Graeme

I don't see how I could be offended The reason is that they are signalling to the goal umpire at the other end of the field. Both umpires need to agree on the score at the end of the game, so they need to know if a goal is scored (six points) or a behind (one point). Naturally, in the top level of the sport, technology makes this irrelevant, but at the suburban level this is quite important. Speaking of strange signals... I've watched a few American Rules Football (gridiron) games. The umpires there have their own weird set, especially after they turn their microphones on just before speaking directly to the camera.... I don't I used to be a basketball referee, so I'm more likely to use that strange set of signals....

Nope, not too late They're due in on 15th March, though that's extended to 22nd March if you submit the story already formatted into HTML with whatever graphics you want included.

But it requires an admin to change it -- and not just any admin. If I understand it correctly, to alter the figures means going into the database and making changes at that level. I don't recall a NO vote over four, but I know the percentage of NO's have been going down steadily because the YES vote has been going up. It maybe the percentage that you're remembering.

In case anyone missed it, C James has just passed his two year anniversary at GA If anyone doesn't know who C James is, he's GA the member with the most posts (by over 1500) who claims to be a shy, retiring lurker who doesn't use cliffhangers... He managed to reach 3000 posts in his first year of membership, though old age is slowing him down -- he only made about 2500 in his second year.

I really appreciate this particular question, because I've recently found myself asking if I've used a particular scene or plot device before.... However, I still have a number of original ideas to write about. I think those ideas are more important than individual words. I may use some of the same words I've used in other stories, but the setting is different. If I re-used an entire scene, I'd be concerned, but words... no, I'm not bothered by that. Yes, it's possible for an author to get stale, to run out of new ideas, but I think that's an author who is tired, who needs a break. There are a LOT of new ideas floating out there, waiting to be used. You just need to be open to read them. Even if an author finds himself stuck in a nursing home, there are still stories to be written. How about the young guy who visited a nursing home as part of work experience, or after being pressured (ordered by the courts?) to do some community service? What impact does the nursing home have on him? There are LOTS of opportunities for inspiration -- the author just needs to be open to them

Alas, he's only pointing out what's already in the posted story. He may be hinting at future events, but he's not said so. Umpires ruling: No Spoiler....

Sorry, TL, but I have to disagree with you, at least as far as I'm concerned. I really don't know how to answer the original question because it would require putting myself back in the situation of starting a new relationship -- something that I don't want to think about. Sex and love are definitely two different things. But would I hold back any particular sex act if I wasn't serious about someone? I honestly don't know. I suspect not. To me, there isn't a sex act that means "love". Love is something else, and sex can be an expression of love, but love isn't dependent on sex or any particular sexual act. If it was, I'd think it would be very shallow. This entire discussion seems to me to relate to the idea of "keeping your virginity until marriage". People are saying that there is a particular sexual act that they'll keep for "the one" and that's effectively their "virginity". Given that they are saying they'll perform other sexual acts for other people, I find that... well... odd. Everyone is an individual, and I respect their personal views, but I can't say that they agree with mine.

I hope you don't think you're being picked on but I've got the same reservations as Kevin. I don't know of any research that supports this statement, and anecdotal evidence shows plenty of examples otherwise. For example, Justice Micheal Kirby on the Austrlian High Court (Australia's equivalent of the USA Supreme Court) has been with his partner for many years (over a decade, I believe). Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens party, has been with his partner for years. That's two high profile Australian out gays who don't fit with what you've said. Now, I can see that some of what you've said could have a basis in fact. In the heterosexual world, it is the female who typically puts the brakes on any sexual activity and controls the timing of those events. The male tends to want more sex... That means that for gay guys, sex tends to dominate, rather than building a relationship. However, that's a short-lived thing, and as the gay guy matures, he looks more for a relationship than for a sex partner. I'm well aware of many gay guys (of all ages) who are looking for relationships, not sex partners, so I believe, long term, they approach (possibly equal) heterosexuals in their desire for relationships. I'd be interested in that research. Are you able to supply a link? What I'll be looking for is 1. sample size, 2. demographics for that sample, 3. how representative that sample was, and 4. how accurate your summary is. On that last point, I'm well aware how the media (and scientists) can blow things out of proportion. For example, if the research indicated that 8% of heterosexuals were like this, and homosexuals were 12%, then that really isn't significant. You can make the statement you've made, but it still means that the majority don't agree. Graeme :mace: (I've decided to start using this, since Kevin's taken the emoticon....)

Don't worry too much. You're still young (I suspect you hate it when someone says that ). I was well into my twenties before I met anyone, and my late twenties before I got married. My best online friend was 31 before his first boyfriend and 37 before he met someone he'd like to spend the rest of his life with So you've got plenty of time You're already one up on both of us -- you know you want a boyfriend. It took us a lot longer to work that out.... :wacko:

This is where things get tricky. The idea that if guns were banned (or heavily restricted) in the USA, then only outlaws would have guns is, unfortunately, very true. Because guns are so prevalent, they are prevalent in the criminal parts of USA society. Thus, it is a legitimate concern that citizens have a means of defending themselves against attackers armed with guns. Australia gets away with it because guns are still not that common in the general criminal group (though some parts do have guns -- they're just the part that is less likely to go after the general citizen). In the USA, your average drug addict (to pick only one small group) who need cash to buy another hit are likely to have access to a gun. This group is also more likely to use that gun against other citizens. What is your average law-abiding civilian supposed to do in this case? While I support gun control in Australia, and while I think gun ownership in the USA is out of control, I recognise that the situation in the USA is not simple and that the solutions that work in Australia are unlikely to work in the USA. What I don't know is how to solve the problem -- how to keep the average citizen safe, while lowering the incident of gun-related deaths and injuries.

I don't really think I need to answer this, but I will anyway Yes, I want kids, but I don't want more than the two I already have I also got them the old fashioned away Interestingly, I've always been keener on kids than my wife. She's never been particularly baby friendly (my mum learnt very quickly not to ask if she's like to hold the baby when one of my sisters or brothers brought around the latest grandkid), except during the few years when our boys were little. She's always been child friendly, though, and would go to a reasonable amount of trouble to get her old pony kitted up for pony rides when kids came around to our place. Sadly, that pony is no longer with us and her latest horse isn't safe for unskilled riders.

I apologise for coming in late. I know some of my points have already been said in form or another, but I want to say them anyway Actually, no. Guns are not banned in Australia. They never have been and never will be (I believe). What we have is gun RESTRICTION. The number of people who own guns outside of gun clubs is very low, but they exist. A very wide group that own guns are farmers -- they need them. My brother-in-law is a farmer, and his two nephews (both teenagers) are eagerly waiting for their gun licenses to come through. A former neighbour of mine is a hunter and he owns guns. All perfectly legal. As I understand it, before you are allowed to own a gun in Australia, you have to show reason (recreational hunting is a legitimate reason) and go through a number of checks. Most citizens don't have a reason to have a gun, and hence don't have one. This keeps the number of guns in circulation in Australia quite low, and THAT is the major reason for the low rate of shootings in Australia. Which is pretty much the situation here, too, but we've got the advantage that it's more difficult to smuggle in guns from other countries since we only have sea borders and no land borders. All weapons are force multipliers. A weapon allows for a strong and more deadly attack than no weapon. Guns don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier for someone who wants to kill to do so. They are a high force multiplier, much higher than a machete. You can kill lots of people with your bare hands, but it is a lot easier with a pistol, and even easier with an automatic rifle. There are a lot of reasons why "normal" people need guns. Farmers I've already mentioned -- indeed almost anyone who deals with livestock. Security guards are another class of "private" individuals who need guns. Definitely! We need to treat causes, not just symptoms. In my humble opinion, stricter gun control laws will not work in the USA because there are just too many guns already out there. It works in Australia because we've never had a high guns/population ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that restriction of gun access in Australia keeps the number of shootings here to a very low number, but it is way too late for that to happen in the USA. Indeed, it was too late even before the USA declared independence I was going to make this point, but I saw you had already made it If keeping weapons is deemed necessary for citizens to feel safe, then why aren't they permitted any weapon they like, including nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, if that's what it takes? The doctrine of Mutual Annihilation kept the the USA safe from the USSR during the cold war. Shouldn't Americans be allowed to do the same to keep their homes safe from killers? "If you threaten my family, I'm going to blow all of us up, so stay away!". Yes, I know that's silly, but those who argue that guns shouldn't be restricted don't seem to be campaigning against the restrictions already in place. Many guns are already illegal in the USA and the majority appear to accept that. The argument then becomes which weapons should remain legal. Sadly, I have to disagree. I would like to think this was true, but I don't believe it. There is too many weapons out there, and too many people in the USA have the opinion that they should be allowed to own them (eg. because of the 2nd Amendment) that trying to eliminate sufficient quantities of "illegal" firearms is doomed to failure. I definitely agree. Too many people (of all ages) to try to find someone else to be responsible for their actions. Personal responsibility seems to be a dying trait in society... at least it appears that way at times You have to be careful with your historical analysis, because the societies in question are very different to the societies of today. After all, the vast majority of Australians don't own guns, but I see no sign that anyone is going to try to take over the country. I agree that there are nations today where your statement would very true, because the citizens don't trust the way their country governmental structures are set up. I don't see that as being true for many other nations, though. I'll also repeat what I said above: The USA already has gun control in place, and has for decades. If you don't believe in gun control, why aren't you lobbying against the existing ban on many types of guns? However, I'll also repeat that I don't believe that a much stricter form of gun control in the USA would work. Your society won't allow it. That solution is not open to you -- you'll need to find another way to address the rate of shootings.

Sorry, but I've been snowed under with work, as well as being away for a couple of days. By the time I got back, this thread was well and truly underway and I didn't have anything to add Onto the issue at hand.... *coughs loudly* Yes, this is a spoiler. Suitable punishment is being organised, but I'm going to be kind to the poor old goat, since today is Valentine's Day in the USA. Now, if he'd given the spoiler on any other day... :mace: Back to the story, and I honestly don't have anything more to add. I feel the key points are the GPS (which has been explained adequately -- indeed, I didn't know some of the detail specified), and the business about landing a plane. It sounds to me that if Brandon ever found himself in that situation, he's likely to kill everyone if he tried to land the plane. I was especially intrigued by the suggestion that a plane crash may be used as the way to kill the band. There are numerous examples of musicians killed in plane crashes, especially small planes. I think that this just may be what CJ has planned, though we'll have to wait and see.

Ouch! :wacko: Shootings in Australia are rare, very rare, but I have to say that the media here must be becoming desensitised, too, because I haven't seen reports on this in our newspapers.

Gee... that's like... twenty years ago? I voted Other because while we decided to stay friends, that didn't last. It was a long distance relationship in the days before the Internet, so it easier for each of us to go our own ways. While I agree with Kevin's advice, there's really only two people you should be listening to (and I'm not one of them ) : yourself and your boyfriend. You know the issues and the risks, and your boyfriend has a vested interest in any contact you have with a psychotic ex. Between the two of you, you'll work out the best approach. Good luck!

I agree with Menzo and Krista. You acknowledge what they've said, but you don't have to reciprocate. If they start to push, say that you like them, and may come to love them, but it's too early for you. Usually, they probably won't push, though you may see some signs of disappointment if you don't repeat it back to them. If you do, you have to make a decision on whether to explain or not.

Happy 17th Birthday! Have a great day and remember to be obnoxious to your big brother (only joking )

Happy 30th Birthday! Have a great day

I know, James, but I wasn't sure others realised that. Why restrict it to just those months? Taking out the trash should be a year-round activity

No offense intended Kevin, but that's a long way from worst case scenario. It could be that the USA is very different from Australia, but a decent employer won't hire some purely off the internet and/or a phone call. They'll want to see the person. Which means you have to be able to travel to that place first to have an interview and if it doesn't work out, you don't have a job. There are jobs that will take someone sight-unseen, but they also tend to jobs with very low job security. The same applies for renting a place. If you are renting through an agent, you'll need some sort of credit history/rating before the agent will recommend you as a tenant to the owner. We're talking about a person who doesn't have that sort of thing, or doesn't have a good credit history. If you are sub-leasing a room from someone else, they'll still probably want to see you, though I'll accept that the younger generation is more likely to accept an internet based application. Then again, the original comment was about adults, who a younger person is probably less likely to accept as a roommate. Finally, your analysis failed to address the issue of dependents. That doesn't necessarily mean kids. I know of a few gay guys who are the primary carer for a parent or grandparent. In other situations, they are looking after younger siblings because the parents are... shall we say... incompetent? In situations like these, moving isn't an option. It is also situations like these where the person involved typically has no spare income and little, if any, savings capacity. There is no doubt that for many people, moving is an option, albeit a scary and risky one. If they situation is really bad, it is probably the best option for them. But it isn't an option for everyone, which was the point I was trying to make.

I'm on ADSL, though I was on dial-up for a long time. I also had dial-up for work when I was travelling, and it wasn't unusual for me to end up with a 22K line -- painfully slow. The best I ever had on dial up was around 46K. The ADSL I have is significantly faster than that, but it's not as fast as work's network. I'm still waiting for them to install the ADSL2+ hardware at the local exchange. When they do (not yet scheduled, unfortunately), I should be able to get speeds over 16,000kps: http://www.iinet.com.au/support/iinetwork/speeds.html

You know I like you, James, but every so often I have to smile and shake my head. In this case, I'll just point out that my wife is 'a breeder', as are my brothers, sisters and mother My father was, too, when he was alive. On the other hand, there are definitely some non-gay people who I accept wouldn't be missed if they disappeared one fine day

My sincerest apologies, but I have to disagree. This is true for some adults, but there are others where it is just not that simple. There can be many reasons why moving is not a simple thing to do. It could be the lack of finances that makes moving difficult. A move is expensive, since you will have to find a place to stay, while looking for a job. If you don't have that college degree, and you're not in a high-demand job, it could be months before you find reasonable employment. You need enough money saved up to allow you to do that -- and often the people in this situation don't have much saving capacity. Other possible reasons why a move could be difficult could involve family and friends. If there are people dependent on you, moving isn't trivial, and may not even be an option. Don't underestimate the power of the unknown. People tend to be conservative -- they'll accept the devil they know rather than risk the unknown. Moving away from everything and everyone you know is not easy -- especially when you don't know what you're moving to. They may be better off if they move, and you can tell them that they'll be better off, but they don't know it and they have to worry about moving from the frying pan into the fire. Moving away is an option, and it is often a good option, but it isn't always easy and it doesn't always work.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of "Freedom of Association". This meant that because the BSA are a private organisation, they are allowed to set the rules of who they will admit as members and who they will exclude. While I dislike the discrimination, I believe this is the correct ruling, given the constitution of the USA. I don't believe the Supreme Court has ruled regarding employment, though -- their ruling was on membership, not employment.

Hi, quietriot, Welcome to GA. If you need a little encouragement with writing, have a look at the anthologies. There are five anthologies this year, with the first one being due in about a months time. Otherwise, have a look at the other themes (go to the Anthology forum and have a look at the pinned threads) and maybe get started. The anthologies are a good way to get started Graeme