John Doe

I'm not in love with the ideas of an oversized wolf. I always imagine my werewolf anthropomorphic (with a tail). Like Underworld and such. Those are awesome butt kicking werewolves. Which is totally Alek (whose he? Read my storu! ) I don't think werewolves are seen as evil. There are a lot of places where they are the good guys, especially in contemporary popular stuff like movies and books. The Underworld series. Patricia Brigg's Mercy Thompson series. Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. In fact, werewolves tend to be like humans where it's the character of the werewolf that denotes it as a evil or good wolf (which makes complete sense to me). Humans can be very evil too. In fact, more often than not, I often think humans are more foul and evil than any creature: real or fake. Humanity gives Satan a run for his money.

This song has been running through my head lately... even though it's "new" I always get a sense of nostalgia because of the chorus lyrics...

Eh my two cents: I call my parents Mom and Dad. Normal family setting. But if I was straight and married I would call my inlaws Mom and Dad. Culturally, thats what we do. To call them anything else is very disrespectful. Even if they remarried later and we're in our 30s, we still call them Mom or Dad, depeding on the case. So assuming that in the future being gay becomes okay, I figure that parental name thing will still stick. I would still call my husband's father, "Dad." I could care less one way or another when I adopt or have my own kid if he called me Dad and my partner "Dad," even if he's my biological son. I wouldn't mind going the "Dad" and "Pa" route. And TrevorTime I'm sure if you have a conversation with your kid about whose what (biological vs. non-bio) they'll understand... Kids are smart. What you wrote almost seems to suggest that they'll forget if they call your partner "Dad" As GLBT family, you would have to have open communication within you family to begin with I think. Explain to your kids, why they have two fathers or mothers instead of a mom AND dad... or rather, not really explain to them, as they willl already notice, why they have two dads or moms but that they are no different from anyone else, their fmaily is no different from anyone elses... one day they will ask how kids are made and you can choose to lie to them (which I will advise against) or sit down and have a conversation. Again I will say it again kids are smart they will figure it out and they don't have the trained mindset to think that something is bad or wrong... especially about a type of relationship. In the end, I want to do what my child feels most comfortable with. You teach them to call you dad and they will. One day they will grow older and learn more about the world and if they want to call (if they are my biological) my partner dad or some other varient of dad that's fine too or even me. Or if they want to call him by his frist name... okay. If I adopted them with my partner and they grow up and want to call us by first name, that's fine. If they want to call us dad, okay too. Really, in the end, knowing that I loved the child and raised him/her with my best effort and intent, I hope they'll know and understand. Most people do come to that realization that you are his/her dad, blood related or not. (Or mom... just thinking from my perspective).

The only game I play now is a PC game: City of Heroes/Villians. Easy mechanics and unique customizable custome designs... powers and abilities aren't based on clothing parts.

As an art major, at my school beauty was a vigorous point of study. I want to point out that Beauty not only applies to people. If you want to read philosophical musing about Beauty read Kant. Though it speaks of art, his thoughts can also be applied to people. Personally, I think Beauty is deeply tied to emotions and experiences. In respects to physical beauty.. Booth is a good looking person, but I too find that he's also quite ordinary. I see guys like him walking around all the time. I'm not being sarcastic or exaggerating either. Too beautiful? No such thing (at least of the everyday human experience). I think for something to be too beautiful, there has to be an overload to the senses (an analogy) and a person is afterall a person. A human being. There's nothing etheral or otherwordly about him or any or anyone else for that matter... nothing to render our senses dull. Beauty is subjective. All depending on a person's view. Again, for me, I think people who gush over others have one of two mindsets (or both): they fail to see the Beauty in of themselves and/or they feel that they are lacking in some respect (or something - whether it be it large or small).... so thus claiming something to be beautiful means whatever holds beauty, in the eyes of the beholder, sees something they value that they themselves fail to see in them.

I found another one of these videos... "What would you do?" Enjoy and have a very small part of your faith in Humanity restored, if only for a second. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pf9hgcfnE4c#!

Jeez... the horse is dead.... in fact, its corpse has already decomposed and bones had turn to dust... I'll just say one thing and its kinda along the lines of what freakthefreakout is suggesting.... We (as a community) expect others to respect us and yet some of us can't even respect boundaries of other folks. Seduce a straight guy? Get real. It's as ridiculous as the notion that gay folks can be turned straight with whatever means. Stop it, if you're thinking this rubbish... it's setting those of us who care and respect others back a few decades. If you think you turned gay... yeah no... I can bet after a few serious conversation you are either were closeted gay or bisexual leaning male. If straight guys can turn gay then why are we fighting for equal rights? Why do we want equal treatment? After all, if they can turn gay... gays can turn straight. Wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Folks are being murdered for being gay. If you were pointed at gunpoint to be straight, you wouldn't miraclously truly turn straight. So stop dreaming about a straight guy turning gay for you. It ain't gonna happen. These so called straight men who consort with other men sexually aren't straight. Just cause they mostly consort with women, do "manly" things does not make them straight. It's called bisexual with a preference, but because being gay (liking the same sex) is such a negative, evil, ugly stigma they have to claim to be straight. If the world was accepting with no backlash many men and women would claim to be bisexuals. Heck people change their opinions about the smallest stuff... ever been with a friend who changed their mind about liking or disliking something (or maybe you've done it yourself)... Gay people are bad evil people. Most people are in the middle, who actually don't care one way or another... but the majority (the folks who scream the loudest) thinks we (GLBT community) are wrong... Most folks are lazy... dislike confrontation... so what do they do? Blend in with the crowd of course (change their opinion). Survival instincts. So they are now "straight." Think about it. Our lives are hard. People hate us. It's not some jolly stroll in the park. If you are unaware of the multitude, overwhleming hate and ignorance the GLBT community has to deal with, it's time to wake up and see the world. Those rose colored lenses aren't rosy... they're are tainted brown (if you get my drift). Don't delude yourself or lie to yourself. Personal freedom> pseudo love life. Respect yourself. Respect others. Be proud of who you are whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, male, female... don't let that go. But trying to seduce a straight guy? Turn gays straight? Where has your self respect gone? Whew... I just made sure I pounded the bone dust finely into the ground. Anyone else is welcome to pound it further into the ground. Yeah this isn't exactly one thing. I kinda went on a roll here.

Yeah and those folks in the screen captures aren't just white folks... poor reading skills and they have a psychological brain washing of some sort.... the guy had copper red skin = white guy.... her olive tan complexion and cool brown eyes = white girl, his dark rich skin contrasted vastly with the butter creme lotion = very very tan white guy... [bUT BUt But but... the author didn't say black, Asian, or American Indian... And the author definately stated white, riiiiight... Reread those again it says white person! ] It's almost as if those people have deluded themselves to think that if an author or decription doesn't flat out TELL them it's a black person, or Asian, or American Indian, etc. they automatically assume white... and then proceeds to tell themselves that indeed they were said as being white. Reminds me of a project an artist did back in the 80s, where she went and photographed little non white girls and asked them which doll they thought were prettier and more attractive and 9/10 said the white barbie or the white girl doll... Part of this I see is a form of cultural disassociation, negative cultural stigma, poor self image, and the concept that to be successful one have to be white. This country (US of A)pretends its over race, pretends to march forward in race, but it's still rooted in race... heck even women still are a degraded group of minority (and this isn't even about race) and women make up more than half of the populous. Sad thing indeed. Regardless, The Hunger Games is a great series. Check it out from your library (though you'll more than likely be waitlisted... my local branches has a waitlist of 400 plus peoples for the first book alone) or buy it.

Interesting... though if I go to LA I'd probably just gorge myself to death with food.... Asian food. RAMEN! All sorts of ramen! I'm not talking about that dried in Wal mart store crap kind... REAL ramen. Where they make the noodles fresh... or at least the broth fresh (and cooking for 48 hours mmmm)....Pho! Beef please! And dim sum... loads and loads of dim sum. Korean BBQ! Oh god how I want nice K-BBQ! The south and mountain west (where I lived previously) has no good Asian resturants and the only Chinese places are Americanized with nasty stuff.

They're a great series. There are three books totaled. The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. Story is believed to take place in the future in a ruined North America. Katniss is the protagonist in which she enters the games, santioned by the government, to survive and to take the palce of her little sister who was actually called to "serve." The books are written well. I am very much in love with the first book. It touches upon a lot of things: freedom, and it's meaning; government and how we allow them to control us; and then the driving emotions that make us who we are and do what we do. You should read the books. 214... ah that must be the worldwide combined total. Which made me think... how is it that Americans always spends so much money at the movies? 155 million for US (domestically, if you are American).... I believe in an article I read this movie pulled under 10 mil for the UK and 7 mil from the Aussies. Huge difference. It's not just this movie... Twilight, Harry Potter, and Avator... all made huge amounts in the US and moderate or less than moderate amounts elsewhere when compared to the US sum... difference of culture? Is our population difference really that vast? Economic inflation? It boggles my mind.

Well the movie is finally here. Well, it was release at midnight a half day ago (my time). I'll go see it after the rabid fans see it... something after next week. No offense to you fans on this forum but every midnight showing I've been through has been less than satisfactory because the kids are overly excited and more than a group has to talk through it all or make noises of all sort, whether its sighing, oooing and ahhhhing, or clapping, or the few who screams out at the screen just to be heard. Anyway, I am a very big fan of the books. So, did anyone go see it already? How was it? (Seems like the trailers for this movie can't be embedded... )

I had to share this 'cause I found it at work, while I was browsing the net for a book. It's humorous yet if you think about it, very true. Shows how easily people's mind can be warped and we can lie to ourselves that we are good and have done a good thing or that a person is good and has done a good thing. Glinda, you are one foul <bleep!>. Read the article here. Well, you should read just because I found it funny and kept laughing.

I found this blog article I thought was interesting. I whole hearted agree with the blogger... what's you guys' opinions? Here's what blogger says: "Readers of this blog know that I am not a big fan of the Gay4U trope in m/m romance. I understand why it’s popular and there are certainly authors who are able to do a good job with it. But I’m still not drawn to those storylines. As a faithful reader of category romances, I am not criticizing these books for being unrealistic (well, not much). I am criticizing readers and authors who defend them on the grounds that they are realistic. This distinction was crystallized for me when I was reading through a thread on a Goodreads board. I followed a link to a post defending a 2011 release against reviewers’ criticisms. I haven’t read the book in question, so I don’t have anything to say about the debate over the book, but these passages caught my eye: As [the author] says, “Out for You” is how most gay men figure themselves out sexually, at whatever age they come to terms with their sexuality. They meet someone who arouses feelings that makes them question their self-image.” . . . I would guess that “Out for You” happens more often than not. I don’t disagree that individuals (gay or straight) learn about aspects of their sexuality through the process of becoming attracted to other people. I take issue, however, with the idea that Out4U happens “more often than not,” especially in the way that it’s depicted in m/m romance. Thinking of oneself as gay and living in society as a gay person involves identity, not just the gender of one’s sexual partners, or everyone who has ever had a same-sex encounter of any type would qualify as gay or bi, regardless of how they thought about themselves. But that’s not the way we use the terms. I also don’t have a problem with readers enjoying storylines that focus on Gay4U or Out4U scenarios. Sometimes they’re ridiculously unbelievable, but sometimes they’re fun to read. It’s all in the author’s hands. But readers and authors, please, don’t justify your enjoyment of the trope by referring to real-life scenarios. In real life, a person who has recently come out of the closet has just undergone a profound psychological stressor, and the decision usually has major ramifications for his place in his immediate and extended community. Some people may be able to enter into a healthy, committed new relationship while simultaneously navigating that process, but many will not. There’s a reason why gay men who have been out for a while often avoid relationships with the newly un-closeted. As for Gay4U in real life, I can’t say it better than TeddyPig did: The truth is Gay Men who accept themselves and their feelings do not like hanging out with losers who do not anymore than any Straight Woman would. Stories that explore the messy, complicated issues that arise for these individuals and couples aren’t generally what romance readers want to encounter in the genre. And as a faithful reader of category romance, that makes total sense to me. But, as someone who reads both genres, I’m puzzled by the argument that m/m is so very different from Harlequin, especially when it’s made in the context of defending Out4U as a storyline choice. The genres may differ in terms of who loves whom and the amount of explicit sex, but they share a lot of common ground when it comes to their level of (un)reality. Harlequin readers don’t defend their enjoyment of sheikh-virgin and billionaire-secretary stories by claiming they reflect real life. Gay4U and Out4U are enjoyable, escapist, fantasy scenarios; why not just leave it at that?" (Source Here)

My heart did a gazillion flutters for you! I'm excited for you! This is awesome. I know you can't reveal too much info, but is the title still going to be the same? Published under what name? KC Grim? Just so I know to look out for it.

What an excellant way of putting it. At least, that's what I think. Thank you for you insights, everyone. jfalkon, whatever the means and whatever your choices are, I pray and wish for the best for you and everyone out there.

its important to an extent. If you say, "this is a ranch home." You still have to describe because some folks will have no idea what a ranch home look like. So getting the term down wouldn't matter too much. Rather give readers a short and concise visual descriptions. "The black shingled roof house stood on a dilapilated hill. Its walls were painted bright pink - too bright for the eyes, massive windows scaled the walls, a spire rose from the top of the house like a cathedral tower. Green vines covered the bottom portion of the house like worms struggling out of the soil. Despite its gaudyness, the house radiated a homeliness." Eh that was my quick attempt to invoke a house. Here readers should get a feel for the house. Oh a better example would be Poe's (yes the famous one) Fall of the House of Usher. He describes his house very well with a few sentences. Interesting way and it also creates a feel for the inhabitants living in the house. If you want to go the more descrptive route. Really, in the end, the type or name style of a house don't matter all that much.

Do a search for google images for "shingle style homes" and I think the pictures of the houses look similar to the ones you posted... though they are missing the overly decorative panel arches. They look more like the bottom pictures you reposted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingle_style_architecture The time period seems right too. And these styles of homes were commisioned by the rich and wealthy. Are you doing this for a story you are writing? Maybe we can be of more use that way... what is the intention for this information? (jeez that sounded very accusatory... )

This was what I was trying to get at. The term use to describe a person. Somedays even the term homosexual is kinda weird for me. I was wondering how others felt. Thanks for the responses. Arpeggio, don't pay any attention to those fools. You are who you are.

Oh I clicked over a few pages and viola! I think I found your house classification: Shingle Style! ^ Right here! This house! Yeah? Yeah? (I still think its also a mix but overall.... )

Archtecture like art are categorized the same across the globe. Impressionist, rococo, pointalism... all the same thing and category globalwide. This house looks to be a mix of two or more styles. So it most likely end up being considered "contemporary." I know most Americans unless familiar with the architecture industry, I mean real architecture, those guys building homes some know nothing about classifying homes, its those who actually desgin and draw the blueprints. Builder read the blueprints, but are not always familiar with style. Anyway most folks don't even know the differences in home design, couldn't tell if a house was a cape home, or ranch home, cabin styled. So what I guess I'm trying to say is use what you know... call it Swiss Villa, if that's what you and most folks in your area call it then its most likely right, assuming someone there knows what they are talking about. This house for sure is a blend of styles. Here's what Better Home and Garden (which I would say is a reliable source) has to say [things in bracket are my words]: http://www.bhg.com/home-improvement/exteriors/curb-appeal/house-styles/#page=12 New Home Additions Juxtaposing building materials and mixing window shapes [oh! that's your picture!] create architectural intrigue between this home and its addition. Although they were built at different times and feature radically contrasting materials and elements, they are connected by a playful use of angles and a passion for strong geometry [which is what your picture seems to resemble]. You will often see elements of different styles combined in one home [seems like we got a winner explanation here! ]. It's a product of one era moving into another while retaining some features of the previous period, and it can easily be adapted to your design scheme. Although you should avoid a hodgepodge of styles, you can alter a particular style for your addition, especially considering the many house styles to choose from. Once you understand the style of your existing home, you can thoughtfully move forward with the design of your addition. Okay, back to reviewing your picture. You can see clearly where the addtion split is in your picture. The boarded side and triangular window frame. Two different structure styles, one house. I say structure because like someone else has pointed the building material seems to cross over into other styles, which is a minor detail compared to the structure and overall image of the home.

Okay, so I was writing a fake speech (more like a rant) about the liberties of people... and somewhere along in it... I was going off about how I don't care what you are whether you're <insert a long list of social groupings> I would want to see a world where everyone can be who they want to be and believe in things that want ot believe in without hindering anyone else in the process. I came across transgender in this long list. I have always thought about what I'm going to ask next, but today I thought harder about it than any other time. Since I'm not transgender or will never be in that position... and I have my own prejudices (good and bad probably) I don't think I have thought about transgender folks the "right" way. Mind you, nothing negative. Here's the point: for me, I have always referred to a transgender person as what they see themselves. For instance, if its a female whose in the male-process, I'll call the person a "he." I was just curious and directing my question to our transgender populous on here, what you think (I know it all varies from person to person)... It's not anything like a name, where you can say call me, <insert name>. If I knew everyone's name this middle ground wouldn't be an issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is... do you consider yourself transgender? Take the word itself... 'trans' means to move or movement of some sort (loosely) for example: transport, transit, etc. So to be transgender... a person is moving from one gender to the other (again simplified). Instead of taking into consideration the "process," why not use the identity the person has afliated him/herself with? For me, I see transgender as a process... and something makes me slightly uncomfortable when I hear transgender... I'm assuming it's just me and that I have an issue with the word transgender and its implication that here I have a grey area and not something black and white, on one side of the fence...

Cool I'll check it out! .... and I clicked "liked" thanks for sharing! I just watched it again... man it gives me the chills... folks you have to watch it all the way through...

Well, you're part of it whether you want to or not. Just a video I wanted to share. For me it was very moving.

LOL I accidently stumbled on this page... wow... I can say I was blushing as I was reading this... I share the same sentiments as EmDee. Thanks everyone for reading my works and patiently wait for new chapters. I know I can't thank you all enough, but a big thanks anyway!