Zombie

I re-read ch96 as prep for 97. And something struck me: "the farm". The farm??!!! Since when has the silver-salvered immaculately-manicured Bridget ever had anything to do with farming? And since when has farming ever had anything to do with handbags? Never. Unless it's a crocodile farm. Or an aligator farm. The evil crone is talking about Joel and Lisa, a "farm", "death" and a "new handbag", all in the same paragraph. That can only mean one thing - the witch is planning to kidnap Joel and Lisa and feed them to her hungry pets and the one that bites, crushes and eats them will then have to be shot, as evidence for the authorities of "a terrible accident - such a tragedy" - and she then gets her new handbag from the skin. Here we were, all worried about the possible violent and bloody deaths of Trev + Shane, and all along The Goat has been misdirecting us as to his evil plans for a blood-spurting double murder on the other side of the World.

This has to be one of the most terrifying lines CJ has written. The stage has now been set for the bloodbath of killing, screams, terror and mayhem that is CJ's cliffhanger-trademark storytelling style. There will be blood-spattered gizzards and gore, all evoked in visceral CJ HorrorScope. Easily-disturbed minds should peep nervously through their fingers while reading the next chapters, preferably while hiding behind the sofa. Do not believe The Goat's evil lies. Bad things are about to happen.

I'm guessing this would be what's called "compulsory" retirement? And it wouldn't involve activating any pension plans?

Well spotted! Evidence of yet another cliffhanger

It's really quite simple: "You have 2 sides; a team that's in and a team that's out.. two men in the team that's in go out and when one of the men who's in is out; the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out; the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in; the men who are out are trying to get him out; and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decided when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out; and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game." - from "Explaining Cricket to Americans (foreigners)"

How do you consume CJ's chapters? Like my last dog getting all squirmy and antsy waiting for its dinner, then gobbling it down greedily in one go, returning again and again to lick the bowl noisily to make quite sure it hadn't missed some tiny but tasty morsel clinging to the side? Or like my brother's laid-back labrador nonchalantly ignoring it, saving it till later, comfortable in the knowledge that it'll be there waiting for him, maybe pecking at some of it then wandering off to do something else - maybe have a snooze - returning sometime later to finish it off?

Dump the first sentence and this is a pure poem of horror "Scuttling" - great word. So much better than the anaemic "scurrying" So then ..... Why?

It's also interesting that The Cloven-One overlooked one of the cliffhanger definitions: "An outcome which is awaited with keen anticipation, especially one which is delayed for a period of time or which is not known until the last minute" Or maybe he just conceded that one, or maybe he missed it because of those "prism specs" he wears to spot the big bad birdies when he's hanging around on cliff edges and the like - see earlier Goat-embarrassing threads

Daddydavek, some things we don't yet know, but others we do. We know this is a Goat tale. So we know this is all building up to a frightening showdown between good ole good 'n' evil. We know there'll be sickening violence, blood-curdling screams, and at least one horrific death. It will seem hopeless for Trev and Shane; their young lives about to be snuffed out in the most brutal, callous and head-hacking-off manner. And if Basingstoke can't distinguish Trev and Shane then presumably his plan will be "off with both their heads". We also know that throughout all this mayhem The Goat will continue to splutter his feeble and utterly discredited "I hever use cliffhangers" denials. Regular forum readers know this is a moth-eaten old lie (see earlier thread where sufficient evidence was posted by readers to convict The Goat beyond all reasonable doubt). Just as a reminder, a cliffhanger includes: - a plot device in fiction which features a main character in a precarious or difficult dilemma; - A story or event with a strong element of suspense e.g. "the game was a cliffhanger right up to the final buzzer"; - An outcome which is awaited with keen anticipation, especially one which is delayed for a period of time or which is not known until the last minute. And here's the clincher - cliffhanger is also defined as "A form of foreshadowing". Which means The Goat is hoist with his own petard, having previously trumpeted in numerous postings his penchant for foreshadowing. The Goat's most likely drooling with pleasure at the prospect of inflicting unimaginable pain and cruelty on much-loved characters. But if he's already written these chapters then he's probably spending quality time tweaking the pain and suffering to maximise the stress and upset of readers.

They can't be the "real deal" unless they write their own quality stuff and sing it well, live and without all the electronic tricks evident on this single. And do this consistently. Otherwise they're just hype. But this is a tried and tested business model for the music industry as pioneered by The Monkees in the 1960s. So, look out for a TV series featuring these cute popsters coming your way soon It seems the global juggernaut that is Simon Cowell is unstoppable. But to answer Dragonfire's original question, the reason they didn't win is because the voting demographic of X-Factor is way different from the buying demographic for this type of stuff. As for clumber's comment that boy bands "crop up every now and then, go big for maybe a year and then vanish", that depends on whether they turn out to be the real deal like, say, Take That. But on the basis of this vid I wouldn't bet your home on it. Or the dog's dinner come to that.

Deleted

OK, so interception without physical access to Trev's phone is currently not viable for Basingstoke, although security agencies have been able to do this since at least 2005 so it's only a matter of time (see: http://www.ft.com/in...000e2511c8.html) BUT here's a scary vid for all you folks who EVER allow your mobile / cell phone to be separated from your sticky fingers for more than a couple of minutes when someone else can get at it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCyKcoDaofg You'll need to copy+paste into your browser because the full address creates an embedded video which Youtube does not allow on this site. Take a look at the number of views - over 5m sets of underwear will have had to be laundered because of this vid

6 instances of "... does not a cliffhanger make" have been posted on the forum. And every single one trumpeted by that shady quadruped. Why am I not surprised?

Marty try "bookending" the text with "quote" and "/quote" written in square brackets WITHOUT THE QUOTATION MARKS

Australian mobile phones were fully digital from September 2000 when the old analogue (AMPS) network was switched off: https://sites.google.com/a/politicalscience.com.au/home/Home/chronologies/australian-chronology

To all Aussie readers: enjoy gayauthors.com while you still can https://wiki.smu.edu.sg/digitalmediaasia/Digital_Media_in_Australia#What_is_prohibited_online_content.3F: Australian Internet The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) takes the approach of co-regulatory scheme for online content ... Under this scheme, all contents in the World Wide Web sites ... are monitored ... Bloggers or forum owners who allow users to comment or post could find themselves blocked under this proposal should someone say or post the wrong thing. In November 2007, the Australian Government announced their plans to roll out an internet filtering program, known as the "Clean Feed" ... Originally, the plan was to allow adults to opt-out of the program. However, in May 2008, the Government started an $82 million "cybersafety plan", which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision, applicable to all computers ... The government ... list ...is not available to the public ... critics worry about the lack of transparency ... The obligatory filter, if implemented, would make Australia one of the strictest democracies as far as Internet regulation goes. The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistle blower site WikiLeaks ... Controversies ... The controversy started with the leak of an earlier version of the Government’s top-secret list of banned sites in March 2009, revealing that ... sites on the list ... included ... regular gay ... sites ...

I suspect the wily old ruminant cast his malevolent eyes on this page where (see chapter 19) his devious brain got the idea for his misdirecting title http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/contents.htm

Err, so that would be "What goes up ... must come down". And planes, like that nice Mr B's, go up. And then they come down (usually, but not always, in one piece ). Likewise any passengers who ill-advisedly accept a "fright flight" with Mr B. Only, they may not "come down" at the same time, or in the same place, as Mr B's plane ...

Ha! In the above example there was no reason for Fowler to tell Trev not to mention place names because it was a local call within Australia. Surely the good guys, who are clearly personally concerned for Trev, would level with Trev and tell him about their specific fears and concerns about Florida so Trev can fully understand the possible deadly peril he and Shane are up against, not withhold key info. It doesn't make sense - except for you to misdirect us We know: - you've made B a security expert for a story plot reason - you just haven't told us what that reason is so you can spring a nasty surprise on us - you've told us B has a bag of electronic tricks but you haven't told us what he's got in it, or what it can be used for - you are a slippery mis-director and cannot be trusted. So we must therefore infer that the bag of tricks will have a key plot use. Marty suggests for covert surveillance of Fowler. Maybe. But I suspect it's also to help B track down Trev so he can hack off his head. The mobile phone bugging and tracking are possible (and "possibility" is all that's needed to get into a Goat tale). Your smiling assurance gives no comfort. You're up to something. Something bad

Known Unknowns The Goat tells us that phone calls are not "safe". But now wait just a cotton pickin' minute - without the resources of those nice folks at the NSA, what's the realistic likelihood that Basingstoke would be able to intercept and listen into Trev's satphone or cellphone conversations? We know that B has got a bag of electronic tricks, but what specific gizmo would be required, what extra info would he need (e.g. Trev's sat/mobile numbers? the phone model types? Trev's service network details?), how would B get this info and how could he monitor any calls 24/7? Seems like a big ask for a two-bit thugster. And if eavesdropping is possible then what about locating the position of Trev's mobile phone by triangulation - I don't believe this works with sat phones - which, presumably, would also require cooperative "insiders" to be already in place working at Trev's mobile phone company who would also need to have the appropriate skills and access (see http://en.wikipedia...._phone_tracking) Or maybe planting a "roving bug" on Trev's mobile phone so Mr B can eavesdrop on the lovebirds' waistline-reducing activities even when the phone is switched off (possible since at least 2006 according to this website: http://www.schneier...._eavesd_1.html; also see http://www.theintern...hen-turned-off/)

Hmm, sounds delicious but ingredients like that don't help answer the question "Why aren't Trev and Shane obese blobsters?"

Hmm, Benji really does like the idea of Basingstoke getting up close and personal with a salty looking for its dinner.Perhaps you missed my earlier post in Australia: Deadly Paradise which shows that even if T+S don't head north then snap crackle and pop action by salties on Basingstoke is still a possibility much further south on the coast of Western Australia </p>According to Wiki, individual salties can roam "thousands of miles from their native territory":</p></p> http://en.wikipedia....le#Distribution Yikes, according to this site salties have been seen as far south as Carnarvon: http://www.environme...an_distribution So, yeah, it's a definite possibility that Basingstoke, at the very moment of triumph over Trevor, will be snatched into a salty's jaws of death, shrieking in blood-curdling terror at the sudden realisation he has utterly failed, and that his miserable life is about to be crushed and ripped from his broken body with more brutal violence and agony than the collective suffering inflicted on every one of his and Sanchez's previous victims. And all lovingly described in glorious CJ HorrorVision © http://www.gayauthors.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

Circumnavigation is educational. I've learned a lot of things I didn't know before, and some things I didn't know I didn't know. Like navigation, diurnal tides, the False Cross, what a dangerous place Australia is; all sorts of good stuff. It should be on the education curriculum http://www.gayauthors.org/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png Remember the famous remark by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - surely one of the slipperiest wordsmiths on the planet (more so even than our esteemed Goat)? I thought it might be fun to make a list of "knowns" and "unknowns". So to start off, here's a few examples: Known Knowns - The World is round (evidence: the title, heheheh) - Garlic crushers are an abomination. - Shane is hot hot hot!!! - Hot dogs can save your life. - Bridget has a disturbing sexual allure (evidence: there must be something about her to tickle George's fancy) - The Goat is a scheming, manipulative puppetmaster who relishes placing his beloved characters in mortal danger and inflicting cruel and unusual suffering (evidence: just read his stories) - The Goat is not to be trusted. - Did I mention Shane is hot? Known Unknowns - Is Rachel dead? - How key is the key lime pie? - Why aren't Trev and Shane obese blobsters? (evidence: read story for copious examples of frequent ingestion of junk food, full fat fry-ups, large helpings of key lime pie etc etc) - How messy and painful is it to have your head hacked off? Unknown Unknowns - Is Bridget in fact Bridget's brother in drag? - Does The Goat sell used cars? If so would you buy one from him? - Does Bridget have any pets? If so what would be an appropriate pet? - Does Sanchez run a party planning business as a side-line?

Thanks for this CJ Like Marty I've done a bit of Googling myself on the, as you say, non-existent interweb and I now understand that what you call "nullification" is an unusual feature in the US system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States It seems this arises from the US's colourful history of weird and wonderful laws (slavery, apartheid, prohibition etc) which US juries would, as you say, nullify if they felt the law was wrong. But, as Marty points out, if juries refuse to convict because of their own personal beliefs then this can work both ways i.e. for bad outcomes as well good ones e.g. the jury believe the KKK are good guys doing a swell job cleaning up the neighbourhood. So when you ask "where does one draw the line?" the answer is you can't because you've already crossed the line that was drawn for the jury by the judge when he directed the jury as to how they must consider the evidence presented during the trial and the offence charged in reaching a verdict. And, of course, I'm not going to accuse you of succumbing to the "Twelve Angry Men Syndrome" - the temptation to become Henry Fonda as you step into the Jury Room, anticipating the thrill of a titantic tussle to get a "just" result; maybe some dramatic arm movements to help explain pertinent points of law and justice to especially dim jurors, perhaps with a bit of table thumping at really dramatic moments (and waking up those who've dozed off) until, that is, you remember that the accused is just some old codger on a shoplifting charge who "forgot" he'd trousered some rather attractive bright purple crotchless underwear

Err, I already dealt with this in my last response (which you quoted ): "Trev ... has a clear defence of "necessity" as he could reasonably be presumed to have intended to comply with the 96 hours requirement but, following a little mishap along the way, such compliance was outside his control ..." In other words "necessity" is a recognised legal defence in both the US and English / Australian legal systems - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/qld_criminal_defence_necessity Hmm, no-one can get too worked up over the outcome of a speeding ticket. So let's take a more serious scenario. You're on the jury in a murder case. The defendent's clearly guilty. The guy's gonna fry. But some of your fellow jurists refuse to convict for murder because they think it's wrong to fry live people (although they are more than happy to fry dead goats ) therefore they will only agree to convict for a lesser charge with a prison term instead. So instead of a hung jury the jury brings in a guilty verdict for the lesser charge. So you'd be comfortable with a jury system operating like that?