adblue

Hold on, gang. We don't know the whole story here. He waived rights, verbally, but yet put his name on the birth certificate and remained in contact with gifts and calls. (Hey, laudable, I think.) The child's moms moved and dropped contact. (Was that their choice or was the man becoming demanding or controlling in some way? We don't have any indication he was, but maybe they thought so.) Now the moms are seeking back-pay in child support? Hmm. That doesn't make sense or support the idea that he could've been a problem for them. I would tend to say the sperm donor is right. However -- In a way, both sides are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The moms want back-pay in child support. After the child is 18 and in college. Sorry, that's really not the time to ask for it. They were in contact with him for years. The sperm donor or biological dad isn't faultless. He gave his name on the birth certificate. He stayed in contact and gave presents. Didn't he give other support for the child? Didn't the moms accept those things? Even though he verbally waived rights, he still (admirably) wanted contact to give the child a sense of fulfillment. -- So why *not* contribute fully to the child's support? (Alright, the moms are a couple and the sperm donor is married. Even so, why not help raise his biological child, if he was still going to be in contact? It's a gray area, but you can see what my choice would be. If I fathered a child, I'd want to be involved in his or her life, if possible.) I don't at all dispute that the man had good intentions, in staying in contact and giving gifts. That's great for the child and him. It just seems a shame not to extend that to partial custody and support, if the relationships were amicable among all of them. So now, here's junior (young guy or girl) in college, and his mothers are fighting his sperm donor biological father over money. He hasn't had contact with the dad in years. -- It's going to tear up the now-adult child. I hope he or she gives them all a piece of his (her) mind. I sure hope the judge does.

I'm American, so, "color." But when I edit for International English, I have to switch to "colour." The same goes for "gray and bluegray" versus "grey and blue-grey." I never have understood, "gauge." I don't think I'll ever understand, UK "gaol" for US "jail," though. For that matter, why don't any of us spell "lose" as "looze" and "loose" as "loose" or "looce" ? Or how about, "rede" and "lede" (present) and "red" or "redd" and "led" or "ledd" (past)? Or "leeding" and "ledding" ? Ah well, a rose would still smell as sweet, thorns and all.

Gee golly, proper Frenchifying (French frying?) and everything. Alors, f

Hi Everyone. First, Thank You. Second, don't feel guilty. You still get to know who he was, what he said, and his friends are still around. Enjoy the site, the stories and poems, and the community of people. That's why it's there and we're there. Codey's World will be growing and moving forward. We have no intention of letting it get stale. It isn't so much a memorial or a legacy, as it is meant to be a thriving place for friends and family and good things to read.

Belief (including religious belief) is a personal opinion, often based on teaching (upbringing) and interpretation (discussion) and some experience (personal interpretation). Importantly, it's often tied into emotions (feelings). So yes, it's very hard to change what people believe, even in the face of opposing evidence and arguments or discussions. Some people have used science through a belief in "the natural world" or evolution, to justify homophobia. So it isn't just the fault of religions. Even if being gay is found to have a genetic, biochemical, environmental, or psychological basis, some people will claim it's a fault, like some other factors in those areas. Many, though, may decide the old arguments against being GLBT don't make sense to them. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to point out that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe it isn't wrong/sinful to be gay, although many do. It depends on the translation and interpretation of the original languages and cultures of their sacred books and on customs built up over the centuries. When I became brave/curious/desperate enough, I looked online for discussions of translation and interpretation of the Bible, because I hadn't found anything in the books (various Bible translations, concordances, etc.) my parents or I had that supported anything other than a negative view of homosexuality, or most sex. Of course, any discussions like that have to take into account early Christianity and Jewish thought. What I found truly surprised me. Yes, there are sincere, faithful translations and interpretations of the Old and New Testament passages that offer either more understandable or milder or even supportive words for faithful same-sex couples. Instead, what they condemn are things most of us would consider immoral: abuse of power or age, use of violence, unsafe sexual hygiene, multiple partners (unsafe sex and ignoring their feelings), and so on. There are even arguments presented in those discussions that claim a few individuals or friends/pairs might have been same-sex couples. (Some of those, I found believable; others, I think are unlikely or ridiculous.) Yes, some groups within Jewish believers say that Judaism does not condemn homosexuality, while others say it is against Jewish Law. I'd never known any of Jewish thought ever accepted it. Yes, some groups within Christian believers say that Christianity should not condemn homosexuality, while others, of course, say it's against Christian teachings. I'd never known any of Christian thought accepted it... despite an ongoing debate within my own denomination. Wow, it was freeing! It's true, Jesus' own words as recorded never speak on homosexuality, either for or against it. Several times, though, he speaks with people who were considered sexually immoral or ritually unclean. Each time, he doesn't condemn or judge them. Note: at the time, he was speaking as a Jewish teacher to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). In other words, I don't intend to be pro- any religion in saying that. (Consider it my opinion on the literature itself and on the commentaries offering support for acceptance of GLBT people.) For the record, yes, I'm gay and Christian, and I've had an uneasy time reconciling the two. It was one excuse (for me anyway) to stay in the closet for so long, and I still find myself trying to integrate the two into a whole "me." But I don't think it's useful for us to look at it from the view of only science or only one religious group. If we want people to really look or really change, it has to be a broader perspective. ...And shouldn't our goal be the truth, even if we find a few of our beliefs are right and others might need rethinking? My goal in my response is to say we have to look at the whole picture and be open minded, if we really want to find the answers ourselves or promote other people's search for those answers.

I'm a gay guy. I'm right handed, and my ring finger's longer than my index finger. I'm an only child, but my mom had at least two pregnancies before me and one or two after. I have no idea which way my hair whorl turns. My hair turned wavy after puberty, not that that has anything to do with anything. I find it really interesting that many of Colin's closest friends are gay. Looking back, I now think several of my closest friends in school may have been gay or leaning that way, but I don't know for sure. However, I didn't get to fool around much (and not as much as I would've liked, if I'd really admitted it).

Call the police and ask. Look up a GLBT community center and ask. We can give you advice, but we aren't right there where you are. You have friends, neighbors, an employer and co-workers, school counselors/teachers/professors, local clergy, heck, talk to clerks at the stores you visit, if you have to. -- Tell them it's your boyfriend or tell them it's your roommate. Whatever. What I mean is, you have people you can turn to there. You don't have to be alone in getting through a problem. Don't be scared. Be confident, be smart, be strong, and take action. -- I say this as a pretty passive guy. You *can* change things for the better. Do it. Please.

Aw, if they talk to themselves, they might at least be entertaining, or even profound. Or so I/we tell myself/ourselves.... Oops! Hahaha, have fun, guys and girls.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a frisky Frank the invisible friend than a frisky Frank the rasta zombie. Freaky frisky Frank Zombie the rasta frightful foe, few find him faultless, you know! On the other hand, a frisky rasta invisible zombie might really liven up a party. Or would that be deaden down a party? OK, I'm confused now. Hideous, horrid, rasta zombie, but hard to tell how haggard, because he's invisible. That's it. Wait, if a zombie gets frisky, um do things, uh, fall off? :yikes: Ewww! So sorry. Very sorry. :: is ashamed :: Haphazard and less than half complete, the invisible yet horrible rasta zombie remains indefatiguably frisky. Yes, it just gets scarier and crazier the more I chatter on. Toodles, Frankie boy!

Your primary responsibility is for your own safety. Get yourself out of that abusive relationship as carefully and quickly as possible. Anyone who would put a pan of hot grease near your face is not a friend or a lover. He doesn't get an excuse for that. He has severe problems. Sure, he needs help. The police and a therapist can do that. You can and should complain about the abuse to the police. Get yourself safe first. If you can, get friends and/or the police to come over and get you out of there. If you can tell family or friends before you leave, good; but you can tell them afterward and you can have friends call for you too. Your possessions are nowhere near as important as your safety and your life. Things can be replaced. Sure, take them if you can, by having friends or the police there to help you get your things, or at least important papers. But honestly, if it's you or your stuff, choose you. You are not bad or stupid or undeserving or crazy. You are a guy who is putting up with someone else's incredibly bad behavior. You don't need to take him back or forgive him or go back to him. That is not an "awww, that's sweet, he'll change, I can change him" relationship. That is a "get me the **** out of here, he's bad news" relationship. Please listen to the good advice you're getting from people here. Get yourself in a better situation, then get help to rebuild your life. You *can* do it. So do it! :hugs:

What?! They killed Kenny? I mean, Badass.Girl.Starbuck? Hmm, that takes cajones. Or an onset of the stupids. OK, I'll admit it. I haven't watched much of the new BSG. I can't seem to get into it. I've liked what I've seen. The trouble is, I remember the original from when I was a kid. Heck, I knew it was cheesy, but I liked the family/team feel they had, and it was fun, enjoyable scifi, with some occasional real thought to it. I had major problems with them adding "Six" aka 7of9 meets BSG, and with them changing Starbuck to a woman, because it would mess with the the Starbuck-Apollo friendship. (I really liked Dirk Benedict's Starbuck, btw.) Yes, Galactica 1980 was really embarrassing. To the questions in the thread: Starbuck was "killed" in the original BSG, but saved and brought to a planet/desert-island and had a demigod child with a woman named Circe. (See Greek mythology.) Apollo and Sheba in the classic BSG, ran across a starship of the "Messengers of Light" (or some such) who were regarded as godlike beings. They effectively had a near-death/out-of-body/other-dimensional experience, where they were given a "vision" about the location of Earth. Then they were returned, unharmed, to the Galactica. -- If you'd like to watch the old Galactica episodes, they're worth it. They're 1970's scifi TV. At the time, they were big, big budget TV, the best SFX available. (they overspent on real computers and monitors, and had COBOL er, Lords of Kobol, graphics...yeah.) Anyway, by modern standards, they're still fun. Heck, I have the old movie on DVD. ----- Hmm, so they killed off Starbuck in the new show? Well, they could be setting up for a vision of Earth or a way to get past problems with the Cylons. I've liked recent episodes I've seen. I guess it's growing on me.... Help, I'm being absorbed, assimilated, I... "Resistance is futile. You will be...." OK, wrong show, I know. ...Can I just say, unrelated to anything, I love Farscape? Thank you. Back to BSG shock.

I suspect irony, as opposed to brassy, was involved in Bondwriter's wry comment. Hahaha, but good catch on St. Paul and Muhammed. (In all fairness to both religions.) (And I'm saying that line of discussion's not meant to open up large cans of worms.)

Ahnold as Hamlet? Oh boy, what alternate universe have I landed in this time? (Sorry, Arnie, wherever you are.)

Thanks, everyone, I really appreciate it.

After a little searching, I've confirmed that's Catalan = Catal

TV shows nearly always have a team of staff writers and seek those and other writers through agents. Because of that, I have the impression you're new at this. Please don't start with a soap opera clich

Just to avoid confusion, for those who know me as blue on other sites, I'm not B1ue (notice the one in B1ue's member name). Happy Birthday, B1ue! Feliz Cumplea

I got hooked. It shows promise. Good science fiction on TV is way too rare. The premise is scary. I'd hate to think how risky it'd really be to live in that world. The people in the town are stuck with the hand that's dealt them. Now they have to figure out how to deal with it. The drama comes from how real people face real risks. They are at least tackling things without getting too cute or trite. I hope they can sustain it. Hey, where else can you live where a "healthy glow" and "humming" are measured on a Geiger counter?

:hugs: back

Happy Belated Birthday, Nick.

Happy New Year, everyone! Remember, China (and Asia) gave us moveable type and paper. It wasn't just Europe; they were invented in both places. So every reader, writer, and editor should be thankful in the new year. Added: Xiao Chun, thanks for those audio links.

The play deals with some pretty intense subject matter. For that reason, younger kids probably shouldn't see it. I haven't seen the play or film versions. I'll probably see some version of it. Whether appearing nude in a play bothers someone's morals is up to that person. Is Dan Radcliffe a role model for boys, because of his appearance in the Harry Potter movies? Sure, as far as that goes. But he's ultimately an actor who will do many different roles in his career besides Harry Potter. Instead of decrying it, this is an opportunity for parents to discuss it with their kids. - "What do you think of...?" - "Is it good or bad to...?" - "Is being nude good or bad...?" Yes, he's one handsome guy. (Woo-hoo, he sure is.) Yes, he's doing this to show he can be more of an actor than just "the actor who played Harry Potter." If it were some other actor in the role, would it be big news? Probably not.

First the general, then the specific: Give me relationships: loving and liking, boyfriends and/or girlfriends, partners, friends, families. All the kinds of relationships that matter to people. I'm not so interested in reading text-porn, that is the "engineer's assembly instructions," like "Tab A in Slot B, insert and repeat." Hey, I'll grant you, it can be instructive information, if you don't know how or have never done it, including, "how does that feel, what do I do, what does he/she do?" Yes, it can be exciting and stimulating. -- But ultimately, you are going to realize, "hey, most of this is instinctive," and "aww, but *I* am not with someone and doing that right now, so now I'm lonely and horny." More important, if the characters in the story don't show some sort of caring for each other; some kind of friendship or love, then it isn't loving and liking, and it sure isn't fun or sexy. The type of story that does that is too close to what's called a "quickie" or a ...well, you can guess what the sex-only stories are often called. ----- So I am fine if there are gay characters that love each other or like each other. I definitely needed that, when I was first exploring on the net, and dared to look for gay things, and finally found gay stories, and then stories that filled that need to find there were other guys who felt like me, who were gay and wanted more than just sex. (Hey, I was very mixed up and naive.) I am also quite fine that they have straight friends. Most of my friends and family are straight. That's real life. There are straight couples, straight singles, and gay-friendly straight people. (Thank goodness!) There are also gay people who are, uh, "straight-friendly," let's say. Sure, you are going to see gay couples loving each other in gay fiction. That's needed. That shows people who people like me or you are: normal, real, everyday guys and girls who happen to love people of the same sex. I think it is also fine to see straight couples loving each other in gay-friendly fiction. That is also needed. That is normal and real If we are to have the equality and the normalcy and the acceptance we want and that is too often missing for gay people, then it must be no big deal to have both presented truthfully in the fiction we read, write, and edit. If you are asking if I want explicit depictions of gay or straight sex in gay fiction, then I answered that in the "general" section of this post. To me, that should be there, only if the story needs it to be a complete story, to tell the tale. If it is there just to be there, it's not doing much, story-wise. Yes, there are times when it's needed to show something important about love and being human, but most of the time, it's not so necessary to the story. Relationships, liking and loving, win all the way. Just my two cents.

Huh, so I look in the thread, expecting weather discussion, and I find French and Qu

Hey, Nick, you have talent for story writing and for poetry, so don't second guess yourself. You've gotten comments from varied readers who've really liked what you write. To me, story writing is largely about the characters, and that means their personalities and their relationships. There doesn't have to be sex directly in a story to tell you about those characters' feelings and sex lives. On the other hand, if it's there in the story, it needs to be there for a good reason to serve the story, to show something important, story-wise, to the readers. It's the "less is more" rule: let the readers use their imaginations to fill in the blanks. That's the reason given for bikinis and speedos, too, lol. On writing an older character, or another character type, when you aren't that type or that age, it's a matter of writing what you know, what you've seen about that kind of person. I'm nowhere near my grandmother's age (and a lot of other differences) but I know what she's like, on almost anything. I'm not a teen, but I know what the teens I know are like and what my friends and I were like as teens, albeit filtered through my current self. Imagine yourself as that character, inside that character. Pretend. And use what you know of that type of person. It'll probably come easier than you think. -- Being a teen today is way different than when I was a teen, but a lot of the feelings and situations are still the same, just by being human. The same goes for being an adult: When I was 18, I never would've expected my life to have some of the changes I've had. I imagined a very different "me" then than I turned out to be. But I am still very much like that younger "me," despite all the changes. I'm basically the same guy as I was; but a "me" who's added or changed a lot onto that original self. Bottom line: Imagine; pretend; get in character; know who he/she is and what he/she is like and what his/her history has been. -- Look, you'll do fine. You've just amped up the volume on the imagination. Enjoy writing... geezer-boy.