AFriendlyFace

A happy new year to all

Happy Birthday, dude! I hope it's a good one! -Kevin

You'll never catch him...I hear the goat is on the lam( B )

Happy Birthday, Jack I hope you have a really awesome year! -Kevin

I have good news for all the concerned conservationists outs there! The Bi-Mi's aren't extinct after all!! There's been a recent sighting -Kevin

Wooo HOOOO!! Congrats Joe!!! -Kevin

I gotta agree with SRV on this one! Who hasn't made a fool of themselves at a party before? Goodness knows I'd hate for footage of me at any one of quite a few parties I've attended over the last several years to surface. Even if you're not much of a "partier " I think we can all admit we've made fools of ourselves and had embarrassing moments at some time or another. I don't think that's particularly shocking. They're going to do whatever they can to get the juiciest ( ) shot they can. I thinks it's unfortunate what they do and I wouldn't personally be able to reconcile being a member of the paparazzi to my morals beliefs (and thus wouldn't choose that profession), but I think the actions are expectable. Personally, I think it's ridiculous that's it's such a big deal. So she wasn't wearing underwear? Who cares? Depending on the outfit I've often gone commando too. Admittedly, I've always done so in some form of pants, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal for a woman in a skirt/dress to do it. YES, she should definitely avoid wind, and situations in which her skirt will ride up (like getting out of a car), but if she's comfortable with that risk I really don't think it's our business. I would have a problem with it if she'd made a big deal about the picture being taken or people looking, because if you do that I think you've got to accept and acknowledge that risk and you know what you're getting yourself into. But unless she's doing this at schools and churches I think it's her business. No one has to look and if someone does accidentally catch a glimpse it's really not that big a deal UNLESS people make it a big deal. Geez, grow up US society! Hmm on an emotional level I agree with you for the most part but... I definitely agree with Steve on these two points. I still think that overall that publicity was good for them. If their work still weren't smash hits than perhaps it was just because it didn't have the necessary quality, or because it just didn't resonate with the audience, but I think publicity (bad and good) had done a great deal for Lindsey and Paris, and definitely helped their careers. If they still didn't have wild success it just goes to show that there is a limit to how far publicity can get you. At some point you either have to be talented or have something very marketable. For the record, I happen to think Lindsey Lohan is a solid actress. I haven't seen that many of her movies, but every one I have seen I've thought she was good, or at least perfectly adequate. I think most of the movies themselves just aren't good enough to be hits. Amen to that! Hmmm, personally I'm very much with Frosty on this one. First of all the way people tend to treat the constitution as essentially "infallible" really irritates me. YES, I think it's a very important document, it's extremely well and thoughtfully written, and it's very relevant. However, like everything else, it's constrained by the time period and context in which it was written. If people can't adapt to new circumstances and situations then society is doomed. Abortion, gay rights, global warming, a nuclear world...none of these things were even slightly on the radar when the constitution was written. Looking to it as the only and final answer to these questions strikes me as somewhat foolish. The world changes, people change, society change, if the government doesn't change with them... Personally I think this is very much akin to looking to the Bible to answer these questions. The Bible is also wonderful, and vitally important, and I respect it immensely. I'll even go so far as to say it may have been 'infallible' in the time and context in which it was written. As a Christian I do believe that it is the word of God. However, that doesn't mean that everything in it is literal or that we should still follow unthinkingly without taking its (and more importantly our) context into consideration. Let me be grandiose and imagine myself as God and/or a contributer to the Constitution. I may very well look at something and say, "Nope, we can't have that!" or "Yes, we definitely need to do this.", but I've got a reason. For example: "no, we can't encourage gay sex" because we really really need people to reproduce and spread Christianity (no longer the case, but true enough at the time). Or "Yes, we must have the electoral college" because the average citizen is too ill-informed to make a good decision (also true enough at the time, but hopefully no longer the case). Assuming I'm still that very same diety and/or founding father I would look around today and exactly reverse those decisions based on our (over) population and the prolific nature of political coverage in the media. All four decisions would have been/are "correct" in their given time period(in my personal opinion that is, and obviously I'm biased since those are my personal opinions), but their contexts and reasons are vitally important and ever changing. We - and these institutions - must evolve or face extinction. Anyway, I suspect these positions won't be especially popular, and I apologize if I offended anyone. Also, I attempted to keep my discussion of government as non-partisan and possible, and similarly keep my discussion of religion as respectful as possible. These are just my opinions and I readily allow for the likelihood that other people's opinions are just as "correct" (which I don't believe in, in an absolute sense anyway, especially with regard to these matters) and "valid" as mine. Take care everyone and have a great day -Kevin

Hi everyone! Ok, let's see if we can figure this out before New Year's! LOL let's face it we're going to be talking about it anyway! SO who do you guys think died? Here's the evidence I see for each person: Chase: He may be the one because: -It clearly looks like Steve set him up and has been planning to for sometime. In fact way back in chapter 17 when I first read about his desire to take them rock climbing I was concerned he'd try something on Chase or Brandon. -He was actually dangling off the cliff when last we saw him. -He just had sex/deepening of his and Brandon's relationship. This makes for more creative drama, it completes a little bit of previously unfinished business, and - as anyone who's seen Scream 1 can tell you - having sex for the first time in a movie/story/etc. is a quick way to get yourself off-ed. -He may be Helen's 'favorite'. Chase has also given her some grief and if I had had to guess who Helen's favourite was prior to this chapter I'd have picked Chase. He's not the one because: -He's too central a character. -It's too 'obvious'. -The band couldn't continue without him. It's possible/probable that the band can't continue with the loss of any of the four, but Brandon and Chase seem the most irreplaceable - musically speaking that is - in my estimation. It seems to me that it would be easier to replace a guitarist or bassist or even have the other pick up the slack themselves. Of course that comes from someone without much musical knowledge. Eric: He may be the one because: -Most people, including myself (initially) assumed it was him. -Helen's remark about him dying young now looks prophetic -Steve also would have had a motive to kill him at the point in which the chapter cut off. -Barbra's remark about "in spite of everything she thought he was Helen's favourite brother" definitely looks like indicting him. Prior to the "in spite of everything" remark I thought Chase was Helen's favourite, but if we take "in spite of everything" into consideration it does look more like Eric. He's not the one because: -Logistically speaking he actually seems like the safest of the brothers. Unless Steve is going to be blatantly homicidal - and in front of Wilde no less - Eric seems pretty safe up there. Plus I think Wilde's a good guy and would try to stop Steve. -He may also be "too obvious" considering that the majority initially assumed it was him. -He's also a fairly central brother and I get the feeling that CJ really enjoys writing for him. Jon (He's my pick): It's him because: -He tried to catch Chase. What I'm thinking happened is that if Steve did try to set up Chase (which I could go either way on thinking), Jon rushed over to try to catch him/help him and broke Chase's fall with his neck. -He could be Helen's favourite. He also gave Helen a lot of grief, and as the oldest, and the one she probably interacted with the most, professionally speaking, I think there's a good chance he's the 'favorite'. -He seems like the most expendable. As I said he seems more expendable than Chase musically speaking. He also seems like the most expendable of the three brothers in terms of story development and plot, and I suspect he's not as much fun to write for as Chase and Eric. He's not the one because: -Chase and Eric do seem more 'set up' to be the victim in this case. (that's all I got. I really think if someone died it was him!) So that's my evaluation of the odds for the three brothers. The way I see it that white car is almost certainly the paparazzi, and they were on the scene and did report it before Helen found out. It's possible that someone else died and they misreported it however. It could be Brandon if like Jon he tried to catch Chase, but it probably isn't because he's the most central character. It could be Steve if he and Eric did get into a confrontation and he fell off the edge. This very well could have happened because Chase had just fallen (and only been hurt) and Eric was thus mad, or because of what Steve overheard Eric and Wilde discussing (in which case it's still possible that he's 'shaken up' - or acting like it - because Chase fell and hurt himself). It could be Wilde if a similar scenario as described directly above occurred and Wilde attempted to intervene. It could be Zeke if Chase fell on him OR if Chase started to fall and thus he got horrible tangled up in the equipment trying to save him. It may have been no one, and they're either purposely perpetrating a hoax, or the paparazzi misreported the events of the accident. SO what do you guys think? -Kevin

Hi everyone! Well well, here I go and fall three chapters behind in my reading and decide "ohh, well you have a 3 hour car ride today...perfect time to catch up" I thought it was an excellent chapter though...actually I thought all three of the most recent ones (which I just finished) were excellent I'm not going to comment about who I think died in this thread...instead I'm going to do what I do best: make a poll! I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this in the other two threads, but in the spirit of helping out, I noticed that in either chapter 17 or 18 (I think 18), "Zeke" is referred to as "Zack", also at one point in either chapter 18 or 19 the word "moist" is substituted for "most", I believe it's something like "moist people would have thought...." (perhaps when The Scar and Demetri were testing the new gunsmith???) Anyway I've got a poll to start lol! Great chapter, CJ! -Kevin

Merry Christmas

Awww You will be! I have, I've never been to Disneyland, Disneyworld, Eurodisney, or any other Disney theme park.

Jamie!!!! Sorry to disappoint you, or further add to the disturbing trend you've been seeing! Things just get way too complicated sometimes...I definitely want something more....eventually. Right now though I pity anyone who tries to get into a serious relationship with me. I'm just not in a very "relationshipy" place. As I said, I just keep changing my mind about everything right now: what I want to do careerwise, what I want to do educationwise, where I want to live, whether or not I want to stay in Houston (for good? for a few more years?? for a few more months???). I'm also just being completely spacey and all around flakey in general. I'm having fun, and because I'm not in any serious relationships I'm not hurting anyone, and presumably I'll settle down eventually, but right now it would just be really unfair for someone to consider building a picture of their life with me in it for the long-haul. They could very well fall in love with a nice Houston boy, who likes playing pool, is pursuing a degree in social work, and working with the elderly (all more or less true right now), and then discover in three months that he's a New York boy, who's into theatre, isn't interested in any further degrees, and works as a freelance writer (all also fairly possible, and things I'd love to do/be). *shrug* Who in their right mind would want to take that on? LOL Anyway thanks for the support, and BTW, I think you're super-nifty! -Kevin

Hey Old Bob! Thanks! That's exactly what I did, and I think it's worked out pretty well *sigh* I think you're right about that. I'm usually pretty happy and upbeat, but my feelings, desires, ambitions, goals, motives, etc. have been changing rapidly lately. Every time I think I know what I want, something changes my mind before I even get a chance to pursue that something, and that is not just about interpersonal relationships, but all matters recently :wacko: Thank you! Excellent advice Take care and have an awesome day! Kevin

Hey Drew Well good, I'm glad you don't have that problem with your friends! I'm certainly not afraid of having gay male friends for fear of attraction, in fact nearly all of my local friends are gay males! I love being friends with other gay guys. It's great, and I definitely need these friendships in my life, I was merely expressing a regret that due to the nature of attraction there's often a line in these relationships that both people have to be careful to avoid crossing, which other combinations of friends don't have to worry about quite as much. As I've often said I've had a lot of close friendships with lesbians, and what I've really enjoyed about those relationships is the freedom to tell them they look great, or that they're wonderful, or to use terms of endearment or to touch them in a friendly, affectionate manner without worrying that they're going to misconstrue my intentions. I actually think it's quite nice that there is the possibility of "something more" in my friendships with other gay guys, but I think everyone needs friends they can be as "friendly with" as they like without either person considering it the least bit sexual. Anyway take care and have a great day! -Kevin

Hey Richie! Exactly!!! Exactly what I'm worried about again!!! LOL, things can just get so complicated :wacko: I'm glad things worked out for you! Take care and have a fantastic day! -Kevin

Hey Ieshwar! Thanks for the support! We both just ended up not bringing it up again. We're also both sort of pursuing new relationships. He had a date tonight and I have one tomorrow He still delayed his plans to do me a big favour though! And he's still definitely above the guy I'm going to see tomorrow in terms of priority for me as well. But I really see that as more of a friend thing than anything else. Take care and have a wonderful day! -Kevin

Hey Graeme That's some excellent advice, but I really don't think it's what I want right now, especially with him. What I need right now, much more than a boyfriend, is just a bestfriend. Someone who actually lives in the same city as me, and won't randomly decide to end our friendship. Yes, there's a fear of losing him, but I think that's more or less irrelevant in that I just couldn't imagine taking things in that direction with him right now. Thanks though! -Kevin

Thanks Vic! I didn't end up doing that (printing the quote), but your statement about good friends definitely sums up how I feel about him. Boyfriends are nice and all, but I just don't see me settling down for good just yet, and he's way too special to, as you said, risk losing with an attempt at dating. Take care and have a great day! Kevin

Gabe!!! Glad you've been doing well Have a nice Christmas! -Kevin

It was a really awesome story, Steve! I thoroughly enjoyed it and was very honoured to have appeared in it! Great job! Merry Christmas, Everyone! -Kevin

Nope, that food is called Edamame. It's amazingly tasty, low in calories, low in sodium, and incredibly high in protein and fiber!!

I agree

Excellent point, there's clearly a big difference between these two scenarios. I think it's very unfortunate that these things are expected to be black and white. There's absolutely no reason to assume that these two situations are the same, so why treat them that way? IMO, the best solution would be to leave the judges and police with enough leeway to make rational judgments, and then to carefully appoint officials to these positions who will make sensible, rational judgments. However, while I personally think all such matters should carefully take context and individual situations strongly into consideration, I concede that this probably isn't feasible on such a grand scale. So you're probably right, Graeme, drawing an arbitrary line probably is the best we can do

So you mean they're not allowed to cross the line and THEN 'cross the line'? I agree with Conner on this one. As CJ pointed out, they were both in their late teens, and I think she's knew what she was doing just as much as he did. A man with good taste! I think Christina is an extremely talented vocalist AND a very good person (although I still think that's irrelevant in the first place when it comes to singers, actors, and other celebrities). My condolences Jack Personally, I'm very sick of people constantly criticizing celebrities, and athletes for their bad behaviour. Their behaviour is, in my opinion, only relevant in so far as it relates to their particular vocation. In other words the lip-syncing scandal a few years ago with Ashlee Simpson was perfectly acceptable, as is the more recent drama about the use of steroids in sports. Similarly I think it's fine to castigate religious figures for improper/hypocritical sexual behaviour. However as a general rule and unless it does relate to their vocational performance, who these people are sleeping with, how much they're drinking, what they're wearing (or aren't), and how well they're taking care of their kids shouldn't be especially relevant to mainstream America. That should remain the concern of their family, friends, the authorities, and child protective services. Whether or not we approve of their behaviour is irrelevant. This may sound a bit harsh, but anyone who tries to model their personal/moral life on the actions of someone famous deserves to be disappointed. I have much more patience for kids doing this, but I still think it's primarily a parent's responsibility to explain that "X may be a good singer/ballplayer/actor but that doesn't necessarily mean he/she is also a good person" than it is for X to be held under a microscope, or even be expect to behave any better than anyone else in similar circumstances (they may have a personal moral responsibility to do so, but IMO it's ludicrous to assign them a societal responsibility). Anyway, with regards to age of consent, as I said, I think in this case the age of the participants doesn't matter. I also think the double standard with regards to boys is particularly ridiculous. Obviously I'm against any double standard or any difference in expectations for the two genders, at all stages of life (in fact this is a major bone of contention for me). However, if there is going to be a double standard with this matter, I think it's exactly wrong. I remember being a teenage boy, and I remember what other teenage boys were like. I also remember what teenage girls were like. I remember reading a quote awhile back in which someone said something to the effect of "Nowadays we call 16 and 17 year old boys who have sex with 25 year old women victims. We used to call them lucky." I'm not saying I approve, in fact I quite thoroughly don't, but I think there is some truth to that statement. -Kevin