C James

Not me! I enjoyed it! When I was a kid I used to, um, "acquire" airline cutlery. I traveled several times a year so I had plenty of opportunity. Back then they used real metal with the airline's name stamped on it, and I soon had loads. When I left home for College I used it to set up my apartment, which garnered plenty of questions as to why my cutlery was all airline issue from a plethora of different airlines. LoL! Hmmmm, Just checked, and I see that about half of my cutlery today is still the same airline cutlery! It really does last! The person below me also has a lot of airline cutlery in their cutlery drawer.

Does a bolt from the Space Shuttle Columbia count? And no, it is NOT debris from the disaster; it is a bolt from one of the hydraulic assemblies, removed during servicing after the first shuttle flight. I thus had it for many years before the Columbia disaster. The person below me also loves weird "souvenirs", and will name some that they have.

That targeting problem on the missiles looks very significant! I wonder where it will lead??? Overall, I loved the chapter, but I did have one quibble: Was anyone else bothered by Garret's actions at the very end of the chapter? It seemed a bit cold and "using" to me, unless he has other motives. Speaking of other motives: Garret is heading for Braxix unescorted?? Uhoh! I smell trouble. Not sure how, or by whom, but I think he's going to be captured. Thanks DK and Emoe!

Well, it looks like my "split personality" theory is as dead as Mary Martin! This was a fantastic chapter, and must have been exceedingly difficult to write. Is everyone assuming that it is David that Frank has encountered down in the hole? I am not so sure about that. If David killed Mary, then he's already out. (and I wouldn't blame him for doing it). How about this as a guess: The body that Frank just touched is cold because it is dead. It isn't David, but rather Brian, killed by David (in which case, Frank better hope that it's a dead body!).

Announcing the GA Fairy Tales Retold Anthology! As Kitty mentioned some time ago, because of the close results in the poll for the 2006 quarterly anthology themes, GA is going to have an additional special themed anthology (totally separate from the quarterly anthologies). "Back in New Orleans, they have a word "lagniappe", which means something extra, or an unexpected gift. So y'all are going to get lagniappe today." So, thanks to the members of GA, we are having a lagniappe Anthology! The Theme for this special Anthology is "Fairy Tales Retold (to a gay theme)". Everyone is encouraged to participate! Just put a new spin (and a gay theme) on a traditional Fairy Tale, Fable, or Folk Tale. You may be as creative as you wish in rewriting the source fable or tale of your choice, as long as it's written from a gay perspective. The only thing we ask is: Please be imaginative in your choice of fable or fairy tale! (We'd prefer not to have half a dozen Cinderella stories .) Please also be original with the title: For obvious reasons we can't have two stories with the same title, so it will be strictly first-come, first-serve. In the case of multiple submissions with the same title, the first submission with that title will keep it, while later ones will be asked to come up with a new title. Submission Guidelines Please read the full rules and submission guidelines that are in the Fairy Tales Anthology post in the Anthology forum here.

I'm probably biased (perhaps to the point of error) by the fact that I managed to stay in denial until I was in my late teens. I didn't think that sexual attraction (gay or straight) occurred prior to puberty? If so, how would they know what gender they are attracted to prior to puberty? I envy you: you "missed out" on years of denial and self-loathing.

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.

One question regarding Echidnas and dictation would be "Does that mean that Echidnas have a propensity for becoming Dictators"? I agree that life is rarely boring, and I prefer most anything to boredom so that suits me just fine. The person below me worries about Dictatorial Echidnas, especially when they mention not having blown up many planets recently.

I don't get the reference, but it DOES raise further questions! The person below me knows what the aforementioned reference is, and will tell me?

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.

I for one NEVER have Goat-based sauce on anything! I'm not into cannibalism! :2hands: The person below me wonders how an Echidna can type?

I agree that he needs Nathan or someone like him. However, that might be exceedingly traumatic. Ian has been conditioned to believe the hysterical "teachings" of his former Pastor (I refuse the use the term "father" or "parent" for that slime) and those include that homosexuality is an abomination. So, how would Ian react to Nathan if he finds out that Nathan is gay (assuming that he is)? Or to any gay person? I'm sort of wondering about Jeff, as he and Ian seemed to bond.

Today I had to make a special trip to the store to get a relay for a project I'm working on. While at the store I picked up some plumbing supplies and other odds and ends, and was halfway home before i realized that I'd forgotten the one thing I'd gone to the store to get! <blush> The person below me is laughing at me.

Hi Charles! Sorry for the slow reply! That thanksgiving meal was so well portrayed that it made me literally hungry! I will indeed keep you in mind if I discover any new stories, Charles. I do try and rotate my pics through my sig, but I had other projects that I needed my sig for the last time a FBTE chapter came out. I do intend to put the next one in my sig (unless Viv objects).

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!

Authors are sooo sneaky.... Seriously, I really like the "gradual" approach to disclosing things. It keeps everything very interesting!

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!

Another excellent chapter!! I really like this one, especially the feel of camaraderie that you portray so well. VERY well done, and I am really looking forward to Ch 4!

Great Chapter! I think Ian is starting to loosen up slightly, and that part where he gave the minister his honest opinion certainly indicated that.

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.