Enric

ch3: he was hetero !

rather, I doubt it isn't. Anyway, soulmates or no soulmates, Lennox is Granger's remote cousin. And if I understood it correctly, they somewhat resemble one another. Physically. [they should. somewhat.] While it's rarer that those who resemble one another, would be a long-term couple; still theirs current could form a good basis for an ongoing friendship and trust.

ch8: so Lennox, but would he really be Granger's soulmate....

I am most curious well, now that you have had time to take a look at your pedigree, did you find slutty ancestors and ancestresses? (or, at least, upper-class ones who could be believed to been slutty) ---------------- I have checked my own pedigree already long time ago. The overall conclusion about sluttiness: there are no ancestors and ancestresses of mine in the recent three centuries who were born outside marriage. I was most astonished. It's surely a rarity, knowing that the number of ancestors checked is several hundreds. People cannot be that chaste.... in general. And, in general, population are not that chaste. But the fact remains: I have no bastards in my ancestry (as far as researched parts are concerned, and cautious limitation to 'since the 1700s') So, my all ancestors were amazingly honorable. Or, if they had bastards, something like social customs prevented them to marry into lineages I come from. My ancestral lineages seem always to been those of legitimate child's. [in the social context, an illegitimate would have usually had only a lower-class life than the parent... so, there was some social custom set at work in determining those lineages] This all makes me to conclude that probably, I have not inherited much in the way of slutty genes. [my ancestors have been more capable of keeping it in their pants...] Also, I have a hypothesis that this sort of heritage has helped members of my family in various generations, to have completed education. which in turn helps in career, and so forth... It is sociologically somewhat known that strong impulses to have sex, militate against completing one's education. One of mechanisms: having kid or kids, makes a person to drop from education (or not to start higher degrees) and instead go to earn money by working. Plus, restless relationships at an age when one should complete studies, tend to make that more difficult.

however, this sordidity aside, you anyway have many cousins, and presumably actually a big bunch of cousins. The obstacle only being that you do not know them..... but, not knowing them does not mean they do not exist nor that they weren't your cousins. (which sorta proves what I stated about the usualness of having many cousins) there's a distinct possibility that your mother's siblings and aunts and uncles in the Philippines have managed to produce a big number of descendants.... It'd be prolly a safe bet that there you have at least ten male cousins, of various degrees of cousinhood. I have these funny imaginative visions, you Jeremy starting to be interested in your filipino heritage and going there and finding several male cousins..... ensues things which Mark would describe as slutty... as to *not* knowing one's cousins: that's fodder for story plots. Just as Caleb is fodder to story plot because he was long unknown even to his half-brother.... if JJ (or Will) hooks up with uncle Nick's son, well, they probably do not know one another too well from the past. That all actually is good for story plausibility: the Westermarck effect does not obstacle, because sexual attraction should actually be expected between blood cousins who do not know one another.... Mark could write a cavalcade of estranged families having sons who meet one another and start sex between cousins... that many estranged (or lost, or unknown) siblings as there have been in these stories.

this obviously depends on limitations of viewpoint.... Jeremy, do you have no kinsmen from your mother's side of the family? (you have mentioned only your father's siblings....) then, you mention that your father's sister has a son who is about 11 years old. In my terminology, and in usual genealogival terminology, that boy is your cousin. But, obviously not to you, since you in your view have only one male cousin, son of your father's brother.... I have an inkling that there could be a view -a really archaic view- that a person's real lineage only consists of the patriline, an unbroken line of males. That a son of an aunt is not of one's lineage (not really consanguineous, not of the same blood) because the aunt, a woman, breaks the male line. and, of course, in that viewone's mother's kin are not of one's family because the connection would be via a female, the mother, who breaks any male line..... But that one's father's brother's son is of the same lineage because he is equally of that unroken line of males. So, that looks like a limitation of viewpoint. another limitation of viewpoint is to require that only exactly first cousins are cousins. People tend to have second cousins, and first cousins have often kids - who are first cousins once removed. and so forth. I know what I am talking about. The number of your cousins is not dependent on number of your siblings. (siblngs rarely produce cousins to one) One has cousins from several sources. Descendants of oner's mother's siblings. Descendants of one's father's siblings. Second cousins and their descendants. Some count third cousins too... It is usually a rarity if there exist only very small number of all of those - counted together. Yep, exceptions happen. And they are usually rare. Whereas *usually* people have several cousins.

you seem to have a small family. I think it's not usual to have only one male cousin.... one usually gets cousins both in father's side and in mother's side. and, most of people call all degrees of cousins as cousins.... such as, also an elder first cousin's kids are cousins. and so forth. my two nephews have (on the other side, their mother was youngest of her siblings) first cousins who are old enough to have started to produce their kids a few years after the birth of my nephews. so, of course those regard one another cousins. my maternal uncle married secondly at a time when his several nieces and nephews were young families.... so, the three kids of that uncle's that marriage have a few batches of cousins who actually are kids of their first cousins. naturally they are cousins to one another. One boy and one girl of those even actually go to the same class, being born the same year and resident in the same 'suburb': the boy being son of the girl's first cousin. certainly the boy does not call the girl as his aunt (technically she could be classified as aunt in second degree), except if he wants to tease so, Jeremy, you do not have even other sorts of male kin who are nearer your age? ---------------- talking about cousins and sexual attraction: there are research indications that people find their relatives attractive, because they have resemblance. That in turn would in cases of close relations be overridden with Westermarck effect - without which, there'd be many pairings between too close relatives. If and when that's true (about the inherency of sexual attraction), then the cousinal sex escapades have an explanation.

it is no omission in the context. I was talking about heredity and conveying those genes to next generations. As sad as the fact is, gay mignons were biologically incapable of conveying their slutty genes to aristocratic generations descending from their male lovers. Namely, there's the sad impossibility of a male being incapable of getting pregrant. A pity, but what can I do.... That said, occasionally a gay mignon who had managed to finagle a good position for himself for long enough time, had opportunity to marry off his nieces and nephews to members of aristocracy. For example, by promises of leaving his own (king-granted) property as inheritance to said niece/nephew... although a nephew or niece had not as many genes of the gay slut mignon (than would a child of a female mercenary mistress have), still the uncle's some genes (and some slutty ones at that), as well as presumably some gayness genes, passed forward to aristocracy in later generations... but, that was a rarer and more stilted mechanism than the one based on greedy slutty prostitute-like women passing onwards their slutty genes to aristocracy via their own children...

well, to be slutty could be (in part and in regard to some) a hereditary trait. And, now I reveal a secret: precisely that hereditary trait runs in many aristocrats. commoners in general are much more chaste..... one of main reasons why aristocracy has an overabundance of slutty genes, is the fact that throughout the world, 'mercenary' women have used their wiles (and had an ambition) to get into beds of powerful men, and to receive plenty of material good in recompense (yep, this can be read as like as a natural prostitute's approach). Those women were not interested in beds of powerless and poor men..... Sometimes they made it as far as wedded wife. Quite often, they were mistresses (there were rules often which prevented marriage). Their children often ended up as part of aristocracy (because of the powerful positioon of the father/lover). And they continued the heredity of their mothers. So, if you sometimes read news or hear gossips that some aristocrat or royal has had extra-marital sex..... that's no surprise, as they are genetically quite much programmed to be greedy and slutty. this leads to a tentative idea that JP's family members are amazingly much like hereditary aristocrats. btw, if someone wants more people who are slutty, as friends; my advice is to have friends among hereditary aristocracy....

they really are an adulterine lot. So many being sired by others than husbands of their mothers. That is somewhat too unlikely. Women were not that much in cuckooing the nests of their husbands. But, it's an easy (too easy?) ingredient for plotlines and drama. Like those over-easy as seen since the series Dynasty.... Every second chance, an unknown child popped up out from the woodwork. Old Blake Carrington had surprisingly many children, compared to what was the original reality.

no good genealogist ever lets this sort of things to disturb. I guess you would have a hurting brain session if you take a look at the pedigree of king Carlos II of Spain, or at the pedigrees of Isabel II of Spain and her husband Francisco de Borbon.... It's not far from the reality that Isabel II was genetically almost a sister of her said husband. They however did not share even one parent, they simply shared all their grandparents....and their mothers were nieces of their fathers. it's after all eastern Ohio... oops, central Spain

but it's particularly sad if a young man (in his twenties or even younger) looks like a man in his old years.... I have encountered a few such, from time to time. I recall one 16-yo guy who looked somewhat like a mushroom, and definitely middle-aged-looking. Plumpness. Face was somehow withered. Recently, I have been taking a look and making assessment, when seeing a young man, about how he would look like in his forties and fifties.... It's sometimes really easy to assess, if knows the guy's father or some uncle, AND they have similarity. Plus, without having such knowledge, even then some features are predictable: how eroded and burlied and gravity-influenced they would turn out to be. There's actually somewhat little of ageless beauty..... too little. Having known a lot of young people, I'd nowadays say that they usually bud to height of nice looks at 17 or 18. Before that, it's usually so immature also in the looks department, and after that it's often downhill... But, as indicated, quite a many young is always not good looking.... These internet discussions are sort of easy on the eye - one does not need to see how undesirable-looking there are many other discussants

ch2: Caleb cannot be gay ---- there's of course some secret in the late Steven's life. But he has been dead over 50 years, so it's family history but imo not a scandal.... besides, next to everybody has secrets. because Steven sired a son, he cannot have been gay.... I think. oh well. his diary surely will reveal some secret of his..... and - Tonto's secret. probably nothing to do with having extra-marital child. perhaps just identification of a lover of hers at a time when Steven was teenager or so. probably it will come also from the diary. funny to think if great-uncle Jacob's bible actually has some secret stashed in.... some writing at some spot. I know of ancient bibles of families - there are some sorts of notes and perhaps even annotations written..... Many old bibles from families have had written notes about the family tree of the owner's family. Even such details which are not preserved in any other available documentation. Jacob himself, was he Barry's brother - or Barry's uncle ? Barry and any siblings of his would have been born around 1900. And a personal bible for one of them, could be printed in -eg- 1915. Whereas Barry's some uncle (born around 1870) would possibly have obtained a bible printed in 1900 or tad earlier. Perhaps Mark will one day tell us the tale of Jacob.... what if he was a bachelor gay.....

except, when a married woman has a child to her lover (and not the husband), the plausible way is NOT to have the biological father raise the kid. Besides, how was the pregnancy kept secret. I think that all those who attempt to concoct a solution where one of hayes brothers is Tonto's beget, are way off the mark. Due to plausibility/ reality. Equality between genders is not yet, and certainly was not in the 1930s, that far as the father would be the one to be pregnant. There's a certain natural fact that it's women who are pregnant.

It should be unlikely that each extramarital affair produced a kid. So, I look forward to seeing that Tonto just had a lover for a while, but her kids were her husband's. However, if the 'everybody needs to be a secret bastard' option again occurs here, then the likelihood is that Tonto's extramarital kid was raised as son of her and her Schluter husband. That was the more usual solution, rather than hiding a pregnancy and giving the kid to adoption. And Tonto did not strike me as a woman who would consent to give up her kid - rather, if the Schluter guy was unreasonable about it, Tonto would have divorced. So, if there's an illegitimate kid of Tonto, it's bound to be her younger son, William Schluter, the father of Nick and the late bitchy. And the technical father of Brad. Did William resemble someone else than Barry Schluter? What does it change? that the late William (son of Tonto anyway) would not have been biological son of the late Barry? I think such would just be an old history, rather than anything to impact the year 1999. Just a historical scandal. JJ, Darius and Brad would not give a hoot.... And Stef would be the only surviving biological grandkid of Barry Schluter. Nick, if conservative, would of course be embarrassed. His biological grandfather would not have been judge Barry Schluter but some lover of Gail nee Crampton. Still, his father was the naval officer William Schluter. And Nick's career would not depend on who his real grandfather was, right? All this could simply be an academic exercise, because I think it's not too likely that everybody ends up as bastards. actually, I'd be more curious about if Brad's real father's family would in some way enter some story....

the deletionist problem is a different problem than vandalism. I was not speaking about vandals. Their doings are easy to correct in wikipedia. IF a topic is prominent and notable enough, THEN a wikipedia article is a relatively safe place. The deletionist problem is a grave problem for articles (and the usefulness of making any work for such an article) whose notability may be controversial.

I think you missed the points in my critique. I was not saying that genealogy programs cannot produce a tree. They certainly can, and I say probably in this case the result is not illustrative of the relations at play. Like I said, the programs do things mechanically. These relations here are in part difficult to be put to such mechanism - the mechanical output will not be illustrative. I was not saying that genealogy program is difficulkt to use. actually, a ready genealogy program is easy to use - a trained monkey (that's a joke-like expression) can feed the input to that, since most of what is involved, is simply copying. Yepo, for most, a trained monkey can use the program.... I was not saying that programs do not handle (and preserve) big amounts of data. You write that your large trees are in program. Well, they certainly store big amounts of data. Like I said. One of points is that for a small amount of data, the program would rather be an overkill, and in this case also produces somewhat un-illustrative output. The line I draw is: a program is helpful when there's much more data than a human brain can remember at a time. On the other hand, the program is useless exercise when the amount of data is such that a human brain can remember most or all of it, if having it at display. The latter case, a tailored 'free-hand' drawing would have more potential to be illustrative than a mechanical program making output. Like I said, this genealogy would be best presented as a tailored drawing on simple page. In such, many of the mechanical pitfalls of the program can be avoided, and the presentation put into one page which shows also non-traditional relationships.

the big problem, or 'challenge' as some put it, is the existence of a number of nasty deletionists there, who would destroy a wikipedia page if they can vote it to be non-notable topic. they have a number of twisted criteria (and mentally twisted people doing interpretation and application) what is notable. I fear that un-printed publications are too easy targets (usually, printed and published book series can have their articles). because of the mentally twisted nature of that editor community (it's inevitable, I think: who else than unemployable wackos have enough time to live in wikipedia...), wikipedia deletion votes are a test for several things, one of them being the accreditation of notability and prominence it tests. I.e, if an article wins a much-participated vote, its topic is notable and attests to prominence; if it does not win, then that's a nasty thumping of possibly a good thing.... Some of those in-wikipedia-daily-living wackos are in nasty habit of resurrecting their deletion proposal from time to time. This is not against those sane people who usually edit only now and then wikipedia articles. I tried to outline above some features that help to recognize deletionist nutcases there.

ch1: I thought Nicholas was getting mellower when he got nearer thirty... imo Brad should take Matt to meet his paternal grandmother. as genealogist, I say that all genealogy programs feel to be crap. In a way or another. Their output will in all likelihood not be the most suitable for this, since anything those programs do, they do mechanically - and that's helpful only for handling big amounts of data. In this task, the amount of data is relatively low. Besides, any genealogy program will have distinct difficulties with same-gender relations. this would be best presented as a tailored drawing on simple paper. ____________________________________ I I Crampton m Marie a Hendrickson Tonto m I I ._____________ I__________. Crampton JP Steven Schluter m Janice a m m Isidore c I _________ I__ I I Stefan Nicholas Bitty Brad c Robert a Laura I I list kids Darius JJ Will Matthew --- actually, I am looking forward whether these stories get as noted as to deserve an own article in wikipedia. Then someone there is bound to make a family tree..... and some others a cast list, with canon descriptions.

ch7: hmmmm. Lennox, the new lover. or something. Lennox is supposed to be his second cousin or something like that. Anyway, nice cousins are good for sex, I gather.

ch53: these insatiables..... scheduling threesome invitations.

Wade Danfield has nicely fulfilled my requests. On 26 October 2009 I desired him to get together with Matt https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/24480-bloodlines/page__view__findpost__p__216193 On 2 November 2009 I thought it actually might be him to become Matt's boyfriend https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/24480-bloodlines/page__view__findpost__p__217170 On 7 November 2009, I declared him as hero. https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/24480-bloodlines/page__view__findpost__p__217940

ch6: Mark is obviously building up something with Travers' political 'patron'. Wonder what sort of surprise is waiting for us. I have mentally pegged Winkler as one of the rare heterosexuals in this..... so, let's see.

I have understood that the Missouri synod is the conservative one of the two main kutheran networks in America. Even reactionary. anyway, pretty rigid, I gather. By the way, there are lutheran hierarchies in the world which oppose gays and everything gays need.... So, the existence of some possibly more liberal camps among lutherans, does not make that good.

I have found that there seemingly is one thing in hinduism I do not appreciate: I hear that religion does not accept divorces. If so, then they spread misery.