So this has been on my mind for a while now comming across these fandoms , and I don't mean for this post to come off as offensive to some or those who do ship the characters but I just really wanted to get my opinion across. I truly hope I'm not the only one who genuinely has a problem with the way male friendships are being reduced to romance or how the characters are sexualized in this fandom or fiction in general. The amount of posts that I see not only on Tumblr but on Pinterest of Dallas either shirtless or Ponyboy just being in a completely normal photo and people in the comments talking about how they want to do "dirty things" to pony, how they wanna sit on him, or just sexualizing poor Matt Dillion and the whole gang in general. Some of these photos aren't even sexual to begin with but these fangirls will always find a way to make this inappropriate, like yea we get it you find Soda attractive but sis he's still only 16! Like yes I've seen the posts and edits of that shower scene with the towel and it's gross. Like it's one thing to find a particular actor or character attractive and have a crush on them but these thirst traps and, just downright creepy comments, and edits comming from these GROWN WOMAN are insane. I mean even if they are just "fictional characters" I still feel like you should have far more respect and class than this. Some of the actors were still minors and others just barley legal teenagers when filming so it's still wrong either way. Now in regards to shipping the gang together I also have my fair share of opinions. Pinterest is in general a pretty weird and toxic place, like you can find a post for example with Johnny and Pony just standing next to each other and the comments are flooded with " they were roomates", or "they should've made out", "Johnny got cake" like you see where I'm going with this! Johnny is a child bro he literally looks like he's 10 years old wdym "he got that cake" should I put you on a watch list sir?? And not to mention the fanfiction especially on tumblr and Ao3 is pretty disgusting, they will literally write an extremely sexualized story of the whole friend group banging each other (and yes that included the three brothers) and ponyboy not to mention he's 14 shipping him with two-bit who's like 18. People nowadays will ship anything and everything, you could have two characters who virtually never interacted or otherwise just made eye contact for like 15 seconds and you already got the shippers flooding the fandoms ready to write love stories. It seems as though people just can't enjoy things for what they are instead of always trying to change plots and characters, and make every platonic male relashionship romantic or gay. People bring up how Pony and Johnny cuddled in the church and "friends don't do that" well it sounds more like you don't do that but some people are natrually more affectionate than others. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just that you can't base every assumption just becuase of what you see. Some who ship Dally and Johnny will being up the part in the book where Dally admits to Johnny being the only thing he ever loved and how he wanted to die for him. I'm sorry but I know plenty of guys who will take a bullet for their friends and say I love you it's no big deal and it's not gay either. Like do people really think that telling someone you love them equals to romantic attraction now? Like what about your family is it gay for a son to tell his father I love you?? Like I seriously don't understand some people's logic. I feel like these chronically online Tumblr fangirls are just a bunch of straight woman who have either never witnessed a positive male friendship or just find the idea of two good looking guys in a relationship. Either way it's pretty messed up if the only thought that comes to mind whenever two characters express emotion with each other is that they are dating. I mean I can't tell others what to ship but man are these fanfic writers weird.

We may be anonymous strangers on the internet, but we have one thing in common. We may be a world apart, but we're here together!
Welcome to the 24 hour pledge!
I'm pledging myself to not drinking today, and invite you to do the same.
Maybe you're new to /stopdrinking and have a hard time deciding what to do next. Maybe you're like me and feel you need a daily commitment or maybe you've been sober for a long time and want to inspire others.
It doesn't matter if you're still hung over from a three day bender or been sober for years, if you just woke up or have already completed a sober day. For the next 24 hours, lets not drink alcohol!
This pledge is a statement of intent. Today we don't set out trying not to drink, we make a conscious decision not to drink. It sounds simple, but all of us know it can be hard and sometimes impossible. The group can support and inspire us, yet only one person can decide if we drink today. Give that person the right mindset!
What happens if we can't keep to our pledge? We give up or try again. And since we're here in /stopdrinking, we're not ready to give up.
What this is: A simple thread where we commit to not drinking alcohol for the next 24 hours, posting to show others that they're not alone and making a pledge to ourselves. Anybody can join and participate at any time, you do not have to be a regular at /stopdrinking or have followed the pledges from the beginning.
What this isn't: A good place for a detailed introduction of yourself, directly seek advice or share lengthy stories. You'll get a more personal response in your own thread.
This post goes up at:

• US - Night/Early Morning
• Europe - Morning
• Asia and Australia - Evening/Night

A link to the current Daily Check-In post can always be found near the top of the sidebar.
HAPPY SOBER FRIDAY, WARRIORS!
As I was scanning through the comments on yesterday's DCI, I was inspired by a lot of you sharing your stories of pride, your answers to the question, and just cheering each other on! That's one of my favorite parts of running the DCI is that I see A LOT more of the cheering section. There was a time, if you can believe it, that I was quite the negative Nellie and I was like Debbie Downer as well. The worst kind of unhappy human being! But now, I find myself so cheerful even in the face of abject failure. It's the wildest feeling, but like Dolly says:
"I've been looking for the sunshine. You know I ain't seen it in so long. Everything's gonna work out just fine, and everything's gonna be alright that's been all wrong. Cause I can see the light of a clear blue morning, I can see the light of a brand new day. I can see the light of a clear blue morning, and everything's gonna be alright, it's gonna be okay." (Also can we talk about the absolutely SICK revival bassline in that song?! Holy shit, GET IT!)
Life wasn't perfect, but my disposition was that the world was out to get me and everything sucked. Staying sober was just not a possibility. But fixing what was wrong in my life, and gaining all the mental wellness and days of sobriety has allowed me to see the light of a clear blue morning and appreciate that everything is going to be alright. Because it isn't all wrong. It truly never was, I just wasn't connected to my body.
I found out that TONIGHT is Game Six for Boston, btw. So I'll be watching some damn good hockey tonight and hopefully celebrating with y'all on Saturday! Sober of course! Anyways, I just wanted to say that I love the way y'all run these comments when I'm at the helm. It's truly fulfilling and one of the things I love the most about being of service for a week!
One of the things I forgot for yesterday's question was: Playing guitar! I used to use it as an escape mechanism, and now instead of just being that it's learning the songs I want to play! It makes me happy when I tackle a song I couldn't play before and find out that while I'm not as good as the original, I'm better than I ever gave myself credit for!
Question of the day: When you think about your favorite response to the sober, hopefully happier version of you, who and what is their response?
For me, it's my ex-wife. She spent half her life with me, and she saw me at my absolute lowest moments and still loves me to date. We're not together, but she's seen the benefits of my healing journey and my sobriety because we still talk. I'm apologetic about my old habits and she's seen how much I've flipped the script even since going sober. But she loves the person I am now almost two years into HRT. She always compliments me on the way I'm handling stuff better even when I wasn't remotely close to asking. That said, it's not always easy to practice the new behaviors when the lizard brain wants me to do the same old shit I used to do. I have to fight to make sure I don't, because none of those habits are helpful at all. She can attest that I've flipped a complete 180.
Shoutout to all the amazing queer and trans people who dropped their amazing battles and support! Y'all remind me why I love doing the DCI and being unapologetically trans and taking space! I'm proud of all you for showing out proud yesterday!!!
Happy Friday and IWNDWYT!

Link to earlier post.
Before getting into the meat of this post, it needs to be remembered that the ex-Scientologists named here are actual victims of the Church of Scientology. Nothing in this post is meant to deny that fact.
However, let's remember too, those being attacked by Aaron Smith-Levin and their new brand of Scientology-style attacks, are also victims of Scientology.
The cruelty directed at Mike Rinder, Claire Headley, Tony Ortega, Chris Shelton, Leah Remini, Stefani Hutchinson, the Aftermath Foundation and those who speak out against SPTV's excesses are not justified. There has been a strain of "both sides" about this. Defending oneself against slander is not the same thing as initiating slander, which is how this all started. Telling the truth in response to SPTV creator attacks is not the same thing as a Fair Game campaign against them.
It doesn't bring me any joy to write these posts, but these things need to be known because the number of distortions and fabrications coming out of the SPTV creators is reaching a fever pitch and it needs to stop.
My earlier two posts focused mainly on Chrissie Bixler, Jane Doe 1 (from the Masterson trials) and Aaron Smith-Levin, all of whom have been working together in a tight, hidden conspiracy to attack anyone who could expose them or their agendas, and/or anyone who opposes their slanderous and vicious attacks. They are in fact acting as Scientology does, following L. Ron's directions to hunt those people down and attempt to ruin them.
Unfortunately, the SPTV cabal is not just these three mentioned above. There are others who have also jumped on this bandwagon of Scientology-like attacks. From the outside, none of these people's "content" is any different from what the Church of Scientology produces through its STAND League and other OSA-front group social media accounts. If OSA had a video channel, it would look almost exactly like SPTV.
So let's take a look at Serge Del Mar, formerly known as Serge Gil. If you Google "Serge Gil" you will find photos of him hanging around with the Mastersons and other VIP Scientologists as recently as November of 2014 at an art exhibit Serge participated in. This was while he was still in the cult, of course, but it sure is odd that he never mentions this.
Funny too that this group of "innocents" all have taken to going after whistle blowers who are out, and not admitting to anything they did while they were Scientologists and Sea Organisation members. Serge becomes visibly and loudly unhinged over the idea that Mike Rinder was once the head of OSA and therefore "must know" every single secret and crime ever perpetrated in Scientology. Yet he claims perfect innocence when it comes to his Scientology history. But how is that possible when he perpetuated Scientology's abuse on children in a much more direct and forceful way than Mike Rinder ever could: Serge audited children and was apparently paid handsomely for it. Auditing is, of course, Scientology's warped and twisted idea of counselling.
In this article from Tony Ortega, it reads: "In his Facebook post, Serge talked about the horror of having men admit to having sex with children, and being instructed to get even more information from such confessors, who were then simply charged even more [money] to 'handle' their paedophilia.
"We were made to sit in that Fort Harrison hotel day in and day out interrogating people to see what they had done. Our interviews were always closely watched [and] monitored by several ‘terminals.’ All the CSes [case supervisors] and tech ‘executives’ became willing in colluding and becoming 100 percent complicit with this sexually inappropriate environment for any one under the age of 18."
"Self-confessed paedophiles could just magically ‘address’ this behavior with auditing — all the while you were looking at ways to monetize at every opportunity' he says, accusing Scientology executives of looking for ways to turn confessions into more auditing and more money."
So who were these paedophiles and why aren't they being reported to the police? Why is Serge not talking about them? Why is he instead negating what he did and laughing about it in live streams with Nora, where they forgive and forget easily when it comes to their own bad behaviour in the cult. How come they get a free pass but no one else outside of SPTV does?
Serge engages in hypocrisy at a level that would put politicians and cult leaders to shame.
Recently, Serge added Leah Remini's name to his hit list by claiming Remini told him that she wanted nothing to do with helping children of the Sea Organisation. He actually said that about the woman who produced an the documentary series which gave Serge and the other "Scientology children" a voice on an international stage, something none of them were able to accomplish on their own.
Some facts from the past need to be brought forward.
First, it was Leah Remini who was trying to help all of the ex-Scientology "kids" to help find legal representation. This was the group Serge Del MaSerge Gil proclaimed he was the leader of, saying he was the "voice of many." He claimed he would be bringing the clients and the documentation to Kent's law firm.
Remini was introduced to Brian Kent by A&E. Right after the end of the Aftermath's finale, Kent's law firm was the only one willing to take on this massive case. Is A&E now going to be attacked by this group? Where are the tweets directed at A&E? Not that I am suggesting that. It is just to prove the facts here are consistently twisted to suit this group’s goal and it has nothing to do with exposing the crimes committed by Scientologists and Scientology.
This is about getting anyone who isn’t them.
Second and more importantly, it was Serge who then ran with this and gathered claimants for this case, and it was Serge that then introduced them all to Kent's firm. Christi Gordon was also working on this case. It was a noble effort. Leah, Serge and Christi did not do anything wrong,but somehow now Leah is a bad person for having tried to help.
Obviously, no one was aware at that time of what the future would hold for Jane Doe and Kent. No one still knows what happened with these cases - because Serge Del Mar was the ringleader. No mention of this from Alex the silly Wabbit. No mention of this from anyone. And obviously once Kent's law firm was hired, Leah and Mike would not have been privy to any privileged information about the cases.
Then Aaron and crew claim they uncovered this alleged crime committed by Kent? Kent isn’t being accused of crimes of child molestation, or of rape. He is being accused of unethical behaviour with an adult victim - and yes, that is bad enough. But it was Jane Doe in this case that had to summon the courage to file a confidential complaint. Aaron and his gang didn’t uncover and report anything. What they did do was compromise a bar investigation; they took credit for something they had nothing to do with. This is simply despicable behaviour. How this group has completely fabricated the facts of the investigation is beyond me.
They didn't even talk to the person who filed the complaint against Brian Kent. They were too busy stabbing her in the back, compromising her identity and forwarding a confidential document. Aaron conveniently didn’t mention this was a confidential investigation and document when he read it out to his audience. That's how Aaron makes a living.
Anyone continuing this story and celebrating these people are only doing so for other reasons that have nothing to do with the Jane Doe in this case. It is not only unfortunate that Jane Doe in this case had been harmed by Kent, but now these SPTV creators are harming her and her investigation too.
As a Scientology "activist," every action Serge claims he has taken against Scientology has been a major failure. If you step back and look at his track record, Serge has not accomplished a single thing against his former “church” of any significance, unless you count minutes of time shouting into a microphone at highest-ever decibels as 'activism.' It's not. It's just shouting into a microphone. He constantly claims that he has receipts, lawsuits are imminent, but with nothing forthcoming it sure seems as though Serge Del MaSerge Gil is nothing more than a con man looking for clicks for which he can profit.
Even more strangely, Serge's first attempt at fame was spending many years attacking former high-ranking Sea Organisation member Debbie Cook. Remember her? She was the one who got more people out of Scientology with her blistering 2011 New Year email than any former member before her. Debbie Cook was a whistle blower. And Serge seems to be going after those who did/do the work and are OUT of Scientology - excluding himself of course. Why not expose the crimes they covered up while they were in the cult? Aaron tearfully admitted to committing his own heinous crimes once, but somehow he is instantly forgiven.
Serge's criminal complaint against Scientology in Florida went nowhere and the investigation was dropped due to a lack of evidence. In fact, Serge told lies in his police filing, such as claiming that there are tunnels underneath The Fort Harrison Hotel (Scientology’s Clearwater Florida location) which are used to traffic Scientology children.
These days he goes on and on about "the hotels" where supposedly children are kept as sex slaves, a claim so preposterous even ex-Scientologists are fed up with hearing it.
Serge Del MaSerge Gil has promised to bring lawsuits against Scientology and continues to disseminate that he "has receipts" but again, not once has he ever been able to produce a shred of evidence or anything real. His incompetence and ineffectiveness are obvious, which is why the only way he can remain in the spotlight is to attack inwardly against the people who are getting the real work done.
For Serge (and the rest), it's the spotlight that is important, not the actual work.
Serge, Aaron, Chrissie Bixler, Jane Doe 1, Mike Brown, Miriam Francis, Nora Aames and the following are on a campaign to destroy their own credibility in the real world. One can only wonder if they are also getting a kick-back from Scientology.
Liz Gale has seemingly banished herself after being exposed and has all but disappeared, which of course is being blamed on RindeRemini/Hutchinson.
Christie Gordon too has disappeared from the SPTV Foundation board. Why hasn't she spoken up? Isn't she part of the crew demanding others own what they did? Why hasn't she done so when it comes to her own group's activities?
Joey Chait who was on board for the SPTV fake foundation, is now off too and no one knows why.
What has the Aftermath done? Helped people to get out of Scientology. That is the work.
What has SPTV Inc. done to help victims of Scientology? How about showing it? I have previously asked for evidence of any effective work and have yet to receive a response.
It's time for Serge (and the rest) to put up or shut up. If he or anyone in this group has real evidence of Scientology crimes, he has a solicitor and he can file a lawsuit in civil court or he can go back to the Clearwater Police and show them evidence of the crimes committed against him.
I'm not saying that crimes were not committed against Serge by others when he was in the Sea Org. But screaming into a microphone for hours isn't how to bring Scientology to justice. Screaming at law enforcement who have no idea what he is talking about with Flag and children is not helping anyone, nor is stalking and harassing Scientology's attorneys while Leah Remini's hearings are going on.
It looks an awful lot like the SPTV crew are trapped in some kind of victim complex and are high-conflict personalities.
So instead of more name calling, if Serge (or anyone in this group), "has receipts" that show that Mike Rinder is a criminal who is knowingly covering up his crimes in Scientology, produce them or shut up already. Rinder handed over his OSA documents. Aaron, by the way, took those documents under false pretenses, promised not to forward them and then did with the intent to harm Rinder and others. So instead of attacking Mike Rinder (the whistleblower here), where are the questions to the FBI for not acting on them? Where is the outrage for the documents that are authored by OSA personnel that are still in Scientology?
Personally, I'm sick of watching this crazy train go on and on without end just so some former Scientologists can try to appear altruist and inflate their egos for profit. Aren’t you all sick of the noise?
More to come.

You can find the live concert recordings on YouTube and YouTube music. Dallas live in 1985, you can also find it on the internet archives, One of my favorites and a really good song line up. Another good live concert that you can find on YouTube is Live in Madrid 1988, a phenomenal concert to listen to. Have ya'll ever watched or listened to these?

Ciao a tutti, cercherò di essere relativamente breve (spoiler a posteriori: non ce l'ho fatta).
Cinque mesi fa la mia vita è profondamente cambiata quando, insieme alla mia compagna (con cui convivo e sto insieme da quasi 10 anni), abbiamo deciso di aprire la nostra relazione per darci al poliamore.
Non è stata una decisione facile, ma finora tutto ok. Lei ha avuto alcune frequentazioni ma al momento non ha un’altra relazione stabile, mentre io ho iniziato a frequentare quasi subito un’altra ragazza, con cui adesso ho una relazione abbastanza stabile da circa 4 mesi.
Questo account era nato come un throwaway per bazzicare e commentare sui subreddit dedicati, ma col tempo mi sono trovato a commentare di tanto in tanto anche in subreddit italiani, notando un grande pregiudizio (e tanti downvote) nei confronti della mia scelta relazionale.
E, come sempre, il pregiudizio va a braccetto con l’ignoranza: questa non vuol essere un’accusa (anch’io fino a un anno fa ne sapevo quasi niente), ma una constatazione.
In particolare, mi dispiace sempre molto come le persone scambino la scelta di avere relazioni non monogame come un sinonimo di scarso impegno, perché è tutto l’opposto.
È - letteralmente - impegnarsi con più persone, con tutti gli sbattimenti del caso per far funzionare il tutto. È necessario “studiare” (o almeno informarsi) prima, per evitare gli errori comuni e comunicare bene con tutte le persone coinvolte.
Dato io sono un novellino del poliamore (c’è gente con esperienza decennale in relazioni poly) e non ho troppe esperienze da condividere, ho pensato di fare un thread per chi fosse curioso, condividendo una sorta di “mini dizionario” delle parole chiave che è necessario conoscere per parlare del tema.
Non voglio convertire nessuno, ma l’idea del dizionario mi sembrava simpatica per far capire che c’è un mondo dietro, e che nella comunità poly c’è molto rispetto e consapevolezza: non siamo (solo) gente che vuole scopare con più di una persona.
Poliamore: “uno stile relazionale che rientra tra le non monogamie consensuali, che prevede che si possano avere più relazioni contemporaneamente e con il consenso e la consapevolezza di tutte le persone coinvolte”.
Questa definizione l’ho rubata dalla sigla di FAQ The Poly, un podcast italiano sul poliamore, in cui in ogni puntata si prova a rispondere a domande tipiche che vengono poste quando si fa coming out come poly. È importante specificare che il poliamore non è l’unica forma di non monogamia consensuale, ma si distanzia dalla generica “coppia aperta” e dallo scambismo perché non si focalizza sulle relazioni sessuali, ma sulla possibilità di costruire relazioni romantiche/emotive/intime (e non solo sessuali) con più persone.
Metapartner (o metamore): il partner del mio partner. Se ho una relazione con Alice e Alice ha una relazione con Bob (ma io e Bob non abbiamo una relazione romantica), Bob è il mio metapartner.
Kitchen table polyamory / Garden Party polyamory / Parallel polyamory: generalmente, le relazioni poliamorose si categorizzano in base alla relazione tra i metapartner. In generale, è buona norma aver bene in testa quale forma di poliamore si cerca, per evitare situazioni spiacevoli. Kitchen Table Polyamory (KTP) presuppone che tutti i metapartner si conoscano e abbiano rapporto sufficientemente buoni da poter passare tutti insieme una sera a cena Gaden Party polyamory presuppone che tutti i partner si conoscano (e, ad esempio, possano incontrarsi ad una festa), ma senza la necessità che abbiano tra loro stretti rapporti interpersonali Parallel polyamory è la forma in cui qualcuno ha relazioni con più persone, che sanno dell’esistenza degli altri partner, ma non è previsto (o desiderato) che i metapartner si incontrino tra loro.
Polecola: la rete di relazioni tra partner poliamorosi, che include i propri partner e i relativi metapartner. Io sto con Alice, Alice sta con me e con Bob, Bob sta con Alice e Camilla, Camilla sta con Bob e Dafne. Questo vuol dire che io, Alice, Bob, Camilla e Dafne siamo una polecola.
In generale, specialmente nelle forme di Kitchen Table o Garden Party, è buona norma che tutte le persone della polecola siano almeno a conoscenza dell’esistenza degli altri, sia per onestà e trasparenza (non possiamo vederci domani, avevo già fissato una cena con Bob), sia per questioni pratiche (se Bob si lascia con Camilla, Alice saprà che Bob è in un periodo difficile e gli starà vicino).
DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell): è una forma di non monogamia piuttosto malvista, che si basa sul non voler sapere nulla delle altre relazioni del tuo partner. Anche se può funzionare per qualcuno, è generalmente considerata problematica.
Compersione: spesso raccontata come “l’opposto della gelosia” è il sentimento di felicità che si prova nel sapere che il tuo partner è felice con un’altra persona. Avete presente quando c’è l’amico innamorato che ha gli occhi a cuoricino e voi siete felici per lui? Ecco, la stessa cosa, con la differenza che l’amico qui è (anche) un tuo partner. Specifico: la compersione non è un requisito fondamentale nel poliamore, anche nelle relazioni poliamorose esiste la gelosia ed esistono metodi per affrontarla in modo costruttivo.
New Relationship Energy (NRE): si parla di NRE per riferirsi allo stato di eccitamento/emozione che si prova nei primi tempi di una nuova relazione. Insomma, quando qualcuno inizia a frequentarsi con un nuovo partner ed è in brodo di giuggiole. Scientificamente, si spiega con il rilascio di ossitocina e dopamina che avviene quando si entra in intimità con una nuova persona. È una cosa importante da considerare quando si hanno relazioni poly, per diversi motivi: in primo luogo, per evitare di trascurare un partner per il nuovo partner, ma anche perché è bene non prendere decisioni affrettate nelle prime settimane/mesi/(o perfino anni) di una nuova relazione. Es: Hai conosciuto una nuova persona di cui ti sei pazzamente innamorato e vuoi proporgli di trasferirsi in casa tua con te e l’altra tua partner? Se non sono passati almeno un paio d’anni, probabilmente non è una buona dea.
Nesting partner / Anchor partner: nesting partner è il partner con cui convivi. Nel caso in cui non ci sia una convivenza, ma esista una relazione di lunga data, particolarmente importante e solida, si parla di anchor partner.
Poliamore Gerarchico / Non gerarchico: le relazioni poliamorose possono essere impostate come gerarchiche o non gerarchiche. Il significato è abbastanza lampante: nelle relazioni gerarchiche, esiste un partner che è più importante degli altri (si parla quindi di partner primario / secondario). Nelle relazioni non gerarchiche, si cerca di dare a tutti i partner la stessa importanza.
Spesso si fa una distinzione ulteriore tra gerarchia descrittiva e gerarchia prescrittiva: gerarchia descrittiva significa descrivere una condizione esistente, con tutte le implicazioni del caso. Se io ho una casa e un figlio con un partner, sarebbe stupido (e disonesto) negare che quel partner è in qualche modo “più importante” degli altri, se non altro per l’impegno condiviso. Si parla invece di gerarchia prescrittiva quando un partner è “per scelta” più importante degli altri, e magari può avere diritto di veto sulle relazioni con gli altri partner (tendenzialmente, esibire fieramente una gerarchia prescrittiva non è ben visto).
Scala mobile relazionale: si parla di scala mobile relazionale per indicare quella serie di “step automatici” che la società normalmente prevede per una relazione monogama. Tendenzialmente, parliamo di: frequentazione > frequentazione esclusiva > convivenza > matrimonio > figli.
È un concetto importante per la comunità poly perché nelle relazioni poliamorose tendenzialmente non è possibile (e neanche auspicabile) seguire la scala mobile relazionale. Si parla quindi di non-escalator relationship, in cui i partner coinvolti si impegnano a definire insieme quel che cercano dalla relazione. A tal proposito, dopo un tot di tempo di tempo di frequentazione, alcune persone ritengono utile esplicitare quali sono le aspettative della relazione, ad esempio compilando quello che viene chiamato non-escalator relationship menu (esempio), ossia un form in cui esplicitare quel che si cerca o non si cerca da una relazione.
BONUS:
Anarchia relazionale : l’anarchia relazionale “è una filosofia che promuove la libertà e l'autonomia nella gestione delle relazioni interpersonali, inclusi i legami romantici, sessuali e amicali. L'anarchia relazionale è una filosofia si distingue dal poliamore in quanto rifiuta qualsiasi tipo di categorizzazione delle relazioni e di costrizione a regole predefinite. Gli anarchici relazionali sostengono che ogni relazione, sia essa romantica o di altro tipo, debba essere valutata individualmente, e che non debba essere vincolata a norme sociali o culturali, come ‘semplici amici’, ‘stare insieme’, ‘essere in relazione ‘aperta e così via. In altre parole, le persone coinvolte in una relazione decidono autonomamente i limiti, le aspettative e le regole della loro relazione, senza essere vincolate da stereotipi o convenzioni sociali” (da Wikipedia, che mi pare un’ottima definizione).
Se avete letto finora, grazie, è stato divertente ma anche faticoso.
Qualche risorsa utile:

• Il Ted Talk sul poliamore che mi ha cambiato la vita (in cui, tra i tanti temi, viene esplicitato il concetto di metapartner come alleato – e non come rivale –, con l'obiettivo di prendersi cura insieme della persona amata)
• La zoccola etica, di Dossie Easton e Janet Hardy: storico (anche se datato) libro/guida sul poliamore, che sarebbe utile anche per molte persone monogame (per come affronta discorsi su consenso, libertà individuale, relazione non come possesso etc)
• Per una rivoluzione degli affetti. Pensiero monogamo e terrore poliamoroso, di Brigitte Vasallo, un recente saggio sul poliamore, che affronta la monogamia come sistema sociale (con tutte le implicazioni del caso) ma muove anche forti critiche a un certo approccio "individualista" al poliamore. È un po' la bibbia moderna dei poliamorosi, specialmente in Europa.

Se avete dubbi, domande o altro sto qua. Vi chiedo solo di non essere giudicanti e di essere rispettosi: mi fa piacere chiacchierare e rispondere, non mi fa piacere essere accusato per una mia scelta personale che non fa male a nessuno.

Ciao a tutti, cercherò di essere relativamente breve (spoiler a posteriori: non ce l'ho fatta).
Cinque mesi fa la mia vita è profondamente cambiata quando, insieme alla mia compagna (con cui convivo e sto insieme da quasi 10 anni), abbiamo deciso di aprire la nostra relazione per darci al poliamore.
Non è stata una decisione facile, ma finora tutto ok. Lei ha avuto alcune frequentazioni ma al momento non ha un’altra relazione stabile, mentre io ho iniziato a frequentare quasi subito un’altra ragazza, con cui adesso ho una relazione abbastanza stabile da circa 4 mesi.
Questo account era nato come un throwaway per bazzicare e commentare sui subreddit dedicati, ma col tempo mi sono trovato a commentare di tanto in tanto anche in subreddit italiani, notando un grande pregiudizio (e tanti downvote) nei confronti della mia scelta relazionale.
E, come sempre, il pregiudizio va a braccetto con l’ignoranza: questa non vuol essere un’accusa (anch’io fino a un anno fa ne sapevo quasi niente), ma una constatazione.
In particolare, mi dispiace sempre molto come le persone scambino la scelta di avere relazioni non monogame come un sinonimo di scarso impegno, perché è tutto l’opposto.
È - letteralmente - impegnarsi con più persone, con tutti gli sbattimenti del caso per far funzionare il tutto. È necessario “studiare” (o almeno informarsi) prima, per evitare gli errori comuni e comunicare bene con tutte le persone coinvolte.
Dato io sono un novellino del poliamore (c’è gente con esperienza decennale in relazioni poly) e non ho troppe esperienze da condividere, ho pensato di fare un thread per chi fosse curioso, condividendo una sorta di “mini dizionario” delle parole chiave che è necessario conoscere per parlare del tema.
Non voglio convertire nessuno, ma l’idea del dizionario mi sembrava simpatica per far capire che c’è un mondo dietro, e che nella comunità poly c’è molto rispetto e consapevolezza: non siamo (solo) gente che vuole scopare con più di una persona.
Poliamore: “uno stile relazionale che rientra tra le non monogamie consensuali, che prevede che si possano avere più relazioni contemporaneamente e con il consenso e la consapevolezza di tutte le persone coinvolte”.
Questa definizione l’ho rubata dalla sigla di FAQ The Poly, un podcast italiano sul poliamore, in cui in ogni puntata si prova a rispondere a domande tipiche che vengono poste quando si fa coming out come poly. È importante specificare che il poliamore non è l’unica forma di non monogamia consensuale, ma si distanzia dalla generica “coppia aperta” e dallo scambismo perché non si focalizza sulle relazioni sessuali, ma sulla possibilità di costruire relazioni romantiche/emotive/intime (e non solo sessuali) con più persone.
Metapartner (o metamore): il partner del mio partner. Se ho una relazione con Alice e Alice ha una relazione con Bob (ma io e Bob non abbiamo una relazione romantica), Bob è il mio metapartner.
Kitchen table polyamory / Garden Party polyamory / Parallel polyamory: generalmente, le relazioni poliamorose si categorizzano in base alla relazione tra i metapartner. In generale, è buona norma aver bene in testa quale forma di poliamore si cerca, per evitare situazioni spiacevoli. Kitchen Table Polyamory (KTP) presuppone che tutti i metapartner si conoscano e abbiano rapporto sufficientemente buoni da poter passare tutti insieme una sera a cena Gaden Party polyamory presuppone che tutti i partner si conoscano (e, ad esempio, possano incontrarsi ad una festa), ma senza la necessità che abbiano tra loro stretti rapporti interpersonali Parallel polyamory è la forma in cui qualcuno ha relazioni con più persone, che sanno dell’esistenza degli altri partner, ma non è previsto (o desiderato) che i metapartner si incontrino tra loro.
Polecola: la rete di relazioni tra partner poliamorosi, che include i propri partner e i relativi metapartner. Io sto con Alice, Alice sta con me e con Bob, Bob sta con Alice e Camilla, Camilla sta con Bob e Dafne. Questo vuol dire che io, Alice, Bob, Camilla e Dafne siamo una polecola.
In generale, specialmente nelle forme di Kitchen Table o Garden Party, è buona norma che tutte le persone della polecola siano almeno a conoscenza dell’esistenza degli altri, sia per onestà e trasparenza (non possiamo vederci domani, avevo già fissato una cena con Bob), sia per questioni pratiche (se Bob si lascia con Camilla, Alice saprà che Bob è in un periodo difficile e gli starà vicino).
DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell): è una forma di non monogamia piuttosto malvista, che si basa sul non voler sapere nulla delle altre relazioni del tuo partner. Anche se può funzionare per qualcuno, è generalmente considerata problematica.
Compersione: spesso raccontata come “l’opposto della gelosia” è il sentimento di felicità che si prova nel sapere che il tuo partner è felice con un’altra persona. Avete presente quando c’è l’amico innamorato che ha gli occhi a cuoricino e voi siete felici per lui? Ecco, la stessa cosa, con la differenza che l’amico qui è (anche) un tuo partner. Specifico: la compersione non è un requisito fondamentale nel poliamore, anche nelle relazioni poliamorose esiste la gelosia ed esistono metodi per affrontarla in modo costruttivo.
New Relationship Energy (NRE): si parla di NRE per riferirsi allo stato di eccitamento/emozione che si prova nei primi tempi di una nuova relazione. Insomma, quando qualcuno inizia a frequentarsi con un nuovo partner ed è in brodo di giuggiole. Scientificamente, si spiega con il rilascio di ossitocina e dopamina che avviene quando si entra in intimità con una nuova persona. È una cosa importante da considerare quando si hanno relazioni poly, per diversi motivi: in primo luogo, per evitare di trascurare un partner per il nuovo partner, ma anche perché è bene non prendere decisioni affrettate nelle prime settimane/mesi/(o perfino anni) di una nuova relazione. Es: Hai conosciuto una nuova persona di cui ti sei pazzamente innamorato e vuoi proporgli di trasferirsi in casa tua con te e l’altra tua partner? Se non sono passati almeno un paio d’anni, probabilmente non è una buona idea.
Nesting partner / Anchor partner: nesting partner è il partner con cui convivi. Nel caso in cui non ci sia una convivenza, ma esista una relazione di lunga data, particolarmente importante e solida, si parla di anchor partner.
Poliamore Gerarchico / Non gerarchico: le relazioni poliamorose possono essere impostate come gerarchiche o non gerarchiche. Il significato è abbastanza lampante: nelle relazioni gerarchiche, esiste un partner che è più importante degli altri (si parla quindi di partner primario / secondario). Nelle relazioni non gerarchiche, si cerca di dare a tutti i partner la stessa importanza.
Spesso si fa una distinzione ulteriore tra gerarchia descrittiva e gerarchia prescrittiva: gerarchia descrittiva significa descrivere una condizione esistente, con tutte le implicazioni del caso. Se io ho una casa e un figlio con un partner, sarebbe stupido (e disonesto) negare che quel partner è in qualche modo “più importante” degli altri, se non altro per l’impegno condiviso. Si parla invece di gerarchia prescrittiva quando un partner è “per scelta” più importante degli altri, e magari può avere diritto di veto sulle relazioni con gli altri partner (tendenzialmente, esibire fieramente una gerarchia prescrittiva non è ben visto).
Scala mobile relazionale: si parla di scala mobile relazionale per indicare quella serie di “step automatici” che la società normalmente prevede per una relazione monogama. Tendenzialmente, parliamo di: frequentazione > frequentazione esclusiva > convivenza > matrimonio > figli.
È un concetto importante per la comunità poly perché nelle relazioni poliamorose tendenzialmente non è possibile (e neanche auspicabile) seguire la scala mobile relazionale. Si parla quindi di non-escalator relationship, in cui i partner coinvolti si impegnano a definire insieme quel che cercano dalla relazione. A tal proposito, dopo un tot di tempo di tempo di frequentazione, alcune persone ritengono utile esplicitare quali sono le aspettative della relazione, ad esempio compilando quello che viene chiamato non-escalator relationship menu (esempio), ossia un form in cui esplicitare quel che si cerca o non si cerca da una relazione.
BONUS:
Anarchia relazionale : l’anarchia relazionale “è una filosofia che promuove la libertà e l'autonomia nella gestione delle relazioni interpersonali, inclusi i legami romantici, sessuali e amicali. L'anarchia relazionale è una filosofia si distingue dal poliamore in quanto rifiuta qualsiasi tipo di categorizzazione delle relazioni e di costrizione a regole predefinite. Gli anarchici relazionali sostengono che ogni relazione, sia essa romantica o di altro tipo, debba essere valutata individualmente, e che non debba essere vincolata a norme sociali o culturali, come ‘semplici amici’, ‘stare insieme’, ‘essere in relazione ‘aperta e così via. In altre parole, le persone coinvolte in una relazione decidono autonomamente i limiti, le aspettative e le regole della loro relazione, senza essere vincolate da stereotipi o convenzioni sociali” (da Wikipedia, che mi pare un’ottima definizione).
Se avete letto finora, grazie, è stato divertente ma anche faticoso.
Qualche risorsa utile:

• Il Ted Talk che mi ha cambiato la vita (in cui, tra i tanti concetti, viene esplicitato il concetto di metapartner come alleato – e non come rivale –, con l'obiettivo di prendersi cura insieme della persona amata)
• La zoccola etica, di Dossie Easton e Janet Hardy: storico (anche se datato) libro/guida sul poliamore, che sarebbe utile anche per molte persone monogame (per come affronta discorsi su consenso, libertà individuale, relazione non come possesso etc)
• Per una rivoluzione degli affetti. Pensiero monogamo e terrore poliamoroso, di Brigitte Vasallo, un recente saggio sul poliamore, che affronta la monogamia come sistema sociale (con tutte le implicazioni del caso) ma muove anche forti critiche a un certo approccio "individualista" al poliamore. È un po' la bibbia moderna dei poliamorosi, specialmente in Europa.

Se avete dubbi, domande o altro sto qua. Vi chiedo solo di non essere giudicanti e di essere rispettosi: mi fa piacere chiacchierare e rispondere, non mi fa piacere essere accusato per una mia scelta personale che non fa male a nessuno.

At the start of my journey into the JFK Assassination I started listening to the Solving JFK podcast. I entered into the topic convinced that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK and that Oswald was set up, what I commended the creator of the Solving JFK podcast for was the fact that he seemed to be delving into the subject without bias and presenting the facts for me to make up my own mind.
I listened to all of the episodes and was up to date when I started looking at other sources, I watched JFK by Oliver Stone, I read Case Closed by Gerald Posner, I watched the Lemmino video on YouTube and read parts of the Warren Commission report (I have not read end to end but I have probably read most of not all in separation while looking into each aspect of the case), in this time I started to come to the conclusion that the likelihood was that Oswald was the lone shooter and that a conspiracy to kill JFK was highly unlikely. I do believe there was an element of conspiracy to control the narrative after the fact, but I don’t believe this was driven by involvement in the assassination, more likely, to me at least, to maintain public trust and each agency attempting to protect themselves from criticism around their failures to adequately protect its head of state.
Having came to the aforementioned conclusion, I then revisited the Solving JFK podcast again to catch up on the episodes that had been released while I was consuming information from other sources. To my surprise, I found my opinion on it had completely changed. The topics covered and the detail the creator goes into on absurd topics is troublesome to me. For example, there is a whole dialogue on LHO’s half brother John Pick regarding how Lee was a completely different person to how he was when he last saw him 10 years prior and how Lee lost his wide neck, this is followed by a statement asserting something along the lines of ‘Im not sure if John Pick was saying the Lee he met was an imposter’.
The whole feel of the podcast to me is suggestive, not with the intent to sincerely dissect the subject and promote facts but just to cover every single theory ever proposed and let the listener believe that it’s possible. Some of the topics covered are signed off with ‘I’m not saying that’s what I think but it cannot be ruled out’. Of course things can be ruled out, why even bring up John Pick’s statement in which he says Lee seemed like a different person to the one he met 10 years ago (of course he will be different at 13 than he is at 23) unless you are trying to allude to it meaning something else?
The podcast isn’t ‘solving’ anything, it’s just portraying anything as possible and leaving the listener to decide on the most likely theory but if the listener goes into it believing in a conspiracy, as I did, then their belief will only be reinforced by the information presented.
The theories within the topics covered do not consider the other theories within the other topics. For example, Oswalds trip to Mexico City doesn’t mention the fact that JFK hadn’t even conceived the plan to visit Dallas yet or that Lee had been trying to convince Marina to go back to the Soviet Union with him before he visited Mexico according to letters sent by Marina to Ruth Paine. From my recollection this isn’t covered in the Ruth Paine episodes either.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you have to be careful, just because someone says they are going to look at all angles it doesn’t mean that they are looking at all angles. Omitting certain things and presenting others is a bias in itself and can lead to you believing you are fully informed when in fact, you are not.
I would urge anyone who hasn’t already done so to read Case Closed and read the WC report. The Lemmino video on YouTube is a great visual summary too.

Like I remember eber 2010 saying we’re getting Bron
Or 2019….
But I’m looking back to 2022 and I was with a friend in Atlantic City watching the Mavs/Jazz series and we just knew he was coming
Why were we so confident early on.
Maybe I’m messing up my timeline, but why did we just have that feeling Dallas wouldn’t give him the contract he deserved.
Like how did we know he was linked to us?
Anyone else have insight into what Spring/Summer 2022 was like before the signing that changed the franchise?

Cigarettes and rebellion have always gone hand-in-hand, and in an age of cigarette packet-sized health warnings, now more than ever, smoking a fag says: 'I do not give a fuck.' But if Brandon Flowers is hoping to strike a seditious pose by sparking up at the start of the interview, it's not going according to plan. The Killers' frontman is on all fours rooting through the junk that carpets the anteroom at the band's rehearsal space. "Has anyone seen my lighter?" he asks, rocking back on his heels. The question hangs in the air while Brandon cocks his head, waiting for an answer like a meerkat listening for a predator. Twenty-five years old and with a delicate bone structure, there's something almost dainty about him. Receiving no response, he returns to his search. "Oh, Jeez," he sighs. "I had it just a minute ago."
It's a scene that emphatically does not suggest a rebel without a cause. The mess isn't helping. The Killers' HQ - an industrial unit sandwiched between a construction supplier and the offices of a housing development just off Dean Martin Drive in West Las Vegas - is ankle-deep in designer clothing. A Dior Homme suit lies crumpled by the door; there's a pile of shoes topped like a sundae by a pair of Marc Jacobs trainers; and anyone wishing to enter the shoebox room the band use as an office must negotiate a mountain of discarded jeans. Many items are identifiable as coming from the wardrobe of Hot Fuss, The Killers' hugely successful 2004 debut album - triple platinum in the UK with two weeks at Number One and five million sold worldwide. Look! There are the shirts, ties and suit jackets they wore when they thrilled Glastonbury 2005 with indie rock anthems Mr Brightside and Somebody Told Me. That was the crowning moment of a two-and-a-half year tour that finally concluded in October of last year. It seems that after playing that final date in Miami, they returned to Vegas and shrugged off their image onto the floor of this bland white box.
Now a fine layer of dust covers the dead clothes. The Killers have no further use for white tuxedos on their second album, Sam's Town. Today, Brandon wears a black polo shirt, black pin-stripe waistcoat, black jeans and black boots. Where there used to be a layer of foundation, there is now a beard - an untrimmed beard at that. Dave Keuning (30, guitar), Mark Stoermer (29, bass) and Ronnie Vannucci (29, drums) all echo Brandon's black ensemble. Ronnie has added Aviator shades and a handlebar moustache for a dash of motorcycle cop, Dave's frizzy bubble of hair gives him a Marc Bolan-ish air, and there's something very teenage about Mark's scuffed Vans.
Short of walking around wearing sandwich boards saying, "Our new record is a bit heavier than the last one," The Killers couldn't hope to communicate that message more effectively. And they have gained some musical girth on Sam's Town. The pop hooks that made Hot Fuss so irresistible survive intact - see the ringing guitar riffs on first single When You Were Young - but there's a newfound punchiness, coupled with an epic sweep. The minor-to-major uplifts on Bones are fabulously dramatic, the coda to Why Do I Keep Counting? thrillingly intense. Comparisons to Bruce Springsteen have been made. If they overstate the case a little, they are at leaset qualitatively accurate. The Killers are back and this time it's serious - they've got the bootlace ties to prove it.
"Hey, it says here that Springsteen's headlining Glastonbury next year," shouts Ronnie, who's flicking through the NME. He nods sagely at the page without looking up.
"Really?" asks Dave, nicknamed Crazy Dave on account of his alledgedly volatile nature.
"The Boss is headlining one night, we're playing second on the bill the next night and Kylie's headlining the Sunday," says Brandon, charging like a bull through Michael Eavis' as-yet-unannounced line-up with what subsequently proves to be a characteristic gaucheness.
But that lighter is proving elusive. This being America, none of the people hurrying to-and-fro prepping the world for the release of Sam's Town smokes. Manager Robert Reynolds - Bobby Rey to the band - barks into his mobile, booking his band onto eye-wateringly demanding tours. "We're going to make a lot of money," he cackles to himself before switching calls to make a series of stern pronouncements on legal matters. Dave, Mark and Ronnie disappear for a jam session. Artwork is approved, B-sides are decided on and schedules are hammered out.
"I can't find it," Brandon says, finally. But he's not going to be denied the opportunity to underline The Killers reinvention with a puff of smoke. "Let's go to the gas station. I'll have to buy one. It's too busy to talk here anyway."
+
Brandon's black (of course) Volkswagen Touraeg four-wheel drive is barrelling down West Flamingo Road into town. "I was a bell boy there," he says, pointing out of the driver's window at the stucco facade of the Gold Coast casino. "I was working there when we were signed."
Coming from Las Vegas, it is perhaps inevitable that casinos play a big part in The Killers' story; not only is Sam's Town named after one, it was recorded in one, too.
The band began writing songs while on the road with Hot Fuss, turning up early for soundchecks to run through new ideas. On a trip home to Vegas, George Maloof, a hotelier known for cultivating famous friends, invited them to record the album in the new studio he'd built at The Palms, his flagship hotel-cum-gambling den. When the tour finished in October 2005, they returned to Vegas and spent five month finessing the songs they'd sketched out on the road. Then, in February, they decampled to the third floor studio at The Palms and recorded Sam's Town over 11 weeks.
Producer Flood (U2, Depeche Mode) encouraged them to experiment. They overdubbed, fiddled with synthesizers and played with new equipment. It took them five weeks to get the backing vocals right. The band sang the harmonies, then double-tracked them four times. The end result recalls Queen wondering, "Is this is the real life? Is this just fantasy?" When Ronnie, a trained classical percussionist, brought some kettledrums down, eyebrows were raised; but the fabulously bombastic coda on Why Do I Keep Counting? vindicates his indulgence.
"That's kind of the Ben Hur of the album," he says. He's not wrong. Sam's Town is a record on an epic scale. "Yeah, it has drama," he continues. "But, at the same time, I think it's a little more exposed than Hot Fuss. It's a little more naked. Last time it was about a lot of fictional things." By "fictional", Ronnie means that Hot Fuss wore its predominantly British influences for all to see. Brandon's taste in music is rabidly Anglophile - he constantly references The Smiths, The Cure and Joy Division - and it showed. By contrast, Sam's Town is an unequivocally American record. The lyrical imagery is pure American dream - cars, girls, wide-open spaces and escaping to a better life. "We're burning down the highway skyline/On the back of a hurricane that started turning/When you were young," sings Brandon on When You Were Young. That's the basis of the Springsteen comparisons then, though the lack of pathos more closely recalls another blue-collar rocker from New Jersey - Jon Bon Jovi.
The phrase "this town" recurs throughout the album, and it's always receding into the distance as The Killers escape to a new life. "This town was made for passing through/I never did get along with everybody else," sings Brandon on This River Is Wild. On Read My Mind he "never really gave up on breaking out of this two-star town", while on the title track he offers something of an explanation: "Nobody ever had a dream round here."
"With the first record, there was this feeling that there was this world out there that we didn't know," says Mark later in the day. Before The Killers, he studied philosophy: now he's their quiet one. "We wanted to get out and away from this and be somewhere else. We hadn't had a lot of experience - hadn't travelled much - then we were gone for three years. We didn't sit down and say that we wanted to make a record about how we're glad to be home, but that's what happened naturally."
It's not an angsty record. The Killers have already escaped with Hot Fuss, and, having done so, they view the experience fondly now they're back. There's a mistiness to Brandon's eyes as he explains how the album got it's name.
"Sam's Town is a casino on the edge of Vegas," he says. "I grew up in Henderson, which is out on the way to the Hoover Dam. My mom and dad lived in a trailer park, and my dad used to hitchhike up and down Boulder Highway, which is the only way you could get to Vegas. Sam's Town was the first thing you saw on your way in to town. So, when you're driving down Boulder Highway from Henderson, I always thought you finally knew you were getting somewhere when you saw Sam's Town. It was kind of like a beacon."
"It's not a completely American album," contines Brandon. "We still have our English influence, but we're also from the Wild West. Somehow we've managed to unify all that on this album. it's just such a perfect resemblence of what we are."
At the petrol station, Brandon rummages through the glove box looking for change to buy a lighter. "This is a great album," he says, pointing at Highway Companion, the latest from iconic American rocker Tom Petty. "I've always been a big fan of his. He's such a great American artist."
Yes, Brandon: we get the point.
+
When Brandon finally lights his cigarette, he smokes it awkwardly, like a child mimicking something he's seen the grown-ups doing. However, when he cheerfully admits that, "I feel the same mentally as I did when I was 12," it's not a knowing nod to the fact that he sometimes behaves like a loveably precocious child, but a reference to an unusually comprehensive grounding in pop music at an early age.
When Brandon sings about "this town", he doesn't mean Las Vegas. He means Nephi, Utah or Henderson, Nevada, where he spent his childhood. His parents are Mormon and he is the youngest of six children. "I was a surprise," he says. "I've got a 42-year-old sister." If he was issues about his "surprise" status, he chooses to gloss over them. "It turned out perfect because my brother was a teenager when I was a kid," he says. "He would bring home things like Rattle And Hum by U2 and I would watch it. I remember he bought Live In Dallas by Morrissey. It was always him watching these things, or his door was shut and you'd hear The Head On The Door by The Cure blasting through the house and rattling the walls."
The Killers were formed when Brandon answered an advert Dave had placed in a local paper in late 2002. Dave cited Oasis as a big influence; Brandon had seen them play recently and responded; and, as Dave has said in previous interviews: "He was the only person to reply to my ad who wasn't a complete freak." However, the band was born in Brandon's brothers bedroom.
"His room was like a shrine," enthuses Brandon. "It was a holy place. I wish I could show you a picture of it. It was covered in posters. There'd be a big picture of Elvis wearing a bow tie that just said 'The Smiths' [the artwork for The Smiths 1987 single Shoplifters Of The World Unite]. You had The Cure wearing face paint [the artwork to The Cure's 1985 single In Between Days] - all that kind of stuff. I remember Morrissey being on the cover of the NME, with the halo [from 1985] - stuff like that. You just wanted to know about these people 'cause they were so cool. My brother seemed like such a cool person. But he was a teenager, so he wasn't going to be that nice to me, a kid."
Brandon was fascinated by his brother's collection of music, magazines and posters, but he was denied access to them - officially, at least. "I would sneak in," he says. "I knew he'd be angry if he found out, but I would go in as soon as he left the house." For a long time Brandon was too scared to actually play anything. "That didn't come 'til later. I just used to go in there because I liked it. Then I got to the point where I'd actually take a tape out and put it in. It took more guts to do that."
It was a life-changing moment. "I was ten and the first song I played was Sing Your Life by Morrissey. I remember dancing about to it."
The lyrics to Sing Your Life include the lines, "Sing your life/Just walk right up to the microphone/And name all the things that you love/All the things that you loathe." It's intriguing to wonder what Morrissey makes of the neophyte he inspired with these lines.
Eventually, Brandon inherited his brother's tape collection. "It was around the same time CDs started coming out in a big way. He started buying CDs and gave me his tapes. And that was it: it took off from there. I got a hundred of the best albums - all the New Order, all the Morrissey, all The Smiths, The Beatles. I started buying posters. I went to see The Cure in concert. It was just kind of a continuation of my brother. And it was nice because, though my parents were strict, they were already used to it from him. There was no, 'My dad doesn't understand me,' or any of that kind of stuff. My mum likes The Smiths."
Brandon was 13 and his favourite band was late-'70s/early-'80s American new wavers The Cars, and particularly their jaw-droppingly catchy 1979 single Just What I Needed.
"I wouldn't exist without that song," he says. "That was the one. I remember driving around with my mum when I was 13, and we're living in Nephi - a really small town - and I felt so cool when I put that song on. Like: 'I have something that none of these kids I'm going to middle school with tomorrow have.' That excitement is what music's about, isn't it? That's why I understand the mentality of people that don't like us because we've sold so many records. I used to like it when no one else knew about a band. So I get that - I do."
+
Brandon's first band was called Blush Response. It was never going to work out. Not because he refused to move to Los Angeles with them, but because he is utterly - comically - shameless. He's given to making outrageously boastful statements like: "It's not like the '60s, '70s and '80s now. There are only a few bands around that are really good, that just do it. I mean, there's what, five or six of us?"
For the record, in Brandon's estimation, those bands are Franz Ferdinand, Razorlight, The Strokes, The White Stripes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and, of course, The Killers.
"I don't want people to think I'm lumping myself with other people just to make us sound cool," he says. Really? It sort of sounds like you are. But he just steamrolls through it. "Yeah, but you know what I mean," he says, grinning at his own cheekiness. He's so disgracefully forward you can't help but laugh along with him - Oh you are awful, Brandon! But joking aside, The Killers are the most commercially successful of all the bands he mentions.
Later, back at the rehearsal space, the band run through Sam's Town at deafening volume in preparation for the forthcoming tour - first the US, then the world. The infectious, almost contagious, chorus of When You Were Young sounds fabulous, as do the U2-like guitars and Twin Peaks synths of Read My Mind. Meanwhile, Smile Like You Mean It and Somebody Told Me benefit from the newfound harder edge.
They somewhat heavy-handedly underline the new direction by playing Paranoid by Black Sabbath and Get It On by T Rex. That's the thing: The Killers are not a subtle band. Their songs are like a wet kiss from a girl who's a bit too drunk. They are big and brash, and not everyone loves them for it. Mr Brightside and Somebody Told Me might go down as well at hip nightclubs as they do on the festival circuit, but the DJs play them with the same guilty look they wear when playing a pop record.
"I hate that," says Brandon. "Like writing a song you can hum somehow cheapens it? It makes me think of this quote by Morrissey. Everybody knows how he read Oscar Wilde, Keats and Yates when he was growing up and that he wanted to be a writer. He was talking to this journalist who asked why he hadn't become a writer, and Morrissey said: 'What I do is more powerful than what you do because I can write down these words and you get it to a melody. How can you beat that?' I'm of the same opinion. I don't understand why a good melody that's memorable is a bad thing."
Being dismissed as pop particular aggrieves Ronnie. "When we first came out we got compared to Duran Duran all the time. Jesus Christ! We got a keyboard player now all of a sudden he's Nick Rhodes! Come on!"
"The people who criticise us for being too poppy don't get it," agrees Mark. "I think that's the problem with a lot of rock music. People are afraid to write a song any more. Either that or they can't. And that attitude hurts music in general. The best bands ever have all written great songs. You can still do it and do it intelligently and it can be original. This isn't a studio creation with a producer writing these songs for us. We're not Avril Lavigne, or something like that. We're a real band writing real songs, just like a punk band would do, except that we write pop songs."
You get the impression that The Killers knack for showboating pop hooks that border on vulgar is inextricably tied up with the brazen side of Brandon's personality. But while his ebullient charisma, not to mention the songs themselves, mitigates his outrageousness, there is a less attractive side to his ego. He has a combative streak. He can't resist taking pot shots at emo bands, notably Fall Out Boy, whith whom The Killers share an A&R man.
Has he heard how many emo kids it takes to change a light bulb? "No." None. They just sit in the dark and cry. It's a full 30 seconds before he stops laughing. When he does he admits: "Yeah, we've had problems with other bands. You know, when you walk in the room it's like..." He whistles the theme to The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. "We're like gangs."
And while the other members of the band are diplomatic on the subject of Brandon, you don't have to read too deeply between the lines to conclude that there have been internal issues, too.
"Some people will think Brandon's the big genius," says Dave, visibly bridling. "There are songs, such as Why Do I Keep Counting?, where he's written every note. But there are others, like When You Were Young, that were more of a collaboration - like Mr Brightside, where I had some of the music and Brandon came up with the lyrics. We always have arguments about who wrote what. The truth is that we all help in that process."
When asked how success affected them, Ronnie says: "There were certain things that needed adjusting. When you're on tour for two years, people can get a little needy. It doesn't help that you're surrounded by yes men and everybody's working for you. At times we've had to say, 'Who do you think you are?' to people. No one wears the trousers, but some people would like to. I think if it wasn't for the people in the band kicking each other in the ass... Let's just say there was some ass-kickin'."
It doesn't take a genius to work out whose ass needed kicking most often.
+
It's the following day and The Killers are back at their rehearsal space. The topic of discussion is what to wear in the video for Bones, the second single. It's a big deal: the director is Tim Burton. "I feel like Frank Sinatra when I sing it," announces Brandon. "With maybe a little bit of Morrissey and a little bit of Elvis, too."
Of course he does. But if securing the services of Tim Burton tells you one thing, it's that The Killers are about to get even bigger, perhaps even make the leap to the same level as Coldplay et al. Already stars, they are about to become superstars. Brandon can hardly wait.
"Do you know that Rolling Stone didn't want to put us on the cover last time," he says indignantly. "They didn't think we were stars. We sold five million albums! What more do they want from a band?"
Whatever was required, Brandon would be happy to do most things. "I'll do stuff that some people don't want to do, 'cause I want people to hear the music," he says. However, even he has limits. "The Rolling Stone thing made the record label think: 'What can we do to make them stars?' If I go on vacation with my wife, do they have to send somebody to be there to take pictures of me? Is that how you become a star? I don't want that. I walked down the red carpet one time and I realised I don't like it. But you don't have to walk down the red carpet for people to hear your music. We do still have some of that indie blood running through our veins."
He heads off at a tangent: "When you walk around Liverpool, you think of The Beatles, or you go to Manchester and you think of The Smiths or Oasis. I want you to come to Las Vegas and think of Sam's Town. And I think we've started to capture that, which is a truer version of The Killers, 'cause that's where we're from."
He pauses.
"I used to live across the street from Sam's Town. Maybe it'll be like our Abbey Road where people go to take pictures."
Is that what he'd like?
"I wouldn't mind it," he says, desperately hoping it will come true.
He puts a cigarette between his lips, looks down at his trouser pockets and pats them in search of the lighter he bought yesterday.
"Hey, I don't suppose you've got one?"

Is there a designated Texans bar in Dallas? F those AT&T prices! Just want to watch CJ crush the cowboys with others Texans fans!

Who are these two guys supposed to be dressed up as?

As I am watching Game 5 between OKC and Dallas, it is impossible for me not to feel sad because the level of these two teams is, in my opinion, below Minnesota's. We need to be a lot better offensively. During evrry first quarter we always have a chance at going on a run, getting a ton of stops and we simply don't score . The problem when you play against Denver and they start missing a lot, you know that they will not shoot that way the whole game since Jokic can elevate his level and be the conductor. And by the way, this is how we won Game 1 & 2, a quick lead that we managed to handle perfectly.
We will not have this opportunity every year. We're not Curry's Warriors, James' Heat, Duncan's Spurs or Kobe's Lakers. Ant may be young but what surrounds him will be in shambles.
If we ever managed to pass, the path gets much clearer after, not a lot easier but still. Denver is the three-headed monster of these playoffs.