colliever Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) We are if I get my way. that would be so awesome to link the two series in this and possibly other ways !!!! Edited May 31, 2009 by colliever 1
Enric Posted May 31, 2009 Posted May 31, 2009 that would be so awesome to link the two series in this and possibly other ways !!!! If Max (and his darn father) are direct, legitimately male-line descendants of George, they are in any case in remainder to become Peers of the United Kingdom, and moreover there's a high genealogical likelihood that sooner or later, they will actually inherit a peerage. Namely, it's generally a tough business to maintain a male line from 1700s to about 2000. Usually, only rare branches of a family are lucky enough in that. The odds for such inheritance will double, if George himself happens to receive a peerage (such as, baron of Brentwood) in his old age as reward for his exploits in the service of the crown
Enric Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 ch10: uh huh. gang rapes are in dreams of only some, not all. still, I cannot deduce whether the boy however were gay. Why do I have a feeling that Devlin is going to be bottomized ?
Mark Arbour Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 Why do I have a feeling that Devlin is going to be bottomized ? Because you think everyone wants to be bottomized.
Enric Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Because you think everyone wants to be bottomized. well, it has been my experience that a vast majority of gays want to bottom
Mark Arbour Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 well, it has been my experience that a vast majority of gays want to bottom Well the only empirical evidence we have is our less-than-scholarly GA poll. GA: Top or Bottom Poll Of the gay men who responded, 30 actually, 17 were bottoms and 13 were tops. That works out to about 57% being bottoms. A majority, but not a vast majority. So I'm wondering why you hang out with all these bottoms? That would seem to be a bit, uh, frustrating for you.
Enric Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 So I'm wondering why you hang out with all these bottoms? That would seem to be a bit, uh, frustrating for you. I love all these bottoms by the way, any survey based on the simple answer of the sample persons, will have the biasing effects of cognitive dissonance. For example, if something is perceived as shameful, or less valued...., the number of that answer will be smaller than the reality. Reversely, if something is perceived as more appreciated, the number of that answer will be higher than the reality. A way to improve the reliability of a survey would be to make in-depth interviews, with objective criteria and unambiguous terms, seeking interviewee information about -for example- his dreams, desires, habits, feelings....
Enric Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Of the gay men who responded, 30 actually, 17 were bottoms and 13 were tops. That works out to about 57% being bottoms. cognitive dissonance is, of course, not eliminated from that. there might be a dose of unrealistic self-flattering in those answers how about interpreting these results as follows: the 57% who recognized themselves to be primarily bottoms, are genuine bottoms and honest about it. of the 43% who claim to be 'primarily' tops, a small portion actually would be primarily tops, and a bigger share are so-called versatiles - however reporting themselves as 'mainly top' mostly because they have topped under some circumstances during the past two years at least once, and being top is regarded more manly. Of course, their main usage might well be bottoming.
Conner Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this eventually. Let's make that a top priority! We'll conduct a thorough investigation of the issues, top to bottom. The investigation will so tense, the bottom will fall out. Anyone gagging yet? This is seriously getting old. How would you classify a straight man who requires his female partner to wear a strap-on? Now that's far more interesting. So we're not discussing the story anymore?
Mark Arbour Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this eventually. Let's make that a top priority! We'll conduct a thorough investigation of the issues, top to bottom. The investigation will so tense, the bottom will fall out. Anyone gagging yet? This is seriously getting old. How would you classify a straight man who requires his female partner to wear a strap-on? Now that's far more interesting. So we're not discussing the story anymore? I agree. And here I thought that was a pretty good chapter.
amBIguoustwo Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Mark, Work has kept me from posting (all my parents' fault; they should have made me a trust fund baby!). As we're allowed to be honest here, I wasn't a big fan of The Gunroom. Suck, f**k, shoot, over and over, with not a lot of character development or sailing or battles at sea. With the characters introduced in The Gunroom you've hit your stride and I love The Wardroom. Bryan
Conner Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Mark, Work has kept me from posting (all my parents' fault; they should have made me a trust fund baby!). As we're allowed to be honest here, I wasn't a big fan of The Gunroom. Suck, f**k, shoot, over and over, with not a lot of character development or sailing or battles at sea. With the characters introduced in The Gunroom you've hit your stride and I love The Wardroom. Bryan Personally, I thought there was a lot of expert navigating in The Gunroom.
Conner Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 I agree. And here I thought that was a pretty good chapter. Chapter 10 was an excellent chapter. Once again, Granger shined. He's just not one for covering things up. Particularly when Travers is about. I must ask, though, if the captains involved wanted to avoid a scandal, why did they wait until poor Shafte got buggered before putting a stop to the whole affair?
Mark Arbour Posted June 1, 2009 Author Posted June 1, 2009 Chapter 10 was an excellent chapter. Once again, Granger shined. He's just not one for covering things up. Particularly when Travers is about. I must ask, though, if the captains involved wanted to avoid a scandal, why did they wait until poor Shafte got buggered before putting a stop to the whole affair? Great question Conner. I didn't really think about that, I just tried to put myself in the situation that they'd be in the next day. Ever been involved in something the night before, when it seemed so smart, and then in the morning you just wish you could forget all about it? (Yeah, I know, for you that's every Saturday night ). If I was in Knight's mind, I'd say that he was keyed up, catching the miscreants, wanting to really nail them, pissed off as hell that something like that would happen in HIS ship. Then, the next morning, realizing how embarrassing it was, and how badly it reflected on him and his officers, the attraction of hushing it all up would be pretty strong.
sat8997 Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 I must ask, though, if the captains involved wanted to avoid a scandal, why did they wait until poor Shafte got buggered before putting a stop to the whole affair? I was amazed that Knight let it go as far as it did, but I guess as Mark said, being keyed up probably clouded his judgement somewhat. You can't very well charge someone with buggery if they haven't actually...er...buggered anyone. The captain had to wait for a crime to be committed. At least, this was my thought when I read the passage.
colliever Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 Yes, but 10 is an exciting chapter too. you weren't kidding!! chapter 10 was awesome!!! from the unfolding events i can only guess who's going to be axed in chapter 11 a big mahalo as always for sharing your ingenious writing talent
Enric Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 ch11: well.... there's something hanging. like was promised as snerk
Enric Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 and speaking about bottoms, the famous Mr Shafte really appears as an enthusiastic bottom. His *name* clearly was an intentional thing ..... Mr Needy-to-Get-Shafted
Conner Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Canada repealed its sodomy laws in 1969. Curious that. I was 19 at the time. Sadly, I wasn't paying attention. Great chapter, Mark! It seems Granger will have to find a way to keep Mr. Shafte afloat.
DragonFire Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 It seems that Granger's relationship with Shafte seems to be getting stronger, I wonder what this means long term for him and Travers. He's not f***ing 'Julian' anymore, they're making love.....interesting. I can't see it lasting, it going to take someone a bit special to prize George 1
colliever Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 oooh wow chapter 11 was definitely worth the wait...the hanging...the lashing...those buggers had it coming. from the look of things it looks like george and julian are getting pretty tight!!! i noticed how they don't have sex anymore they "make love"! can't wait to see what's gonna happen next
Enric Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 ch12: I thought Nappy's name variants, *consistently*, were: in Italian: Napoleone Buonaparte in French: Napol
sat8997 Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Napoleon Bonaparte was born as Napoleon Buonaparte, the second son of a Corsican family with dual Italian heritage: his father Carlo descended from Francesco Buonaparte, a Florentine who had emigrated in the mid-sixteenth century. Napoleon's mother was a Ramolino, a family who arrived in Corsica c. 1500. For a while Carlo, his wife and their children were all Buonapartes, but a growing French influence on both Corsica, and the family, caused them to adopt the French version of their name: Bonaparte. Bonaparte/Buonaparte Napoleon Bonaparte was born the second of seven children, in Casa Buonaparte in the town of Ajaccio, Corsica, on 15 August 1769, one year after the island was transferred to France by the Republic of Genoa.[1] He was initially named Napoleone di Buonaparte, but later adopted the more French-sounding Napol
Mark Arbour Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 At some juncture, he changed the way he spelled his name. At the time of the Toulon siege, it was Buonaparte.
Recommended Posts