Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who has the right. The pool administrators or the child.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3356281&page=1&GMA=true

Since the child was obviously gay, Jesus certainly doesn't want it in his clean pools.

well HIV, is passed blood to blood only, it cant survive in the enviornment. i mean unless hes going to run up on little girls, and mothers, i dont think there is alot to worry about.... but then again maybe. I'm sure they're just loooking out for everyone else, and then of course their pool.

Yes, I think they were right. Though I know swimming in the same pool as a kid with HIV won't mean that you get it, I know from swimming as a little kid myself, you can get cut up just from some rough tiles on the side of the pool. But then again, the kid is two, and probably can't get in and out of the pool without his parents, thus eliminating that. If the child had been older, then they definitely should have gotten that doctor's information and then done something accordingly. But even now, it was a safety precaution.

Originally posted by Tengu
well HIV, is passed blood to blood only

Transmitted via blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk.

since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

Originally posted by inimalist
since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

This is a good philosophy. People need to remember it when they move on to other topics.

Originally posted by botankus
This is a good philosophy. People need to remember it when they move on to other topics.

agreed

People have a lot of trouble discriminating between privacy and secrecy though, and while not as applicable to this topic as others, it is a huge obsticle in getting people to respect property and personal rights of others when they don't mesh completely with mainstream society.

There's friggin chlorine in the friggin' pool. The virus would die instantly....

Also there's bleach in the friggin' pool. Bleach kills viruses.

The kid could vomit and pee in the pool at the same time but the odds of transmission (especially with the friggin' bleach and chlorine) are extremely low. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Anyone been to a waterpark? Thousands of people use the damn same water you did. Odds are you swam in the same damn pool as a dozen HIV+ persons.


Swear to god, only in bumbf*ck Alabama....

Originally posted by inimalist
since the pool was owned and operated privately I see no problems. They should have the right to barr whoever they want from their property.

Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

Originally posted by Draco69
Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

Possible dangers are not included in that act?

And that is kinda shit.

Originally posted by Draco69
Except it violates the Ryan White Act and it's federally illegal to discriminate people based on HIV status....

Same way you cannot restrict access based on race.

They're either goin' to jail, paying a fine or getting a hell of lawsuit...

interesting

do you want to turn this into a thread about how the federal government shouldn't have the right to impose such restrictions on private citizens simply because of some whiney socialist pc nutjobs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Possible dangers are not included in that act?

And that is kinda shit.

There are statutes that invoke common sense. I.E. You can't give blood if you're HIV+

However there is no "danger" here.

Pools have chlorine and bleach. The HIV virus can only survive outside the body for a few milliseconds (and it must be in a moist and permeable environment). The ONLY way it can be transmitted is through blood or semen. The kid's two, so semen is outta the question. If the kid bleeds, the virus will instantly be killed by the chlorine. If it somehow survives (it won't) it will be instantly killed by the bleach in the pool.

It's logic. Bleach. Chlorine. HIV virus=dead.

The kid can spit in the water all he wants, he won't transmit it (it's less than a hundredth of a percent likely to transmit through saliva; it must be next to nothing in a chlorinated pool.)

The kid's swimming in an proverbial vat of acid meant to kill any kind of virus or bacteria.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting

do you want to turn this into a thread about how the federal government shouldn't have the right to impose such restrictions on private citizens simply because of some whiney socialist pc nutjobs?

No, I'd rather discuss the stupidity of the pool administrators who obviously don't even have a GED....

Originally posted by Draco69
No, I'd rather discuss the stupidity of the pool administrators who obviously don't even have a GED....

I don't disagree, and would probably not want my kids swimming in a pool where the owners didn't know what their chlorine was actually for.

Originally posted by Draco69
There are statutes that invoke common sense. I.E. You can't give blood if you're HIV+

However there is no "danger" here.

Pools have chlorine and bleach. The HIV virus can only survive outside the body for a few milliseconds (and it must be in a moist and permeable environment). The ONLY way it can be transmitted is through blood or semen. The kid's two, so semen is outta the question. If the kid bleeds, the virus will instantly be killed by the chlorine. If it somehow survives (it won't) it will be instantly killed by the bleach in the pool.

It's logic. Bleach. Chlorine. HIV virus=dead.

The kid can spit in the water all he wants, he won't transmit it (it's less than a hundredth of a percent likely to transmit through saliva; it must be next to nothing in a chlorinated pool.)

The kid's swimming in an proverbial vat of acid meant to kill any kind of virus or bacteria.
The kid is young. It might very well touch one of the other kids. The blood doesn't have to be transfered through the pool.

No one is saying that actually.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree, and would probably not want my kids swimming in a pool where the owners didn't know what their chlorine was actually for.

Oh, I can imagine it now:

"Well, garsh, I reckon the chloraine or whatchmacallit is what makes that thar pool blue and stuff!"

Originally posted by Bardock42
The kid is young. It might very well touch one of the other kids. The blood doesn't have to be transfered through the pool.

No one is saying that actually.

Yes, the "what if the kid spurts blood all over my kid" argument.

In that case, the kid can't play in the playground. God knows, he'll fall and bleed all over the other kids. Forget pre-school as well. That's just another deathtrap. Come to think of it, he shouldn't go to restaurants either. Kids talk with their mouths full. He'll be spitting out a HIV-ridden rain of death on all the other customers....

I guess if it were illegal to include an individual from swimming in the pool, it would be wise to sign a No Humping In The Pool contract. I know this sounds a bit crazy, but I don't know many people who haven't gotten it on in a pool.

I am in favor of the pool admin.

If I went swimming in that pool I would feel much safer knowing the pool administrator isn't letting people with a deadly transmittable disease swim right next to me.

Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, the "what if the kid spurts blood all over my kid" argument.

In that case, the kid can't play in the playground. God knows, he'll fall and bleed all over the other kids. Forget pre-school as well. That's just another deathtrap. Come to think of it, he shouldn't go to restaurants either. Kids talk with their mouths full. He'll be spitting out a HIV-ridden rain of death on all the other customers....

It was a private pool wasnt it? The owner has the right to not let people in if he thinks it will hurt his business, which it would. This isnt a public government park or playground.

Originally posted by Draco69
There's friggin chlorine in the friggin' pool. The virus would die instantly....

Also there's bleach in the friggin' pool. Bleach kills viruses.

The kid could vomit and pee in the pool at the same time but the odds of transmission (especially with the friggin' bleach and chlorine) are extremely low. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Anyone been to a waterpark? Thousands of people use the damn same water you did. Odds are you swam in the same damn pool as a dozen HIV+ persons.


Swear to god, only in bumbf*ck Alabama....

Yeah, false.

Actually in Georgia a few years ago, this kid got Salmonella from an uncooked burger, went to a water park that I believe was part of the Six Flags theme park, pooed in the water, and like 3 or more other kids caught Salmonella from him and I believe one of those 3 died.

So, goes to show that this bumbf*ck from Alabama knows a bit more than you.

Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, the "what if the kid spurts blood all over my kid" argument.

In that case, the kid can't play in the playground. God knows, he'll fall and bleed all over the other kids. Forget pre-school as well. That's just another deathtrap. Come to think of it, he shouldn't go to restaurants either. Kids talk with their mouths full. He'll be spitting out a HIV-ridden rain of death on all the other customers....

Man, stop the knee jerking for a second, the kid would go almost naked in a pool with many other naked kids that have no way of really understanding the dangers, the risk is much higher than you make it out to be.

And it should still be the call of the owner of the place, imo.

Nazzy, you are referring to White Water, and having grown up in that area, I can say that happens on about a yearly basis.

Originally posted by botankus
Nazzy, you are referring to White Water, and having grown up in that area, I can say that happens on about a yearly basis.

Thanks, I remember hearing about it once or twice, I didn't remember the details.
But I was trying to point out that chlorine won't necessarily kill it.

It's always the top news story of the week when it happens.

Originally posted by Naz
Yeah, false.

Actually in Georgia a few years ago, this kid got Salmonella from an uncooked burger, went to a water park that I believe was part of the Six Flags theme park, pooed in the water, and like 3 or more other kids caught Salmonella from him and I believe one of those 3 died.

So, goes to show that this bumbf*ck from Alabama knows a bit more than you.

Salmonella is endobacteria that is not only resistant to the chemical compound of chlorine but also thrives in water. It can actually use chlorine to boost it's reproductivity.

The HIV virus or a virus period? Not so much.

Bacteria can be spread through pools because they can adapt. Viruses simply cannot survive in a pool with chlorine or even in the air for more than a few milliseconds because they require a host.

The only way HIV could be transmitted in the pool is if the virus ultimately evolved to be chlorine-resistant. Which it hasn't.

You haven't distinguished the difference between the two. So, no you haven't really disproved the stereotype yet...

damn, beat me to it

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, stop the knee jerking for a second, the kid would go almost naked in a pool with many other naked kids that have no way of really understanding the dangers, the risk is much higher than you make it out to be.

And it should still be the call of the owner of the place, imo.

Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?

Originally posted by inimalist
are you saying that salmonella bacteria and the HIV virus have the same reaction to chlorine or even h2o?

They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

Originally posted by Draco69
Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?



No. He might exchange blood with them though.

Originally posted by Draco69
Are you implying the kid will have sex with the other children and instigate some sort of paedophilic orgy?



we had a whole day of training where I used to work about HIV sensitivity. During this training we were CONSTANTLY reinforced about how HIV isn't a moral condemnation or that people with HIV can still be members of the working public.

However, during the training there was a moment where the safety of working with people with HIV came up, and, in the wonderful show of freedom of speech and willingness to address conflicting views, I was LITERALLY censored from bringing up any points.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how low the chance of infection is, there is a infinitly higher chance of obtaining HIV in some freak accident when one of the people involved is HIV positive versus when they are not.

Is it impossible to think of any realistic situation where two children are bleeding together?

This is not saying that the risk is not so low that it is retarted to discriminate against people with HIV, just a statement of fact. Unlike race or gender, there is a very specific difference between people with and without the HIV virus.

Originally posted by Draco69
They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

I know

iirc oxygen kills HIV

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. He might exchange blood with them though.

Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

Originally posted by Draco69
They don't. Salmonella thrives in watery environments. HIV can't even survive in plain ol' tapwater...

The point was that chlorine, which is supposed to disinfect the pool, didn't stop the Salmonella, thus it is logical to assume that it may not stop any other kind of disease, and thus not letting the HIV infected kid in the pool was a good choice so that there was never an opportunity for anyone else to be infected by it. It was a safety procaution.

Originally posted by inimalist
we had a whole day of training where I used to work about HIV sensitivity. During this training we were CONSTANTLY reinforced about how HIV isn't a moral condemnation or that people with HIV can still be members of the working public.

However, during the training there was a moment where the safety of working with people with HIV came up, and, in the wonderful show of freedom of speech and willingness to address conflicting views, I was LITERALLY censored from bringing up any points.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how low the chance of infection is, there is a infinitly higher chance of obtaining HIV in some freak accident when one of the people involved is HIV positive versus when they are not.

Is it impossible to think of any realistic situation where two children are bleeding together?

This is not saying that the risk is not so low that it is retarted to discriminate against people with HIV, just a statement of fact. Unlike race or gender, there is a very specific difference between people with and without the HIV virus.

I basically agree with this on the whole. That's kinda the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by Draco69
Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

No, it is not the same. It just isn't. Their entire bodies are exposed they are playing together touching each other, it is not amazingly unlikely that both have open wounds.

The chance of infection is just not as low as you want it to be. You can try to make me look like a fool that doesn't want HIV positive people around him, but that's not the case, I can just see that there is indeed a risk...

Originally posted by Draco69
Well, maybe the kid's a dope fiend and he'll find another two-year old dope fiend.

But the odds are same as everywhere else. He can just as easily "exchange" blood with another kid in any other environment. In the playground. A school. A bus. A train.

Why not ban the kid from those environments as well?

if it is owned privately let the kid be banned because he picks his nose the wrong way

Governmet shouldn't be able to legislate who you must do buisnuiss with

Originally posted by Naz
The point was that chlorine, which is supposed to disinfect the pool, didn't stop the Salmonella, thus it is logical to assume that it may not stop any other kind of disease, and thus not letting the HIV infected kid in the pool was a good choice so that there was never an opportunity for anyone else to be infected by it. It was a safety procaution.

Bacteria is not a virus.

Bacteria can survive in any type of environment. Even space.

A virus, even HIV, cannot survive anywhere without a host. Even in the air. Even in water. It's simply not possible. That's what makes a virus a virus.

You don't understand the difference between the two. You're just lumping them together under the word "disease".

HIV cannot even withstand oxygen. HIV will be instantly killed by chlorine. Bleach and chlorine can kill ANY virus. Bacteria? Not so much.

People think that HIV is some sorta uber-virus. It's isn't. It's a virus just like any other virus. And it's extremely fragile and weak. It just has the most devious and ingenious programming ever seen by mankind. And it's extremely tricky. But when it's exposed to oxygen or chlorine. It dies. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Draco69
HIV cannot even withstand oxygen. HIV will be instantly killed by chlorine. Bleach and chlorine can kill ANY virus. Bacteria? Not so much.


Then why is HIV found in the blood stream, the blood, where oxygen is found?

Okay, so maybe the chlorine would have killed it. But you still can't convince me that there was no way, or atleast a low enough chance, that that kid couldn't have spread HIV. I wasn't a kid that long ago, there's a lot of blood involved in pools and playgrounds.

What if you ban blacks from your private business?

Anyways as for the topic, the chances are so small that I really wouldn't consider it a danger, at least not more then when the kid would walk around normally. The kid is two years old so will likely stay around his parents for most of the time. If the water can't spread the infection then there is no reason to ban the kid.

However I wouldn't expect the people in the pool to actually know this, and know exactly what viruses can spread and which one's can't so it seems a logical decision from him.

Originally posted by Fishy
What if you ban blacks from your private business?


you probably will only cater to a very niche crowd, if you are able to do buisnuiss at all

Originally posted by Fishy
What if you ban blacks from your private business?



The color of their skin doesn't directly endanger the rest of your customers.

Originally posted by inimalist
you probably will only cater to a very niche crowd, if you are able to do buisnuiss at all

Question is, should it be legal or not?

Originally posted by Naz
The color of their skin doesn't directly endanger the rest of your customers.

True but does HIV?

And even so, the argument of many people in this thread was that business owners should be allowed to decide who they ban or not, no matter if they pose a danger or if you hate the color of their skin.

Originally posted by Fishy
What if you ban blacks from your private business?

Anyways as for the topic, the chances are so small that I really wouldn't consider it a danger, at least not more then when the kid would walk around normally. The kid is two years old so will likely stay around his parents for most of the time. If the water can't spread the infection then there is no reason to ban the kid.

However I wouldn't expect the people in the pool to actually know this, and know exactly what viruses can spread and which one's can't so it seems a logical decision from him.

I am all for banning blacks actually. Should be up to the owner of said business.


On a general note, should the parents of the other kids and other swimmers be informed about it? Do they have to be informed? Can they just be lie to? What if there are severe losses in revenues because of it?

Originally posted by Fishy
Question is, should it be legal or not?

I can't comprehend what gives government the right to dictate to people who they can and can't provide service to

oh wait, they have the guns...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for banning blacks actually. Should be up to the owner of said business.


On a general note, should the parents of the other kids and other swimmers be informed about it? Do they have to be informed? Can they just be lie to? What if there are severe losses in revenues because of it?

I knew you would be for banning based on skin color...

Don't see why they should be informed... I wonder how many customers of certain pools have HIV anyways. Or how many people let their kids swim in rivers and what not, it's likely that some HIV patients swam in that water as well. The question should be is the kid in anyway endangering the health of the other people, beyond the level of a normal 2 year old.

If the answer to that question is not yes, then the kid should be banned.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't comprehend what gives government the right to dictate to people who they can and can't provide service to

oh wait, they have the guns...

It has it's purposes at times...

Originally posted by Fishy
True but does HIV?

And even so, the argument of many people in this thread was that business owners should be allowed to decide who they ban or not, no matter if they pose a danger or if you hate the color of their skin.

Potentially, yes.
I realize that the kid was 2, so that did make me wonder, "well, are they really going to be interacting with the other kids that much?" And no, probably not. But if the kid had been 5 or older, then I would say definitely, yes. I remember my playground days, and now I volunteer for summer day camps, and I know that playgrounds are a bloody buisness, and it would be likely that the virus could spread. Now, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't have been banned, that's just not fair, but every other parent should have been informed that there was a kid with HIV on the playground.

Then why is HIV found in the blood stream, the blood, where oxygen is found?

The HIV virus hosts itself into a healthy cell and then so on with the process of the infection. Wiki is your friend.

Contrary to popular belief, if the HIV virus enters your bloodstream, that doesn't automatically mean you HIV+. It still has to infect a host. If it fails to infect the host in the limited gap of time it takes for the virus to die than congrats, you dodged the bullet.

However, sexual transmission gives the HIV virus the perfect environment and window of opportunity to find and infect a host.

Originally posted by Naz
Okay, so maybe the chlorine would have killed it. But you still can't convince me that there was no way, or atleast a low enough chance, that that kid couldn't have spread HIV. I wasn't a kid that long ago, there's a lot of blood involved in pools and playgrounds.

No, I'm saying there's about the same chance of spreading HIV through pools as there is for Nicole Richie to get a 1800 on the SATs....through her own brainpower....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for banning blacks actually. Should be up to the owner of said business.


Racists! Racists crackas, all y'all!

Originally posted by Naz
Potentially, yes.
I realize that the kid was 2, so that did make me wonder, "well, are they really going to be interacting with the other kids that much?" And no, probably not. But if the kid had been 5 or older, then I would say definitely, yes. I remember my playground days, and now I volunteer for summer day camps, and I know that playgrounds are a bloody buisness, and it would be likely that the virus could spread. Now, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't have been banned, that's just not fair, but every other parent should have been informed that there was a kid with HIV on the playground.

Thank you, exactly. Just inform the parents that there's an HIV+ person in the pool. Don't have to tell anybody who.

These people are looking out for themselves.

Firstly, even though the chances of transmitting the infection are LOW, as long as it is existent, they would not leave anyone ''at risk'', regardless of how small the chances of of infection of other children are.

Draco's already been pver that part, however. If the kid should be banned from the pool due to potential 1,000,000 to 1 risks, then eh should be banned from just about every ware else as well. Or killed.

IF the child had a skin rash, he or she would not be allowed in. I don't see much difference. It's not racial or handycap discrimination, this is a safety issue.

Safety comes first over being politically correct.

Originally posted by Naz
Yes, I think they were right. Though I know swimming in the same pool as a kid with HIV won't mean that you get it, I know from swimming as a little kid myself, you can get cut up just from some rough tiles on the side of the pool. But then again, the kid is two, and probably can't get in and out of the pool without his parents, thus eliminating that. If the child had been older, then they definitely should have gotten that doctor's information and then done something accordingly. But even now, it was a safety precaution.

unless your drinking thier bodily fluids you have no reason to worry whatsoever. A person with HIV could suffer a shotgun blast to the chest, allowing th enitre pool too fill with their blood. You still will not contract the virus. 1 out of every 10 people you pass on a daily basis has aids. Wonder how aids victims there are in pools ona regular consistency

If it always required a host, and oxygen was as deadly to it as you make it out to be, needles wouldn't spread it. and water park janitors are trained to never handle blood so that it would make skin contact, always wear gloves.

and there's this:


So how long after the initial injury will the HIV in the spilled blood last until it dies due to oxygen exposure? Is there a chance of someone else getting to the blood and becoming infected in the mean time?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
IF the child had a skin rash, he or she would not be allowed in. I don't see much difference. It's not racial or handycap discrimination, this is a safety issue.

Safety comes first over being politically correct.

But as soon as said child got into the pool wouldn't the chlorine and bleach instantly sterilize it?

too many X factors there. you have to look at it this way, what if YOU were in the pool, and you knew that someone with AIDS was about to get in?

I've swam in a pool with someone I knew had AIDS. It didn't bother me because I, ya know, know my biology and chemistry facts...

There are no more X-factors in a kid swimming in pool who is HIV positive then there is with a kid who is HIV positive walking down the street.

In my opinion, morally speaking, if a kid isn't allowed to swim in a pool (One of the most sterile places to be if you had AIDS) because he is HIV positive then he shouldn't be allowed to live should he? He's no more dangerous in the pool then eh is on a playground, or walking down the street.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
too many X factors there. you have to look at it this way, what if YOU were in the pool, and you knew that someone with AIDS was about to get in?

There is absolutely no way you can get HIV from using the same pool or shower facilities as someone who is HIV+. What is the issue?

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
I've swam in a pool with someone I knew had AIDS. It didn't bother me because I, ya know, know my biology and chemistry facts...

There are no more X-factors in a kid swimming in pool who is HIV positive then there is with a kid who is HIV positive walking down the street.

In my opinion, morally speaking, if a kid isn't allowed to swim in a pool (One of the most sterile places to be if you had AIDS) because he is HIV positive then he shouldn't be allowed to live should he? He's no more dangerous in the pool then eh is on a playground, or walking down the street.

Its a ridiculous ''moraly speaking'' logic.

Firstly, the kid is not gonna be in a pool by itself where no other kid is gonna be near him in the 2 meter radius. Kids play together. They touch. A lot.

Second, cuts, sores or breaks ALL pose a risk in infection.

CDC has published report in which it is claimed that due to the risk, French kissing with known HIV infected person is not recommended (since there can be risk of cuts in the mouth or occasional gums bleed)

Like it or not, there is still a RISK, regardless of how minimal, and that risk is what parents and the owners of the pool are, rightly, not willing to accept.

Do people think that people with HIV, just stay away from pools? Of course they don't, loads of us have probably swam in the same pool, as someone who has HIV. What do people want now? For medical records to be required for a gym membership?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is absolutely no way you can get HIV from using the same pool or shower facilities as someone who is HIV+. What is the issue? well, I wouldnt let it bother me, but I can see how it would bother people who have their heads up their asses.

Remember years ago when Karl Malone refused to play in the NBA all star game because Magic Johnson has AIDS?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its a ridiculous ''moraly speaking'' logic.

Firstly, the kid is not gonna be in a pool by itself where no other kid is gonna be near him in the 2 meter radius. Kids play together. They touch. A lot.

Second, cuts, sores or breaks ALL pose a risk in infection.

CDC has published report in which it is claimed that due to the risk, French kissing with known HIV infected person is not recommended (since there can be risk of cuts in the mouth or occasional gums bleed)

Like it or not, there is still a RISK, regardless of how minimal, and that risk is what parents and the owners of the pool are, rightly, not willing to accept.

Right. Kids do touch each other a lot. As such, the kid should just be put in a quarantine for the rest of his life, or just killed. Because, after all, there's always that one-billionth of a chance that the kid will fall out of the sky and land on another kid, while bleeding, and his blood will infect a wound the kid has.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Right. Kids do touch each other a lot. As such, the kid should just be put in a quarantine for the rest of his life, or just killed. Because, after all, there's always that one-billionth of a chance that the kid will fall out of the sky and land on another kid, while bleeding, and his blood will infect a wound the kid has. What lovely little strawmen. toss 'em out and try to deal with lil bitchiness's point in front of you instead of creating extreme points for yourself to fight.

I worked as "Park Service" for a local water park. Now that's just a cute way of saying janitor. Now while pools have rules about not running we all know how well little kids listen to rules. The problem is not in the actual water, the problem is if the kid gets hurt on the outside of the pool he could leave blood on the outside of the pool, you know, where the chlorine and bleach are not? Bleach is used to clean blood spills up, but its not added to the pools. However if some other kid get to the bloodspill before the janitor can the kid can become infected from it.

Now we're trained to treat every spill like it was contaminated, it really would be in this case. You can also bump or scrape body parts on the bottom or sides of the pool if they're just cement. or if there are cracks in the tile.now the blood inside the pool would be sterilized, but what are you going to do? Leave the kid in the pool til the bleeding stops? It wouldn't until all the blood was out of the kid. So then you take it out of the chlorine? Well then the blood is no longer in the chlorine is it?

And for pete's sake the kid was two, two year olds listen to people about as well as cats do. There's a reason they're called the terrible twos.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What lovely little strawmen. toss 'em out and try to deal with lil bitchiness's point in front of you instead of creating extreme points for yourself to fight.

I worked as "Park Service" for a local water park. Now that's just a cute way of saying janitor. Now while pools have rules about not running we all know how well little kids listen to rules. The problem is not in the actual water, the problem is if the kid gets hurt on the outside of the pool he could leave blood on the outside of the pool, you know, where the chlorine and bleach are not? Bleach is used to clean blood spills up, but its not added to the pools. However if some other kid get to the bloodspill before the janitor can the kid can become infected from it.

Now we're trained to treat every spill like it was contaminated, it really would be in this case. You can also bump or scrape body parts on the bottom or sides of the pool if they're just cement. or if there are cracks in the tile.now the blood inside the pool would be sterilized, but what are you going to do? Leave the kid in the pool til the bleeding stops? It wouldn't until all the blood was out of the kid. So then you take it out of the chlorine? Well then the blood is no longer in the chlorine is it?

And for pete's sake the kid was two, two year olds listen to people about as well as cats do. There's a reason they're called the terrible twos.

The argument of lil bitchiness is the one that is "a lovely little strawman." One cannot contract HIV the way she describes, nor the way you describe. Educate yourself, and then have an opinion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The argument of lil bitchiness is the one that is "a lovely little strawman." One cannot contract HIV the way she describes, nor the way you describe. Educate yourself, and then have an opinion. Dude, I'm the one who's trianed to clean up that stuff, unless you're saying that people with medical training that came in and talked to us are wrong and that I'm supposed to take some schmuck(you) on a message boards opinion as truth. So what's your agenda? you got aids yourself, and desperatly want what you say, which contradicts the medics who talked to us, to be the truth?

Sorry kid, I'm going to listen to the people with the medical degrees, not someone I know nothing about.

I have a doctorate in nameology.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Dude, I'm the one who's trianed to clean up that stuff, unless you're saying that people with medical training that came in and talked to us are wrong and that I'm supposed to take some schmuck(you) on a message boards opinion as truth. So what's your agenda? you got aids yourself, and desperatly want what you say, which contradicts the medics who talked to us, to be the truth?

Sorry kid, I'm going to listen to the people with the medical degrees, not someone I know nothing about.

Well, to be honest, you think we should listen to you and you are, or were a cleaner. I don't think you're the authority on the matter. You do realise that the people who talked to you, weren't talking specifically about aids and HIV, right? They would have been talking about a variety of infections, of which I very much doubt included HIV and aids.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, to be honest, you think we should listen to you and you are, or were a cleaner. I don't think you're the authority on the matter. You do realise that the people who talked to you, weren't talking specifically about aids and HIV, right? They would have been talking about a variety of infections, of which I very much doubt included HIV and aids. Which is why HIV was specifically mentioned, ya?

Sorry, but you're going to have to try using an argument that doesn't change history.

And I wasn't claiming a position of authority. I'm saying I'm going to listen to the autorities on the subject over a bunch of armchair activists.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which is why HIV was specifically mentioned, ya?

Sorry, but you're going to have to try using an argument that doesn't change history.

And I wasn't claiming a position of authority. I'm saying I'm going to listen to the autorities on the subject over a bunch of armchair activists.

What did they say about HIV then? Because I actually do not believe it was specifically mentioned.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
What did they say about HIV then? Because I actually do not believe it was specifically mentioned. To treat every blood spill as if it were infected with the HIV virus for one thing. To never touch it unless you're wearing gloves. And then be very careful not to touch where your gloves touched the blood. They taught us a bunch of radio calls as well. Like 10-20 is asking for the person's location. and 10-30 is a" floater in the pool". a hazardous or potentially hazardous object in the pool, sometimes we'd joke that that was a "10-turdy". though once I had to clean a dead bird out of the pool, we joked about that being a "10-birdy".

I don't bloody well care if you believe it or not. You're free to believe things that are false. Not like you can be arrested for it.

So they used it as a scare tactic, into getting employees to abide health and safety procedure? You'd have always had to have worn gloves, not because it could be infected with HIV, which would somehow infect you.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So they used it as a scare tactic, into getting employees to abide health and safety procedure? You'd have always had to have worn gloves, not because it could be infected with HIV, which would somehow infect you. Right. It was nothing more than a scare tactic. Care to prove it? Where's your medical degree Mr. 18 year old? hmm

Originally posted by Creshosk
Right. It was nothing more than a scare tactic. Care to prove it? Where's your medical degree Mr. 18 year old? hmm

I don't have a medicine degree. But then again, I'm not a cleaner either.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't have a medicine degree. But then again, I'm not a cleaner either. Neither am I.

So tell me, what gives YOU more authority than the medics who came in and talked to us? hmm because you're more outraged about the owner of a private pool deciding to protect his other customers rather than risk an infection.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Neither am I.

So tell me, what gives YOU more authority than the medics who came in and talked to us? hmm because you're more outraged about the owner of a private pool deciding to protect his other customers rather than risk an infection.

I don't have more authority than them, I don't have any less either though. Those 'medics' would not be the ones disciplining you if you didn't obey the rules, it would be your boss. Who I'm pretty sure doesn't have a degree in medicine either, but has to discipline you because he is dictated to by health and safety laws.

I believe that the people who came to talk to you, told you to treat every circumstance as if you could get infected with HIV. I do not believe they told you it was actually at all, in the remotest sense likely.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't have more authority than them, I don't have any less either though.So you have a certificate certifying that you learned this stuff? Oh, wait, no, you don't. you're just an armchair activist.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Those 'medics' would not be the ones disciplining you if you didn't obey the rules, it would be your boss. So why would the medics need to scare us into following the rules? Shouldn't it have been the boss who was using the "scare tactic"?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Who I'm pretty sure doesn't have a degree in medicine either, but has to discipline you because he is dictated to by health and safety laws. But he wasn't the one who came in to talk to us.

Oh, safety laws... tell me, what are the saftey laws regarding handling spilled blood in the state I'm in? Oh, wait...

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I believe that the people who came to talk to you, told you to treat every circumstance as if you could get infected with HIV. I do not believe they told you it was actually at all, in the remotest sense likely. Right, because you were there you know what they said...

Or you know, you weren't there, and they did say that it was likely. Eesh, again, try to use an argument that doesn't alter history in order to make it true.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is absolutely no way you can get HIV from using the same pool or shower facilities as someone who is HIV+. What is the issue? Is there a chance to get HIV if you both have an open wound and those wounds touch each other?

Why the hell do I even argue that. The owner of the pool should have the right to not give service to whoever they choose. Especially if souch a case can be harmful for business.

It is horrible that a two years old has that sort of sickness.But I can see why they ban him.I am not sure but it can spread if he is sharing the same water right?JM

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is horrible that a two years old has that sort of sickness.But I can see why they ban him.I am not sure but it can spread if he is sharing the same water right?JM No

Originally posted by Creshosk
Dude, I'm the one who's trianed to clean up that stuff, unless you're saying that people with medical training that came in and talked to us are wrong and that I'm supposed to take some schmuck(you) on a message boards opinion as truth. So what's your agenda? you got aids yourself, and desperatly want what you say, which contradicts the medics who talked to us, to be the truth?

Sorry kid, I'm going to listen to the people with the medical degrees, not someone I know nothing about.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I believe that the people who came to talk to you, told you to treat every circumstance as if you could get infected with HIV. I do not believe they told you it was actually at all, in the remotest sense likely.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Is there a chance to get HIV if you both have an open wound and those wounds touch each other?






Originally posted by Bardock42
Why the hell do I even argue that. The owner of the pool should have the right to not give service to whoever they choose. Especially if souch a case can be harmful for business.

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

For public services, not private I believe.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't comprehend what gives government the right to dictate to people who they can and can't provide service to

oh wait, they have the guns...

Remember, the thread is a question of morality, not of strict legality

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with disabilities, including HIV, from discrimination in every state.

What Ush and inimaly said...

Wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For public services, not private I believe. Correct. It also protects in matters of employment. Businesses still reserve the right to deny services to anyone for any or no reason. It is after all PRIVATE property and the Governemnt can not force you to do business with any given individual.

Alot of people forget that these protections we have is from the government. The freedom of speech for example protects you from government censorship. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want where ever you want for example.

If there is no way to contract the disease by letting the baby in the pool then it's wrong, but if there is, well I think it's right. I wouldn't want the people in my pool to catch the deadly disease.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For public services, not private I believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What Ush and inimaly said...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Correct. It also protects in matters of employment. Businesses still reserve the right to deny services to anyone for any or no reason. It is after all PRIVATE property and the Governemnt can not force you to do business with any given individual.

Alot of people forget that these protections we have is from the government. The freedom of speech for example protects you from government censorship. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want where ever you want for example.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Shouldn't be that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shouldn't be that way.

It seems fair to me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seems fair to me.

Why? If you were the dentist being forced to provide services to anyone you don't want? I mean...it's your skill and business.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? If you were the dentist being forced to provide services to anyone you don't want? I mean...it's your skill and business.

One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation.

BULLSHIT

the needs of the state are not the motivation for the action of an individual.

really, what system rewards people who acquire skills by forgoing their individual rights?

Ethically I cannot support the idea of discrimination agaisn't HIV patients. On the other hand...I cannot also risk the safety and health of others in my property...even if the risk is minimal.

I'm split on this one.

Offering public accomodation is always an exception to the rule as I pointed out when specifying that place that was wanting to exclude non-gays was not a hotel.

But Adam's points are spectacularly irrelevant as this place that the thread is concerned with was not doing any such thing, and the general rule that the DDA does NOT apply to private businesses remains intact. Reading the text of it makes it very clear that it is mostly concerned with public services and access to facilities. In fact, I do believe Adam has carefully snipped out the part of the definition of 'public accomodation' that specifies this. Not good when you do that.

Despite the reference you quote above, Adam, the chances of prosecution or redress for this incident are zero. The fact of the matter is that many such organisations are not really covered by the act.

(Though they should refund the money that was paid to get in there. if you are going to refuse service, give the money back)

Clearly it's wrong to ensure that the other people using the pool don't get AIDS.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That's PUBLIC not PRIVATE institutions.

In case you didn't know federally owned things are PUBLIC. If owned by an individual it is a PRIVATE thing.

If an institution is owned by the state or government then its public. However as the pool was owned by a PRIVATE individual the ADA does not have authority here.

I'm disabled, I have temporal lobe epilepsy caused by brain damage.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's PUBLIC not PRIVATE institutions.

In case you didn't know federally owned things are PUBLIC. If owned by an individual it is a PRIVATE thing.

If an institution is owned by the state or government then its public. However as the pool was owned by a PRIVATE individual the ADA does not have authority here.

I'm disabled, I have temporal lobe epilepsy caused by brain damage. Hehe, brain damage, hehe, as if we didn't know.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One forgoes this right by offering a public accommodation. Private businesses always have the right to deny ANYONE service for ANY reason.

You really need to learn the difference between Public institutions (those owned by the state) and Private institutions (those owned by private citizens).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hehe, brain damage, hehe, as if we didn't know. Funny, I also have an IQ that's 193-243. During the eligability testing for disability I had a federally administered IQ test. Unfortunatly we had to travel a good distance away from home to take it and it was so long I couldn't take it all in one day. Since it would have been up to my family and I to foot the bill for the hotel stay we couldn't afford to remain to take the remainder of the test so I was given the score of 193 with the potential for it to have been up to 50 points higher had I remained to finish the test. So don't try to use my disability to insult my intelligence. My problems come with it effecting things like memories, motor control and the fact that I have temporal lobe seisures. I also have irregular brain waves and minor alpha spikes every 2-5 minutes. I'm not allowed to undertake certain tasks like operating heavy machinery or even having a drivers licence. This is purely due to the safety concerns for the public.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But Adam's points are spectacularly irrelevant as this place that the thread is concerned with was not doing any such thing, and the general rule that the DDA does NOT apply to private businesses remains intact.

By all means, explain how the recreational vehicle park in question is not a place of public accommodation, i.e. that it does not own, operate, lease, or lease to a place of public accommodation.




Originally posted by Ushgarak
Reading the text of it makes it very clear that it is mostly concerned with public services and access to facilities. In fact, I do believe Adam has carefully snipped out the part of the definition of 'public accomodation' that specifies this. Not good when you do that.

I have not selectively excluded any information.




Originally posted by Creshosk
That's PUBLIC not PRIVATE institutions.

In case you didn't know federally owned things are PUBLIC. If owned by an individual it is a PRIVATE thing.

If an institution is owned by the state or government then its public. However as the pool was owned by a PRIVATE individual the ADA does not have authority here.

A place of public accommodation is by definition a private business that offers goods, services, or facilities to the public.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how the recreational vehicle park in question is not a place of public accommodation, i.e. that it does not own, operate, lease, or lease to a place of public accommodation.






I have not selectively excluded any information.






A place of public accommodation is by definition a private business that offers goods, services, or facilities to the public. It doesn't change the fact that businesses can deny services for any reason whatso ever. Sorry.

Sorry, I don't like the way you're dressed, you're not allowed in my restraunt.

Sorry, I don't like your face, you're not allowed in my night club.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It doesn't change the fact that businesses can deny services for any reason whatso ever. Sorry.

Sorry, I don't like the way you're dressed, you're not allowed in my restraunt.

Sorry, I don't like your face, you're not allowed in my night club.

Wrong. Private business can deny services, aids, or benefits so long as it is not on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or disability.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wrong. Private business can deny services, aids, or benefits so long as it is not on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or disability. So then. If I don't like someone based on one of those I can say it was something else, and thus I've still descriminated based on that.

And I got away with it by claiming it was something else.

So my naive feloow KMCer. I'm not wrong. a private business can descriminate based on that, so long as they claim it as something else.

Believe me *******, I know this from first hand experience, I know all about title 3...

Businesses can get away with alot.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So then. If I don't like someone based on one of those I can say it was something else, and thus I've still descriminated based on that.

And I got away with it by claiming it was something else.

So my naive feloow KMCer. I'm not wrong. a private business can descriminate based on that, so long as they claim it as something else.

Believe me *******, I know this from first hand experience, I know all about title 3...

Businesses can get away with alot.

In a civil case, the prosecution most prove the guilt of the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, the couple only has to prove that it is more likely than not that their 2-year-old son was denied access to the facility on the basis of his disability. Not to mention, that the owner of the RV park has already admitted doing so.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Funny, I also have an IQ that's 193-243. During the eligability testing for disability I had a federally administered IQ test. Unfortunatly we had to travel a good distance away from home to take it and it was so long I couldn't take it all in one day. Since it would have been up to my family and I to foot the bill for the hotel stay we couldn't afford to remain to take the remainder of the test so I was given the score of 193 with the potential for it to have been up to 50 points higher had I remained to finish the test. So don't try to use my disability to insult my intelligence. My problems come with it effecting things like memories, motor control and the fact that I have temporal lobe seisures. I also have irregular brain waves and minor alpha spikes every 2-5 minutes. I'm not allowed to undertake certain tasks like operating heavy machinery or even having a drivers licence. This is purely due to the safety concerns for the public.
Ooh, can I suck on your e-peen?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In a civil case, the prosecution most prove the guilt of the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, the couple only has to prove that it is more likely than not that their 2-year-old son was denied access to the facility on the basis of his disability. Not to mention, that the owner of the RV park has already admitted doing so. They can claim that the newspaper was either lying or took a quote out of context.

It's not exactly the most moral thing to do to descriminate against a person on grounds such as those. But people do it all the time. I lost my job as Park Service.. they slowly scaled my work hours back and then got rid of me because they had workers who were doing more work than I was.

My sister and mother worked there, so one time when I went to the water park she got a call of a former employee being on the premesis and wanted to find out how I got there.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ooh, can I suck on your e-peen? Is this because I was pointing out that I don't want my disability to be made fun of?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Funny, I also have an IQ that's 193-243. During the eligability testing for disability I had a federally administered IQ test. Unfortunatly we had to travel a good distance away from home to take it and it was so long I couldn't take it all in one day. Since it would have been up to my family and I to foot the bill for the hotel stay we couldn't afford to remain to take the remainder of the test so I was given the score of 193 with the potential for it to have been up to 50 points higher had I remained to finish the test. So don't try to use my disability to insult my intelligence. My problems come with it effecting things like memories, motor control and the fact that I have temporal lobe seisures. I also have irregular brain waves and minor alpha spikes every 2-5 minutes. I'm not allowed to undertake certain tasks like operating heavy machinery or even having a drivers licence. This is purely due to the safety concerns for the public.

You are funny...also full of shit, I am pretty sure.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how the recreational vehicle park in question is not a place of public accommodation, i.e. that it does not own, operate, lease, or lease to a place of public accommodation.

I have not selectively excluded any information.


Yes you have. The definition of 'public accomodation' from the ADA's own site says, immediately after the point where you cut it off, that the act does not apply to private clubs. And again, that you exclude this is disturbing and says a lot about the quality of your argument.

Again- not going to happen. No matter what you say. You're just spouting stuff but it makes not one tiny bit of difference to the situation.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Funny, I also have an IQ that's 193-243. During the eligability testing for disability I had a federally administered IQ test. Unfortunatly we had to travel a good distance away from home to take it and it was so long I couldn't take it all in one day. Since it would have been up to my family and I to foot the bill for the hotel stay we couldn't afford to remain to take the remainder of the test so I was given the score of 193 with the potential for it to have been up to 50 points higher had I remained to finish the test. So don't try to use my disability to insult my intelligence. My problems come with it effecting things like memories, motor control and the fact that I have temporal lobe seisures. I also have irregular brain waves and minor alpha spikes every 2-5 minutes. I'm not allowed to undertake certain tasks like operating heavy machinery or even having a drivers licence. This is purely due to the safety concerns for the public.

You're an idiot.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
You're an idiot.

why dont you get cancer?

Originally posted by Schecter
why dont you get cancer?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb49/run_away_to_saturn/1159350286.jpg

Originally posted by KidRock
I am in favor of the pool admin.

If I went swimming in that pool I would feel much safer knowing the pool administrator isn't letting people with a deadly transmittable disease swim right next to me.



It was a private pool wasnt it? The owner has the right to not let people in if he thinks it will hurt his business, which it would. This isnt a public government park or playground.

Quoted for agreement.

It sucks but then again the kid is a walking disease bomb.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are funny...also full of shit, I am pretty sure. I wish I was joking. I'd have much rather lived my life without epilepsy.

But seriously, All I did was take a bunch of academics tests, and the government said that's what it was. if anyone if full of shit its them. Cause apparently a high IQ is merely how well you retain knowledge. There wasn't any real critical problem solving. All those tests really proved is how well I can take those tests.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I wish I was joking. I'd have much rather lived my life without epilepsy.

But seriously, All I did was take a bunch of academics tests, and the government said that's what it was. if anyone if full of shit its them. Cause apparently a high IQ is merely how well you retain knowledge. There wasn't any real critical problem solving. All those tests really proved is how well I can take those tests.

Oh well, it doesn't matter anyways, whether you have an IQ of 20 or 200, I will judge you for myself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh well, it doesn't matter anyways, whether you have an IQ of 20 or 200, I will judge you for myself. And that's best to do. I was merely using it to point out that while I may have brain damage it doesn't mean that I'm stupid. It only hinders me physically, not mentally.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And that's best to do. I was merely using it to point out that while I may have brain damage it doesn't mean that I'm stupid. It only hinders me physically, not mentally.

I just wonder what kind of IQ test you took, because most don't rate that high. At least not the one's generally considered reliable.

I think it's fine for the child to go in the pool, HIV is only caught by blood, semen, so this child is no threat to anyone.
The child has a right to live it's life while it can.
How many times have you heard anyone dying from touching anyone with HIV?? Exactly..None.

Originally posted by Fishy
I just wonder what kind of IQ test you took, because most don't rate that high. At least not the one's generally considered reliable. Couldn't tell you which one because I don't know the different ones. As I said it was just academic questions. Math, English, History, Art etc. things of the like. It was basically just regurgitation of facts.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Couldn't tell you which one because I don't know the different ones. As I said it was just academic questions. Math, English, History, Art etc. things of the like. It was basically just regurgitation of facts. That's not an IQ test though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not an IQ test though. Tell me about it. That's what they called it and that's what I was told. Beyond that I really can't help you.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Tell me about it. That's what they called it and that's what I was told. Beyond that I really can't help you. Use your brain damage induced superpowers to punish them...

sounds like a proficiency/aptitude test more than an i.q. test

Originally posted by Bardock42
Use your brain damage induced superpowers to punish them... But I lost those abilities when it turned out I didn't actually have the ability to fold time and space.

Originally posted by Schecter
sounds like a proficiency/aptitude test more than an i.q. test It'd make sense since that's what it was supposed to be. But then when the results came back that's what they told me. *shrugs* If the information I was given is wrong or not all I know is what I've been told.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes you have. The definition of 'public accomodation' from the ADA's own site says, immediately after the point where you cut it off, that the act does not apply to private clubs. And again, that you exclude this is disturbing and says a lot about the quality of your argument.

Again- not going to happen. No matter what you say. You're just spouting stuff but it makes not one tiny bit of difference to the situation.

I did not post any information from the ADA website.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But I lost those abilities when it turned out I didn't actually have the ability to fold time and space.


I thought 'temporal lobe seizure' was the technical name for time-freeze power.