still believe that it should be voluntary.
    
    	John

    
.26>    One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if
    	my co-worker has AIDS?
    
    
    	A resounding No.

    
    .26>   One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if 
           my co-worker has AIDS?
    
           Another resounding NO!

>    .26>   One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if 
>           my co-worker has AIDS?
>    
>           Another resounding NO!

	Why not? 

			Alfred

>    Re .21 ..... little correction in order.  The required age to attend
>    school in the U.S. is different in every state.  Usually 14-16 years
>    of age.  I seriously doubt that even one requires a person to stay in
>    school until 18.

West Virginia denies persons under 18 the right to drive unless they
remain in school (or complete high school).

>    	Was the mandatory [export] education [outside the U.S.] required by:
>    	1. Your country
>    	2. The United States
>    	3. Your employer ?
>    
>    	The correct answer will probably be 1 or 3. But that does not
>    	matter anyway; it is a red herring. 

The correct answer is #2.

U.S. law requires employees of U.S. corporations outside the United States
to take a course on U.S. export regulations.

Within the U.S., only employees involved in export are required to take the
course.  Outside the U.S., all employees involved with export as well as any
employees whose brains contain export controlled information even if not
involved with product movement are required to take the course.

U.S. law would not take action against Jamie if he were to refuse to take
the course -- action would be taken against DEC.

/john

re: .32

>>    .26>   One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if 
>>           my co-worker has AIDS?
>>    
>>           Another resounding NO!

>	Why not? 

I would say for the same reason you don't have a RIGHT to know if they
have infectous hepatitis. Now I'd admit that I would like to know if my
co-workers have a contagious disease, but, I don't have a right to know.

- george

    
    
    re .30 and .31
    
    	Are epilepsy or alcoholism contagious?
    
    re .33
    
    	Thanks..I never knew that. It's still a red herring, though.
    

Isn't it pretty clear by now that this "mandatory AIDS education program"
is a fiction of the McPaper "USA Today"?

Damn good thing, too.

This barrage of sexual information of late is beginning to be SIMPLY TOO MUCH!

Shouldn't I have the right to determine WHEN and WHERE I want to encounter
sex?  Isn't pushing it in my face all the time -- through AIDS education
programs, mail about AIDS Walks, tables advertising the Marlboro LesBiGays,
the constant discussions in WORK RELATED notesfiles -- isn't that a form of
sexual harassment??

    
>    re .30 and .31
    
>    	Are epilepsy or alcoholism contagious?
    
    What does that have to do with my responding to your question.
    
    As for why not, well, how can I say this tactfully, it's none of
    your G D business.

    
    	re .37
    
    	Well, your title asked if you have a right to know if someone
    	epileptic. Reply .31 asked the same thing about alcoholism.
    
    	Let me say this slowly..if you are an epileptic or an alcoholic,
    	I cannot "catch" these diseases from you. But it would be in your
    	best interests to let me know if you are epileptic, in case you
    	have a seizure while we are driving to a meeting. It would also be
    	in my best interests to know, especially if you plan to drive me
    	to the meeting.
    	
    	This would not be life-threatening to me unless I put myself in the
    	position to be affected by your condition (in the passenger seat).
    	In this case, it certainly *is* my GD business to know. And if the
    	COMPANY knew, and kept it secret, and I was subsequently injured by
    	their negligence to disclose this information to me, well...get the
    	picture? Same goes for an alky.
    
    	And before people ask whether it is the company's business to know
    	if any of it's employees have AIDS, just remember the medical forms
    	that you signed upon hire that asked whether you have any (para-
    	phrasing now) medical conditions that might keep you from doing a
    	particular job.
    
    	Extrapolate this information to include somebody with AIDS. 
                        

    The following 10 Principles have been published in a variety of
    sources, including newspaper articles and a poster titled: "What We
    Think About AIDS In The Workplace Isn't A Matter Of Opinion.  It's a
    matter of principle."  Digital, along with the other members of the
    New England Corporate Consortium on AIDS Education have all signed it. 
    It may answer some questions that have been raised...

    "We endorse and are working to achieve these ten principles in the
    workplace:

    1.	Persons with HIV infection, including AIDS, in our company have
	the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as others
	with serious illnesses or disabilities.

    2.	Our employment policies comply with federal, state and local laws.

    3.	Our employment policies are based on the scientific facts that
	persons with HIV infection, including AIDS, do not cause risk to
	others in the workplace through ordinary workplace contact.

    4.	Our management and employee leaders endorse a non-discrimination
	policy.

    5.	Special training and equipment will be used when necessary, such 
	as in health care settings, to minimize risks to employees.

    6.	We will ensure that AIDS education is provided to all of our
	employees.

    7.	We will endeavor to ensure that education takes place before AIDS
	related incidents occur in our workplace.

    8.	Confidentiality of persons with HIV infection and AIDS will be
	protected.

    9.	We will not screen for HIV as part of pre-employment or workplace
	physical examinations.

    10.	We will support these policies through their clear communication
	to all current and prospective employees."

    From my personal (unofficial) perspective...

    Do employees "need to know" that a co-worker has HIV?  Absolutely not.
    You can't 'catch' it like you can 'catch' German Measles or Chicken 
    Pox.  The employee poses no danger to you.  An employee can *choose*
    to disclose the nature of his/her illness but does not *have* to.

    Why can't AIDS education be accomplished by watching a video or 
    electronically?  Neither of those are as effective as live 
    presentations; being in the same room with your managers, peers and
    subordinates; hearing the questions and answers (which comprise a
    substantial and invaluable part of the education); talking about
    workplace issues such as fear, harassment, work disruption, field 
    service at customer sites, and 'what if' scenarios; and hearing
    personal workplace experiences.  

    To reiterate something I said previously: Digital's corporate AIDS
    education does not consist of any religious or moral preaching, or 
    'safer sex' instruction of any sort.  It is a *professional* education 
    program...by professionals, for professionals.  (Besides helping to 
    write and compile the program, I also attended about a half dozen of 
    them.  The seminar critiques came back *extremely* favorably, and the 
    various audiences asked a lot of superb and pertinent questions.)

    There is some very basic information on VTX_AIDS (I don't know how 
    frequently it is updated, though.)  

    As indicated in Principle #7, AIDS education should ideally be
    accomplished *before* there is an actual workplace issue to address.
    It is much better to prevent problems from occurring than to try to
    fix them after they've been made.  By the way, the "rhetorical"
    questions I listed in .25 are very very real...Incorrect answers
    or "I don't know"s mean that workplace AIDS education would be 
    appropriate.

    
    	From my personal (laymans) perspective, the 10 principles listed 
    	in .39 may make you fell nice and fuzzy-warm, and present a good
    	image to the press, but they are so full of loopholes that a
    	second-year law student could shoot them down if an AIDS related
    	incident occurred in the workplace.
    
    	Deb, let me ask you:
    
    	Do you think AIDS education in the workplace should be mandatory?
    	If so, why any more so than any other education? Take into account
    	the toxic chemicals that I talked about earlier.
    
    	If the company were to know that employee X had AIDS, and through
    	some work-related incident he/she infected employee Y with the
    	virus, what would be the limits of the company's liability?
    
    	Should I as an employee be made to bear a portion of the extremely
    	high cost of health coverage for someone with AIDS?
    
    	AIDS is associated with a lifestyle that many find (and justifiably
    	so) morally reprehensible. I say "justifiably so" because it is the
    	duty of the individual to define what is morally correct, just as
    	it is the right of the individual to choose his/her own lifestyle
    	(justifiably so). Should AIDS education include any moral
    	statements? If not, why not?
    
    	We are talking about two very volatile topics here: whether or
    	not mandatory education is OK, and the AIDS virus. Catchy phrases
    	will not change people; neither will attempts to legislate
    	morality. We could (should) have learned that fromthe last 30
    	years. Different strokes....
     

    In response to my inquiry regarding the "mandatory" nature of
    Digital's AIDS in the workplace education, I received the following.
    I have just received permission from the author to post it here.

From:	ICS::ICS::MRGATE::"A1::ROSS.PAUL" 16-DEC-1991 17:17:23.84
To:	FSOA::DARCH
CC:	
Subj:	RE: "Mandatory"?

From:	NAME: PAUL ROSS                     
	FUNC: Corporate Employee Relations    
	TEL:                                  <ROSS.PAUL AT A1 at ICS at PKO>
To:	NAME: VMSMail User DARCH <DARCH@FSOA@MRGATE>


Deb,

The company is clear in its message that managers and employees will become
educated around the issues of HIV/AIDS.  They are providing company resources
on company time. I don't usually use the word mandatory because it sets up
negative dynamics, but once a business group contracts for the seminar series, 
there is an expectation that employees will avail themselves of the opportunity.

I want to be clear that this program is for everyone--everyone has a right to
feel safe in the workplace.  Beyond that there are two other significant 
messages

	-if someone is ill and chooses to disclose, s/he will find
         a supportive workplace; and,

	-if someone has been at risk in the past 10-12 years--
         for whatever reason--get into healthcare early.  Translation:
         get tested because medical programs could extend your life.

Good to hear from you.

Paul
 

    Re: .41
    
    	>> AIDS is associated with a lifestyle that many find (and justifiably
    	>> so) morally reprehensible. I say "justifiably so" because it is the
    	>> duty of the individual to define what is morally correct, just as
    	>> it is the right of the individual to choose his/her own lifestyle
    	>> (justifiably so). Should AIDS education include any moral
    	>>statements? If not, why not?

    AIDS education should NOT include any moral statements.  I can think of
    several reasons why, but this one is sufficient: there are people who
    have contracted HIV through no fault (by *any* morality) of their own. 
    Three examples:  HIV+ blood transfusions, dental work from a doctor who
    is HIV+, and (heterosexual) marital relations with a spouse who is
    HIV+.

    I don't believe we (at Digital) want to go around and determine whether
    or not each case of AIDS was contracted by some moral method or by some
    method that might be labeled immoral.  That is an unnecessary invasion
    of privacy. If *all* possible methods of becoming HIV+ were immoral,
    this argument might not be valid; I won't argue that; I don't need to.
    As long as there is some way to become HIV+ that is moral, then we can
    set the whole moral discussion aside.  A discussion of morality will
    not be useful or constructive because it will not be known whether or
    not any specific case was contracted by a moral or immoral method.

    For those who might be inclined to think otherwise, consider this: You
    find out that a co-worker is HIV+.  (Let's say he tells you.) What are
    you now going to do?  Ask him how he got it?  Assuming he will answer,
    he will tell you something, and to you, it will be either moral or
    immoral.  What will you do differently depending on the answer?  If you
    won't do anything differently then there is no need for you to have the
    details.  

    So the question I ask of those people who believe there should be a
    discussion of the moral aspects, what do you intend to do differently
    depending on how a person became HIV+? If you will do something
    differently (like shun the person?) then lets see who is willing to
    admit that right here in this conference. I'm particularly interested
    in the answer from those who believe there should be a moral aspect to
    any DEC education on the subject.  And particularly from those who
    claim to be religious.

    Please don't anybody tell me that the blood supply is safe.  I know
    that, but it wasn't always true, and some people did become HIV+ from
    blood transfusions. And some people have become HIV+ from medical
    personnel, however few the number.  And the whole issue of "safe sex"
    would not be discussed by the (ex-) US Surgeon General, C. Everett
    Koop, if it were impossible for HIV to be transmitted during
    traditional, moral, heterosexual, marital sex.  I am assuming that X is
    not morally responsible for spouse Y's transgressions, whatever they
    may be.

    re .41 <sorry, I don't remember your name>,

    The 10 principles are guidelines that companies have agreed to
    adhere to and/or strive for.  The actual legally-binding policies
    are in the Orange Book (VTX_ORANGEBOOK).
    
>    	Do you think AIDS education in the workplace should be mandatory?
>    	If so, why any more so than any other education? Take into account
>    	the toxic chemicals that I talked about earlier.

    Yes (but I agree with Paul Ross that the word "mandatory" has 
    negative connotations; I like his word "expected" better).  I don't
    think it should be "more so" than others.  In your toxic chemical
    situation, my opinion is that it should be required also...I'm not an
    expert in that, but it seems to me to be a situation of fundamental
    workplace safety. AIDS-in-the-workplace education is different...you
    don't have to learn how to 'handle' a person with HIV to protect 
    yourself from physical danger; you do need to know how to handle the
    *situation* so that you can 'do the right thing' for the employee,
    the co-workers, and the company.  Some people go ballistic when they
    hear the phrase, "AIDS affects everyone."  What that means is that
    while *you personally* may never become infected, that through your
    interactions in your community, your workplace, and/or your customers,
    the chances are very high that you will come into contact with a person
    who is HIV+ or who has AIDS or ARC.
    
>    	If the company were to know that employee X had AIDS, and through
>    	some work-related incident he/she infected employee Y with the
>    	virus, what would be the limits of the company's liability?

    I don't know the legal particulars of your [highly improbable]
    scenario.  Paul Ross or the legal department could probably answer
    that  one.
    
>    	Should I as an employee be made to bear a portion of the extremely
>    	high cost of health coverage for someone with AIDS?

    In the first place, while the individual costs associated with HIV
    infection are very high, the same can also be said for many other
    illnesses or conditions (cancer, heart, brain tumors, etc.).  These
    illnesses/conditions affect a much larger number of people than does
    HIV.  Should non-smokers "be made" to help pay for a smoker's lung
    cancer or quadruple-bypass surgery?  Should men "be made" to help pay
    for women's breast cancer or endometriosis?  Should childless people
    "be made" to pay for Joe & Jane's 10 kids' health problems?  Well, I
    think you get my drift.  The point is that we all end up paying for
    other people in one way or another; and recent studies have shown 
    that covering HIV-related conditions does not overburden companies'
    health systems.  (I could get into a nice rathole about all the
    *unnecessary* medical procedures you and I pay for...like 52% of
    C-sections!  But I'll be good...)
    
>    	AIDS is associated with a lifestyle that many find (and justifiably
>    	so) morally reprehensible. I say "justifiably so" because it is the
>    	duty of the individual to define what is morally correct, just as
>    	it is the right of the individual to choose his/her own lifestyle
>    	(justifiably so). Should AIDS education include any moral
>    	statements? If not, why not?

    AIDS is a disease that affects *people*.  It can be acquired by certain
    means and can be prevented by eliminating risks and modifying 
    behaviors.  If you personally knew someone with HIV...a family member, 
    dear friend or respected co-worker...you probably would not cruelly state 
    that it is a moral judgment on "reprehensible" individuals.  I do
    personally know (and knew) people with HIV, ARC and AIDS, and your
    statement hurts me very much.  Also, please remember when you call
    'them' "reprehensible" that you are also throwing your statement at
    some of your Digital colleagues.
    
    Now then, could you please tell me which "lifestyle" the following 
    people have in common:  Magic Johnson, Ryan White, Kimberly Bergalis, 
    Freddie Mercury, Dack Rambo, Belinda Mason...and the other 200,000+ 
    American men, women and children who have been diagnosed with AIDS, and
    the 1 million+ American men, women and children who are HIV+?  

    Should AIDS [in the workplace] include any moral statements?  No. 
    Employees' private lives should not be dictated by the company...
    whether 'Fred' enjoys the company of prostitutes on lonely business 
    trips; whether 'Jane' gets depressed and goes to the local bar to get 
    picked up by a cute hunk; whether 'Joe' is gay; whether 'Sally' 
    experimented with IV drugs in college 5 years ago; whether any 'swinging 
    single' likes variety and adding more 'notches on the bedpost', etc.

    The *facts* presented will make people think about their behaviors
    and will give them the information for *them* to decide if they've 
    been at risk; *and* they will be provided with information regarding 
    local anonymous testing sites, AIDS hotlines, public health officials, 
    etc., should they have any questions they want to ask privately.
    
>    	We are talking about two very volatile topics here: whether or
>    	not mandatory education is OK, and the AIDS virus. Catchy phrases
>    	will not change people; neither will attempts to legislate
>    	morality. We could (should) have learned that fromthe last 30
>    	years. Different strokes....

    I'm not sure I understand your point...could you please explain before 
    I misinterpret your paragraph?  Thanks.

    
    	To Deb Darch...
    
    	Thanks for all your efforts to keep us informed in lieu of an
    	official statement from corporate. It is sincerely appreciated. 
    
    	To those who might wonder why I injected the "morality" aspect
    	into the discussion: Should lifestyles, as a component of heightened
    	risk, be excluded from any part of AIDS education? If so, is this
    	the "high ground" to take, both legally and morally? Or is it the
    	easy cop-out?
    
    	If your co-worker fell and injured him/herself, and you had to
    	quickly remember the 3 B's (breathing, bleeding, breaks, if I 
    	recall correctly), would the fact that your co-worker was HIV+
    	make a difference in your response to the situation? Would you
    	WANT to know if the co-worker was positive?
    
    	These are difficult questions. Answers will not be palatable to
    	all. I do not want to appear insensitive to people's problems.
    	I'm just searchin...

    
    	re .45 (Deb)
    
    	Good points on the 10 kids, smokers, etc. 
    
    	Why should AIDS education be "more mandatory" than education on
    	other illnesses? I don't think you answered that.
    
    	As far as the "morally reprehensible" lifestyle, I believe that I
    	stated that "many people" find it to be so. And that is a true
    	statement, Deb. Ignoring that fact when designing educational
    	courses, especially one so emotionally-charged, is setting oneself
    	up for failure.
    
    	I did not intend to hurt you. A dear friend, a surrogate uncle to
    	my kids, died of AIDS last year. I miss him...he was as kind a soul
    	as you'll ever meet. But his lifestyle killed him. I cannot ignore
    	that or gloss it over. Was his lifestyle reprehensible? If it was
    	to me, I'd never tell him. 
    
    	John
    
    	

    As an EMT, and past team leader of a DEC facility emergency response
    team, I would like to know of pre-exisiting conditions when responding
    to emergencies such as described in .46, particularly in the case of
    any infectious condition (hepatitis is quite common, and easily passed
    on to others). I would never hesitate to provide help or support, and
    have run into a number of auto accidents in the last few years where I
    opted willingly to provide initial care even when I did not have
    surgical gloves, ampu-bags w/masks, etc.. In such a line of work, you
    accept certain risks in helping others, but also do try to minimize
    clear risks where possible. Having the proper basic emergency equipment
    to minimize transmission of contagious diseases in general is one way
    to minimize those risks. Part of the AIDS policy, and really part of
    what should be (and may be within DEC medical response teams by now - I
    don't know if that's changed in the last few years) a proper medical
    protocol for handling the trauma scenario described in .46 should be
    that all first aid kits (and appropriate first responder training)
    should include the tools and techniques used to minimize transmissions
    of any infectious diseases while providing medical care. Assume
    everyone might have AIDS, hepatatis-A,B,orC, the flu, et al., and it
    would help to safeguard the health of all involved.
    
    -Dave
    

    re: .42
    
>                 I don't usually use the word mandatory because it sets up
>negative dynamics, but once a business group contracts for the seminar series, 
>there is an expectation that employees will avail themselves of the opportunity.
    
    

    re: .48
    
>   As an EMT, and past team leader of a DEC facility emergency response
>   team, I would like to know of pre-exisiting conditions when responding
>   to emergencies such as described in .46
    
    You have no such a priori knowledge when you respond to emergencies
    in the field, why should responses at Digital be any different?  The
    protective equipment required to protect the rescuer (latex gloves and
    a pocket mask) can be carried in a small pouch on the belt or carried
    in a purse.
    
    	- Jerry

>I would say for the same reason you don't have a RIGHT to know if they
>have infectous hepatitis. Now I'd admit that I would like to know if my
>co-workers have a contagious disease, but, I don't have a right to know.

    This may answer the question for you but it does not for me. Why?
    Because I don't now why I don't have a right to know if they have
    infectous hepatitis. Perhaps you could explain.

    RE: .40 Deb you seem to be equating need with right. They are hardly
    the same thing.

    			Alfred

    Let's turn the question around - why should you have the right to know?
    The hepatitis viruses, like HIV, are not transmitted by casual contact:
    hepatitis A is spread by fecal-oral contact and by contact with
    infected blood and secretions; hepatitis B is spread by sexual activity
    and contact with infected blood.

>                       <<< Note 1697.21 by CIS1::FULTI >>>
>                           -< well since you asked >-

>As convincing anyone that mandartory education is a "GOOD" thing consider
>that in the U.S.A. and probably most other countries, it IS mandatory
>that each person attend school from the ages of 6 to 18. It doesnt
>seem to hurt them any in fact just the opposite is true.

Well, it isn't mandatory in the UK for children to attend school, at any
age. It's only mandatory to provide them with an education, this may be
done at home. However, this is educating _children_. I had no choice,
at my school I had to learn French for at least 2 years. However, as
an _adult_ noone is forcing me to go to French evening classes anymore,
if I go it is of my own free will. The same should apply of AIDS classes.
The risks to me are much higher if I choose not to be educated, but that
choice is mine to make. Yet another example of the nanny state which 
applies in the so-called "land of the "free".

Craig

    My my you have been a busy lot since last night when I went home.
    
    Re .18

    All mandatory education is wrong?  
    
    Actually I held a very similar opinion as a child. 

    Re epilepsy and driving. I do not know the regulations in the USA but
    in the UK a period of two years pass between your last attack and you
    being allowed to drive a car again. For Heavy Goods Vehicles the period
    is 5 years. So a person who is currently suffering from epilepsy is
    unlikely to offer you a lift. Were I a sufferer from this I would make
    sure that everyone in the office knew about it and what action to take
    if I had an attack at work.

    BTW I refuse to believe that *ANYONE* would sexually harass John Covert.
                            
    Now back to AIDS. 

    The first publicity campaign in the UK to alert the public to the
    consequences of AIDS was titled, "Don't die of ignorance". However
    several noters in here seem determined to keep their ignorance intact. 
    One is inclined to wonder why. Are the facts to awful to face? Is the
    sight of a terminal AIDS patient too horrible to look at? Or is it just
    plain old stubbornness. 

    I personally think that the more people know about the disease the less
    chance there is of them contacting it, via which ever method of
    infection. 

    I can give you my personal assurance that living with a crippled immune
    system is not a pleasant experience. If someone in the office comes in
    with a cold it is odds on that I will get it. I also managed to develop
    shingles with the added bonus of a post Zoster neuralgia, that last
    one is a thunderous headache that lasts for at least a year. No I don't
    have AIDS and I'm not HIV+, I just have a suppressed immune system and
    I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

    So if the education comes your way my advice would be to listen very
    carefully because it might save you from a miserable life and an early
    death.

    Jamie.

    
    	re .55
    
    	Jamie,
    
    	I think that your advice is *good* advice..take advantage of
    	education that might just save your life. We disagree on whether
    	that education should be mandatory. After all, that's what the
    	U.S was built around...freedoms. I have a natural dislike for
    	governments, preachers, or whomever telling me that I MUST do
    	something. 
    
    	Cheers,
    	John

The objection to "mandatory education" is sometimes due to our
rebelliousness, our unwillingness to have someone else play God for us.  But
sometimes it is a question of policy.  If even 10% of the employees chafe at
being told "Thou shalt be educated about X", then the education program will
not be effective (for those 10%, at least).  Then it behooves those who
plan, announce, administer, introduce, host, sponsor such programs to think
seriously about the style in which they are described.  In the particular
case, the editorial staff of the paper that published the notice apparently
wants this program to fail, since they deliberately introduced a word which
anyone with half an ounce of sense knows will bother some people.

If you want to look for troublemakers, look in the news media! (only partly
in jest).

Dick

    Re .25:
    
    > Company AIDS education does not get  into any moral or religious
    > aspects or judgments...it is purely factual (AIDS stats, how it is and
    > is not transmitted, what you do and do not have to worry about, what
    > company policy is, stages of HIV infection, state/country laws, etc.).

    Oh, yes, it is just facts . . . in the opinion of you and/or Digital.
    Ultimately, even scientific observation and pure formal logic are
    matters of opinion, even faith.  Digital does NOT have a right to force
    ANY beliefs or "education" on employees, not even if Digital thinks it
    is "facts".  If Digital were to conduct a class teaching people about
    evolution because that is fact and creationism is myth, that would be
    extremely rude.  Hey, how about a class teaching people that premarital
    sex is perfectly natural and can be entirely safe?  Those are "facts"
    too, and we wouldn't want any people with religious beliefs against
    premarital sex having any "incidents" with people who are cohabitating,
    would we?  Let's just take EVERYTHING that Digital believes and
    "educate" employees about the "facts".
    
    Every employee is a human being, and they have a right to CHOOSE FOR
    THEMSELF what they wish to learn and believe.  Digital should honor
    that right.
    
    
    Re .42:
    
    What Paul Ross said:
    
    > I don't usually use the word mandatory because it sets up negative
    > dynamics, but once a business group contracts for the seminar series, 
    > there is an expectation that employees will avail themselves of the
    > opportunity.
    
    What that really means:
    
    	I don't usually use the word "mandatory" because telling the
    	truth would upset people.  Digital will be infringing upon
    	its employees' personal lives, beliefs, and dignity.
    
                                          
    				-- edp

    He's back!

>The risks to me are much higher if I choose not to be educated, but that
>choice is mine to make. Yet another example of the nanny state which 
>applies in the so-called "land of the "free".
>
>Craig

SINCE WHEN IS DIGITAL THE "STATE"???????????

    RE: Deb .45,
    
    I beilieve the noter stated that some find the lifestyle reprehensible,
    not the person.  Yes, there is a large difference.
    
    Mike 

re .57:

Perhaps USA Today is at fault for introducing the term "mandatory," since
it's bound to upset people.  But Paul Ross is more at fault for his newspeak
denial that it's mandatory.

re .58:

There ain't no such word as themself.

>>       <<< Note 1697.58 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>>    Re .42:
    
>>    What Paul Ross said:
    
>    > I don't usually use the word mandatory because it sets up negative
>    > dynamics, but once a business group contracts for the seminar series, 
>    > there is an expectation that employees will avail themselves of the
>    > opportunity.
>    
>    What that really means:
>    
>    	I don't usually use the word "mandatory" because telling the
>    	truth would upset people.  Digital will be infringing upon
>    	its employees' personal lives, beliefs, and dignity.
                                          
>    				-- edp
    
    Surely what you meant to say was ...
    
    What I think he means:
    
    .......
    
    
    Codge.

>    Let's turn the question around - why should you have the right to know?

    	Has the (US) law that requires employers to inform employees about
    hazardous substances in the work place bee repealed? Or is blood
    containing hepatitis and/or AIDS not considered hazardous?

    		Alfred

    The Chemical Hazard training in my building _was_ mandatory.  Also
    at my previous place of employment we had mandatory sexual harassment
    seminars.  I can understand the objection if these were safe-sex
    seminars, but it sounds like they are about the workplace impact
    of AIDS not a paternalistic attempt to help employees stay healthy
    in their private lives.  The latter would be somewhat like the seat
    belt law: it would save alot of lives, but people get pissed off
    at being forced into it.
    	Linda

    Now I can see people not wishing to wear seat belts and I can see no
    reason why they should be forced to, we are desperately short of donor
    organs and road accidents victims are a good source. 

    However when it comes to education it is a slightly different thing. I
    had to receive mandatory courses before I was allowed to work in
    certain fields. I also had to receive mandatory training to even get a
    job with CDC. I can't really see why everyone is getting all worked up
    about receiving training that may help them avoid a life threatening
    situation. Ignoring the problem does not afford you any protection.

    Jamie.
                                            

    
    Re: .39
    
    >3.	Our employment policies are based on the scientific facts that
    >	persons with HIV infection, including AIDS, do not cause risk to
    >	others in the workplace through ordinary workplace contact.
    >
    
    This is NOT a fact.  The very most that can be said is that to date
    there is no evidence of this being a problem, but lack of evidence
    that there is risk does NOT equate to there being NO risk.  At the
    very most a reasonable conclusion from lack of evidence might be that
    the risk is very low.
    
    Anyone who can reason can see the error in this.  It is an example
    of why so many people are distrustful.  If the persons responsible
    for addressing the AIDs problem are frustrated with continued distrust
    and fear from the population at large then in some sense they have
    themselves to blame for some of it.  Since there are more than a 
    few cases where doctors and nurses have refused to treat AIDs
    patients, is it any wonder if the the rest of us are skeptical of what
    we are being told about it?
    
    Steve
    
    
    

Well, I'll get flamed for saying this, but I've had my day long cooling off
period, and I haven't cooled off yet:

People are dying of AIDS, yet what I see in this note are people (who 
presumably don't have AIDS) acting like the real victims.  Excuse me:
the victims are those who are dying, whether or not you approve of how
they came to be infected.  For those not infected:  Let's quit acting
like the world is out to get you, ok?

Re: Sexually harrassing John Covert.

Well, ur, uh...  Maybe it is possible.

I once made a comment to/about John which was not in any way a sexual advance,
but was still sufficiently inappropriate to be considered sexual harrassment.  
(Well, you know, it had to do with Telephones.  What can I say?)

Fortunately, John didn't get my butt booted out of the company (thanks, John).

Hey, anything can happen in this company...

| Mandatory is a hot button of mine as well. I usually ignore
| such demands. I haven't been bitten yet. I attend more events
| such as this when the word mandatory is left out. It's just a
| matter of principle.

	How is it different than going for a job where you have to have a
certain education to obtain it? Let's say you need to take a course to qualify
for a job. Do you use your method of seeing it is mandatory for you to have
this background before you can get this job you just blow it off, or do you get
the background you need and get the job? It seems to me that if it's something
you want (in this case a job) one might be willing to do the mandatory class,
yet if it's not something they care about then maybe the person wouldn't. In
other words, if someone says because something is mandatory they won't do it
because it's a matter of priciple, do they really mean it across the board or
just when it becomes convienent?


Glen

re .45
    
>    ...Should non-smokers "be made" to help pay for a smoker's lung
>    cancer or quadruple-bypass surgery?  Should men "be made" to help pay
>    for women's breast cancer or endometriosis?  Should childless people
>    "be made" to pay for Joe & Jane's 10 kids' health problems?  
    
    My answer is "No!" to all of the above.  Individual insurance companies
    may morally decide to cross-subsidize, but people should not be forced
    to buy insurance from such companies, nor should companies be forced to
    pool high-risk and low-risk customers.  (And yes, I'm aware that under
    current law such forcing is going on.  It's still wrong.  And "publicly
    funded" education is wrong as well, as childless people pay for other
    peoples' childrens' educations.  I try to be consistent!)
    
    As for "mandatory": it's not mandatory, it's just a condition of
    employment--just as wearing a tie might be at some other firm.  If
    you don't want to do what your employer wants you to do, you have
    the freedom to leave.  Of course, you can always not go, and find
    out whether your employer cares enough to fire you for not going--in
    this case I bet DEC doesn't.  And you can complain--that's actually
    one of your job responsibilities, to send information up (and across)
    the management hierarchy, even if the information is negative.  In
    this case you're saying "Making this class 'mandatory' will injure
    employee morale and so will reduce productivity.  It is a greater
    loss than morale gain from the education the class would create".
    
    		-John Bishop

| .26>    One more question..do you think that I have a right to know if
| my co-worker has AIDS?

	No you don't. The only way you should ever know is if the co-worker
tells you. You're not going to catch the disease from him/her, so you don't
need to know.

	Now, why don't you need to know? The person is going through enough
stuff with the disease without having someone or a group of people giving them
any more grief. 

	How could this grief come about? People could shun the person with the
disease. Could decide not to work with the person. People could start talking
about the person, treating them differently than before. Pointing at them, any
of these things. Maybe the person doesn't want to discuss the disease. You know
there would be many questions. It all comes down to one thing. The person who
has the disease is the one who has the right to keep it to themselves if they
so choose. Just as anyone has the right to keep the fact that they are an
alcoholic to themselves. If it doesn't effect you, you don't need to know.



Glen

re .69


>| Mandatory is a hot button of mine as well. I usually ignore
>| such demands. I haven't been bitten yet. I attend more events
>| such as this when the word mandatory is left out. It's just a
>| matter of principle.

>	How is it different than going for a job where you have to have a
>certain education to obtain it? 

Its different because there is a sneaking suspicion that somebody's personal
hidden agenda includes my indoctrination more than any interest in my
welfare, future or present.

Let's face it.  We have created enough ill will among ourselves to last for
a long time.   Our injudicious remarks about each other have poisoned the
atmosphere.  Certain names in notes have become associated with inflexible
positions on several issues.  We (and I include myself) are no longer able
to give some people the benefit of the doubt on anything associated with
these issues.

We are reaping what we have sown.

Peace,

Dick

| Shouldn't I have the right to determine WHEN and WHERE I want to encounter
| sex?  Isn't pushing it in my face all the time -- through AIDS education
| programs, mail about AIDS Walks, tables advertising the Marlboro LesBiGays,
| the constant discussions in WORK RELATED notesfiles -- isn't that a form of
| sexual harassment??

	In what way could it be? 

AIDS education = learning about how you could contract AIDS
		 how to deal with it if you get it
		 how to deal/help others if they get it (many many more)

	No sexual harrasment here

AIDS walks =	 To raise money for various AIDS foundations

	No sexual harrasment here

Tables of lesbigays = To learn more about the lesbigays in our world. 

	No sexual harrasment here

notesfiles =	 In case you haven't noticed, most subjects are brought up by
		 heterosexuals. A lot of it through what some feel to be 
		 bigoted views of the real picture (some=het & gay).

	No sexual harrasment here

	Maybe if you define where you see sexual harrassment in each of the
things you've listed we will know what you're talking about. 




Glen

    My point is that if the corporation wants to "educate" me about
    something, I want some reasonable expectation that I'm not going
    to be lied to.  In the case of AIDS, the standard story now is not
    a lie...it is a damned lie.  It IS a moral issue...it IS a lifestyle
    issue.  And that has to be part of any credible educational program.
    
    Sometimes the truth hurts.....but it's better than trying to mislead
    people.

	My main concerns/objections continue to be:

    
	The word mandatory. 
	--------
	The education itself ignores certain facts: If it is a fact that
	certain lifestyles put one at a higher risk to contract the virus,
	then that information should be a part of the course. If the course
	ignores this fact, how can I be sure that it does not ignore other
	important facts?
        ---------
	The fact that AIDS education is being given emphasis. Why hasn't
	this emphasis been applied to many other areas of handicaps or
	illnesses? 
        ---------
	If I'm not gonna know if my co-worker has AIDS, and if (according
	to some) I'm not gonna catch AIDS from my co-worker, then what's
	the point of the education? So that I don't make crude jokes? 
	
	John

    re: .64

    When was the last the last time you were exposed to someone's blood
    (other than your own) in the workplace?  In any case, I doubt the
    right to know laws cover the blood of your coworkers.

    Those employees whose jobs are likely to bring them into contact with
    blood (nurses, security) should have all been trained to treat any and
    all blood as if it is infectious.  Perhaps the same warning should be
    explicitly given to all employees?

re .69:

>	How is it different than going for a job where you have to have a
>certain education to obtain it?

If the educational requirement is job related, it's very different.  There
are probably certain positions in DEC (primarily in personnel and legal)
for which AIDS education *is* job related.  But how is AIDS education
related to software engineering?

BTW, I believe there's been EEOC heat regarding non-job-related educational
requirements.  I think they ruled that requiring a high school degree for
an unskilled job was discriminatory.

    I wil be honest and say I don't believe what we are being told about
    AIDS.  I don't believe that we are getting the whole story and it
    wouldn't be the first time that info has been kept from the public. 
    Thus, I believe the "training" would be suspect at most.  Some may see
    this as being paranoid and it may be, but until I feel comfortable with
    the information, I have to follow my instincts.  What this means is not
    that I will treat someone with AIDS different, but I will be careful
    for my and my families health.  
    
    Mike

    RE: RIGHT-TO-KNOW
    Let me ask a question: Who amongst us all, if a coworker stumbles on a
    box, rug, or just plain trips and hits his head on a wall/cabinet
    will not try to render some superficial first aid. My office mate falls
    and hits his/her head and starts bleeding profusely in my immediate 
    area; they are dazed and in pain. I will not try to move them but I
    will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding area. 
    
    I have a right to know if I am in danger!
    
    Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
    way!

    re: .79
    
    I hope those who have already comprehended the following point will
    excuse me for repeating myself:
    
    	ASSUME THAT *** A L L *** BLOOD IS INFECTIOUS and act accordingly.
    
    Consider the following:
    
    If you know the injured person is HIV+ are you not going to assist
    them?
    
    If the injured person has no knowledge they are HIV+ you won't know
    either.
    
    The injured person may have some other disease, known or unknown, which
    is transmitted by contact with blood.
    
    
    At most, I would say that a rescuer who comes into contact with the
    blood or bodily fluids of someone they are assisting should be told
    if that person is found to have an infectious disease which is
    transmitted under those conditions.  Even this measure does not assure
    complete safety as there is a period during which a person infected
    with HIV will not test positive.

    When was the last time I was exposed to someone's blood in the
    workplace? How about this morning. I'm on PEO. Someone cut a finger and
    it bled fairly fast. I helped her with the bandaid and antiseptic
    cream. I got a small amount of blood on me. I wasn't worried. Didn't
    enter an open cut on me or anything. Washed right up.
    
    Now, we have had this AIDS Awareness program here in my facility. I was
    told at first that it was mandatory and then that that was just for
    management. (I'm not) Most of, if not all of us went. We found it
    shocking, informative, very touching, open, we had some fun and all
    agreed that it had been worth it. I learned more in that session then I
    have from the gov't., TV, Papers, Magazines, and scientific articles.
    
    I really think that it should be required learning for all. The only
    way this is going to get beaten is with an informed public. To many
    false stories out there. While "mandatory" is usually a scary word with
    me, I think the AIDS epidemic is about the first thing I've heard about
    where I might think twice about my principles. We're talking about the
    modern day equivalent of Bubonic Plague/Black death here, folks. Only
    infinitely worse. The human race as the dominant species on this planet
    could be wiped out if we don't all pitch in and do what we can. Even if
    that part is only to be informed, so as not to present a potential
    danger to others. I firmly believe this. 
    
    Phil

    re: .81

    Members of PEOs (Plant Emergency Organizations), ERTs (Emergency
    Response Teams), MERTs (Medical Emergency Response Teams), and the
    like fall into the category of individuals who should have been
    trained to use universal precautions in any situation where there
    is a risk of contact with blood or bodily fluids.

    Before anyone responds with, "But what if I don't have gloves with me
    when I encounter an accident?  I can't carry a first aid kit
    everywhere!", I have a small (4" wide, 3" high, < 1" deep) pouch
    I carry on my belt which contains 4 pair of latex gloves; I've seen
    even smaller ones which hold one or two pair.  In my opinion, anyone
    trained in first aid should carry one of these on their person at all
    times just so that they WILL have the gloves available when needed.

    Here's a thought for the what-if crowd:

    You're at home with your teenage child who has an accident of some
    sort and starts bleeding profusely.  Do you stop the bleeding?

    What if this same child, unbeknownst to you, has been sexually active
    for awhile and is now HIV+?

re: .79

    RE: RIGHT-TO-KNOW
>    My office mate falls
>    and hits his/her head and starts bleeding profusely in my immediate 
>    area; they are dazed and in pain. I will not try to move them but I
>    will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding area. 
    
>    I have a right to know if I am in danger!
    
>    Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
>    way!                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^

<Sarcasm on>
Well then, what can we say? you will be in extreme danger! ok happy?
next time this happens, walk past them, dont whatever you do give them
any help... they may have AIDS.

Oh, I see if you knew for sure that they didn't have AIDS then you would help.

<sarcasm off>

Is that basically what you are getting at?

My god! what are we turning into? People are afraid of what they dont understand
I can understand that, but, they are scared because they are ignorant of the 
facts. On the otherhand, they dont want to become educated because they are 
afraid of being lied to, so they remain ignorant of the facts. 
Isn't this what we call a "vicious circle"?

Seems to me that history has proven that IGNORANCE is what we really should
be afraid of.

re .81:

>                                                   We're talking about the
>    modern day equivalent of Bubonic Plague/Black death here, folks. Only
>    infinitely worse. The human race as the dominant species on this planet
>    could be wiped out if we don't all pitch in and do what we can.

So if I attend a "mandatory" AIDS class, I'll help save the earth from
being taken over by cockroaches? 

    re 81......thank you, thank you...you made my point beautifully.
    If you came out of a DEC sponsored AIDS session believing that crap
    about the Bubonic Plague/Black Death...I really feel sorry for you.
    See what I meant about the "Big Lie"??
    
    Did somebody actually tell you that the human race was in danger??
    Please, I'd like to know.
    
    I suggest that you read up on the Black Death so as to be in a position
    to challenge that kind of garbage when they start using that analogy.
    
    The truth is that AIDS is to a large extent peaking in most societies.
    The horrible truth is that to a large degree those that are at risk
    have already been exposed.......and the certain death they face will
    start the numbers going in the opposite direction in a few years.  The
    arithmetic is horrible, but also true.
    
    Betcha' they didn't say a word about that, did they?

    No one used the Black Death analogy. It is my own words. It is what I
    feel. DEC didn't tell me that. The human race in danger? I believe that
    also as long as AIDS is being treated as affecting mostly homosexual
    males and most of what I read still says that. Digital didn't tell me
    that either. I'm so concerned about AIDS that I no longer visit my
    medical facility of choice because one of the medical personel at this
    facility was found to be HIV+ and involved in surgical procedures. In
    my own mind, the place is not safe to me. I've lost confidence in it.
    
    AIDS peaking. I think were only beginning to see what it'll do to
    devastate the population. It frightens the crap out of me and a few
    news articles saying we've peaked won't help. 
    
    But no, DEC didn't foist this info off on me. They were honest and
    forthwright(sp?) and told the truth as far as I can tell. What I was
    told was scarier then any Plague story. I reiterate, The plague/Black
    Death anaolgy is all mine.
    
    PHil

    I strongly recommed that anyone interested in the topic of disease
    and the survival of the human race read William McNeil's book
    _Plagues_and_Peoples_, as well as any serious (high school level
    or up) historical treatment of the Black Death.
    
    The Black Death killed about a third of the people in Europe over
    several years.  Some areas were hit worse than others, some never
    suffered at all, so local rates ranged from almost a hundred percent
    to zero.  Plague is very infectious compare to AIDS, and there's
    not much you can do individually in the short run (but see McNeil's
    comments about Manchu practices that isolated them from the endemic
    plague source of local rodents).  AIDS can be stopped easily, by
    comparison: change your sexual behaviour and don't use intravenous
    drugs and the odds are very, very good you won't get it.  Our own
    culture is already changing in ways which will limit the harm AIDS
    can do, even if no cure is found.
    
    Now, it is true that millions of people in Africa are going to die
    of AIDS, and tens (possibly as many as a few hundreds) of thousands
    are going to die of AIDS in the US.  That's hardly a threat to the
    human race, and is roughly the order of magnitude of deaths from 
    car accidents in a single year--that is, it is a bad thing, and hard
    on the individuals concerned, but it has almost no impact on the
    nation or world as a whole.  The African impact is more significant,
    as the educated elites are being wiped out--this will set back economic
    development in some nations by a decade or more.
    
    			-John Bishop

    
    >>The truth is that AIDS is to a large extent peaking in most societies.
    >>The horrible truth is that to a large degree those that are at risk
    >>have already been exposed.......and the certain death they face will
    >>start the numbers going in the opposite direction in a few years.  The
    >>arithmetic is horrible, but also true.
    
    	Please, Mr. Lennard, post your sources.
    
        Thank you.
    
            Greg

    Last time I heard a grudging admission of that was on MacNeil-Lehrer
    last week.  An "expert", who was clearly uncomfortable when questioned
    about the peaking issue, said "yes, there is some early indication of
    that" (or words to that effect).
    
    Actually, I don't feel I need a source....logic works quite well on
    this.  Ignoring certain African countries where they seem intent on
    screwing themselves to death, literally, the problem is reasonably well
    bounded.
    
    If you look at just three groups......promiscious male homosexuals,
    drug users who share needles......and sick people who needs lots of
    transfusions......I would generally say the situation is coming under
    control.  Lot's of the above three groups, maybe a hell of a lot, will
    die.  The key point is that their ratio to the rest of us is declining.
    
    Couple that with people being a hell of a lot more careful, and I think
    we're going to be OK.  I worry still about Bi_sexuals and
    prostitutes.... but as I said, people are being more careful.
    
    I'm not trying to belittle the problem, and the personal tradgedies are
    very real, but it IS NOT an epidemic.
    
    I'm also all for education.....but people, it is time to tell the
    truth, at that hasn't happened yet.  That's all.
    

    Egads you've all been busy here!  Due to the slowness of my system,
    I'll reply to several at once:

    Good stuff by Eggers, Devries, Jamie, Jerry E, Phil C, Beldin and 
    Fulti (I hope I didn't forget anyone in perusing the last 40 or so 
    replies).

    RE John Sobecky:  I answered your question in .45 - I said I didn't
    think AIDS education should be "more so" mandatory than your toxic
    chemical example.  In your .70, who said anything about it being a
    "condition of employment"??  I do like the options you listed, though.
    RE your .75--The education does not "ignore certain factors" like
    lifestyles, it just doesn't *preach* about 'good vs. bad,' 'right vs.
    wrong.'  It gives *lists* and talks in professional and medical terms.
    Emphasis: Many other illnesses and handicaps *have* been publicized
    within Digital...Recently in both _digital today_ and _DTW_ for 
    example, there was an article and photo about people experiencing
    what it's like to be in a wheelchair inthe workplace.  We have had
    "deaf awareness weeks" and the health services have done *many*
    seminars on a variety of illnesses and conditions.  There are
    several points of the AIDS education (as has been said before),
    including: To make managers and employees aware of laws and Digital 
    policies regarding HIV issues; to prevent fear and harassment in the 
    office; to give employees the facts so they can make their own 
    judgements about their personal conduct (and hopefully prevent 
    employees from becoming infected in the future).

    RE .48 Dave-the EMT: "Assume everyone might have AIDS,...and it
    would help to safeguard the health of all involved."  Terrific!  That
    is also a good policy for personal encounters...Assume that all new
    and unknown sexual partners are HIV+, and ask youself: "Would I do
    this *knowing* that s/he is HIV+?"

    RE Alfred: In .51 you said how the NEED to know what not the same
    as the RIGHT to know.  yes and no...The law says who has a legal
    "need to know" about an employee's medical condition; and while you
    as an employee have certain rights, so does the ill employee. As
    I've said, I'm not a legal guru, but I do know that the right of 
    confidentiality is way up there in the hierarchy.  RE your .64--
    No, blood is certainly not a "hazardous substance" that a Digital
    employee normally comes into contact with in performance of one's
    responsibilities.  (nurses, emt's, etc. excepted--but they are trained
    in precautionary measures)  I have been in various workplaces for over 
    20 years, and have never come into contact with anyone's blood in an 
    office environment.

    RE .67 Steve--The *fact* is that you cannot acquire HIV at work
    through casual contact with employees, managers, customers, etc.

    RE .72 Dick--"indoctrination"??  Having attended several of the
    corporate seminars, that does not seem like an accurate description
    to me.

    RE .74 Dick Lennard--Could I ask what basis you have for calling the
    corporate education program "a damned lie"?  That's a pretty slanderous
    accusation.  And since I'm one of the people who helped write it and
    put it together (from the CDC, WHO, public health and AIDS 
    organizations) you are also calling me a liar, and I don't like that
    at all.  Have you been to one of the seminars?  Have you talked to 
    anyone in authority?  Who exactly appointed you God and gave you the
    right to unequivocably state such a thing?

    RE .78 Mike W--First of all, it is not "training" - it is education.
    You don't get a certificate for being competent in anything, it is
    just a basic 'AIDS 101' type of seminar.  "Paranoid" is a good word;
    irrational fear of the unknown...So you'll "be careful" for your
    family without knowing what the heck "careful" means.  Good plan...

    Re .89

    You appear to have missed a category of where the incidence of AIDS is
    still rising, the promiscuous heterosexual.

    If you think that this disease is peaking out or solely confined to the
    groups that you mentioned then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

    As to those who insist that there is a moral standpoint on how you get
    the disease I should point out that there is a high percentage of
    victims who did nothing immoral to get infected.

    Jamie.

RE .72


| >| Mandatory is a hot button of mine as well. I usually ignore
| >| such demands. I haven't been bitten yet. I attend more events
| >| such as this when the word mandatory is left out. It's just a
| >| matter of principle.

| >	How is it different than going for a job where you have to have a
| >certain education to obtain it?

| Its different because there is a sneaking suspicion that somebody's personal
| hidden agenda includes my indoctrination more than any interest in my
| welfare, future or present.

	On education? Please, this isn't a seminar on gay rights. It's on AIDS.
You know, the disease that is now infecting more heterosexuals than homosexuals
% wise? Let's be real. This just isn't a homosexual disease. It includes all of
us.

| Let's face it.  We have created enough ill will among ourselves to last for
| a long time.   Our injudicious remarks about each other have poisoned the
| atmosphere.  Certain names in notes have become associated with inflexible
| positions on several issues.  We (and I include myself) are no longer able
| to give some people the benefit of the doubt on anything associated with
| these issues.

	You see, that's because from what I am gathering from your words, you
feel it's JUST a homosexual disease. IF this is the case, then please look at
the whole picture.




Glen

| My point is that if the corporation wants to "educate" me about
| something, I want some reasonable expectation that I'm not going
| to be lied to.  In the case of AIDS, the standard story now is not
| a lie...it is a damned lie.  It IS a moral issue...it IS a lifestyle
| issue.  And that has to be part of any credible educational program.

	Let's put aside what you feel to be the moral issue. Now, look at the
others left who have the disease. How could you help them? How would you react
to those whom you feel have gotten the disease without breaking any of your
moral standards? This is part of education. Can you say you would know how to
handle this situation if it arose? It goes farther than a moral issue. But I
have to wonder if someone has to be MC (morally correct) in order for you to
care for them?




Glen

RE: .75


| The word mandatory.
| --------
| The education itself ignores certain facts: If it is a fact that
| certain lifestyles put one at a higher risk to contract the virus,
| then that information should be a part of the course. 

	Maybe because it isn't a lifestyle that is dictating the disease? Did
you know that the % of heterosexuals contracting the disease is greater 
compared to homosexuals? Let's look at some of the causes:

	       sex - heterosexual and homosexuals have sex
	     drugs - heterosexual and homosexuals use drugs
blood transfusions - heterosexual and homosexuals have blood transfusions

	Where does lifestyle come into play?

| If the course
| ignores this fact, how can I be sure that it does not ignore other
| important facts?
| ---------
| 

	Oh, you mean like the real reasons why the disease is out there? The
high risk things people do that could help contract it? It's all in there I'm
sure. Is lifestyles? I kind of doubt it because anyone can get the disease. It
isn't just held to any one particular group. After receiving the education you
would see all the ways one can get the disease. 

| The fact that AIDS education is being given emphasis. Why hasn't
| this emphasis been applied to many other areas of handicaps or
| illnesses?

	I can only guess that this is because AIDS has reached epidemic
proportions. You figure the disease has been around for over 10 years now, and
if it's just getting mandatory education it had to be that a lot of people have
been contracting it. Even the MC crowd. 

| If I'm not gonna know if my co-worker has AIDS, and if (according
| to some) I'm not gonna catch AIDS from my co-worker, then what's
| the point of the education? So that I don't make crude jokes?

	That is part of it. Also to clear up any misconceptions on the disease
that people may have. Like will you catch it if you touch someone with AIDS,
whatever. I'm not sure, but I for one hope that it DOES go into how to handle
the situation once you know someone has AIDS. This past saturday night I ran
into a friend of mine who just seemed to drop out of the scene. When I saw him
I understood why. It was because he had contracted AIDS. I never knew before I
saw him and it really shocked me. I found myself staring and stupid things like
that. Then I sat down with him and just talked. We hadn't done that in a while.
I really had a hard time with it though. This is one area where I could use
some education in. I really hope that's part of the course.




Glen

RE: .77

| >	How is it different than going for a job where you have to have a
| >certain education to obtain it?

| If the educational requirement is job related, it's very different.  

	How?

| There
| are probably certain positions in DEC (primarily in personnel and legal)
| for which AIDS education *is* job related.  But how is AIDS education
| related to software engineering?

	Do you ever relate to other human beings? Have there ever been times in
your life where you didn't know how to handle a situation? How will you handle
the situation if a coworker or friend comes down with the disease? What if you
have or ever will have kids? Isn't it a good idea to know a little something
about it? 




Glen

| RE: RIGHT-TO-KNOW
| Let me ask a question: Who amongst us all, if a coworker stumbles on a
| box, rug, or just plain trips and hits his head on a wall/cabinet
| will not try to render some superficial first aid. My office mate falls
| and hits his/her head and starts bleeding profusely in my immediate
| area; they are dazed and in pain. I will not try to move them but I
| will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding area.

| I have a right to know if I am in danger!

| Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
| way!

	Does this mean you would put yourself above helping another? I thought
that Christians put God first, others second and themselves third? Has this
changed? Does this mean if the person had AIDS you would let them bleed to
death?

	



Glen

RE: .85


| re 81......thank you, thank you...you made my point beautifully.
| If you came out of a DEC sponsored AIDS session believing that crap
| about the Bubonic Plague/Black Death...I really feel sorry for you.
| See what I meant about the "Big Lie"??

	Explain then, why it is a big lie. Explain then just what YOU feel will
be talked about. Explain then how something you know nothing about (in this
case the course) you feel you know it's a lie. If you know it's a lie, then
give us EVERY area of the course that was a lie. After all, you seem to know
what the entire course is about, what they did. Tell us what happened there and
we'll compare notes with those who have gone. Until you have been to the course
don't call it a lie. You can only base that on your own feelings without ANY
facts.

| Did somebody actually tell you that the human race was in danger??
| Please, I'd like to know.

	Anyone who has the disease is in danger. Danger of DYING! 

| The truth is that AIDS is to a large extent peaking in most societies.

	Do you have any proof of this? After all, you say it is the truth....
by who's standards?

| The horrible truth is that to a large degree those that are at risk
| have already been exposed.......

	That would mean any human being, right? If so, then I agree with you.

| and the certain death they face will
| start the numbers going in the opposite direction in a few years.  The
| arithmetic is horrible, but also true.

	Please provide the arithmetic or at least something to back your
claims.




Glen

    Re .94
    
    Sorry, but "lifestyle" can put you at risk.  The word - defined as the
    typical way of life of an individual, group or culture - does not mean
    "gay" or "straight".
    
    IV drug use is, itself, an element of one's lifestyle, and thou art at 
    greater risk.
    
    Intercourse which promotes intravenous exchange of bodily fluids is an
    element of one's lifestyle, and thou art at greater risk.
    
    As for who actually ends up with the disease, there but for fortune go
    you or I.
    
    Personally, I would welcome any effort by Digital to enable me to
    better handle everything surrounding the occassion of a fellow worker 
    and possible friend being unfortunate enough to contract the disease. 
    Or any other massive personal calamity for that matter.  Mandatory? 
    Well, it would keep me from putting it off until I got into the
    situation where I wished I hadn't but not it's too late.
    
    

| -< Logic Works Quite Well >-

	When it is used......

| Actually, I don't feel I need a source....logic works quite well on
| this.  Ignoring certain African countries where they seem intent on
| screwing themselves to death, literally, the problem is reasonably well
| bounded.

	OK, we'll ignore them. <SNAP!> They're gone. Ok, that brings the worlds 
AIDS cases down a few people. Oh, which African countries are we to ignore and
which ones are we to listen to? Is this a choice made by you? 

	You know, using your "logic", we could ignore most of the world on a
lot of different things. Gee, let's ignore all the ignorant people of the
world. <SNAP!> They're gone. Let's ignore anyone who is ugly. <SNAP!> They're
gone. The question has to be, who is deciding who is ignorant, who is ugly and
which African countries we are to ignore? Who is the one who decides that we
are to ignore any of these groups anyway? Was it really logic? 

| If you look at just three groups......promiscious male homosexuals,
| drug users who share needles......and sick people who needs lots of
| transfusions......I would generally say the situation is coming under
| control.  Lot's of the above three groups, maybe a hell of a lot, will
| die.  The key point is that their ratio to the rest of us is declining.

	Man, I hope many people read what you have put. You could be the poster
child for mandatory education on the subject! Gee, a lot of those people will
die. That will bring our numbers down though. Please, how do you deal with any
of these people who are dying of AIDS if you know them? How can you prevent
others from getting the disease? If you know so much about it, please list ALL
of the high risk things that can be done to contract AIDS. Can you do that? If
not, I'd recommend that you take the course and maybe you'll learn all the ways
one can contract AIDS. 

| Couple that with people being a hell of a lot more careful, and I think
| we're going to be OK.  I worry still about Bi_sexuals and
| prostitutes.... but as I said, people are being more careful.

	Please, if you do nothing else, learn a little about what you are
talking about. As I said earlier, AIDS is going up % wise at a higher rate for
heterosexuals than for homosexuals. BTW, my source for this information? I
heard it on the evening news. I believe it was Peter Jennings.

| I'm not trying to belittle the problem, and the personal tradgedies are
| very real, but it IS NOT an epidemic.

	By the "logic" you have used? Please, get the facts Jack! :-)



Glen

| I'm also all for education.....but people, it is time to tell the
| truth, at that hasn't happened yet.  That's all.

	I agree, it hasn't happened yet.


Glen

| Sorry, but "lifestyle" can put you at risk.  The word - defined as the
| typical way of life of an individual, group or culture - does not mean
| "gay" or "straight".

	Oh, ok. Then I agree with you that it should be talked about. I would
also think that seeing they talk about the "how to get" things, that it would
be. Can you show me proof otherwise?

| Personally, I would welcome any effort by Digital to enable me to
| better handle everything surrounding the occassion of a fellow worker
| and possible friend being unfortunate enough to contract the disease.
| Or any other massive personal calamity for that matter.  Mandatory?
| Well, it would keep me from putting it off until I got into the
| situation where I wished I hadn't but not it's too late.

	Is it just the word that scares you? Did you not register for the
draft? We do a lot of things because they are mandatory. We may not always like
to do it but when it's something that even you feel would be helpful for you,
will it really hurt?




Glen

    Actually, the point I was trying to make with the Plague analogy was
    that this is the present day eqivalent of the plague. I don't have the
    numbers all of you do. I reiterate that DEC did not give me any scare
    tactics when providing this information. It had much to do with dealing
    with individuals on a one on one basis. It did seem to be aimed at
    management somewhat. I was grateful that I got a chance to go. I got a
    lot of medical information around the disease, how it's transmitted,
    what the cells look like (a little microbiology) how to prevent, and
    most importantly, how to deal with a co-worker.
    
    The fact of many people in Africa and other "third world" nations
    dying in a terrible manner, equates it to plague in my mind. 
    
    In today's "modern society" infringing on our "rights" has gone so far
    that even if something is vitally in one's best interest, then someone
    always screams foul. Please, if you don't want to know about this
    killer, then stay home on that day or just ignore it. If it isn't
    mandatory, then don't worry about it. 
    
    When I was first told about this training, I was led to believe that it
    was mandatory. I think I was wrong. It was strongly recomended by  top
    management in my facility and I think the message was misinterpreted by
    lower management. I hate the words mandatory on something that isn't
    actually job related also. I hate being told you have to go. This time,
    I cannot recomend this education enough. If I could have had my
    children there, I would have. It was frank and in some cases
    embarrassing for certain recessive personalities. You know what? To bad
    for them. It's needed. 
    
    Beyond a mistake at the hospital or HMO when dealing with my blood and
    the blood of others, I am in no danger whatsoever of catching this
    disease. There is a risk there. Very small, But still there. There is a
    risk for my children too. Maybe as they go through their teen years
    into young adulthood, it becomes greater. Teens and sex and all that.
    If what I learned can help them deal with AIDS and HIV, then I'm glad I
    went and if I had refused, then I should have been dragged kicking and
    screaming all the way.
    
    Phil

re: 1697.79           Mandatory AIDS education programs?               79 of 90
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-< I DO have a right to know!!! >-

It'd be nice to know, but as already pointed out, and as an active First Aider
both within DEC (not trained by DEC); at home, and on the trail (Hiking) ..
we need to consider the possibility that every person may be HIV+, whether
tested or not. Many people have not been tested.


>    Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
>    way!

This is a real possibility. Education is paramount. If you get someone elses
blood on you, wash it off with a weak solution of chlorine bleach and water.

>    Let me ask a question: Who amongst us all, if a coworker stumbles on a
>    box, rug, or just plain trips and hits his head on a wall/cabinet

It has happened already. One of our coworkers got a head wound, and began 
bleeding profusely. We did all the normal stuff (pressure, cold, shock, etc),
but when we called the DEC Emergency number, we were told it wasn't the nurses
day to be at that facility. Being smarter than the average caller, we 
carted the employee off to the hospital.

There was blood in all the normal places .. floor, stock, ladder, couch, trash
... the awareness of the possibility of AIDS came about later. The person
was a known heterosexual, and did not use drugs intrevenously.

The point is only this ... its not necesary to know who has AIDS .. it  is
necessary to know how to be careful when handling any one else 'body fluids',
such as blood .

Bob

    
    Re: .90
    
    >RE .67 Steve--The *fact* is that you cannot acquire HIV at work
    >through casual contact with employees, managers, customers, etc.
    
    I can accept that there is no evidence to date that it can be acquired
    by casual contact and I can accept that because of that the risk is
    low, perhaps close to zero.  I could also accept that after enough time
    and research that it could be established as fact, but I don't think
    that point has been reached yet.  I know of no one in position to speak
    authoritatively who is willing to say that the risk is zero.  Are you
    aware of anyone?
    
    Steve
    

| There was blood in all the normal places .. floor, stock, ladder, couch, trash
| ... the awareness of the possibility of AIDS came about later. The person
| was a known heterosexual, and did not use drugs intrevenously.

	Let's not forget people who receive blood transfusions, people who have
heterosexual sex. It isn't tied into just homosexual/iv drug users. If you only
worry about those two groups then you will be left pretty wide open to possibly
getting AIDS. You're right that it does matter how one handles the fluids. The
fluids of anyone. 



Glen

JURAN::SILVA "Eat, Papa, EAT!"                       24 lines  19-DEC-1991 06:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| RE: RIGHT-TO-KNOW
>| Let me ask a question: Who amongst us all, if a coworker stumbles on a
>| box, rug, or just plain trips and hits his head on a wall/cabinet
>| will not try to render some superficial first aid. My office mate falls
>| and hits his/her head and starts bleeding profusely in my immediate
>| area; they are dazed and in pain. I will not try to move them but I
>| will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding area.>
>
>| I have a right to know if I am in danger!

>| Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
>| way!

>	Does this mean you would put yourself above helping another?

Glen, Read my initial comments above. Let me repeat them here: "I will not try
 to move them but I will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding
 area."  I suggest you retake remedial reading comprehension! Read that
 aloud to yourself and tell me how you translate that to read I put myself 
 above helping others???!!!

> I thought
>that Christians put God first, others second and themselves third? 
That is the definition of true JOY
Jesus 
Others 
Yourself


> Does this mean if the person had AIDS you would let them bleed to
>death?

I will say this in English hoping for the best! 8(
If I know a person has AIDS/HIV+ I will then know to use a little more caution
AS I HELP THEM!!!


Mike just_as_frustrated_with_your_rhetoric_as_ever

| >| RE: RIGHT-TO-KNOW
| >| Let me ask a question: Who amongst us all, if a coworker stumbles on a
| >| box, rug, or just plain trips and hits his head on a wall/cabinet
| >| will not try to render some superficial first aid. My office mate falls
| >| and hits his/her head and starts bleeding profusely in my immediate
| >| area; they are dazed and in pain. I will not try to move them but I
| >| will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding area.>
| >
| >| I have a right to know if I am in danger!

| >| Don't tell me this won't happen! Or that I can't get infected in this
| >| way!

| >	Does this mean you would put yourself above helping another?

| Glen, Read my initial comments above. Let me repeat them here: "I will not try
| to move them but I will offer a clean hanky/towel to apply to the bleeding
| area."  I suggest you retake remedial reading comprehension! Read that
| aloud to yourself and tell me how you translate that to read I put myself
| above helping others???!!!

	I would imagine that has to do with the fact you need to know if you're
in danger. You don't really need to know, just need to take precautions. Any
person could have it, so with blood, you should be cautious, but you don't need
to know if the person is either HIV+ or has AIDS.

| > Does this mean if the person had AIDS you would let them bleed to
| >death?

| I will say this in English hoping for the best! 8(
| If I know a person has AIDS/HIV+ I will then know to use a little more caution
| AS I HELP THEM!!!

	Mike, you should do that regardless of whether you know or not.

| Mike just_as_frustrated_with_your_rhetoric_as_ever

	Just asking.....



Glen

    Does anyone have **facts** about the relationship between the
    Aids epidemic and the increase of TB cases? How infectious is
    TB through workplace contact? Are other communicable diseases
    which are more easily contract by Aids victims and perhaps spread
    through casual on the rise also?
    
    Has anyone studied this questions?
    
    

re .95:

You really can't see the difference between job-related education
and AIDS education?  Job-related education helps me do my job more
effectively.  I fail to see how AIDS education will make me (or the
vast majority of DEC employees) work more effectively.

>Do you ever relate to other human beings?

Well, I'm an engineer...

>How will you handle the situation if a coworker or friend comes down with
>the disease?

I'll express my sympathy.

>Isn't it a good idea to know a little something about it?

Of course.  It's a good idea to know a little something about a lot of things.
That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for DEC to mandate education for
all those things.

    RE - .90 Deb, it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume you know what 
    knowledge I have about AIDS.  Very presumptuous.
    
    Mike

    re: .92 & .99
    
    Glen
    Your narrow sighted view of the percentages of increase in AIDS and
    HIV+ between homosexuals and heterasexuals is typical of many of your
    comments on this subject matter. Although the percentage of increase in
    a particular group is higher in heterasexuals (from .5% increased to
    5%) of those infected or a 10 times increase it is still a fact that
    55% of those infected are homosexuals and to a lesser % IV drug users.
    A much smaller percentage relates to infections from blood transfusions
    and surgery procedures. Much less then any other catagory. To state
    that this is now a heterasexual problem is to wear blinders concerning
    reality. The overwhelming reality is that it is still and always has
    been prodominately a homosexual and IV drug user related desease and
    ALL cases can be traces back to that starting point including
    heterasexual infection whether by permiscous sex or blood transfusion.
    There are no known cases of spontanious infection of AIDS or HIV+ in
    the hetersexual community. And for those who say "show me your source"
    it was in a well done artical in TIME magazine who had quite a few
    pages concerning this issue. Those who caused the spread of this
    desease initially and who by their actions are still the major player
    in its continuance should start admitting responsibility and change a
    lifestyle that has no regard for their fellow beings included those in
    their own lifestyle.
    
    Now I'll sit back and wait for the incoming.
    
    Regards
    

    Re .90:
    
    > RE .74 Dick Lennard-- . . . Who exactly appointed you God and gave
    > you the right to unequivocably state such a thing?

    Apparently consideration of not being God is not a barrier for Digital
    or the authors of the "corporate education program".
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .111 (Root)

    Whatever the source of the HIV, and whatever the source of its initial
    spread, the fact is that it has spread beyond the initial groups. There
    seems to be a tendency among some people to look at the source and
    disapprove of the lifestyle or morality of that initial group. I won't
    argue with that, independent of whether I agree or not.

    But that disapproval seems to have carried over to those who now have
    HIV through no fault of their own. There now seem to be two ways that
    the guiltless (whatever their percentages) are stigmatized: first, by
    the source of the initial spread of HIV, and second by the numbers of
    those who have HIV.  Specifically, it is stated that by far the largest
    group affected have the frowned-upon behaviors.  Again, I won't argue
    with that.  I will argue that that stigma carries over to the
    guiltless, and this constitutes "guilt by association" in the very
    worst possible way.

    Further, from what I can see, including in this topic, many of the
    people who express the strongest negative views about the morality of
    those who have HIV are expressed by people who claim to be religious
    Christians.  In my opinion, these people are expressing a total lack of
    Christian compassion.  I think these people should re-examine their own
    religious beliefs and consider the injunction, "Judge not lest you be
    judged."  It appears to me to by hypocrisy of the highest order.

    I would name names from this topic, but that might get my note bounced.

    ...and the fact is that there is STILL only ONE way to get AIDS,
    and that's from someone else who already has it.

    Re: .-1
    
    True.  But, if person X catches HIV from person Y, does person X
    "inherit" whatever "sins" person Y has acquired directly or by
    "inheritance" from person Z?   Does transitivity hold with respect to
    "guilt".
    
    And do we punish *all* HIV+ people independent of whether they are
    "guilty" of anything or not?  My personal belief is that we don't blame
    anybody, but there do seem to be those who want to assign blame whether
    they know if a person is blameless or not.

    I think "blame" is out of place, and who cares anyway, but...if we
    wish to avoid getting the disease, it behooves us to know who has it,
    which I'm sure would be interpreted as "punishment" by those who do
    already have it, no matter how they got it.
    Ron

    
    	I haven't had time to read all replies, but wanted to reply to
    	.94 by Silva.
    
    	You seem to think that I somehow, somewhere implied that this
    	was a "homosexual problem". I say this because of your chart
    	comparing hetero vs homo sexual.
    
    	Where did I make this type of statement? 
    
    	Read my words again. I said LIFESTYLE. 
    
    	Much different. Applicable to hetero and homo sexuals, don't you
    	agree?
    
    	John

    You see Silva, your comment in .92 that AIDS is "now infecting more
    heterosexuals than homosexuals" is part of the big lie that I have
    a problem with.  Not in this country, my friend, and not in any other
    reasonably civilized Western country.  I know you want us to believe
    that.  It's one of the cornerstones of the whole let's-scare-the-crap-
    out-of-them-so-they'll-put-on-more-pressure-to-fund-a-cure strategy.
    I'd probably do the same if I had AIDS.
    
    Your comment is deliberately wrong and mis-leading, and you know it.

re: .116

>    I think "blame" is out of place, and who cares anyway, but...if we
>    wish to avoid getting the disease, it behooves us to know who has it,
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong! You DO NOT need to know who has it in order to avoid getting it.
All you need to do is to take certain precautions.

I think we are all smart enough to know what those precautions are.

Besides, how do you intend to find out who has it? require everybody in the
world to be tested? Then they would have to be tested continuously because
the infection doesn't show itself for awhile.

     re: .113 ssdevo::eggers

>    Whatever the source of the HIV, and whatever the source of its initial
>    spread, the fact is that it has spread beyond the initial groups. 
     FWIW, I agree with this viewpoint/attitude

>    Specifically, it is stated that by far the largest
>    group affected have the frowned-upon behaviors.  Again, I won't argue
>    with that. 
     This fact, unfortunately is downplayed by proponents of their *lifestyles*
     The attitude I see is, "Gee, there are enough *other* people involved now
     so we can pass off our guilt"  I will address my attitude toward this 
     below.

>    I will argue that that stigma carries over to the
>    guiltless, and this constitutes "guilt by association" in the very
>    worst possible way.
     I agree that this attitude exists. I would not put myself in that
     category, however, see below!

>    Further, from what I can see, including in this topic, many of the
>    people who express the strongest negative views about the morality of
>    those who have HIV are expressed by people who claim to be religious
>    Christians. 
    Many but, by no means, all. I will put myself in this category with some 
    minor exceptions to your statement: "Those who have HIV.."  As we all will
    admit, not everyone who has HIV is immoral. There ARE innocent victims.
    But we all, also must be realistic. Up until about 18 months ago 92%
    (YES, 92%) of confirmed HIV+ cases were either promiscuous homosexuals
    and/or IV drug users! With the raw numbers of cases, it was inevitable
    that the rest of the population would be effected! As one of the self-
    admitted *religious Christians* I personally cannot help but have some
    righteous indignation at the reason for the spread of this dread disease!
    As a Christian I myself am not without fault since "all have sinned and 
    fall short of the glory of God".But, when I see the moral abbys that is
    so evident in this country I cannot help but be dismayed. 


>    In my opinion, these people are expressing a total lack of
>    Christian compassion.  
       I beg to differ, speaking for myself. I DO have compassion on those
     affected by this dread disease. No-one should have to experience this!
     My compassion extends beyond their physical problems. I cry for the state
     of their eternal souls even more than their physical sufferings. 
     This doesn't mean I have to condone the lifestyles that led to it, in
     most cases.

>    I think these people should re-examine their own
>    religious beliefs and consider the injunction, "Judge not lest you be
>    judged."  It appears to me to by hypocrisy of the highest order.
    Tom, let me explain my view on this. "Judge not lest you be judged" is
    an often misused and misunderstood quote. Both Jesus and Paul used this
    to condemn the Jewish leaders of the day. They were doing the same things 
    they accused the Gentiles of doing but considered it ok for themselfs 
    because they were God's chosen people. Paul mentions in I Cor "don't you
    know that the saints (believers) will judge the angels!" (my paraphrase)
    By the authority of scripture I do have the right to make the judgement
    that these *lifestyles* are immoral! The judgement of the practitioners
    of these lifestyles is not my judgement to make if they are not professed
    believers. If they are (professed believers) then: I Cor 5:12,13 "What 
    business is it of mine to judge those outside the church 
    (unprofessed believers!)? Are we not to judge those inside?  God will 
    judge those outside! Expel the wicked man from among you."
  
>    I would name names from this topic, but that might get my note bounced.
   I volunteer my name.

 In closing I would mention that this last week we had a guest speaker at our
 Church. Mr.& MRS Norm Caderette. Norm is a *religious Christian* who became
 HIV+ from a blood transfusion during open heart surgery 9 years ago. He is now
 the national chairman of a group for a sane AIDS policy. (I can't remember the
 organization's name) 
 He closed with this: at a very conservative guess there are over 1 million
 people in the US (10 million was the high end estimate) who are HIV+ and don't
 know it yet. His comment was: " What did those 1 million people do last 
 night?"

 It is a scary thought.

 Mike

    re: .119
    
    Well put!
    
>Besides, how do you intend to find out who has it? require everybody in the
>world to be tested? Then they would have to be tested continuously because
>the infection doesn't show itself for awhile.
    
    Even that doesn't work - the virus can be transmitted during the period
    when the test gives a negative result.
    

    I can see things heating up hear, and I think I have made my position
    adequately clear.  As my noting is "watched", I really can't
    participate any more in dialogue with Silva, as much as I'd like to.
    
    However, I can comment on the guy who claimed that AIDS is the modern-
    day equivalent of the Black Plague.  Not so people...not so...not even
    close.  We had some reasonably close analogies in my life-time...polio,
    tuberculosis, syphilis, cholera, and the real biggee....the great
    influenza epidemic of 1917-1918 (in which members of my family died).
    
    With the exception of the syph, none of these were behaviorally-based.
    They struck without warning, simply as part of living a normal life
    at that time.  You want to talk about fear??  I remember summer after
    summer in the 30's and 40's when polio struck, movies closed, swimming
    pools closed....the whole society shut down.  and it wasn't ANYBODY'S
    fault.  The solution to the AIDS problem is right here, right now,
    right in front of us.  It starts with something my old First Sergeant
    told us in 1950 as part of my very first VD lecture....."the only
    way to really be safe is to keep your pecker in your pants".  That's
    still a pretty good idea.
    

RE: .111

| To state
| that this is now a heterasexual problem is to wear blinders concerning
| reality. 

	Maybe you haven't really read my notes. I have stated over and over
that it is not just a HOMOSEXUAL problem, but one for EVERYONE. 

| The overwhelming reality is that it is still and always has
| been prodominately a homosexual and IV drug user related desease and
| ALL cases can be traces back to that starting point including
| heterasexual infection whether by permiscous sex or blood transfusion.

	Please attend the class. You WILL learn a lot.

| There are no known cases of spontanious infection of AIDS or HIV+ in
| the hetersexual community. 

	How does it become spontanious in homosexuals? 




Glen

| -< Wrong Again!! >-

	Yes Mr. Lennard, you are.

| You see Silva, your comment in .92 that AIDS is "now infecting more
| heterosexuals than homosexuals" is part of the big lie that I have
| a problem with.  

	Actually, it isn't a lie. You have twisted it, but it isn't a lie. I
said % wise more heterosexuals are becoming infected than homosexuals. These
are new cases we're talking about, not old ones. 

| Not in this country, my friend, and not in any other
| reasonably civilized Western country.  

	It was in this country that the information was released in. It was on
the evening news.

| I know you want us to believe
| that.  It's one of the cornerstones of the whole let's-scare-the-crap-
| out-of-them-so-they'll-put-on-more-pressure-to-fund-a-cure strategy.

	It has nothing to do with that. Did you grow up playing twister?

| I'd probably do the same if I had AIDS.

	Well, seeing I DON'T have AIDS and still feel this way, what do you
base your point on? 

| Your comment is deliberately wrong and mis-leading, and you know it.

	There was no misleading done. It was based on fact. From what I see you
are handling the mis-leading and wrong comments just fine.


Glen

| The attitude I see is, "Gee, there are enough *other* people involved now
| so we can pass off our guilt"  I will address my attitude toward this 
| below.

	Please, let's not talk about passing on the guilt. Really.

| >    Further, from what I can see, including in this topic, many of the
| >    people who express the strongest negative views about the morality of
| >    those who have HIV are expressed by people who claim to be religious
| >    Christians.

| Many but, by no means, all. 

	I agree Mike.

| I will put myself in this category with some
| minor exceptions to your statement: "Those who have HIV.."  As we all will
| admit, not everyone who has HIV is immoral. 

	Mike, do you also mean AIDS when you are talking or just HIV?

| There ARE innocent victims.
| But we all, also must be realistic. Up until about 18 months ago 92%
| (YES, 92%) of confirmed HIV+ cases were either promiscuous homosexuals
| and/or IV drug users! 

	And by todays standards?

| >    I think these people should re-examine their own
| >    religious beliefs and consider the injunction, "Judge not lest you be
| >    judged."  It appears to me to by hypocrisy of the highest order.

| Tom, let me explain my view on this. "Judge not lest you be judged" is
| an often misused and misunderstood quote. Both Jesus and Paul used this
| to condemn the Jewish leaders of the day. They were doing the same things
| they accused the Gentiles of doing but considered it ok for themselfs
| because they were God's chosen people. Paul mentions in I Cor "don't you
| know that the saints (believers) will judge the angels!" (my paraphrase)
| By the authority of scripture I do have the right to make the judgement
| that these *lifestyles* are immoral! 

	I believe that Christians call judging others discernment.


Glen

    Re: .120 (Buczynski)

    Well, you and I seem to agree on most of the facts, and possibly some
    beyond that.  The points I am trying to make are:

    1.  The "lifestyle" issue is not an issue for Digital.  The features
    of the "lifestyle" that cause the transmission of HIV for a high
    percentage of those who have it, are features exercised outside of
    Digital.  Digital should have no concern with that, and particularly
    with anybody's view of its morality or immorality.

    2.  There is some percentage of the HIV+ population that acquired HIV
    through no fault of their own.  Because of this, it is impossible for
    anybody at Digital to say whether or not a particular person was moral
    or immoral.  (Again, I am carefully making no statements on my beliefs
    because I think they are irrelevant for the argument I'm presenting.)

    3. Because of the high percentage of people who acquired HIV through
    "lifestyle" practices that many belief are immoral, there is a carry
    over to those who are blameless.  The error is generalization from
    the majority to the minority.

    4. Digital has sufficient grounds to educate people to what some
    consider to be a hazard in the workplace with the resulting negative
    behavior changes toward the people who are HIV+.  This can easily
    affect interpersonal business relationships, and thus negatively affect
    Digital.

    5.  In order for Digital to present what the actual hazards are, if
    any, Digital must discuss how HIV is transmitted and how it is not
    transmitted.  It is not reasonable for Digital to only say "You can't
    get it at work", because that has no credibility unless an accurate an
    believable explanation is given for how people can get it.

    6.  So Digital must explain how it is transmitted, and that raises the
    ire of some who don't like the explanation without the moral issues
    attached.  But the issue FOR DIGITAL is not the moral issues; the basic
    issue is that "You can't get it at work", with a few low probability
    exceptions that apply to accidents and medical people.

    7.  So where does Digital draw the line in the explanations?  Do we
    include all the world's religion's views on the subject.  Do we include
    the government funding issue for a cure?  Do we include explanations or
    the genetic engineering?  Do we include a history, as best as it is
    known, of where HIV came from?  Like African monkey experiments
    involving blood, as I read in the paper yesterday?

    8.  My view is that Digital stick to the facts, as best they are known,
    and limit those facts to what are immediately relevant to the personal
    issues INSIDE Digital.  That excludes all the genetic engineering,
    government funding issues, and any discussion of the pros and cons of
    "lifestyles".  It also excludes any attempts by proponents of those
    "lifestyles" to promote those "lifestyles" or even discuss them. That
    is not necessary for an explanation of how HIV affects Digital any more
    than is an explanation of why somebody else got married, had kids, any
    why they believe that is a reasonable thing to do.

    9.  But there seems to be the consideration that any valueless
    discussion of the facts is somehow promoting the facts.  Even if a
    small discussion or explanation, or even promotion, of the "lifestyles"
    involved does occur,  I don't see the harm.  I think it very unlikely
    that such a promotion would be of any significant length because it is
    simply not relevant to Digital's business interests.  And even if it
    does occur, I am an adult and I can think like an adult, I can see what
    is happening, and I can decide for myself if I believe it or not, if I
    like it or not, or believe it is moral or not.  So can everybody else
    who works for Digital.  That includes all the noters who have
    participated in this topic and others in this conference. And all of us
    can stand up and say. "This discussion is not relevant to HIV in
    Digital's workplace. Let's get on with what we need to know about HIV
    for Digital."  And we can all walk out.  I simply do not believe
    anybody will be morally polluted. Offended?  Perhaps, but not for very
    long.  I've been offended before and I survived.

    10.  As for those who insist that some values must accompany the
    explanation, I would ask them if they, themselves, need those values
    explained to them by Digital.  Do you want Digital explaining morals? 
    (Lets's ignore the problem of just whose morals.) If not, then I do not
    believe they should insist on that for other Digits.

    11.  There is a fraction (however small) of HIV+ people  who are
    "guiltless".  Since I can't tell them from the others, I can't adjust
    my behavior to deal with how they acquired HIV, and in fact, I'd rather
    not know. I absolutely refuse to treat the guiltless as though they did
    something wrong.  Since I don't know which are which, I have to treat
    the "guilty" the same way.  Therefore it is reasonable to treat
    everybody in a reasonable way, and that makes the issue of how an
    individual person acquired HIV totally irrelevant to Digital.  It is
    therefore reasonable for Digital to insure that no "blame" is directed
    toward an HIV+ person inside Digital.
    
    
    The conclusion I draw from all this is that it is reasonble for Digital
    to have a valueless HIV education program inside Digital.

    re: .126
    
     Tom,
    That is an extremely well written entry for this topic. 
    
    Thanks,
    Mike

    Tom,
    The "lifestyle" issue *should* not be an issue for DIGITAL but they
    sure seem to be making it an issue anyway.
    
    Ken

    
    re .126
    
    > The "lifestyle" issue is not an issue for Digital.
    
    So Digital should not say ANYTHING like:
    
    	AIDS can be contracted by sharing needles with an infected person.
    
    	or
    
    	Sexual promiscuity can increase your chances of contracting the
    	virus.
    
    	?
    
    	Aren't these true statements? Will knowing about these facts and
    	heeding their message lessen your chances of contracting AIDS?
    	Are they indications of a particular lifestyle?
    	And finally, how can you say that they are importing a moral stand?
    	In other words, *what's wrong* with them being part of an education
    	course on AIDS?
    
    	John

re .126:

>    The conclusion I draw from all this is that it is reasonble for Digital
>    to have a valueless HIV education program inside Digital.

Aha!  So you admit it's valueless!

        Re: .120

>    But we all, also must be realistic. Up until about 18 months ago 92%
>    (YES, 92%) of confirmed HIV+ cases were either promiscuous homosexuals
>    and/or IV drug users!

        Is this 18 month old figure a figure for the United States? 
        It seems about right for 18 months ago in the United States,
        but the percentage seem to high for a worldwide percentage.

        					B.J.

    Re: .128 (K_Bouchard)
    
    >> The "lifestyle" issue *should* not be an issue for DIGITAL but they
    >> sure seem to be making it an issue anyway.
    
    Who are "they"?   I am distinguishing between an education program on
    HIV and anything involving the Valuing Differences program. I believe
    the two programs are different, and I have said nothing at all in any
    note anywhere about VoD.  I've read a lot.
    
    Re: .129  (Sobecky)
    
    > The "lifestyle" issue is not an issue for Digital.
    >> So Digital should not say ANYTHING like:
    
    	>> AIDS can be contracted by sharing needles with an infected person.
    	>> or
    	>> Sexual promiscuity can increase your chances of contracting the
    	>> virus.
    
    I believe those two statemetns are relevant to a Digital HIV program
    only in so far as they are necessary to tell people how HIV can be
    transmitted.  It is necessary to tell people that in order to give any
    credibility to, "You can't get it at work."
    
    >> Aren't these true statements?
    
    Yes, as far as I've heard.
    
    >> Will knowing about these facts and heeding their message lessen
    >> your chances of contracting AIDS?
    
    They won't lesson your chance of getting it at work.  (Unless stuff I
    don't know about is going on at work, on Digital property.)
    
    	>> Are they indications of a particular lifestyle?
    
    Yes, they are indicators but only if you already know about the
    lifestyle.  If you didn't already know, they wouldn't be.  Those
    statements, as written, are about as neutral as they could be.
    
    	>> And finally, how can you say that they are importing a moral stand?
    
    I don't think I said that at all.  I certainly didn't mean to say it if
    I did.
    
    	>> In other words, *what's wrong* with them being part of an
    	>> education course on AIDS?
    
    The statements as quoted are necessary.  Much beyond that is not
    necessary.  There is very good reason for Digital to separate HIV
    education from the lifestyle issues as much as possible: the facts of
    HIV are necessary for Digital to have everybody know;  the lifestyle
    issues raise serious moral questions in many people's minds. By
    bringing them together, the facts on HIV may get hidden by the more
    emotionally charged issues, and the issue of "blame" due to "immoral
    lifestyle" may carry over to the workplace.  So the question is how can
    Digital get the HIV facts to people, keep the "blame" outside Digital,
    and not bring inside Digital issues which are of concern only outside
    Digital.  I believe the answer is, "Stick to the facts that pertain to
    issues inside Digital as much as possible."
    
    Re: .130 (Sacks)
    
	> The conclusion I draw from all this is that it is reasonble for
    	> Digital to have a valueless HIV education program inside Digital.
    
    >> 	Aha!  So you admit it's valueless!
    
    Thank you.  I needed some humor about now.  I did word that badly,
    didn't I?  At least I haven't gotten any flaming VAXmail.  Yet.

    
    
    It is not the number of sexual partners that a persons has sex with
    that determines their degree of risk of being exposed to the HIV virus. 
    It is, instead, the "safeness" of the sexual acts which determines the
    degree of risk.
    
    ****************************************
    
    Be strong -- be safe!!!!!!!!!!
    
    And, wrap that rascal.
    
    	GJD

    The number of sexual partners is absolutely a component of the risk
    formula.  You said a very dangerous thing there.  and let's not forget
    that condoms are only about 85% effective.

    Re: .134

    I don't believe this is an extension of "Homosexual Awareness Day", but
    I am not a mind reader.  I think it has value in its own right even if
    it is an extension.

    I remember a time at DEC, about the middle 70s, when one of our
    co-workers got infectious hepatitis.  No one knew much about it, and
    fears were expressed, out loud, about how close one dared come to this
    person, and whether one could catch it from a toilet seat.

    The nurse in Marlboro put together a talk about the nature of
    infectious hepatitis and how it was (and was not) transmitted. The
    information was totally factual, and it did its job of preventing this
    person from being ostracized.  It allowed the person to remain fully
    productive for Digital.  It had clear value to Digital.

    I'm strongly reminded of that hepatitis episode, because of the
    similarities to how people are reacting to HIV.  I'm very glad I went
    through that education process then.  It makes it a lot easier to see
    HIV in a rational light, complete with how people react out of fear of
    the unknown.

    It is not clear to me that Digital needs an HIV education program, but
    I don't have any idea of how widespread HIV is inside Digital. It may
    be spread enough that Digital has decided a program is necessary.  I
    don't have any information on which to either agree or disagree.  I can
    believe it might very well be necessary.

    (After my "valueless education" blunder, I suppose I shouldn't be too
    harsh on somebody who says, "DEC absolutely don't need ..."

    
    
    Of course, Dick, number of partners is a component to risk (my former
    phrasing didn't really say that and it should have) but it is NOT the
    first and foremost component.
    
    Many people seem to think that all gay people, especially gay men,
    engage in the most risky of all sexual activities (as it relates to
    AIDS and many other STD's) -- anal intercourse.  In my circle of
    friends, it is the case that the vast MINORITY of people engage in
    such.  There are MANY, MANY sexual activities that pose NO RISK
    whatsoever.  People who engage in such could conceivably have any many
    partners as they desire and continue to not be at risk.  Decorum prevents
    me from explaining such sexual acts.  Those truly wanting to know can
    send me mail, or obtain a brochure explaining them.
    
    I, myself, do not condone promiscuity.  But, neither do I condemn it. 
    What I do condemn, most vehemently, is people placing themselves and
    others at risk by engaging in unsafe sexual practices.  The number of
    partners is, in my opinion, irrelevant when those involved play safe.
    For myself, play without emotional attachment is pretty dull.  That's
    why I'm having an ongoing affair with one of my right appendages.  8-)
    
    	GJD

    Re .126:
    
    Your note is very nice, but it is, unfortunately, totally irrelevant to
    the topic.  The topic is not "AIDS education"; it is "mandatory AIDS
    education".  You have made a case that AIDS education will be
    beneficial.  But even if AIDS education is beneficial, should Digital
    impose it upon its employees?
    
    No.
    
    There is one, and only one point, in your note that touches on Digital
    putting mandatory conditions on its employees.  That is "This can
    easily affect interpersonal business relationships . . .".  Digital
    does have an interest in promoting good business relationships. 
    Digital is certainly entitled to require that employees accept other
    employees' human rights at work.
    
    That is AS FAR as Digital may go.  Digital may require appropriate
    behavior, but it is inappropriate for Digital to attempt to require
    "education" about the "facts" as Digital sees them.  If an employee
    behaves appropriately, then it is none of Digital's business whether
    the employees believes the "facts" Digital believes.  If an employee
    behaves inappropriately, then Digital should object.  It is then up to
    the employee to modify their behavior.  Whether that modification is
    achieved by seeking knowledge and altering their beliefs or by
    compromising and behaving appropriately even though not changing their
    beliefs is NONE of Digital's business.  Whether an employee behaves
    appropriately or inappropriately, it is none of Digital's business what
    the employee's beliefs are.
    
    The MOST that Digital may require is appropriate behavior.  Digital has
    no business imposing mandatory "education" on employees.
    
    
    				-- edp
              

    I think there are a couple of predictable things going on in this
    discussion.
    
    First, it is traditional to blame victims for their disease. That
    repulsive practice was not invented with AIDS, though it may have been
    raised (or lowered) to a new level. Those who have taken the time to
    correct the analogy of AIDS to the Plague surely are familiar with the
    frequent and vociferous condemnations of the victims by the clergy and
    by other survivors. 
    
    In time, when real knowledge (and not the hysterical half-baked
    childish notions that have been stated off and on in here) of the
    disease is more widely spread, Aids, too, will join the ranks of
    diseases where we don't blame the victims. That may be the most
    significant outcome of education.
    
    Second, the basis of most of the condemnation of so called "immoral"
    lifestyles or behaviours is off base. Much of what is routinely touted
    these days as "moral" is really cultural. Marriage takes many forms
    around the world, monogamy is not now and never has been a universally
    accepted practice, the number and gender of sexual partners a person
    has is not in all places nor has at all times been subject to the sort
    of extreme restrictions some in this discussion would proscribe. 
    
    As an example, there are any number of Christians who also happen to be
    polygamists. I know of conservative denominations that have decided, at
    least tacitly, that the "sin" associated with the disgrace, social
    ostracization, and cruelty of putting away wives and children to get
    some one "purified" for baptism far outweighed the "sin" of a second
    spouse. 
    
    The number of sexual partners a person has is cultural. There are
    hundreds of thousands of Africans with Aids or HIV positive who became
    infected through behaviour practiced by people in their lands for
    centuries with no social stigma or religious implications. 
    
    The point I'm trying to make here, as a human being, as a Christian,
    and as a Digital employee, is that we simply have to stop the
    condemnation of the victims, recognize this disease for what it is-- a
    terror that threatens all of us directly or indirectly, and see **it**
    as the enemy instead of the suffering.
    
    John H.

    Re: .138 (EDP)

    Well, I'm responding to an EDP note.

    I agree. I don't care why people adjust their behavior so as to treat
    others humanely as long as they do.  That goal is the ultimate thrust
    of all my notes in this topic.  I think it agrees with EDP's .138.

    My personal belief is that more people will more willingly change their
    behavior due to education than due to compulsion.  I suspect Digital's
    philosophy agrees with that, thus the HIV education, of which I
    approve.

    Whether or not the education is compulsory or not, as the basenote
    title suggests, I don't know.  I have no information on which to base
    an opinion, or at least I don't remember it from earlier notes if the
    information is there.

    I don't have any trouble with Digital requiring me to go to a class on
    chemical hazards, as another noter as mentioned.  (I think I'm supposed
    to here in Colorado Springs, but I never have.) Finding out what
    Digital thinks are the facts regarding chemical hazards (or HIV) won't
    hurt me.  I still have my personal choice to accept or reject the
    information.  (You can lead a horse to water, but ...)  So whether or
    not the course is mandatory or not simply isn't a major issue for me,
    although I would much prefer it to be voluntary, with a persuasive
    statement as to its necessity.  I don't know whether it is necessary
    (as opposed to merely required) or not, and I haven't seen anybody else
    comment on that.

    Wow - Fantastic note, John H (.139).

    re. 104  Steve:  How long is "enough time" for you to to decide that
    HIV cannot be acquired through casual contact?  We've had 10 1/2
    years of case histories already...I think you'd be a good running-
    mate for Mario.

    re .109 Levy_J:  I'm not a TB expert, but it is one of the few
    contagious opportunistic infections associated with the final stage
    of AIDS.  (Herpes zoster--shingles--is another, and possibly 
    salmonellosis is the third.)  Any employee with infectious TB 
    would not be admitted back to work (you need a doctor's note after
    being out 5 days); also, we're talking the *final* stage where a
    person would be too ill to work anyway.  In situations where
    diseases are casually contagious, the person with HIV is at mcuh
    greater risk than a person with a healthy, intact immune system.
    They don't just get a 'common' cold or flu that goes away in 24
    hours; they're out sick for *days*, and their immune systems remain
    depressed for weeks afterwards.  Yes, those factors have been and
    are being studied - as the amount of research money, facilities and 
    dedicated scientists will allow.

    re .111 Root:  (Who said you could steal one of my favorite lines in
    your title?? ;-)  Anyway, I didn't see any "incoming" so I guess it's
    safe to reply to you.  I'm sorry i didn't see the TIME article.  What
    you said about "ALL cases can be traced back to that [homosexual and
    IV drug user related] starting point" is not consistent with what I've
    heard and read from CDC, WHO, former Surgeon General Koop, and many
    scientists and researchers.  To date evidence (imho) points strongly to 
    the 'culprit' of HIV being batches of Hepatitis B vaccine, imported to
    this country from Africa, and made from the blood of certain primates
    - such as monkeys.  The hep B vaccine is (and was, even 10 and more
    years ago) routinely given to people most at risk: gay men, IV drug 
    users, hemphiliacs, people who receive blood transfusions, and health 
    care workers.  There were also Hep B trials done in New York City and
    San Francisco in the 1979/80 timeframe, where researchers vaccinated
    a large number of people - predominantly gay men - in an effort to
    curb the spread of Hep B.  So it is theoretically possible that 
    well-meaning scientists introduced HIV in substantial quantities.
    (Although we can't raelly blame them either, can we?  Not for the 
    British and Kenyan sailors who died in 1959, the boy in Alabama who 
    died in 1969, or the other men, women and children who died before
    1981, or those who died in the subsequent few years..The time from
    acquiring HIV to a destroyed immune system and full-blown AIDS doesn't
    happen overnight...it takes *years*.) 
    
    It may never be "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt how it all started;
    personally, I don't lose any sleep over it.

    My personal feeling (being somewhat of a pragmatist) is that I don't care 
    so much *how* it got here, just that it *is* here and how are we going to
    handle it, vaccinate against it and cure it.  Today (and probably for
    five-to-ten years to come) the only 'vaccine' we have is education...
    educating people to help *prevent* more people from becoming infected;
    and educating people so that those who are HIV can live longer and more
    productive lives.  For example, did you know that women live less than
    half as long as men do with HIV?  That's because a) doctors aren't
    educated in what to look for in women (they do not get the same
    opportunistic infections as men do), b) because the cancers and
    other women's manifestations of HIV don't fit the CDC's official list
    of "AIDS" illnesses, they can't get medicare and health treatment, and 
    c) none of the drugs have been tested on women so no one knows how
    effective they are.  So, they die faster.  When the CDC's new guidelines 
    regarding what constitutes an official AIDS diagnosis--based solely on 
    T-cell counts--takes effect in January, we'll probably see a sharp rise 
    in the number of women *officially* listed as diagnosed with AIDS.  It 
    has been estimated that as many as 45% more women have actually died of 
    AIDS, but were never registered as such because they didn't fit the 
    CDC's defnition.

    re .118  Lennard:  You're chain-yanking again...It's not a "lie," it's
    just a matter of citing actual *numbers* vs. *percents* that gives a
    different flavor.  Personally, I prefer using them both...for example:
    women comprise about 11% of the 200,000 diagnosed cases of AIDS, or 
    about 22,000.  Extrapolate that to: If women also comprise 11% of the
    1 million estimated US HIV+s, then there are 110,000 HIV+ women...now.
    Of course, "women" is the fastest-increasing category *percentagewise*,
    and roughly 50% of their babies will be born HIV+ too.  "Adolescents"
    is another rapidly-increasing category; STDs are way up in the "under
    20" category, and STDs are a proven co-factor in facilitating the
    transmission of HIV.

    The only correlation I can see to the "Black Plague" scenario is that
    there was a lot of fear associated with that also...suspicioons that
    'bad air' caused it, or that by beating a person severely they would
    be cured; some towns blamed minorities, and burned them alive.
    Because of fear and panic, authorities did things that only made
    people suffer, and had no effect on the *real* problems: the fleas,
    rats, or the spread of the pathogen.  So yeah, I can see some
    similarities there...

 Digital - Correction to LIVE WIRE's AIDS/'USA Today' story
	{Livewire, U.S. News, 19-Dec-91}
   On Dec. 13, LIVE WIRE posted an article about a "USA Today" news story that
 described Digital as one a few companies that mandates AIDS education for 
 employees. The article was mistaken. While Digital provides company resources
 on company time for AIDS edcuation, it is not a mandated policy.  
   Employees are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this education.
   Employees who want to know more about AIDS education programs available, 
 contact Paul Ross at DTN 223-9580 or ICS::ROSS or PAUL ROSS @MSO.

    re: .142
    
    Thankyou for posting that.
    
    Jim C.
    

    re .134  Ru,
    
    I am unaware of any "lot of trouble" that Paul Ross has caused, and
    I really don't feel comfortable about you making slanderous accusations
    about a manager of this corporation.  Even if I didn't respect him for
    what he's accomplished, I still wouldn't like it.
    
    For the record, Paul is not one of the Valuing Diversity program
    people, and had nothing to do with any G/L/B Day in Marlboro or
    elsewhere.  He is Digital's AIDS Program Manager, period. 
    

    reply to John Hammer .139 (and applauder .141, Deb Arch)

    This is a typical elitist response: to condemn the opponents of the
    political and cultural agenda of homosexuals as "childish".

    The "fact" is that AIDS is linked to voluntary behavior in an
    overwhelming number of cases.  Behaviors were known and publicized
    since 1985 as having risk for transmitting AIDS.

    The "fact" is that the behaviors that transmit AIDS have been condemned
    as morally wrong by civil law, religious law, and public opinion in the
    United States until recently.

    It's not a "fact" that everyone can get AIDS.  We're often reminded
    that the blood supply is safe and that all health-care providers who
    are HIV-infected are taking proper precautions to avoid transmission of
    the disease, which takes us back to "behaviors" as the principal mode
    of transmission.

    It's part of the political and cultural agenda to put "moral" in quotes
    so as to "educate" everyone that there are no shared notions of what is
    right and wrong.  On the contrary, part of the role of every parent and
    community is to transmit to children what those shared values are.

    It's a pathetic stretch to justify the negation of morality with your
    reference to the practice of polygamy.  Such practices are within the
    bonds marital fidelity in any case, and have nothing to do with the
    promiscuity that has spread AIDS.

    Are you prepared to "stop the condemnation" of those of us who want to
    live moral lives, and believe in our religious faith? Are you going to
    stop telling us that we are "childish" and that there is no such thing
    as right or wrong?

    Christ, since you mentioned Christians, called us to care for the sick
    and forgive.  You see hate where there is none.  ACT-UP is where's
    there's hate and condemnation.
                      

    
    	So it's not a mandatory policy? Great! 
    
    	I'm outta here!
    
    	Have a nice holiday, everybody!
    
    	John Sobecky

>    The "fact" is that AIDS is linked to voluntary behavior in an
>    overwhelming number of cases.  Behaviors were known and publicized
>    since 1985 as having risk for transmitting AIDS.

     Right, and that behavior is unprotected sex, sharing needles...
    
>    The "fact" is that the behaviors that transmit AIDS have been condemned
>    as morally wrong by civil law, religious law, and public opinion in the
>    United States until recently.

    I don't see were unprotected sex is morally wrong, albeit pretty
    stupid not to, unless your trying to procreate.
    
>    It's not a "fact" that everyone can get AIDS.  
  
    Listen to yourself, under certain conditions anyone can get it.
    
    Why do you people insist on blaming gay people for this disease. It's
    predominate amongst gays probably because there was no need for birth
    control. And, I'm sure that today gay people are far more concerned
    about safe sex than any other group.
    
    As for the self righteous zealots, who feel they have the right to 
    know someones medical history because not knowing places them in danger,
    I say to you, following that logic the company has a right to educate
    you on AIDS because what you don't know may endanger you and expose the
    company to liability.
    
    This is a world problem, not a gay problem.

    Re .145

    You miss out on a significant number of victims who are innocent
    children, their only sin was to be born to the wrong parent or to go to
    hospital in the wrong country.

    It is easy for you to smugly sit in a highly civilised society and
    preach your morals and how only your own actions can infest you.
    However life outside your country is a vastly different affair. I for
    one, am surprised that you consider your attitudes Christian. They seem
    rather parochial to me.

    Jamie.

    "blame"
    "self-righteous"
    "smug"
    "sin"
    "parochial"
    
    Who's preaching to whom here?  I'm not using labels, yet you are, one
    after another, without context.  What are you trying to say?
    
    People who are aware of the behaviors that risk transmission of the HIV
    virus and do them anyway are responsible for the consequences of their
    actions.
    
    My morality, my sense of right and wrong, my beliefs are that sexual
    intercouse outside of marriage is wrong, sticking a needle in one's arm
    is wrong.  That "difference" isn't valued in this discussion of AIDS,
    the denial of any morality is what's preached and applauded.
    
    As for surprise, I'm surprised you're not able to understand that.

re .147:

Unprotected sex *by itself* is not the cause of the spread of AIDS.
Promiscuity and shared needles are the required additional ingredients.

For the moment, let's ignore shared needles (is there anyone out there
who thinks it's an unfair value judgment to condemn their use?).

Except for the relatively few cases of AIDS spread by transfusion or
other medical procedures, nobody whose sexual behavior conforms to
(insert favorite Western religion)'s tenets (no premarital or extramarital
sex for either partner) is at risk for AIDS.  Yes, babies can get infected
in utero, but they die in childhood, so they're out of the equation.

> Unprotected sex *by itself* is not the cause of the spread of AIDS.
    
    It most certainly is, *by itself*, a conduit.
    
> Promiscuity and shared needles are the required additional ingredients.

    It only takes one exposure, promiscuity/needles merely increase the sample
    size.
    
> nobody whose sexual behavior conforms to
>(insert favorite Western religion)'s tenets (no premarital or extramarital
>sex for either partner) is at risk for AIDS.  
    
    Providing everyone subscribes to the religions you refer to and follows 
    it devoutly.
    
    Should we now dictate religious beliefs ?

re .151:

>> Unprotected sex *by itself* is not the cause of the spread of AIDS.
>    
>    It most certainly is, *by itself*, a conduit.

In order to contract AIDS via sex, your partner has to be infected.
    
>> Promiscuity and shared needles are the required additional ingredients.
>
>    It only takes one exposure, promiscuity/needles merely increase the sample
>    size.

In order to contract AIDS via sex, your partner has to be infected.
    
>> nobody whose sexual behavior conforms to
>>(insert favorite Western religion)'s tenets (no premarital or extramarital
>>sex for either partner) is at risk for AIDS.  
>    
>    Providing everyone subscribes to the religions you refer to and follows 
>    it devoutly.
>    
>    Should we now dictate religious beliefs ?

I'm not preaching here.  I'm presenting *facts*.  In order to contract AIDS
via sex, your partner has to be infected.  This is science, not religion.

What are the $$ benefits to Digital Equipment Corporation by providing
AIDS education to its employees?

Lee

    
    Not everything can be measured in dollars and cents.

>Unprotected sex *by itself* is not the cause of the spread of AIDS.
>Promiscuity and shared needles are the required additional ingredients.

>I'm not preaching here.  I'm presenting *facts*.  In order to contract AIDS
>via sex, your partner has to be infected.  
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Isn't that the assumption were making in our arguments, yourself
    included.
    
    > This is science, not religion.
    
    Then lets stick to science and leave religion, morality, and personal
    feelings out of the debate.
    
    

    re: .151
    
    Is that your refutation of my replies "Most of these replies support
    the need for education"??
    
    You still don't get the point.  AIDS is overwhelmingly transmitted by
    behavior.  Behavior that doesn't require adherence to religion to
    perform or avoid.
    
    There's a large group of people of whom I am part of, and whom you
    consistently refer to in insulting language.  "Religionists"
    
    We are not spreading AIDS.
    
    We believe that the sexual love is best expressed in marriage and that
    the marriage vows to love no other are meant to be taken seriously.
    Young people who want to wait for marriage shouldn't be ridiculed.
    Yet we're always dragged in as the Great Satan of the AIDS debate.
    And we've always known how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
    
    Leave the "leave religion out of the picture" out of the picture.

    Re: 153 (Roth)
    
	>> What are the $$ benefits to Digital Equipment Corporation
    	>> by providing AIDS education to its employees?
    
    A reasonable question.  A closely related question is, "What is HIV
    costing DEC?"  I have never heard any numbers on that either.
    
    But it is costing something.  As a result of my notes in this topic, I
    was sent VAXmail telling me of an obituary in the Colorado Springs
    Gazette Telegraph a week or so ago for a DEC supervisor who had died of
    HIV.

    Re: .156 (Sweeney)
    
    >> There's a large group of people of whom I am part of, and whom you
    >> consistently refer to in insulting language.  "Religionists"
    >> We are not spreading AIDS.
    
    Up to now I have tried to keep my comments directed toward HIV
    education at DEC, but the above comment seems a bit too overstated.
    
    What with Jimmy Swaggert, and others of that ilk, I have doubts that
    the "religionists" are not responsible for some of the spread of HIV.
    Is there any data to substantiate that claim?

re .155:

>>I'm not preaching here.  I'm presenting *facts*.  In order to contract AIDS
>>via sex, your partner has to be infected.  
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    Isn't that the assumption were making in our arguments, yourself
>    included.

Huh?  I don't understand this sentence.

It seems to me that there are two ways to avoid getting AIDS via sex.
One is to be celibate.  The other is to have sex only within a monogamous
relationship with a non-infected partner.  It's certainly true that
many religions espouse monogamy, but that hardly makes monogamy a religion.

Huh.  Issue raised in .0 (is it mandatory?), issue settled a couple dozen 
replies ago, yet the "victims" of the education keep on going.  Sort of like
the Energizer Bunny from H*ll.

Alright, I'll be a bit hypocritical here to join into a discussion going 
nowhere that has no reason for continuing:

>It seems to me that there are two ways to avoid getting AIDS via sex.
>One is to be celibate.  The other is to have sex only within a monogamous
>relationship with a non-infected partner.  It's certainly true that
>many religions espouse monogamy, but that hardly makes monogamy a religion.

As long as you're sure that your partner is also monogamous (and partners tend
to be less than honest on this point when they're not), and as long as you're
sure that your partner isn't doing drugs, and as long as you're sure your
partner didn't catch anything from a transfusion, and it seems, as long as
your partner hasn't caught anything from a health care provider, or caught
something from someone they've beat the crap out of (due to differing levels
of acceptance).

Even the comfort of a long term monogamous relationship isn't as safe as it
might seem.

    Mr. Sweeney, sir:
    
    >> reply to John Hammer .139 (and applauder .141, Deb Arch)
    
    Say what you want about what I wrote, just spell my name right. One m,
    if you don't mind. Thank you.
    
    In .39 I condemned no one as childish. I referred to certain "notions
    of the disease" as childish. Childish, as in child-like in their
    confidence and, I believe naivete. Such notions implying simple or
    single mechanisms for infection, such notions that equate infection
    with just retribution for violations of a single immutable perfectly
    defined and understood code of morality are childish. 
    
    There is nothing in .39 that by any stretch of the imagination can be
    construed as supportive of the mythic "political and cultural agenda of
    homosexuals."  Your first paragraph attempting to discredit my
    non-political plea for first things first has the same link to reality
    as if someone were to say you are the typical knee-jerk bible
    thumping anti-commie gay bashing bigot for opposing mandatory AIDS
    education at work. 
    
    There is no question that, in this country, most AIDS cases are linked
    to behavior. That is probably true of most cases in the world. Where we
    disagree is in what I perceive to be your implication that because the
    behavior is immoral to you somehow the seriousness of the threat of the
    disease is mitigated and some degree of the sympathy and support we
    would otherwise give to the patients is removed. It's as if we should
    give inferior treatment to injured skydivers or wounded bankrobbers
    because they brought it on themselves.
    
    >>It's a pathetic stretch to justify the negation of morality with your
    >>reference to the practice of polygamy. 
    
    Which isn't what I intended to do. Polygamy is an example of a practice
    the "shared values" of this country pretty generally agree is wrong and
    where the "shared value" is not related to some universal absolute but
    much more to culture. I could list consumption af alcohol, card
    playing, dancing, wearing jewelry, shopping on Sunday as other examples
    of moral issues past and present that I would maintain are primarily
    cultural. I used polygamy as an example because I did not want to
    trivialize the importance of traditional beliefs about sex by comparing
    them to denunciations of short skirts or hair covering boys' ears. 
    
    To some cultures in various parts of the world generally and
    disappointingly discounted in this discussion having multiple sexual
    partners is not viewed as immoral. Lots of those people are getting
    AIDS, the same way lots of them get cholera from drinking dirty water.
    Should they boil the water? Yes. Should they stop having unprotected
    sex with lots of different people? Yes. Are they immoral because they
    had lots of sex and got AIDS? I don't think so. Are homosexual AIDS
    patients immoral because they were gay and got AIDS? I don't think so.
    
    I haven't negated morality. I merely point out that "much" of what we
    consider to be moral is really cultural. In the face of that awareness,
    I continue to hold to hold to some things as absolute. That is faith,
    by the definition in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. 
    
    What you choose to believe right and wrong and what you transmit to
    your children country is clearly in your province. What I find
    objectionable is the assumption that your believing in it (and though I
    am responding directly to .145, please don't interpret this as a
    personal attack-- "you" is getting much more general here) makes it
    absolute.
    
    If you think I've condemned someone, it isn't because someone wants to
    lead a moral life, so do I. What I fail to appreciate is the seemingly
    glib willingness to accept the suffering of others as their just due
    because you don't like the way they act.
    
    John H. (one "m" on the paycheck, please!)

    re: .141

>    re. 104  Steve:  How long is "enough time" for you to to decide that
>    HIV cannot be acquired through casual contact?  We've had 10 1/2
>    years of case histories already...

    Deb, it can never be said with absolute certainty that a given disease
    is *always* or is *never* transmitted by a specific mechanism.  The
    best that can be done is to determine the probability that such
    statements are correct.  

    All of the HIV investigations have been retrospective - the results are
    very dependent on the study population's recollection of past
    activities and the accuracy of their reporting of said activities.
    In addition, there have been no controls over simultaneous potential
    independent transmission factors.
    
    In short, much of the current party-line on non-risk factors for HIV
    transmission is based on statistical hocus-pocus rather than hard
    scientific or clinical evidence.

    re .153  Lee,
    
    I don't have any exact $$ amounts (I doubt if even Paul Ross does), but
    he does have clear evidence that customers react extremely favorably
    to Digital's AIDS education.  He has been asked to speak at several
    large customer sites, and while he doesn't sell anything, he is 
    representing Digital, and gets a Digital foot through the door and a
    Digital face in front of the customers.  
    
    You may call it all PR and perception, but as my 'buddy' Tom Peters says, 
    "Perception is all there is."
    

    It would be interesting to know the circumstances of why Paul Ross has
    talked at customer sites, and how he got invited.

.165> It would be interesting to know the circumstances of why Paul Ross has
.165> talked at customer sites, and how he got invited.

Good question.  I've been in DECsales for 15 years ... never had anything
like this happen but I'm darned sure willing to listen to anything that
helps me to sell 'puters.

Bubba

    Just an interresting tidbit: DEC used to have a program called AIDS.
    Sometime in the early 80's it was changed to PRISM. Thought everyone
    would like to know.
    
    Ken

    The solution!  All we have to do is declare AIDS canceled, and the VP
    count will go down at the same time.

    Re .150

>Unprotected sex *by itself* is not the cause of the spread of AIDS.
>Promiscuity and shared needles are the required additional ingredients.

    As has been pointer out you may not be promiscuous to get AIDS. You may
    be completely faithful to your partner. 

    Shared needles is also another route. In Holland one man became HIV+
    after having blood removed irradiated and replaced, he got the wrong
    blood back and it was infected. 

    >Yes, babies can get infected in utero, but they die in childhood, so
    >they're out of the equation.

    No they are not infected in the womb, they are infected, by contact,
    during the process of being born. Oh and some of them live. So you
    can't drop them so neatly from the equation.

    Re .150

>What are the $$ benefits to Digital Equipment Corporation by providing
>AIDS education to its employees?

    What is the cost of the medical care for an AIDS patient? If Digital
    manages to stop even a few of its employees or dependents from
    contacting the disease it will more than pay for the cost of the
    program.

    Jamie.

re .169:

>    As has been pointer out you may not be promiscuous to get AIDS. You may
>    be completely faithful to your partner. 

How did the partner get AIDS?

>    >Yes, babies can get infected in utero, but they die in childhood, so
>    >they're out of the equation.
>
>    No they are not infected in the womb, they are infected, by contact,
>    during the process of being born. Oh and some of them live. So you
>    can't drop them so neatly from the equation.

Until they're of an age to be sexually active (or to be drug abusers), even
the surviving AIDS babies are out of the equation.

Re .150:

> ..., nobody whose sexual behavior conforms to
>(insert favorite Western religion)'s tenets (no premarital or extramarital
>sex for either partner) is at risk for AIDS.

If so, then this implies to me that:
	If person A engages in extramarital sex,
	then the "sexual behavior" of A's *spouse* has the property "does not
		conform to (insert favorite Western religion)'s tenets",
	regardless of any actions on the part of A's spouse.

Seems like you've got an uncommon definition for "behavior" there, Gerald.
				/AHM

re .171:

OK, I amend "nobody" to "no couple."

    re. 169
    
    AIDS babies are infected in the womb, the virus is passed through the
    placenta.
    
    Karen

    Re .170

    >How did the partner get AIDS?
 
    Any way that is possible. Mine for example, could possibly get infected
    at work. Pathologists regularly cut themselves when doing postmortems
    and who knows if the patient was HIV+ or not. BTW some postmortems are
    done within hours of death and the virus can still be alive.

    So I can be faithful and still get infected. Others may be faithful and
    have a partner who is less than faithful and so they can, and do, get
    infected.

    >Until they're of an age to be sexually active (or to be drug abusers),
    >even the surviving AIDS babies are out of the equation.

    Really? Stop and think. In the USA this might be more or less true but
    what about other countries where disposable syringes are not so easily
    available. Much of the spread of AIDS in Eastern Europe was caused by
    syringes being used on patients without proper sterilization.

    Re .173

    >AIDS babies are infected in the womb, the virus is passed through the
    >placenta.
     
    There was a program on TV in the UK recently covering a mother who was
    HIV+ and pregnant. I think that the chances quoted was 40% that the
    baby would be HIV- and it was said that the main risk of infection was
    during the birth. The woman decided not to have an abortion and luckily
    the child was not infected.

    So in her case the virus did not cross the placenta.

    Jamie.

re: 1697.172          Mandatory AIDS education programs?             172 of 172
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re .171:
>OK, I amend "nobody" to "no couple."

To fan these flames a little bit .. assuming both members of the couple, and
all their relatives do nothing promiscuous or 'sinful'..

Further, assume everyone goes to a different dentist, one has major surgery
which requires  a blood transfusion, two donate blood, and one of the blood
bank nurses uses the same pair of latex gloves on two different patients ..

One of your childs friends has a bloody nose in your house, or one of them 
are first to arrive on the scene following a major accident ...

None of these incidents involve high risk behavior but, thanks to AIDS 
awareness education, I know that each incident involves a certain amount
of risk to being exposed to blood / body fluid carrying AIDS.

With the growing uncertainty of how long the AIDS can stay dormant in a person
before being noticed (10 years and counting) ... with the current dramatic 
rise in teenage pregnancies ... the dramatic rise in AIDS amongst 
heterosexuals .. anything that is done to increase peoples awareness of this
no-survivor epidemic .. to learn how to avoid being exposed .. its no longer
just related to 'sin' ... its a people problem ... which needs to be met.

One must add in to this problem, the number of people who attempt to live
a moral life, but due to relatives, 'friend's', 'wayward clergy','abberant
teachers' ... young people, children, mentally handicapped people, old 
people ... are sometimes forcibly induced to being part of the sex act. 

One of the great tragedies of life, is when the 'truly innocent' are 
forced to contract AIDS against their will .. and there is no medication 
available to save their lives ............... partially due to the lack 
of funds for better research ..

One could argue this till the cows come home .. and no amount of argument
will protect these children ... these innocents ... with argument alone ...

-Bob

    Education will give you greater protection than religion.

    Jamie.

RE Note 1697.175          

>.. and there is no medication 
>available to save their lives ............... partially due to the lack 
>of funds for better research ..
    
    
    The US spends more money on AIDs research then on any other single
    disease. More than on heart disease which will KILL 500,000 people in
    1992. More than on breast cancer which 1 in 9 women will contract in
    their lifetime and increasing at an alarming rate....
    
    Steve

re .175:

>None of these incidents involve high risk behavior but, thanks to AIDS 
>awareness education, I know that each incident involves a certain amount
>of risk to being exposed to blood / body fluid carrying AIDS.

That's all very nice, but the risk/benefit ratio is clearly on the side
of getting dental work done, having a blood transfusion, and even on
donating blood and helping a kid stop his nose from bleeding.  On which
side is so-called "safe sex" with multiple partners?

I don't think you'll find anyone who'll say it's not a tragedy when
AIDS is contracted through rape, but I don't see how AIDS education is
going to reduce this risk.

I'm also not convinced that spending $X more on AIDS research will save
more lives than spending $X more on other medical research.  I'd venture
that it's easier to raise funds for AIDS research than for other medical
research -- there are lots of rich and famous people who are involved.

    "Education"? Don't insult our intelligence.
    
    There are plenty of "educated" people who have HIV infection.
    
    What they did was believe that it wouldn't happen to them.  Education
    has to be translated in doing something, or not doing something.
    
    As for "religion", you seem to be repeating the same stupid sound bites
    over and over for ACT-UP's script.  How droll.

    re .176 .... Horse-Puckey.  A return to religion will help much more
    than any ill-conceived idea of "education".
    
    Agree that we are spending TOO much on AIDS research now at the expense
    of helping people with really serious diseases.  Of course breast
    cancer doesn't pass the PC Litmus Test.

| Agree that we are spending TOO much on AIDS research now at the expense
| of helping people with really serious diseases. 

	Gee, I hadn't known that AIDS WASN'T a really serious disease. I
sincerly hope that you never get it from anywhere as if your friends have the
same views that you do, you're gonna be verrrrrrrrryyyyy lonely. 

|  Of course breast cancer doesn't pass the PC Litmus Test.

	And it can be said that AIDS doesn't pass your version of the PC Litmus
Test.



Glen

    Go act-up somewhere else.  We're not impressed.

Is anyone here old enough ... or know enough about history ... to know
if the same hysteria/morality_vs_immorality/misinformation/education_
funding_endless_arguments ... was prevalent when syphilis and gonorrhea
was not understood or curable?

Bubba

    AIDS is a disease without a cure, a vaccine, or even an effective
    treatment.  Much research is being done in those areas.
    
    I suggest that there is *no* need for "research" into heart disease. 
    We understand how you get it, how to treat ti, and, most importantly,
    how to minimize it.
    
    Likewise, why are we spending so much money on cancer research? 
    Compared to AIDS, we know quite a lot about cancer, how you get it, and
    what you can do to avoid it.
    
    Achieving a tremendous reduction in both heart disease and cancer is as
    close and as cheap as an ashtray.
    
    Let's spend the research money on AIDS, where there are problems still
    to be solved.

RE Note 1697.185          
>TNPUBS::JONG "Steve Jong/T and N Publications"       16 lines  25-DEC-1991 21:24
>         -< Of course we spend more on AIDS research -- and we should >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    I suggest that there is *no* need for "research" into heart disease. 
>    We understand how you get it, how to treat ti, and, most importantly,
>    how to minimize it.
    
>    Likewise, why are we spending so much money on cancer research? 
>    Compared to AIDS, we know quite a lot about cancer, how you get it, and
>    what you can do to avoid it.
>    
>    Achieving a tremendous reduction in both heart disease and cancer is as
>    close and as cheap as an ashtray.
>    
>    Let's spend the research money on AIDS, where there are problems still
>    to be solved.
    
    Double standard here!!!!
    
    The spread of AIDs can be slowed down much easier than heart disease.
    Promiscuity an IV drug use account for the vast majority 85-90% of the
    cases. These are lifestyle CHOICES.
    
    Heredity and environment come into play with heart disease. It is more
    than just exercising, diet, and not smoking.
    
    With cancer, researchers haven't a clue as to why the breast cancer 
    rate is increasing at an alarming rate. As I recall, it was 1 in 11
    about 15 years ago, now it is 1 in 9 will contract it in their
    lifetimes.
    
    Steve

re: .186 (Steve)
    
>    The spread of AIDs can be slowed down much easier than heart disease.
>    Promiscuity an IV drug use account for the vast majority 85-90% of the
>    cases. These are lifestyle CHOICES.
    
A nit, it's not IV drug use per se, but the sharing of dirty (used) needles.

We don't even have to cure drug addiction to solve this part, we only
have to make it legal to buy new syringes!

\john

>     <<< Note 1697.185 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve Jong/T and N Publications" >>>
>         -< Of course we spend more on AIDS research -- and we should >-
>    AIDS is a disease without a cure, a vaccine, or even an effective
>    treatment.  Much research is being done in those areas.
>    I suggest that there is *no* need for "research" into heart disease. 
>    We understand how you get it, how to treat ti, and, most importantly,
>    how to minimize it.
>    
>    Likewise, why are we spending so much money on cancer research? 
>    Compared to AIDS, we know quite a lot about cancer, how you get it, and
>    what you can do to avoid it.
>    Achieving a tremendous reduction in both heart disease and cancer is as
>    close and as cheap as an ashtray.
    
    Over 900,000 americans died of heart disease in 1990, has enough
    research been done?
    
    Over 500,000 americans died of cancer in 1990, has enough research 
    been done?  
    
    Less than 200,000 americans have died from Aids in the last 12 years.
    
    
>    Let's spend the research money on AIDS, where there are problems still
>    to be solved.
    
    I agree money should be spent on finding a cure for Aids, but not at
    the expense of reducing attempts to cure cancer and heart disease.
    
    -Bruce

    

    As well as the marvelous TB epidemic ...

    Re: Research on Heart Desease -
      My father died of a heart attack.  I hope I do too.  It was quick and
      clean and no one asked how he got it.  I will take a heart attack
      over AIDS anytime.
    
    Ken

    RE .190
    
    My father also died of a heart attack, died instantly. Definately the
    way to go.
    
    HOWEVER, many do not go that way. They suffer for years and years with
    increasing inability to do things/enjoy life.
    
    Steve

    AIDS is the preventable disease around, and has the highest per-capita
    allocations of funding to any disease in history.
    
    Some previous replies are clueless: heart disease, breast cancer, other
    cancers, etc. all have well-established genetic links. That means that
    based on your family's history of the disease, your probability is
    modified.
    
    And the most terrible disease for which next to nothing is spent on,
    and for which less is known regarding cause, treatment, and epidimology
    is Alzheimers disease.  It's a disease without a political lobby.
    
    AIDS merits a share of research, but it's so typical of its political
    movement that it has to bash attempts to fund reasearch for heart
    disease, cancer, and Alzheimers.

>A nit, it's not IV drug use per se, but the sharing of dirty (used) needles.
>
>We don't even have to cure drug addiction to solve this part, we only
>have to make it legal to buy new syringes!

Even if it's legal to buy syringes (as it is in some states), some addicts
will still share needles.

.192> AIDS is the preventable disease around, and has the highest per-capita
.192> allocations of funding to any disease in history.

And the sad part is that of today's mentality ... "just push more money
into it and we'll solve it".

    re .184 .... several points on your question about syphilis and the
    "clap".  First, I don't think gonorrhea ever was a big problem.  Lot's
    of people caught it...and most of them were cured, albiet painfully in
    some cases.  There was no hysteria about syphilis because the problem
    was pretty well kept under the rug as far as the general public was 
    concerned.  Also, syphilis was heavily concentrated in the black com-
    munity, and to be brutally honest, few people really cared what
    happened to them.  I think most informed people were aware of the
    problem, but as sexual promiscuity was much less of a problem, and
    strong family values and morals much more common, people simply simply
    didn't feel threatened.  Also, there were no secondary  ways to catch
    the syph.  It only happened to "bad" people.  The progression of the
    disease was much longer, and by the time it reached it's third phase
    and started to destroy the brain, most victims were quietly locked
    away in the local funny farm.
    
    ...and finally, of great significance, there was no hyper-active lobby
    of panic-stricken potential victims, unwilling to chance their
    lifestyle.  People in those days did not expect the government to solve
    problems related to their personal behavior.
    

.195> ...Lot's of Differences...syphilis was heavily concentrated
.195> in the black community, and to be brutally honest, few people
.195> really cared what happened to them.

I agree with everything you said except the above.  As AIDS is concentrated
in homosexuals...to be brutally honest, there is a large class of people
who really don't care what happens to "them".

Bubba

    Anent .192 (Pat Sweeney):
    
    >> AIDS merits a share of research, but it's so typical of its political
    >> movement that it has to bash attempts to fund reasearch for heart
    >> disease, cancer, and Alzheimers.
    
    You're letting your own rhetoric run away with you.  I am not a member
    of any political movement; I'm just a Digital employee stating an
    opinion.  Also, I think the only person who mentioned Alzheimer's
    Disease in this topic is you, in .192.  Talk about straw men!
    
    Comparing the current expenditures for AIDS research against the
    current expenditures for research into heart disease and cancer is
    bogus.  Try comparing the totals.  The "War on Cancer" isn't really
    progressing any better than the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty;
    perhaps Jerry Beeler's point about throwing money at this particular
    set of problems is true.  Make me believe there's a vaccine for
    coronaries and I'll give you $500 a year to help you find it.  Until
    then, I think my money's better spent on AIDS research. (Disclaimer:
    rhetorical point only; not to be used to infer my actual mix of
    charitable donations 8^)
    
    Labeling AIDS "preventable" and heart disease/cancer not preventable is
    a cruel irony.  Even at the simplistic level it's set at, is tobacco
    harder to give up than sex?  On a more serious level, I understand that
    gays have modified their behavior more than smokers.  In this country
    the government subsidizes tobacco farmers, and companies spend hundreds
    of millions of dollars advertising tobacco products.  Go figure.

    
    
    Of the 500,000 (or so) deaths related to heart disease and cancer, how
    many were related to the person's "lifestyle".  How many people died of
    lung cancer and/or heart disease because they smoked themselves to
    death?  How many people die of liver ailments each year because they
    drank excessively.  
    
    I wonder if people who talk so vehemently about AIDS as a preventable
    disease also feel so strongly about many cases of fatal diseases as
    being preventable.  
    
    $set tone/tongue_in_cheek
    
    Let's revoke all government medical funding for persons who are dying
    of any disease that is preventable.  Then, we can use the money for
    something really important, like helping the homeless.
    
    $set tone/normal
    
    Mr. Lennard -- a few notes back you mentioned that AIDS isn't a
    "serious disease".  In that same note you were espousing Christianity.  
    Somehow I have a feeling we'll see each other in hell..
    
    	Greg

    re .188  Bruce,

    Correction: Over 200,000 have died in 10 1/2 years...

    and re .192 Patrick,

    ...But it's not just the actual numbers of people who've died of the
    various illnesses, it's the lost productivity at work and the lost
    years of people's expected lifespan that should be taken into
    consideration.  Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease generally
    affect *older* people, who have maybe 10 or less work-years left, and
    20 or so expected years of life.  HIV affects primarily *younger*
    people (including infants), so the lost years of life and productivity
    are *much* greater.  (I have the National AIDS Commission's actual
    numbers at home - I'll see if I can find them later.)

    The problem with all of our "Wars on Whatever" is that they quickly
    acquire a small (or not-so-small) army of professionals/bureaucrats
    whose livelihood depends to some extent on NOT winning the war.  That's
    a tough bullet to bite, but it is necessary to acknowledge this trend.
    
    Lacking any national priorities, and lacking the the intestinal
    fortitude to deal with our many problems, we bounce around pretending
    to react to whomever screams the loudest.  AIDS activists quickly
    targetted in on this national wishywashsness, and have been generally
    successful in squeaking the loudest.  Thus we have these ACT-UP idiots,
    whom I personally believe do more damage to their cause than good....
    Increasingly I don't think they care themselves.  The perpetuation
    of the movement itself becomes much more important than results.
    
    I'll believe we are serious about many of our national illnesses when
    I see things like the total banning of ALL liquor advertising, a ban on
    the growing, distribution and sale of ALL tobacco products (a REAL
    killer), and our national "leaders" speaking out aggressively on the
    moral and lifestyle issues surrounding AIDS.
    
    The AIDS activist community will gain a hell of a lot more credibility
    with me when I see them setting up booths in homosexual trysting places
    and literally going and knocking on car windows and asking people to
    stop such risky behaviors.  Many of the same people have no problem at
    all approaching smokers and getting quite aggressive in asking them to
    stop smoking.........yet these same bozo's will NOT take an active,
    aggressive role in dealing with people who are apparently intent on
    killing themselves and some number of the rest of us.  Instead, it
    quickly becomes a "lifestyle" issue.  I would respectfully suggest that
    ACT-UP target some of the parking areas on Route #3 North in Mass. on
    some (or any) evening.  I'm serious in my position.....don't come to me
    with grossly exaggerated doom-and-gloom scenarios, demanding a
    disproportionate amount of our limited research bucks, yet at the same
    time refuse to acknowledge, much less clean up your own dirty back
    yard.                

    re .198 ...... you aren't serious about the homelessness thing are
    you??  To a very large extent, that social phenomena is exaggerated,
    seriously life-style related, and extremely preventable.  Spare me 
    the exceptions please.  We all know about them.  The point is that if
    I could by fiat return the mentally ill to appropriate facilities, jail
    the professional pan-handlers, and eliminate drug and alcohol addiction,
    you'd have to send out search parties to find a homeless person for the
    evening news sound bite.
    
    As far as your other ungracious comment is concerned, I'll start
    considering AIDS to be a "serious" disease when the community most at
    risk gets serious about controlling/modifying their own behavior.
    

    
    
    >>I'll start considering AIDS to be a "serious" disease when the
    >>community most at risk gets serious about controlling/modifying their
    >>own behavior.
    
    Well, Dick, this comments, more than any others that you have made,
    indicates your lack of knowledge regarding how the gay community has
    responded to the AIDS epidemic.  The gay community has taken great
    pains to educate itself, and there has been a serious modification in
    behaviors among its members.  Every gay gathering place I have been in
    in the last 5 years has had brochures, etc., encouraging modification
    of behavior, i.e., safe sex.  The gay community has "taken care of
    itself", when it appears that few others cared.  Most of the new cases
    being reported (I don't have numbers or %'s) are as a result of "old"
    exposures.  We know this is a "serious disease".  I'm just afraid that
    when the rest of the work comes to this realization, it might be "too
    late".  There are already over 1,000,000 people in this country that
    are HIV+ (according to the CDC).  Dick, how many more have to be
    infected and die before the disease is "serious"?
    
    	Greg
    
    

    i keep seeing all these "lifestyle" comments:
    
    i am married
    
    i am monogamous
    
    chances are that i'll only contract aids "accidentally" like from a
    transfusion.
    
    BTW, i am a lesbian and married to a woman.  that puts me in the group
    with the lowest chances for contracting aids.
    
    lesbian = homosexual
    
    i live a homosexual lifestyle according to some.  to me it is a normal
    lifestyle.
    
    i prefer the term "behavior"
    
    smoking behavior causes cancers.
    
    eating improperly causes cancers and other disorders that can prove
    fatal.
    
    practicing unsafe sex can expose one to aids.
    
    too much sun can expose one to skin cancer.
    
    so i think before one (generic) feels they can condemn certain groups
    of people for lifestyle, one (generic) should perhaps examine behaviors
    in the lifestyle.
    
    for the record, although it has been stated before, gay organizations
    (men and women) have lead the way in educating the public to the
    dangers of behavior and suggested ways of behavior modification.
    
    but just as one (generic) can't legislate morality, one (generic) can't
    legislate behaviors that endanger people's lives.  We all make choices
    in our behaviors.  Some choices are informed, through the process of
    education, other choices are random, just by making any old choice or
    not making any informed choice at all (not making a choice is still
    making a choice).
    
    so i posit that i live just as moral a lifestyle as any husband/wife
    married couple who practice monogamy.
    
    (i am not saying here that anyone else whose living situation differs
    is not moral.  i'm trying to make a point.  i truly support anyone's
    right to live their life the way want.
    
    sue

                        <<< Note 1697.204 by LABC::RU >>>

>    That's fine if you like your lifestyle and keep it to yourself.

Oh, I see, its fine as long as we don't talk about it. Makes sense, maybe it'll 
go away then and you can delude yourself into thinking everything's hunky dory.
I'm afraid that's not how life works.

I consider the above comment very hypocritical, but not unexpected. In fact, I
was waiting for it.

>>    But we have the problem that some homosexuals having sex in public
>>    and police can't handle it probably.
>>    (I don't want to start over the issue in 1616.0, I understand that
>>    that note was re-opened.  We can continue there.)
  
Its funny how you (and anyone else who bring's up 'public sex') as a problem
with the gay community seem to forget about the cheap, sleazy, hookers that
walk the streets of Boston and the infamous 'Combat Zone' that can be found in
almost every major city. And as we all know, these places are straight sex
areas. Tell me how you feel about that.
  

For the record, I do believe that the government is _finally_ starting to wake
up in terms of the AIDS crisis and I do believe that we do have money to
support research and developement for an AIDS cure/vaccine. However, I feel
that too much of this money is going to bureacratic bs and pocket lining than
to the actual clinics/foundations/researchers who are trying to find a cure.

Scott

    So, how am I going to prevent myself from getting cancer?  My father,
    my aunts, and numerous other relatives have all died of cancer.  
    Due to a poor lifestyle?  Not so in most cases.  Yes, I'll get my
    checkups and try to eat properly, etc., but I don't believe it's 
    "preventable" any more than lots of cases of heart problems, AIDS, 
    Alzheimers, ad infinitum.  
    
    Which has nothing to do with the base note, but I can't help but be
    astonished that some folks think diseases are so simple to avoid!
    
    Signed, 
    
    Linda, whose uncle is currently dying from cancer
    
                         

    RE: .195
    
    >Also, syphilis was heavily concentrated in the black community, and
    >to be brutally honest, few people really cared what happened to them.  
    
    It killed Winston Churchill's father.  Was he black?
    

| The AIDS activist community will gain a hell of a lot more credibility
| with me when I see them setting up booths in homosexual trysting places
| and literally going and knocking on car windows and asking people to
| stop such risky behaviors.  

	By this I am assuming anyone having sex in their car, right? Regardless
of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual?

| I would respectfully suggest that
| ACT-UP target some of the parking areas on Route #3 North in Mass. on
| some (or any) evening.  I'm serious in my position.....

	Could you show us how serious you really are? Will you take the first
step and go to all of the known lovers lanes and knock on windows and tell
people to stop having sex? It would show us that you really do mean what you
say and it will show us that you know it is more than just a homosexual
disease. Also, if there are any heterosexual people who are sharing needles,
would you be so kind and ask them to stop? It would be good if you would just
do the heterosexual people, as then it would probably be less of a hassle and
maybe you won't feel so uncomfortable about it. In other words, are you willing
to do what you expect everyone else to do? 

| don't come to me
| with grossly exaggerated doom-and-gloom scenarios, demanding a
| disproportionate amount of our limited research bucks, yet at the same
| time refuse to acknowledge, much less clean up your own dirty back
| yard.

	As Greg has pointed out, we have been cleaning our back yard. Now it's
your turn. AIDS is growing faster in the heterosexual world than in the
homosexual world (% wise). It looks like we have started cleaning our house,
how about you lending a hand to help clean yours? (yours meaning heterosexual
world)



Glen

| That's fine if you like your lifestyle and keep it to yourself.
| But we have the problem that some homosexuals having sex in public
| and police can't handle it probably.

	I heard on the news the other day how there is a place in California
(the name escapes me right now, anybody know?) where they ok'd having sex in
cars as long as it's in an area where people normally wouldn't see. Gee, maybe
someone should talk to that county? Having sex in public does happen. It
happens in both worlds. Let's try to remember that?



Glen

    As many Notes devotes are aware, Mr. Lennard has a positive fixation on
    the imfamous Route 3 rest areas.  I thought I'd let everyone know that
    the one I think he has in mind was closed many years ago, and to my
    knowledge is not a lover's lane for anyone any more.
    
    		-- Steve (who necked there twenty years ago 8^)

    Re: .209
    I can think of no better reason to provide AIDS education for DEC
    employees than the arguments I've read in this NOTES string. Somewhere
    back about 100 notes ago the discussion turned from the need for
    mandatory AIDS training to the "rightness" of homosexual behavior.
    Such discussion will lead nowhere. Opinions will not change.
    The purpose of AIDS training is not to change your values or morals.
    It is to inform you of the charactoristics of the transmission of the
    virus, once aware of the limits to your risk it's hoped that you will
    not allow fear of AIDS to disrupt the work place. There are also some
    compelling legal reasons to eliminate such behavior caused by fear,
    Digital does not wish to be sued.
    I attended the training, it's not so bad. Pretty straight forward
    information, no moralizing, no endorsements. All employees should
    understand their rights and responsibilities along with a clear-
    headed understanding of the real risks associated with working with
    a person with AIDS/HIV.
    Let the bashing resume... 

    Re: Note 1697.212 by MKFSA::WENTWORTH
    
>   The purpose of AIDS training is not to change your values or morals.
>   It is to inform you of the charactoristics of the transmission of the
>   virus, once aware of the limits to your risk it's hoped that you will
>   not allow fear of AIDS to disrupt the work place. 
    
    I also attended AIDS class. The intended purpose was to change behavior
    that leads to AIDS. Seems like that in itself would tend to change a
    value or two (e.g. multiple "partners"). Also, fear of AIDS does not
    interrupt my work. It's the people who have AIDS that give me the
    heebie-jeebies! 
    
>                                                     There are also some
>   compelling legal reasons to eliminate such behavior caused by fear,
>   Digital does not wish to be sued.
    
    That's interesting. How can I arrange to sue Digital for contracting a
    communicable disease (e.g. chickenpox)?
    
>   I attended the training, it's not so bad. Pretty straight forward
>   information, no moralizing, no endorsements.
    
    As I said previously, I attended the training as well. Everything was
    fine until the nurse began to explain how to have "safe" sex using
    terms that were as generic as possible (e.g. "partner"). Silence is
    tacit consent. This is moralizing of the worst sort: it is subtle, it
    is sophisticated, it carries authority.
    
>   Let the bashing resume... 
    
    Very well, I walked out of the class before it was completed. The
    Health Services representative explained that the class was *not*
    mandatory. Were it mandatory I would have walked out anyway. Then I
    would have asked you how to sue Digital for *requiring* me to go to a
    "safe sex" class :)
    
    FWIW - monogamy (i.e. a man and his wife; terms tend to get redefined
    in these conferences) *is* safe sex. 
    
    i know, i know - not very popular idea these days . . .
    
    John

.205> I feel that too much of this money is going to bureacratic bs and
.205> pocket lining than to the actual clinics/foundations/researchers
.205> who are trying to find a cure.

Anything to substantiate this?

Bubba

.200> The perpetuation of the movement itself becomes much more
.200> important than results.

At one time I may have taken issue with this, but now ....

When I saw the ACT UP idiots, morons, adolescent, whatevers ... shout
down the Surgeon General at one of the AIDS conferences ...

When I heard that one of the major AIDS conferences was going to be
canceled in protest of the United States immigration laws restricting
AIDS/HIV+ people into the US ....

It *does* lead one to wonder ....

.198> Let's revoke all government medical funding for persons who are dying
.198> of any disease that is preventable.

My understanding that in Britian ... should you develop lung cancer, and,
you are a smoker ... you pay more for your hospital care than would otherwise
be paid ... if that's not the way it is, my understanding is that they tried
to pass such a law.

Bubba

I recently ran across a clipping from an April 1990 "news" magazine which
claimed that two Florida MD's have confirmed that HIV can survive in sewage
contaminated sea water for up to 24 hours.  Has anyone else seen this kind
of statement or a flat denial of it?

Dick

| Also, fear of AIDS does not
| interrupt my work. It's the people who have AIDS that give me the
| heebie-jeebies!

	In what way? What do you think could be done to help you with the
heebie-jeebies?

| >                                                     There are also some
| >   compelling legal reasons to eliminate such behavior caused by fear,
| >   Digital does not wish to be sued.

| That's interesting. How can I arrange to sue Digital for contracting a
| communicable disease (e.g. chickenpox)?

	I think it has to do more with people interacting with others with
AIDS. People can do all sorts of things that could make others who have the
disease want to sue. How about discriminating against someone with a project
because they have AIDS. How about verbal abuse, how about..... it is endless. I
think, anyway, this is what the author was talking about.

| >   I attended the training, it's not so bad. Pretty straight forward
| >   information, no moralizing, no endorsements.

| As I said previously, I attended the training as well. Everything was
| fine until the nurse began to explain how to have "safe" sex using
| terms that were as generic as possible (e.g. "partner"). Silence is
| tacit consent. This is moralizing of the worst sort: it is subtle, it
| is sophisticated, it carries authority.

	Would you rather have the terms homosexual and heterosexual used? The
results are still the same as using a term that covers everything, like
partner. I can't see how using the word partner can be seen as moralizing. Can
you be more specific?

| >   Let the bashing resume...

| Very well, I walked out of the class before it was completed. The
| Health Services representative explained that the class was *not*
| mandatory. Were it mandatory I would have walked out anyway. 

	What made you walk out?



Glen

| When I saw the ACT UP idiots, morons, adolescent, whatevers ... shout
| down the Surgeon General at one of the AIDS conferences ...

	And what ws the Surgeon General saying at the time? Let's here the
whole story Bubba.

| When I heard that one of the major AIDS conferences was going to be
| canceled in protest of the United States immigration laws restricting
| AIDS/HIV+ people into the US ....

	You know Bubba, that it was decided by the council, who are made up of
both heterosexual and homosexual people. Let's present all the facts and not
just the ones that make your view look good.



Glen

    re: .214
    
    John,
    
    i think the definition of monogamous is relationship which does not
    have sex outside of that relationship.  Hence, the following is true:
    
    monogamous = man and his wife
                 man and his man
                 woman and her wife
                 
    it may also take into account those relationships which contain more
    than two people, but who only have sex with each other.
    
    your definition of just man and his wife is rather limiting given the
    variety of relationships humans form for themselves.
    
    personally, i'm  monogamous. it doesn't matter if i am married to a man
    or woman or multiples.  i'm committed to my wife, just as you are most
    likely committed to yours.  This is an assumption on my part since i
    don't know if you are married or to which sex.
    
    For you to say that only a husband and wife can be monogamous is flat
    out wrong.  i am the proof that you are wrong.  of course, this is my
    own opinion.
    
    and thank you to the noter who is trying to bring this note back to the
    original purpose.
    
    my next note will continue on the topic.
    
    sue

While you're entitled to define "monogamous" in any way you wish, I think
you'd be hard-pressed to find a dictionary that agrees with you.  For the
record, when I've used "monogamous" in my replies, I've meant an exclusive
heterosexual relationship between a [male] husband and a [female] wife.

BTW, if monogamy can involve more than two people, what's polygamy?

    i think my relationship is just as exclusive as your definition.  the
    dictionaries don't seem to have caught up with the changing world. 
    thanks for the idea tho, i think i'll write to the editor for the next
    edition and have the definition changed to two people.
    
    you have a point about polygamy.  i guess mono- means relationship with
    two people and poly- more than two.  but then mono-really means one, so
    by function a two person couple is really poly-.
    
    i love playing with words.
    
    sue

.220> And what ws the Surgeon General saying at the time? Let's here the
.220> whole story Bubba.

.220> You know Bubba, that it was decided by the council, who are made up of
.220> both heterosexual and homosexual people. Let's present all the facts
.220> and not just the ones that make your view look good.

The conference at which the Surgeon General was speaking was a professional
environment attended by researchers all over the world.  I really don't
know what the Surgeon General was trying to say for we were not permitted
to hear the entire text of his speech - he was shouted down.  You'll have
to tell me what seditious and slanderous thoughts he was going to spread
- that deserved such an outrageous response FROM THE GAY ACTIVISTS!

The world AIDS conference is, ostensibly enough, devoted to sharing in-
formation to find a cure for this disease.  If the United States doesn't
want to allows AIDS/HIV+ people into the the United States, well, to Hell
with the United States - hold the conference somewhere else and continue
to look for "results" - don't, by all that is holy, S-T-O-P sharing information
which could be vital for a ... political demonstration against the U.S.!!!

My learned colleague from Colorado Springs, in response .200, noted that
there may be a propensity for the perpetuation of the movement itself
to become much more important than the "results".  The two examples that
I noted were demonstrative (in my opinion) of that ... the movement came
first ... results later.  This is an open forum and I certainly look forward
to any comments which may dispute my  claim, and, that of the gentleman from
Colorado Springs.

I stand to be corrected.  As a matter of fact, I LOOK FORWARD to being 
corrected on this point!  I look forward to a cure for this disease and
it is MOST distressing to see progress impeded by political activity by
*any* group of people.

Bubba

	Bubba-San,

	The reason the activists shouted Sullivan down was his support 
	for the US Government's policy of not allowing HIV-infected
	persons into this country.  The administration continues to
	hold this positions depsite medical evidence that HIV is pretty
	hard to catch without specific sexual activity or needle-sharing.

	The activists were peeved because this policy prevents the big,
	worldwide AIDS convention from being held in the US as many of those
	involved are HIV+.

	As I understand it, few other nations have this type of immigration
	ban.

	Is that the data you sought?

	MM-chan

re .224:

>    PS. It may interest you of the colonial persuasion to know, that in the
>        UK, AIDS is becoming known as the "American Disease".
    
Ahh, just like the good old days when the English called syphilis "the
French disease" and the French called it "the English disease."

>     <<< Note 1697.199 by FSOA::DARCH "Semi-Annual After-Christmas Sale" >>>>
>
>    re .188  Bruce,
>
>    Correction: Over 200,000 have died in 10 1/2 years...


I don't mind being corrected if I am wrong, where do you get your information?

My information comes from a report that lists the U.S. department of health
and human services and the Center for disease control as it's source.

-Bruce


    
    

    re .226, I'm very grateful that we do have this ban, and I hope our
    so-called government doesn't give in.  
    
    Dennis (.207), PULEEEEZE read the damned reply.  I said that in the
    20's/30's, etc., syphilis was "concentrated" in the black community.
    That is a known, solid, irrefutable, historical fact.  Who else had
    it is really not relevant.  I was trying to make a point that in them
    days people didn't care what happened to "Negroes".....and to a large
    extent we still don't.  Do you think that if white punks were wasting
    each other in our cities over crack like the blacks are, that you
    wouldn't see much more aggressive action on the part of government.
    
    Here's another one to chew on.....in the 30's, drug useage was heavily
    concentrated in the black community.....another reason no one gave
    a damn. 

    re: funding for AIDs vs funding for other diseases
    
    AIDS is a disease of the immune system.  To cure it, we will
    probably have to understand the immune system.  Once we understand
    how that system works, we will be a long way towards helping the
    immune system deal with other diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer's.
    
    Right now, much of the "AIDS" research is general investigation of
    the function of the human immune system.  While it's not directly
    attacking cancer or heart disease, the results of that current 
    research will still be valuable in the search for cures for other
    diseases.
    
    		-John Bishop

	Re .228:

	And didn't the Brits call condoms "French Letters" and the
	Gauls call them "something English" (idiom forgotten)?

	Plus ca change...

	MM

| Do you think that if white punks were wasting
| each other in our cities over crack like the blacks are, that you
| wouldn't see much more aggressive action on the part of government.

	Gee, I had thought they were. Crack isn't just a black drug. It isn't
used by blacks anymore than by whites or insert favorite color. It is something
that can effect anyone. 





Glen

| Here's another one to chew on.....in the 30's, drug useage was heavily
| concentrated in the black community.....

	It would appear you still feel that way.




Glen

| .220> And what ws the Surgeon General saying at the time? Let's here the
| .220> whole story Bubba.

| .220> You know Bubba, that it was decided by the council, who are made up of
| .220> both heterosexual and homosexual people. Let's present all the facts
| .220> and not just the ones that make your view look good.

	To begin with, each of these two paragrapghs you copied are for two
seperate issues, not one. Nice try Bubba. :-) How about answering each one
seperately?

| The conference at which the Surgeon General was speaking was a professional
| environment attended by researchers all over the world.  I really don't
| know what the Surgeon General was trying to say for we were not permitted
| to hear the entire text of his speech - he was shouted down.  You'll have
| to tell me what seditious and slanderous thoughts he was going to spread
| - that deserved such an outrageous response FROM THE GAY ACTIVISTS!

	I believe it had to do with the US not allowing people infected with
the HIV virus into the country. It was the policy that was being booed, not the
Surgen General.

| The world AIDS conference is, ostensibly enough, devoted to sharing in-
| formation to find a cure for this disease.  If the United States doesn't
| want to allows AIDS/HIV+ people into the the United States, well, to Hell
| with the United States - hold the conference somewhere else and continue
| to look for "results" - don't, by all that is holy, S-T-O-P sharing information
| which could be vital for a ... political demonstration against the U.S.!!!

	Please Bubba, I really think you know that the conference is going to
be held elsewhere, period. No one said anything about not offering information
to the US, no one mentioned the US can't go to Canada (which is where I think
it's being held) to the conference. All that was said was there will be no
conference in the US, PERIOD. 

| My learned colleague from Colorado Springs, in response .200, noted that
| there may be a propensity for the perpetuation of the movement itself
| to become much more important than the "results".  The two examples that
| I noted were demonstrative (in my opinion) of that ... the movement came
| first ... results later.  This is an open forum and I certainly look forward
| to any comments which may dispute my  claim, and, that of the gentleman from
| Colorado Springs.

	I'll reread that response and get back to you.

| I stand to be corrected.  As a matter of fact, I LOOK FORWARD to being
| corrected on this point!  

	Of course Bubba! Of course! :-)

| I look forward to a cure for this disease and
| it is MOST distressing to see progress impeded by political activity by
| *any* group of people.

	Bubba, the conference is JUST being moved to another country. It was
decided by the council to do such a thing. The council is made up of more than
just gay people. Please stop implying that there is any group out there trying
to stop a cure for the disease. You and I BOTH know it isn't true.



Glen

re: .225



| My learned colleague from Colorado Springs, in response .200, noted that
| there may be a propensity for the perpetuation of the movement itself
| to become much more important than the "results".  The two examples that
| I noted were demonstrative (in my opinion) of that ... the movement came
| first ... results later.  This is an open forum and I certainly look forward
| to any comments which may dispute my  claim, and, that of the gentleman from
| Colorado Springs.

	Bubba, I reread the replies to that part of the string. I saw NOTHING
that comes close to what you are implying. Maybe I'm blind, but can you please
point out for me just what you are talking about? Be specific now. :-)


Glen

RE: .236

Incredible.  That was one of the better notes that Mr. Lennard has
written.  Mr. Lennard, educate Mr. Silva ... and perhaps me for I
may have interpreted your statements (concerning the "cause" being
moreimportant than the "results") incorrectly.  Were my examples
demonstrative of what you (Dick) were talking about?

Bubba

RE: .237

	Bubba, I thought you were talking about the reply to it from Colorado. 
Sorry. I forgot that Dick is also from there. Here is my reply to his actual 
note. Also, if you wish to see the rest of his note responded to, look under 
.208. 

| Lacking any national priorities, and lacking the the intestinal
| fortitude to deal with our many problems, we bounce around pretending
| to react to whomever screams the loudest.  AIDS activists quickly
| targetted in on this national wishywashsness, and have been generally
| successful in squeaking the loudest.  Thus we have these ACT-UP idiots,
| whom I personally believe do more damage to their cause than good....
| Increasingly I don't think they care themselves.  The perpetuation
| of the movement itself becomes much more important than results.

	Bubba, this whole paragraph has been someone's opinion. He has based
everything on how he feels and nothing on fact, or he has just decided to not
share any of those facts with us. But when terms like, "whom I personally
believe" and "I don't think", how could anyone take it as anything else than
just an opinion. Now Bubba, you have asked many times for people to present
facts to back their claims, yet you seem to be basing your whole point on
someone's opinion. Why the change? 




Glen

    Re: Note 1697.223 by GUCCI::SANTSCHI
    
>                 -< word play, can be a monogamous activity >-
>
>   i think my relationship is just as exclusive as your definition.  the
>   dictionaries don't seem to have caught up with the changing world. 
>   thanks for the idea tho, i think i'll write to the editor for the next
>   edition and have the definition changed to two people.
    
    Sue, you've brought up a good point. Nearly any linguist that I've been
    around agrees on the principle that "usage determines meaning." You are
    also correct is stating that the dictionaries have not caught up yet.
    But you may have a difficult time convincing them on your next point.
    
>   you have a point about polygamy.  i guess mono- means relationship with
>   two people and poly- more than two.  but then mono-really means one, so
>   by function a two person couple is really poly-.
    
    "Mono" comes from a koine Greek word "monos" which means "alone" or
    "only". "Gamy" probably from the same language stock - "gameo" means "to
    marry." Roughly "only-marriage" would do. With only this to go on I
    still doubt they'd consider the only "lesbain" marriage idea. 
    
>   i love playing with words.

    Yes, and so do the linguists, so I suppose you may get your way.
    Liberal theologians undermine the conservative conventions by
    redefining orthodox terminology. They say one thing and mean another.
    Deceptive to me - perhaps they just enjoy playing with words too.
    
    John

.238> Bubba, this whole paragraph has been someone's opinion. He has based
.238> everything on how he feels and nothing on fact ...Now Bubba, you have
.238> asked many times for people to present facts to back their claims, yet
.238> you seem to be basing your whole point on someone's opinion. Why the
.238> change?

I'll key this in real slow so you you can understand it ...

Mr. Lennard made a statement something to the effect that the "movement"
may be more important than the results.  I responded with two incidents
which may or may not support Mr. Lennard's premise.  He has an opinion,
I have an opinion - they may be similar, they may be different, they may
or not be supportable by facts ... and ...your opinion may be different
than both of ours, and may or may not be supportable by facts.

	opin.ion (n) 1: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in
		     the mind about a particular matter. 2: belief
		     stronger than impression and less strong than
		     positive knowledge 3: a generally held view.

Your mileage may vary.

Bubba

    Every so often in this string, someone enters a smug note saying
    "ah...ha... the previous replies show the need for AIDS education at
    Digital."

    I'll now suggest that the previous replies show that there's a
    political and cultural agenda to change private and personal beliefs
    regarding the morality of homosexuality.

    What is the proper role of Digital in changing personal beliefs
    regarding the morality of homosexuality?

Excuse me, but what does AIDS education have to do with homosexuality?

    Mr. Sweeney suggests "that the previous replies show that there's a
    political and cultural agenda to change private and personal beliefs
    regarding the MORALITY of homosexuality."  (capitalization mine)
    
    I disagree.  I think there's a political and cultural agenda to change
    private and personal beliefs regarding the HUMANITY of HOMOSEXUALS and
    BISEXUALS.  And I support that agenda wholeheartedly.
    
    The second of the two allegorical alternative scenarios I painted in
    981.108 represents my view of what Digital's proper role is, or should
    be, in changing personal beliefs.  Furthermore, (at least _my_
    understanding of) the programs now sponsored by Digital fit that view
    quite closely.
    
    And Mr. Anderson's question in .242 also bears answering, by someone --
    perhaps those who brought it up.  It seems to me that "discussions of
    the morality issue" are quite beside the point when the apparent
    purpose of AIDS education is "transferring knowledge about the
    disease."  Information can be presented in a value-neutral way. 
    Information about the DEC programs indicates that this has been
    achieved.  Should it be otherwise, on company time?

.241> What is the proper role of Digital in changing personal beliefs
.241> regarding the morality of homosexuality?

In  what  capacity  has  Digital  attempted  (or  is  attempting)   such
"changing"?

Hopefully, I've  misinterpreted  your  statement.   I  would  hope  that
Digital  would  never  in  a  zillion years attempt any effort to change
personal beliefs on the morality  of  *any*  issue  (and  that  includes
homosexuality,  religion,  and  numerous  other  issues).  We are in the
business of computer sales and service.  We need  to  work  together  as
effectively  and  as  productively  as possible and my moral beliefs and
your moral beliefs must not enter into our working relationship.

Right?  Wrong?

Bubba

    I am always amused when people rant on about the number of deaths form
    "cancer" and how little is being done about curing it.

    For starters "cancer" is the generic name for a class of diseases which
    are caused by malignant tumours. These in turn may be caused by a
    multitude of different reasons. Thus cancer will never be cured by a
    single method, each type of cancer will require its own individual
    cure. Also over the last few years the life expectancy for cancer
    victims has improved.

    There are almost as many types of heart disorders as there are cancers.
    They too have differing cures. Some are now curable some not and
    research goes on.

    Now AIDS is one disease and it is likely that one cure will clear up
    all of this disease. 

    At present there is no known cure for any viral infection. They can
    vaccinate you to stop you getting a disease and they can give you
    treatment to support you while your own defense system deals with it
    but they can't cure one.

    Thus discovering a cure for AIDS will almost certainly open up the way
    to cure other viral infections, so the time and money spent on research
    will have been well spent.

    Now for the moralists who piously preach the word that "Nice people
    can't get AIDS". Well once that virus is into your system you are
    running a good chance of dying a slow horrible death, and it doesn't
    matter a damn if it came in through having sex, sharing a needle, from
    a blood transfusion or from your dentist. Education may save you.
    As to religion, well I suppose that it depends on which one you
    believe.

    BTW some AIDS sufferers have successfully sued the blood transfusion
    service in the UK for infecting them.

    Jamie.

    Very interesting column in the paper here over the weekend.  Some very
    credible figures showing that rate of growth of AIDS in the homosexual
    community has been in steady decline for five years.  A flat base, and
    then expected decline is forecast in the next few years.
    
    The total infected Non-Lifestyle heterosexual count for the whole U.S.
    is 575!! or .5% of the total.  
    
    I won't comment, just thought you'd like to know.

re .246:

What's a non-lifestyle heterosexual?

    A heterosexual who did not shoot drugs or practice non monogamous
    sex?

    Re: .246
    
    The article in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph was by an author
    who has written a whole book on why the spread of HIV has not been by
    heterosexuals.  (Somebody else may want to be more precise here.) There
    were lots of statistics, but the article was not a news article: it was
    a "feature" that appeared to me to be by somebody trying to make a
    case.
    
    Just thought you would want to know what .246 was citing.

    Re: Note 1697.243 by RDVAX::KALIKOW
    
>                                 -< re .241 >-
>
>   Mr. Sweeney suggests "that the previous replies show that there's a
>   political and cultural agenda to change private and personal beliefs
>   regarding the MORALITY of homosexuality."  (capitalization mine)

    Having attended the AIDS class (as I pointed out in .214) I agree.
    
>   I disagree.  I think there's a political and cultural agenda to change
>   private and personal beliefs regarding the HUMANITY of HOMOSEXUALS and
>   BISEXUALS.  And I support that agenda wholeheartedly.

    An extended lecture on how to have "safe sex" with one's "partner" is
    not simply endorsing the "HUMANITY of HOMOSEXUALS and BISEXUALS." It is
    the introduction to and education for having sex outside of a
    monogamous relationship ("safely" of course).
    
>   The second of the two allegorical alternative scenarios I painted in
>   981.108 represents my view of what Digital's proper role is, or should
>   be, in changing personal beliefs.  Furthermore, (at least _my_
>   understanding of) the programs now sponsored by Digital fit that view
>   quite closely.
    
    So long as I can come to work without fear of my own personal safety
    and that of my co-workers I am happy. What you have told me so far is
    that it is Digital's business to change my value system beyond the
    sphere of my own personal safety.
    
>   And Mr. Anderson's question in .242 also bears answering, by someone --
>   perhaps those who brought it up.  It seems to me that "discussions of
>   the morality issue" are quite beside the point when the apparent
>   purpose of AIDS education is "transferring knowledge about the
>   disease."  Information can be presented in a value-neutral way. 
>   Information about the DEC programs indicates that this has been
>   achieved.  Should it be otherwise, on company time?

    Again, as I stated in .214, the intended purpose is not simply
    "transferring knowledge about the disease." On paper it may be but in
    practice it most certainly is not.
    
    Information cannot be transmitted in a value neutral way. Everyone,
    from the PhD to the gas station attendent, views life through a system
    of values. This "world view" forms the basis for the interpretation of
    data. Data on AIDS, for example, is being used by Multimedia to promote
    humanistic values.
    
    AIDS training ought not to be made mandatory. Further, when the class
    is ready to offered at a facility a mail message or handout ought to be
    made available to all employees which describes the agenda of the class
    *and* that material which may be offensive to some is included in the
    class.
    
    John

    Y'know, this is gonna become another 1616.....and a lot of time is
    going to be wasted.  We're dealing with two sets of opinions here
    so far apart as to never be bridged.  This is why every time the
    subject of AIDS comes up, we end up in a weeks-long peeing contest
    and NOTHING gets resolved.
    
    For about half of the correspondents, AIDS is the equivalent of a
    nasty case of athlete's foot, and for the other half it's an issue
    of religious belief, morals, etc.
    
    This is why DEC should stay out of it, and stop trying to "educate"
    us, or influence us to change our beliefs.  It's silly, really.
    
    I believe Koop sent a brochure on AIDS prevention to every house in
    the U.S. a couple years ago.....that's enough......nothing has changed.
    
    The article I referred to a few entries back said that in the 30's, 10%
    of the population was infected with Syphlis, and implied that people
    still generally ignored any warnings.  Big business/industry certainly
    did not get involved, and shouldn't now with AIDS.

    I doubt that anyone regards AIDS as the equivalent of a nasty case
    of atheletes foot.

    Chill out!  Sometimes humour/exaggeration is used to make a point.
    
    But now that you mention it, I attended a lot of lectures in the Army
    on how to avoid athlete's foot.

    re AIDS and babies:
    
    Science News reports in its December 21 issue that 50% of first-born
    twins (that is, the twin which is born first) born to HIV+ mothers
    winds up being HIV+ if the birth was vaginal, and 38% if by cesarean.
    In either case, only 19% of the second-born twins wind up HIV+.
    
    There were no figures on single births, the sample size was 66 pairs
    of twins.  The work was done by James Goedert of the National 
    Cancer Institute's Viral Epidemiology Section.
    
    So it's clear that many babies of HIV+ mothers do _not_ get AIDS from
    their mothers.
    			-John Bishop

    RE .218  Dick B,

    I haven't heard anything about HIV in sewage.
  
    RE .229 Bruce,

    Sorry, must be this terrific flu 'n' fever I've had.  The latest
    figures I have from the CDC (as of 11/30/91) are:

	Total cases:  199,406
		      196,034 (adult)  3,372 (children)  

	Total deaths: 128,289
		      126,491 (adult/adolescents)  1,798 (children)

    RE .246 and .249,

    The article sounds like it was written by our old 'pal' Fumento...
    He's got lots o' stats - skewed in a lovely mix of racism, classism
    and homophobia.  He's very convincing, too...talks a lot about racial 
    hierarchy, how it's much harder for whites to be infected with HIV than 
    blacks, etc., all done with *lots* of stats.

    Also re .246 Dick L:  The number of "non-lifestyle heterosexuals" cases
    of AIDS the CDC had recorded (as of 11/91) was 11,964 (6%); in 
    Massachusetts alone it was 392 (9%) as of 9/1/91.  [BTW, the CDC
    doesn't call them that...even priests and nuns have a lifestyle!]

    RE .251  Dick L,

    Surgeon General Koop sent a brochure on AIDS in October of 1986.
    I doubt if too many people read it, though.  In fact, I'd say that
    about 90% of the population tossed it and said "It's not my problem."

    RE .254  John B,

    That's interesting about the twins and C-section vs. vaginal 
    deliveries.  Basically, it jives with what they've known for a couple
    years: 30-50% of babies born to HIV+ mothers will be HIV+.  You sound
    like you thought it was 100%?
  

re .255:

>    Also re .246 Dick L:  The number of "non-lifestyle heterosexuals" cases
>    of AIDS the CDC had recorded (as of 11/91) was 11,964 (6%); in 
>    Massachusetts alone it was 392 (9%) as of 9/1/91.  [BTW, the CDC
>    doesn't call them that...even priests and nuns have a lifestyle!]

I'm still not clear as to who's in this group.  Does it mean celibate
non-drug-using Jehovah's Witnesses (who refuse blood transfusions)?
Or does it include heterosexuals who've had < N non-lifestyle sex partners
for some value of N?  Is travel in sub-Saharan Africa a lifestyle?  (The
Red Cross asks about this when you give blood.)

RE Note 1697.256          Mandatory AIDS education programs?             256 of 256
NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" 12 lines  31-DEC-1991 08:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is travel in sub-Saharan Africa a lifestyle?  (The
>Red Cross asks about this when you give blood.)
    
    
    They ask you this because there is some bug or something that can bite
    you and cause a blood problem if undetected and untreated. Like a flea 
    bite, you can get it by being there, NOT by what you do when you 
    are there...
    
    
    Steve

From the context, it's pretty clear that the sub-Saharan questions are AIDS-
related.  They have separate questions (and have had for years) about things
like malaria.  I wonder what they do about blood from Catholic priests and
nuns who've been to sub-Saharan Africa.

It should be pointed out that, in many companies, volunteer blood donations
are considered an important part of an employee's "committment to the
community" and show up (invisibly, of course) in job reviews and promotion
decisions.  (I am NOT referring to Digital.)

In companies such as these, someone who knows he is at risk from AIDS
may feel pressured into giving blood and, for obvious reasons, not
wish to have his "at risk" status known.  Questions such as "travel
in Sub-Saharan Africa" or "should this blood be used for research
purposes" may offer a face-saving way to give blood without risk
that the blood may infect a recipient.

Martin.

    There are a couple of things I bet you won't see in AIDs "education
    literature", 1) irradiating blood supply kills AIDS, and, 2) Drug
    resistant Tuberculosis (spread by AIDS/TB infected individuals)
    presents a much greater threat to the individual American than AIDs itself.
    That, coupled with the thousands/millions of people in the US without 
    healthcare, is like an unexploded timebomb ticking away.
    
    I can avoid the high-risk activities that spreaad AIDs but I cann't
    avoid TB.  It's spread on water droplets in the air--try not breathing
    at the Mall this weekend.

    As the "coiner" of the "non-lifestyle....." phrase,let me explain.
    
    I'm afraid I simply mean that great thundering herd of "normal" people
    who are not intravenous drug users, not male homosexuals, not bi's ----
    not anything out of the ordinary.  But I include innocent victims such
    as children, wives of those who play around, people who get it through
    blood transfusions, etc. 
    
    It's difficult to explain because I have to use words like "normal",
    "moral", etc., which instantly brings down several rations of ---- on
    one's head....but you asked!

My question still hasn't been answered.  OK, what Dick called "non-lifestyle
heterosexuals" really means (something like) "people whose behavior puts them
at low risk for AIDS."  Deb implies that the CDC recognizes such a category.
How does the CDC *define* such a group?

    re last few,
    
    Well, I wasn't adding in hemophiliacs or blood transfusions to the
    numbers in .255.  Let's see, we'd add 1% for hemophiliacs and 2% for
    transfusions (U.S.-wide).  So that'd be 9% of 199,406 or 17,946 all
    together - using last month's numbers.
    
    The reason the monthly CDC reports are about 25-30 pages long is that
    they slice and dice things according to age, race, sex, transmission
    categories, state, city, etc.  The CDC's "transmission categories" are:
    
    	Male homosexual/bisexual contact
    	IV drug use (female and heterosexual male)
    	Male homosexual/bisexual contact and IV drug use
    	Hemophilia/coagulation disorder
    	Heterosexual contact
    	   sex w/IV drug user
    	   sex w/bisexual male
    	   sex w/person with hemophilia
    	   born in Pattern-II country
    	   sex w/person born in Pattern-II country
    	   sex w/transfusion recipient
    	   sex w/person with HIV infection, risk not specified
    	Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissues
    	Other/undetermined
    Pediatric data includes:
    	Mother with/at risk for HIV infection [with several sub-categories
           on why she is at risk]
    
    In the adult categories they divide them to show the breakdown for men
    and women, but they don't make any male/female distinction in the 
    pediatric or adolescent categories.  Also, these are only the cases and
    deaths *reported* to the CDC.  
    
    It's not perfect, but it's the most timely and comprehensive tool
    around.
    

What's a Pattern-II country?

    What a bunch of c**p.
    
    Face it.  AIDS is a disease, a very deadly one at that.  We are all at
    some risk of catching it, albiet that risk factor varies greatly.  If
    YOU want to minimize YOUR exposure then YOU had better know enough
    about the transmission of the disease to do that.  If YOU don't want to
    know or don't care or are to pig-headed to learn then perhaps the human
    race will be better off without YOU.
    
    Me?  Sure I know about AIDS.  I'm in the low risk group.  But what
    about my kids.  The oldest has found out about the opposite sex and
    teenagers aren't known for self denial, prudence or even good
    judgement.  I am worried.  The more I know the better prepared I will
    be to protect my family and to make the best decisions regarding their
    well being.  
    
    I too am against "mandatory" training.  But sometimes one must look
    beyond the mandatory and at the training/education being offered.  If
    just one person gets "spared" then we will all win.  DEC in the dollars
    and cents, the family(ies) involved in heartache and trauma, the human
    race in collective wisdom (reaching!).
    
    Alway, tired of this whole note.  Waste of everyone's time.  The bottom
    line is:
    
    		How would YOU feel if you, a family member or a friend got
    		AIDS and YOU knew YOU could have prevented it?
    
    		AND, would this education have given you that knowledge?
    
                                     

RE: .240


	I was out for a few Bubba, but I'm baaaaaack!

.238> Bubba, this whole paragraph has been someone's opinion. He has based
.238> everything on how he feels and nothing on fact ...Now Bubba, you have
.238> asked many times for people to present facts to back their claims, yet
.238> you seem to be basing your whole point on someone's opinion. Why the
.238> change?

|Mr. Lennard made a statement something to the effect that the "movement"
|may be more important than the results.  I responded with two incidents
|which may or may not support Mr. Lennard's premise.  

INCIDENT #1

| The conference at which the Surgeon General was speaking was a professional
| environment attended by researchers all over the world.  I really don't
| know what the Surgeon General was trying to say for we were not permitted
| to hear the entire text of his speech - he was shouted down. 

	Bubba, when you wrote this you didn't know just why he was shouted
down, yet you put it in the file in a way to make it "fit" into your own
version of the gay enviroment (IMO). This is really nonsense because you 
don't seem to be using any fact to back up your claims. But, you word it 
so it sounds as though gays are the big bad PC crowd (IMO). You yourself 
have asked me many times to produce proof to back my claims. I am asking
you to show proof that we are the big bad PC crowd that you seem to be 
making us out to be. 

 INCIDENT #2

| The world AIDS conference is, ostensibly enough, devoted to sharing in-
| formation to find a cure for this disease.  If the United States doesn't
| want to allows AIDS/HIV+ people into the the United States, well, to Hell
| with the United States - hold the conference somewhere else and continue
| to look for "results" - don't, by all that is holy, S-T-O-P sharing information
| which could be vital for a ... political demonstration against the U.S.!!!

	Bubba, you and I both know that information will be shared. In fact,
the US will be at the conference! Again, IMO, it seems to me that you are 
trying to make gays look like nothing more than just a PC crowd. I am asking 
you for proof that information won't be shared from this conference with the 
US. Also, if you have no proof for this, then why did you mention it in the
first place?

| He has an opinion,
| I have an opinion - they may be similar, they may be different, they may
| or not be supportable by facts ... and ...your opinion may be different
| than both of ours, and may or may not be supportable by facts.

	In .225 you stated the following:

| I stand to be corrected.  As a matter of fact, I LOOK FORWARD to being 
| corrected on this point!  I look forward to a cure for this disease and
| it is MOST distressing to see progress impeded by political activity by
| *any* group of people.

	Bubba, you have been corrected by many people in here on those two
points. IMO, it seemed as though you were challenging someone to prove
you wrong, but seeing you were only using part of the story and your own
opinions to make a point (no fact though), it can easily be seen that you will
continue to make the gay crowd look like nothing more than just PC people. You
don't really need fact to make a point, but you need fact to prove that point.
You have always asked for people to show proof to back their claims, but I have
seen in some of your notes that you don't always provide facts to back your
own points. Maybe you should?

| opin.ion (n) 1: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in
		     the mind about a particular matter. 2: belief
		     stronger than impression and less strong than
		     positive knowledge 3: a generally held view.

	BUT NO FACT! :-)



Glen

    I'd make the numbers part of mandatory AIDS education:
    
    AIDS                  Heart Disease       Diabetes
    
    $1.9 billion          $660 million        $279 million
    122,000 victims       20 million victims  11 million victims
    $15,600 per patient   $33 per patient     $25 per patient
    
    Cancer
    
    $1.7 billion
    6 million victims
    $230 per patient
    
    also, the most common form of cancer in women, breat cancer, has been
    connected to a specific genetic mutation, and the most common form of
    cancer in men, colon cancer has been connected to a specific genetic
    mutation.  We inherit from our parents a genetic predisposition to some
    cancers.

    RE: .266

    First. I have no intention, nor am I capable of, making anyone look
    like anything.  I've found that for the most part individuals and
    groups of individuals can do that, handily, with little or no
    assistance from me.  I stand on the merits (or lack thereof) of what
    I say and do, and, will be judged accordingly.  I anticipate that
    others will do the same.

    Second.  Without delving too deep in semantics - an "opinion" need not
    be supported by fact.  There are times when an opinion is supported by
    fact and there are times when an opinion is not supported by fact. 
    "Facts" are nice, and, give a certain validity to one's opinion, but,
    there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned "gut feeling".

    Third.  We all look at things past through different glasses and we may
    interpret those things past differently depending upon which glasses we
    look through.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This is good.  It's
    called "diversity" and leads to a diversity of opinions, and, yes,
    some times conflicting "facts".

    Bubba

| First. I have no intention, nor am I capable of, making anyone look
| like anything.  

	You can paint a pretty picture Bubba. :-)

| Second.  Without delving too deep in semantics - an "opinion" need not
| be supported by fact.  

	Agreed. It is my "opinion" though if one is going to use opinions as
fact, then fact is needed to support the "opinion". For example, China will
become a democrocy. That is an opinion. It's just that and nothing more. I
couldn't use this opinion to try and make a point because I have no fact to
back up what I am saying. You have tried to make points based on opinions and
no real fact. The points then become, like you say, just opinions. I wish the
impression from the notes came across as just that, and not as if it proves
something.

| "Facts" are nice, and, give a certain validity to one's opinion, but,
| there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned "gut feeling".

	Gut feelings don't prove a point. You have told me many times to
provide facts. Now you seem to not care so much about facts (IMO) and can live
with a "gut feeling". Is it this way for everything or just when people ask you
for the facts?

| Third.  We all look at things past through different glasses and we may
| interpret those things past differently depending upon which glasses we
| look through.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This is good.  It's
| called "diversity" and leads to a diversity of opinions, and, yes,
| some times conflicting "facts".

	No problem there. But something to think about. If you're basing the
way you feel about something on just gut feelings and no fact, then shouldn't
you at least go out and try and prove your "gut feeling" so that you know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were correct in how you feel and that in
the long run people won't innocently be hurt from things you may say or do? I
know, I know, another New Years resolution to add to the list. ;-)



Glen

.269> Gut feelings don't prove a point. You have told me many times to
.269> provide facts.

I may *ask* you to provide substantiation for something that you say,
but, with all due respect I've never *told* you or anyone else.  If
I ask for "facts" and there are none, then, I interpret your pontifica-
tion as you opinion - nothing more and nothing less - and judge it
accordingly.

.269> Now you seem to not care so much about facts (IMO)
.269> and can live with a "gut feeling". Is it this way for everything
.269> or just when people ask you for the facts?

There are times when I (and possibly others) will present a certain
set of circumstances or 'acts'.  Given that, we may each interpret them 
differently.  I can say "this is what it looks like to me", you may say
"no, this is what was intended" and someone else may way "you're both
full of poo-poo".  It's called life.

.269> try and prove your "gut feeling" so that you know beyond a shadow
.269> of a doubt that you were correct in how you feel and that in
.269> the long run people won't innocently be hurt from things you may
.269> say or do? 

First. Life is not an exact science nor is it a trial by jury.  Death
is the only "absolute" that I'm aware of.  Beyond any shadow of a doubt,
everyone that is reading this will someday die.  

Second.  "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is fine for Perry Mason but
will it be okay if I express some OPINIONS that may be MY interpretation
of some of the little things in life that we experience?

Third.  Who's getting "hurt"?  What did I say to hurt anyone?  This 
conference has some very intelligent people participating. If I'm wrong,
they will tell me so.  I may agree.  I may disagree.
    
    Bubba

.269> -< Can you answer the questions I asked a couple of notes back? >-

I most assuredly "can" answer them.  My answers may not be to your liking,
but, I will answer them - or at least give you my opinion.

.266> Bubba, when you wrote this you didn't know just why he was shouted
.266> down, yet you put it in the file in a way to make it "fit" into your
.266> own version of the gay enviroment (IMO).  This is really nonsense
.266> because you don't seem to be using any fact to back up your claims.

Some respondents in this string have told me that he was shouted down 
because he was going to support the United States position on the immigration
of HIV+/AIDS individuals.  This is a pseudo-fact.  We really don't know the
reason, but, let's accept this for the time being ... however ...

I really DON'T GIVE A FLYING DAMN what he was going to say.  It (from what
I saw) was a professional environment attended by professionals to discuss
this disease and gather/share information.  The man is the Surgeon General
of the United States and deserved some common courtesy.  If someone does not
like what he says, then, they respond in a professional and courteous manner
with as much substantive data as possible to prove the Surgeon General
wrong.  Responding in such a manner has a much greater propensity for
positive results and CREATING MORE POSITIVE IMPRESSIONS.

Let me put it more distinctly.  If there is a gathering of gay individuals
to discuss some issue .. and the fundamentalist shout down a speaker
because they don't particularly agree with what the speaker is going to
say ... what the Hell is the difference?

.266> But, you word it so it sounds as though gays are the big bad PC crowd
.266> (IMO). You yourself have asked me many times to produce proof to back
.266> my claims. I am asking you to show proof that we are the big bad PC
.266> crowd that you seem to be making us out to be.

How do *you* interpret this response by the ACT UP organization?

What was their intent?  What was their purpose?  What "good" did they do?
*You* will have to tell me about all the 'good' that came from this act.

*You* tell me why it was proper within the context of the conference and
why the actions of ACT UP were not politically motivated but also proper
and within the context of the conference.

I'm not making anyone to be the "big bad PC crowd".  I say "here is an
instance"  and "here is how I interpret it".  If I'm wrong, well, pilgrim,
you tell me about it.

INCIDENT #2

.266> Bubba, you and I both know that information will be shared. In fact,
.266> the US will be at the conference! ... I am asking  you for proof that
.266> information won't be shared from this conference with the  US. 

Horse hockey.  You may know it, but damn it, I didn't.  The last I heard
(during the flap over immigration) was that the conference was going to
be canceled. Fine, it's been moved to another country.  That makes sense.
(I hope that the ACT UP organization is bankrupt and they can't afford to
attend.)

.266> ...you have been corrected by many people in here on those two
.266> points.

I didn't know why the SG was shouted down.  Someone told me what they
had heard.  That didn't correct a damned thing, but, added some information
that I was not aware of.  It does not change my opinion.

I understand that the conference is going to be moved.  At one time I heard
that they were going to cancel it.  That is what I heard, that is what
my note said.

.266> ...make the gay crowd look like nothing more than just PC people.

My my my ... this is the third time that you've said this.  I didn't know
I was so powerful and persuasive.

My good NotesBuddy, Deb Arch, has more than once said ... "perception is
all that we have".  Tell ya' what.  I'll tell you what I perceive and you
tell me what you perceive.  Perhaps we can both learn?

Look, it's very simple.  When a person and/or persons do something they
*should* take in to account how they are going to be perceived - and -
act accordingly.  They build the perception.  Not me.

Bubba
    
    PS - this note has long since lost it's original intent ... find
    another note/forum if you want to continue this - just tell me where go
    to [and be *very* careful in interpreting that] and I'll respond in
    some other place.  I'm sure that my fellow noters are growing weary of
    this (as am I).

RE: .270

| .269> Gut feelings don't prove a point. You have told me many times to
| .269> provide facts.

| I may *ask* you to provide substantiation for something that you say,

	Sometimes it can be a little more than ask.... ;-)

| but, with all due respect I've never *told* you or anyone else. 

	I can think of one instance. I'll write you offline about it. I think
you will remember then. :-)

| If
| I ask for "facts" and there are none, then, I interpret your pontifica-
| tion as you opinion - nothing more and nothing less - and judge it
| accordingly.

	If it goes against how you feel, then you have always (with me anyway)
asumed that I was wrong in thinking the way I do. Which you really should.
Unless I have proof it is nothing more than JUST an opinion.

| .269> Now you seem to not care so much about facts (IMO)
| .269> and can live with a "gut feeling". Is it this way for everything
| .269> or just when people ask you for the facts?

| There are times when I (and possibly others) will present a certain
| set of circumstances or 'acts'.  Given that, we may each interpret them
| differently.  I can say "this is what it looks like to me", you may say
| "no, this is what was intended" and someone else may way "you're both
| full of poo-poo".  It's called life.

	Bubba, I have to frame this. I really do. You never know when it will
come in handy down the road. :-)

| .269> try and prove your "gut feeling" so that you know beyond a shadow
| .269> of a doubt that you were correct in how you feel and that in
| .269> the long run people won't innocently be hurt from things you may
| .269> say or do?

| First. Life is not an exact science nor is it a trial by jury.  Death
| is the only "absolute" that I'm aware of.  Beyond any shadow of a doubt,
| everyone that is reading this will someday die.

	I have noticed different writing styles from what you write in here and
what you write me offline. Any reason?




Glen

RE: .271



| I really DON'T GIVE A FLYING DAMN what he was going to say.  It (from what
| I saw) was a professional environment attended by professionals to discuss
| this disease and gather/share information.  The man is the Surgeon General
| of the United States and deserved some common courtesy.  If someone does not
| like what he says, then, they respond in a professional and courteous manner
| with as much substantive data as possible to prove the Surgeon General
| wrong.  Responding in such a manner has a much greater propensity for
| positive results and CREATING MORE POSITIVE IMPRESSIONS.

	Bubba, he has the data to support this. Remember the pamphlet he put
out on AIDS? The information is in there.

| Let me put it more distinctly.  If there is a gathering of gay individuals
| to discuss some issue .. and the fundamentalist shout down a speaker
| because they don't particularly agree with what the speaker is going to
| say ... what the Hell is the difference?

	It happens Bubba. We learn to go around it.

| .266> But, you word it so it sounds as though gays are the big bad PC crowd
| .266> (IMO). You yourself have asked me many times to produce proof to back
| .266> my claims. I am asking you to show proof that we are the big bad PC
| .266> crowd that you seem to be making us out to be.

| How do *you* interpret this response by the ACT UP organization?

	Because it was the Surgeon General, because he already has the facts on
the disease (and has printed them), I agree with what ACT-UP did here. 

| *You* tell me why it was proper within the context of the conference and
| why the actions of ACT UP were not politically motivated but also proper
| and within the context of the conference.

	Read above.

| I'm not making anyone to be the "big bad PC crowd".  I say "here is an
| instance"  and "here is how I interpret it".  If I'm wrong, well, pilgrim,
| you tell me about it.

	I just did Bubba.

| .266> Bubba, you and I both know that information will be shared. In fact,
| .266> the US will be at the conference! ... I am asking  you for proof that
| .266> information won't be shared from this conference with the  US.

| Horse hockey.  You may know it, but damn it, I didn't.  The last I heard
| (during the flap over immigration) was that the conference was going to
| be canceled. Fine, it's been moved to another country.  That makes sense.
| (I hope that the ACT UP organization is bankrupt and they can't afford to
| attend.)

	Well, I don't ever remember anyone saying it was going to be cancelled
(but it could have been said), so that's why I couldn't understand why you said
what you did. I did hear it was being moved.

| Look, it's very simple.  When a person and/or persons do something they
| *should* take in to account how they are going to be perceived - and -
| act accordingly.  They build the perception.  Not me.

	Another thing to save for a rainy day...... ;-)


Glen

    
    A coupla nits, Glen...
    
    1.  Sullivan (the current S.G.) hasn't published anything; Koop did,
        back in 1986.
    
    2.  Early news coverage of the Harvard/Boston/US Immigration/AIDS
    	Conference had it being "cancelled".  (sensationalism sells,
    	doncha know...)  This went on for about 2 months while Bush 
    	decided whether to listen to the medical experts, or to the 
    	'the sky is falling' politicians.
    

Back down the rathole, chasing definitions . . .

Re: .221, .222, .223, & .239

Oh, I wish I had an Oxford English Dictionary here for the details.  The
origin of the word "monogamous" is, as "RAVEN1::LEABEATER" reports, in the
Greek "monos" and "gamos", which roughly translates as "one mate".   Yes,
there is more than one individual involved, but there is one RELATIONSHIP.

Obviously, "polygamous" means "many mates" or "many partners" or "many
marriages".

I've always been amused that the original Greek derivation does not
distinguish between "polygamous" men and "polygamous" women.  Once again,
the USAGE of the word "polygamous" has commonly come to be associated
with a "polygynous" arrangement - one man, many women.  The other word in
the set is "polyandrous" - one woman, many men.

Hope this helps to clear up any confusion!

				- - Steve

	Thanks Deb! :-)

    Well!  I've skimmed through a few of the replies in this particular
    Notesfile; I know it's late to be inserting anything, but seeing as how
    I am a "sometime" reader, I thought I would add my two-cents worth.
    
    Yes!  AIDS education IS mandatory in some organizations within Digital.
    The entire Corporate Treasury department were required to attend the 3
    1/2 hour semindar given.  I didn't learn anything I didn't already
    know, but I was offended that I HAD to attend in the first place. 
    As usual, if you try to give EVERYONE their own particular,
    constitution-interpreted rights, it means you are taking the rights
    away from someone else!  I found having to sit there and listen to how
    two gays were living with HIV positive very offensive.  If they want to
    practice whatever sexual activities make them happy - fine! - but don't
    shove it down my throat!!  Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
    was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
    receptiveness of the rectal track?  Did you know that women are 18
    TIMES more at risk for contracting the AIDS virus than men?  That means
    heterosexuals are, of course, at risk but only because of the type of
    intercourse their spouse/partner may have engaged in with someone else. 
    If you want to get more facts, go to one of the AIDS seminars.  In this
    society of "anything goes", it's because of non-monogamous
    relationships that this hideous disease is spreading so rapidly.  And
    please don't tell me about mandatory programs from the government when
    any epidemic-proportion disease is addressed.  We're not talking about
    a bad cold here, this is fatal!!  The right to privacy? Yes, we should
    all have the right to privacy, but anyone can get someone else's
    private information just for the asking - it's called "the right of the
    public to know".  If our forefathers had ANY kind of disease, they
    weren't allowed to get off the boat!  Today, we are supposed to attend
    mandatory programs so we can learn how to accept, support, feel
    compassion for, etc. anyone with anything!   *sigh*  Sorry, but I have
    rights, too.  At least I used to.
    
    Guess I've rambled enough.  Just wanted to put in my two-cents-worth
    opinion and add yet another note on this topic.  I don't write this to
    offend anyone, and if I have, I'm really sorry.  But I think we are
    losing common sense and logic in this country and company.  You can
    pass all the laws you want, but human nature being what it is will not
    be forced to "love" someone or something just because a law is passed
    saying you have to!

Re: .277

I'm not sure I followed all of your posting.

>                              I found having to sit there and listen to how
>     two gays were living with HIV positive very offensive.  If they want to
>     practice whatever sexual activities make them happy - fine! - but don't
>     shove it down my throat!!

What was being presented?  Information on what two people with AIDS had to do to
stay alive?  Or were you confronted with graphic depictions of how gays have
sex?  If it was the former, I don't understand your objection - other than the
basic (and quite natural) objection to a mandatory presentation that is not
part of your job.  If it was the latter, you could probably make a very good
claim of sexual harrassment - being subjected to graphic depictions of sex in
any form, heterosexual or homosexual, does not seem to me to be neccesary in
the Corporate Treasury department.

>                                Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
>     was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
>     receptiveness of the rectal track?

So?  What's your point?

AIDS also spread faster among gay men because of widespread sexual practices
which would be described today as "unsafe sex".

>                                        Did you know that women are 18
>     TIMES more at risk for contracting the AIDS virus than men?  That means
>     heterosexuals are, of course, at risk but only because of the type of
>     intercourse their spouse/partner may have engaged in with someone else.

Again - what's your point?  I think most readers of this conference would have
learned by now that unprotected sex with many different partners puts you at
high risk for several sexually-transmitted diseases, AIDS among them.

>                                       The right to privacy? Yes, we should
>     all have the right to privacy, but anyone can get someone else's
>     private information just for the asking - it's called "the right of the
>     public to know".

Huh?  What private information can you get "just for the asking"?  The "right
of the public to know" is a very limited concept.  You, for example, don't have
any right to know anything about, for example, my income, taxes, personal
relationships, or medical history.  (And, if you DO find out, there are some
nifty laws under which I can prosecute the daylights out of you!)

>                       If our forefathers had ANY kind of disease, they
>     weren't allowed to get off the boat!

Pasture pizza.  Find out how syphilis, gonorrhea, measles, and smallpox arrived
in this hemisphere.


Having dealt with all that, I agree with you that a key problem with Digital's
programs to deal with social issues is that they often wind up as "you MUST
learn this for your own good!"  This tends to be self-defeating.   As you
so rightly point out, you can't force somebody to understand, accept, love, or
simply (dare I use the word?) value someone who's different.

That don't work.

				- - Steve

    
    Re: .278
    
    >> Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
    >> was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
    >> receptiveness of the rectal track?

    > So?  What's your point?
    
    The point is that he was offended by what he was forced to sit and
    listen to.  Is that so hard to understand?  Whether you or I or anyone
    else would have that response is irrelevant.  This person had that
    response and has a right to it and is only expressing how he felt about
    that experience.  Why do you feel the need to invalidate it?
    
    Steve
    

    
    >> Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
    >> was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
    >> receptiveness of the rectal track?

It does seem just a tad tangential to a discussion of AIDS in the workplace.
(Given that such issues as the one quoted above have little to do with normal
workplace activities.)

    >> Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
    >> was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
    >> receptiveness of the rectal track?

    > It does seem just a tad tangential to a discussion of AIDS in the
    > workplace. (Given that such issues as the one quoted above have
    > little to do with normal workplace activities.)
    
    
    For some reason, I interpreted the "Did you know..." quote to mean
    that the quoted piece of information had actually been presented
    during the course session.  It comes out this way if you put a bit
    of a sarcastic twist into the "voice".  So much for ambiguity and
    the expressiveness of electronic communications.
    
    Can the author of the topmost quote above confirm or deny that
    this information was presented during the mandatory course?  It
    does make a difference.
    
    Chris

    
    Re: .281
    
    >Can the author of the topmost quote above confirm or deny that
    >this information was presented during the mandatory course?  It
    >does make a difference.
    
    Yes, it makes a big difference.  Making it mandatory for me to
    attend a meeting to inform me about how a coworker with aids may
    or may not pose a threat to me and how I should conduct myself so
    as to protect myself is one thing and forcing me to learn about 
    sexual practices which might lead to contracting aids is quite
    another.  Who cares how they got it?  That is none of my business,
    and won't help me understand what that has to do with me.
    
    Steve
    

    
      This information was presented by Dr. Cotton, a well regarded
    epidemiologist, as part of a discussion of the factors which have
    determined the extent of the desease and the groups most likely to
    carry it.  I found her presentation direct, informative, and
    appropriate.  It is not often you can get information from
    one of the key contributors in a field.  I appreciated the opportunity.
    
      Many of us are going to be in the position of having HIV+ coworkers
    in the near future.  Based on the information presented in this
    session, I would assume Digital will take the position that this is
    acceptable and that no special precautions need be taken to prevent the
    spread of the desease in the workplace.  
    
      After attending the AID's session given in Treasury, I have no
    problems with this position.
    
    Ken 

    Hmmm!  could one draw a conclusion then?
    
    Since we will probably be working with HIV+, then we should be trained
    as to how easy it is to get this rectally.
    
    This adds a new meaning to "Cover your A$$".  :-}
    
    Jim Morton

Re: .279

>     Re: .278
>     
>     >> Did you know that the reason the AIDS virus
>     >> was "detected" in the gay community first was because of the superior
>     >> receptiveness of the rectal track?
> 
>     > So?  What's your point?
>   
>     The point is that he was offended by what he was forced to sit and
>     listen to.  Is that so hard to understand?  Whether you or I or anyone
>     else would have that response is irrelevant.  This person had that
>     response and has a right to it and is only expressing how he felt about
>     that experience.  Why do you feel the need to invalidate it?

Hold on a minute, there - that is NOT what the note said.  That
reading is not supported by the actual contents of reply .277.

I would expect that our friend could well reply that that was, indeed,
the intent - in which case my question is answered.

And, yes, as I pointed out in .278 and you in .282, discussion of specific
sexual practices may well be out of place in a presentation on AIDS in the
workplace, although the author of .283 appears to believe that the
actual presentation was well done and appropriate.

				- - Steve

    
    Re: .285
    
    Well I suppose we could settle this with a comment from the author of
    note .277, but from my reading, the note itself answered your question.
    Why would someone in the Corporate Treasury department have to know
    about the "superior receptivity of the anal tract" to understand how
    an HIV positive person working in Digital affects him?  I thought
    that WAS his point i.e. restrict the content of the required training
    to specifically what the the implications are of there being HIV
    positive persons working in Digital.  As you acknowledged, descriptions
    of the sexual contact that can result in a person being infected with
    AIDS has nothing to do with the work environment.
    
    Steve
    

    Question:  Has anyone voiced (formal, written communication) their
    displeasure at the content of this "training" or just posted a note
    in this conference.

    Change does not necessarily happen by posting a note.  A "change" in
    this case certainly seems reasonable and warranted.

    Bubba

	Re .286:

	I would argue that data on what sexual or other acts transmit 
	AIDS is *essential* to a workplace seminar.  The reason is that
	much of the fear of working with people with AIDS is caused by
	ignorance and myth regarding AIDS transmission vectors.  Many 
	people still believe you can contract AIDS through casual contact 
	(handshakes, toilet seats, and the like), and this causes much
	anxiety about working near AIDS victims.  

	Remember the poor HIV+ kid whose family was burned out of its home 
	because the kid was entered in public school?  There was a big fuss 
	a couple of years ago at an industrial plant here in MA because the
	workers refused to work with a guy who was HIV+ due to their ignorance 
	and fear.
	
	My point is that people have to know what unless you're sharing 
	needles with; having unsafe sex with; or exchanging blood products	
	with coworkers, you won't get AIDS on the job.  These activities are 
	not in any industrial or manufacturing job description that *I* can 
	think of...

	MM

re .288:

But surely it's sufficient to say that you can get AIDS by sexual intercourse
without specifying the details.

    
    Re: .288
    
	>I would argue that data on what sexual or other acts transmit 
	>AIDS is *essential* to a workplace seminar.  The reason is that
	>much of the fear of working with people with AIDS is caused by
	>ignorance and myth regarding AIDS transmission vectors.
    
    For sure that is necessary, but as you point out knowing that I can
    get it by having sex with someone does not mean that I have to have
    the details of particular kinds of intercourse described to me.
    
    Steve
     
    

re: .289

Maybe the other "myth" that was intended to be dispelled was the one that
says that homosexuals contract AIDS because they are being punished for 
their lifestyle...

This note is not specifically in reply to Note 1697.288 by DOBRA::MCGOVERN  
entitled "Data to Dispel Mythology and Fear" but it was prompted by that 
note and by the "data" dispensed therein.

(I quote it only because it is typical of the position not only of people
who are concerned about the lack of attention/funding/support given to AIDS
by employers, the government, and the public, but also of the position of
the very US government they claim is to blame for much of the inaction.) 

> I would argue that data on what sexual or other acts transmit AIDS is
> *essential* to a workplace seminar.  The reason is that much of the fear
> of working with people with AIDS is caused by ignorance and myth regarding
> AIDS transmission vectors.  Many people still believe you can contract
> AIDS through casual contact (handshakes, toilet seats, and the like), and
> this causes much anxiety about working near AIDS victims. 

> Remember the poor HIV+ kid whose family was burned out of its home because
> the kid was entered in public school?  There was a big fuss a couple of
> years ago at an industrial plant here in MA because the workers refused to
> work with a guy who was HIV+ due to their ignorance and fear. 
	
> My point is that people have to know what unless you're sharing needles
> with; having unsafe sex with; or exchanging blood products with coworkers,
> you won't get AIDS on the job.  These activities are not in any industrial
> or manufacturing job description that *I* can think of... 

Let us pray that you are right.  It is not a matter of absolute science that 
you are.  Let me continue.

Something has always bothered me about this whole issue.  It deals with the 
subject of education, and with the workplace, and with people's attitudes, 
and with what I'll call "convenience and the politics of AIDS":

It seems to me that:

The same people who are willing to guarantee parents that their children are 
100.00% safe in a classroom with --- not just an HIV+ child --- a child who 
actually _has_ AIDS..... as in the Ryan White case, and in general.....

The same people who are 100.00% sure exactly how, when, and where one can 
become infected with the virus, and under what circumstances one CANNOT.....
as in many of the notes posted here, and in training/awareness sessions.....

...are the very people who are clamoring for more research dollars so that
we can at last know the truth about the mechanisms that cause HIV and AIDS! 
(So as to rid the world of it.)  As the cliche goes, "What is wrong with
this picture?" 

(By the way, you are completely missing the point of my question if you think 
 I am opposed to further funding for AIDS-related research.  Just thought I'd 
 [try to] defuse that one early.)

People who mistrust the CDC and Administration policy regarding AIDS are 
willing to swallow whole --- and take as gospel --- any government claims 
to the effect that HIV/AIDS "cannot be transmitted by means of <x>" or
"there are no reported cases of transmission by <y>".  I mean, where else 
does this data come from?  CDC, or UN-WHO maybe.  But who keeps the stats
for the USA?  Isn't it CDC?  What's that about strange bedfellows? 

			*	*	*	*	*
On a Thursday night in August of 1982, I was walking past a television set 
that was tuned to Geraldo Rivera's prime-time show, and the episode was 
about some men in New York City who were being treated with Kaposi's 
Sarcoma, and I guess you know the rest of _that_ story... it was the first 
_I_ had ever heard of AIDS.  Nearly ten years later, I would venture to say 
that we know little more about this scourge than we did then.  People who 
were being infected that very night may not even today be showing the signs 
of any infirmity.  So HOW CAN WE BE SO DARN SURE we know how this thing 
works, sure enough to bet our children's lives on it, and the lives of our 
co-workers?

Tell me!

I've wanted to ask this for a long time.
How badly will I regret posting it?  Not too badly, I hope.
Will I be attacked for <something-or-other> before the question is answered?
I hope not, either.  (Also, please do not send me Mail.)
I know this is an emotional issue, but let's stick to the issues, eh?
Like you, I am a perfect person with no emotional baggage.    ;7|
\Gary

Let me recap, for the logically-challenged:		:7)

If we need to increase the funding for AIDS-related research, it is because 
we do not know enough about it.  Perhaps methods-of-transmission are an area
where we do not know as much as we think we do.  Logically, we CAN give
assurances about how the virus CAN be transmitted, but we CANNOT make such
guarantees about how it CANNOT be transmitted, since the gestation period 
exceeds the length of time that research has been underway...

not to mention the fact that epidemiological and empirical data comes from
sources that are distrusted by the activists (their political opponents) 
and yet they quote the data and promulgate those conclusions that support
their agenda. 

Some of the rest of us are confused and skeptical.

    
    Re: .292
    
    Yes and the very people, i.e. the medical profession, who to us
    laypersons are supposed to understand this thing have themselves on
    numerous occasions refused to treat AIDs patients or behaved in
    other ways that have contributed to the confusion and mistrust.
    Coupling that with that .292 states and it makes you incredulous
    that "they" can criticize "us" for being hysterical or illogical
    about this whole thing.  
    
    I've discussed just this issue with my wife who is an RN and has cared
    for AIDS patients.  Although she feels confident about doing so she has
    no good response when I have pointed out to her just what has been
    pointed out here.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    Re .292
    
      I wish you could have listened to Dr. Cotton who made it clear that
    the mechanisms for transmission of aids via handshakes, toilet seats
    etc. had an extremely low probability.  At no point did she say it
    was "certain".  She did make it clear, however, that statistically
    there were a lot more dangerous situations than having a coworker who
    was HIV positive in the work place. 
    
      Why would I trust her?  She works with HIV+ people all the time in a
    medical environment and consequently is at far more risk than most of
    us.  She has been at the forefront of research monitoring the spread of
    the epidemic and consequently is an excellent position to make informed
    decisions as to the risks involved.  Clearly Dr. Cotton was not
    mouthing a CDC or WHO party line.
    
      Suppose the worker in the cube next to you severs an artery. The
    suggested first aid for this is direct pressure on the wound.  If you
    consider the risk of transmission of HIV so great that it would prevent
    you from helping someone it might be worth a little preparation.  Got a
    pair of latex gloves in your desk or know where a pair might be?  If we
    can get the level of paranoia about AIDS down to a realistic level some
    of the estimated 100 HIV positive DEC employees may be more comfortable
    letting us know they have the virus it will be a lot easier to prepare
    for emergencies.
    
      I've often wondered what I would do if I saw someone fall through the
    ice in a lake.  I'm a pretty good swimmer so I figure I'd take the risk
    and try to help.  After this training I'd do mouth to mouth
    resusitation on someone I knew to be HIV positive.  I appreciate the
    opportunity to consider my options before I'm asked to act.
    
    Ken  
    

    re:  .294   Thank you for your reply.
    
    As regards certainty vs. probability, I am not looking for an argument
    or even a debate.  I may not have asked a _simple_ question, but I am
    not willing to regress into semantics.  If the question is not clear to
    you, then please request clarification, not rephrasing. 
    
    Let's stop kidding each other.  There are enough people who feel
    sufficiently certain about the modes of transmission that they are
    willing to stand by recommendations that they are making, and expect
    others to modify their behavior in accordance with those recommen- 
    dations.  (If your Doctor Cotton is not as steadfast as others in her
    beliefs, then she is an exception.)
    
    As far as relative risk from other sources of danger, I have never seen
    a whiter elephant or a redder herring (or whatever the expression is)
    than that.  The subject is AIDS, not lightning or firearms or sexual
    politics or statistics.  And, as far as I can tell, the risk of
    infection is whatever it may be, but the probability of slow death is
    1.00.  That concerns people.  So don't tell me what the risks of
    infection are and aren't --- because you nor anyone else really knows
    what they are.
    
    Meanwhile, the medical community apparently cannot even agree on a
    _definition_ of the Syndrome!
    
    With respect to the issues raised in .293, I agree.  Why is it that the
    medical community is so virulently opposed to mandatory testing for
    their ranks?  What kind of message do they think that sends to the
    public? 
    
    As stupid as the public is, they are smart enough to know that they
    don't like being treated as children.
    \Gary

>    1.00.  That concerns people.  So don't tell me what the risks of
>    infection are and aren't --- because you nor anyone else really knows
>    what they are.

	This is exactly why statistics are used.  The HIV+ test is quite
    accurate enough to track the spread of the epidemic and has been highly
    successful in identifying behaviors likely and unlikely to cause
    transmission.

    
>    With respect to the issues raised in .293, I agree.  Why is it that the
>    medical community is so virulently opposed to mandatory testing for
>    their ranks?  What kind of message do they think that sends to the
>    public? 

	Because the population at large would not accept the fact that an
    HIV+ doctor would not be a significant risk to a patient.  The same 
    precautions a doctor should take to prevent infection will protect the
    patient.  A number of doctors are infected with Hepatitis-B which is
    also a nasty disease with much the same potential for transmission
    during medical treatment.  Look up sterile doctors in the yellow pages-
    there aren't any.
    
    Ken
        

    With AIDS, just keeping educated might be a full time job.
    
    I just got Management Memo highlights on line via VAXmail that contains
    the following:
    
	***Update on HIV/AIDS (Paul Ross) 
	Medical advances have dramatically changed our approach to AIDS 
	in the workplace.  We now see AIDS more as a chronic, manageable 
	disease.  People are living longer; they're working longer; and 
	they're staying in the work force longer.  Still, ultimately, it 
	is fatal 80% of the time, but lives are being extended 
	significantly, especially when treatment is started early.  

    Now I try to keep abreast of things, but last time *I* heard (a couple
    of weeks ago), AIDS was fatal 100% of the time.  If you tested
    positive for HIV, it was as good as a death sentence.  
    
    How, and to what degree does one have to keep up?  What about the
    myriad other things than can kill or deeply affect the lives of
    even more people in the workforce?  
    
    -joe tomkowitz

    Joe:
    
    From a friend who has first hand knowledge; testing HIV+ is a
    precursor, but not an indicator of full-blown AIDS.  Since HIV/AIDS
    was first detected, research has reached the point that if someone
    tests HIV+ *and* can start/afford to get AZT immediately, that person
    stands a pretty good chance of holding off full-blown AIDS.
    
    Of course, the gotcha here is finding out you're HIV+ *before* you
    start having physical symptoms that would make you suspicious of
    AIDS. Just as the case with Earvin M. Johnson, a blood test taken
    so that he could increase an insurance policy indicated the HIV+
    long before he might have expected to have symptoms.
    
    Lots of folks do not have the medical coverage that would pay for
    AZT; and I believe AZT is not effective with all patients....but it
    does increase survival chances a good bit for those people who can
    afford to get it.
    
    Karen
    

re .297

   The 80% can be explained by the previous sentence which says in part...
   
   ...living longer...
   
   The longer you live the higher your chances that a car accident, mugging,
   or drug od will get you before AIDS.  
   
   This just underlines something that Americans would like to ignore about
   death - it is inevitable.  It can't be prevented, only postponed.  The
   cause of death is birth, because its the one thing that every person who
   dies has in common.  (only partly in jest).
   
Dick

    When we had Paul Ross up here, he brought a doctor with him. She
    explained (or tried to) how "they" are redefining what characterizes
    AIDS vs. HIV+. Honestly, I didn't fully understand her, but my
    impression was that it's a fine line, and one not all the "experts"
    agree on. One can just as easily say testing HIV+ means you have
    AIDS, or one could say one doesn't have it until other symptoms
    appear.
    To me, moving the line between HIV+ and AIDS is done for purely
    political and statistical reasons, not medical ones.
    
    John

 	Re:  certainty regarding transmission vectors and the "definition"
	     of the AIDS syndrome; here's what I know and why I know it.

	I spent from 1979 to 1984 working as a clinical laboratory technician.
	During that time, I built on my academic study of Biology with a
	LOT of training in microbiology, hematology, virology, and other
	mecical disciplines.  During that time, my brother contracted HIV.

	I was in the hospital "business", handling ALL kinds of human
	samples and drawing blood from ALL kinds of patients (trauma, disease,
	psych ward).  During that time when we knew SOMETHING was killing
	people, but not what it was or how it was transmitted.  It was 
	VERY scary.  We didn't know if our existing precautions were 
	effective, and we often wondered if WE were going to die.

	Then we learned the agent was the Human Immunodefficiency Virus (HIV), 
	and that it had the same type of transmission vectors as other virus
	types.  So it was no big deal:  take known precautions against viral 
	infection.  It was no different than protecting against Hepatitis A, B, 
	or C or the common cold.  

	When my brother became ill, I began learning all I could about HIV
	and AIDS.  It became clear that the syndrome affects different 
	people differently, men differently than women, that there are dif-
	ferent strains of the virus, and so on.  It also became clear (in
	the early '80s) that the US government was not disposed to much
	action on this because of who was affected; the US government and
	Surgeon General were essentially arm-wrestled into defining the
	syndrome by a lot of medical and gay action groups.  This lead to
	a relatively simplistic definition of the syndrome.  For example,
	oral yeast infection with Candida Albicans (aka "thrush") is a 
	symptom of AIDS when found in conjunction with other specific 
	symptoms; however vaginal yeast infection is not.  So women with
	HIV infection and vaginal yeast have a hard time qualifying for
	AZT, DDI, and other medicines or health programs.  Stupid?  Yes.
	It is an artifact of the original struggle to define the disease.

	The government has come a long way from those early days.  Now,
	much of the difficulty remaining in defining the syndrome comes
	from the remaining resistance (dwindling) to dealing with the
	disease, the fact that men and women suffer different effects, and
	that we don't understand fully how the virus effects the human
	body.  That should come as no surprise; we still don't understand
	how MOST virus do what they do.

	More research is needed to figure out what the disease process 
	is (as opposed to the symptoms) so we can find the right method
	to prevent, arrest, or cure it.   Prevention of virus transmission
	is understood.  AIDS uses standard vectors, but is less likely 
	through some (saliva, tears, handshake) than others (blood, sexual
	transmission.)

	I'm not trying to be polemical; all I hope to do is share what I
	know.  If anyone has more or better data, please post it.

	I just don't want anybody else to lose a brother (or other loved one)
	needlessly.

	MM

	RE .290:
    
>>    For sure that is necessary, but as you point out knowing that I can
>>    get it by having sex with someone does not mean that I have to have
>>    the details of particular kinds of intercourse described to me.
    
      I suggest then, that the next time (in class or wherever) somebody
      becomes too graphic for your taste, you say as much and make the
      point you made in .290.  We don't need the details, just the fact
      that sexual activity transmits HIV.  AIDS education need not become
      a locus of proseletyzing for or against any group or activity.

      MM