AFriendlyFace

I have cable internet as well. I didn't see an option for cable (or I didn't understand what the choices meant) so I picked "other". I have no idea how quickly it downloads or uploads on average...all I know is it's called "cable" and I send them money every month. What is "ADSL"? Or "ISDN" for that matter? These are both completely new acronyms to me. I'm familiar with DSL...well I mean I've heard of it, and as I understand it, it also goes over the phone lines (like Dial up), but it uses a different thingy so it doesn't tie up phone lines (?), and it's generally about comparable to cable depending, as I understand it, on how near you are to the source and how many other people are on that "network"...is that correct? Anyway, is ADSL some kinda new version? The only connection types in my vernacular are/were "Dial up, cable, DSL, and T # (I've heard of T 1, and T 3, and I'm assuming there's a T 2 as well...I really don't know what they mean or how they work though). Anyway, despite being pretty ill-informed about the terms used, and how they process works I've actually been "online" for quite a long time; my family was one of the first to "jump on the bandwagon" in the 90s, and once I moved out on my own I jumped on the "broadband wagon". Cable is certainly a massive improvement over Dial up. I don't think I'd even attempt to serf the net using dial up anymore. (I understand it's even slower now than it was back in the day due to the large, more complicated web pages). Take care all, Kevin

I think his only motive, and certainly sufficient enough from his standpoint, for killing the band (apart from being irritated with Eric) is his desire to make sure his tracks are well-covered and that no one figures out where the nuclear weapons (which he intends to transport secretively mixed in with the band equipment) are hidden. I enjoyed this chapter (and the three preceding it since I had several to catch up on ) Like some other mentioned I'm eager to see what's going on with Lump. I'm also very eager to discover what happens next with Steve and Wilde. Take care and have a great day! Kevin

I'm going to have to completely agree with Demetz on this. Unless there's a very good reason for you stay in the area you're in (which obviously I can't tell based on this single post) I say do whatever it takes to get out and get to reasonable sized city or a liberal state. Sure, those are all very good reasons why one shouldn't risk it, and indeed if you look for reasons not to, you won't, but if your situation and the local climate is seriously as bad as you say it is do what it takes. I'm assuming you aren't married and don't have kids (this could be incorrect but just an assumption), in which case your biggest concern, peoplewise, is probably family and a few close friends. Well you can still keep in touch with them, and if they really care about you they'll want you to be happy. Finding a new job isn't easy, and obviously I don't know what your occupation is; however, sites like Monster and Craigslist make it very easy to line up work in whichever new city you choose before moving there. You can also use the internet (including Craigslist for example) to look into finding a roommate for a few months after you first move. Sure you may not really want a roommate, much less a stranger, but if money, or just the logistics of finding a place to live, are a concern then you might want to go this route, at least until you can physically go pick out a long term place. Again, finding a roommate shouldn't be that hard. Most major cities have an ample supply of people looking for someone to just come and rent a room for a couple months to off-set bills. This will also enable you to sell/give away most of your furniture (if necessary) for a little extra cash and facilitate a much easier move. You can probably "interview" potential roommates fairly thoroughly beforehand via email, IM, and of course the telephone. You can also be very upfront about your desires for a roommate. For instance if it's important that the person be gay or gay-friendly, you can just go ahead and put that in your info. And all of that is worst case scenario. If you are in a financial/work/time situation that allows for a more comfortable, easier move, then you can do things more smoothly. Well, I have some first hand experience in this. When I moved two years ago I didn't know a soul in my new state, I had only been to the city once for a few days several months earlier (during which time my sole objective was finding a place to live), I hadn't already lined up a job (which was very foolish in retrospect, but it worked out ), and I was moving to one of the busiest, largest cities in the country. And I did just finewonderfully! I was already pretty happy to begin with, but I have to say I'm even happier now. I've gotten very familiar and comfortable with the city (in fact I often end up directing natives), I probably have more and closer friends than ever before, I've seen and experienced things I couldn't possibly have hoped for prior to coming, and I've already accumulated a wonderful amount of stories, experiences, and memories. It was probably the best major decision I've made in my adult life. Obviously I'm not trying to force you or anything. You know your situation better than any of us, and obviously you should consider things from every angle, I'm just saying it's a very good option, and it's very possible. Hmm, well again, I'm biased toward coming out. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where I had to be in the closet and worse thought that those things would happen if I weren't (thus my suggestion to move). Since I've never been in that situation I won't say it's definitely worth it to come out no matter what. I will say that the way you come out, and the way you act once you are out can make all the difference. For one thing it's important to be confident when coming out and when living as an out person. If you act like you don't expect anyone to give you any grief, they're less likely to. Don't go picking fights, but don't give the impression that you'll let people treat you badly without standing up for yourself. Be positive too. If you're an upbeat, happy person that people like anyway, they'll be less likely to turn on you if you come out. In fact you might find yourself as one of those people for whom others create the phrase, "well, I don't like gay people, they're too ___...but you're not really like them." When I was in high school one of my friends came out (I wasn't out in high school), and the general sentiment, as voiced by one of the other guys in my class was, "well, who can dislike him?". Obviously these aren't perfect, foolproof suggestions. Sometimes it doesn't matter how strong and confident you are, the occasional jerk will still give you trouble. Similarly, some people do completely turn on and hate people they would otherwise like for no other reason than their sexuality. Nevertheless, it's as good a starting place as any. One more suggestion, and yes I'm still suggesting moving, but on a lesser scale. There's perhaps no good reason to completely uproot yourself and move far away, often the climate can be much better in even a "relatively large" city. For example, despite being from a fairly conservative state (LA) prior to moving to Houston, I could still have had a reasonably safe and comfortable life as an out person in either of the two fairly large cities I lived in before this one. However, they just weren't big enough, and "gay enough" to have as many resources, activities, and as large a "gay community" as I wanted, so I didn't hang around (plus in all honesty I wanted the adventure of going somewhere completely new and trying something completely different). Your info indicates you're from Georgia; why not try Atlanta? Or at least try spending time in Atlanta? If not Atlanta, why not just Savannah or Macon? I've never been there, but I'm assuming it's not too "backwoods". Sometimes just spending time (like a weekend, or even just an evening) in a new, accepting - or at least neutral - place can do you a great deal of good! I know these places must have some gay life. Even if bars and clubs aren't your scene I bet there's also coffeehouses and restaurants. I also just did a search and there's a PFLAG chapter in Albany (which if you are in S Georgia can't be that far from you). Also, if you are in S. Georgia why not swing down to Florida whenever possible? I know the climate for gays is much better there! Just a few suggestions Take care and have an awesome day! -Kevin

Well let's see, I'm not seeing anyone and I just spent my evening bringing my very sick best friend chicken soup and chilling with him for a few hours to cheer him up. Since it's unlikely I'll be seeing someone within the next two days, and equally unlikely that he'll be recovered, much less be willing to spend Valentine's day alone, I suspect my V-day will look very similar to tonight. Even if we subtract the soup and fever, I'll probably still just be spending the evening hanging out with my single friend(s) and listening to complaints about being single. If I were desperate I could probably call up the last guy I was seeing and set up some last minute plans. I ended things with him on very good terms, and he'd probably go for the idea. He's very cute and sweet...but I think that would be a pretty crummy thing for me to do since I really have no interest in getting back together with him. Besides I don't need a date on a silly made up holiday to make myself feel desirable ...oh wait, you weren't looking for Valentine's day negativity with this thread were you? That sounds like a really good idea, Joe! After all you know it's serious when you take the pollution levels into account! I'm sure whatever you do he'll think it's great as long as you make the effort -Kevin

Eugh, I should just give you my mother's phone number and let her tell you She's quite obsessive about this...as a result I've never been particularly interested She's about 50% German, 40% French, and about 10% various other European My dad (yes, she's researched his side too ). Is nearly all English with a bit of Irish. Thus I guess that makes me predominately English, German, and French, and indeed I guess if I have to culturally identify with someone it would be those three and probably in that order. From what she tells me she's traced our line all the way back to Roman times and found all sorts of kings, queens, and other nobleman. I will say this, though I doubt it's related much to my ancestry (especially given that all branches of my family have been here for several generations at least), I don't feel particularly "American". Some aspects of the "American Culture" I can identify with readily, but overall I think I'd probably be more comfortable in a more slow paced, laid-back, liberal European country. Although, it's certainly more likely that I'll eventually immigrate to Canada. Still, much of that could be a general irritation with the current climate. Also, while I have quite a few good things to say about the South, and while I'm very happy with my current city, I think the west coast (California probably) or the east coast (NY or Mass), would be a better fit. -Kevin

You should go and vote then My impression is that Owen intended to do that, but when he got there ended up losing his temper and getting angry. -Kevin

Nifty quotes

Billy Brown - Mika

Hahaha! I was thinking something like that too. A buncha bells and whistles and balloons dropping! ....we'll probably scare the poor new person so much he/she will run away If you really hate to double post you can always edit your previous post to add anything you've forgotten

Relativism is inescapable! It's the way of the future Anyway, I stated above that for me relativism far, far exceeds simple "moral relativism"; as I said it forms the core of my way of looking at and interacting with world. Moral relativism itself in the purist form is a complicated animal. Many aspects of it I agree with, some I don't. For example, to answer your question about slavery, no I don't think the slave owners themselves were immoral, at least not en mass. The practice of slavery, in my opinion, was immoral; however, that does not mean that the practitioners themselves were immoral. If they were conditioned to believe that their actions were justifiable and if they never questioned this belief then while I think the actions were "immoral", I wouldn't consider the people immoral. Similarly I would consider it immoral for an American of today to own slaves because today's people should "know better". Thus in a sense I agree with moral relativism in this matter, and in a sense I don't. I'm very, very hesitant to actually label individual people as immoral, or worse "evil". I'm not so reluctant to labels their actions as "immoral" or "evil", but in order to label someone themselves as "evil" I believe their motivations and intentions are paramount. Since very few people willfully do what they know to be wrong and immoral I think there are very few people whom I would label as "immoral" or "evil". Doing so is...short-sighted. To use a more controversial, but resonating example, I do not assume the perpetrators of the 9/11 bombing are "evil". I think it was a horrible thing, and I think the actions are terrible, but I think chances are most of those individuals sincerely believed they were doing what was "right" or even "noble". Obviously I disagree, and obviously I don't think they should be allowed to do those things; however, that doesn't make them "evil" only "mistaken". It seems that unlike most people I do not feel the need to morally "condemn" someone to very adamantly condemn and fight against their actions and beliefs. Another good example is Christian Evangelicals who bolster homophobia. Obviously I'm no fan of homophobia and I will go to great lengths to stop them or discredit them. I will delight when they fail or get humiliated because their message is my enemy and so they too are my enemy. However, I do not think they are "evil" or "bad". In fact I think most of them are very sincere and "good", and in many ways admirable even. I will nevertheless combat their intolerant messages aggressively. Many people seem to have to believe that their enemy is completely evil or bad to feel strong, confident, and righteous enough to do something to stop them...I find that very sad and confusing. People, and certainly the world, are much better off when everyone remembers that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they themselves are repugnant. That is the sort of lazy, closed-minded absolutism I find very off-putting. I agree that this is an excellent guide to morality Indeed, if I could instill one moral guideline in my child - or anyone for that matter - it would be this one. For example all the cases above that I agreed were immoral would be solved by following this guideline. Do I want to be enslaved myself? No Do I want someone to come and attack me? No Do I want someone to tell me I can't be with the one I love and am attracted to? No again! Do I want someone to feed me when I'm starving? Yes Do I want someone to forgive me when I err? Yes Do I want someone to treat me kindly when I venture into foreign places? Yes again! Another guiding principle I have when deciding how to live or what to do, is to simply remember one simple belief which I consider true in the majority of cases: The world would be a much better place if everyone minded their own damn business and left everyone else alone. Well said, quiet. I agree that these are very good books, and should probably be required reading for humanity. I certainly can't imagine people frowning on this post, and if they do...well let them frown Have an awesome day all! Kevin

Hey me too!!

That would certainly be nice

Billy Brown - Mika

Great!

Nice word choice!

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, and I already understood that to be your position. But that's not quite what I meant to ask. As I see it all of that goes back to the concept of there not being any "universal" or "absolute" definition of what it is to have meaning, of which we are in agreement. My question is more of whether or not you agree that there is relative meaning in a subjective sense. I already agree that there isn't in an absolute, objective sense. You say that your happiness is important to you, thus I would think that to you it had significance and meaning. Is this the case? If it is the case then to me that means that you do believe in relative meaning. If you do believe in relative meaning (which I conclude is indeed the case based on your statement that your happiness has meaning to you). Furthermore, it appears that you also have a "relative" sense of what is "right" or "wrong". Once again we are in agreement that there is no objective, universal standard, and yet you do have a moral code by which you live. As I understand it you would find, for example, torturing an innocent person for no reason, to be something that would violate your morals and ethical code. Thus, if there is no objective and absolute rule that says torturing innocent people is wrong, then this is a relative wrong which you've personally adopted. So with those two assumptions in mind (and please correct me if I've misconstrued either) then what I'm primarily curious about is where exactly you "draw the line" which prevents you from labeling yourself, or being labeled as, a relativist (with relativism being defined, in this context, as something which has relative meaning and is "right" or "wrong" in a relative sense)? I'm not trying to argue that you are a relativist (although by my...relative definition it appears that you are), what I'm mostly curious about is how someone who holds themselves to be a nihilist and yet has an individual sense of meaning and ethics, makes this distinction. -Kevin

That's what I meant when I said it was correct but not the whole story Also, when you mention effeminate men and tom boyish girls, I think you're referring to something completely different that deals more with intersex and androgenous individuals than your average run of the mill slightly femme boy or butch girl. These later individuals don't have a genetic disorder. Leave it to a couple of gay guys to "design" their own child -Kevin

Wow that's cool! I have an acquaintance who maintains that he knows Clay, and that the singer actually is out in his private life. Of course I'm not sure I believe him, since I barely know him and he seems like the sort that talks a big game.

Don't Stop the music by Rihana

Personally, I'd be so happy about having risen from the dead - presumably after a span of time sufficient for someone else to finish my story no less - that I'd just get over it and do something else (like appear on Oprah, or write memoirs about life after death) -Kevin

Well said Rebuilding trust can be very difficult to do though. I know I'm concerned that I personally seem to be able to trust anyone...once

Amen to that!!! LOL, but the question is, whose belly are you rubbing every night?

Darn it, if Graeme didn't post almost my exact thoughts on this before I got the chance!

Well, my gaydar is of the opinion that there's little doubt about Mika's homosexuality, and Ricky's at the very least bi I suppose Lance has been good for the gay community, even though he's never interested me much either way. It does seem like the awareness has helped, and for the most part he's been a suitable spokesman. I think Mika would be excellent if he came out. He seems like a happy, comfortable person. Conversely I don't think anyone's really still in doubt about Clay Aiken, but he seems like the sort that wouldn't do us any good by coming out (he strikes me as heavily conflicted and more than a little neurotic).

Graeme's post I'm inclined to agree with. I certainly love many people in many different ways. I'm not romantically in love with anyone right now. I would only ever want to date and be with one person at a time romantically...but I'm sure it's quite possible to have a polyamorous relationship.