Graeme

A belated Congratulations, Joe! This place wouldn't be the same without the hard work you put in. I, for one, really appreciate what you do to keep GA running.

He's also lying. I don't expect to see the next chapter until Wednesday, my time. No matter how much he promises, CJ always seems to be a day late with his posting

Actually, not only did NONE of the characters mention the name, but neither did the author in the narration. By your logic, all would therefore be guilty. And before you say it, so is everyone else, but we don't know who it is....

It was a wonderful chapter -- just not a happy Christmas chapter.

This is one of those times where being in one of the early timezones is a disadvantage. I've been away for a few days, visiting relations. As part of that, I took a few days off from the internet. Nice try... but no And to confirm what was said before, I got to read chapter 19 before I went away, but I couldn't say anything... though I'm glad someone picked up on the comment in my last post before I went away I worded it carefully. Steve has proven, yet again, that he can be a fine judge of character. His only flaw is that he slipped and gave CJ a quote he could use against him.... Yep! I, Graeme, hereby declare that I believe that LTMP 19 had a cliffhanger ending. Not only did it meet the spiritual requirement of a stressful situation that has the readers waiting anxiously to see what happens next, but it also has the poetic literal interpretation, with people hanging from cliffs (at least for a period in time before the dramatic ending). You've got me Yes, I read it before I went away. I started beta reading for CJ a couple of chapters ago. Part of that is to keep him honest on the Australian parts (though he has other Australian's he also checks with). Thus, I got to read the chapter, and complain vigorously, some time ago. My comments on this chapter, that I emailed to him, included: 1. News reports can be wrong. 2. They were in a remote location. To confirm a death would take paramedics and a helicopter (almost certainly). Given the news report so quickly, it was probably by the papparazzi who followed them, and it is just as likely that the person is injured but not dead. 3. Since the name of the person involved is in the media report, CJ is just being a bastard by not telling us. I hope number one is true (it was my first reaction upon reading the ending), and I stand by number three. Maybe CJ needs a refinement on his title? C James: The Bastard Queen of the Evilest Cliffhangers!

I'm back. I've been away for a few days -- sorry. My view is that it's an incorrect news report. It wouldn't be the first time, and wouldn't be the last. My particular irritation is that the characters in the story know who it is, but CJ hasn't told the readers! I can't see why he wants to keep it a secret, and hence my vote for the slow roasting.....

Hi, everyone, I'm back -- to another wonderful chapter from CJ I now have to go make a few comments... (I think that's the polite word).

I hate to disagree, but the story clearly indicates it's one of the Carlisle brothers:

Okay, everyone, I'm off for a few days. I'm hoping the forum will still be in one piece when I get back -- though with chapter 19 of LTMP due to be posted, I'm sure there will be lots of activity :mace: Happy Holidays!

There's nothing material I want, so I'd just like the world to be a nicer place.

I don't that's possible. I have two young boys -- that complicates a person beyond any ability to uncomplicate them....

I did. It means The Scar wants very dirty bombs. Fallout is a terror tactic, which implies that these bombs are for terrorists, not the military. I thought at the time that this was obvious, which is why I didn't say anything at the time.

I agree I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Australia, the constitution defines which powers are at the federal level and which are at the state. At the time, the various states had not all decided to federate, so there are some strange quirks in there to keep certain parties happy. Today, Australia has three levels of government (Federal, State, Local) and it's incredibly inefficient as a consequence. It would be nice if everything could be decided federally (so we'd get consistency across the country), but that would tend to mean that the main population centres would get the majority of attention, and it is the rural areas that need the most help. A lot of people think one level should be removed, but should it be State or Local? I could make a case for Age of Consent being state based, to take into account native culture (eg. Alaska, Hawaii and the various Indian reservations), but it certainly would be simpler if it was federal. Of course, at the federal level you would have the issue of trying to get equal age of consents for homosexual vs hetereosexual couples (I believe some places have different ages for the two), and that sort of thing can be easier to put in at the state level for liberal states.... gee, it gets complicated awfully quickly, doesn't it?

As distinct from the Queen of the Evilest Cliffhangers?

G'day, DLP Glad to have you here

I must point out that Shadowgod has no role to play in the editing process, so he couldn't add any cliffhangers. He's the anonymous beta-reader that no one knows about, not the editor. This is further proof that Sacha's post was the sign of someone not in their right mind. Now, where is that damn medic to stop this before it spreads?

A very good analysis -- you've convinced me! Now, which politician is CJ's analogy? For the sake of avoiding political fights, I'll stick to long-dead politicians. I was thinking either Abraham Lincoln (with his desire to free all the goats... er... slaves) or Winston Churchill. Any other nominations? If we get enough interest, we might start a poll on the subject. (CJ -- if you want to cut this off at the pass, then you'd better get chapter 19 posted really soon. We're clearly in the silly-posting part of the feedback cycle now).

This story is written in a very different style to CJ's other stories. It's a first person confessional style that has a very cheeky feel to it. The narrator's personality comes through from the first page, and only gets stronger the more you read. Jake comes over as your classic "bad boy", but one with that bane of all "bad boys" everywhere -- a conscience. He couldn't get rid of Corey and it quickly became clear he didn't want to. The two developed what was promising to be a healthy relationship -- Corey was moderating the worst of Jake's behaviour (to a degree), which Jake was teaching Corey to loosen up and relax. Unfortunately, Corey's influence had fatal results -- a surprising twist in the tale. It is because of Corey that Jake received the "Three for Jake" in the title. As a story, it's one I thoroughly enjoyed. On a technical note, this is an excellent example of character development. I could easily imagine Jake, and know the sort of person he was. The style of narration brought out his personality wonderfully. It's normally a no-no to have a narrator address the reader, but we learn at the end that this is not really narration, it's dialogue, and Jake is telling his story to someone else. This is just the transcript of the recorded conversation. Thanks, CJ!

*sigh* People are STILL going on about the number of posts made. Is this the forum equivalent of size-envy? "Mine's bigger than yours!" "It's not the size, but what you do with it that counts." "You're just jealous." "No, I'm not. Quality, not quantity, is the best."

G'day! Where is everyone? I think the answer to that one is based on the time of year. I spent yesterday having a big lunch with family, and afterwards felt slightly bloated... What do I like about this site? More than anything, the site is a community. We have people here with a very wide range of backgrounds interacting, and that's what I love about the place. We have differences of opinion, but it's all done amicably Just join in on any thread that interests you, or feel free to start your own threads. Interesting questions can produce some great response. Of course, stupid comments can, too (check out "Joe Made Me" in the Q&A forum) The next GA anthology will be released soon, so you'll have a number of new short stories to read. The authors appreciate comments (*cough* Yes, I've got an entry in this anthology *cough*) and that's another way to get involved. Welcome to GA and have fun Graeme

On the subject of consent and the age of the minor, there was an uproar in Australia recently because a judge gave NINE males (aged from teenager up to mid twenties) very light sentences (practically just slaps on the wrist) after the gang rape of an eleven-year-old girl, on the basis that the victim "probably consented". Part of the age of consent is supposed to be the age at which the person is able to consent. Yes, an eleven-year-old is capable of saying "yes" to sex (I know I was, though I wasn't asked...) but do they have the maturity required to provide a "real" consent? In the situation that started this thread, I agree that both parties probably came to a mutual consent and that both are (hopefully) mature enough to deal with the consequences, but I don't think an eleven-year-old would be. This means you've got two ages -- one where they can give consent and one where they can't. To make it a law, you have to be able to draw a line between the two, and that's an arbitrary line (especially since people mature at different rates). The best that can be done is to set the line high enough that the majority of people of that age are able to give informed consent. This means that there are some people who will be mature enough before that age, but age is a pretty blunt instrument in these things. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got.

MEDIC! MEDIC! We've got another case of goat-hypnosis over here! Not all of them. For example, the Tasmanian Devil is cute (in an ugly sort of way), but it is definitely not shy or quiet. You would be quiet after they've done with you -- it's very hard to be noisy when you're lying unconscious from lack of blood, due to huge chunks of flesh being ripped off your body. Hmm... I'm wondering if there is any relationship between the Tasmanian Devil and the Arizona variety....

A very good point! So who would be the best analogue for CJ? Britney Spears? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Justin Timberlake? Any senior politician?

My post clearly stated that I believe you have some good points. However, I didn't define what they are, and I will state for the record that I don't believe the two examples given qualify. After all, lying isn't a good point, and neither is being delusional....

I believe you're right Of course, some people would call it a mixed blessing. The goat does have his good points (and I'm not talking about his horns), even if you sometimes have to dig a bit to find them....