Graeme

I voted NO, though my answer is probably more like Kevin's (I have to stop copying him) because it would be "rarely". A lot of the time I'm online, I'm actually at work. I can do my job while browsing forums and answer posts/PM's, but I can't if I'm in a chat room -- from past experience it required too much attention and interaction. The times I'm not working, I still probably wouldn't use the chat room because I have other things I want to do that require some level of concentration. I'd drop in from time to time, when my situation allows, but I wouldn't be a regular visitor.

I think Menzo has nailed an important point. The poll doesn't not distinguish between a "no" vote because of a personal preference/choice, and a "no" vote because they don't trust bi-sexuals. To use an analogy, I wouldn't date myself because physically I find myself unattractive. That's shallow, because I know I have a lot of good personality traits, but the physical appearance has to be a factor for me in making a decision to date someone. Similarly, there are some racial groups that I'm not attracted to. There's nothing wrong with them, and there are many who are attracted to them -- just not me. I also think we have to keep Delzboi's comment in mind -- assigning a label of "bi-sexual" on someone isn't defining the person. It is just a label that tries to explain a set of characteristics, and all too often does a poor job of doing so. By some people's definition, I'm bi-sexual since I'm in a relationship with a woman, even though I personally consider myself to be gay. For those that wouldn't date a bi-sexual person -- whose definition are you going to use for me?

I was wondering if this would be useful to take on a long plane trip, but from what you've said they may be banned on planes as being transmitters. Though maybe not -- they don't tell laptop owners to disable their radios....

I'm sorry Good luck and I hope that everything works out in the end

Okay, getting back on track.... Does anyone else find it suspicious that after this chapter was posted, with its reference to laptop batteries lasting 10 years, that C James started a thread elsewhere here at GA that asks a question about a laptop battery that is failing after only 6 years. I found the coincidence disturbing....

Actually, I found this thread (and forum) within a couple of hours of it being created. I just haven't found any reason to post a lot in it... so far I'm sure you're right, but I just seem to have trouble finding them.... I don't know, but others should be able to tell you because I've seen people do it in other forums here.

*cough* I believe I've heard of gays who get married.... I even know one personally as well as several other online (including here are GA). While I would refuse to date you, Robbie, that's because I'm already in a relationship and also because I'm old enough to be your dad. Otherwise, you would be a tempting date because you remind me a lot of myself at your age Okay, back to being serious. This is like the other poll where I also refused to vote, though it's a bit more volatile. As long as it's compatible, a person's sexuality should not be a primary factor in deciding if one should start a relationship. Other things, like personality, common interests, common values (including the issue of fidelity) are a lot more important -- as has been stated several times above. However, one area where being bi-sexual does influence things is societal pressure. Ideally, it shouldn't make any difference, but today's society tends to put pressure on people to confirm, and that includes for people to marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm an example of that. That pressure is very hard for the gay guy to succumb too (though people like myself can and do succumb), and as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, it is easier for them to resist. For the bi-sexual guy, though, it can be easier to succumb to that pressure, rather than fight it, because they CAN be happy emotionally and sexually with a woman. Ieshwar's post implies this -- he made the comment that the boyfriend "had to get married", not "wanted to get married". I believe this pressure is wrong and that if it didn't exist then this whole debate would be a non-event -- people would be dating based on other more important matters. But it does exist and that is the complicating factor in the situation. If I became single, would I date someone who was bi-sexual (excluding Robbie, of course, as being too young )? The simple answer is that being bi-sexual would not disqualify them, but I would need to know more about their history. Because of my background, I have a fair amount of information about married gay/bi men and most of it isn't pretty. Many are not faithful -- they are faithful to their wives as far as other women are concerned, but they aren't faithful as far as men are concerned. Why is this? I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself because I've been tempted more than once. It's because desiring men while married to woman builds up a tension, a stress that can be very, very strong. Some of that stress is from keeping a secret (I found things a lot easier to handle once I came out to my wife, though the tension is still there), but if I dated a bi-sexual man I would need to know if the same tension existed for him, but for sex with a woman, instead. If they were a person who really didn't care about the gender of their partner, but only that they loved them, then I believe I'd be happy. If, however, they were a person who wanted sex with either gender then I would worry if being faithful to only a single gender would put too much pressure on them and that they would eventually stray -- just to relieve that stress. Ultimately, honesty and communication would be the key factors. If I believe that the other person could tell me if there are problems, if there are pressures they are feeling, then I think I'd be fine. If they never had them, then that would be great! I'm still not voting in this poll, though, because I still believe that the sexuality isn't a decision point in a relationship -- it's only one factor in a complex decision.

I don't mind what you've said, but why do I keep finding so many threads where you have so many more posts than I do? Such as this one...

I don't think I can answer this one. Being closeted would be just one aspect of the person and I would be trying to look at the full package, not the individual parts. As an example, my best on-line friend was very much closeted when we started chatting. With a bit of encouragement, he stepped out of the closet enough to tell a good friend at work. That good friend then introduced him to a gay friend, and in three months time they'll have been together for two years. The relationship ALSO helped my friend come out to others (including his family) because he wanted to be able to be open with his boyfriend. At the time they started dating, though, he was in the closet with no firm plans to step out much further. So, looking at the total picture, there was a really nice guy who just happened to be closeted and was still in the early stages of coming out (with the possibility that he would step back in if things didn't go well). However, I really don't think that that was a significant factor for the boyfriend -- it was the OTHER aspects of my friend that he liked, such as his personality and common interests. If something happened and I started to look for a S.O., I would look at whether they were closeted or not, but only because I want to come out. It would be a factor in deciding if I wanted to have a relationship with that person, but it wouldn't be the decider. There are a lot more important things to consider before that one.

Makes sense I personally think there is a fair percentage of insults that are not meant literally, but are just "insults". Also, as Robbie has indicated, in some situations, insults are a tactic and not meant personally. I'm sorry to say that some Australian sportmen are notorious for this. So much, that the practise even has a name: sledging. Some of the Australian Cricket team are masters of the art of sledging... I'm surprised and disappointed. A careful analysis (such as an engineering student might conduct) would show that James's comment indicates only that he believes that some X-Box users belong in the shallow end of the gene pool. He never said that all X-Box users belong in the shallow end of the gene pool, or that all members of the shallow end of the gene pool like the X-Box. I think James has been harshly done by Oh, and we don't have ANY game stations in our house. If the boys want to play games, they can do it on the computer.

Good luck, Patrick! Me, I'm in the "not really a big fan of body piercing" club. But I try to avoid making judgement calls on people who have them -- being an individual doesn't make a person less worth knowing. The other thing that this brings to mind is what my boys will be doing to "surprise" my wife and I when they turn 18... :wacko:

Happy Birthday, Julien!

Technically, "Most prolific poster" isn't a title. It's an award Titles are things like "King", "Queen", "Prince", "Princess" (Royal titles) or "Duke", "Duchess", "Count", "Countess", "Knight", "Dame" (Noble titles). So I see no technical problem with C James being both :king: :king: Queen of The Eviliest Cliffhangers :king: :king: and Most Prolific Poster. However, since C James is from America and they aren't used to titles, his confusion is easily understood. Happily, we have lots of members from Commonwealth countries who can set him straight ( ) on the matter.

Just to change the topic, I'm please to announce that it looks like C James appears to have given up resisting his new royal title. All hail C James, :king: :king: Queen of The Evilest Cliffhangers! :king: :king:

I've seen print novels that repeat things from earlier chapters (or books) when it's relevant. You could include it, but I don't think you'll have to. The point in time is going to be fairly clear anyway, so just write about it like you normally would and just make sure it is consistent with what is written in the prologue. For example, have that chapter pick up immediately after the events in the prologue, with more information on what (presumable/hopefully) Vladimir does next.

Equine Influenza -- also known as Horse Flu. Sydney's Spring Racing Carnival was cancelled, as were most of the equestrian events throughout the country. With some exceptions, the movement of horses around the country has been banned, and even when they are allowed, the requirements (including vet certificates, etc) are prohibitive for most people. I can get you lots of information, if you're interested (and if you are interested, I'm going to start to get worried). My wife is an amateur horse rider and one of the people affected. The horse-oriented forums here in Australia have had lots of discussions on the subject and she's been keeping up to date on the situation. On the plus side, it has stopped any horse-drawn nuclear weapon delivery systems that The Scar had planned. He'll have to go for something different, like maybe a truck....

I'm sorry to hear that a GA member isn't allowed to have more than one such title, because that means you can't have that title. You already have the title of Queen of the Evilest Cliffhangers and hence can't take the Most Prolific Porter title Personally, I think you should be allowed both titles, but if the prior title stops you from taking the new one that BeaStKid has placed on you, then so be it....

For all real purposes, you're right -- it doesn't matter. As has been said, cheating is cheating. The example I gave where it is worse is one that is probably not applicable to anyone on this board, as it involves not only cheating but still hiding in the closet, too. And now I say you shouldn't make blanket statements I can say this because, by this definition, I'm a mental cheat. The thing is my wife knows what I'm doing and lets me. My wife and my best online friend's boyfriend are both just glad that there's a very large ocean between me and my best online friend. Seriously, the relationship I have with my friend COULD have become sexual if both of lived in the same country and we were both single. However, circumstances meant that it's a purely platonic relationship, but a lot closer than just "friends". We both understand and acknowledge the risks, but both of us have very strong commitments to our current relationships. Our relationship is more that of gay brothers than anything sexual. However, I also know of a marriage that broke up because of an online relationship. She left her husband and flew across the country to be with her online boyfriend, so it is definitely a risk. As with most of these things a lot depends on whether the relationship is being done secretly or openly. In my case we're very open with both of our S.O.'s and while neither really understand it, they can accept it (possibly because of that awfully big ocean....)

You obviously don't know a lot about politics. When a law is made, they never worry about sensible fine detail exceptions like that (though I will note that the sterilisation effect requires that the nuclear weapons be actually detonated -- something that they might have other objections to). No, it's a blanket ban on the movement of horses or equine equipment (such as saddles, riding boots, whips, etc) across the state borders. So far the outbreak has been confined to Queensland and New South Wales, and everyone is keen for that to continue.

At least until the current Equine Influenza outbreak ends.

Probably not too hard, as long as they don't use a horse-drawn vehicle. If they try that, they'll be stopped at the border. You can transport nukes (as long as you don't tell anyone) but not horses....

Thanks for the offer, but The Scar and Dimitri are currently in the north of the country and I'm in the south. The wind patterns are such that I should be safe, even with a cobalt enhanced fallout level. If I want to move, I'll probably go to New Zealand. It's closer and a really nice country (not that the USA isn't, but I've heard stories about genetically modified goats with glowing red eyes living in Arizona -- scary) Happily, my only travel in the near future is in the opposite direction to Queensland. Hmm... Interesting idea about The Scar trying to use Instinct as a cover.

It's been almost seven hours since the last post in this thread. That's long enough I haven't heard if CJ is going to put in an entry to the next anthology, so how about we all offer our encouragement? CJ -- PLEASE WRITE A STORY FOR THE 2007 WINTER ANTHOLOGY

I caught that about the Shadow's lead singer, too. Could it be simple jealous -- that some roadie got the Instinct lead singer job when he thought he should've gotten it -- or is it homophobia, because Zeke let something slip (or the lead singer picked up on something and worked it out for himself)? I also noticed the increased speculation about Chase not having a girl for the night. I hope Helen is on top of that one -- I can see the reporters digging deep to try to find out what's going on there. As for Linda, she really only indicated that Brandon could make life difficult for his family. His ex-friends, on the other hand, aren't as vulnerable. I'm still expecting someone to make trouble for Brandon -- possibly even Zeke's brother. Speaking of Zeke's brother. Did anyone else wonder why he hadn't gotten a backstage pass, since his brother was in the support band? At least three more times.... I'm trying to work that one out, too. He appears to want to store the bombs for up to ten years, and is concerned that they can't be detected. I also noticed that they are to have a remote detonation capability over that ten year period. I still can't work out how that will allow him to gain control of Paragauy, though.

Very relevant I agree with you, Ieshwar, but you have to allow for the context. He's in a culture where a heterosexual marriage is expected and homosexuality is frowned upon (if not worse). As such, people will tend to compartmentalise the two and treat them as something different. It happens all over the world. One of the books that my wife's counsellor suggested when my wife was struggling with the news that I'm gay is a book by Australian journalist Sue Joseph titled She's my wife. He's just sex. This compartmentalisation comes over clear in this book where the men clearly distinguish between the love for their wives/girlfriends, and the gay sex they have. Rohun is just reversing the situation. On a personal note, I found the book very disturbing because I could relate so strongly to the men in the book. I could understand what they were thinking and why, because I had had similar thoughts though I hadn't acted on them. I don't approve of what Rohun said he would do, but I understand it. I hope it never comes to that, though. Graeme PS: If anyone in Australia is interested in getting the book listed above it is a lot cheaper directly from the publisher, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism