She is the One

[Joe Long]

When I'm writing on paper I go into an incredible amount of detail (was told to write a story around 2 pages long, ended up almost 8) but I can't seem to express it as much if I'm typing

Paper? I'd have to search the house for a pen

[that-one-guy]

Paper? I'd have to search the house for a pen

Write in books when we're in school

[Joe Long]

Write in books when we're in school

I'm 32 years past that part of my life

[that-one-guy]

Wish I was too

[thismy]

Alright, more of topic stuff.

What are your crazy summer camp stories, if you've got em'.

[Jashley13]

Seminal moment in my life: I finally had a chance to meet BashfulScribe in person today and let me just say that, aside from being an amazing writer, he's also an amazing person. If you haven't checked out his forum or his story yet, please do so. You won't regret it.

[that-one-guy]

Seminal moment in my life: I finally had a chance to meet BashfulScribe in person today and let me just say that, aside from being an amazing writer, he's also an amazing person. If you haven't checked out his forum or his story yet, please do so. You won't regret it.

How did that happen?

[Joe Long]

How did that happen?

they have collaborated on some story stuff over the past year, so apparently been friends.

[that-one-guy]

they have collaborated on some story stuff over the past year, so apparently been friends.

I know that bit, but who went where,did they go to a coffee shop, bar or suhin

[Joe Long]

I know that bit, but who went where,did they go to a coffee shop, bar or suhin

got to give them some privacy!

Edited July 21, 2015 by Joe Long

[thismy]

I once had a friend of mine who I "almost dated" dismiss one of my comments saying "yeah right, I know you." The thing is, she didn't know much about me at all. Those words pissed me off to no end when she said them. For some reason I can't explain, they're ringing through my mind tonight, making me quite angry. I'm seething, really.

Hopefully I'm able to channel these emotions into something intelligible for a few different scenes. I considered writing something about Jack being angry at Kayla, like during their fight, but it just isn't Jack anger.

[thismy]

O the humanity! I went back, finally, and actually read through the chapter. That was brutal. Hard to get through, I had to grit my teeth and buckle down.

Kayla was her usually revolving door self... open, closed, open, closed... The six messages seemed a little overbearing. What are you gonna do, I guess.

Even if Jack had responded, a similar argument still would have happened. It was a perfect storm.

I think a proper title for that day in Jack's life would be "The Day Jack Went Full Idiot"

So is Fitzsimmons the old familiar face? It would make sense.

[Joe Long]

Kayla was her usually revolving door self... open, closed, open, closed... The six messages seemed a little overbearing. What are you gonna do, I guess.

Even if Jack had responded, a similar argument still would have happened. It was a perfect storm.

Hey Jack, welcome to married life!

[Guest JohnnyBanana]

O the humanity! I went back, finally, and actually read through the chapter. That was brutal. Hard to get through, I had to grit my teeth and buckle down.

Kayla was her usually revolving door self... open, closed, open, closed... The six messages seemed a little overbearing. What are you gonna do, I guess.

Even if Jack had responded, a similar argument still would have happened. It was a perfect storm.

I think a proper title for that day in Jack's life would be "The Day Jack Went Full Idiot"

So is Fitzsimmons the old familiar face? It would make sense.

It's Fitzsimmons!How'd we not think of that? Jashley you sly devil. LOVE it.

[Jashley13]

Hey everyone.

Kinda bad news. It looks like the new chapter will take a little longer than expected. The first part of the chapter kinda left me emotionally drained and it took me longer than I thought to get through it. I'm past it now and working as fast as possible, but it looks like it may not be completed by my birthday. Pity...that was going to be my birthday gift to you guys. I'm gonna work hard to get it done anyway but, unfortunately, I can make no promises at this point.

I apologize.

[Guest Dark]

Hey everyone.

Kinda bad news. It looks like the new chapter will take a little longer than expected. The first part of the chapter kinda left me emotionally drained and it took me longer than I thought to get through it. I'm past it now and working as fast as possible, but it looks like it may not be completed by my birthday. Pity...that was going to be my birthday gift to you guys. I'm gonna work hard to get it done anyway but, unfortunately, I can make no promises at this point.

I apologize.

It's fine. Take as much time as you need.

[Joe Long]

I'm gonna work hard to get it done anyway but, unfortunately, I can make no promises at this point.

I apologize.

Hey, I know I check here everyday, but take your time, make it worth the wait!

[that-one-guy]

Hey, I know I check here everyday, but take your time, make it worth the wait!

I check here every time I lift my phone

[Guest Bill]

Same here. Take your time. And spend your birthday doing whatever makes you happy. That's truly your one day of the year.

[Guest Bill]

...

2) I don't like to bring politics or stuff into this forum (I respect you guys too much to try to get all 'controversial') but I am beyond happy with the Supreme Court right now. Not to trample on dissenting opinions but honestly, I've never understood why two people who love each other should not be married and I am so happy that whomever wants to get married, gay or straight, can do so.

...

I respect your wishes to not bring politics into the forum and only offer a comment here. This is one of those things where I suggest you be very careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

This is NOT an invitation to discussion but merely to offer a bit of a different perspective.

I note your response to the SCOTUS decision is an emotional one '... but I am beyond happy with ...', not one based on reflective analysis. Let me offer such an opinion on the court decision, NOT addressing the subject of the decision per se.

The decision itself was, from an objective perspective, an emotion based one, not one based on any kind of objective reasoning. Nine unelected, unaccountable federal officials made an arbitrary declaration to impose their will [or that of some activist group(s)] on the people of America. They arbitrarily changed the definition of a word that has had the same meaning for hundreds if not thousands of years to what purpose? To satisfy some emotional whim to make a small group of people somehow 'feel better about themselves'?

Marriage by definition is a monogamous heterosexual relationship. But the SCOTUS decision attempts to push that aside and substitute their imperial whim in its place.

So while on the subject of whimsical court and political decisions, think about the recent popular idea of the 'hate crime'.

While most people likely find racism and other forms of prejudice and bigotry stupid, immoral and unconscionable, what purpose does the 'hate crime' category serve? What it does is seek to impose a harsher penalty on the perpetrator of a crime because he used hateful, abusive, racist or another form of speech during the commission of the crime. So the purpose of the 'hate crime' category is yo punish someone for the words they utter or the ideas they espouse or embrace, in essence to punish speech or thoughts of a certain nature.

The long term effect is to acclimate people to accept the idea that words or ideas can be criminal actions.

The following questions are strictly rhetorical and not intended to stimulate further discussion, only hopefully some reasoned thought!

Does anyone really want to give some politician the authority to criminalize words or ideas? Once racist, bigoted or other ideas or words are accepted as criminal, where then does the next expansion of the 'hate crime' category extend? What other ideas may at some point become crimes simply because some politician deems it inappropriate or unacceptable? Do you really want some political hack imposing limitations on what you are permitted to say or to think or empowering himself to imprison you for thinking or saying the 'unacceptable'? What is the likely outcome down the line is certain political ideas being declared criminal acts; as an example, consider the current plethora of 'speech codes' on college campuses which are supposed to be bastions of higher learning. Do you really want 'speech' or 'thought' codes to become the law of the land under which you must live? If something you say 'offends' me, should I be able to have you arrested, tried and convicted of a crime? Is that the society in which you wish to live or in which you'd like your progeny to live?

@Joe Long: If you're following the news, the people who want to live their lives based on their religious convictions are already being targeted. The couple in Oregon who own the bakery who did not wish to cater a 'gay wedding' are being harassed to the tune of a $100,000 or so fine for trying to adhere to their religious convictions. They are being denied their right to freedom of association which is a fundamental right to be left alone.

And one last item: the word count is a bit over 742,000 at the end of chapter 35.

[Guest Dark]

The reason as to why the supreme court is unelected and "unaccountable" is so they have nothing in the way in terms of being able to interpret the constitution. First, no one is being arrested for hate speech. Second, letting the states decide issues hasn't worked out in terms of freedom. The civil war is one prime example. Also, as for the bakery decision in oregon, the fine was, extreme, yet Oregon state law says that businesses cannot deny customers service based on their sexual orientation. Religion should not be a reason as to why you would not serve a particular group of customers. In fact, here's an example of why religion is not an excuse to discriminate: "Because of my religious beliefs, I will not serve interracial couples". The prior sentence is basically the same reasoning used in the civil rights era, and i bet everyone here agrees that there should be no reason why interracial couples should have been banned from marriage and equal treatment under the law. And quit with the Christians are being persecuted deal. First, Christians are not being persecuted in America. The bakery broke the law and was punished. There was no persecution involved. In fact, the couple that were fined the $100,000 or so fine for refusing service on the arbitrary reason of "religious beliefs" had doxxed the couple. Here's an article explaining further: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-didnt-just-deny-a-lesbian-couple-service-they-also-doxxed-them-and-their-kids.html?ref_widget=gr_popular&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=atheist

No-one has the right to deny service to anyone based on an arbitrary standard: aka, religion. Basically, no-one is forcing anyone to be gay-married. The lgbt community just wanted to be treated equal under the law and now they have gained some significant ground. Now, they can marry the person they love without any restrictions. Speaking of lgbt discrimination, around less than a third of US states have laws protecting lgbt's from being fired just for their sexual orientation. Basically, the point is the Christians have no right to play the victim card when they have been the victimizers for decades against the lgbt community. Religious liberty (which, in the US, means Christian priviledge) does not trump civil rights or rational secular law, which this nation was founded upon. Agree or disagree if you wish.

[Guest Dark]

By the way, the meaning of the word marriage has been changing for years also. Marriage used to be a way for tribes to form alliances. Marriage used to be where the wife was beneath the husband, treated as property for him to do as he wished. Marriage also used to be only between people of the same race, basically no interracial marriage. Marriage also used to include polygamy, and to be honest, if the definition did change to include that, then good. The fact is, marriage should be between people who love each other and are able to consent. The key word is "consent". Basically, if you object to gay marriage, then don't get gay married. Don't try to interfere with the happiness of those whose decision to get married and be together have no wffect on you.

[Joe Long]

I could have lots to say but I don't think this is the place to get into it. As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm willing to tolerate other people doing their own thing. Live and let live. Government should treat everyone the same, but at the same time people have the right to freely associate. The government should not force people apart, nor force them together. For more on the subject, I'd recommend Reason.com

Edited July 27, 2015 by Joe Long

[Guest Dark]

This is the last I'll have to say about the cake issue: Not my words, but the words of peggin on freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches;

To me, whether or not the bakery should be required to make any particular kind of cake should be entirely dependent on whether they are being asked to (1) do something that goes beyond the kind of service they normally provide and (2) make any kind of expressive statement.

If I hold myself out to the public as being in the business of making wedding cakes, and someone comes in and asks for a wedding cake that is typical of the type of cake I normally make, I should be required to sell it to them, regardless of WHY they want the cake. it should make no difference if it’s for the wedding of two men, or two women, or a man and a woman, or if it’s going to be used in a scene in a movie the plot of which glorifies the KKK or the Nazi party. If I’m in the business of making cakes, and they want one of my typical cakes, then I should have to sell it to them period.

IMO, the only place my right to decline some or part of the order should come in to play is if the person is asking for some message to be put on the cake, because that involves them asking me to express something. Whether the “expression” being requested of me is a Confederate flag or a rainbow or “God Hates Fags” or “Congratulations Steve and Greg”, I should have the right to say “I’ll sell you the cake, but I won’t put that message on the cake.”

Of course, I should have the right to say “Sure, I’ll put that on the cake,” to some of those requests without losing my right to say “No F-ing way will I put that on the cake” to others, But even as I say “No,” if the potential customer still wants the cake without that message on it, and they aren’t asking me to do anything that is different from the type of cake I normally make, then I should not have the right to decline to sell it to them simply because they hold some political or religious or philosophical view that I disagree with.

[Guest Dark]

http://www.quora.com/Is-it-reasonable-to-force-business-owners-to-serve-homosexuals-even-it-is-against-their-religious-beliefs

Basically, one last thing to say about the last few messages: It's one thing to refuse service to a single customer. Or refuse to give a service or a product that is not part of your business. But if you offer a product to the public, then you cannot refuse to serve any demographic for any reason. The fact is this: businesses that operate in the public sphere must serve the public (which includes groups of people one may not like) and abide by any anti-discrimination laws in place: which includes groups of people one may not like. In fact, it was around 50-60 years ago, businesses could refuse to serve people of color, segregation the primary example. Not the exact same solution, but the last thing i will say about this is that if a customer is being rude and crude in the store (knocking over items, swearing), then a business does not have to serve that customer. If a customer does not have the required finances (money for the good or service), a business can refuse service. Basically, a business that offers services to the general public is required to adhere to the law. For those whose religion prohibits them from doing business with certain people, try going into another avenue that does not have to do business with that group. Or place a sign that explicitly states which demographics one will not do business with. The last solution seems fair and a good way for that business to avoid lawsuits in advance. Still illegal to not perform a service or not sell goods to a particular demographic while serving every other demographic.