ricky Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 Well, I'm sure things will get back into a good swing. My BWS symptoms are actually quite mild right now. I can't speak for everyone else though. I understand completely! Banana Withdrawal Symptoms can be severe. Perpetually placing your hand on the back of your head for instance and really muss your hair and can also be quite distracting. I feel really bad for the guy with the skiing weakness. No known cure for that except a broken leg and that even requires serious libation therapy. I personally recommend the purple-jesus for the libation. A shot of southern comfort with a shot of blackberry brandy. Light it and let it burn for about 15 seconds then blow it out and down the hatch. That will warm what ever was cold and you won't care about much afterward. Most large people require three before they need seatbelts to stay on their stools.
ricky Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Well quick get him to fix a chapter before it snows again! We are calling for 2-3 inches tonight. (After the rain of course.)
Tiger Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 I understand completely! Banana Withdrawal Symptoms can be severe. Perpetually placing your hand on the back of your head for instance and really muss your hair and can also be quite distracting. No, this is a different BWS. It's Bridemont Withdrawal Syndrome. https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/23996-bws/
Mark Arbour Posted March 3, 2010 Author Posted March 3, 2010 We'll get things rolling again soon enough. Sorry for the delay everyone!
sat8997 Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Well, one of my key team members is a skiing fool, so that's screwed up our posting schedule. You mean someone got to take a vacation??? I so need to renegotiate my contract.
rjo Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 At First it was hard to get into George but as the time past you began to believe he waqs a good person. You enjoyed his adventures. When Admiral Wilcox sent the Belvidera into a battle she could not win. we got mad. I am hoping that George and his family can remove Wilcox. He risked not only a ship but also crew which I believe is even more precious. We see what happens with the admiralty. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Tiger Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Granger's family is quite powerful. However, the Wilcoxes are quite a force to be reckoned with. George knows this, and he risks much in trying to bring Admiral Wilcox down.
Mark Arbour Posted March 3, 2010 Author Posted March 3, 2010 You mean someone got to take a vacation??? I so need to renegotiate my contract. Wait a minute.....I thought you were in charge?
Mark Arbour Posted March 3, 2010 Author Posted March 3, 2010 Granger's family is quite powerful. However, the Wilcoxes are quite a force to be reckoned with. George knows this, and he risks much in trying to bring Admiral Wilcox down. It's an interesting power dynamic. The Wilcoxes are quite influential within the navy, while Granger's family is very influential outside of that. Much of what George has done is to act as a bridge to bring his family's influence to bear inside the navy, and to build his own influential network. Without his successes and contacts, he wouldn't have been able to attract such high-powered middies like Lennox, Fitzwilliam, and Cavendish.
ricky Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Mark's usual subtleness prevails once again. There was a key sentence hidden away in the text. "She went to Brentwood with the children," he said. "There were some ill humors in the air here in London, and she wanted to make sure they were safe." When Granger has time to reflect, he will see that Wilcox has made moves to injure his family and that will bring all tubes to bare. Perhaps even the King will intervene. After all he is filling the kings treasure house very well and wars are expensive to wage. And when Cavendish's report is made through his father . . . well let's just say I would like to see Mark spend a chapter entirely on his torture. And beautiful hot steamy sex; delightfully delivered, if you'll pardon the pun. However a scary relationship. A scorned lover of that magnitude could be dangerous. Well done Mark. But damn, they are so short. I could have read another thirty pages or so easily.
Tiger Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Wait a minute.....I thought you were in charge? I'm willing to fill in if necessary.
Enric Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 ch13: what an anarchy that Portuguese kingdom was... and the british.... the medicine was still? at a stage that they assigned health to humors of body btw, humors of town generally indicate possible contagious..... and also it could derive from perception of atmosphere... still, a Wilcox releasing smell in the town, would be good enough a reason to go to fresh country atmosphere. I am looking forward to hearing what the kinsmen the Dukes will do
Peter321 Posted March 5, 2010 Posted March 5, 2010 ch13: what an anarchy that Portuguese kingdom was... and the british.... the medicine was still? at a stage that they assigned health to humors of body btw, humors of town generally indicate possible contagious..... and also it could derive from perception of atmosphere... still, a Wilcox releasing smell in the town, would be good enough a reason to go to fresh country atmosphere. I am looking forward to hearing what the kinsmen the Dukes will do
Peter321 Posted March 5, 2010 Posted March 5, 2010 As you probably know, Medicine at the end of the 1700's was pretty primitive. They could do a decent job with wounds and fractures as long as there was no perforation of the lung or abdoiminal organs, and infection ("gangrene") didn't settle in. Their knowlege of diseases and their causes was very poor, however, and their ability to treat them was far worse. Physicians at that time were largely trained in the Greek tradition. This was more philosophical than scientific, although physicians could and did make very accurate observations and records of the symptoms and signs their patients experienced, and were certainly capable of applying their observations (Ex: Jenner and "vaccination" with cowpox as protection form the far deadlier smallpox) . Remember that it really wasn't until Louis Pasteur and Koch, well into the 1800's, that bacteria were identified and established as causes of disease (see Koch's Postulates). Sulfonamide antibitoics didn't make an appearance until circa 1930, Penicillin circa 1940. George is indeed fortunate to have a ship's doctor who is far above average for his time... as well as not being entirely straight, either!
Enric Posted March 5, 2010 Posted March 5, 2010 the Prince of Wales (another George) looked like this (when at his best, I think): http://www.royaltyguide.nl/images-families/welfen/hannover2/1762%20George-2.jpg In other words, a bit fattish blond..... Those Hanovers were prone to become obese. This Prince in his later years.....
Tiger Posted March 5, 2010 Posted March 5, 2010 You're right Peter. There's a reason why there's an association with pegged legs. It actually happened. Gangrene still threatens limbs even now, and farm animals are often put down because of it. Doctor on Belvidera seems to be a miracle worker, especially by the standards of that time.
ricky Posted March 5, 2010 Posted March 5, 2010 You're right Peter. There's a reason why there's an association with pegged legs. It actually happened. Gangrene still threatens limbs even now, and farm animals are often put down because of it. Doctor on Belvidera seems to be a miracle worker, especially by the standards of that time. One of the reasons is the belief that his operating area must be kept clean. That was not discovered until the early 1800's in most civilizations. That was when they started washing hands before or between patients so you did not infect wounds. But it makes a huge difference. Salt was also added to purify wounds. They had a plentiful supply and they believed that since it kept meats from putrification that it also might preserve meat still on the bone. In fact it did. There are many bacteria that are non-halodurics, meaning that they can't live in a salr environment. Strep and staff to name a couple. So the old wives tale of gargling with saltwater with the onset of a sore throat is in fact benificial. He was ahead of his time if this portion was generated from actual logs or journals. But in either case it is completely believable. the best lies have a little bit of recognizable truth woven into them.
Mark Arbour Posted March 5, 2010 Author Posted March 5, 2010 the Prince of Wales (another George) looked like this (when at his best, I think): http://www.royaltygu...%20George-2.jpg In other words, a bit fattish blond..... Those Hanovers were prone to become obese. This Prince in his later years..... Check out the way the artist painted his "bulge". Some of the royals were well known for being hung like horses (especially the Stuarts).
Tiger Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 Check out the way the artist painted his "bulge". Some of the royals were well known for being hung like horses (especially the Stuarts). Hmmmm... maybe the king and Granger should have a roll in the hay before the king goes bat shit crazy.
ricky Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 Hmmmm... maybe the king and Granger should have a roll in the hay before the king goes bat shit crazy. :king: Are you implying that it wasn't his ring they've been kissing all this time? I mean there had to be a reason they started that bowing or bending over stuff anyways right? I mean, I've never seen a, ". . . While you're down there." Written into the royal record butt you never know.
Mark Arbour Posted March 6, 2010 Author Posted March 6, 2010 Hmmmm... maybe the king and Granger should have a roll in the hay before the king goes bat shit crazy. Not the King.....but maybe his son.
Tiger Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 Not the King.....but maybe his son. Hmmmm... Granger sleeping with one of the most hated kings in British history? That could be interesting.
Mark Arbour Posted March 6, 2010 Author Posted March 6, 2010 Hmmmm... Granger sleeping with one of the most hated kings in British history? That could be interesting. Well, George III was definitely not the most popular or effective of British monarchs, although the country did quite well during his reign. His sons were more popular.
Tiger Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) Well, George III was definitely not the most popular or effective of British monarchs, although the country did quite well during his reign. His sons were more popular. George III is viewed negatively by Americans because he was king during the American Revolution. I think Brits view him differently. True it was that George III fell to mental illness. From what I've read, his daughter, Princess Amelia, died, and it drove him to insanity. George IV acted as regent, and even then people already knew of his debauchery, gluttony, and abhorrent spending habits. This is how George IV is viewed now: In a recent poll, the British public voted King George IV as Britain's worst-ever monarch. When his father, George III, was mad in the early 1800s, George IV reigned over the country as Prince Regent before he actually became king, all the time spending too much money and making nasty comments about his wife, Queen Caroline. The Daily Mail's Andrew Roberts names what he thinks are Britain's ten worst monarchs. In his list of unpopular English (or British, as they became in later centuries) monarchs, are King Stephen, King James II (who, like his father, Charles I, believed in Absolute Monarchy so it was lucky that he was defeated by his son-in law William III for the Crown), George IV, Mary, Henry VIII, Edward II (who was killed in 1327 by his wife's lover for being a homosexual, by having a red-hot poker shoved up his anus) and Edward VIII. Who will he choose as the most unpopular monarch? However, this doesn't mean that Andrew Roberts is republican (a country can have many unpopular presidents) and says that, equally, there have been many great British monarchs, including the current one..... Edited March 6, 2010 by Tiger
ricky Posted March 6, 2010 Posted March 6, 2010 Geez, if we did such a poll in the US over who was the most corrupt or the worst president we would be hard pressed to nail it down to just one crook. It has gotten to the point now, where the money required means that only the filthy rich can run for office anymore and no one with the money to get there wants the job. This last election was described best by my dear sister. She said it was like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end!
Recommended Posts