Graeme

Congratulations! That's so cool -- so you started going out when you were 15? Wow! Well done and I hope your relationship continues for a long, long time

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Bob! Have a great day!

Happy Birthday, Nick! I hope you have a great day and a fantastic year ahead

Actually, no Forgiveness was described when someone did something against you, but if 'God' has punished you, it was up to God to forgive you, not the other people. It was up to them to find the message that God was sending them, and to do what was required to gain his forgiveness. At least that's my reading of it....

I've noticed the wording, too, and wondered how long the two are going to get away with it. It's really only the paparazzi they need to worry about. Being gay in the music industry doesn't have as much stigma anymore. It's only photographic proof that is likely to cause problems. On the last, though, Brandon is portrayed as Barbra's boyfriend, and that explains him -- he's being loyal. There was an attempt to make Linda Chase's girlfriend, but I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of that. When combined with images that make them look like a couple, some tabloid is definitely going to bite and put it up as a theory.

Partially true. You're looking at it from a modern perspective. From their perspective, they don't know what causes them, and a common 'belief' was that it was punishment from God. As such, they shouldn't be in a Church or they might cause the same thing to happen to them. Some of those conditions (eg. lameness, or arthritis, blindness, deafness) can be acquired during your life. Since they don't know what causes them, being cautious isn't such as a bad idea. Okay... maybe I'm stretching things a bit here, BUT I still stand by the statement that many of the restrictions were sensible rules to live by in that era. They may not be sensible now, but they were then.

It's still Summer in Australia and New Zealand, at least for the next week

Yes, I think we all know that you say that. That doesn't make it the truth, and, as the author, you have the final say in everything that gets posted. You take responsibility for any mistakes, and, conversely, get any credit that is due

It sounds like we agree to a degree. For example, the milk and meat restriction would have been a food contamination issue. The prohibition about diseased/deformed entering a church would have been to stop the spread of infection (you have to remember they didn't have a germ theory then, so it's surprisingly good practical advice to keep potential carriers from public gatherings, such as in a church). But these sorts of things are no longer necessarily applicable in today's world. And that's where we agree

If you back to the chapter when he made his re-appearance, he didn't recognise himself when he saw his reflection, so why should anyone else recognise him? There's also no evidence he used his real name when he booked into that place, even if they bothered with things like that. Helen certainly had her revenge on the boys. I have to wonder though -- when did she develop such a mean streak? Of course, all the gay guys who'll be watching the video when it comes out won't be complaining.....

I have to disagree. I don't know about other cultures, but if you examine the Jewish Law (the early books of the Bible, Leviticus in particular) it is a remarkably GOOD set of rules for the culture of the time. eg. Don't wear clothing of more than one thread. The reason was that it didn't work! With the technology of the day, mixing fibres produced clothing that wasn't as good as single fibre clothing. The same applies to most of the agricultural restrictions in the same section -- they were the best practises at the time. eg. Don't eat the flesh of certain animals (I can't remember the exact rules) The reason is that these are the animals from which humans are most likely to pick up an illness if the food isn't cooked properly. eg. Incest Incest produces a higher rate of stillborns and deform babies. eg. Homosexuality At the time, the Jews were heavily outnumbered by the surrounding nations. Any sexual behaviour that reduced the rate of population growth wasn't a good idea. eg. Don't worship idols. The Jews needed to keep their social identity amongs the various religions practised around them. This, and other similar restrictions, helped keep them from being assimilated into those other cultures, and hence disappear as Jews. The instructions are not as applicable now (we often wear clothing made of more than one fibre) because the reasons behind the restrictions are no longer relevant, but they definitely were at the time they were written. I've picked the examples to make my point, but you get the idea. The rules are NOT distinctly illogical. Some are derived from the culture of the time. eg. The Jews had a concept of perfection, so imperfect things were forbidden. This is the basis for the prohibition on shellfish -- fish were considered the most perfect sea creature, so shellfish were lesser creatures and Jews were told to avoid them. They also had strong gender roles. This is why women wearing mens clothing or men wearing womens clothing was considered an abomination. Men lying with other men as if they were women fits into the same category -- it confuses the gender roles. Trying to blindly apply these to modern society is the mistake -- not the original rules themselves.

Congratulations! Though is it really a surprise...?

Why should you get mocked? You're not alone with those views However, I remember reading a story about a woman who was still single at forty. She made the comment that the view of "waiting until you're married" has the collorary that if you don't find the right one, expect to die a virgin.... That was the point where she was having reservations about the idea of waiting until she was married before she had sex. This is not a simply area and to expect there to be one answer that fits everyone is unrealistic. cellArdore has a legitimate and admirable approach to the situation. I wish him all the luck and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that I expect him to find someone who fits his criteria. The sort of person he's looking for is the sort of person who'll be looking for him in return

As long as you don't mind their dad's using you as a punching bag. After, one must work on one's fitness when one gets a chance...

Congratulations! 5000 members is a great tribute to Myr's hard work and vision Thank you to everyone whose joined -- you're all part of that 5000

Welcome! Another Aussie is always welcome (we need to teach the rest of these guys and girls about the best place in the world). That, and teaching them how to spell properly...

I'm glad you had a good day, Joe Also, that seems to be a characteristic of good Italian restaurants -- serving too much food.

Congratulations, CJ! Category 5 was up against some tough nominations, so it's a real credit to you that it won. I hope this dispels all doubts on the subject of whether or not you're a good/great writer

If you go with the theory that the characters are all unique and individuals then everyone has their good and weak points. Some people prefer some portions of a persons personality more than others. The characters in the story get to decide for themselves who they prefer, and while others may disagree, it's not their decision. How many times have you looked at a couple in real life and wondered how they could be together -- they don't seem right for each other? If there's a flaw in your writing (and I'm not saying there is), it maybe that you're not showing enough of why the main character has chosen one over the other. If there are two possible love interests, there has to be a reason why they've picked one. Readers may not agree, but if you haven't shown why the lead character has made his choice, then the reader doesn't have the information to make up their own minds.

A death is not something to throw into a story lightly. If, as a reader, I don't think it fits, I'm sometimes left thinking the writer has done it as a cheap technique to keep the story interesting... which turns me off. The situation and any foreshadowing (even if subtle) can play a big part in whether I accept the death (as a reader). Car accidents and small plane crashes are a classic technique and hence one I'm wary of. Yes, they happen in real life. Yes, people die from them. But if you look at the statistics, they are rare! They can be mentioned in a story. They can occur in the back history, but most stories only cover a short period of time (months, maybe a year or two) and the number of people who are touched by a road or plane death in that period is just not high. On the other hand, sufficient foreshadowing or a reasonable situation (and I'm fairly generous to the author there) will allow me to accept it. The guy who constantly breaks the rules or shows a lot of arrogance -- for him to be in a road accident (as one example) is a stretch but too much of one. The character who kills himself after some horrible news -- understandable (albeit tragic). Rare tropical diseases... give me a break! I've killed one major character in my novels so far (I've also killed almost everyone on Earth in one of my short stories, but that's different ), but I had good story reasons for doing so, and the character's death wasn't unpredictable. Upsetting, yes, but not unreasonable in the circumstances. Having said all of that, I also make an exception where the death is the premise for the story. It doesn't bother me at all about the probabilities or how unlikely a death is, if the idea is that it can occur and this is the story that results when it does.

Progress! He's now saying he won't admit to using cliffhangers, not that he doesn't use them At this rate, we just might still be alive when he admits it....

I love an optimist

That's not my understanding. It takes planning to take a gun into the school. It may be done with little preparation, but some is required. The time to produce and store a chemical weapon may be sufficient for sanity to prevail, while the time to load a gun and go into the school doesn't, but I believe the majority of school shootings involved some level of preparation. The other factor would be that a chemical weapon rarely allows the perpetrator the chance to see what he/she has done. Using a gun, they can see their victims (possibly their tormentors) reaction. James, I appreciate what you're saying and as someone who played D&D when I was younger, I understand some of the crazy statements made about the game. It was an easy scapegoat.... Kudos for working with the accused kids afterwards

My understanding is that the person who started the poll can edit the poll itself, but not the voting. For example, they could add an extra question, and maybe even alter the wording on the options, but they can't change votes that have already been made. Only someone with database access can do that.