Fowler's is an excellent read (if very dated). I had a copy on my bookshelf at one of my old jobs; if ever I was to look something up in it I'd probably still be reading it half an hour later.
The beta blockers shouldn't stop you from enjoying a good long walk. Even on the drugs, your body will tell you if you're pushing it too far; listen to it and either slow down or stop.
Unless you're really trying to maintain a high heart rate the blockers shouldn't interfere with your exercise. Walking has so many benefits for mind as well as body, maintaining a good walking schedule should help you come off the beta blockers when you're ready.
Happy birthday, Essex girl. Hope you get spoilt rotten xxx
What a sadly predictable thread. Someone posts something about a particular kink, some people give their own honest opinion on it and then a load of people jump on those opinions and start screaming "DON'T JUDGE ME! YOUR OPINIONS ARE WRONG! YOU'RE NOT IN THE LIFESTYLE YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND!"
Of course YOU know it's nothing to do with but can you, with 100% certainty, know that your partner thinks the same. That's when, for me, it's starts to get creepy.
Comparing your kink to sexuality, is a flawed argument. Actual paedophiles try to use the same argument to defend their kink.
No one likes to be told they're weird and creepy but just because you don't see something as weird doesn't mean it's not. For me, family play - no matter how innocent - belongs in the same subset as scat, knife play, fantasy, asphyxiation and similar. Yes, consenting adults should be allowed to practice these if they so wish (within reason) - but I will defend my right to judge people who like that (often literal) shit as freaks and/or perverts.
"It makes me feel loved and special when he crimps one off on my tits!"
I could expand, go through the psychological dangers of infantilising sex and dehumanisation (don't even get me started on pet play) but I can't be arsed.
Foot position can be an indication that someone's mind is elsewhere. There's a theory that because they're the furthest thing from the brain they are the things act the most naturally and most likely to give you away.
Next time you're in a room full of people, note how many feet are subconsciously pointed towards the most attractive person in the room
Maybe they're attracted to the tease. The aloof girl - she who seems unobtainable.
It's easy to be attracted to something you can't have, you don't have to think about what you'll do when you finally get it.
Do you even know what you want from him?
At school I was told to use full stops for abbreviations, when I started working in publishing in the early 90s I was told to never use them.
They're messy, especially at the end of a sentence (eg, "In 1972, they joined the E.E.C..").
The Guardian Style Guide says "OK is OK, okay is not"
The Oxford Manual of Style prefers OK
Collins dictionary is happy with both but refers to "okay" as a variant
Sci-fi and Fantasy are probably easier to write about because who's going to correct you? Most good writing in these genres deal with readily identifiable conditions and situations - fighting tyranny, political intrigue, love, revenge etc - the setting is usually just a backdrop to make things more exciting for the reader.
Writing outside of a sphere of knowledge is great if you're the sort of writer that loves research but if you're not, why make life harder for yourself? The key things we always back to though is characters - you can create a very believable environment but if the characters suck your story will too.
The tiresome, awful habit of some poor, unimaginative writers who constantly, unnecessarily pepper their droning, long-winded prose with superfluous, pointless adjectives.
The OP poses a very interesting question, one that given the responses here, calls into doubt the system of giving a story a score out of 5. If appreciation of art is entirely subjective why quantify it?
Aggregators like Digg or Reddit have developed complex algorithms to measure and predict popularity based on content and user-interaction. All these really do is measure popularity rather than quality, for the eventual purpose of targeting advertising.
Of course it can be argued that popularity and quality tend to go hand in hand. However our own experience often shows that good writers are sometimes ignored and that some writers who we may find personally not to our taste are baffling successful here. In very general terms though, the best writers are often the most popular. WH Auden got it right when he said "Some books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly remembered."
Of course higher quality is what all writers should be aiming for, but I'd argue that popularity is more important for the site. Popular stories expand the site, bring new readers and, most importantly, new authors. Maybe there is a way of using popularity metrics here as long as we're always conscious that they don't imply quality.