Graeme

The problem is that wealth isn't money. Consider most farmers which are asset rich but cash poor. How do you determine their "wealth"? You can use total value, but it gives an inflated value because most of their wealth is locked up in an asset that is not easily disposed of. If you go to some historical or non-western cultures, wealth isn't always cash -- cows, for example, are a symbol of wealth in some cultures. Is the person who owns a multi-million dollar mansion rich, even if he has no income and he's not allowed to sell that mansion because of binding legal commitments? He has a rich asset, but he has no cash.

I have a good friend who is a lawyer. I've known him for about 25 years now (we met up at university). He has, in the past, suggested that he provides more of a community service than the rest of the group, since he helps people/corporations right wrongs.... However, I have heard him tell stories about other lawyers that would support your statement above....

I've never thought of "Why me?" either. Being gay is something that's so intrinsic to my person (even if I didn't accept it for forty years) that I never thought about why it's happened to me. That doesn't mean I haven't been interested in what makes someone homosexual, but it's never been with a view of trying to "blame" something or someone. Despite living many long years "in denial" (or at least rejection), there has only been one time that I've really wished I wasn't gay. That was when my wife was having a nervous breakdown because she'd learnt her husband is gay. Because of the pain she went through -- that I put her through -- that is the only time I've truly wished I could be straight.

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but I can't help it if work restricted my internet access by sending me interstate for a few days.... 1. I found the way Chris and Steve didn't give the information of what is on the stick contrived. Sorry, CJ, but that's the way it came over. I'm sure it's for good reasons, but since the rest of the story has NOT had Chris refraining from mentioning important things, for him to do so in this chapter is incongruous. 2. My best guess, given that there was an indication earlier (I can't remember if it was in the story or in this thread) that Blackheart was suspected to be involved with identity threat, is that the data stick contains thousands of identities. Be that credit card details or other information. The 50K worth of equipment that is sitting idle, waiting for this information, is probably computer equipment designed to use those identities to conduct some wholesale fraud -- probably draining bank accounts. The (moderately) expensive equipment was bought to help cover their tracks so they would be able to keep their ill-gotten gains. 3. I'm confused. I'm sure that the Piedmont sheriff and the good reverend were described early in the story as being brother-in-laws. This chapter implies they are brothers, not brother-in-laws. I had assumed that Thaddeus has married the sheriff's sister, which means that Eric is NOT a blood relation of the sheriff and calling the sheriff as an uncle to Eric seems to be stretching things. I liked the chapter -- don't get me wrong -- but I was disappointed that the critical information about the data stick was withheld from the readers.

I confess that I found a racy, exciting and stimulating magazine in the seat pocket on my last airline flight -- obviously left over from an earlier flight. Lawyers Weekly

I've known I'm not straight since I was about ten. I've known I'm gay since that time, even if I didn't have a word for it. I still wasn't out to myself, though, until I was forty. I didn't accept that I'm gay until then. I knew it, but I didn't accept it, and until I accepted it, I wasn't really out to myself. It's a very important point that rknapp's raised. Until you've accepted your own sexuality, there is little point in making a statement to others.

Happy Belated Birthday! :music: :music: I hope it went well.

The difference is, I think, on whether the criticism includes an explanation of what they didn't like. Something like, "This is the third f***ing fatal car accident in six chapters! How about trying some new way of killing off characters?" is constructive criticism, even if it isn't particularly polite. It's pointing out what is wrong with the writing and indicates something the author can do to improve things. "Your writing is so weak and thin I find it boring." is borderline. It indicates a weakness in the writing, but doesn't say what. "I hated it. I just couldn't believe that you would do that to poor old Ken." is another borderline constructive criticism. It's indicating what they didn't like, though without any real detail. I'm not sure if the real question you were asking was how to differentiate a "flame" from "criticism". I believe the distinction is in the target. If the person is attacking the author, that's a flame and should be deleted. If the person is attacking the story, then it's criticism. It may or may not be justified (after all, the reader doesn't know what is happening behind the scenes). Even unjustified criticism should be looked at. If a reader says that something is unbelieveable/stupid/silly/out-of-character, and the author knows that it isn't, then this doesn't make the criticism wrong. What it means is that the author needs to tell the reader WHY it isn't, or at least indicate there are reasons, even if those reasons are not yet revealed.

I remember the original sneak peak you gave, and there's no comparison. There is one minor detail that my editor has been drilling into me -- don't use "now" in narration, because stories don't occur "now" -- they occurred sometime in the past and are only being "read" now. However, that's a minor thing and I wouldn't bother changing it -- I think my editor is a purist.... Good luck with the rest of the story -- this is a good solid start.

Welcome to GA! This is quite a diverse community, so feel free to poke around -- I'm sure there are lots of things here you'll enjoy. Graeme

We've got a holiday coming up -- at least here in Victoria. For some reason, different states celebrate the Queen's birthday at different times (and none close to her actual birthday). Victoria happens to celebrate it with a long weekend that, by some strange coincidence, corresponds to the start of the ski season....

I've never forgotten a quote from a Sci-Fi story I read a long time ago (Voyage from Yesteryear, by James Hogan): Success is like a fart: only your own smells nice.

Have a safe and happy trip, CJ! I'm at a conference for a couple of days of next week, so I may be slow to read the next chapter. I'm looking forward to it, though. Cheers! Graeme

Colin, my read of the article is that the senior judge was presenting a dissenting opinion -- which means that the case was resolved the other way. In other words, the majority of judges decided that they were NOT a household and that "Jim" could claim the $100,000, with the senior judge quoted disagreeing.

Happy 21st Birthday! :music: :music: Legal and now also allowed to drink! I hope you have a great day.

I can't think of anything else to say....

Meanie Morgan -- he's a Lawyer! Being mean comes with the job. Disclaimer: One of my good friends (who I'm going to see tonight) is a lawyer and I've heard enough stories that....<rest of post deleted for fear of being sued >

As I understand it, co-habiting heterosexual couples in Australia are deemed to be in a defacto relationship (ie. a common law marriage) after 12 months. Defacto relationships do not convey the full benefits of marriage, but they convey many of them -- which is why I would be happy if same-sex couples in Australia were recognised as defacto couples. This case wouldn't occur in Australia. Interesting, the Australian Bureau of Statistics advised same-sex couples to put down their relationship as "defacto" on the latest census (last year), but that fact was not well advertised, and some couples publicly refused to do so, say their relationship was not recognised as a "defacto" relationship. EDIT: I found the following document. It appears that my statement above wasn't quite right, but there are strong guidelines on what constitutes a defacto relationship. The main problem is that they are largely derived from State laws, not Federal: Document submitted to the Human Rights commission regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships and defacto heterosexual relationships

When I was in university, I learnt a very important fact -- people are different. *pauses to wait for the snickers at my naivety to die down* I was doing first year computer programming, which I found easy. I had the sort of mind that was able to think in the logical manner required to implement algorithms. It was when I was helping one of my classmates that I learnt this lesson. He was intelligent, but his mind didn't work that way. He couldn't think in the sequential, logical sequence required for computer programming. His mind would jump ahead and skip steps. That didn't make him stupid -- just not suited for computer programming. I have two sons, ages six and eight. Both of them are reading at the same level, but the way they read is very different. One boy has memorised lots of words and reads confidently. The other one works out words phonetically and will often repeat that analysis on the same word several times in the same story. They think differently. The first boy is going to do well academically because he has the skills required for school, but it his brother who leads their play because he has the stronger and more active imagination. He's not stupid -- he just doesn't think in the optimal way required to find school easy.

If I could be so bold as to suggest an answer to this question: A nice guy who are also interested in me.

This has always annoyed me. It is my one major objection to the word "gay". It has connotations of effeminacy which is not accurate. Homosexual males span the spectrum from effeminate to very masculine. I can see changes in perception in society today (at least here in Australia) about this connotation, but I suspect it will be around for a long time. Before anyone jumps up and down, I am not putting down effeminate males. I am objecting to the implication that effeminacy and homosexuality are synonymous when it is clear that they are not.

I didn't know this about your history before. One of my friends was molested as a ten year old and he's still getting over the consequences. Send me a PM if you want me to pass on any details. Very true. The person who won't take responsibility is very visible, but the person who takes responsibility when it isn't their fault, or too much of the responsibility when it is partially their fault, is also unhealthy. I can think of a few examples in my own life (not me -- people I've met) and it ranges in scale from minor things to major. Thank you for pointing this out. It's one of those things that is obvious in hindsight, but I hadn't considered it before, while reading this thread. Words of wisdom. Also words to live by. Too much criticism in this world is done from an incomplete understanding of what has been going on. I prefer to try to find a reason that could justify someone's behaviour whenever possible -- it may not always excuse it, but it may make it explainable. Thanks, Demetz. A very thought-provoking post.

Only 69%?!? Yikes! :wacko: This could easily diverge into a stupid label thread -- with associated wondering what law suit prompted the label in the first place. Like the label on a folding pram/stroller: "Remove baby before folding pram." Now, if I was every STUPID enough to do that, I certainly wouldn't be blaming the manufacturers of the pram for not telling me to remove the baby first....

Happy 17th Birthday, Nate!