I concede, in advance, an explanation that the video is actually set in 1991. But I deem it unlikely.
Oh nonsense.
By looking at the L train on Saturday nights, you can see that the new thing in glasses is big, clunky, clear amber plastic frames like McGeorge Bundy used to wear.
I call them Best and Brightest Glasses.
3: The finish was the "cute" part, Tweety. You have no soul.
I was going to, but then the orchestra kicked in at Standpipe's blog and I had to sit down.
The finish was the "cute" part,
FASHIONABLE.
5: I actually quite enjoy listening to this song. I like listening to lots of different types of music. Formulaic pop is one of them. So is math rock. And free jazz. And kids playing on buckets in the park.
What I'm saying, Sifu, is: I'm sorry you were unable to enjoy this song, despite its stupid video.
I don't think you're interpreting 3 in quite the way it was intended, Stan.
8: OH!
Wow. I am dumb from work seriousness. Everyone else shuffle along. I'll be over in the corner for awhile, being very serious.
I didn't get it either, Stanley.
Having now watched the video, I don't think Stanley's right about the glasses. Those aren't the nerd glasses that are now cool hipster glasses; they're still nerd glasses, although largely just because no one at all wears glasses like that anymore.
Furthermore, the glasses are totally unnecessary to the plot of the video. The point isn't that he only realizes she's beautiful when she takes off the glasses (that's the plot of ever so many teen movies, but it's not the plot here). He already knows she's beautiful and perfect for him, he's just stuck in that unhappy relationship with the other girl. The glasses have nothing to do with it, and they only serve to try to make Taylor Swift seem frumpy, which they of course fail to do either.
I think that the demographic this video was aimed at rightly recognizes those hipster glasses as hideous.
You could tell it wasn't a hipster video because the cliches in it weren't trying to be ironic. They were just cliches.
largely just because no one at all wears glasses like that anymore.
Oh, but they do again. Pop over to Manhattan and see!
That video reminded me of something a friend of mine said about why she likes to go to orgies. As a kid and young teen, she said, she'd get all worked up about school dances, thinking something was going to happen; the boy she liked would confess his love, the friendship would bloom into something more, or whatever. And it never did. School dances were uniformly either predictable or weird. None of the things you think will happen happen. Orgies, she said, are like school dances where something actually happens.
16: Really? I thought they were wearing the McGeorge Bundy ones linked in 2.
I guess something can't be uniformly either of two things. I just had a nap.
18: I shall settle this. Large glasses with clear/amber frames: 2009 hipster, or me in first grade. Large glasses with thin dark frames: 2003 hipster, or me in sixth grade.
They wear those too, but believe me, the big 80s ones are also in effect -- though they're not and surely never will be, as ubiquitous as the rectangular hipster glasses of yore, and may well slip away soon.
There aren't actually orgies, right? They're just a myth perpetuated by Big Virgin.
Those aren't the nerd glasses that are now cool hipster glasses
Maybe not the now cool hipster glasses, but I saw multiple examples of that type of glasses on display not a month ago on the G/L/[whatever line runs through Williamsburg] train. The glasses apk01004 points to were, if not ubiquitous, quite visible, too.
I make no claims about knowing what I'm talking about here.
Large glasses with thin dark frames: 2003 hipster
Through 2005, at least, surely? And still rattling around.
The glasses in the video look, with a different frame color, like those worn by Maia Brewton in Adventures in Babysitting.
Huh. I guess I don't spend nearly enough time around NYC hipsters.
Orgies, she said, are like school dances where something actually happens.
Maybe she just had rather, uh, unrealistic expectations about what was going to happen at school dances.
25: Well, sure, and I still see dudes with cowboy neckerchiefs, but they tend to appear more in the aftershock zones of cool. This summer was all about vaguely yachty-looking boys with thick clear plastic glasses.
22: It turns out, they actually exist. There's a regular lesbian one here in my neighborhood that she kept trying to get me to go to with her. I'm just not an orgy person, I think. I get skeezed surprisingly easily.
I got stupider in the 30 seconds I spent watching that video, and not in the good buttsex way.
vaguely yachty-looking boys with thick clear plastic glasses.
The Vampire Weekend set, if we're going to call it something?
Orgies are OK. Turns out you don't get to have sex with all that many people, usually one or two, three at the most. Fun, but not world changing.
Bucking the trend, I finally got lenses for the frames referred to in this comment, and now I have the bestest glasses ever. I'm just going to find a few more of the same frames, because this is my style for good. Nice to have that done with.
32: Yes! That seems like a good term for it.
33: you don't get to have sex with all that many people
At any rate, the chopping probably works against your numbers.
Turns out you don't get to have sex with all that many people, usually one or two, three at the most.
That sounds like a perfectly respectable number of people to be having sex with.
This is as good a thread as any to report the fact that I think I'm permanently scarred by the latest episode of Mad Men.
38: No spoilers. Seriously. This is my serious-commenting face.
This video is getting some of its stereotypes wrong.
30: There's a regular lesbian one here in my neighborhood that she kept trying to get me to go to with her.
33: Fun, but not world changing.
Ya'll are just trying to make suicide seem like a viable option, aren't you?
max
['That expensive cheese is just not that good!']
I won't spoil, Stanley. Just don't watch it while eating.
40.last: I'm perfectly willing to believe that orgies just aren't that good, but don't go taking away my expensive cheese, Max.
I think I'm permanently scarred by the latest episode of Mad Men.
Did it shoot off your toes? Draft evasion.
I liked the Taylor Swift video bunches and bunches, but I speak as someone who has watched She's All That and Can't Hardly Wait 75 times each.
41: You can spoil away, actually. I'll probably watch it two years from now at the pace I'm watching.
Oh, no, I just needed to express my disgust. I'm good now.
Hey, speaking of Television White People Like, I saw my first episode of The Wire a few days ago. It was pretty good.
Not good enough for me to have any particular desire to seek out opportunities to watch more episodes, of course. But pretty good nonetheless.
This is not the first time I felt revulsion today - did y'all read the stuff on Mackenzie Phillips?
*****Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler *******
Someone at Basket of Kisses has noted multiple allusions in the most recent episode to William Blake's Jerusalem. The Emanation of Albion. Blake is quoted in the show.
I'll leave to Stanley the pleasures of matching Zoas to characters.
*****End Spoilers End Spoilers End Spoilers ******
I am feeling revulsion at this post about it:
OK, we get it, and we understand how important it is to make it public. But seriously, it kinda ruins the sweet, innocent Mamas and Papas' music for, like, ever.
And that's what's really important.
Wow. 51 just gave me deja vu moment, including a deja vu deja vu. IOW, I felt I had written that exact comment before, and felt it had given me a deja vu the last time I wrote it. All fugued up.
51: It's a common Anglican hymn. I've had Anglican students who say they had no idea they'd grown up singing a Blake poem. I'm sure they quoted it because the Blakean resonance is there, but it doesn't mean the person is displaying knowledge of Blake's "Milton."
The are different kinds and grades of hipster. There are like "Apple commercial hipsters" who wear the McGeorge Bundy glasses, and then there are the Bowery bums who won't wear whatever it is they are wearing unless everyone-who-is-not-a-Bowery-bum finds it objectively ugly.
51:Please no asterisks, bob. Spoilers are welcome, per 45-46.
39 gets it right.
49 doesn't get it right; you have to keep watching for it to really take off.
On the subject of orgies, sure they happen. The issue is who's involved, and whether you'd want to have sex with them.
The episode I saw was from somewhere in the middle of the first season, I think.
Yeah you need to watch a few in order, ideally starting at the beginning. I watched a few episodes from the thrid season out of order, and they were neat, but it's really about the overall sweep of it.
52: Wow. So she should have just kept it to herself?
I did a bunch of reading on father-daughter incest in an attempt to make sense of an 18th-century account for my prospectus, but even as much as I've intellectualized it I still have a hard time dealing with it. I'm sort of amazed at her composure - and to be clear, the revulsion wasn't at her, but her father.
61: you hurt John Hodgman's feelings.
Why should I care about John Hodgman's feelings?
See? That's just how a "meh" user would respond.
I had teo's problem when I tried to watch Mad Men. I really liked the setting and the pacing and was intrigued by the characters. But after one hour, what had happened was something like: A guy was reading a poetry book and recommended it to his boss. This same guy came to an office party with a black girlfriend. Meanwhile, some other guy discussed his father's inheritance with his family, and Don Draper asked him whether he'd be willing to exploit his father's death in a plane crash to convince an airline to advertise with them. End of episode. ??
I think there was another episode in which Don Draper's wife's car broke down and she spent a long time talking to a mechanic, and meanwhile some woman was telling all the employees that Don Draper's boss had a Rothko on his office wall, and eventually they all sneaked in to look at it. These subplots may be cobbled together inaccurately from the four episodes I've seen.
If there were any comedic elements I probably would have liked it.
41: but don't go taking away my expensive cheese, Max.
{whispers} Not that good. Not actually worth it! Coulda bought a nice pair of shoes with that!
Sorry. Oh, that's right; the Swift video is about a girl who has giant window across from the cute boy on the football team and of course, they communicate by writing on notepads because it's just that cute and then they like, hookup at the prom or something.
I can't tell whether I'm more allergic to the possibility that it might be true, or to the possibility that it's just a sham mythology for suckers.
Therefore I will resolve not to decide and instead I will endorse AWB's sarcasm in 52.
max
['Ha!']
In other news, how much of an academicky book aimed at non-specialists should be devoted to reminding the reader not to impose his/her native categories on the unfamiliar, and to be wary of his/her unexamined assumptions? Half the book? A third?
O, the tedium.
O, the tedium.
We must have read the same book today.
I watched two episodes of Deadwood and thought it was meh.
I had teo's problem when I tried to watch Mad Men. I really liked the setting and the pacing and was intrigued by the characters. But after one hour, what had happened was something like: A guy was reading a poetry book and recommended it to his boss.
By contrast, The Wire is not generally characterized by a lack of incident. Still, watching in order is definitely called for. (Sadly, the very first scene of the very first episode is super clunky, but it picks up.) The same goes for most of the current(ish) TV canon.
I felt the same way about Deadwood until mid way (or maybe even more) into the first season. Then, I really liked it. And by the end of the show, I was very sad that there would be no more. In short, stick with it a bit longer if you want to watch more TV. Or don't if you don't.
And wait, was Teo meh-ing The Wire? Because that's not okay.
69, 71:
You're reading Anthropology from the early 1990s?
52:
Seriously LA Times? That's the tone you take for revelations of incest? (It's even worse at the linked article on Chynna Phillips reaction.)
I was meh-ing Tweety's insistence that I watch the rest of the episodes in order. The episode that I saw was anything but meh.
77: Okay then, we're cool. (But really, you should watch in order.)
I mean, sure, maybe at some point I'll watch the whole thing in order. But it's not something I'm willing to go out of my way to do at this point, and I really would have to go out of my way to do it at this point.
Basically, my philistinism extends to all forms of art except architecture and webcomics.
Non-specialists especially should be wary of imposing their assumptions on academicky books.
The Wire has a worth watching take on urban plannng. Ok, maybe not explicitly, but, uh, the worth watching part is entirely accurate.
We must have read the same book today.
Did it also frequently use metaphor to dramatize straightforward ideas? Indeed, several different metaphors for the same straightforward idea?
The situatedness of my multiplicity is highly contingent.
3: The finish was the "cute" part, where nerd girl caves to destructive mainstream notions of beauty and steps into the very high heels she earlier decried, Tweety. You have no soul are a feminist.
Oh well. At least it has a good bibliography.
Watched the Seymour-Hoffman/Streep Doubt last night.
Do I have to believe Mackenzie & Chynna to be a good person? Not that I would disbelieve them, maybe just withhold my commitment here.
For the record, I never liked Chynna. I like but don't completely trust Mackenzie. And Phillips was a sleaze.
Oh well. At least it has a good bibliography.
So, my book failed to match standard #2, but does match this criteria, and that's enough to make up for many sins.
52, 62, 76b: The line in there about how she thought it "became consensual" really bugs me. After everything else, she has to deal with self-blame, too? Yow.
Bob -- what did you think of Doubt? Did she do the right thing? Strong conflicting opinions among everyone I've discussed it with.
92: Seriously.
(And, sotto voce, yay, Di!)
93: I was just about to chastise myself for that. Thanks for saving me the trouble. (The sad thing is that I'm not kidding.)
In other language-related news, the Word spellchecker doesn't recognize "ensorcell." What's this world coming to? That is, to what is this world coming?
And whatever John P might have been, I have been hearing women dump their shit on John Phillips for 45 fucking years as of today. I think the only one who approached his status as universal trashbin is Kim Fowley.
But it's really really important boring.
Teo, I'm sure you'd be able to find someone around who has The Wire on DVD and would be willing to supply it to you on the semi-indefinite loan necessary to make it through a season (though it can be very tempting to blast through them in a single marathon viewing that leaves you bleary-eyed and a little more dead inside). I'd do that if you were anywhere near the third coast, since I'm halfway through season 4 in my box set right now and won't be rewatching season 1 too soon.
98: I'm sure I could find someone willing to lend me the DVDs, yes. Finding something to play them on would be a bit more of a challenge, but by no means insuperable. But like I've been saying, the motivation to do any of that is what I'm lacking.
38, Put safe glass in those spec and you won't be scarred.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123019/2156568/2162671/070402_PB_davidStockmanEX.jpg
ensorcell
Among my very favorite words. My least favorite words, since you asked, include "moist" and "slacks". I could go on.
94:Meh. I wanted something more out of Doubt than what I got. Not answers, but maybe more history, theology, philosophy, symbols. Just ok. What was there was good, just didn't feel there was enough. Is the play longer?
"Moist" is almost universally reviled, teo. If you lived in the almost-universe, you'd revile it, too.
101: I have a good friend/lurker who is troubled by "slacks" and downright gets the willies from "moist." Are you sure we didn't hang out together in a dorm basement in 1986?
104: If you say so. Speaking of moist, Jesus Christ is it ever humid around here.
"Moist" is almost universally reviled, teo.
It's straight-up anti-Semitism, of course. It's the "oy" sound that repels the goyim. (Ooh, isn't that ironic? No.)
106: Jesus Christ hated the word "moist."
94:I don't have that answer, in part because I saw the movie as being about the conflict of cultures that was the 60s.
Was she right about ballpoint pens?
Let me tell you the difference between Goys and Mensches.
105: Which dorm? But no, probably not. Another appalling word: "panties".
101: I have a good friend/lurker who is troubled by "slacks" and downright gets the willies from "moist."
Ex-person couldn't stand hearing the word 'moist'. Very odd.
'You mean you freak out just every time I say moist?'
{shivers} 'It's such a GROSS word! YUCK!'
'Seriously? Moist?'
'STOP IT!'
max
['Um. Uh. OK.']
Devonshire cream goes by another name that gives me the barfs, which is why I must insist you call the food item sitting in front of me "Devonshire cream".
Clotted cream, clotted cream, clotted cream.
Did you throw up yet?
LA LA LA NOT LISTENING
Clotted cream feels moist in your slacks.
Which sounds infinitely better than 'clotted panties'.
max
['A random collection of sprightly neurotics.']
120 is criminal, or at least clear cause for banning.
Is Devonshire cream best served with a topical anti-coagulant?
123: You should ask Styptic Ned.
122: Thanks. Anything to get away from all this talk of clotted panties, clinging to creamy skin beneath moist slacks.
My least favorite word is Request for Production. Interrogatory is close at its heels.
My least favorite word is "schwag."
I also hate the following words:
pdf (no offense to any commenters), meet-and-confer, cite.
And a number of proper nouns.
I really hate "smack" as in "smacks of" (as opposed to the word used to describe the verb or the sound "smack").
I too know someone who finds "moist" repulsive, and she is a shiksa. I, however, also a goy, do not. (Incidentally, I was again assumed to be Jewish the other day, but I suspect it was because I wished someone "L'shanah tovah".)
"Moist" makes me think of brownies and towelettes.
If this is the celebrity gossip thread, I was reminded by teo watching The Wire that I saw McNulty on the Tube yesterday. I was quite excited.
Every thread is the celebrity gossip thread.
"Moist" is sexy. "Slacks" is ugly, but not horrible. Genuinely horrible words include "trifecta" and "risible."
The sexiest word of all is "fugacity."
I think this link is obligatory in any discussion of hipster glasses. Probably the whole website should be obligatory.
130
I was again assumed to be Jewish the other day, but I suspect it was because I wished someone "L'shanah tovah".
I can't imagine where they got that idea.
I think I'm a wanna-be hipster. I don't think I'm quite achieving it but I try.
130: I'm guessing your first name tipped them off.
136: I had to look closely to make sure that wasn't my cousin. I'm 90 percent sure it's not, but I might e-mail that picture to her just to check.
138: I'm too much of a slacker to be a hipster. I put on a tie and even a shirt with cufflinks to go to work some times, and after that I can't be bothered to dress down to witty t-shirts and ugly pants.
|| I met this girl via a dating site, and we are currently emailing back and forth. I'm looking for women with a bachelor's degree or higher (I have a bachelor's and am planning on going to grad school soon) but she hasn't gone to college and doesn't plan to. (I just found out that she isn't planning on going back to school.) She's in her early-to-mid-twenties, as am I.
Is there any graceful way of saying why I don't want to go any further, or should I just stop responding to her emails? Cutting off communication with no explanation seems dickish, but so does telling her she doesn't fit my criteria. Thoughts? |>
142: I personally think it's fine to just quit e-mailing. Just like at a party, if there's a lull in conversation, it's fine to shrug and awkardly slink off elsewhere.
Unsolicited, but there's plenty of people who went to college but lack mental whatever-ness, and vice-versa, so I'm charitably substituting "mental whatever-ness" in where you wrote "attended college". I wouldn't rule someone out on a hard and fast rule like that, if they're otherwise appealing. I'm guessing you're actually sensing that she's not otherwise appealing, from the back-n-forth e-mails.
On a dating site you can certainly just stop emailing. It's kinder, I think, to say something like, "You know, I just don't get the sense that we're clicking like I'd like to, but I'm sure you'll meet some other guy here who's a better fit. Best of luck." Etc.
We've only been in touch for about a week, so I'm not sure yet. The thing is, I've been wondering about the education level stuff for that whole time. Is it a bad idea to have a hard and fast rule like that?
I feel like I should stand up for the didn't-go-to-college types, but eh, I've left them behind, the laggards.
But yes, it is bad to have a hard-and-fast rule like that.
149: nah she tested into a PhD out of high school.
I don't have a hard-and-fast rule, but I have found that dating dudes who have something against higher ed (that is, they've got the mental whateverness but not the desire), all our conversations are going to end up being about how I'm a horrible elitist devoted to ruining young people's lives.
Is it a bad idea to have a hard and fast rule like that?
I'd say that having a hard and fast rule is unnecessary - just trust your ability to size up someone's intelligence. Your instinct after reading their profile and possibly a few e-mails will be trustier than whether or not they attended college.
151: Well, I think it is ok to have a hard and fast rule against dating someone that despise what you do and love.
I have found that dating dudes who have something against higher ed (that is, they've got the mental whateverness but not the desire)
Not going to college doesn't necessarily mean you have something against it.
all our conversations are going to end up being about how I'm a horrible elitist devoted to ruining young people's lives
This again is one of those things where I feel we must run in dramatically different circles, or something.
146
Is it a bad idea to have a hard and fast rule like that?
I think so. On the other hand, if I rank my past relationships from best to worst, it correlates perfectly with the ladies' educational attainment. Small sample size, granted, and if I count the acquaintances with whom I didn't get all the way to a "relationship" the correlation gets murkier, but still. This is funny because I never went beyond a B.A. and have no plans to. (But I don't think you're an elitist, AWB, I swear.)
I think you should give some kind of an explanation, not just stop e-mailing, like 145 says.
I've gotten it from plenty of college-educated dudes, too.
I do agree that you should say something, not just drop it.
I don't think having such a hard-and-fast rule is necessarily bad, just not really helpful. Maybe at 60 you'll have such a pressing need of quick elimination that an education minimum will help, but early-to-mid twenties? Experience stuff in the dating scene! Date people with degrees, sure, but isn't it more interesting to meet all kinds? (For some probably-swipple reason I always romanticize dating a female carpenter)
You can afford to change your mind later!
156: If only people with a chip on their shoulder actually really had a visible chip on their shoulder, with unique identifiers on it for whichever particular thing(s) they have a chip on their shouldder about, the going would be much easier.
I think that feeling obligated to say something about ending the correspondence is fine, but the obligation is an extra inhibitor against having as many correspondences as possible, which is what the online thing is about: enlarge the size of the dating pond.
It's fine to take a moment to shoot off the e-mail, but don't sweat it excessively. Just keep trying different people, and if possible enjoy the process.
I, for example, have a chip on my shoulder about people correcting the typos in my comments.
YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME????!!??
I always romanticize dating a female carpenter)
Your handle is taking on a whole new meaning.
I can certainly understand not wanting to date somebody who's anti-intellectual and incurious about the world, but boy (and here is where I think I should state it more strongly) is it stupid to define that as "hasn't gone to college and doesn't necessarily plan to".
164: I think you should state it more strongly.
161
I think that feeling obligated to say something about ending the correspondence is fine, but the obligation is an extra inhibitor against having as many correspondences as possible,
Is it? Doesn't seem hard at all to me. If you're willing to lie, it's in a context that they'd never find out, and even if not there's really no reason you have to get specific. Copy-paste from 145 if you have to.
Ending relationships before they get serious is the easiest thing about them.
he could say "but guy is it stupid", or "but man is it stupid".
Ending relationships before they get serious is the easiest thing about them.
I don't think this is true. I think fear of how to end things keeps people from beginning them, and from getting out of them.
But definitely just cut-n-paste 145. I totally agree with that.
I strongly agree with 145 et al. It sucks to be left in limbo and wonder whether the other person is out of town or their message got lost, or whatever.
Back when I was doing the online dating thing, I appreciated receiving those messages and got a "thanks for letting me know" for sending them.
Word to the wise: If she (or any future person) asks "why?" just keep repeating the essence of 145. You're not obligated to say more and it's probably not best to get into it.
However, I'm with those who say you should throw out the hard and fast rule. Better to include in your profile that you're intellectually curious. That will deter some who aren't and attract those who think twice about slumming with someone who doesn't even have a master's yet.
"not best" is actually an excellent formulation-- expresses suboptimal in better english, and a better qualifier than the much stronger "best not."
"Best not" can only be said when the best is definitely know, possible when there are few circumscribed options with known weight. "Not best" is much much better for many human situations, where many imperfect choices in an uncertain world are all there is.
best,
LW
Have you ever looked at "best not"? I mean really, really looked at it?
Shit, "definitely known" in the diction remark I obnoxiously postted. Maybe I need new glasses.
postted
Time to hang it up for the day, lw.
In other random language news, it delights me no end that when you link something in Gmail, it asks, "To what URL should this link go?"
It's not even a matter of pedantry; I just like that formulation, as I do the proper use of objective pronouns. (Yes, yes, "proper" is a loaded term. And, ok, there is some pedantry involved, up with which I know some people here will not put.)
I stupidly did not bicycle this morning, but drove so am foul tempered. For extra warmth, my smokes are at home in a desk drawer. Grammar complaints riddledd with typpos here are an alternative to a freewheeling exchange of world-views with colleagues, which would likely include thinkos rendering the outcome I want impossible. Perhaps I will go kick puppies or wait for the day to end and lift weights.
William Hazlitt is an excellent prose stylist, breaking the run set by Hume and Gibbon for good prose coming from physically unattractive fat men.
In the way early 70s, I forget how we connected, I think I met the guy bicycling around Robert E Lee Park. He invited me a jump north to his place a little away from the SMU Campus. There was a lot of pot, and a pretty girl that kindly corrected my pronunciation of Sartre. I was attracted, and she was attracted, but I thought she was attracted too much by my autodidacticism and pecs. I was new to Dallas, and I wish I had understood the kind of guys who attend SMU. But I went back to my inventory control job, and the waitresses and secretarial pool.
Aw, lw, I feel bad for you. I won't even point out "riddledd" in 180.
I hate it when men are too attracted to my pecs. Why can't they love me for me?!
I've dated across the entire spectrum of educational attainment (well, no HS dropouts, but apart from that...). I have found no correlation between mental whateverness and educational attainment - one of the smartest people I know has an MD and absolutely no whateverness - just none. Absolutely wonderful human being, but no zing. OTOH, I just visited an ex in PDX who is a HS graduate with minimal additional education, and she is pure 200 proof whateverness. The twinkle in the eye, the absurdist sense of humor, mental agility, the whole shebang. We can't talk about hifalutin' stuff, but is that really what a relationship is all about? There's plenty of pleasant time to be spent on non-hifalutin' stuff.
Because the idea of knowing another human being is a painful illusion. There is nothing but indifference and solitude, and even hoping for pleasant companionship is unrealistic. Avoiding physical suffering is as good as it gets.
OK, back to the problem case I should be thinking about. A hilarious programming typo is "=" for "=="
I saw McNulty on the Tube yesterday
Silly asilon, we've all seen McNulty on the tube. Well, I watched The Wire on my computer, but still.
The thing is, I've been wondering about the education level stuff for that whole time. Is it a bad idea to have a hard and fast rule like that?
In my limited experience, online it is a rough but useful proxy for mental whateverness -- not perfect by any means, but useful enough to not totally disregard. I started off e-mailing interesting people regardless of educational status and eventually found that people with a HS-level education were almost never a good fit, at least as often from their perspective as from mine.
(Conversely, I didn't list my own educational background, and found it a useful tool for illuminating the people in whom that evokes an instant, belligerent response. Anybody whose very first e-mail starts off with "OBVIOUSLY you went to college, because nobody could write like that without going to college, so why are you lying about it?" Way to make me want to date you, dude.)
But that's online, and I don't think it's representative of the rest of the world. Meeting people in a real-life context is a much better way to sense mental whateverness and then you know them for X amount of time before it ever even comes up whether they went to college or how it took.
I just realized that I've only dated (or even been overwhelmingly allured by) one person who had completed college when I met them. I did drive one steady to attend college and do comp lit, though.
I've found that I get along well enough with anyone who reads a lot and has a bad temper.
It's also about class and mental health--my family tends to almost rise into the proper professional classes and then to sink back into factory-foreman/senior-secretary status because we have trouble with the social skills, tend to be a bit aspie and are all very introverted, so we all develop a lot of class resentment and aren't really at home in our class of origin. Folks I like tend to be from similar backgrounds with similar pathologies and as a result are less likely to have completed college.
I had a dream the other night in which one of my fellow collective-members was telling me off and she finished by saying, "The trouble is, you're just not that bright." The more time I spend on the internet, the more I realize that she is basically correct and that I possess all the mannerisms of mental whateverness (read a lot, use big words, can be annoyingly snobbish about cheese) but not the thing itself. Also, a friend of mine visited from grad school and I found that I basically can no longer keep up with the conversation; on the other hand, I was able to intimidate him with my radical street cred, so we both left a little more insecure than we arrived and that's always something.
Autodidacts are interesting; well-socialized women are usually taught to hide autodidacticism, though.
I've found that I get along well enough with anyone who reads a lot and has a bad temper.
Yup. And opinions.
Autodidacts are interesting; well-socialized women are usually taught to hide autodidacticism, though.
So, so true.
You know what? I'm being too grumpy. Have whatever more-or-less arbitrary rules you want with online dating. Gotta filter somehow, and pretty much any criteria you pick are going to be arbitrary in practice, anyhow.
I think I'll go with 145. One other data point is that I'd seen her profile before and not really been moved to contact her, so the whole education thing is probably not the only factor at play. Thanks for the advice, everyone!
189: a friend of mine visited from grad school and I found that I basically can no longer keep up with the conversation
IME, this has little to do with mental whateverness. Academics -- and autodidacts -- are in a world of their own, often with a specialized vocabulary, and they've gone much, much deeper into subjects about which I might once have known something.
Par exemple (I'm so smart I know a little French), I used to be able to rattle off sentences full of lit crit terms that I sort of understood but when I talk to my academic friends now I nod politely until I can change the topic to the politics of the English department or who slept with whom at the last MLA convention.
I know you're bright by the political arguments you make here, even the non-cheese-related ones.
I'm not saying all this to pat you on the head and make you feel better. But I do think plenty of lurkers and commenters are intimidated here (and IRL) and I wish they weren't.
Also, given that I think of you as awfully clever, having you say self-deprecating stuff about your brains throws me into a tizzy of insecurity about my own comparative dopiness and my judgment of other people. And I hate tizzies of insecurity, although I spend most of my time in varying ones.
In short, Frowner is banned!!
195: I think really highly of myself, if that makes you feel better.
I used to be clever, but now I'm just a stay-at-home parent with lots of initiative.
And jesus Jesus, I capitalised 'Tube' on purpose to try to avoid 187! The world-renowned London Underground. And I'll be there, same place same time next week - I can but hope ... (I didn't have a thing about him on The Wire, but irl? Yowsers.)
On tv, he looks oddly monkey-like -- I kept on flipping back and forth between "He's really handsome" and "But he looks like a big monkey." But I could see him being uncomplicatedly attractive in person.
And jesus Jesus, I capitalised 'Tube' on purpose to try to avoid 187!
As if that were going to stop me.
195: I had more or less the same chain of thoughts. If Frowner isn't bright, than I must be even dumber than I thought.
But, then, I just found that I'm Exhbit A in Mark Helprin's proof of the idiocy of the Internet Generation, so I guess I must be especially stupid.
If she (or any future person) asks "why?" just keep repeating the essence of 145.
This bit reminds me of something I wanted to post about, but I feel much butter tucking it here, snuggled among the comments:
I've written about the marital troubles of my roommates. To update, he's since moved out; they've been in separate counseling; they've been spending a fair amount time together against the advice of the marriage counselors and friends*; in spending that time together, they probably fight about 25% of the time; there's a complicating factor in that they work together and have a mutual co-worker, whom the husband has been sort of flirty with; oh, and the co-worker briefly moved in as a fourth roommate, right around the time the whole collapse started, but she's since moved out, too.
Phew. Sorry for so much backstory. Anyhow, the other day, they went to their first joint counseling session: the two of them and each of their counselors. The husband roomie comes out of the blue with something like, "I've come to realize that I just want us to be friends**."
So the wife roomie responds with, "But why?" But the counselors stop her, saying, "He said how feels. Just think about that for now."
Is this some kind of specific counseling technique? It seems kind of like it might be: don't dwell on the "why", just operate on what the person tells you they feel, or somesuch. But it's totally driving her batty that she can't ask for an explanation. And I can definitely understand where she's coming from. I'd want to be able to ask why, too, after that long together (~7 years) and considering all the countervailing recent behavior.
*Not me. I've tried to remain stridently neutral, at the advice of the Mineshaft. I'm sort of an open ear to either party, but I do get more of her side of the story, as we live together and it's falling more craptastically on her.
**Not the first time he's said as much, but it is the first time he said so in front of the counselors. And the statement contradicts recent behavior (including dropping by at random hours; spending the night [in a sleep-next-to way, not the boinky-boink way]).
Autodidacts are interesting; well-socialized women are usually taught to hide autodidacticism, though.
That's interesting -- I had a friend who was a very interesting autodidact. I don't know if I'd say she was well-socialized, but on her good days she could combine showing off her knowledge and be very charming at the same time.
My least favorite words, since you asked, include "moist" and "slacks".
Is this a Jewish thing? Because I went to college with a guy who identified those 2 words as his least favorites, and I can't think of anything else he has in common with ari.
159
You can afford to change your mind later!
Seems like this could be a bit hard on the other party if you are just confirming they aren't for you.
Just like at a party, if there's a lull in conversation, it's fine to shrug and awkardly slink off elsewhere.
Why has no one told me this!?
203: I'm Jewish and I like the word, "moist"!
I'm indifferent to the word, "slacks".
I don't like the word, "poignant".
Someone I once knew called words like "slacks" "soapcake words," because "soapcake" is among them. Seemed like a good term.
Also, I hate Stanley for causing me to watch that video.
195: But LB is a lawyer!! Able to explain law! And understand policy! Policy is like chess to me--I can sort of understand how the board is at any given moment, but trying to think forward or back just doesn't work.
200: Mark Helperin is a terrible, terrible person. Do you just engage in behavior that he dislikes or does he dislike you personally? Good work either way, though.
I'm of two minds about the "just accept that this is what he feels" thing. For me it's a useful practice just to sit with things a while rather than flying off the handle, going into denial, coming up with convoluted explanations, blaming/excusing myself, etc. I find this particularly true when reading radical anti-racist stuff. It's good to focus on the fact that a feeling exists until you've really accepted it.
However I think there's this radical individualist/anti-critical-thinking piece too--where you're not allowed to say "how does LARGER FACTOR play into this feeling?" or "I've noticed that a lot of times SITUATION is part of FEELING" or "in this instance, DECISION BASED ON FEELING was actually hasty and harmful" because after all, we have to respect the truth that people feel what they feel.
I think that what's going on is that people are searching for an immutable thing to ground their assertions--it's like saying "back on the veldt" or "but that's part of the superstructure" or "it's all neurochemistry". It's one of the contradictions in current anti-racist theory--that we're at the same time trying to construct a historical framework for racism and its effects but we're not supposed to bring that framework into the discussion of any individual's feelings because that's disrespectful. There seems to be a strong parallel with therapy.
Also, this type of story just makes me glad that I have enough fear of intimacy that I probably will never be in this type of situation.
Do you just engage in behavior that he dislikes or does he dislike you personally? Good work either way, though.
In Mark Helprin's recent book about how horrible people are online, one source he cited was "the commenter peep".
Someone I once knew called words like "slacks" "soapcake words," because "soapcake" is among them. Seemed like a good term.
This seems simple enough, yet I don't get it.
I possess all the mannerisms of mental whateverness (read a lot, use big words, can be annoyingly snobbish about cheese) but not the thing itself. Also, a friend of mine visited from grad school and I found that I basically can no longer keep up with the conversation
This is uncannily like what my HS BF might say (the guy who went into the Navy; I mentioned him the other day). Not the grad school part, and maybe not the "keeping up" part as such, but he already perceived a gap in HS, and out post-HS paths didn't exactly narrow it.
FWIW, Frowner, I'm the smartest person I know irl, but the grad school talk around here can leave me baffled* - I wouldn't put any stock into the speech- or thinking-modes of people who've gone beyond undergrad as a measure of whateverness. That's not what it's intended to indicate.
* To be clear, there are surely smarter people than me here, but it's not the talk of valences that proves it.
FWIW, I appreciate Hodgman's take on "meh," but I also think it has value as expressing a very specific feeling - "I have become aware of this thing, I have given it some consideration, and, although I recognize that there may be some there there, it leaves me wanting."
Maybe my sense of its connotation is idiosyncratic - or maybe that's more its usage here than its net-wide usage - but I think that's actually a valid, and non-oneupmanning, position to express.
OTOH, if I said, "braunschweiger is teh awesome" and someone replied with a "meh," I'd probably be pretty annoyed.
200: Mark Helperin is a terrible, terrible person. Do you just engage in behavior that he dislikes or does he dislike you personally? Good work either way, though.
No -- he just quoted a comment I wrote at Saiselgy's blog in his book Digitital Barbarism-- and he refers to it a couple of times as proof of the stupidity of the Internet Generation. Admittedly I made a stupid mistake in the comment -- I wrote"ancestors" when I meant descendants -- but having my comment singled out as proof of the idiocy of a generation I don't even belong to --- well, it's kind of strange.
I hate the words "relish", and "delicious".
I hate the word "luscious" so much that just typing it make me ill.
I used the word "relish" in a post today.
216, 217: No. But I did have to go and do some work until the reaction passed. Whenever I hear the word I always think of one of the most annoying paragraphs in Jane Eyre, when Jane is starving to death and eavesdropping on her cousins who are translating Goethe, and one of them says "Ah! That is strong! I relish it!" I think it was Diana. Anyway, I hate her.
Jane eyre starves to death?
Have I mentioned that I never read any Victorian novels? Virtually none, anyway.
I'm now suspecting that Jane Eyre is actually pore-Victorian, but I think that only reinforces my point.
I bet you don't like "scrumptious" either, McMc.
Basically, mcmc doesn't like anyone to acknowledge that food might be more than palatable.
221: Noooooooooooo! Not the scrumptious! please!
224: And yet, she likes patchouli. She relishes patchouli. Delicious, luscious patchouli.
225: So now you want it to say "pore-Victrian-o"?
That's odd.
Is the patchouli plant, with its sensuous essential oils, deciduous?
224: It's mainly the proximity of the "L" and the "sh" sounds. They're just too moist. But scrumptious is also awful.
Jane doesn't starve quite to death, but comes close when she loses her money after running away from Mr. Rochester.
Great, Jesus, you've ruined patchouli for me. Probably just as well.
I know someone who hates the word "cloister" much more than the word "moist".
No, because I think of them as People from Wales.
212 I'm the smartest person I know irl
Wow. That must suck.
I was completely confused by that when I read JE as a kid. She's been talking about being poor for the whole book! And she's starving now! And yet there's byplay about how the actual poor people she's begging from know that she's not really a poor person. The class dynamics were absolutely opaque to me.
236: Are you poised to foist a moist cloister on them?
236: Yes, cloister sounds like blister, so that's on the list.
239: Never read John Emerson as a kid. It can scar you.
204: Well, yes. But the reason for my comment was actually that in my early-to-mid twenties I made all sorts of arbitrary silly rules about what I 'demanded' from date-people, and I now regret them, as I stupidly missed out on interesting people.
So the comment was actually kind of a letter to my past self (should have made that clearer).
I'm starting to understand why mcmc sticks to the letters m and c.
The person I've dated with the least mental whateverness had a PhD. But I think there is a fair amount of correlation between mental whateverness and education.
243: I find most individual vowels acceptable.
Somewhere I read about a woman who told her professor that his of the word "moist" was sexist, but surely that's apocryphal.
245: Still, you wouldn't want your sister to marry one, right?
247: I just want our family to preserve their proud tradition of clickyness.
How do you feel about y? Is y one of the good ones?
248: The tradition of cliquishness, on the other hand, is soundly rejected, of course.
Y is practically a consonant. Y is approved.
Wow. That must suck.
Honestly, not in the least. I'm surrounded by smart people, just not ones that have struck me as smarter than I am - people that I consider to be about as smart as I am say things like, "Wow, you're smart" to me. Whereas I read DeLong's blog and think, "Wow, he's smart."
I know lots of people who are smarter than me in specific ways - AB thinks about writing on a totally different level from me, a guy from school had an incredible capacity for plant names - but no one who impresses me the way that, eg, DeLong does (I'm not using any examples from here for obvious reasons, but I assume that Fleur, at least, is smarter than I am).
Just like at a party, if there's a lull in conversation, it's fine to shrug and awkardly slink off elsewhere.
This provides good reasons to not go to parties and, by extension, not engage in online dating-related e-mail. That said, slinking off at a party is better because the slinked can see the slinker do it.
With his eyes, presumably.
Where the hell is Fleur, anyway?
Don't make me come over there and pronounce "Awl".
252: I find I don't rank people by brains if they're anywhere at all close to me -- there are a few people I've met who were clearly much, much more intelligent than I am, but short of that I think of a whole bunch of people (like, you guys generally) as 'about as bright as I am'. This is probably ego protection so I don't have to contemplate the possibility of people being cleverer than I am.
(Now, I run into people who know lots of stuff I don't all the time, but that's different.)
Meh, I got kind of sick of this pseud about two days after I started using it, but I'm trying to preserve continuity here. So you might as well come over and pronounce it and put me out of my misery.
258: But LB, your dim-bulbedness is so adorable fashionable!
If you went by "U. Awl" we would all know who you were, and it would be kind of funny.
251: Gotcha.
(Auto-correct is going to make me regret posting this comment for weeks to come.)
Re: intelligence, I don't worry about it. I have a thorough command of totally useless information, which reassures me without intimidating other people. As for wit, I think I'm pretty good about snappy repartée, but when nothing comes to mind I find an arched eyebrow will get the point across in most situations. I have expressive eyebrows.
But I don't think there's anything wrong with your existing pseud, for the record.
(Auto-correct is going to make me regret posting this comment for weeks to come.)
Auto-correct misspells your name?
I have to imagine Cyrus is now arching an eyebrow at me.
Comparing the intelligence of your colleagues is a popular party game in some parts of academe. I find it very distasteful.
Was 201 unintelligible? It's definitely rambly. Is it normal for a marriage counselor to prevent one partner from asking the other to explain his or her feelings? Where's Will when I need him?
This is probably ego protection so I don't have to contemplate the possibility of people being cleverer than I am.
I think I've mentioned before that, when I was in school, my default ego-protection move was, "I am better in my specialty than the people who are more generally educated than me, and I have broader interests than the people who are better at their specialties than I am at mine."
This place can be awfully hard on the ego. Seriously, though, it's important to remember that while for any topic there will be a dozen people here who can effortless display knowledge, or make perfect quips, that it isn't the same dozen people for every topic. The mineshaft as a collective has a truly dazzling breadth of knowledge. The individual people are very smart, but just as inclined to look a little lost outside of their areas of interest (and put their pants on one leg at a time, etc . . .).
Whereas I read DeLong's blog and think, "Wow, he's smart."
The thing about reading DeLong that sometimes makes me weep slightly when I think of myself in comparison is the sheer speed which which he can digest written information.
264
Auto-correct misspells your name?
No, but you see, I was worried that it would start doing so, because I intentionally misspelled it to play along with 251, and... never mind.
I didn't see 201 until just now, but it's interesting.
My guess is that asking "why" is somehow not the point. It's a way of pending registering something you don't want to hear, because hopefully he'll come up with something she can work with.
Also, can feelings be explained? There's not always a why. There may be backstory or supplementory information, but "why" is slightly an invalidating question.
270: Oh, I figured you were just Borck Landress-style
271-2: I'm thinking that's the point of the counseling technique. He's said how he feels, and you've got to deal with that. Full stop.
But if he says different things on different days and also acts erratically (moody and withdrawn one day, affectionate the next), I think she's justified in asking why he's acting like that. But typing that out, it occurs to me that even he probably doesn't know. The whole thing sucks.
274: There's a difference between asking "Why do/don't you feel that way?" and "Why are you acting that way?".
Have they told her she can't ask about the reasons for his behavior?
Anyway, yeah it sounds like it sucks. Condolences to you (and all involved).
Have they told her she can't ask about the reasons for his behavior?
I'll have to ask her, but it sounded like she wasn't allowed any response that wasn't some equivalent of "Okay."
I know this isn't your question, but I'm sure the reason "why" is that he's conflicted. That there are good parts and bad parts to their relationship and whichever one seems more prominent in his mind on a given day colors how he acts. (That plus a (possibly dickish, possibly not) lack of reigning it in.)
I find I don't rank people by brains if they're anywhere at all close to me
Oh, this is totally me* - my primary evidence that these people aren't as smart as I am is that they are, evidently, impressed with my smarts. And since I know from the internet that I am capable of being impressed by someone else's smarts, I assume that those around me are less smart.
I actually don't recall anymore why I even brought it up.
* This is also me about height - I'm 6-1 or a bit more, but don't think of myself as especially tall (my dad is 6-4, so this is part of it). With either men or women, you have to be close to 5-0 before you register to me as "short," which means that I'm sometimes surprised to realize that someone doesn't even reach my shoulder. To me, "average height" is like 5-2 to 6-5 - heights in that range generally don't register with me.
He's said how he feels, and you've got to deal with that. Full stop.
Yep. Couples counseling isn't about changing or even analyzing the feelings involved, it's about dealing with them. Harsh toke, but unavoidable.
People are waaaaaaaaay too impressed by people who are good at math. I really don't like conversations where people fawn over my degree, or when they put me on a smartsy pedestal. I judge people by whether or not they laugh at my jokes.
the sheer speed which which he can digest written information.
Yes, but he appears to have dazzling recall, as well. Not nec. perfect recall or anything, but he seems to be able to actually locate a given reference, whereas I often feel like all of the stuff I read and absorb almost immediately becomes a haze of knowledge, imperfectly stored and impossible to trace to sources. Getting most of my daily info from blogs probably doesn't help in this aspect (in contrast, I can generally put my hands on a given Cook's Illustrated recipe from my now 9 years' collection - the combo of seasonal and visual have formed a matrix by which I can tell you that the (really brilliant) corn muffin recipe is in the issue with the sort of kraft-brown cover from Sept/Oct of '02 or '03).
I judge people by whether or not they laugh at my jokes.
LOL!
I just don't get why people invest ego into intelligence. The blinkered or ineffectual but genuinely brilliant individual is really common. Rapid hypothesis modification and wide knowledge are just not that useful without will and judgement.
La Rochefoucauldd:
Everyone complains of his lack of memory, but nobody of his want of judgement.
Is "wit" close enough in meaning to "mental whateverness" that I can start typing "wit" and add seconds back to my life?
I complain about his lack of judgement.
You can get wit this, or you can get wit that.
You can get Witt this, or you can get Witt that.
You can get Witt his, or you can get Witt hat.
I just don't get why people invest ego into intelligence. . . . Rapid hypothesis modification and wide knowledge are just not that useful without will and judgement.
Worth noting that this sort of context-free intelligence is, arguably, most useful during adolescence. Would it be wrong to think that it's common for people to a invest ego in the traits that allowed them to succeed when they were in HS?
I'll have to ask her, but it sounded like she wasn't allowed any response that wasn't some equivalent of "Okay."
But from what you've said so far, that seems to be to his statement "I've come to realize that I just want us to be friends."
"Then why are you acting like a dick?" strikes me as a completely different kettle of question from "Why do you feel that way about me?" or "Why don't you love me anymore?".
288: Yes, but only if you promiſe to conform your writing in all other ways to eighteenth century ſtandards
288: Just abbreviate it "menwha". For example:
"If she ain't got that menwha, I don't wants her hooha."
I just don't get why people invest ego into intelligence.
Because they excelled at primary and secondary school, were for that very reason considered marked by the majority of their classmates, and were therefore driven to valorize the attribute that made them stick out? A wild guess.
Did you go to private/magnet school, lw?
Menwha. Menwha ith what bwings uth togever.
294: I agree and will inquire if it comes up again. Very helpful all around, MineshMenwhaft. Thanks.
The cleaner version of that song (usually sung in four part harmony ) is "She Lacked a Certain Menwha, And So I Fled Her Boudoir".
298 pwned by 293.
You may be a faster typist, but I have broader interests.
301: I just don't get why people invest ego into pwnage.
I fell for Glenda and her big old menwha.
304: Standpipe has like 30 goddamned menwhas.
But Brenda's got a big ol' menwha, so I'm leaving you. C-YA!
I just don't get why people invest ego into pwnage.
It is worth remembering, that it is much more disheartening to have to [pwn others] than to be [pwned], hmmm?
Seriously, though, it's important to remember that while for any topic there will be a dozen people here who can effortless display knowledge, or make perfect quips, that it isn't the same dozen people for every topic.
I'm still waiting for my topic to come up.
"What She Wants is Men What Want Menwhas" is another old favorite.
Crap. "What Women Wants is Men What Wants Menwhas".
but I have broader interests.
One could even speculate that your interests are eight miles wide.
Forget I said anything about "wit". Rather: "quippity".
No, I went to a large public HS. A long time ago-- maybe that's it. But for another example tattoos early or being a successful jock are also important for HS identity, why hold on to that part of the past?
Probably attitudes segregate by age, I'll let you kids do your thing.
In the bedroom, kinky smart assholes use Menwha beads.
"Quippity" is good. I mean, it's no "menwha", but it's still pretty good.
The ubiquity of people with no quippity makes it serendipity-ous to find one.
Holy shit, not only is there a Hebrew wikipedia page on the long s, it has an incredibly lovely illustration missing from the english, french, and german pages:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/f/f4/Long-s.jpg
Brenda had the menwha that I'd always rememba.
For the record, the original of the quotation in 309 is from this movie.
280
People are waaaaaaaaay too impressed by people who are good at math ...
Unfortunately "people" should be "women".
298
This makes sense. And people tend to think their good qualities are the most important good qualities.
I'm with LB; I know a lot of people I think of as roughly as smart as I am and it would be really dumb to waste mental energy on ranking them. And then there are a handful of people who are unambiguously way the fuck out of my league, and I'm happy to know them. And anyway, "smartness" is a pretty useless concept. There's one guy I know who's kind of slow to understand things and asks weird, confused questions a lot. If we were the same age I would have run rings around him in school. But once he finally gets something, he always knows it deeper than anyone else, and he's unambiguously the best person in the world to go to for insight on any topic he's taken the time to understand. It takes all kinds; that's why only knowing people you're sure you're smarter than seems to me like it would really suck.
It takes all kinds; that's why only knowing people you're sure you're smarter than seems to me like it would really suck.
Well right. As I said, depending on what you want to measure, I wouldn't say I'm smartest by every metric (at all). For the menwha we're talking about, I don't think I know anyone "smarter," but there are plenty of people I know that I turn to for knowledge and advice. Hell, of the 3 bosses I had, the one who was plainly last in menwha also ran the most successful business and is retired at age 62 with an apartment on the Upper East Side and a beachhouse of his own (quite good) design in Nova Scotia. I admire the hell out of what he accomplished, and it certainly required intelligence on his part.
Actually, the thing that people I know irl have that I admire is a certain kind of personal skill. I'm articulate and personable, so it's not that I'm socially maladroit; but there's a certain kind of charismatic/political thing that some people have that just amazes me - these people who are never the most "important" in the room, yet always get their way, by dint of knowing exactly how to soothe and cajole, schmooze and bully as each person requires.
193: After much dithering On second thought, I'm going to keep in touch with her and see what happens. Thanks again for the advice.
