C James

I was actually talking about products like "Hair No More". These are supposed to be used for the following areas: * Chest & abdomen * Back & shoulders * Hands, arms & underarms * Legs, feet & toes * Face, chin & upper lip * Bikini line * Eyebrows I guess we need Kevin's expertise after all But maybe you can run the column together. Hugs, Michael (a candidate for a makeover by fashion and grooming consultants James and Kevin) Wow, they really do have stuff like that! I thought you might have been pulling my leg... I know a lot of guys (gay and straight), especially the fit ones, will shave their chests (I happen to like that look) but I had no idea creams and such were available. OK, makeover time! Shifting into fashion consultant mode here! So, how do you feel about plaid flannel? Nice and warm in winter. Or a concert T or NASCAR T for summer. Levies plus A belt with a buckle that has the name of your favorite beer on it, and don't forget a baseball cap or maybe a nice, subdued Stetson. Work boots or Western boots are always a good choice, but if not, there are always the generic sneakers at Walmart. Also, part of a makeover is a haircut, right? So, go high-end. Don't go for the $5 special at the local barbers (unless they are good), go for the $11 cut at the Wallmart barbers. Speaking of wallmart, If I absolutely have to go clothes shopping (something I enjoy as much as trips to the dentist), I start there first, and then go to a local feed and grain store (I live in rural Arizona) that carries shirts, hats, jeans, and boots in addition to the stuff for horses. Sound like a good makeover plan? CJ (Who is out to make Kevin's blog the go-to place for fashion advice!)

Thanks!!! The Anthology submission was accepted, so it will be in there (thank you Kitty!!). It's called "The Muse", but I should warn people that it is nothing like "No Shirt, No Problem". I'm biting the bullet and beginning to post chapters of a multi-chapter story about a week later (that one is a little more like "No Shirt, No Problem!"). I am still in need of a title, but if I don't think of one by posting time, keep a lookout for "insert title here"

James, what about hair removal products? I was curious if any of those "permanent hair removal" ointments work, and what are the side effects? Well, Michael, I don't know much about hair removal ointments. Ummm, actually, I've never heard of such a thing? I have heard of Laser hair removal, but I know nothing about it. Personally, I don't mind shaving my face in the morning, plus sometimes I like to grow a beard for the winter, so it wouldn't be for me. But, to each, their own. I assume we are talking about getting rid of a beard? If so, I use plain old shaving cream and a razor. I find that canned shaving cream works just fine, so I buy the generic stuff. I suppose a surgical alternative might work too. Just amputate at the neck. The side effects might be messy, though. Best Wishes; CJ (The self-appointed fashion and grooming consultant of Kevin's blog, at least until Kevin finds out).

I think I gound it as a link from Dabeagle, but I can't remember. I just read the stories and forums for a few months, then earlier this year I registered.

Wow, that DOES sound like a good idea! Hey Kevin, I think you should do it, but if you don't, *I* will!!! Let me see.. Fashion advice! Yes, Plaid flannel shirts are "in" this season, especially when graced by a well-used baseball cap. This ensemble works best when worn with levis 501's and good Western Boots (what city people call cowboy boots, but NOT the gaudy "fashion" kind!). Personal skin and hair-care advice! OK, Shampoo is a good thing to wash your hair with. The generic stuff at wallmart for 99 cents works just fine. I did try a hair conditioner, once. A little bottle of it was in the hotel room, so I tried it. My biggest gripe: they don't put instructions on the stuff: How the heck am I supposed to know if I am supposed to put it on before, or after shampooing? Keep looking sharp: get a haircut every six months whether you need it or not! For skin care, use a bar of soap. If you want to be really fancy-shamancy, use a name brand like "Dial". <CJ checks his bathroom cabinet> Yep, one bottle of cologne (old spice), one anti-perspirant, and one generic mouthwash. OK, Kevin, what do you think? You gonna do this, or should I be the fashion and grooming guru for GA?

This is an open THANK YOU to Kitty. Right now, Kitty is incredibly busy preparing the anthology, which is a HUGE amount of work. (I've only recently learned how much). It was Kitty who helped get me started in online writing, and Kitty's anthology was my first online venture. This is true for several other GA writers too. Kitty has helped me in many other ways, as she has many others. So, Kitty, THANK YOU for all that you do!! Best Wishes, CJ

James, thank you! I had no idea of this until I read your blog, and I'm going comet-spotting tonight! Thanks again! CJ

It would help if the adopted was a kidd rather than a kid. Otherwise, becoming a successful goat might be very challenging indeed. People always said I was a cute kidd. I have no problem with cross-species adoptions.

To: The Forum Troll From: The Forum Goat Welcome back! We have missed you!

But Kevin, you can't arrest a Duck. He would fly the coop!

James, thank you for that great post! I love it! Snowey, Thanks again! BTW, for anyone wanting to experiment with color emission and absorption, an easy way to see the effect is to shine, in a dark room, a laser on a like-colored object. In many cases you get less reflectivity than shining it on something black.

Thanks Nick! The Republicans, once upon a time, called those values their own. However, at present they are just as pathetic as the Democrats when it comes to wasteful spending. I certainly wish that there was a party in this country that had at least some degree of respect for financial sanity, but if there is it clearly is not either of the two main parties.

How... Tacky! I'm firmly convinced that either they exist, or they don't. They certainly do present some conundrums if they do exist. However, I'm not inclined to take the lack of conclusive observational data as proof of non-existence: It took around thirty years to detect the Neutrino, and I think it was only in 2002 that one flavor of Neutrino, the Tau, was detected. My guess is that proof, it if ever comes, will be related to the observation of cosmic rays (due to no particle accelerator being capable of anywhere near those energy levels), and the famous "Knee" around 5PeV.

The way I look at this, what occurred is that you took a negative situation and made a positive one from it. I think that what you did was FANTASTIC! I also applaud the teacher's mindset, and not just on gay issues. That teacher exhibited a very rare quality: a lack of defensiveness and a willingness to admit a mistake. That is one GREAT teacher!

Wow, Kevin, sorry I missed this until now! Congratulations! Wow, that is awesome!!!

What? Unpredictable? Nahhh... That's just a rumor... And people wonder why Goats have high blood pressure... Happy Birthday again, Crazy Goat!

Thanks Snow Dog! I've saved that for future reference. BTW, do I detect a dislike of Tachyons? Graeme: Thanks, that helped get rid of a few cobwebs between my ears!

Happy 25th Birthday!!!! What a great name! The Goat conspiracy grows!

I might very well have bungled it as I am going by memory. However, I just hit google and found few references, though I don't consider any conclusive. Wikipedia "Einstein's famous equation remains generally true for all observers only if the in the equation is considered to be relativistic mass." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ty/SR/mass.html " If this formula is taken to include kinetic energy, then it is only valid for relativistic mass, but it can also be taken as valid in the rest frame for invariant mass. Einstein's conventions and interpretations were sometimes ambivalent and varied a little over the years; however an examination of his papers and books on relativity shows that he almost never used relativistic mass himself. Whenever the symbol m for mass appears in his equations it is always invariant mass. He did not introduce the notion that the mass of a body increases with velocity--just that it increases with energy content. The equation E = mc2 was only meant to be applied in the rest frame of the particle. Perhaps Einstein's only definite reference to mass increasing with kinetic energy is in his "autobiographical notes"." OK, I'll take a stab at this myself, though I'm quite likely wrong: E=MC^2 clearly implies that an object with intrinsic mass cannot reach the speed of light due to intertia: close to the speed of light, adding kinetic energy increases the mass rather than the velocity. However, in general relativity, many things depend on the frame of reference of the observer (the observers relative velocity.) Using E=MC^2, you would get a different value for M depending on your (the observer's) own velocity relative to the object as kinetic energy (speed) changed. Hence, two different observers with different velocities would perceive the object as having different masses. That would mean that the value of E=MC^2 would change for some observers (depending on their relative velocity), meaning that the M in E=MC^2 is relativistic mass. If it was intrinsic mass, M would be the same for all observers.

I'll take a crack at this, though I'm exceedingly rusty. Energy and matter can be thought of as just different aspects of the same thing. Einstein's formula (E=MC^2) gives us a formula for this, but it's not as simple as it appears. In general relativity Mass can vary depending on velocity, so you have relativistic mass. Invariant mass is different; It is the actual mass of an object at rest relative to the observer. In Physics invariant mass is almost always used when speaking of mass, and Einstein used Invariant mass. However, prepare for a headache: E=MC^2 is only generally true *IF* the M is relativistic mass (which Einstein almost never used.) In any case, Under current theory, matter and energy are just different phases of the same thing. Currently we can convert matter into energy (nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors do this) but we can also created matter from energy in certain reactions observed in particle accelerators. Another form of the conversion of energy into matter is seen in nature, in the cores of very large stars: all Fusion reactions of elements heavier than Iron are a net energy negative: they require more energy than the produce. They absorb energy, and as energy cannot be destroyed, the energy is being converted to mass. This (energy converting to matter) occurs at a very minute scale in some chemical reactions (endothermic ones) where the reaction lowers temperature. Basically, it all depends on the energy level of whatever "blows up" the planet. Regardless of its cause, a sufficiently large energy release will be sufficient to shatter a planet and also accelerate the remains beyond escape velocity (which is determined the the planet's mass. For earth, it is about 25,000 mph) With that much velocity, the pieces will not be drawn back by gravity. One cause could be an impact by a large object (such as a small moon) traveling at high velocity. If the impact is not large enough to accelerate the majority of the planet's mass past its escape velocity, then indeed most of it will fall back and re-form. One example of this is the probable source of Saturn's rings. It is theorized that a large comet or asteroid impacted a large icy moon of Saturn, shattering it, and that the debris had enough velocity to not reform and thus Saturn's rings were formed. One way a planet can be "blown up" without an explosion is via gravity. For example, if Earth had a very close encounter with a similar-sized planet, the gravitational tidal forces would rip both planets apart. The key here is something called the Roche Limit. The Roch limit is determined by mass. For earth, it is somewhere around 10,000 miles in altitude. Anything below that will experience tidal forces (differential gravitational pull) strong enough to overcome its own gravity. The best I can do is give an example: If Earth's moon's orbital altitude was gradually reduced (and it is reducing, due to tidal friction, though on a scale of billions of years) to below around 10,000 miles altitude, the tidal forces would overcome the moon's own gravity, tearing it apart. The resulting rubble would not re-form, but would be pulled into a debris ring.

Happy Birthday!!!

Hi Nick!! I went through much the same growing up. At one point my parents heard some actress (yes, and actress) say that microwaving made food unhealthy, so they wanted to get rid of the microwave! I argued the point, and asked why an actress would have a worthwhile opinion on anything besides acting? (I have a special hatred for pontificating celebrities of any ilk). That fad faded, then it was all low-fat, then this, and then that. If they try and push margarine on you instead of butter, remind them that butter is far healthier than hydrogenated oil (the primary ingredient of margarine). (also, most margarine contains at least some trans-fat, which just about everyone agrees is very bad). I did, however, find one part of your parents dietary preferences exceedingly disturbing: Now, that's just plain wrong!

:king: Happy Birthday Sam! :king: