Graeme

Bondwriter was actually asking about bets on who interrupts Brandon and Chase. I think it'll be Eric, but it really could be any of Jon, Eric and Helen. As for the location for the bomb assembly, it won't be Uluru -- too many tourists in the area. The prologue indicates that they have converted an optical lens-grinding factory, so that makes it most likely to be one of the major population centres of Australia. My best guess on that one would be either Sydney or Perth, with Darwin being a distant third. I picked those three as also being major ports -- they wouldn't want to transport the nuclear material too far.

Firstly, thanks to Joe for the quick update Even if he insists on doing it when I'm offline so I'm late to this thread I'm with Bondwriter. There was contact -- there is nothing that says the contact was with the two sets of lips. I'm expecting an interruption at just that point, though I'm more than happy to be proven wrong

What human rights are we talking about? The right to cause someone else to become sick? The right to potentially kill another person with secondary smoke? The right to indulge in a personal vice? I'm happy to say the last one is more important than publichhealth, but not the first two. When someone's activities impact negatively on someone else, then I don't believe they have a "right" to those activities. The problem is that there are a lot of grey areas. For example, in the majority of situations, a smoker will not impact negatively on someone else -- it may annoy them, irritate them, but that's not what I'm talking about. Threatening someone's health is impacting on them negatively. However, the law is a blunt instrument. It is very difficult to say that smoking is only banned if there is someone in the vicinity that would be adversely affected by a smoker. I've not looked for this, but I suspect you are correct. Smoking was socially acceptable for the older generations, but has become less acceptable with the younger generations. A similar change would probably be found when discussing driving while under the influence of alcohol, too. The word "hate" is the reason I didn't select that option. I dislike being in the same room as someone smoking, but I don't hate it.

That's good news Thanks, CJ! Actually, I was thinking Shadowgod would be so relieved at not being so falsely accused with that terrible title you seem to insist on, that he'll be able to get back to writing his own stories. As a supreme sacrifice, in the interest of seeing Shadowgod either starting a new story, or finishing one of his existing ones, I hereby volunteer to beta-read for CJ if Shadowgod is too busy writing to do so.

This looks remarkably like campaigning. I can't believe that someone who claims to be a shy and retiring lurker would get involved in such a non-lurking activity like campaigning! Everyone, by all means vote, but vote the way you want to -- don't let yourself be stampeded into voting the way that CJ wants you to vote. (And yes, I know stampeding is something Herds do a lot, but let's be different.... )

I believe this constitutes blackmail I thought better of you. However, I have an alternative suggestion. Since you seem to have trouble formatting LTMP 9 into HTML format, I'll do it for you Freely, at no charge, and without requiring you to vote in any particular way That should relieve your concerns

Okay, I understand. Changing the topic slightly, I remember reading several years ago that if caffeine, nicotine or alcohol were discovered now, they would almost certainly be placed under government control in a similar way to other drugs. It is only because they have been in society for millennia that they aren't.

Just to make sure we're all arguing about the same thing, the government has not banned smoking. What they have done is ban smoking in places where secondary smoke is most likely to affect other members of the public. There is an important distinction between them. However, the government has an incentive to discourage smoking, just like they have an incentive to discourage things that cause obesity. Both of these things have long term costs to the community in terms of healthcare, life expectancy, etc. The government should not tell people that they can't do certain things that only affect themselves, but it can and should try to educate people on what those things are doing, especially in terms of long term effects, and to try to discourage behaviour that is not healthy. Banning and discouraging are not the same thing. You raised abortion, which is a potential red-button issue, but I think both sides in that debate can agree that the government should work to try to minimise the number of situations where an abortion is even considered. It is after that point where differences arise

So far, the government has been happy to let parents try to be responsible. If it is shown that there is a widespread problem, then, yes, I would support a smoking ban in households where there are children. The government has a duty of care to those members of society not able to defend themselves, such as children. This is the central point. I don't believe the government should be involved in deciding what is good for you. Where they come in is if your actions adversely affect others. In the arguments I have described above, I have never stated anything about the impact of smoking on the smoker. I have (hopefully) been consistent in talking about the impact of smoking on those around the smoker.

I don't know enough of the details to be able to comment properly. I said above that there is a balancing act, and the balancing act isn't perfect. I will concede that in in this particular case it may have gone too far, but I can't say that without a lot more information. Unfortunately, I have found that while most employers are reasonable, there are employers that take advantage of their workers. Legislation to bring the rogue elements into line can have an adverse impact on those who have been doing the right thing. This is unfortunate, but it is hard to write legislation that is that precisely targeted. It's a case of a minority messing things up for the majority.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding how easy it can be to find alternate employment. On the issue of smoking at home, that's an even better potential example. Do you believe that someone should have the right to smoke at home when there is an asthmatic toddler in the house? One of my sons has been in an ambulance three times because of severe asthma attacks. If smoke triggered attacks, I would fight anyone who believed they had a right to smoke in my home when he's around. This is hypothetical -- his asthma is not triggered by smoke, though some people do have asthma triggered by smoke. To make it clearer, the example I'm using is someone who lives in that home -- maybe even the "owner". I've seen and heard of enough examples where a "parent" shows little, if any, responsibility to their children. In this example, the smoker is potentially putting the life of a child at risk by their actions. Is their "right to smoke" stronger than the rights of that child?

In Australia, the argument was not about the customers (who can freely choose to be there) but the other workers. A non-smoking worker in that cafe is being exposed to secondary smoke on a daily basis, and that has an impact on their health -- and THAT is why the laws were changed here in Australia. We're not getting off topic -- the smoking ban is NOT about the rights of people to smoke. It is about the rights of others to enjoy a healthy work environment.

When similar legislation was proposed here in Melbourne, a similar argument was made -- that it would result in a loss of jobs. While there was some unemployment as a consequence, it was not significant. The massive unemployment that was predicted didn't eventuate. Now, I will admit that the culture and circumstances in Melbourne are very different to the Taverns in Las Vegas, but I just wanted to point out that the problem wasn't universal. Also, if they had to let people under 21 go, that implies that it also opened up employment for people over 21 to replace those people let go. There is a fine balancing act here that has been going on for centuries. Taking an extreme position, coal mining companies should therefore be allowed to employ young children to work in their mines under freedom of choice (as they did back in the 1800s). Employers should be allowed to make employees work with asbestos. Employers should be allowed to make people work without safety gear (saving huge amounts of money). A lot of workers would refuse to work under those circumstances, but some wouldn't have a choice. When you have a family to support, you can't afford to stand on principle -- you need an income to put food on the table, and to keep a roof over your head. Employers are a lot more powerful than individual workers. They can dictate terms that workers either have to accept or be unemployed. To counteract this, the government and unions work to make things fair. The balance point is rarely maintained -- it tends to drift one way or another -- but in the long term it tends to be fair. Some things the government should not be involved with. For others, they should. Where the line gets drawn is personal opinion and not everyone agrees. Until the secondary smoke issue was identified, I was happy that the government should stay out of the issue of smoking at work. Once it was identified that workers ARE getting sick because of secondary smoke, then I'm happy that the government had the right, and the obligation, to step in. This is a personal opinion and I accept that not everyone agrees. Adults should have the right to do what they want to themselves. It is when what they do impacts on those around them that governments should consider getting involved.

This is my problem with your position. Finding another job isn't always as easy you make out. I know of someone who was out of work for months and almost lost his home as a consequence. In his case, he believes he lost his job because the boss's wife found out he's gay, though he can't prove that. He eventually found part-time employment elsewhere, with a good percentage of his wages going on the cost of travelling the long distance to the new place of work. Finding another job when you're already employed has its own complications -- such as organising time off for job interviews, etc.

Thanks for the news, even if it is sad. My condolences go to his family.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There have been reported cases in the medical journals of non-smokers being affected by secondary smoke -- ie. smoke from smokers in the vicinity. An employee doesn't have the option of going elsewhere -- that is their place of employment. Finding another job isn't always an option, so they have to stay there. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace, and that includes taking reasonable steps to prevent secondary smoke from affecting the health of their employees. If there are no employees, or if all employees are smokers, then you have a point. Otherwise, no, the owner doesn't have the right to make decisions that can adversely affect the health of their employees.

Yes, I meant his story posting rate. He wastes too much time posting in the forums and not writing. :wacko:

Let's see... my youngest boy is six. He needs to be thirteen before he can become a member and vote... so it could be that the poll will need to stay open for another seven years.

I think I've already said the same thing...

I read a lot more science fiction stories than I watch movies of TV. Indeed, there are very, very few SF movies or TV shows that I think are well done. To be honest, I can't think of a single movie or TV show that I think is as good as the better novels that I've read. The movies/shows that I like are those that concentrate on something other than the SF aspects (which is what James alludes to in fourth poll above). I've only seen a few episodes of Babylon 5, for example, but I was impressed by the complexity of the society, and the way the races interacted. It was, to me, a complex drama, and that's what I liked about it. The characters weren't shallow. Every good SF story I've read is a story of another genre that is set in a SF environment. Eg. Action, Drama, Mystery, etc. I remember Isaac Asimov writing about his SF mystery stories (eg. Caves of Steel and others in that series) and he said they had to be mysteries first, and SF second. The reader had to have all the information required to solve the story, just like in a traditional mystery, and the author couldn't solve it with "But as we all know, that hasn't existed since 2078." In many ways, that parallels the "gay" genre. All the good gay stories are also stories of another genre -- romance, action, thriller, mystery, horror -- that just happen to be set in a "gay" environment.

G'day, shadowfire. Greetings from Melbourne! I agree with the waiting for the new chapters. If he didn't spend so much time blaming everything on Shadowgod, I'm sure he could increase his posting rate. Shadowfire's an Australian -- enough said

I mentioned the Ars Magica magic system earlier. The following is a quick summary: There are fifteen arts, split into five techniques and ten forms: Techniques: Creo (Create), Intellego (Perceive), Muto (Transform), Perdo (Destroy), Rego (Move) Forms: Animal, Aquam (water), Auram (air), Corporem (body/human), Herbam (plant), Ignem (fire), Imagonem (images), Mentem (mind), Terram (earth), Vim (magic power) A spell would use a combination of these arts. For example, a fire ball would be Creo and Ignem. A lie detection spell would be Intellego and Mentem. Creating an illusion of an animal would be Creo, Imagonem and Animal. Every wizard would have different levels in each of these arts. They can make up quick spells, using their known arts, but these are not very powerful. The better the wizard is with the required arts, the stronger these quick spells could be. You'll notice that you can achieve the same result in more than one way, depending on how good the wizard is with the different arts. For example, to put out a fire, you could use Perdo Ignem (destroy the fire directly), Creo Aquam (create water to put out the fire), Perdo Auram (destroy the air and smother the fire), Rego Ignem (move the fire to a place with no fuel), Muto Ignem <something> to change the fire into something else, etc. They would also have memorized "formulaic" spells that are more powerful, but they can't be adapted to suit the situation -- the spell has the same effect every time they use it. There are also rituals that are more powerful again.

Don't read my stories, then, because your eyes may end up rolling out of your head I used Australian English in almost all of them. The only exceptions are those stories explicitly set in the USA, and that's a very small minority.

I was lucky when I went through school. Unlike many others, I was never put under peer pressure to smoke. I still remember the time on a school camp when someone asked me if I wanted a cigarette, and I said no. They started to insist, but one of the others in the group just said that if I didn't want to smoke, then I didn't want to smoke and that was that. I don't hate being in the same room as someone smoking, though I can be uncomfortable. I do, however, dislike kissing someone who has been smoking.

An interesting article. Similar things are happening here in Australia, too, and there has been the suggestion here in Australia that Atheism is actually another religion. If you look at it the right way, they are correct. Atheism is based on the unproven and unprovable belief that there is no God/Higher Being(s), while other religions are based on the unproven and unprovable belief that this is a God/Higher Being. If my impression of Australians is correct, then I would say the majority are actually Agnostic -- not sure if there is a God of not. Indeed, at one point I used to call myself a Christian Agnostic (which is technically a contradiction in terms), in that while I wasn't sure if there was a God, I believe in Christian morals and ethics. I now consider myself to be a Christian, but I have no problems with atheists or Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists, or any other religious belief. A person's beliefs are personal. I believe that what a person does is more important than what they believe. If they are good people, who believe in caring and helping those less fortunate, then, if there is an afterlife that judges who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, I believe they will go to Heaven. Actions speak louder than words and I can't believe in a God that condemns someone to Hell simply because they never had the opportunity to learn about the 'right' religion. Those atheists who end up in Heaven may be mightily embarrassed, but I'm sure they'll get over that