Graeme

I'm afraid it won't work on technical grounds. This is a first person point of view story, with that person being Chris. To change to a third person point of view in an epilogue would seriously degrade the overall quality and impact of the story. No, if you do an epilogue, in the interests of keeping up the top quality writing, you need to keep it as being from Chris's point of view.

I don't believe in reincarnation, either, but I voted gay. The reason is that while I'm gay, I have not lived as a gay man, and I wish I could. I know it might not be easy, but I would like to have another chance to be true to who I am (well, at least the sexuality part of myself), and hopefully do better the next time.

Er.... what he said Happy Birthday!

Get well soon, Luc! Don't rush the recovery, though -- I know too many people who have tried to do too much, too soon, after being sick.

Happy Birthday, Canada! From one of your slightly younger Commonwealth siblings

I'll start by saying I've only read the few pages of the article (so far) and this thread, and I already have a number of things to say 1. This article is talking about one indicator for homosexuality in males -- consistent feminine behaviour as a child. It also states on the first page that 75% of child who exhibit this behaviour turn out to be homosexuals. Simple logic says that just because A implies B, that does not mean that nothing else can imply B. Colin's comments about how he and his friends don't fit this model means nothing -- they aren't saying that only children who exhibit this behaviour turn out to be homosexuals. 2. Most of the article is just rehashing the current state of play on the genetics/environmental debate. I didn't see much in the way of new things. 3. Some time ago, one of the major month parenting magazines in Melbourne had an article that dealt with this topic. I transcribed it because I thought it was so important: A Matter of Identity One key thing to note at the end of the article is that the youth in the article is not gay.

College funds are something we don't have here in Australia, though the cost of higher education is increasing and I think we'll have to start considering them. Anyway, I see no reason for Eric to go to college. He obviously has an extensive education already, with what appears to be a detailed career path set out ahead of him. Why would he need to go to college? This makes it quite reasonable for Mr. Williams to use that money to send Chris and Steve away for a birthday holiday. Given that CJ thinks Eric is a kind and considerate brother (or half-brother) to Steve, I'm sure CJ would think that Eric would be happy for Mr. Williams to use the money for this purpose.

Where did this list come from? It seems simplistic and not very representative. For example, I'm not in any of those categories.

I don't think it's odd at all. Since this is a first person narrative from Chris's point of view, unless Chris hears of it, it won't appear in the story. How would Chris hear much detail about what's happening in the household of Piedmont's sheriff (which is where I'm presuming that Eric is staying -- the other possibility is he's staying with Thaddeus, but I suspect that's probably too risky). Has he mended his ways? Is that an acknowledgment that he needs to mend his ways? After all this time, is CJ finally acknowledging that Eric isn't a well-meaning, pure soul? I've already mentioned where I think he's staying. If he's with Thaddeus, I can see two major possibilities -- that was the only "safe house" for him after the sheriff's house was... er... renovated OR that the sheriff has washed his hands of Eric and Thaddeus has been forced to look after him. Does he have a broken nose? Does anyone (apart from Eric) care?

You're right, but CJ made it quite clear that he believes servers need animal sacrifices, not human. You can blame him for this conversation.

Rick! (brit18uk) Welcome to Gay Authors! For those who don't know him, Rick is the author of "The Castaways", a great little novel set back in the days of sailing ships, pirates, and (naturally) castaways. You can find at least some of his stories at http://rick.awesomedude.com/

Happy Birthday, Ratatosk! I'm not sure if CJ vouching for you is good or bad, but I hope you have a great day anyway

May you never know May no one ever know again....

My understanding is that goat sacrifices are the most effective, but that's only hearsay....

There is one thing that has saddened me several times in the years that I've been using the Internet, and that is the way that the communications can be so damaging and hurtful. Most of the time, I find the Internet to be supportive and encouraging, but there are times when it causes anger and fights. I'm interested in what people see as the reason for this. What I've observed so far are: Miscommunications: I've seen studies that indicate most people receive something like 60% of their communication non-verbally. For example, if you switch off the sound on most movies, you will still have a fair idea of the plot, but if you turn off the picture, it is a lot harder to work out what is going on. Since most internet communication is a written form of speech, we are missing out on that 60%, as well as missing out on the tones and emphasis that characterises speech. Thus, it is easy to take offense at something that was supposed to be sarcastic, but was interpreted literally. Recent communications with someone who has Aspergers Syndrome has emphasised this point to me. I don't know how many arguments I've been in where the underlying cause has been a simple difference in definition of a key term. This has happened to me enough in face-to-face communications -- it's even easier to do in online communication. Anonymity: Because there is a veneer of anonymity on the Internet, people are more likely to say something that they wouldn't say in person. Even without the anonymity, I know personally it is often easier to say something via email than it is face-to-face (especially when you are telling someone 'NO'). There have been studies that show people tend to be more open and honest on the Internet than in real life, though naturally there are also those that are more likely to lie and deceive. Are the online fights/arguments sometimes a case of being more brutally honest than would be the case if you could see the person in question and how what you are saying affects them? Culture: Less frequent, but increasing in prevalence, is misunderstandings due to a difference in cultures. This is something that has always been around, but the Internet is bringing together people from around the world and cultural clashes occur as a consequence. Some cultures tend to speak more openly than others, while some can be very circumspect with criticism. Bringing these cultures together can cause problems. Unless we are aware of these differences, simple matters can be blown out of proportion. Comments?

There are a number of good essays in that section of the Mail Crew site. I can also recommended Codey's My Two Cents Worth on the meaning of friendship, though it's a bit off topic for this thread.

Since it's related to the current topic, the teenage author Grasshopper wrote an essay for the Mail Crew website for their "Authors Speak" section: My Name is Grasshopper and I'm Left-Handed It is definitely worth reading

G'day, Julie! Happy Birthday Have fun and spend the day gloating that you don't live in Victoria

39! In that case there's a lot to go. Let's see, what can do blond guys in love, with homicidal maniacs after them, do for another eight chapters? Options: 1. Go off surfing for seven chapters... Hmm... not likely. 2. Decide to investigate that missing webserver, since Dex so kindly reminded them of the fact.... Nah... Even they aren't that stupid. 3. Stumble over evidence about the missing webserver, or have someone from the organisation that managed it start to chase them. Now that's more likely.... 4. Have a couple of birthday parties! Yep -- that'll fill in a couple of chapters nicely. 5. Fail to get to Hawaii in the first place because they're carjacked on the way to the airport. This one requires that they take Steve's charger to the airport -- which is easily recognised and allows the bad guys ample time to prepare an ambush. This one I can see as a distinct possibility. Especially if the Peidmont sheriff is on the run at the time. 6. The Rev. Thaddeus decides to take his annual holiday in Hawaii and ends up on the same place as the two boys. Not sure where this would go, but it guarantees fireworks.... 7. The GPS locator reveals that the box is headed to Hawaii on the same plane as the boys.... Coincidence? I think not.... I think that's enough for now. Time for someone else to add to the list.

I enjoyed this chapter a lot The technical detail was well done without being overbearing -- nicely judged, CJ! I don't think anyone will be overly surprised about what they found on the other side of the wall, but I'm a little surprised with the bricks. They sound more like paving stones than bricks. I suspect it's your typical penny-pinching criminal organisation that won't spend the money on the decent stuff. My only question is did they learnt that from government, or did government learn it from them? The story appears to be heading for the big climax (not that sort of climax, Conner. I mean a dramatic conclusion). Keep up the momentum, CJ -- it's building nicely

Your comment was that we, as a species, seemed doomed to highlight our differences. My point was that I agreed, and that as a consequence we tend to define communities by those differences. There is a natural tendency to have an "us and them" mentality, and the gay community is not immune to that -- which is the link to the original question. You are right that my thinking is fuzzy, but I still think I have a grain of truth. Simply by calling this site "Gay Authors", there is an implication that lesbian authors are excluded. It is not a definite statement, but an implication and an example where an inclusion defines an exclusion. We include gay authors, which implies that we exclude non-gay authors. I'll say now that I know we don't (we have authors here that are not gay), but a new author looking for a place to showcase their work will feel excluded from this site if they don't feel they fit the apparent profile. Because the name implies a certain subset of authors, there is an implication that authors that don't match that name are excluded. This is the point that I was trying to make. We are in agreement on both of these points

The hair one is difficult, especially for those of us folliclely challenged.... Also, you may want to clarify when you mean left or right hand for the ring/index finger question, because the fingers on my two hands are not the same length. My left hand clearly has my ring finger as longer, but on my right, they are almost the same length (with the ring finger being just a fraction longer).

Technically, yes, Eric is a bastard. Steve is his half-brother. I'm not sure of the correct title for Mr. Williams, but I think step-dad is probably correct. Unfortunately, that feeds into Shadowgod's theory, because aren't step-parents (usually step-mothers, but hey, this is a gay story) traditionally evil?

ARGH! How could I forget My Own Private Idaho!!! Thanks, Marty, for the reminder