Cole Parker

I guess it must be an Australian thing, this uncomfortable, sophisticated, overly energetic orgasm of which you speak.And at your age! Aren't you embarrassed? And what do you know that we don't?C

I don't know whether the custom has crossed the sea to Merrie Olde, but here, we lay those two van-loads out on our lawns and driveways, put up signs on cars and posts saying "Garage Sale" with addresses or arrows pointing the way, then watch the people come like locusts. You can make some good coin doing that, here. You guys are a lot more refined than we are, so perhaps it woudnl't fly there. But here. . . .C

I think it would be easy for this discussion to escalate into something no one wants. Maybe we've exhausted the intellectual rhetoric and should move on. The impassioned rhetoric can quickly become spiteful. That's not what we're here for. C

Damn, Nicholas, you're one of the youngest ones here, and I'm one of the oldest, and you make more sense that most of these guys. I have trouble finding fault with almost anything you're saying. Right on! No one's brought it up, so I'll throw my oar in on an issue that's part and parcel of this. It was absolutely nuts to go into Iraq with the stated purpose of forming a democracy there. You cannot force a goverment on a people, or a governing plhilosophy. They have to elect it for themselves. Iraq is still, like Afganistan, basically a tribal nation. That's what they understand and support. They are a bit advanced beyond Afganistan in how they treat Iraqi women, but are still far behind where much of the modern world is even on that issue. We cannot foist a democracy on such a nation. It isn't ready for it. So fighting a war there for that purpose is senseless. And we should have known that going in. My view is that Bush's main objective was to take Sadaam our because he had the temerity to insult his father. Not oil, not balance of power in the region, not WMDs, family insult. And he's reduced this nation dramatically because of that hubris. We shouldn't have gone in, we shouldn't have stayed, and we're paying the price with young American lives. C

It's discussions like this, presenting us with well-spoken but different sides of an argument, cogently presented, than make this forum such a compellng place to vist.. C

Wow! I've never seen anything like that in my life! C

Of course the man was morally consistent, and yes, he did show some character by not fighting a battle he wouldn't have won and in so doing wasted funds better spent on education in his district. Most people in his position aren't quite as honorable as he was in resigning the way he did, and with stating his reasons for the world to see. The problem I have with him is he showded something that is galling in an educator. He showed personal biases that distorted his view of the world, and then was entirely intransigent about them. He made the decision that allowing a club that would support alternate lifesyle children would lead to them having sex with each other, and as he was for abstinence, that was against his principles. So he quit. Does anyone else have a problem with this position? Does he really think teens in his school are not having sex with each other, no matter what emphasis his sex education classes have? If his reason for quitting is really that he doesn't want to be part of anything that encourages teens to have sex, then a GSA is a strange thing to pick on. School dances are much more likely to be the font of frisky behavior than any school club. The purpose of this club was not to encourage its members to go out and have sex with each other. It was to let them get together and share experiences and find fellows walking the same path as each other were, to find they were not alone, something very important to teens. If by meeting other kids who had common problems or attitudes or feelings that means they'll have sex with each other, this convoluted thinking should also be cause to cancel the chess club or the photography club, shouldn't it? Those clubs promote their memebers having sex together, don't they? Well, neither does the GSA. Yes, the man did the honorable thing by quitting. His letter showed he was unfit to be a high school principal. What I would have preferred him doing rather than praying and quitting, however, was to give the matter some thought, talk to some other principals who have these clubs in their schools, realize his beliefs were different from those of other educators in many regards and posssibly not best for a mixed group of youngsters, and perhaps learn (what a word for an educator) that his religious views shouldn't affect how he does his job, that religion and school shouldn't be mixed, and that his very narrowly proscribed world-view can be the cause of problems and certainly doesn't help, and in fact did a disservice to, the kids who were in his care. C

That principal shows why high schools have been legally enjoined from having religious overtones or ties or programs. I can imagine a kid who wasn't a Christian trying to survive in that school. Well, it may not have been that difficult. The principal would probably have prayed for him. C

Here is a link to an interesting article in the LA Times today. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ch...0,5914255.story

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that everyone was mixing this request for info with Ian's (yes, I went back and looked!) Ian wanted raunch, this request was for good stories that had an outdoors component to them. I think we've given him some good leads. C

I may be wrong--something that occurs way too often--but I don't see where this request for references to good stories has mentioned the word 'sex-filled.' Didn't we have two requests like this? One asked for the stories to be full of randy, raunchy sex, and this one didn't say that at all. What I don't know is if this is the same person, simply asking the same question again, or were there two people asking for sort of the same information. If it's the latter, and this person is simply asking for well-written stories containing outdoor scenes, then we owe him an apology. If both these requests are from the same person, then, that's different. Anyway, here's a link to a fine story, and much of it occurs outdoors: http://www.iomfats.org/storyshelf/hosted/feangol/ Cole

Uh, just how carnel and steamy can 13-year-olds be? How much staying power does a kid of that age have for it to become awesome sex? But that's frivolous of me. I apologize. I can't help you in your search either, unfortuantely. I've never read a story like that. It sounds like Nifty is the place to look, however. C

Trab, I couldn't agree with you more. People complaining about gay marriage don't have much logic behind them or their arguments. I think their position can be summed up as they think gays are sinful, anything to do with being gay is sinful and should be abolished, and anything done legally to shore up gay rights should be fought. They see this as their calling, as it makes them more righteous. But trying to find logic in their positions will just screw up your head. Stop looking for it is my advice. These are people on the margins of society. The majority seem to be moving forward into broad acceptance. C

I guess that explains why you're suddenly talking like a vampire. Either your protective coloration as a mild-mannered college student slipped for a moment, or you were three sheets to the wind. I accept that latter explanation. I guess I half to.<c> C

Leave it to the coon to mention a pejorative, evil icon of the younger generation as a counterbalance to Colin's joy. Fie on you, Coon, fie, I say! What does that mean, anyway. Fie? Isn't that something Jack's giant said, along with something about making bread of bonemeal? None of that ever did make much sense. Where does one buy bonemeal, for god's sake? I didn't find it at either Kroger's or Safeway the last time I asked. By the way, try not to do that if the manager is bigger than you are. And why not use one of the traditional flours, which are plentiful and cheap and tasty? And what does it have to do with fieing all over the place? But the point is, let the youngsters have their moment, you old fogey. Yeah, I think that was the point. Don't ruin it with reminders of backstabbing psychos. Sideshow Bob. Jeeze! And by the way, did anyone notice that Arnold said he wasn't going to interfere? Nice to have him on our side for once. C

That school is a law suit waiting to happen. The kid's cute, though. C

Our coon is famous, as are his proclivities. This from Sports Illustrted: On the 1st hole I park my drive in the right rough. There I find my stance impeded by a formidable deposit of racoon s---. I'm certain of its provenance because, unlike the average golfer, I have raised raccoons and cleaned up after them. What's the official ruling here--do I get a free drop from animal droppings? Perhaps it depends on the species of critter: no relief from rabbit pellets; two club lengths from a bear pile. I'm guessing that the issue seldom arises at Agusta. After a short deliberation, I briskly disperse the coon doo with my seven-iron. Now we know: Wibby lives by a golf course. And is up to his usual misbehavior. C

I thought I was the only one who couldn't abide either of those two actors! C

I agree that the fact the school didn't step in when it saw what was happening, when it simply looked the other way and allowed to happen what did happen, is reprehensible. I doubt anything will come to any of the administrators because of that, I imagine they'll invent some creative excuses to justify their behavior, but their lack of responsible supervision when it was obvious it was desperately needed led to the death of an innocent child, the ruin of another's life, and the destruction of two other families. The school could have prevented it. That isn't to say they're guilty of Larry's death. But they're certainly guilty of failing to do the job they were employed and empowered to do. As everyone agrees, there are no winners in this case. I don't even agree that there's good stemming from the fact others won't make this same mistake if Brandon is given life imprisonment. I don't think the 'setting an example' argument works, and especially not with emotional teens. They do what they do for misguided and ill-thought-out reasons, and Brandon obvioulsy didn't think of the consequences for himself when he did this. If he spent a day or two considering what he was going to do, during that period he certainly had time to think about the repercussions attaining to himself for doing it. That he didn't bother to do that also suggests others in his same circumstnces will not think that far ahead either. If there is some good to come of this, it might be the continued raising of awareness in our society of the problem gay children face growing up, and perhaps a continued growth of tolerance for gays in our society. Or, as Colin says, an acceptance, which is even better. I do so hope that eventuates. Cole

I am decidedly not a Will Ferrell fan. His type of fiction doesn't do it for me. However, I did see a rather charming film he was in on HBO the other night. Stranger Than Fiction. Perhaps I liked it because it dealt with writing, but the plot was complex enough I spent a lot of time wondering how they were going to pull it off. I'd recommend it. C

I continually see the term "knowing right from wrong" used in this thread to justify trying a kid as an adult. That isn't part of the law, and shouldn't be used to justify anything. The law says a person 14 is a child and must be treated as one. It doesn't say anything about him knowing right from wrong. I will agree that Brandon probaby knew what he was doing was wrong. Part of why he should be tried as a child is that he did know it was wrong but went ahead with it anyway. He did because he wasn't mentally or emotionally capable of figuring out an alternative plan. Had he had adult capacity, it's very likely he would have. Psychologists tell us that at that age, kids do not think like adults do. Their brains have not matured to the point where they can. It seems that today, whenever a youth kills someone, the DA always wants him tried as an adult. If we're going to do that, try these kids as adults when they commit murder, I suggest we change the law. Anything else a kid does, try him as a kid. If he kills someone, try him as an adult. That doesn't make much sense, does it? We have the law in the first place because there is a recognizable difference between adults and children, and it their ability to understand and accept responsiblity. We don't expect kids of 14 to be as responsible as adults, and don't hold them to that standard. And that they can know something is wrong and do it anyway is part of the reason for that. C

You're both right. The kid was guilty as hell. He did exactly as Colin says. His lawyer is doing exactly as James says. But that doesn't change the fact that his mind is the mind of a child, he hasn't reached the age where he can make adult decisions, and the law was written just for this sort of thing. What he did is truly awful. But how many 18-year-olds do you see doing this? Damned few. They better understand the consequences, and they have the capacity to think through what they are planning to do. How many adults decide if someone says he loves him, his only out is to kill that person? Is that a rational act of an adult? Of course not. Do I excuse what he did? Also, of course not. I hate it. But my hatred for it doesn't change that fact that the one who committed the crime didn't have adult capacity. C

When it comes to promises about pooing, don't trust him. C

It adds to the tragedy by trying a 14-year-old boy as an adult, and then throwing him away for all of his productive life. He wasn't an adult when he did the crime, and he isn't an adult now. He's much, much closer to being a little boy than a grown man. Had he been older, he most likely would have been able to find another way to discharge his confusion. Trying him as an adult makes a travesty of the entire affair. C

You guys are both very good at this! Sorry to see it end. C