WHET Lipstick Lesbian & The Bear?

I don't know, but wherever Lipstick Lesbian has gone, he/she/it can stay. Maybe the booby hatch?

The Unhinged Bear also vanished after lingering around a little after LL was Muriel-ed a few weeks ago.

There aren't any current anti-trans threads right now. Murielized?

Isn't Greg one of Lipstick Lesbian's characters as well? It's responses are very similar and it was logging on at the same times on that thread of its that caused such a shit storm.

She’s in a coma. LL started screaming and yelling at her girlfriend during a fight, and the girlfriend got so pissed she took her Birkenstock off and chucked it at LL’s head.

LL jerked back after being hit by the Birkenstock, losing her footing and tripping, hitting her head on an end table.

She hasn’t been conscious since. The girlfriend was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Pray for both of them. And pray for DL, because why o fucking Greg be in a coma too?

Why ***Couldn’t*** Greg be in a fucking coma? Sorry, stupid iPhone.

What an unkind thing to say about me.

I love how R8 blames his iPhone when the truth is, he’s just an imbecile.

I’m still here. Haven’t gone anywhere. I never wanted to post as the bear and if there’s no reason to, I don’t. Please stop bringing this shit up.

And for 1,000,000h time, I never was LL. Greg, Not Dr. Karen Sacramento, nor anyone else but anonymous. Just occasionally the bear and that name was made up by and used by the anti-trans posters. Not me. I don’t care for it. I prefer to remain snarky and anonymous.

I’m well past my period days, r14. I’m in [italic]manopuse.[italic].

I doubt the Bear is L-L because why would she rip herself a new one and chase herself off the board? That’s even too crazy for a Brazilian academic who’s “informed” by satellite voices transmitted from outer space. Bear, you were viciously dropping the truth bombs. It was terrifying!

I starred in a sitcom called “Lipstick Lesbian and the Bear” in the early 80s.

R11, so "The Bear" was just a character you made up? All of your HIV fame is untrue? Not BFF with Fauci and Scarf Lady?

Just a reminder that I’d like your thoughts on Gilead when you have a moment anonymous Dr. Bear but only at a conference.

(Don’t invoke Becky Scarf poster above. It wounds)

LL was insufferable. I am sure that she and I would be grouped together by others but her inability to let stuff go got very tiresome. She couldn't bear to be misunderstood (as she saw it) and wrote these ludicrously lengthy essays clearing up her old posts. Getting misunderstood is par for the course on a website like this which is almost entirely text-based (emojis aren't used much and GIFs aren't as popular here as they are elsewhere).

There was also an extent to which she was being deliberately misunderstood by some disingenuous posters.

No, she DID support the anti-trans lunatic with her memes and videos. She wasn’t misunderstood there, but tried to pretend she was later when she was called out on it.

I'm something like 90% sure that LL was a man pretending to be a lesbian. Especially given that she claimed to be an experienced lesbian but still 'fell for' an anonymous poster online. Every semi-experienced lesbian knows not to do that because so many men pretend to be women online.

Oh yeah, she went vicious when FatCubeFrau rejected “her.”

Plus the breezy confidence and pictures that vibed straight (albeit plain). It didn't really vibe as a gay woman to me. Upon reflection, I wish I had put those images through a reverse check just to see.

Good cat, r25.

There ARE a few things the Bear and LL have in common…lengthy posts, uber-defensiveness, and too much personal info — enough to dox them if it were true, but it isn’t. I think they’re both made up by an absurdist fiction writer trying to develop some weird characters. Oh — and R25 and R26, you are quite the web sleuths. Great work.

No denials from "The Bear" again, I see.

[quote]No denials from "The Bear" again, I see.

Oh god OP, r4, r5, r16, r19, r21, r13, r26, r28 (all the same psychopath). I have a JOB. I’m not able to respond to your 9 posts in a 28 post and counting thread where you are 1/3 of the posts. You’re more interested in my life than I am, so now I’m just ignoring you and I won’t see or respond to any of your posts again. In any thread. Except YOUR sock puppets. And I’m assuming you are the psycho Nazi limerick writer because that’s the only person starting threads about me. I’ll just keep ignoring your new accounts until you get the message. Ok?

But for you: DENIAL. Denial of all your ridiculousness.

Happy? I won’t see your reply and I don’t care.

R18/Elder-Lez, here’s the story I owe you. G (and I mean Glenn Close obviously) didn’t sponsor any of the 7 trials on TDF/FTC which they still had the patent on. The trials were all sponsored by different organizations and is probably public info at clinicaltrials.gov but they provided the study drug for free to the trials but weren’t willing to invest in the trials if they didn’t know if it would work. And having 7 different trials looking at the same drug for prevention is unusual, but they were in 7 different populations and it was a good thing there were 7 because there were 7 different results and in two trials in exclusively women, it failed to work and the trials were halted for futility. But in two trials of men and women, it did work, and ultimately G sought and got approval for its use in men and women. All they could say about the trials in women was that it didn’t work in those trials. And the PK/PD (drug level data taken from samples throughout the trials) showed that the women were not taking the drug. I have my own theory but nobody can say for sure where the drug went. The trials in women were conducted in areas of high HIV incidence where treatment wasn’t available to everyone with HIV. People may join trials just for the chance to get medical care in an area where it’s not readily available and they were informed that it was unknown if the drug worked or if they were receiving an active drug or a placebo, so the women could have participated just to get some medical care and then thrown the drug away. I think there was probably drug diversion. If they were HIV negative and had a partner or a family member who had HIV and were given a drug and told “This works for treatment of HIV but only in combination with a third drug and you may or may not have a placebo” they could have said “well two drugs is better than no drugs and even it’s a placebo, it can’t be worse than dying of HIV disease” and then gave the drug to a husband or family member who had no access to medication.

Whatever happened, the drug level data was clear that they were not taking it in those trials.

And G wasn’t interested in conducting the trials if they didn’t know if it worked. But once they found out it did, they were fast to apply for approval for use for prevention. Probably because they realized “Hey, we’re selling this to up to 1 million people max in the US for treatment but we COULD be selling it to millions more for prevention and that will make a lot more money!”

Here’s my problem with Glenn Close. They already HAD a drug called tenofovir alalfenamide (TAF) sitting on the shelf close to 20 years that they had never sought approval for. It’s a different salt of the same drug tenofovir but it can be used in much smaller doses, 25 mg of TAF instead of 300 mg of TDF and that means potentially less risk of kidney disease and bone mineral density loss (the two main side effects of concern). So they did study TAF/FTC for prevention, proved it worked in men and sought and got approval for Descovy. And guess when Descovy hit the market? Right as their patent for Truvada expired and it became available as a generic. And they were then able to say “Hey don’t take that OLD drug, take the new one…it’s safer”. They played a game. They withheld TAF knowing the TDF patent would expire and they had a potentially safer drug and sat on it to maximize their profits from Truvada until it’s patent ran out and then patented a drug they knew could replace it and get another 20 or however many years out of it.

And that’s why Glenn Close is shady, IMO.

TLDR, Lipstick Lesbian.

Thanks Dr. Meryl but only at the Oscars R30.

Super interesting about the two trials with diversion issues. I am assuming not in the US? II trials with drug or device provision agreements and third party funding are invariably an Abbot and Costello routine of who are you calling the Sponsor. (One regulatory environment divided by a common language and all that.)

The patent timing issue burns my buttons because they just put on this great show of compassion, even running a “grants” program targeting the “education” of vulnerable people on public assistance straIght out of the company arm, which most companies don’t do anymore for obvious reasons, but they seem to get away with because “compassion.” And meanwhile they are unnecessarily causing completely preventable morbidity in their customer base because “profits.”

Ugh — enough with the shop talk! You two should get a lab somewhere.

I agree with R22 and was going to post the same thing. LL sounded too much like a hetero male when coming on to various ostensibly female posters.

Lipstick Lesbian and The Bear- coming to NBC this fall.

Starting Guillermo Diaz and Maria Bello.

R32/Elderlez, two, if I’m remembering correctly. The two trials in only women were 2/4 trials in subsaharan Africa. One trial primarily in South America and the US in gay men, one in Thailand in injecting drug users, and one in women in the US that was only powered for safety and not efficacy, but still showed an effect. I’m forgetting if one of the sub-Saharan Africa trials was also only phase II in women, but the two that counted the most were iPreX and Partners PrEP which was in couples where one partner had HIV and the other didn’t. And it was efficacious in that one because they were couples and that’s a strong motivator for the HIV positive partner to encourage the HIV negative partner to take the medication and they did and it worked. And that trial did have women in it. So that’s why FDA approved it for men and women despite the two trials that were halted. It also worked in drug users and the FDA considered the safety data from the safety trials.

As far as who sponsored the trials, I think it was better that they weren’t sponsored by Glenn Close. The Gates Foundation, NIH, and CDC sponsored most of the trials but they were conducted independently. I actually think that’s more ethical (to have a separate sponsor (just who pays for the trial), drug development company (who made the drug), and clinical trialist (who conducts the trial). Way less conflict of interest.) But more often the drug company is the drug development company, the sponsor, AND the people who conduct the trial. And they wouldn’t conduct 7 trials at once!

I’ve heard the FDA hearing for approval was the longest in history. I was there and it was brutal. I think it was 13 hours in one day. It got barnstormed by one organization that was opposed to approval (let’s call them anti-vaxxer Evangeline Lilly) and they bussed about 60 employees from Florida to speak against it. And not one of the people who spoke against isn’t identified themselves as working for Evangeline Lilly. But we sat there googling them. Every single one did (and Evangeline Lilly isn’t Eli Lilly in case there’s any confusion. It wasn’t a drug company that was objecting).

But the results of the trial and the way it worked in the real world totally screwed up how future PrEP trials could be conducted. They couldn’t ethically conduct another placebo trial (although some people were saying they could) and the real word effectiveness in men was closer to 100% than the 44% in iPrEX and you can’t do a superiority trial when a drug is close to 100% effective. You can only do a non-inferiority trial and say a new drug is not outside the margin of being worse than the first drug. Such a headache.

[quote]Ugh — enough with the shop talk! You two should get a lab somewhere.

Ha!! Too bad r33! I’ve been owing Elderlez this explanation for months and I kept posting that eventually I’d get around to it when things weren’t so contentious. So OP started a thread about me and I hijacked it for my own purposes. If you’re bored 🤷🏻

[quote]agree with [R22] and was going to post the same thing. LL sounded too much like a hetero male when coming on to various ostensibly female posters.

Ditto…the aggressive entitlement and whiny fragility did not seem to me that this person had the experience of growing up female, or of being a sexual minority.

Aha, wait, LL = trans lesbian? I'm honestly not trying to start up or invite anti-trans posts, but that would explain a lot, R38.

R39 Uh oh… you typed “aha.” That means you must be [bold]Dr. Sacramento Karen[/bold], according to my team of forensic linguists from Brazil.

Wha'?

R40, I think it’s. “Not Dr. Karen Sacramento” who was another person altogether. The Brazilian was accusing another person of being. Dr. Karen Sacramento and they denied it and she finally agreed they WEREN’T Dr. Karen Sacramento. I’d never even heard of Dr. Karen Sacramento before the meltdown. If you google “site:datalounge.com Karen Sacramento” I can’t find any posts that mention this name or discussion. I think she was a delusion.

But if anyone thinks *I* was brutal, please refer to the original thread (which is still up) and read the exchange with Not Dr. Karen Sacramento. That wasn’t me and THAT was relentless and brutal (and I loved it). Not Dr. Karen Sacramento deserves a place in the pantheon of DL troll slayers. But she was anonymous too, so I don’t think she was trying to attract any more attention than I was (and fuck anyone saying I was trying to develop a “DL persona”. If I wanted to do that I’d post authenticated and not anonymously and as under the radar as possible. I can only assume you’re an authenticated poster who’s “fetch”. You’re never gonna happen and you’re taking it out on anonymous posters who don’t want to be included in the DL list of crazy notables. So get a life and stay out of mine.)

R38, LL was so transphobic there’s no way she was anything but a female TERF and most likely really a lesbian. This has gotten so weird. LL is not trans and she is a woman. I’m a bear and a gay man and not a FTM or trans woman. We just didn’t see eye to eye on her hatred of trans people and she laughed at death threats against trans people (and weird ass poetry where the trans mutilator went from saying he wanted to murder me to writing poetry where I was I included as as a co-mutilator and murderer with him).

I’m only posting this because it’s all so ridiculous and a crazy conspiracy theory and I would like to consciously uncouple myself from this conversation and I would like to see no more threads with not my name mentioned.

Thank you.

[quote]But if anyone thinks *I* was brutal, please refer to the original thread (which is still up) and read the exchange with Not Dr. Karen Sacramento.

At least 99.999999 percent of the population is Not Dr. Karen Sacramento, and it might even be 100%.

[quote]LL was so transphobic there’s no way she was anything but a female TERF and most likely really a lesbian. This has gotten so weird. LL is not trans and she is a woman. I’m a bear and a gay man and not a FTM or trans woman. We just didn’t see eye to eye on her hatred of trans people and she laughed at death threats against trans people (and weird ass poetry where the trans mutilator went from saying he wanted to murder me to writing poetry where I was I included as as a co-mutilator and murderer with him). I’m only posting this because it’s all so ridiculous and a crazy conspiracy theory and I would like to consciously uncouple myself from this conversation and I would like to see no more threads with not my name mentioned.

Are you aware of the sheer number of gay Christians who are virulently homophobic while being gay themselves?

[quote]Lipstick Lesbian & The Bear?

Last I heard they were doing one-nighters at biker bars in N. Dakota.

Well I am glad PrEP got approved obviously. I just wish it wasn’t that company. And very interesting about the FDA hearing!!!

(This is where I’d wax rhapsodic about the differences between funding sponsors, FDA defined IND/IDE holder Sponsors and NIH mentor-sponsors, followed by a funny anecdote about the National Library of Medicine, but I wouldn’t want to further upset poster 33.)

R47 How come you believe in science but also in obviously fictional religion?

You mean like Francis Collins?

I don’t “believe” in science. Science just is, like math. It doesn’t care if you believe in it. The scientific method is the best way of understanding the physical world around us and within us. You can attach value judgements to how that knowledge is used. And you can certainly attach value judgements to people who stick their fingers in their ears about whatever scientific finding they or the person they’ve outsourced their thinking finds unacceptable at the moment, but no one needs to believe in science just like no one needs to believe in musical scales.

As for my religious beliefs, those actually are beliefs. I think some people just always have the sense of the Divine and other people don’t. I don’t know why that is, maybe our brains are wired differently, but it can make it hard to speak across that difference, because I want to say, “can’t you just feel it?” and it quite possible that you just don’t. So more concretely, I think most people have a sense of ourselves and the world not being what they ought to be or as we would like them to be. The world is full of violence and death and cruelty and we are petty and greedy, bad tempered and insecure. (I imagine you are now saying speak for yourself EL, but hey you are on DL too so…) This knowledge of the gulf between how we would like to be and how we know we are drives a lot of people to religions of detachment (none of this is real, suffering is an illusion) or religions of superiority (at least I’m not like the heathens/infidels/left-handed people) And those religions make things worse and people give themselves excuses to walk away from doing the right thing or base their value on destroying or oppressing the other. Christianity, as I understand it, since it is based on unmerited reconciliation, gives us the freedom to understand our worth apart from comparing ourselves to others. And when our worth is not in being better than the other it allows us the freedom to act out of true compassion and joy. I am sure I am not expressing myself as clearly as I’d like so here’s a link to Francis Collins.

[quote]LL = trans lesbian? I'm honestly not trying to start up or invite anti-trans posts, but that would explain a lot.

Not exactly. I picture a straight man who gets a kink out of putting on a female persona, but who’s not necessarily trans or a drag artist (although those categories can and do frequently overlap). They are distinct categories, though. Unfortunately, it’s taboo to acknowledge that some men DO get off on dressing as or pretending to be women because (1) it paints all trans people and drag artists as fetishists who are a danger to society, and (2) the equating of gender non-conformity with sexual degeneracy is currently being used by the far right to condemn not only trans people and drag artists, but anyone who doesn’t fall within their Christian conservative heterosexual norms. This includes gay people, single women, childless couples, and even straight allies of the LGBT community like that shop owner in Lake Arrowhead who was recently shot to death by a far right loon for displaying the pride flag. This is why I have to walk a tightrope when discussing our misogynistic, Buffalo Bill-like stalker who wears lipstick and stiletto heels.

Meryl, any thoughts about Cabotegravir?

[quote]LL was insufferable. I am sure that she and I would be grouped together by others

If this is "The Bear" talking, you're using the wrong account.

[quote]LL was so transphobic there’s no way she was anything but a female TERF and most likely really a lesbian. This has gotten so weird. LL is not trans and she is a woman.

I have to disagree with you, Bear. Have you ever heard of the conservative pundit/trans woman Blair White? BW is terfier than the terfiest of terfs. It always seems the self-hating ones in any marginalized group are more vicious towards others in their own group than the bigoted outsiders are.

The Bear = Lipstick Lesbian 💯!

Ha - maybe, R54. Why would someone post dozens of times about another poster and suddenly want to “uncouple” from them when people start noticing a pattern? Why would someone post extensively about themselves and their personal history, yet demand anonymity and to not to be given a nickname? Very odd. indeed.

The bear is a real person who doesn’t routinely seek the limelight, but has a consistent history of certain strong beliefs, posts during non-working hours and demonstrates expertise in the area he says he works in. LL was a very recent addition and based on the posts was either an act or manic. I don’t understand why anyone would think they were the same person.

Thanks for clarifying that, ElderLez. I have no experience in scientific research and could not tell if Bear’s jargon is real or an act. R54 had me worried for a minute!

R52, I'm the poster you're quoting -- when I said that others might have grouped me together with LL, I was talking about the fact that there was some overlap in her views on gender and mine. I am NOT that other poster who, in fact, threatened to doxx me.

Also, LL claimed to be a linguist. That’s something I have enough knowledge of to tell he/she’s a fraud, unlike Bear. LL puts too much importance of individual words like “aha” or “besotted” without considering various contexts such as satire or hyperbole, which is what someone pretending to be linguist would probably do — focus on words alone as if they were the be-all and end-all of interpersonal communication.

LL is new? She claimed to have been here since 1998.

Like... "The Bear."

Well given that she also claimed to be 34 years old that seems odd. Are you sure she claimed to have been here since 1998?

LL claimed to have been here since [bold]2008[/bold], ElderLez. R60 is off by a decade.

Sorry!!!!!!

I suppose she could have been here since 2008/when she was 19 and then authenticated/became manic at the same time this past year. At least that’s within the realm of possibility. I mean I’ve been here since 1997 and I didn’t start a thread until 2005. But I don’t remember anyone posting like her at all and then she was all at once everywhere.

Anyway insofar as one anonymous poster can vouch for another anonymous poster that she doesn’t know IRL to other anonymous posters none of whom know each other i think Dr. Bear just had an unfortunately timed run in with LL.

Did The Bear claim to be here since 1998? Someone did!

[quote]Anyway insofar as one anonymous poster can vouch for another anonymous poster that she doesn’t know IRL to other anonymous posters none of whom know each other i think Dr. Bear just had an unfortunately timed run in with LL.

R51/Sigourney oh I completely forgot! There’s actually a whole other category of sponsors for trials. The networks. We have networks like the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN), The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), we had the PACTG (for perinatal studies which merged with a subgroup from the HPTN and became IMPAACT) the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, MTN (Microbicides) and then more that are county specific. The cabotegravir trial was an HPTN trial and some of the PrEP trials may have been as well, but I can’t remember and if they did they’d have a name like HPTN 052 (which wasn’t PrEP but was one of the big studies on when to start and also behind Treatment as Prevention). So it was an HPTN sponsored trial but funded by NIH and ViiV partially funded it. I guess it was a network trial because it was comparing CAB (I’m already tired of typing out “cabotegravir”) to Truvada and both ViiV and Glenn Close donated the study drug.

So I was around for the beginning but I was long gone from PrEP by the time it was competed. (I left because I had to be near my old parents and it meant leaving my job).

All I remember about the beginning was being at one the first meetings where we knew the drug number but the drug hadn’t even been named cabotegravir yet much less Apertude when it came to market and we were talking about it in such abstract terms. They hadn’t decided to do a ramp up period with oral CAB yet so people were saying things like if someone has a bad reaction to an injection, what are we going to do? Dialyze them? Then they came up with the plan for a ramp up period using a pill. But I was out of there.

I have…feelings about all the 2nd generation PrEP studies. Most clinical trials are conducted on an Intention To Treat basis (ITT). If someone gets the pill and doesn’t take it (or the reverse, somehow is assigned a placebo and then gets their hands on the pill) you treat them as if they took the drug or the placebo they were assigned to regardless of whether they didn’t. PrEP studies used a Modified Intention to Treat (mITT) model where if someone tested positive after their first dose of PrEP but before their second visit, their first blood sample got tested with a better test and they were excluded from the analysis and considered not part of the trial (because they became HIV positive before the trial started but weren’t detected by a Western Blot which was the gold standard at the time and PCR isn’t and a whole other thing that gets under my skin and could be another book).

So the results of the PrEP trials in gay men were good enough for approval but the real world effectiveness was actually way higher, 100% after two years in a Kaiser Permanente cohort of gay men.

So the CAB trial was a non-inferiority trial and I believe it only had to be better than the 44% in iPrEX but not as good as the close to 100% in real life. I don’t know what number they actually used for the non-inferiority margin. It’s in the protocol but I don’t remember if it was actually in the paper.

On the other hand, it was also basically a Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) study because the volunteers had to come in and get a shot every two months and they directly observed if they did or didn’t.

In my mind, DOT > ITT, but a cohort of men for 2 years in real life > DOT.

So I’m just waiting for another KP cohort study before I decide what I think works best.

I know. A lot of jargon. I tried to explain what the jargon meant but it was still jargony.

And everyone. I am sorry about the jargon. I know there are three audiences that I have to speak to. The HIV researchers and other scientists where it’s all the jargon, the HIV community/advocacy group where I’ll try to say as much as I can and explain the jargon, and a general audience where I have to take out all the jargon. But some of the advocates know the science and the jargon better than some of the folks that DO research and they are completely self taught and they amaze me. And then I guess there’s technically a 4th group and that’s legislators, mainly staffers instead of the actual legislators and fortunately the advocates are better prepared to to talk to them and I never have to do it but may have to give them talking points for the legislative staffers and sometimes it seems like the advocates want to intentionally overwhelm the legislators with info so they feel like it’s important enough that they have to do it even if they don’t fully understand. It’s a tightrope walk and I can’t do it. But the actual legislators? Pfft! They’ll hold a meeting and invite panelists and then they don’t even show up. They’re always “in committee and apologies for their absence”. I think they’re playing minesweeper on their computers and not really in a committee meeting.

You researchers always forget my group. That’s fine, you all remember us when you need us and you don’t have to explain the jargon to us.

I’ve been around since the only federal cooperative clinical trials group was the ACTG and the trial numbers for that were in the double digits. Do you remember the controversy around ACTG 076? So many protests, but such an important study and theoretically the first drug prevention study although obviously in a very different cohort.)

R70 Yeah but you still believe in obviously fictional religion.

Hey R71, you don’t have to take me seriously if you don’t want to. But it seems like maybe that’s something that’s causing you some cognitive dissonance that you are bringing it up again?

I’m sorry r70, what’s your group? I’ve been meaning to ask because you’re definitely in the well-versed and understands the jargon category so I assumed there was a reason because of a job or some hardcore advocacy. I wouldn’t say those are the only three groups we ever give presentations in front of you but generally the three (or four) biggest.

R73 did you ever work in academia before or after Glenn Close?

And I’ve worked with SOOOO many people from different religious backgrounds. I know as a whole scientists are less likely to be religious, but just based on my experience, every time I read that I have to stop and think “weird. This just doesn’t align with the folks that I know”. Maybe more in HIV, but definitely not in my previous life where I did lab science. A lot of practicing Hindus and Muslims and even some devout Christians. But everyone kept their religion and religious talk out of work. I’m not bothered at all by most people’s beliefs because as long as they’re working towards the same goals I am and not actually against it and I can respect that. I was raised by a an atheist and an ex-catholic borderline atheist (definitely agnostic) but I’ve always thought if I were a religious person, I’d probably be a Christian, but the kind that ignored the Old Testament and believed in what people say Jesus really said and believed. All the kindness and love stuff, not necessarily the borderline supernatural stuff about turning wine into water. I’d probably think that was all just a metaphor for something else. But I definitely tend towards secular humanism. People have to be good because they believe it’s the right thing to do and that comes from within and a belief that we have a shared set of ethics that are internal and that we are trying to adhere to instead of doing it because of an external set of rules. And I think a lot of religious people probably have the same feeling, that we do good things because it’s the right thing and the good parts of their religion and spirituality align with that. So I really don’t have a problem with people’s religious beliefs as long as they aren’t using it as a hammer against anyone else.

R74, before and during . Almost exclusively. The majority of my career I’ve had some academic affiliation. . I’ve only had a few strictly non-academic jobs.

Have you ever sent an email to someone at the NIH and they’ve said, uh-uh, not you, someone else. I’m someone else.

Ahhh. Well most of my “no’s” from NIH came from someone I knew within the Division of AIDS from folks I worked with and my no’s from CDC usually came from the people I was working with and they often came from someone at OMB, but now you’ve definitely picques my curiosity. I did actually work at NIH a long time ago, but in intramural research and there was no such thing as a no. It was a very much “what do you want? We’ll get it for you” job. I worked in building 10, the big main clinical building. Before September 11, 2001 where you could literally walk into the place and go anywhere and nobody said a word or questioned why you were there. There was no guarded entrance or that vehicle entrance that looks like you’re crossing a border.

What do you do? Now I’m really curious!

Less a no-no, more a not from you no.

(And that’s the limit of my specificity on DL)

Oh, and I do remember the controversy around ACTG 076, but it’s been such a long time that I get confused and conflate what happened with the nevirapine trial. That was the one with accusations of bad record keeping and maybe some data manipulation? I remember that being a big controversy but I can’t remember exactly what happened in that trial or who was accused of what.

Well, huh. All of the “not from you”‘s I ever got were usually for competitive grants and in those cases it didn’t feel personal, it just felt like someone else submitted a better proposal. I think I must be misunderstanding but I get why you wouldn’t go into it here.

R45 and R53, I’m definitely familiar with the closeted anti-gay gays and Blair White. For the first group, I assume that publicly they would say and do homophobic things, but secretly, and under the guise of anonymity like this site, I’d assume they’d drop the act and be more truthful instead of keeping up the pretense that they were opposed to being someone they really are. And I knew Blair White was a consecutive nut before she (and Buck Angel) got so weird. And I never gave Buck Angel any thought until he made the gays news because he wanted to have his marriage to his wife annulled on the grounds that it was illegal (I’m pretty sure it was before 2015 and the marriage equality ruling) and he also wanted money from her! Then I just thought “what an asshole!”

And the conversation I want to no longer be part of is anything having to do with me and the Brazilian.

But I swear I thought she said she only started posting here about 2021, not as far back as 2008. And she was signing her name manually (and probabky not on everything) until she became authenticated and that was only 2 weeks before she imploded and she was getting hell from EVERYONE. Before that it was harder to connect her posts and if she was being terrible, it wasn’t as obvious until she was authenticated. But I’m surprised she was saying she’s been around longer. I would’ve sworn she said it had only been a couple years and that’s why I was telling peoples don’t talk about old stories and old posters in front of her. There was something wrong with her and her stories and I was saying “if you tell her everything that happened here a long time ago, she’ll be back in a couple weeks with tall tales about how she personally ran off White Belt Man, Josh, and Kirker!!” when it was clear she didn’t know who they were.

I didn’t want to be part of any narrative about HER. I’ll still object to the trans hatred and misinformation that group is spreading. Happily.

R82 If you go back to the meltdown thread, there’s a discussion about the anonymous account with a manual signature. I’ve seen it going back to at least 2018. My hunch is that it gave her an identity, which an attention ho’ can’t live without, but it also gave her plausible deniability whenever she had a manic episode or said something offensive, so she could claim “that wan’t me — that was someone PRETENDING to be me.” I don’t know why she switched to authenticated. Maybe to start a clean slate and to try controlling the trolling urges? It happened on the heels of the stalking and harassing FCF, so maybe that had something to do with it. Unfortunately, all the self-control in the world can’t prevent a manic episode or vile bigotry when it rears it’s ugly head.

Thanks r83. I couldn’t remember where or when she said it (and I also wouldn’t be totally surprised if she‘d said 2018 in one thread and then changed it to 2008 later) but probably not since 2008 most likely?

[quote]If you go back to the meltdown thread, there’s a discussion about the anonymous account with a manual signature. I’ve seen it going back to at least 2018.

It's possible it could have been a totally different lesbian signing off that way.

You’ll probably realize what I was saying the next time you need your local version of me.

076 was the first ACTG trial for women and instead of being for the treatment of cervical cancer or vaginal thrush it was for ZDV (dead name AZT) to prevent perinatal transmission. (Women’s value = motherhood) In the end it wound up being one of the most consequential trials, right up there with 021 for immediate change in clinical treatment and even more consequential in the long term in regards to lives saved.

LL mentioned using a manual signature in the past.

R86, whoa! I had NO idea about that! So ACTCG 076 happened while I was still an undergrad (it just feels like I’ve been doing this forever but really only 20 years or so) and all I knew about it was years later it’s still held as an example of where conducting a placebo controlled trial in a resource limited setting is unethical with people saying that even after it was conducted, folks wanted to try additional placebo controlled trials in women despite the results of 076. If I google ACTG 076 and cervical cancer I can’t even find anything! And I don’t know 072 unless I know it by a different name. But in one of my responses above I made a passing reference to placebo controlled trials and said “They couldn’t ethically conduct another placebo trial (although some people were saying they could)”. Since the only two major trials in women were halted for futility, some people were saying a placebo controlled trial in women of a 2nd generation PrEP drug *might* be ethical and I was shocked by that suggestion. I also didn’t love the idea of non-inferiority trial for 2nd generation PrEP since we were starting to see results from cohorts that it’s effectiveness was higher than the trial efficacy and I was thinking “oh hell, pleas don’t use 44% from the trial to calculate an NI margin”.

People also thought it was unethical to continue HPTN 052 because we had already changed the when to start ART guidelines while it was still happening and the reason to continue as far as I remember was it had two endpoints and the second one was to see if there was a reduction in partner transmission. And ultimately I think it did lead to TasP, but it was after the Swiss statement but before a clinical trial. Statements like the Swiss statement are great. But it just makes researchers want to confirm them before they start telling people that observational data says something is true.

I have a pretty good idea of what you do. We had a you participating in the 2nd generation PrEP trial meetings. Guy with a British accent. Can’t remember if he was from the UK or US and was someone born in the UK and working in the US.

I completely misunderstood “You can’t do that” when you posted it. I read it as “YOU can’t do that (but someone else could)” instead of NOBODY can do that.

This is all very interesting to me (and I gave up on not using jargon. Sorry to others, but I did say if OP was going to start threads about me, I was going to hijack them and use them for my own purposes. So thanks for the opportunity OP! But suck it. You’re still ignored for trying to instigate trouble.).

^I meant 021, not 072. I don’t know where I came up with 072.

One of us didn’t spend our undergrad years hanging out with ACT UP members and it shows. There’s something way down in section 3 of the attached about the attempt to stop 076. So much of our history is getting lost. Women with HIV were dropping like flies from cervical cancer and I don’t think a single trial was ever done. 021 was Bactrim vs. aerosolized pentamidine for pneumocystis carinii pneumonia prophylaxis. I believe it was stopped early since no one in the bactrim arm got PCP and it achieved a statistical significance earlier than anticipated. Bactrim was really harsh with side and pentamidine had been the golden drug AIDS activists found that worked against the largest killer so the results were shocking. Of course none of that matters anymore because the good AIDS drugs finally came out in 1997, but so many people missed them by weeks.

No, you understood correctly the first time. I am the somebody else. Just think about the mechanics of how you do the things you do. You probably interact with your me quite frequently. You just don’t think about us. But if we all disappeared on September 7th you might miss us.

R89/Elderlez, no, clearly. I was still in high school during all of the major ACT UP actions like at the FDA or NIH or St. Patrick’s. And then I went to college in a town that wasn’t home to one of the big ACT UP chapters like NY or Boston or DC or the others.

But oh boy, so much information! I think I may know who you are and I could probably confirm it with one really vague question. But in the interest of us both wanting to remaini anonymous, I’m not going to ask any more questions (but if I’m right, you are someone I already liked).

I also figured out what the objection to 076 was about. It was because men were getting KS and had an AIDS defining criteria and women were getting cervical cancer and dying but also not getting an AIDS diagnosis and weren’t being classified as disabled or eligible for SS. I can definitely understand the objection and the importance of that research and why people would be angry. Am I right?

If your work was outside of PrEP and involved women with HIV, I’m guessing you know DDD (Love her. I’m not using any more names) and probably Kathie who had the policy listserv email? If you were on that listserv, I was as well but rarely posted to it (and to be honest, when I had to, I was terrified waited until 5pm and then emailed and I wondered if I’d wake up the next day to a scathing email from LK. I saw him get really angry over some things and go off hard on people. Fortunately he never did to me.)

I was too young for ACT UP, but worked with all the TAG people who were a lot of the same people. And I would have considered them and you part of the first group when I was talking. People who were so knowledgeable that some of them knew the science better than some of the researchers!

It’s been sad to see the decline in advocacy organizations. I’m sure you’ve seen it. Groups will combine to survive or just close like NAPWA. We’re close to losing a whole generation of activists who are the institutional memory, not to HIV, but because we’re over 40 years into an epidemic and people are getting older. The only sliver lining I see is that when I started working, the research and public health workforce was still full of old white straight men who didn’t see a pandemic coming and it became their jobs and they were often at odds with the communities they served. But over time, they’ve been replaced by younger people who chose to do what they do because it affected their community directly and they came in with a lot more openness to community voices and a lot more of them were activist/scientists and public health people. But it still won’t stop us from losing that first person perspective and history. ☹️

Yeah, there were a lot of “this was the hot new disease when I was a med student but I wouldn’t know a popper from a prepper” researchers at the beginning.

TAG!!

I was a high school student during the Bethesda actions. I took part in the St. Patrick’s Stop the Church protest, but I was just a hanger-on, not anyone important or the person you are thinking of. I was marginally an activist and then I was kind of sort of a researcher because I was a study coordinator (I’ve disclosed that previously on DL so no new information, also a long time ago) and now I am in the unnamed group. I was never close enough to LK for him to say hello to me let alone yell.

It’s funny. I’ve told this story before on DL, but maybe 10ish maybe more years ago I was at a conference with a friend (retired now) who was the GMO from a small NIH institute and a friend of hers who was one of the GMOs from a much larger institute. GMO 2 had been a GMS at NIAID during the protest with the chains and the fake blood and she was discussing it in a completely still traumatized way and she was legitimately scared they were going to be coming back. It was a real SMH moment. Those special deadlines ought to go away, and the fact that haven’t is a testament to extraordinary amount of fear LK could put into people.

What you said above about 076 is correct. In addition you have to remember that AZT mono therapy only worked for about four months. Then the virus would mutate to get around the treatment, but more than that the specific anti-AZT mutation made it more virulent. So people wouldn’t take AZT until the very end. Most pregnant women were near the end so the study was asking them to give up their future life expectancy to maybe protect the fetus.

Hey, I think RescueChick might be able to do a wellness check on LL through gofundme. That’s borderline not cool at all so I am not going to ask her, but I think it’s possible.

Pregnant women were NOT near the end

R91, Check out R3 here if you really want to check on him/her/them, but I suggest you don’t. Do so at your own peril.

^^^ R-3 on the thread linked above, not this one.

When I block and stalk I only see her posts in that one thread.

Oh and the Bible thread, but she posted two nice short posts and that was it on that one.

R91, oh I never met LK and he didn’t know me, but he HATED the idea of PrEP and wasn’t shy about admitting it (was he ever about anything?) so I was only on the email listserv with him, but sometimes someone would post something that seemed really innocuous, like there would be an online town hall to discuss something, usually something the advocates seemed to be in favor of, and he’d go OFF on someone!! But the other folks that knew him well (especially the TAG folks I think) had a a very patient and reverent way of bringing him around on an idea. And then he became a PrEP supporter!

But I lived in fear of ending up on his radar and I never wanted to post to that listserv.

I really always thought the controversy over 076 was that they used a placebo when there was already evidence that AZT (ZDV) could work in shorter than 12 week regimens. They actually allowed women to enroll in the trial up to one week before delivery so there was data that at 7 weeks it was just as effective as at 12 weeks and it never should have been a placebo controlled trial, it could have compared long and short term uses of AZT and all women should have been offered it. Or if they thought a placebo controlled trial was the only option, then it could have been 7 weeks vs placebo instead of using it for 3 months and increasing the risk of drug resistance to what must have been the ONLY approved ARV when the trial was developed. And even at the end, the only new ARVs were not very good and nothing developed in the 90s is even manufactured or available in the US anymore. But honestly, I never knew 076 was supposed to be a trial on cervical cancer first. Seriously, after the trial, the only controversy I ever recall hearing about was the use of a placebo and I’m bothered I didn’t know that. 😠

It wasn’t supposed to be a cervical cancer trial from the government’s point of view. ACT UP had been advocating for and was upset that NIAID through ACTG had failed to come up with a cervical cancer trial for women but had created a trial where if I may paraphrase the thinking of the day, “women were given poison because their only value was as brood mares.” Of course the truth is more complicated because many women with HIV DID value their children’s lives more than the limited time they had left especially given that AIDS was still a death sentence.

Oh man, the visceral hatred of AZT from that era. It brings back so many memories I haven’t thought about in years. And thenThe Ds and D4T was the best of that bad bunch and DDC was the worst.. So many sad/angry memories. But then Abacavir and 3TC got approved all at once. And 3TC made AZT (already rebranded ZDV) work -just a miracle.

But you should fact check my memories with someone 55+ or older from TAG.

I should ask my wife if she’d do a documentary about every ACT UP protest for posterity.

Oh, I understand why I couldn’t find anything about it now. Yeah, the documentaries that have been done have been amazing but they aren’t able to catch all the stories and the fact that ACT UP was advocating for a trial is the kind of thing that could be lost to history very easily. I know that you and the other advocates know but they doesn’t mean that it got recorded in a a document the government would have like a protocol. And I know the advocates are busy and they’re always moving on to the next topic at hand, so being able to stop and recount all the errors the scientific community made along the way and how they failed them (and I know. It failed them. I think there are a lot of places where we are continuing to fail.)…just no time to do that.

I may be misremembering, but I feel like there were two documentaries that came out around the time of “How to Survive a Plague”. I watched How to Survive a Plague and thought it was amazing, but I noticed by about halfway throigh they were using a lot of archived footage (that I was amazed existed) and telling stories about some of the founders though interviews with other people talking about them and I was confused why at first and then it clicked and I just settled in and was able to not think about it. And then, not to my surprise, the last ten minutes or so are current day updates and new interviews with some of the founders. They created suspense, led you to believe these people hadn’t survived, and then ended on an extremely uplifting note by revealing they made it. They are still around and still fighting. My boyfriend was in tears at the end (and he has nothing to do with medicine or health so this was all new to him…but also a little surprising because he’s older than I am by enough and he DID live and work in LGBT advocacy in NYC in the 90s, just in a different way. He worked for a magazine) and he looked at me and said something like “why am I bawling my eyes out and you’re smiling? This is your world”.

Because I knew who was still alive. I think I said, well I already knew they were alive and I just talked to that guy a few weeks ago.

It was the ultimate, ah you can’t spoil the ending for me. I read the book but I can still enjoy the film.

It’s funny you mentioned the D’s because I almost used the exact same expression in my last post. First I typed out DDI, DDC, D4T. Then I thought, oh I’ll just say the D’s and you’ll know what I mean, then I took it all out because I am speaking in jargon and I’m somewhere in between a private conversation with you and also realizing others have either given up or are maybe following this and the jargon and abbreviations aren’t helpful (and definitely the being cautious about names-Evangeline Lilly? If you know who I was referring to you KNOW why I wont type their name out loud!)

Oh! And ElderLez. I have to take objection to something you said above. You WERE and are still important! You were an advocate and part of ten research (and one of the lesbian advocates that I scream about when some of the what I assume are younger than us gay men here say things like “oh and this idea that the lesbians were there during the early pandemic and think they did something!”) You did something. A lot more than a lot of gay men and before me even because I wasn’t in the right place and I was only interested in school and boys at the time! But you are definitely somebody important and the next time some kid says that lesbians are just trying to lay claim to work they were advocated and took care of gay friends who were sick and don’t deserve any credit, I’m name dropping you.

💄 👩 🧵.

🏳️‍🌈🐾💊🔬🤓🧵

Evangaline Lilly = All Hale Fellows?

LOL - when you are recounting my hagiography add volunteering at GMHC because I did do that that as well. But you know I was in awe of people like Anne Northrop and Urvashi Vaid who were out there on really making a global difference. I was a dykeling and I did my little part, but it was no great shakes. I don't miss the death and discrimination of those times, but I do miss the camaraderie and sense of unity we had as a community. And the gallows humor, people weren't so uptight, because why be grim when reality already was. Which is why I suppose I like DL. It's a bit of a throwback despite the trolls.

Was your post-doc at NIH that it was pre-9/11? Did you enjoy it? Why did you leave? I find people who run labs at NIH have a hard time getting grants at first if they move to an extramural entity because they aren't used to just getting their budget and competing is hard work; pay lines are LOW. What do you think about the fact that the grad students at NIH are trying to unionize?

💄 👩 = 🏳️‍🌈🐾 🧵.

💄 👩 🧵.

Oh damn. I typed a whole chapter and was almost done and my phone browser refreshed and I have to start again 🫣

Short version of the story. I actually was in a pre-doctoral fellowship program at NIH and I loved being there but it was only a one year program and then after that I got an MSc in physiology and decided not to get a PhD and then almost immediately went in a medical program and also did an MPH at the same time. I didn’t know exactly what I was doing. I love research but didn’t think I could do lab research full time, but I’m still glad I did all those things. I didn’t know what to do so I said “fine. I’ll just get ALL the degrees!” And having a lab background AND an epidemiology degree really did help. Especially the epi. That’s why I start by saying “I’m an epidemiologist and I do research”. That’s what matters more to mg. I think any physician could tell you what an ELISA and Western blot are. I can actually pour my own gels and run them myself and did hundreds which isn’t something most MDs would do (although a lot of them may have in an undergrad internship in order to get into a program). So i didn’t do a post-doc in lab sciences and I can imagine struggling coming from NIH to the real world. If I had to, I’d have done it in someone else’s lab where you’d learn from a PI how to submit a grant and a budget and deal with IRBs and maybe DSMBs and all that.

I haven’t been on NIH’s campus in over 20 years. You used to be able to walk into any building without a badge and go anywhere and space is a problem, so the hallways are lined with unlocked freezers. At the time, I never once thought “wow. Anyone in the world could walk in here and open my freezer and just throw everything away.” But we didn’t have anything very dangerous in the hallways. We had tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope, but that was locked in a freezer inside a locked lab.

But I guess after 9/11, you have to go though security and have to be pre-approved. You did at all the other government buildings. You couldn’t even get into HHS without being on their list first, so we met at hotels and in organizations that had their own buildings and big meeting spaces where security wasn’t an issue (and we had to, because so many international researchers couldn’t get into the federal buildings. CDC had an office in the Department of Homeland Security building and nobody could get in there. Bad place to put the CDC offices!).

But I don’t know about the grad students unionizing efforts, but I’m all for it. If it’s anything like medical schools or residency programs they probably need them because it’s really just cruel hazing from older people who has to go through it themselves and sometimes it feels like the only purpose is to make you cry or quit. I don’t think I know anyone who would say anything other than they love what they do but they hated school and it gave them all serious doubts about doing it.

Oh!! And “Evangaline Lilly = All Hale Fellows?”

Exactly!! They’re litigious and like to put people’s names in press releases. And they’ve gotten so large by suing and steamrolling smaller organizations who actually have the experience working with their communities. They sued Texas for awarding a grant to a minority CBO that worked with young black MSM and they got their grant rescinded and awarded to themselves! And they didn’t have an office in Texas OR any experience working in that community!!

Predoctoral fellows are exactly who are attempting to unionize. At first NIH appealed to the NLRB saying they were trainees and therefore not employees and not eligible to join a union, but last I heard NIH had dropped that position and was going to let the vote go forward.

I’ve only been to some of the admin buildings, never the labs or even CSR, not even pre-9/11 when there were so many Amtrak and commuter flights for the researchers who missed the 10 AM fed-ex pick up.

R108, well that’s very interesting. I wonder if there are multiple fellowship tracks that I don’t know about. I was what’s called a Pre-IRTA, a predoctoral intramural research training award. They also have IRTAs which are folks who’ve completed a doctoral program. The pre-IRTA slots were open to folks who were already in doctoral programs but they accepted those who planned to start one (and honestly, I never met a single current doctoral student when I was there because you had to take off an entire year from a program to do it and who wants to interrupt a research doctoral program to…just go do more research? And then have to make up that year in a PhD or med school program?) The pay wasn’t great but you weren’t an employee so they didn’t tax what I think they called a stipend, but they did provide health insurance. And I didn’t know the area or how close it was to DC when I went to look for a place to live a month or so before I started and when I saw Bethesda and realized I’d need a car but I could share an apartment one block away from a metro line that went straight to the Medical Center stop, I just moved into DC and took a 40 minute metro ride there and back every day. It wasn’t the worst commute and I could read on the train, but during the winter I’d leave home in the dark, leave work in the dark, spend all day in a windowless lab, and maybe go outside for 5 minutes around lunch because it was so cold. But it was good enough that I’m not sure what I think a union would have been needed for at the time. Every institute had their own ombudsman so if you had a conflict, you did have a safety net (of some sorts) and it had some benefits (health insurance and a free metro pass) that all things considered I kinda loved it.

It was easy to love a pre-China initiative NIH. I used to want to go work at OPERA.

It’s ironic that it’s cheaper to live in DC and take the red line to Bethesda, but if you want to be a tourist or protester, it’s cheaper to stay at the Hyatt in Bethesda (? I think it’s a Hyatt) that is right over the downtown Bethesda stop.

Here’s the last article I read about the unionization efforts.

Is Dr. Sacramento Karen like the Ghost of Kiev Ukrainian fighter pilot?

Precisely, R49. Faith is a gift and it is not given to everyone.

R112 is Greg, who didn't sign his post.

ElderLez doesn't need you sneaking in here to "support" her, "Greg."

R113, you are rude and I have no interest in whatever you have to say.

"Sneaking" – haha.

I do as I please. And don't forget it.

R113, you obviously are infatuated with me.

You might think about getting a life.

I found The Bear on Twitter, yet another sock puppet.

What's that, R116?

I found a blowhard HIV researcher on Twitter, quite full of himself.

He is much more of a wolf than a bear, as The Bear claimed.

Blathers on a lot, just like here.

Maybe, maybe not. 🤷‍♂️

I see. Well, posting it would constitute doxxing. It would be richly ironic... but the less said about that, the better.

Oh no. I can’t see anything between r111 and r117, but I can read r116’s post because r117 posted r116’s number. I don’t have a twitter account. Please don’t doxx someone who isn’t me. You do have me curious about who it is and if it’s someone I know though. But don’t drag some stranger into this dumpster fire. If they’re posting about clinical research that they’re doing currently, that will tell you it’s not me. I think I’ve been pretty open about the fact that I moved on years ago because I had to leave my job to be close to my parents. I left a good job and friends behind to move to a city I don’t love to watch my parents get old and die. That hasn’t been fun. I still do HIV and STI research, but none of it is clinical trials (i.e. nothing involving drug studies).

And r119, why would it be richly ironic? What did I do to piss you off that you’d encourage the OP who started this thread about me to think it’s OK to doxx me?

I did not encourage anyone to doxx anyone. By observing that linking to an account would constitute doxxing, I was, if anything, discouraging the poster from linking the Twitter account. (Not that he necessarily had any intention of doing so.)

I never intended to, r121. I’m not Greg/Lipstick Lesbian/The Bear in its unhinged games on DL.

The guy I found on Twitter was actually very cute, so it couldn’t have been The Bear.

Ok r121, I know why you think it would be richly ironic. You’re the 30 year old that keeps calling trans women “Frankencunts” and said I was trying to gain some notoriety and make a name for myself (while I was trying to keep a low profile and posting anonymously). And I threatened to follow YOU around and make your posting experience a less than pleasurable one. Your trans hatred and thoughts on my motivation are both sadly misplaced, but I understand why I pissed you off. Because you pissed me off first. That’s fair. Bit you’re still a transphobic poster with a disturbing approach to language.

[quote] [R112] is Greg, who didn't sign his post. ElderLez doesn't need you sneaking in here to "support" her, "Greg."

Thank you for being such a busy body, R113. You're like one of those old ladies who gets into everyone's business.

I have no intention of supporting ElderLez and unless she asked you to speak for her, I suggest you take a hike.

I am not taking direction from you about how I post, what I post, and to whom I respond.

What kind of an asshole are you?

And your ridiculous use of quotation marks makes you look even more stupid.

Looks like “Greg” is on a timeout.

[quote]and said I was trying to gain some notoriety and make a name for myself

He was absolutely right there.

Muriel deleted the other thread.

[quote] Looks like “Greg” is on a timeout.

Not really.

I had a catering job.

You mean McDonald’s? When you were released from the asylum it was on the condition that you live in a halfway house and get a job.

I am glad to see you gainfully employed, dear.

[quote] You mean McDonald’s? When you were released from the asylum it was on the condition that you live in a halfway house and get a job. I am glad to see you gainfully employed, dear.

Yep, R129.

These halfway houses are nicer than you'd imagine. Two beautiful locations and each filled with a combination of antique and contemporary furnishings with attention given to every last detail.

Greg = Othello = Gatsby, which was proved last night in the deleted thread.

Gatsby’s nasty defense of Greg revealed him to be Greg.

Gatsby said it was also Greg’s nemesis, Othello, who had been red-tagged.

Therefore, Gatsby = Othello = Greg.

Exposed, once again.

I can't stop laughing.

R131/R132, Jus' hang loose, blood. Ima catch ya up on da rebound. Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da help! Jive-ass dude don't got no brains anyhow! Shiiiiit.

I see you and Othello both speak jive. How suspicious!

You ought to hear my Portuguese jive.

MUA HA HA HA HA. Bye, girl!

I believe it's an alert for the name, and its variations, rather than for the account. I don't believe alerts for accounts are possible.

R138, while I admire your rich fantasy life, I think you might need to step back for a bit.

This level of obsessiveness is unhealthy.

Bye.

R138 is right.

Post a comment-any comment-on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Greg, on a topic on which he’s never showed interest, and he will reply. It’s bizarre.

Please, R141.

Oh god I hate this thread and all threads folks are starting just to harass authenticated (and anonymous!) posters. It’s so juvenile. If you hate someone, ignore them. If you go around starting multiple threads about them, seek mental health help.

💄👩 at r143.

Has The Bear sought mental health help for his bizarre worship of Greg?

That indicates he's a sock puppet of Greg most likely.

r143

[quote] Post a comment-any comment-on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Greg, on a topic on which he’s never showed interest, and he will reply. It’s bizarre.

What you are saying is that I reply to every single comment on DL.

I do not.

Please explain yourself, R141.

Or better yet, post something that, in your own words, "has absolutely nothing to do with Greg, on a topic on which he’s never showed interest, and he will reply. It’s bizarre."

Again, that would mean I'd be responding to every comment.

You need to go back to school.

Reddit has some very interesting threads about these characters.

A lot of the theories posted here about this trio of alts are expanded on the Reddit threads, and make a lot of sense.

ESPECIALLY about the cheerleaders who instantly appear, parroting the same worshipful talking points.

Has Lipstick spontaneously combusted yet?

She apparently claims to have magic powers, just like Gr…

If you visited the Reddit threads last night, you saw her florid mania. Some naive dl’er befriended her “in real life” and paid hell for it.

Which thread????

The one aimed at “Level Breakfast”. Don’t know if it’s still up.

I didn’t see it a few hours ago.

Greg, Lipstick Leabian-whichever one of you has the magic powers that makes threads disappear, could you please disappear this one? I seem to have left mine behind the last time we all combined into our singular Ultimate Form: the MURIEL.

Thank you.

[quote] WHET Lipstick Lesbian & The Bear? [quote]

For a moment, I thought someone was asking about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce.

I doubt either of those alt/characters were envisioned as that attractive, r158.

But it was a funny response. 💅

LL is currently on Reddit harassing someone and clearly having some sort of manic episode. Bitch is crazier than a shithouse rat.

It also appears to be a stalker.

That's enough for today, boys. Thank you.

^Lies.

R166.

We have our ways, R166.

And remember, curiosity killed the cat.

Greg did a good thing. A real good thing!

R168 is an admission.

Thank you, R169.

I do my best.

[quote]Also, LL claimed to be a linguist.

A cunning one?

What does LL claiming to be a linguist—cunning or otherwise—have to do with me?

I did it. I checked out Reddit’s DL sub, and it’s a hot mess. I missed out on some heavy drama! It seems that someone there knows how to archive threads from other forums before they disappear. Redditors are techie types, so no surprise, right?

Reddit is terrible.

r168 is Greg/LL/The Bear admitting that they are ONE and that they have the power to give a 24-hour timeout here.

Wow, R176, what a bold comment.

In response r314 in the linked thread, Greg admits that he is LL.

R178

FYI R109

Hopefully they are no longer here in 2024.

Hopefully, Greg retired those sock puppets of his.

[quote] Hopefully, Greg retired those sock puppets of his.

Oh, yes.

One can see how R182 resurrected this thread, last active four months ago.

Why would he look for this four-month-old thread and then post something specifically about me?

Well, anyone can figure that out.

It’s very flattering.

I was testing your name alerts.

[quote] I was testing your name alerts.

How interesting.

Greg red-tagged!!!!!!