that's understood. but the following is a logical fallacy:
"if he really had AIDS, why would he have hidden it?"
"because he was a spunk chugger and didn't want people to find out."
"and how do you know he was a spunk chugger?"
"because he hid the fact he had aids."
and it's one of the most common arguments i see here. it's not any different from someone claiming the Bible is the word of god because it says so, and that its so is believable since it's the word of god. the two claims are supported by nothing other than each other, in that kind of argument - it's a bit like trying to build a suspension bridge without any earth under the supports
to note, i don't care if he died of AIDS or not. all the evidence that i've come across through here is pretty inconclusive, but not so much so that it's dismissible outright. truth is, i'll probably never know for certain if he did contract AIDS, nor do i care if i ever do. it would change absolutely nothing in my existence, objective or subjective, to find out he did or didn't. it is fun to rile the fanboys, however