Graeme

I read through the entire thread, and one of the points the original poster was trying to make was that too many people will accept a "quoted" extract from a reference without verifying that the extract is accurate. He gave a links to legitimate websites and either referenced them out of context (eg. the ACLU involvement in gay cases -- the link was the ACLU defending the rights of an ANTI-gay case) or actually making something up that doesn't appear on the referenced sites. It's a common issue -- many people will just assume that if a quote is given and a link to what appears to be a legitimate site, then the quote is accurate and relevant. As the original poster said at one point: he was employing a little-used debating tactic where he was trying to make the "opponent" do their own research and come up with HIS conclusion.

I'm still working my way through the anthology... but thanks everyone for all your work!

Thanks, Myr. My only regret is you didn't start this site the day you were born -- because then I might've been able to come to accept myself a lot earlier than I did. Graeme

Just curious -- Cj, did you realise that you managed to keep your story thread alive all the way through to the next anthology?

Wow! Well done, CJ! ** Possible spoilers ahead *** A very, very well done little tale. I wondered at first where it was heading, but it didn't take me long to work out that the author and his story were one and the same. It was then just a case of how it would all tie together in the end. It's almost a case of being careful what you wish for Graeme

Thank you, Joe, for all your work. I remember being in the chatroom while Joe was there, and he mentioned he was editting a huge number of HTML files to get them ready for posting here. That's the sort of thing that people don't realise gets done every week, and Joe's one of those people who does it. Thanks again! Graeme

Thanks, Kitty, for all your hard work. I'm aware of some of the things that go on behind the scenes, but I'm sure that's only a small percentage of everything you do. Graeme

I originally became aware of this site when some told me there was a discussion here on one of my early short stories, Dear God. I lurked for a while, but I didn't join until I was ready to participate.

I'm sorry, but you're pandering to outmoded stereotypes. Just like a pair of gay guys can help their adopted daughter with female issues by getting help from mothers, sisters, aunts, etc., a duck is quite capable of asking for assistance from their goat friends to help deal with those goat-specific issues. However, since a major part of raising kids is simply providing a loving, caring environment, I see no reason why ducks can't adopt kids. Just my opinion, of course.

Your traditional dragon only breathes fire. It was a D&D extension to have types of dragons that breath ice, acid, gas, etc. Beside breathing fire, they have acidic blood, but tasting the blood of a dragon is supposed to allow you to understand all languages. There is a great book called "The Flight of Dragons" by Peter Dickinson, in which he provides an evolutionary explanation for dragons. To summarise, dragons developed the ability to produce hydrogen by the selectively application of acid to calcium (ie. bones). This explains why they could fly (they were natural hydogen balloons), could breath fire (defensive mechanism evolved from their lighter-than-air characteristic). If you can find a copy at your local library, it's well worth reviewing. He covers most of the myths about dragons (including eastern dragons) and explains how many of those myths can be traced back to that single evolutionary trait.

What you are talking about is a change in societial attitudes. This ALWAYS takes a long time. What you may not realise is how much society attitudes have already changed. The idea of being out when I was a teenager was one that I can't even comprehend. People did it, but it's not something I was able to consider at the time. Now, however, there are sufficient number of teenage peers who do NOT mind having a friend who happens to be gay that it's something that can be considered. It's not a steady progress. There are times where a lot of progress has been made, and then times when progress winds back. Overall, though, I'm seeing an improvement in society (at least Australian, New Zealand, European, Canadian and USA societies -- I apologise to any I've missed). There is still plenty of room for improvement, but we've made progress in a lot of areas and I'm happy to see that. But the core of that progress comes from within the society, and a key driving force is and always has been young people. This is why I'm an optimist -- I see more evidence of tolerance and respect in young people today (over all -- there are always exceptions) and they will be the core of the society for many years to come.

Very nice, Tony! I'll just add that even though the Okies are a delicacy of Umpalaya people, they are no where near as good as the Gdays found only on isolated southern islands. Graeme

A good point. I think it is a matter of degree. We are talking about a term that is used for what is effectively an oppressed and hidden minority within society. As such, it reinforces negative feelings about that minority. The other terms you used as examples can also be hurtful, but they are not generally propogated through society, so there is a lower impact long term. I'm not condoning the use of them, but pointing out that the impact of "retarded", while hurtful to some people, is not repeated through the wider community to the same degree as the denigration of homosexuals. I'm not happy with what I've just written as it implies that it's okay to use the term "retarded" because it's not as bad as "gay", which is not what I intended. I just hope that people will understand the intent behind the poor choice of phrasing.

You'll be fine. People are generally supportive, especially in an environment like the one here at GA. It wasn't that long ago that I started writing so I know what you're feeling -- you want not only be encouraged, but also what you can do better... so you can include it in the next story!

I can't think of anything more to add, but I didn't want to not say anything either as this event needs to be recognised, so... Well done to both yourself and Mrs. H!

I personally don't dislike tachyons -- I'm just not convinced they exist. When you start playing with imaginary numbers you get all sorts of weird results. The strange thing is that sometimes you can use them to come up with perfectly rational solutions to problems -- they just appear during a proof of something and disappear by the end.

Thanks, Snow Dog! I learnt something from your post, which is always nice. Cheers! Graeme

Happy Birthday, Crazy Goat! Have you joined the Goat Sub-Group here at GA yet? The other goats will make you very welcome, I'm sure. Hoping you have a great day Graeme

For once, I think I have to disagree with Wikipedia. The derivation I saw (and this is over 20 years ago, so my recollection is by no means perfect) was a result of applying the formula for increasing mass with relative velocity to equations of energy. In otherwords, the relative/invariant mass issue was core to the derivation of the equation, and hence the forumula was clearly for the invariant (rest) mass only. The derivation used different symbols for the rest and relativistic mass as part of the calculations so there was no confusion about which was which. This is a classic example of people not understanding the basic assumptions when using an equation. It's like the kinetic energy formula: K.E. = 1/2 M V^2 Some people will take this and try to calculate the kinetic energy for a relativistic object by calculating the relativistic mass and plugging it in. However, this formula is derived as the integral of momentum with respect to velocity AND ASSUMES THAT THE MASS DOES NOT VARY WITH VELOCITY. This assumption is a valid approximation at low speeds, but it is invalid at relativistic speeds and hence this formula is invalid for calculating the mass of fast moving objects. I can't remember, but I think it was the attempt to derive the formula for the kinetic energy for relativistic speeds that Einstein's famous equation came from.

That's not my recollection. I saw the derivation of the E=MC^2 forumula once, and it was related to applying the Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contractions* to traditional laws of momentum and energy. What Einstein found was that there was a "constant" left over when calculating the energy and that constant was MC^2. It was clear in the derivation that this was the REST mass (what you called the invariant mass), not the relativistic mass. * The Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contractions are the forumlae that specify how the length of an object appears to decrease, the mass appears to increase, and the rate of time flow for the object alters as an object moves faster. They have been demonstrated empircally by firing sub-atomic particles at high speeds and observing the change in decay rate and mass recorded. I'm not sure if they've demonstrated the theoretical reduction in length.

I'd love to answer if I can work out what the question is.... As I understand orbital mechanics, your basic idea is correct -- if a planet is blown up in such a way that the majority of its material components stay in the same general vicinity, then, subject to outside influences, they will eventually collapse back into a planetary form (albeit, smaller due to the loss of any material that was ejected with sufficient force to preclude later gravitational capture). However, it depends on the method of explosion. The use of some sort of antigravitational device could result in the majority of material escaping the local area. Similarly, an antimatter device would result in the conversion of matter to energy and hence be unable to form a new planetary body. Also, if the initial explosion is sufficiently powerful, there may not be enough matter left in the area to form the nucleus of a new planet. Finally, the gravitational influence of nearby objects may prevent the formation of a new planet. This is one of the theories for the asteriod belt (Jupiters gravitational influence prevented the formation of a planet in that area). Of course, I could be completely wrong with all of this. I haven't had much experience with blowing up planets recently....

Having your first story posted is always a nervous and exciting time. I wish you all the best Randy (from my first story, New Brother) has just offered to "speak to" anyone who gives you grief about your story. Let me know if you need his assistance Graeme

I noticed the spelling mistakes, too. As for the grammar... as most of it doesn't make sense anyway, I'm not sure you can do much editing on that part of the essay.

Happy Birthday, Nick! Have a great day and don't party too hard (assuming that's possible in the first place )