kitten

In the particular case Kevin described, yes, they were apparently both flirting. However, my stated opinion was of flirting in general, not of that particular case. Usually one person starts the 'flirt', or has the first flirt, or however one describes it, as must be rare for two people to start any behaviour simultaneously. If the other person takes offence then presumably they won't flirt back, but they are already offended, so what do you expect them to do? Punch the offender? Flirting can be a good way of showing interest without getting too serious. If people flirt when they have no interest then how do you know when they are interested? People who flirt without being interested not only risk hurting the people they are misleading but effectively take away, or at least debase, a means by which genuine person might show interest. So the genune person has to wonder how to indicate an interest without flirting? You say you are flattered if people flirt with you. Do you always assume they are not genuinely interested, or that they are? If you assume they aren't genuine then there is no reason to feel flattered because they are effectively lying to you. If you assume they are genuine and you flirt back at them when you aren't genuine then you risk hurting their feelings. Before you play mind games by flirting with people you should make sure that the other person knows the rules of the game. That's why I think that, unless you are genuinely interested, it is bad to flirt with people you don't know well. Maybe your friends can tell that you're just playing, but how can a stranger tell? Playing mind games, like playing practical jokes, can be fun for the people doing it, but it can be hurtful for the person on the receiving end. Kit

Okay, this is just my personal opinion and not a criticism of Kevin, whom I like & respect... I believe that flirting when you don't even have the possibility of a potential interest in the other person is very wrong and that it can be very cruel to send out deliberately deceptive signals. Basically, it's like lying to someone for fun and just a different way of pulling a 'practical joke' on someone. It's quite possible that the person on the receiving end of this 'joke' may have their feelings crushed when they realise you were not actually interested and just playing mind games with them. Yes, you can say it was obviously not serious. You can blame the victim for not having a sense of humour or for not being socially aware enough to realise it was just a game. But aren't they the same sort of excuses that all practical jokers give to defend their cruelty? Kit

1) Find a friend with a quiet room or 2) Soundproof your bedroom or 3) Kill (or at least maim) anyone who disturbs you or 4) both 2 & 3 Kit

Wow Matty! That's a big cat! (or an optical illusion??) You look nice, too. Kit

I've noticed that too... Also, it seems even more stupid to combine 'New & improved' with 'Original'! Kit

Okay, I realise that my personal observations are not statistically significant, but from chatting to young gay guys in person and on the net, it seems that those who insist on use of condoms has declined over the last few years. i.e. They are prepared to use a condom if the other guy insists, but they won't make it a condition of having anal sex. One contributing factor, I feel, is that most of them think that AIDs is now treatable, and recent reports reinforce their feeling. e.g. I think that I saw somewhere that the right cocktail of drugs given in the early stages of HIV infection can keep someone alive and reasonably well for 10-15 years. For a young person, who in any case has a sense of personal invulnerability (that's how society persuades them to go to war!), the idea of being able to live for another 10-15 years is virtually the same as immortality. So now they wrongly consider HIV infection to be no more serious than any other STD. Of course there are other contributing factors (e.g. drugs), but I've not personally chatted to anyone who admits to using drugs, so it's not part of my personal observations. Kit

I understand what you mean and don't want to hijack the thread. And I don't want to seem trivial, but I feel the need to point out that, with the possible exception of great criminals and those in severe pain, EVERYONE's life ends way too soon. Personally, if I live to be 200, I will still think that my life has ended way too soon! Kit

Hellooooooooooo! I can neither confirm nor deny that! Seriously, it would take a very brave author to admit it if he/she did. If I ever used myself as a character (and I'm not saying that I did) I certainly wouldn't admit it. When I write I pour my heart and soul into it. Having already exposed my naked soul in my stories, it would be a step too far for me to expose which (if any) characters more specifically represent myself. That question implies we can really get a balanced view of ourselves and answer the question 'What is a normal me?'. Don't we all idealise ourslves much of the time or, when depressed, don't we see our more negative aspects? So even for those who *can* get occasionally a balanced view of themselves, that view would be just a snapshot at one instant of time. Obvious or not, it would be a sleight-of-hand magician's trick. Maybe even a double-bluff to keep the reader guessing! Kit

FWIW - I agree with Tim. Who knows if a 'perfect' time will ever come. Maybe you are both really waiting for the other to be first to reveal their feelings. If you don't tell him how you feel then he may assume you're not interested in him that way. Basically, there is no guaranteed right answer. However, in my experience of close friends, being honest and open nearly always works out for the best. Kit

I'd like to add my thanks to Graeme and his helpers for all their hard work. This was the first time I'd ever written for an anthology and Graeme helped to make it a very pleasant experience. Thank yooooooo! Kit

IIUC - Insomnia is less about number of hours of sleep than about quality of sleep. In fact recent studies (sorry, don't have the reference to hand!) have indicated that adults who have 8 or more hours of sleep tend to have health problems (or shorter lives - I can't remember which!). The same study gave a figure of around 6.5 to 7 hours as 'optimum'. Of course, one takes all such studies with a pinch of salt! Personally, I find I'm happy with around 7-8 hours sleep in winter and 5-6 hours in summer. This far north it's full daylight by about 4am in mid summer and not until about 8am in winter. (I hate getting up in the dark!) Of course, just because I don't have insomnia doesn't mean I'm not a mutant! Kit

I totall agree with Benji. The guy should be erased from your memory. I've met guys who've had some of the awful charactersitics you describe, but never met anyone with all of them. Instead of being depressed you should be happy because you know you can never have a worse date so you can look forward to better in future. Kit

Actually, if beer-bottle glasses are what I think they are, that's very clever, because it not only tells you about the taxi driver but also tells you a lot about the character who got into the taxi. Only someone who is COMPLETELY INSANE would get into a taxi with a driver wearing beer-bottle glasses! Kit

My brother, who is my only sibling, is gay.

Kevin, If long posts are a 'fault' of yours then I must admit that it's a fault I share, and I think that my reasons for long posts are similar to yours. No one has (yet!) complained about the length of mine. Has anyone complained about the length of yours? Kit

I think that gay pride marches have overall been good for gay people, especially in the past when being gay was considered to be very, very, bad and when few people would admit to being gay. When there was no internet to help with contacting other gay people, when the only way to meet gay people was to go to seedy bars and when going the local gay group (if one existed at all) meant risk of being seen and outed, it was very easy for a gay person to feel totally isolated. Gay pride marches showed, not just to the general public but also to the isolated gay people, that there were lots of us out there. There are, of course other advantages and disadvantages of such marches (e.g. the general public might feel 'threatened' or might see some unconventional gay people and think that we are all like that) but in my mind there is no doubt that the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages. Those advantages and disadvantages still exist in many places. However, it might be argued that in some places nowadays, with so many visible gay people, respectable gay venues and general acceptance (at least here in England) there is no longer any real need for gay pride march. Maybe now it is more just a celebration and excuse for just fun, but what is wrong with that? Does a New Years parade have to have a good reason? Does a Mardi Gras parade have to be filled with true religious believers? What's wrong with a bit of fun, celebrating and enjoying who we are? Kit

Kevin, It seems like your ideal 'marriage' (e.g. living in separate houses) would be similar to mine. One little, point though... the second quote in your last post was attributed to oldbob, but it was mine... ALL MINE I TELL YA! (Nah, don't worry, I forgive ya... just this once!) Kit

It seems to me that there is pressure, even in the 'gay community', to settle into a long-term relationship. Often, especially when couples make a big thing about spending X years together, there is an unspoken implication that those whose relationships do not last so long are less successful, or at least less fortunate. In the past, in order to avoid feeliing like a failure or being pitied as an unfortunate, I entered into relationships that lasted from several months to years. They didn't work out because, basically, I prefer living on my own. Now I'm happy with my 'single' status. I enjoy socialising with my friends and having occasional 'flings'. My best friend is an ex-bf. I no longer feel like a failure or that I'm unfortunate because I'm not in a long term relationship. Anyway, although I'm not against other people getting married, I certainly wouldn't want to do it myself. For me, living with another person is bad enough, but the idea of being legally tied to them is horrifying. I realise that this outlook probably makes me part of a tiny minority, but life would be much less interesting if we all had the same views on everything. Kit

Having now had a good rummage through CJ's shorts (ooer-missus!), I thought that it would be a reasonable idea to present my observations here. The title of this little treatise is 'Regarding the development of the writing of the noted author CJames as exemplified by his short stories'. However, I couldn't fit all that into the thread title box! The first of CJ's shorts that I examined was 'Requiem'. Normally I don't enjoy second person stories. This is not a matter of principle but because generally I've found that when I read a second person story it usually either hasn't grabbed and held my attention or it has irritated me. So it seems that it is difficult for an author to produce a second person narrative that succeeds for me. Anyway, I read Requiem and enjoyed it - CJ certainly managed to make second person work for me! Also, I enjoy short stories like Requiem which have a little piquancy. The second story I read was 'The Muse'. In an earlier thread I've already expressed my appreciation of the 'The Muse' and cleverness CJ showed in poking fun both at the horror genre and the 'rules' regarding mixing different narrative POVs. Therefore I won't go into further detail here. Then I decided to examine CJ's other shorts in chronological order. (No I didn't get to the bottom of the laundry basket!) My favourite by far is 'Three for Jake'. That is one of the best short stories I've read in a long time. The way CJ tell's the story so intimately to the reader, making him his confidante, is really engaging and I love the writing style and 'voice' he's developed since the first story. 'No Shirt, No Problem'. Now, as we all know, a reader's favourite story is often related at least as much to his interest in the subject matter as it is to the quality of the writing. For example, no matter how brilliant the writing in a Western story I will find it very hard to like a story about cowboys, horses and suchlike. That is just personal taste. No doubt few people will get really excited by a story about a game of cricket, no matter how wonderful the writing. Anyway, I loved TfJ both because of the excellent writing and because of the subject matter. Also, unusually for me, I didn't predict the ending. Overall, the order of my preference for CJ's short stories (i.e. not counting Ice Blink) is: TfJ (top), Requiem (second), The Muse, Category 5 and NSNP. It is obvious to me that CJ's writing skills improved almost beyond recognition in the relatively short time from NSNP to TfJ. It was clear in NSNP that he was a good storyteller who can grab and hold the reader's attention. However, it seems he had the same problem with NSNP that I had with my first story - Too Many Words! For example, my opinion is that the NSNP would have be much improved if CJ had missed out the whole section between 'LA was hectic...' and '... to eat on the road'. Apart from writing skills, CJ has also become more much more original in the story lines and characters since 'NSNP. TfJ shows that he can now come up with stunningly original plots and unique characters, and he also now gets to the essence and heart of his story with no excess verbiage. So to conclude my treatise on CJ's shorts: The chronological sequence shows the development of CJames from being a good storyteller to being an excellent author. The amazing thing is that such a large improvement took place in such a relatively short time. Kit

My avatar is a picture of my Munki taking down dictation. He's a bit old-fashioned (hence the quill pen) and not very fast, but sometimes it's useful to have him taking notes when I don't feel like working on a keyboard. Kit

My perfect wedding would be one which I don't attend.

As far as I know most authors welcome feedback. Therefore unless an author specifically requests that readers don't send him comments then I think the odds are that they do want them. Many authors (e.g. me) specifically state that they welcome feedback. Okay, everyone knows what an opinionated person I am but... in my opinion any author who does not want feedback should specifically say so. Any author who does not specifically say that they don't want comments and who then does not respond to comments is an ill-mannered sob and obviously has no idea how to behave in a civilised society. Kit

Okayyyyyy, CJ.... Well I know that the story was written quite some time ago and it took me ages to find this thread. My excuse is that I discovered GA only about 4-5 months ago and I have a lot of catching up to do. Anyway, here goes... I really enjoyed the story and your use of language. The fact that as a teenager I read everything I could find by H P Lovecraft might possibly have enhanced that enjoyment. The way you used all three POVs was very clever and it worked well, though I have a sneaky feeling that you evaded the 'rules' rather than actually breaking them! Also clever was the way you used the voices to become more personal as they lead to Joel's demise. The twist at the end was effective, though I could see it coming (but then I almost always solve detective stories long before the final denouement). As soon as I started reading the story it made me smile. I thought it was funny and almost satirical in its attitude not just toward those 'sages' who promulgate the rules but also toward other writers of the horror genre. My amusement at the twist in the end was not diminished by the fact that I'd expected it. I found that the story began as an amusing satire, at the end I still felt that it was intended to be such. However, after reading some of the comments in your forum it seemed to me that they implied that the ending was intended a 'serious horror' story. Was that your intention? To me it seemed to be satirical right up to the end. Of course, I could be totally wrong in my whole interpretation. However, the way you poked fun both at the genre and the writing 'sages' in the first half (or more?) of the story was so amusing that I had a big grin on my face as read it. Anyway, whatever your intention with the ending, the whole story was well written and gave me pleasure. What more can a reader ask for? Kit

What I like about being gay... (Is this one of the essay titles you get at school nowadays? When I was at school we got relatively boring titles like 'What I did on my vacation' or 'Why I must stop talking in class'.) Okay.... 1) I get to have sex with men without feeling guilty. (I know that lots of str8 guys also have sex with men, but IME they usually feel guilty afterwards) 2) It's like being a member of a select club - I'm not one of those 'average' plebs. 3) Society has fewer expectations about my relationships. i.e. my partner (if I have one) and I can choose to live together, apart, have a commitment ceremony, or none of those things and no one will say 'when are you going to settle down and start a family?' There are other things I like too, but it's after midnight here and way past my bed time. Kit

Of course it's different. Being born gay is like being born blond and it's not a disability. Being born deaf is being born with a disability. I don't want to be straight because being gay does not make me disabled. There is nothing I cannot do as a gay person that I could do as a straight person. What few limitations I have because I'm gay are imposed on me by society. However, being deaf means missing a major form of sensory input and it would physically handicap me and make me disabled. So no, I don't understand why a deaf person would not want to hear, any more than I understand why a blind person would not want to see. And I'm pretty sure that if I were deaf I'd want to be able to hear. There would be no shame in being born blind and I would be a proud member of a group of blind people. However, I would still want to have the ability to see. Just because two things share one quality, e.g. the quality of being unique, does not necessarily make them 'really no different' in other ways. Furthermore, being unique is not in itself necessarily a good thing. Lots of groups who are discriminated against develop their own cultures, not just gay people and deaf people. Are all those groups 'no different'? Are all people who are discriminated against 'disabled'? If so, are all women disabled because they are discriminated against? I am not in any way denigrating deaf people or their community but you can't say they are 'no different'. Unless, of course, you are trying to argue that deaf people are not disabled or that gay people are disabled? Erm, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything in my post, which was about the fact that being deaf is a disability but being gay isn't. However, to address your point - Why, then can we not comment on the hot guy in Portugese or Latin or, as in the old days, use the gay-specific Polari? (look it up in wiki if you don't know what it is). Certainly I don't need to be deaf to be able to keep my communications restricted to people who know a certain language. Have you looked up 'disability' in a dictionary? It has nothing to do with being born in a certain way. I was born with brown hair and hazel eyes - that is not a disability. I was not born blind or deaf, which would have been a disability. A disability: 1. State of being disabled; deprivation or want of ability. Hearimg is an ability. Deaf people do not have it (or have it to a lesser degree) therefore they are disabled. As I said earlier, the only disability that a gay person might have is one that might be imposed by society (e.g. not being allowed to marry or adopt kids or whatever). Now on certain occassions I've been known to be wrong, so if you believe me to be wrong about this, please tell me what disability a gay person has that is caused by an inherent disability and not caused by society? What, apart from things controlled by society, can you not do as a gay person that a straight person can do? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That just because there is some partial ability doesn't mean that there is no disability? A blind person uses sound more than a sighted person to get information about his surroundings. Does that mean he's not blind? He still can't see the stars in the sky, so he still has a disability. Do gay couples want gay children? I don't know. However, it is in fact irrelevant because being gay, French, African is not a disability. Therefore, by having gay, French, African child they are not imposing upon their children any physical handicap. e.g. by having gay, French, African child they are not imposing on an innocent child the inability to experience the subtle beauty of music (which is more than just the vibrations you feel on a table or in your car!). They would not just be depriving their child of those pleasure but they would also be making it's life more dangerous bevause it won't be able to hear approaching danger (e.g. cars on the road). If a deaf couple deliberately chooses a potentially deaf embryo while discarding a potentially hearing embryo they are imposing on that innocent child a life of disabilty just as much as if they chose an embryo that wouldn't develop limbs. Presuming that you mean my thought process is ignorant and/or that I am ignorant, in what way is it ignorant? If there is some information that I have wrong or if my understanding of some information is wrong, please let me know. Merely saying someone is ignorant doesn't really help the discussion. Kit