>
>JMS, imho you are putting the cart before the horse and evading the issue.

No, actually, I'm not. If I say "I won't answer," or I change the subject to
another area entirely, that's evading the the issue, and the question was "why"
write a given story. That's the question, and I answered that specific
question. How is that evasion?

If you mean the point you raise a sentence later, how can I evade something
that wasn't written until afterward?

I answered the question I was asked. I evaded nothing.

>Before you can make the kids credible, you have to make the Gwen/Norman
>stuff credible.
>and thats where it falls apart. It is just not believable among the
>readers that Gwen would WILLINGLY sleep with Norman Osborn

Again, you are speaking for all readers when clearly there are many readers
here who do not agree with you. What you are saying is that it didn't work for
*you* but if you are going to start speaking for others who don't agree with
your position, then it is you who are evading the facts, not I.


jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)