Westie

White guys, but not like you..... not sure you could pull off "puritan" very well (just to add a little levity...)

When struggling to keep it classy, I find it easier to redefine "class" in my mind.... Anyway, this last chapter was so awesome I'm going to completely ignore the bit about the College of Heralds (ahem, College of arms) and revel in poetic license Loved the writing Mark...

I have to say that I disagree here. This family has always had complex borders between family and partners. JP and Stef are in fact first cousins. Robbie's dad and Brad's adoptive mother are together. Brad had a brief sojourn with his own cousin, Kevin (Sergio). I don't find it particularly heinous that a man has sex with his partners-son's-boyfriend in these circumstanced. Wade and Matt have an open relationship. Matt told Brad during millennium that if the opportunity ever came up, that he must take it. And we must also note that while Matt is a fully accepted member of the family, he didn't grow up as their child. Robbie is his biological father, but Edward is "Dad" to Matt. In a normal family, I would agree that this would add a horror dimension - but I do not believe that in this family this is justifiably the case. Especially in circumstances where Robbie had effectively (and unreasonably) rejected Brad. Personally, I think to come to a Christmas Dinner, make everyone uncomfortable and then sneak off to a room to cheat on your partner while in the same house is pretty much on par. Yes they need to realise that there are more important things to deal with than who cheated first and how often - but at the same time I think they need to seriously consider whether they - having both been driven to cheating in extremis - can continue to be together. I would say that unless they repair the actual damage from Millennium, instead of hiding it under a veneer of renewed "honeymoon stage"... they are not meant to stay together for the long run.

I know some people at Mark's yahoo group had some "issues" with the prospect of assassination. I don't. Rather like the death penalty, I'm "meh" on the subject. I know I SHOULD be passionate, one way or another, but the truth is I couldn't care less. PS - as a side note - should the date at the top of the chapter not read 25th December? It's past 2am.... (sorry.... pedantic prick coming through...)

Cliff hangers are one things, but cliff-spoilers/hints? Not cool man

Nothing you wrote struck me as out of place.... the only thing that really jarred was that Windows 2000 was predominantly a business version of windows, the consumer variant at this time being Windows ME. However, I chalked this up to them being a wealthy family and probably wanting a more secure setup than the standard consumer version.

That's some ego you've got to think that once tied up we....read your stories?? Personally I can think of much more interesting activities to do when tied up..... And who says it's paya that likes being tied up, huh?

So yea..... I'm awesome when I make predictions and they come true.... I'm turning into Paya

Awesome. Paya is away for a week and i'm so lonely! but not with Granger around !!! Thanks for posting !!!! it made my day !!!

I've "liked" two of Tim's posts in a row.... this is very disturbing for me ...

I just want to address two points and then I will drop this. The first point is I want to make is because I really do not want to offend anyone, so I want to be clear. I have a genuine respect and sympathy for those people who suffer mental disorders. Personality disorders, clinical depression and other such illnesses deserve recognition as medical conditions and I did not intend to imply a weakness to people suffering those conditions. My experience here is that those people are strong and brave. That said, what I was referring to as a "weakness" is what I see as a trend towards pop- and self- psychology, whereby increasing numbers of the population use genuine illness name-tags to describe issues in their day to day life, and to excuse failings. The biggest catch all here is "stress". I recognise that "stress" can have a specific medical meaning, but it also seems to be increasingly used as something to hold on to - a validation that allows people to avoid personal responsibility. This devalues the genuine condition to the point where the diagnosis is no longer socially accepted and indeed it becomes mocked. People who use the label too easily do so at the expense of genuine sufferers of mental illness. The second point I wanted to make i that i do not reject science. I have a huge respect for empirically valid study; but what I'm questioning is the quality of that science. I do so from a common sense approach, essentially thus: Our personalities are created through the entire sum of our human experience, both personal (largely) and collective (vicariously). When a study comes along that says "When event(s) A occur, B personality trait becomes more likely", the question I ask myself is, how can that study have possibly taken into account every aspect and variable possible through the participants life experience? Not only that, but as we know that genetics can play a part in how your mind is shaped, how can these studies accurately account for these variables without sample sizes into the millions? I don't question science; I question the quality of that science. We know too little to make valid assumptions. Thats why I believe my anecdotal evidence is at least on par with the science. Show me a vast improvement in our ability to make those assumptions and I assure you; I will change my opinion in a heartbeat.

This is the major problem with the Nanny state that exists and is getting worse in the western world.... people want to "monitor" everything to prevent bad things happening. It's based on the flawed assumption that you cannot trust the majority because of the potential actions of a minority. Its like me saying to you that we are banning decongestant for everyone because a minority use it to create crystal meth, so we can't trust any of you. If that same principle is applied everywhere, it's seen as absurd - except when it comes to a parent exercising due control with a child. Yes, a single, solitary, ONE instance of a parent going too far is too much - but do you really think making spanking illegal is in any way going to stop an abusive parent? In the same way that laws against domestic violence caused a collapse in domestic abuse??? Or wait... it didn't. This is a gross overreaction of an increasingly liberal state that equates all forms of "hurt" with abuse.

I want to put my comments into the context of my life experience, because I don't want anyone to misunderstand where I am coming from with this. My stepfather used to go overboard. Yes, there were the canes, or tree branches (and remember, this is the mid 1990's). But I also remember being kicked backwards down the hallway, and trying to get away as he kicked and kicked some more, before my back was at the top of the stairs - one more kick would have knocked me down.... he kicked me again. I remember being punched in the face for forgetting to clean my teeth. I remember my brother being hit harder and harder and harder because he wouldn't cry out. I understand better than most that some parents go too far. But I reject totally and emphatically the argument that "who judges when it goes too far"... There is a difference between disciplining a child, and maiming them, and it is clear cut. Basically, anything that causes substantial harm is grievous bodily harm (I don't know what the US legal equivalent is). But a few swift and sharp spanks is not going to harm. Now I know there are all these studies that tell you that there is no positive to spanking and a lot of negatives. There have been studies that show various scary consequences, and they are written by well respected bodies and such. But I think they are so much BS. And here is why... For over a thousand years in the UK certainly, corporal punishment was the main recourse to instill discipline into both Children and Adults. I see no evidence over that 1000 years that tells me that it did anything other than build character, and do its job. The british armed forces were some of the most effective in the world. British Public Schools (i.e. private schools) were exceptional. The Royal Navy was second to none. even George Granger orders a flogging or two to ensure discipline on his ship. I know we have our modern methods and that this all seems barbaric, but I am of the mind that modern psychology has made the human race WEAK. Nobody copes anymore. With anything. "Stress" is an increasingly common word. Every action has an underlying motive, and at the end of every crisis everyone needs "closure". There is a syndrome or a diagnosis for everything and a little happy pill to make it all go away, and all the time we don't notice that actually the thing we think is making us a stronger person is actually something we are Dependant on... A rebuke by force with either a hand or a slipper, hard enough to be painful, but not to cause damage, used on the rarest of occasions is a good deterrent, and will not, in my view cause any problems. Show me any "study" you like but if this is the same "psychology" that is singlehandedly weakening civilisation, I promise you I will disregard it.

There might not be anything like a "normal" kid, but there are certainly shades of strange. JJ's personality is definitely coloured outside the lines. Hell, it's probably scribbled on the next page too. That kid needs some serious discipline. My step father used to like using a cane or birch branch - I wouldn't go that far, but in this case (and I'm not an advocate of this for 99% of kids), this guy needs some corporal punishment.

I'm convinced that the only way JJ is going to grow up is with some tough parenting. The permissive model does not work in this case. That kid needs some stronger boundaries. He needs to clearly see that his actions have consequences. And those consequences need to be harsh and severe enough to get through to him. Actually, I think JJ could do with some kind of military school. There are subtle differences between Will and JJ. With Will, there was at least the notion that his actions were JUST.... he rebelled because of perceived wrongs (which he could articulate clearly and logically) and his arguments somewhat stood up under scrutiny. JJ is destructive in a way that serves no purpose, is unjustified and damages those around him. I do not think that giving this kid MORE space - by sending him away to New York etc - is a good idea. He needs to be put on a tight leash like.... well, like a normal kid.

I think mark may have given is a clue in the last chapter... I think JJ's new coach may be part of the problem??

I didn't say it would be easy.... I suspect it's gonna be a bloodbath. Maybe JJ will file for emancipation too.... and get shot down in flames....

The last chapter was an interesting one more for what it set up to happen next than anything else.... I think over the next week (in story time) JJ is going to be reined in a little, and it will be make or break for Robbie and Brad...

take the experience, write it up.... send it into eastenders as a script for their latest storyline ! Wow

Effeminate or macho is no link between top and bottom... And you might find that the proclivities of the main characters in this series are more a reflection of the authors preferences (to read/write/fantasise about) than anything else

My resolution is 1600 x 900

Lark 2.0 (.... if I were to continue to make parallels with Be Rad.... which I'm not.... much)

Generally, but not entirely. For instance, a company like Anders Hayes would have a pension fund for its employees. Even if they did not administer the fund itself (for example, by contracting it out), directors still have responsibilities to ensure the proper administration of those assets. What I am saying is that the responsibility of a director does not end with the corporate equity. Directors are also responsible for holding the executive management to account. This is not just a fiduciary responsibility. They have a responsibility to ensure compliance to certain regulations, the most obvious of which is health and safety. While you and Tim are right that in reality, those responsibilities are enforced only as far as the shareholders enforce them, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that regardless of the consequences (or lack of them), Brad and Stef are not responsibly exercising their duties as directors, which is a gross betrayal of the employees. If anything happened at Anders Hayes and they were shown to have failed in their responsibilities, shareholders and directors at other companies where they maintain an interest might legitimately have grounds to question their competence. This makes their "hands off" approach seem all the more stupid.

Your legal responsibilities as a director are the same regardless of being a family company or not; but of course you are right in that those responsibilities are enfored in a different way. If you had the chairman of a public company so detatched, the public shareholders would demand his removal - whereas in the case of Anders Hayes nobody gives a hoot. I guess the point I was making is that no matter how rich you are, the value of Anders Hayes is significant - and we are expected to believe that Stef is such an exceptional businessman. It seems absurd that he would let such a part of his portfolio - a company that after all is Greg's legacy - go literally unsupervised. As for leveraging a bid, you are right that it would be hard for a speculative bid; however Robbie is an insider, and he has knowledge that both Brad and Stef are motivated to sell - in such circumstances, arranging a partnership and subsequent finance wouldn't be too difficult (in my opinion). Of course, my experience of such things relates to Private companies in the UK (I was involved in both an MBO and a move from an AIM listing to an LSE listing), and my experience is also in the UK construction sector in 2008, which I am willing to concede is as different to Hollywood in 2000 as chalk is to cheese. I was also a middle manager in the process - so its possible I wasn't privy to all the information my bosses were. West

I will give it an A+, though I was puzzled that Will holding proxy for 17.5% of the company was enough to allow him access to a Board meeting... I guess it would depend on the articles of association (... incorporation in the US???), but having a vote on the board, and having one at a shareholders meeting are two very different things. Additionally, I thought that Stef was Chairman of the Board at Anders Hayes? Shouldn't he have been leading the meeting, and then hand over to Robbie? Moreover, as Chairman of the Board, shouldn't Stef have been much better appraised of the financial and performance related issues at Anders Hayes? It seems to me that for too long (because Robbie is "family") these two directors - Stef and Brad - have failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities. Otherwise, would they not have been much better appraised? It's a good job there are no other shareholders in the firm quite frankly... Finally, they didn't ask the obvious question, which was how much of the increased performance was generated by the capital structure changes that took place in millennium? Following Brad's buy out of Marcel and the change to the corporate rules on profit distribution, Robbie has access to more cash. What return have these seen? It would be interesting to see the extra value added per dollar on previous budgets compared to the enlarged one? I.e. - was the "new" money as efficient as the "old" money. One more thought - in 2000, I don't think it would be a problem for a media company like Ander's Hayes to leverage a buyout. Moreover, Robbie could easily bring in a new partner to provide 15% capital, take on 50% debt and Robbie would find himself in control of the company with a 70%(against 30%) controlling interest. If he stops to think about it, Stef's threat means not much at all. If Robbie is worth the $40 million referenced in a previous chapter, that means the very most Anders Hayes is worth is $114.5 million. He would need to find someone willing to put up $17.14 million to buy out at 50% leverage. This is Hollywood and Robbie is one of the most successful producers out there - he wouldn't struggle for partners, and definitely not at such a low price. Moreover, the changes to the capital structure referenced earlier - not having gone through a full profit cycle yet - would massively increase the value of the company in retained earnings alone. West