Graeme

Happy 21st Birthday, Xeran! Party hard and have lots of fun!

Winchester wasn't -- the actor who played Winchester is It's an important distinction. They are all actors, so what you see on the screen doesn't reflect their real lives.

Interesting I always liked Major Charles Winchester. I use him as an example of a three dimensional character, while the character he replaced, Major Frank Burns, was a two dimensional character.

Sorry, I didn't see that. I had gone off the earlier article I had read that just said Congress could overrule the district council, and not mention that it also requires Presidential approval.

I read this earlier. I'm not sure of the mechanics, though. It seems to me that President Obama has nothing to do with it -- it's Congress that has the right to veto the legislation, not the President. Can anyone clarify that for me? Moderator note: If this thread starts to become political, it will be moved to The Soapbox

I just had Vista's Windows Defender report that AVG wasn't turned on. This time, I went to the AVG console and it reported that everything was fine. I suspect it's a timing issue -- the Windows Defender is checking if the AVG is running before the AVG has finished starting up. In other words, if the AVG icon is in the taskbar tray, or if you can see the avgtray.exe process in Task Manager, then ignore it....

Welcome NightOwl88 and Draigen! If you've got any questions, please don't hesitate to ask Otherwise, enjoy! Graeme

The New York Times article I just read implied that if he doesn't veto it, he's more likely to let it become law without signing it. I don't know what the significance of that is, but if it becomes law, it becomes law.

The death in Texas was a 23 month old Mexican who, with his parents, were visiting. There are a few confirmed cases in New Zealand, from a school group that had just returned from Mexico. The Australian government is trying to track down people who were on the same plane as them. There is also, I believe, mandatory screening of all flight crews on International flights from affected areas. However, I'm not panicking at the moment. The numbers are still sufficiently low that it's not a concern. They seemed to have gotten onto it fast enough that the virus doesn't seemed to have reached a critical mass of people (yet).

Way too long ago, but research shows that one of the first words a lot of kids use correctly is "NO!"

Yes I do. That was my thought, too. The laptop at home with Vista has this same problem. I just restart AVG manually. I haven't tried looking for a fix. The problem is with Vista, not AVG, though, because none of the other machines with AVG have a problem. Of course, you could argue that AVG needs to do whatever it has to, to stop Vista from not letting it start, but it's easier to blame the operating system

The answer depends on the type of story. In some stories, you don't need to know about the other people around. However, in the majority of stories the author should indicate something about other people around the main characters. Parents are good example -- I don't know how many times I've read a story and wondered what happened to the parents? They never seemed to be there.... Similarly, any time there's something going on in a public or semi-public place, there will be other people around. If the main characters are just having a conversation, then the author can ignore them. If, however, the main characters start making out, then I would expect the other people around them to react, and the story should show that reaction. When the other people interact significantly with the main characters, or if the other people are key people in a situation (eg. parents), then the author should make at least some mention of them. Leaving them out gives the impression that something is missing, while adding them in can often only require a sentence or two.

I think you've highlighted the key point. The problem is not in the technique, but in the motivation to maintain consistency. That's always been my problem. For example, I don't want to take time out of my life to do the exercise I know I need. To do so would either mean cutting down on my online time by exercising during my lunch break, or missing out on family time by exercising after work when I would prefer to be with the boys. Motivation is a much bigger problem for me than working out exactly what I should do to lose weight.

Okay, maybe it's just me. I don't like making assumptions, and so I didn't jump from the idea that he's trying to be close friends with other guys, including tactile contact, to the conclusion that he was going out with other guys. I've never seen it being a problem that two guys can like each other -- that, to me, is something completely separate from sexuality issues, especially since the counsellor is linking it to a dad's love, which is definitely non-sexual. The author may be trying to say in a subtle way that there's a sexual attraction there, but I think it would go straight over the head of most kids. He's too subtle for them, unless the readers have been taught that guys never like other guys. I also agree

You must have read a different book to me He was called faggot, etc, by other guys at school, and it says he felt different from them. That's it. It doesn't say he was bullied for being gay -- he was accused as being gay, but from what I know, that's not an unusually accusation teenage males use against someone they don't like. That doesn't mean it's true. I didn't see anything about him going out with other boys, and I didn't see anything that says he was accused because of his uncle, or considered himself to be gay because of his uncle (though the latter is not an unreasonable assumption from the way things are written -- at least from an adult's perspective). I still think that the book is revolting, but I don't read into it what you seem to have

I don't know what to say

Actually, no. Young kids tend to take things literally. The boy in the book turned out not to be gay -- he just thought he was. It says nothing about kids who are really gay. For them, I'd direct them to the wonderful Australian book, Pete, the sheep-sheep which has strong gay undertones for any adults who read it At least, I spotted them. Interestingly, our copy was given to us by my brother, the Uniting Church minister.... Now, if there's a gay boy from a dysfunctional family, with an uncle who molested him, then the kids may think it's because of a lack of love from the boys dad... which leads into what James is saying: I understand what you're say, but I think you're reading too much into it. The book actually says the boy is not gay, but being molested by his uncle made him think he was. However, I'm now getting a bad taste in my mouth because it is beginning to sound like I approve of the revolting book. I don't think it has any redeeming features and it definitely deserves to be on the WORST book for children list. It's inappropriate, inaccurate and has the danger, as James pointed out, that some kids will read more into it than they should.

I understand what you're saying, but really, it's only aimed at boys from dysfunctional families that think they are gay. Otherwise, a young teen or pre-teen will look at it and say "but I wasn't molested and my parents aren't fighting. What's this got to do with me?" However, I do agree it's an appalling book. Anyone over the age of ten would laugh at it, and there aren't many ten year olds that think they're gay since for most people sexuality develops after that point. All it's doing is telling younger kids (I would guess it's aimed at the 6-8 year olds) that people who say they're gay need more love from their fathers...

Kit and MikeL have said pretty much everything that I wanted to say In particular, looking at how a group with a particular label acts in a particular area does not necessarily translate to groups with the same label in other areas. For example, my understanding of the Boy Scouts is that some well known anti-gay policies in the USA are not applicable in other parts of the world. Thus, when talking about a group, it is useful to try to specify which particular subsection of that group is being discussed, though I accept that it is a natural human tendency ( ) to generalise more than is strictly valid.

G'day, Chase! You can change the name displayed in the forums yourself, but the pen-name in eFiction requires one of the Administrators/Tech Leads to change it. I would suggest sending a PM to JSmith to: 1) Ask to be added to the Author group 2) Ask for your eFiction pen-name to be changed from XXXX to YYYY Now, to change the name in the forums, in the top right hand corner, there's a link called "My Controls". Click on this, and about two thirds of the way down, there's a link called "Change Display Name". I think you'll be able to work it out from there Cheers! Graeme PS: We also have quarterly anthologies where we request stories. The next one has a theme of Carpe Deim (Seize the Day). If that sounds interesting, click on the link to have a read of the submission guidelines. The due date is 1st June, so there's still a fair amount of time And here's the link for the past anthologies.

My information is that chapter 33 should be posted this week. The title for chapter 33 is: Rendezvous

Happy Birthday, Kurt!

I read a theory a long time ago that almost all humour involves hurting someone. If you think about it, it's largely right. There is very little humour that doesn't involve someone being attacked. Gay jokes -- gays. Irish jokes -- the Irish. Practical jokes -- the victim. Political jokes -- the appropriate politician/political party. The correct response depends on the intent of the person telling the joke and the joke itself. Is it meant to be malicious? Jump on them from a great height. If it obviously an extreme exaggeration to try to be funny? Laugh along with everyone else. Now, part of the latter option comes with education. A major objection to gay jokes (taking one example) is that not enough people are properly educated about gay people, and hence can take the jokes as being widely applicable, rather than being exaggeration for the sake of humour. That's why some minorities should be protected, to a degree, until people learn that the 'stereotypes' being propagated through humour are not really true. That's why most Irish people don't take objection to Irish jokes -- almost everyone knows that stereotype of the dumb Irishman that is the root of most of these jokes is not really true. In a cosmopolitan area, most gay jokes are probably not offensive. However, in a redneck area, they probably are. The difference is in the audience: are they taking the joke as a joke and not something to be taken seriously, or do they believe that the butt of the joke represents the majority of gay people and that they can expect them to act accordingly? Just a few thoughts Humour is not something that is easily analysed, and try to work out when humour crosses the line into offensive is especially difficult, since that's largely a subjective judgement, anyway.

Well, Martin, it doesn't look like the lynching squad is being assembled. They're too busy laughing at themselves Seriously, I think the problem you're having is your definition of 'culture' is different to other peoples. I remember that other thread and since my definition of 'culture' is close to yours, I see your problem. But since I recognise that others have a different, broader definition of 'culture', I don't mind them using the term 'gay culture', even though for me it's largely meaningless.

I saw her last night on the TV here in Melbourne, on one of the current affair programs (my excuse was that I was channel surfing as she came on... ) The interesting part was the reactions of the judges. You could see that they weren't impressed and weren't expecting much when she came out, and then they went into collective shock when they heard her voice.