kitten

If you think the way that the railway deals with snow is silly... not too long ago (about 4 years??) trains on one line were brought to a halt because of leaves on the rails. It was pointed out that as we have leaves falling every autumn (fall) they should be set up to deal with them. The response from the rail company was "But it was the wrong kind of leaves". EH!!!!????!!!! Again you are being sensible. The average Brit motorist might not be so forward thinking or they may have the attitude that "We bloody well pay taxes to have the local council keep our roads clear, so why should we have to buy snow chains?" (As an aside, don't snow chains damage a road if there is no snow?) Ah, but if more than 75% of the workforce doesn't turn up, then they feel safety in numbers - unless all 75% get laid off. They also realise that if the company lays people off, the first to go will usually be the employees with little or no entitlement to redundancy pay (temps, part timers, or those who've been employed there for the shortest time). A recent employee who turned up on a snow day will be cheaper to lay off than a long term employee who took the day off. Also, despite the decrease in the power of unions in the last couple of decades, the workers themselves are still a bolshie lot . Some of them would rather go on strike over some imagined grievance and stand outside in a blizzard in protest rather than actually go in to work. Did you read about the recent wildcat strikes over the supposed unfair employment of foreign contractors at a Total refinery? Workers hundreds of miles away went out on 'sympathy' strikes, despite the fact that the unions didn't back the strikes. Now I think you maybe begin to see why such a big deal is made over a little snow? People get to take a day or two off work AND they get to complain that it is all the fault of someone else. The more fuss you make, the more justified you are in not going to work. BTW - what exactly is a grader? Is it in one of the pics you posted? Kit

As several people have pointed out, just because there is a correlation does not mean there is even a likely causal link. With any correlation, until some mechanism for a causal link is proposed and tested no conclusions can be drawn. e.g. For some years in the UK there was an inverse correlation between the numbers of people attending church and the number of cars on the road. Was there a causal link? If so, then maybe banning cars would make more people go to church or possibly forcing people to go to church would decrease the number of cars on the road. Or could there be a third variable (wealth) that affected both? Perhaps people with more wealth are both more likely to buy cars and less likely to go to church? In the case of this masturbation/cancer correlation there is no mechanism proposed for a causal link but a plausible mechanism for third variable (testosterone) which would increase both. The study reported is flawed in many ways - eg small sample size, and (as far as I could see) there was no measurement of the obvious variable (testosterone) which would be expected to affect both masturbation and prostate cancer. Also, the general level of statistical significance for such things is < 0.05. That mean there is less than a 1 in 20 probability the the correlation is real and not just random chance. With that level of significance, therefore, if you test more than 20 variables for correlation with prostate cancer, there is a reasonable possibility that one of them will show a correlation at the p< 0.05 level when there is in fact no real correlation at all. Of course, it may be that they used a higher threshold for significance (eg p<0.01) in which case there is less chance that the correlation is spurious. However, the basic point remains the same - the more variables you correlate with cancer the greater the probability that spurious correlations will arise. Therefore, the 'data-mining' approach of trying to correlate anything with anything when there is no hypothesis for a proposed link is unscientific. Kit

Mmmm - I don't think they are the same thing, as that pic you link to looks preety high tech. Maybe our gritters are more like your sanders? Basically they are trucks loaded with a mixture of grit and salt, and they have a device at the back that sprays that mixture onto the road. Ah! now you're expecting Network Rail to be sensible?! NR is one of the the botched results of privatisation of our old British Rail. Withr the privatisation the unified body of BR was broken up into bits. The track was owned by the predecessor to NR but the trains etc were owned by franchise holders, different franchise holders being on different parts of the network. The privatisation made lots money for the original big investors, then the private company that was predecessor to NR, even though it got billions in government subsidies, basicaly went bust, was then made into NR which is supposed to be private but still gets lots of money from the government. Anyway, NR couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, and not too long ago was fined because faulty maintenance caused a crash that killed lots of people. So, bearing in mind that it can't be relied upon to maintain ordinary points safely, I think that you are being over-optimistic if you think they would have the foresight to instal precautionary ice-resistant points! Kit

1) We get much less snow than anywhere else in Europe because they have a Continental climate and we are kept warm by the Gulf Stream. 2) My experience is that it's very rare that snowfall causes such disruption in UK cities. Certainly it doesn't do it every year and even this year, the worst for 18 years, it's only for 2-3 days. Most years we don't get more than more than a few cm of snow totalled over the whole year, and it rarely stays on the ground for more than a couple of days. If you have real figures that contradict my experience, please produce them. 3) I don't know where you get your claim that the BBC has the same sort of reports 'every year' . Every year since when? Please provide evidence. (Brits love to complain about weather. It is one of our favourite hobbies and the main topic of conversation between strangers). 4) If you don't suggest snow ploughs and gritters, what are the 'some measures' you would expect? 5) Basic economics. Putting measures in place that have to be paid for during the whole of winter every year is a waste of money when they wouldn't be used every year and even in years they are used they would only be used for a few days. Losing a few million pounds every 18 years really IS cheaper. 6) Brits as individuals quite rightly don't even think it's worth their money to buy snow chains and snow tyres for their cars, so why should we want the government to waste our tax money on national measures to combat the rare effects of snow? 7) Even if it had been economically worthwhile in the past to invest in measures to combat the rare effects of snow, in the future it is ecpected that we will get even less snow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1951084.stm), so it certainbly isn't worthwhile investing now. 8) Brits not only love to complain about weather, they love to use it (and any other excuse) to take a day off work. Thus lots of fuss has been made of the snow here - it helps to justify a day off work. Kit

Yes, they are awkward. No, I don't have any. Why do you feel the need to have such nicknames? Do you have problems talking about sex? Have your parents instilled this coyness into you? Kit

You need to bear in mind that you Canadians get such weather every year, but this is the worst we've had for 18 years. Furthermore, your snow lasts for weeks or months every year, whereas here, even though it is the worst for 18 years, it will be gone in a couple of days. Also, not all of the UK was so badly affected. Where I live there was no problem at all; we had less than 1 cm of snow yesterday and rain had got rid of it all by the time I went to bed. So it's worth you Canadians investing in snow ploughs, gritters, and whatever other stuff is required to deal with that kind of weather, but it's not worth us spending billions of pounds on equipment and contingencies that we'd use for a total of around 10-20 days every century. It actually costs us much less (and is much more fun!) just to close things down for those few days every century. Basic economics. Kit

The answer to most of those questions is contained in the word itself - hiSTORY. Part of history is made up of accepted facts (e.g. dates of major events), another part is made up of things that are likely to be facts, but may be disputed, e.g. the writings of a chronicler who may be biased or not have access to the real truth, and even when the same historical event is descibed by real witnesses, their accounts may not agree. However, much of the subject called 'history' is the making of a STORY. People have a need to try to make sense of things - that's why they invented gods. history, and later invented science. Making the stories in history attempts to link a number of facts and make some sense of them. What were the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire? Did Napoloen's health play a significant part in the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo? etc. Some of these stories linking facts may be substantially true, but we will never be really sure because we don't have ALL the facts and the further we go back in time the more difficult it is to put ourselves into the mindset of the people involved. Yes, we know how objectively that the average medieaval European was obsessed with the possibility of spending eternity in hell, but most of us can't feel subjectively the way they did. Even when we try to make sense of our own past, the things we experienced directly, how reliable would it be? We link the events of our life into a story because we don't like the idea that things might be random or we don't like some of the things our actions reveal about us. We can create a story of our own past which others may not agree with, even if they agree on the dates of actual events we describe. This stories we create about our own lives iare not lies. They are true for us, but they are so filtered by our own subjectivity that others may not agree with our 'truth'. Therefore, whether or not history is affected by character, or has major turning points, etc, may or may not be true of particular parts of history. Even if we had a time machine and access to all the facts, there would always be the matter of interpretation. No matter how unbiased and objective a journalist tries to be, even when attending an event in present time, the story he produces will always be filtered through his own previous experiences and his own point of view. With history that filtering process is much greater. History has great value. It assembles information on the past and tries to acertain the accuracy of the information. Then it tries to make sense of it by making sense of it - i.e. creating a story. That story will tell us at least as much about the person or society that writes it as it does about the period it is supposedly describing. e.g. Mediaeval historians (usually monks) might ascribe the fall of the Roman Empire simply to moral decadence, etc. The most interesting thing about history is the narrative we create to link and 'explain' the facts. For most people facts without the narrative are much less interesting. However, care should be taken that the narrative is not itself taken to be a fact. Kit

Cute!! And the human isn't too bad, either!

Mercedes 190E

I can both empathise and sympathise with this feeling. However, I think that actively going looking for signs of cheating is counterproductive. Let's look at the possible outcomes:- If your investigation (snooping) doesn't find evidence of his cheating, then it still won't allay your suspicions (absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence). So your mind won't be put at rest and you'll continue snooping. Also, what a suspicious mind interprets as 'evidence' is not the same as 'proof' and there may well be an innocent explanation. Eventually, if the snooping continues, he's almost certain to catch catch you doing it. If he isn't cheating then he'll be hurt you don't trust him and will realise that there is no way that he can ever convince you that he isn't cheating (it's almost impossible to prove such a negative). Thus he will have to decide if he can live with your suspicions and the neediness that implies, or give up on the relationship. Anyone with any self respect (e.g. me) would take the second option. So you will have destroyed a possibly good relationship. If he is cheating and you find evidence, then the relationship is over - even if you don't end it, he probably will do so because things will be too uncomfortable for him. If he is cheating and you don't find evidence then not only will your suspicions continue, but when he discovers you snooping he'll just be more careful or he may decide to to use your snooping as an excuse to end the relationship before you get proof, thereby pretending that he has the moral high ground. Obviously, if you find proof of cheating in the general course of ordinary activites, then that's something that has to be dealt with. However, it seems to me that most of the possible outcomes of snooping are negative. The constant nagging distrust will destroy happiness and eventually hurt more than occasional betrayals of trust, so.... BETTER trust all and be deceiv'd, And weep that trust, and that deceiving, Than doubt one heart that, if believ'd, Had blessed one's life with true believing. Oh, in this mocking world, too fast The doubting fiend o'ertakes our youth! Better be cheated to the last Than lose the bless

Just because someone has a s/o doesn't mean he gives up his basic rights to privacy. If I had a b/f who invaded my privacy by snooping like that then I'd immediately dump him. No matter how much love was involved, such a violation of my personal privacy would destroy all trust between us so the relationship would no longer be viable. Kit

I trim the bush and shave the balls. Reminds me of the joke: Q. How do you get rid of unwanted pubic hair? A. Kit

I think it's rather sad that no one has said that their favourite gay thing is their bf (or gf). Maybe people don't like to refer to their bf as a 'thing', but it does seem that other people (actors, singers) are nominated here, so why not a bf? Kit

Why, thank you! That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. Actually, maybe the blatant and shameless self-promotion was something I caught during my time on Authonomy. Hopefully, I will find a cure! Kit

Yeah, start here: http://kit.gayauthors.org/ Kit

Lubricious is more erotic than moist, though even lubricious isn't especially erotic. Kit

There's never any guarantee of success, but I believe some things can improve your chances. e.g. Join clubs related to your favourite interests and be generally sociable in other ways so you meet lots of people. Be friendly, kind, considerate and in other ways nice to the people you meet. Be interested in other people for who thay are, not just as potential boyfriends. Don't go specifically looking for love or looking for 'Mr Right'. Take care of your cleanliness and appearance. Have the desire to give love rather than just to be loved. Accept that no one is perfect, not even yourself. Enjoy the life you have, with or without a bf - happiness encourages happiness and misery breeds misery. Good luck! Kit

Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by this, so perhaps I misunderstand and my response isn't appropriate. Anyway, here goes... Presumably you feel 'less than extreme' emotions, so you know the siort of words that can express those feelings when you're talking to friends? There are extreme words, such as "incandescent with rage" to express extreme emotions. There are moderate words, such as "simmering resentment" to expres moderate emotions. There are mild words, such as "a little bored and slightly melancholic" to express mild emotions. Similarly, the emotions can be indicated by appropriate (extreme/moderate/mild) physical actions by a character. In fact, it's quite rare in most my stories for characters to express extreme emotions at all. Probably my 'British reserve'! Kit

As usual, I agree with Greame. Also, for me being unhappy is not the same as being sad. Sadness is closer to melancholy than to unhappiness. But such fine definitions and usages of words are subjective. This is what I believe: People can make you unhappy. e.g. by hurting you physically or mentally. However, although people can create the conditions that are conducive to your happiness, they can't make you happy. Whether or not those happiness-conducive conditions actually make you happy depends on your own mental state - in a way, you have to be 'receptive to happiness'. Kit

Eating alone in the crowded room.

I think you haven't quite got the spirit of Nifty. A real Nifty 6 word story would be: They had sex *without* exchanging names. Kit

As regards sex scenes - I agree with shadowgod. As a reader, I enjoy them if they are well written, and as a writer I appreciate how difficult it is to do well. For me, that means they need to be a part of the story (eg developing plot or showing insight into the personalities of the participants) and not just a bolted-on scene just for titillation and with no real relevance. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against titillation and I can enjoy nifty-type stories in which plot can be a very minor part. However, if the story does have a serious plot, then I like the sex to be a part of it. As an author, I can also agree with shadowgod's point that it's frustrating to think that many readers will simply skip over a section of the story that took a lot of effort to write. On the other hand, as a reader, there are some things that simply do not interest me in a story. For example, sometimes an author will put a detailed description of a hockey game or a football game. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in, and no knowledge of, team sports. Admittedly, the outcome of a game may be important for the plot, as may be the fact that key characters in the story play well or badly and maybe help win or lose the game. However, if an author goes beyond that basic information and insists on writing a blow-by-blow account of the game, who tackled whom, etc, etc, then I switch off and skip over it. For me, the same goes for fight scenes in 'action' stories - I want to know who won and how they did it, but I rapidly get bored if there is a detailed blow-by-blow account. However, I realise that for some readers such a detailed account of a fight is an exciting part of the story. So, I guess it all boils down to the fact that the author will be writing for a particular type of readership and just has to accept that readers not in that group will skip over it. Having said that, though, I have a gut feeling that a greater proportion of readers will be interested in sex than will be interested in hockey! Kit

In the absence of our beloved Kevin (I hope that he's okay!), I thought I'd try to introduce the sort of discussion topic that he has often done in the past.... Many times I've seen references to 'Mr Right', such as: "I'm waiting for Mr Right" "Maybe the next one will be Mr Right" As with any word or phrase, it probably means different things to different people, and it's often difficult to know exactly what the person using that phrase has in mind. Maybe they don't have anything particular in mind and are just using it as a 'stock phrase' without thinking about what it really means to them. Perhaps when they refer to Mr Right they mean merely the person they will fall in love with. Indeed, there have been several occasions when someone has described the characteristics they hope to find in a Mr Right, and then they fell in love with someone who has few, if any, of those characteristics. Love makes them either deliberately ignore the deficiencies or makes them completely blind to them. Apart from the complication that falling in love can itself create 'Mr Right', and that people often fall in love with 'Mr Wrong', from the way this phrase is sometimes used, I wonder if there are not other potential pitfalls in the way some people conceptualise it. For example, sometimes it seems to imply that there is just one perfect/ideal guy (or a very small number of ideal guys ) for them somewhere 'out there'. If they really expect perfection then this implication will be true, and in fact the 'very small number' will be zero. In real life, perfection does not exist. Even setting aside the idea of perfection, however, it is wrong to believe that there are a very small number of guys who will be 'Mr Right' for us. If that were true, then the chances of finding that guy, and finding him both available and interested in us, would be vanishingly small, so almost no one would ever find 'Mr Right'. Thus, in order for the concept to be at all useful, we need to realise that there are many potential 'Mr Rights' for us. There are other possible dangers in the concept of Mr Right. For example, if we believe that a guy exists 'out there' who will be an ideal 'fit' for us, then why should we bother trying to make a relationship work until we find Mr Right 'out there'? And if he really is Mr Right, then surely we won't need to work very hard to build and maintain a relationship with him. Also, given that there are indeed several potential 'Mr Rights' out there, none of whom are completely ideal or perfect, then it is likely that we might meet one 'Mr Right' and decide to build a relationship with him. What happens when we later meet another Mr Right, who we think is slightly less imperfect or a little more ideally suited for us? These, in my opinion, are major flaws in the concept of Mr Right. I believe that Mr Right does not exist out there. I believe that there are many potential Mr Rights with whom we can begin a relationship. I believe that by starting a relationship with a potential Mr Right and by working at that relationship, each of us can get closer to being the Mr Right for the other. Of course, that won't always work, and the relationship may well fail, but at least we will have tried for something real, instead of waiting for some mythical Mr Right to appear from 'out there'. Now, I realise there are several holes in the above arguments. Many of those holes are because I haven't got an agreed definition of 'Mr Right'. However, depite that, I think that there are lots of potential problems with the concept of 'Mr Right' and that people should take care not to base important life choices on such a flawed concept. (Hope Kevin is well and can get back online soon, cos I miss his posts and his interesting discussion topics!) Kit

This thread is a tedious and childish waste of bandwidth. It is on a par with the 'last post wins' thread in the Lounge/games-humour forum. However, at least that thread is correctly placed under a games-humour forum rather than here, clogging up a hosted author forum. Kit

I thought that as well, but I couldn't think of a tactful way of pointing it out! Kit