where's mini james wang?

pause for station identification. have you ever experienced a group uncomfortable silence? lots of talk and commotion and then bam, nothing. silence doesn't even begin to describe it. all conversations suddenly hit a dead end all at the same time and everybody is left to twiddle their thumbs and wonder what the hell happened. people try to jump start something via directed question or comment but then that dies too. now imagine this for twenty extended minutes, with five or six protracted silences having passed. i'm not sure i've ever experienced something like this before.



in one on one conversations, there are lots of pauses, especially if two people don't know each other yet and the flow is yet to be established. but ten people in a room all having nothing to say at the same time? how can this be? somewhere, somebody with vital thoughts to pass on the world passed away withhout the chance to speak their piece. and this weekend, for a half an hour, the silence screamed.



i've been reveling in my non-work state. i'm been computer mia. incredible i know. but once memorial day is over and the craziness subsides, i will be back to regularly scheduled programming. just unpaid this time.

men will date all types of women, but marry only a few: the high school sweetheart (the jejune joint crush that never matures or gets old); the trophy/sexual obsession (a possession he never truly possesses); the organizer (or human palm pilot); the audience (she flatters! she ego-boosts!); the nurturer (three squares a day); and the collaborator (the intellectual/creative rival and/or equal). each man's priorities are different. most of us don't know what we're looking for until we find it, then have to have to unlearn all the things we thought we wanted.





saying "i love you" is the heisenberg of relationships. the act of observing the thing changes the thing being observed. the woman says, "i love you" and hthe man is immediately forced to reexamine his feelings. suddenly, he's calibrating, considering, reconsidering...it pushed him one way or the other. but what women don't undersand or expect is that they're as likely to push him away as get an "i love you, too." in the dance of courtship, the game is to seem complete, problem-free. whoever cracks first loses. the winner gets the power position.

-cad: confessions of a toxic bachelor-

one trick pony. you get a puppy. cutest little thing the world. people look at it and go "hey, a puppy!" cooing and petting ensue. invariably, the puppy does things that are destructive, yet endearing because anything a puppy does is cute. bite you? cute. poop on the floor? cute. rip up your shoes? cute. sleep on your face? cute. puppy woof at the slightest provaction? cute. then, as the puppy grows up and you start to get over the cuteness of it all, you wish it was trained. every time it poops on the carpet or rips stuff up you say "bad doggie, bad." over time, all those things that were done by the cute puppy become annoying when done by a dog.



and this is my picture perfect analogy to what happens when all those endearing things you used to like about a significant other become the most annoying things on earth. she sings obscure pop songs under her breath? references clairol commercials? bites your ring finger in mock aggression? pretends to use another name when answering the phone? gives you the dirty look from across the room? all these things were acceptable and cute when you liked her. but as the feelings fade away, the first thing that annoy you are the things that you associate with her.



then she says "but you used to like it when i spanked your soul and laughed at my own jokes, what happened?" that is the death knell of any relationship. you. used. to. once anyone uses those words, you know you are already living in the past and you have no future. pull the plug right there. you have jumped the relationship shark, with flying colors and a triple sowcow. why does this happen? why do you hate all the things that were cute before? the answer is: because it was only cute when you liked her but it's not really that cute at all. the fog of love(war) shields our eyes from things that would normally be annoying. ask your friends, they know. "isn't it cute when abigail mispronounces every word over three syllables?" "actually man, it's not cute at all, it's very annoying." you write your friends off as just not knowing anything. four months later you are leading the charge toward secession, wielding lines like, "man, i hate it when she mispronounces big words, it makes her look so stupid."



ah, this is the way with love. it's biological in nature i'm sure, as everything is. first we are chemically induced to be attracted to anything. then when we want/need to emotionally disengage, another chemical pumps into our cerebrums, causing us to hate all that we liked before, making it easier to detach. this chemical is known as "sanity," otherwise marketed generically as "bitterness." and that's all i have to say about that.

the big unit. so i'm starting to read this book, cad: confessions of a toxic bachelor. the book is about what it sounds like it's about. pretty self explanatory. despite having only flipped through and indulged in a few chapters, i have already found many ideas that need to be blogged about. in some ways, this book is pure genius, if a bit tedious at times. but prepare for an onslaught of cad related blog topics this week. i'm setting the table with a preview of what's to come so that you can know what to skip until you're really really bored at work next week.



today: the reference train.

tomorrow: why the quirks that we love most about person in the beginning of a relationship become the things that are the most annoying at the end. everything loses its cuteness, even you.

friday: empty spot for one more mass appealing topic. we'll call it "surprise."

monday: i don't work anymore. expect me to be by a beach, reveling in my good fortune. feel free to call me and i'll try to give you a few seconds of the waves crashing.

i won't even remember what day it is anymore after monday. glory be.



in the book, as they are writing down the pros and cons of a particular bachelorette, they mention that she cannot "ride the train." she is apparently unable to keep up her end of the conversation as it jumps from topic to topic and reference to reference. maybe you start at your trip to france, then jump to the art of the louvre, from there you go to the da vinci code, and then to the state of the bookstore and other recent number one best sellers. then you transition swiftly onto the olsen twins, dropping hints about their birthday being last week. then you go on to breast implants and their effect on men (none, i've researched this, not personally of course). how far along the ride did she come? was she able to keep up with all the connections?



i also took the reference train to mean something else. how well she/he can pick up and zing back comments, usually witty -- since dull comments do not zing. i have no good examples of this, but you'll know it when you see it.



also, the reference train might be a way to test to see how much a person knows about a certain topic. or how much they are actually into something when they say "oh i like that." so if you drop a side comment about "tribe", does she know that you are talking about tribe called quest? or she says something about "wasn't dmx part of that group?" and you can just dump her right then and there. when you talk about cars does she say "hubcap" or "that shiny wheel thingie"? this is a very important way to ride the train. in fact, it's the most fun and arguably, the most useful. you need to know what other people know, so by dropping a few crumbs for them, you can see how much they can pick up.



my favorite example of this is when girls are like "yeah, i love basketball (insert any sport)." and then you have to test that knowledge right? to see if they are into it or if they are just saying that to try to curry some man favor points. you say, "well, who's your favorite team?" they say, "the lakers rock, woo hoo!" and you say "yeah how bout that game the other night? you watch that? man, that walton kid is amazing." now comes the moment of truth. if she responds with (a) yes he is (b) who is walton? (c) yeah but kobe really was the star, you know that she isn't a true fan. the only correct answer to this question is (d) "well, walton has great court sense but he didn't even get off the bench last game, although he was pretty clutch in game three." or some variation on that.



it hurts me to see people talking about things that they really have no idea about, and pretending like they do. it actually physically hurts. like i ache for them and the day when they will look like utter fools.



this method is also useful for knowing how much a person really wants to talk about a certain topic. if they say they like snowboarding but they can't differentiate between heel and toe, it's probably best to assume that they aren't as into it as they would like you to believe.



so, that is the "reference train." learn it, love it, since i will be using it. possibly a lot.

just blaze. in reading accounts of war and seeing re-enactments, i'm always surprised by how neat and orderly everything is. at least in the "olden" days. people used to be able to sit on nearby hills and picnic while watching a battle. what a way to spend your sunday afternoon. "wow, did you see that guy just get ripped? pass the peas please." you know the part where the generals or kings go out in front of the armies and talk a little bit? exchange some cut downs, offer diplomacy, sling some bravado, that kind of thing. i'm always thinking, why do they not pull out their guns and just kill the opposing general right there? sure it's dirty and underhanded but it's war! anything is fair in love and war right? i think the label of ultimate cheater would be a small one if the payout was the death of the enemy's general. who's with me?



and look at how neatly the armies stack up. everyone in nice (alphabetical?) rows, ready to charge at each other -- the front ranks pretty much consigning themselves to instantaneous death. it's quite a way to conduct warfare. when the british and the europeans attacked america, it was due partly to the extensive guerilla warfare employed by the native americans that enabled them to overcome superior forces. the british armies would just walk around in nice big clumps and then get ambushed by the shadow melding indians. i am no expert on military history so excuse me if my knowledge is gleaned mostly from films. but i feel like this is such a weird way to wage combat. my army volleys, your army volleys, charge. it's too fair, too organized. it's like a sport with rules and boundaries. i'm surprised there are no referees for this type of thing.



i understand of course that civilized warfare with mercy, honor, and compassion is good for both sides. but if one side has nothing to lose, why not go for the proverbial kick in the balls? why fall gracefully and surrender when you can play dirty? and it just seems ridiculous to have a meeting place and a time to "wage war". at sunrise, by the community fields, you bring your army, i'll bring mine. and then they retire at night to regroup, to heal, to re-strategize. it's like a time out. why not just keep fighting until all the men on one side surrender? it's just so odd. a terrible thing like war waged in such a straight jacket conservative manner.



in world war one, the machine gun gave the germans an overwhelming advantage. they just sat there and mowed down the approaching allied forces. at one battle, if i recall correctly, five hundred thousand men died. i imagine thousands of men running right towards the entrenched german army, getting efficiently threshed by the multiple machine guns. after a few hundred thousand casualties, wouldn't you think somebody would say "ok, let's try something different, let's not rush them from the front, it doesn't seem to be working."



i must know nothing about military tactics and strategy since i can't see why two forces would so diplomatically wage war. luckily, technology gave us bombs and weapons of mass destruction and laser targeting to eliminate this need for face to face combat. now we can play as dirty as we want.

i just can't give'em no satisfaction. my co-worker walked in today with flaming red hair. she is a new hire and i guess with job in hand she's ready to let her personality be expressed via a bottle of hair ink. as far as i know, nobody has commented on it at all. i wonder if we are all just studiously ignoring her hair and saying nothing about it. i know i am. it's kind of mean in a way. i mean, don't people dye their hair for a reason? to make this dramatic change? to get noticed? sure the hair dye is probably mostly for them and they like it but i'm sure some of change is for the inquiries that it'll bring. usually i like to stay on top of things like this, keeping a sharp eye out for new shoes, haircuts, purses, clothing, jewelry. i'm just naturally attuned to these things, call it a gift.



but sometimes you just have to ignore it. like how flaming red hair is such a dramatic change that you don't even need to comment on it. like if i walked in with implants, what is there really to say? short of "hum, nice jugs". but i think part of the issue i have with the whole thing is how much pleasure it would bring to someone if i did mention how different they looked. if i feel like they are doing it just to get some attention, i would ignore the change completely. but if i feel like they did it just to do it and mostly for them, i'd be sure to comment and ask away. of course this really just goes back to how much attention a certain person is hoping to buy with their "new" thing, once i figure that out through assumptions and judgement calls on their character, i like to go ahead and do the opposite of whatever it is that they're are looking for. it's my way of sticking it to the man.

if anything the (friends) cast's somewhat lined faces have stood like a kind of testament to the dream of the show: no matter how old you get, your life can still revolve around hanging out with your friends.



my mom is always telling me, especially as i come up in years and supposed maturity, that at some point my friends will outpace me (have they not already?) and that i will be left behind. mainly this talk revolves around marriage and career. the career one is obvious to her. who would want to hang out with an unemployed waif at the tender age of forty? nobody that's who, at least in her eyes. people will gravitate towards those who have the same interests and concerns as themselves. who will be able to relate to my empty bank account when they are discussing trips to the caymans and mutual bonds?



along the same line of reasoning is the case for getting married. "when all your friends are married, what will you do? will you go hang out with them? they won't have the inclination or the time." this is the most convincing argument i have ever heard for getting married. after all, why not do what all your friends do? i mean, getting left behind must be the worst thing of all. i've talked to some people who get the same warnings from their moms. the "your friends will leave you when they get married" talk. i'm not sure what the purpose of this talk is, except to illustrate how out of touch moms' might be, at least my mom. even if my friends' all get married, they'll still welcome me with open arms right? i mean, i can always crash on the couch like always right? even if the floor is littered with playco plastic toys and gooey shit from last week? won't a friend for life always still be there even when they have a wife? i just rhymed, it's not easy.



the truth of the matter is, moms' know best. they always do. don't we look back on some of our high school friends and go "what losers, they haven't changed a bit". isn't this what will happen if you extrapolate life a few more steps down the road? doesn't the "maturity" gap just get bigger and bigger? does anyone fear being left behind when your peer group is getting married and having kids? will their talk of gerber plastic packs not relate to your talk of budweiser six packs? are we judged by what we can accomplish in relation to what our friends' are doing? will the focus of our lives turn inevitably towards family and children? instead of what are we doing this weekend? i think it will. the question is, do i care? or are there always more friends to find in loserville usa?



do some people, as part of their drive to be married, just want to be able to grow old with someone? anyone? can this friend-centric life can't forever? logically and traditionally, it can't because at some point the road forks too much and you have to walk alone or with a singular partner. somewhere along the line, people won't be able to just drop by and visit or have you drop by and visit without it feeling like an intrusion into their lives. do you concur?



but the real fiction (and true appeal) of friends is not the size of the apartment or the sex appeal of the stars so much as the much-missed, oft-lamented characteristic of dormlife: people drop by.

move bitch, get out the way. having been exposed today -- by the mle -- to a contest of tremendous insight and hilarity, i have been inspired to make my own. how do you compete with your friends without a scoring system? it's impossible. so i propose my scoring method for the "bitch list game". even if you don't know how to play, you know how to play. everyone, step right up. the highly coveted position of head bitch is always up for grabs so what better way to level the playing field than to have an objective standardized scoring system so that the fans at home can follow along? brilliance comes in many packages but bitches only come like this. cue the music mr dj, it's time to party.



this is how it works. each month, you sit down with all your favorite friends and go over the transgressions of the past four weeks. anyone and everyone is invited to the session but only the boys are given points. girls are useful in this forum because they lend perspective and have elephantine memories. remember, these examples are just guidelines, feel free to add your own.



(1) - the disappearing phone call is worth one point. the phone rings, owner of cell phone exits the room, two hours later, he emerges. one point. a point is also assessed if the number of calls from one girl matches or exceeds three within a two hour time frame. entertainment points are awarded for how quickly the guy jumps to snatch his phone. one point is also awarded if conversations are inevitably steered toward the direction of the girl in question. the first time is okay, the second time is not. the third time, nobody's even listening to you anymore. nothing is more annoying than hearing about how processed cheese suddenly relates to "her". one point is assessed for each "arrrgh" of frustration uttered when bad things are happening between the two of you. "arrrrghs" can also be "what do i do!" or some similar phrase. going out of the way to pick a girl up, bitch count one. going over three hundred miles out of the way to give a girl a ride, we can pretty much stop the game at this point. you take high honors. when you are beckoned (via look, finger, or yelling) and you go, one point.



(2) - planning to go meet up with your boys, you get sidetracked and can't meet up due to girl drama. score two. actually go out with your boys but ignore them, and all other friends, all night long in pursuit of women, count the bucket. also applies to shirking responsibilities in order to see a girl. if one of your friends has to pick up the slack for you because of some girl related distraction, two points. boy meets girl on friday night, boy disappears for the week, dropping off the face of the planet, not returning phone calls or emails. deuce. being emotionally unstable and sad because you can't see the object of your affection? despite fun events going on right around you? bucket. going somewhere (like a club) just because your girl might/will be there? two more. if she tells you to not do something and you don't do it, two points. example: she says, stop talking to those girls and you stop. score two for the home team.



(3) - all of your friends go out -- be it special occasion or just a boys night out -- and you stay in to do something chick flicky. three points. bringing your girl to an occassion that is strictly not meant for them, thus ruining the all guy vibe and dynamic, three points. being caught in a place you would never normally be (a ballet perhaps? this depends on the male in question), only because she wants you to go? three for spree. threes pointers are reserved for those special bitch moves that just cause everybody else to go "i cannot believe he's ditching out on us right now, what the hell?"



the "and one" rule. a special two point case is made when a guy is sitting around waiting for the girl to decide what to do. his plans are left on hold while he is left on hold. this kind of wishy washiness is two points. however, there is a foul shot opportunity here. if he ends up going out with the guys (due to whatever reason), he only gets two points. if the girl suddenly makes up her mind and he goes running off to her with tongue wagging, we have what is known as the "and one" situation. score two for the bucket, one for the foul, three points total.



far and away rule. every time you go visit somebody, say over fifty miles away, that's one point. each consequetive time you do that? it's exponential. you've driven to mexico three times to see your girl? that's one point, two points, four points.



the tuck rule. "oh ooh. when you finally make an appearance with your buddies because you and your girl got in a tiff." this one is from the lil'ho. worth two.



the multiplier. say you just did a bitch move, but you don't want anybody to know. so you lie about it, or keep it hidden. suddenly, it is revealed that you went to go do something girl-related when you had told everybody else that you were "just tired and going home". this multiplies all of your points that week by two. you will get more bitch points for lying because we do not reward liars here. kills the integrity of the game.



coming tomorrow, the "how good of a boyfriend are you" test. actually girls, you can just use this bitch scoring system to figure out how good of a boyfriend he is. this system is reversible. amazing.

panzerfaust. how often have you ever told anybody what you think of them? like really really think of them. for me, probably never. it's not about telling them the truth, or telling them what they want to hear, or avoiding things that might hurt them. telling someone everything you think about them is a very hard thing to do. for one, you have to give them some time in your mind to process what you think about them as an entity. then you have to actually articulate this in a precise manner. then you have to have the opportunity, the interest (by them), and the balls to go ahead and say everything. i've never done this. there are probably tons of things i think about people that never make it past my cranium.



why is this? shouldn't friends, good friends, be able to tell each other anything? wouldn't it be supremely interesting to hear what people had to say about you with no holds barred? maybe people avoid this because it seems somewhat egotistical, to assume that someone has thoughts about you that they would want to share. maybe people avoid it because they fear the bad things that they might hear -- some might fear the good. i think i have maybe one or two friends that speak to me with little or no inhibitions. i value them quite a bit. but even if they say something negative or somewhat hurtful that i don't agree with, it's easy to say "oh, they don't know me all that well", since i don't see them very much in my daily existence. it's too easy to dismiss. sometimes though, they are dead on right, and i'm stunned by how much they perceive just through our conversations.



if we had to draw up charts of friends' strengths and weaknesses, would we be surprised by what received back? would it be better if this process was anonymous? or do we need the context provided by knowing which friend said what, to properly process things for ourselves? i think i'd prefer context over anonymity. i think that most people know how others perceive/receive them. but there are always little things that you miss, sometimes huge big things. for example, if i told a good friend, "so listen, i just don't trust you, i think you have some meglomania in ya", wouldn't that be interesting for them to hear? or would it be more interesting if they already know?



what role, what price, should be people's feelings?



i must work on a character sheet -- aptly named "listen up motherfucker" -- that will empower us to tear each other down. with no building back up since positive feedback is for middle management managers and highly overrated.

end of an era. i am the biggest supporter of blogger out there. the original blogger, not just the act of blogging. i have stayed true to it despite the whizbang technology of other programs. it was the first, it was the best, it had t-shirts and bags. it was the application that became the term, like google or kleenex or xerox. and now it's changed. and although my loyalty does not waver, my hands do. i don't know where to go on the new interface, it's too much. too many tabs, too many buttons. in streamlining the site they made it more confusing. sure, a beginner can sign up for a blogger in fewer steps but who cares if actually writing and publishing blogs are so much harder?



i like the new design i guess, it is kind of pretty and clean. i like the fatty icons and the art -- although i'm not sure why everything has to be so damn big like reader's digest, nobody here is blind, most bloggers are teenage girls who see just fine thanks. i like the neat statistics about your blog and how many posts you've had. i'm not sure i like the whole profile page addition, but i don't see that impacting anything anyway. i do however, love the new templates and how much better they look than any of the old stock ones. there's some neat new html tags to play with. i like the optional title and link fields. i like the ability to preview. i think i like the ability to upload a file (haven't used it yet). i like how they finally have a commenting system -- although making you have to sign up to post, or to post as "anonymous", is so xanga (ie. retarded) so i'm sticking with my old system. i guess after reading through everything about the makeover, blogger does have more features and is empirically better.



but somehow i feel like i came home to a girlfriend who just got implants and i'm staring at them and kind of afraid of them and going "why honey? you were beautiful before..."



i tried to give the new interface some time to grow on me. i gave it forty eight hours, two whole days. that's more of a chance than i give to most humans. but i've decided i just don't like it. they took her natural beauty and ravaged it with too much makeup. there are too many windows and clicky things you have to navigate through. try writing an entry, posting it, and then going back to republish it. in-between you have to go to the page where they show you the "percentage published" with the flashing icon. do i really need this? just leave me on my page and tell me when it's done publishing, save me a click through. i also feel like the whole page loads slower, and the server is suddenly getting weird and i can't log out of different accounts. annoying.



but maybe they'll fix a few things and everything will be perfect again. even with this drastic upheaval, i have no thoughts of turning my back on blogger, after all, i am the king of committment, through thick and through thin. till death or computer crashing do we part.

martinet. there are a few things that a guy must do when in pursuit of a woman. these things include opening doors, using polite language, never calling her a bitch, return phone calls in a somewhat timely manner, make an effort. girls, if these are not any of the traits exhibited by your man in waiting, you need to let him go. even if he is devastatingly attractive. as much as i'm a big proponent of a woman taking the reins and driving an interest or dating relationship along, the guy is, in my opinion, responsible for making the initial foray into the wilderness.



he should call first. he should attempt to meet up first. he should be the one who goes out of the way to hang out especially if distance or scheduling is an issue. the girl's only job is to reciprocate, at least at the beginning. call me backward, call me a bitch, call me right. there are some things that guys just have to do. the number one worry for a girl when a guy is pursuing her is "is he interested?" she shouldn't be the one chasing after him trying to get the answer. he should come to her with his intentions clearly spelled out, even if it's in cryptic handwriting. i'm not saying men need to show their cards, but they need to be the ones making the effort.



this is even more true if he's the one who contacted her or got her number/email/aim/lame -- any guy who asks for an aim is to me, too retarded to bother wasting time with, unless it just comes up in conversation or it's on a friend tip. it may be a bit too victorian of me to suggest that the men need to woo the women, however, there is something to be said for the guy doing his part to let her know that he is interested. of course, if the girl wants to do all this work, that's fine and preferable, but if she doesn't, she shouldn't have to. there's no need to take the idea of equality this far. same applies to guys who refuse to pay for a date's meal. get off the high horse, pay for the meal asshole. it's an investment.



i would recommend to all female friends of mine to not waste any time on a guy who says "come drive two hours to visit me". they had better come visit you and come with good intentions in hand too. otherwise, back to the pool you go little fishy. there are too many men in the pool to bother with the ill mannered ones.



of course, in times of desperation, all rules go out the window. as we know.

fastball special. when you have a good group of guy friends, they should be effective at making you look good. i've heard stories of guy friends who try to harm each other's chances with females. this is no good. why hang out with guys who are dragging your "game" down? you need guy friends who will swing conversations and activities into areas that you are good at. for example, i might say "richard, tell me about that time you saved the three cats plus the truckload of firemen, with just one functioning arm". predictably, the girl will be impressed and ask for the story. if the guy in question is a worthless mute, a real friend might even take control and tell the story for him, spicing up the tale as he sees fit.



another popular way to enhance your friend's appeal to a random girl is to highlight their talents. "billy, show me that trick with your ears again, it's so unique and cool". this one has worked many a time. if she seems like she might be impressed by intelligence? try this. "so last week, when you lent me that book on superior calculus, can you explain to me that part about transgressional equations?" this is done knowing full well that your friend has never opened a math book in his uneducated life. the proper way for him to swing the bat is to reply with "oh, that aquatic equestrian? that was so elemental, i don't want to board you with that now, i'll suck you later". the girl will be aflutter, trust me.



this is best when played by a group of guys, making for a "wing band". every time i observe this phenomenon happening, i find it so funny. actually, it's funniest when someone in particular does it, but i won't name any names here. in general, this game is most fun when you can make fun of the guy afterwards about it, or reminisce later with the girl about how well she was set up. and then ask her if it worked so that you can improve your efforts the next time around.



girl friends can also get into the game by pulling the target girl aside in the bathroom and saying blatant lies like "vladamir is so great! if only he would like me, he would be the perfect boyfriend! plus he's great with his mom (in bed)!" it never hurts to have the other side working for you. remember, lying will get you everywhere you want to go, especially if it's a collective effort.



a very related helpful tip for girls who read this humble love manual: never believe or trust anything that a guy's friends will tell you. don't be sucked into thinking that he's cool and sweet just because all his friends say that. they are just trying to get rid of dead weight by hoisting him onto you. the ever popular "wow, i can just tell how special he thinks you are by the way he looks at you" line is not to be believed either. everyone is lying: him, his friends, his friendster profile, everything is a lie.



don't hate me for exposing the greatest of guy secrets. i'm just trying to save lives and prevent whiny disaster fires.

man down! as i was watching gilmore girls yesterday, i couldn't shake the feeling that the characters and the dialogue were somehow too smart, too biting, too witty and too sarcastic. there was not a normal person in sight. every character was sarcastic with a capital sarcas, even the fruit delivery guy. what world is this? i've never heard normal everyday conversation like this. nobody talks this way. certain individuals of course, but everyone? impossible. that made it a bit unreal to me. the references to pop culture, books and general trends were really just too well done. nobody is this good.



christina will lambast me for this (for even comparing gilmore to dawson's) but it was the same feeling i got watching dawson's creek. "kids don't talk like this!" and with gilmore it was like "people don't talk like this!"



the way to penetrate my lonely soul is by sarcasm. lots of it. scathing sarcasm followed by pauses for silent moments of "wow, that was good". or sarcasm so swift that it goes over everybody's head except for one or two people. that's the best. they say that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach but as you all can see, the food that goes into me is quickly processed and shat out the other end with no nutritonal value left behind to sustain me. so thus, i have to derive protein from sarcasm and the occasional 90% saturated fat ice cream.



if only i could assemble a sarcastic dream team of sorts. then we could engage in pointless sarcastic banter all the live long day. actually, half of my all star sarcastic dream team lives right here in san diego. and the others, excepting one, are in california. so really amit, when are you moving here? however, i feel like all that sarcasm could get to be a bit much -- like hanging out at a comedian convention -- so you need a few straight men. there are no straight men on gilmore girls (or straight women), leaving it to be a big imaginary bubble of all out sarcasm, all the time. it takes some getting used to.



the only gripe that i have with gilmore girls is it's distinct lack of eye candy. it kind of prevents me from really getting into the show. somehow, pre-pubescent girls and mommy figures are not enough for me. i need semi-hot chicks to really keep my attention. see? i'm a guy. really.



there's nothing so winsome to me as a properly placed sarcastic remark. my dream woman would cut me down at every opportunity, in a biting witty manner. oh wait, all women cut me down at every opportunity, albeit very directly and not so jocularly. so close to the dream, yet so far away. i think i'd take banter and witty repartee over actual conversation any day of the week, wouldn't you? dry humor is also a huge plus, although i possess none of it. send your dry sarcastic friends my way please.

...i trickled back for more punishment during the chandler-monica thing, became repulsed as chandler turned into a whipped, emasculated parody of himself (it's bad enough dealing with friends like this in real life, isn't it?)



there are certain codes that guys live by. there are three codes that supercede all others.

here they are:

(1) you can't be attracted to your buddy's sister.

(2) you can't be attracted to your buddy's girlfriend.

(3) you can't be attracted to your buddy's ex-girlfriend if he had genuine feelings for her.

-the sports guy on "friends"-

clarion call. at work there are certain areas that you can go and certain areas that you can not go. this involves no doors or passes of any kind. you just know. you start to learn. do not park here. do not eat lunch here. do not take your cigarette breaks along this route. do not go into the lab and expect to be welcomed. it's just a thing. it's similar to grade school when you didn't have assigned seats but after a month or so, everybody sat in the same place. then one day, a brave soul would try to switch their seat and the previous owner would get all huffy. "hey, you're in my seat." "i don't see your name here." "i always sit in that seat, right next to dre and nelson. c'mon, get out." "we don't have assigned seats, you go sit over there." "i'm warning you, get out now." no movement. so the booted person is forced to take another seat -- due to the teacher coming in -- and so begin the glares and spit ball wars. spit balls are numero uno disgusting by the way. whoever invented such things should get their tongues cut out. an eye for an eye the good book said.



if at work, i tried to move my car into a spot that i don't normally park in, i imagine that something like a spit ball war would ensue. right now i park at the farthest end of the lot. partly because i'm always late, partly because i nap at lunch and don't want co-workers to see me. funny story. i used to drive my car around the block to sleep. i thought, in my normal outwit myself manner, that this would prevent co-workers from knowing where i went during lunch. one day i'm lying there, ac blasting, radio on, windows rolled down, i happen to sit up. hi maintenance guys walking by my window. i'm just sleeping here, twenty yards away from the office, you know, just because. i gave a small wave and tried to maintain my cool. i felt very sheepish inside. even as i projected my exterior lion. they waved back and walked on by. after that unfortunate encounter, i never tried to hide my car or my napping again. i felt so stupid and wrong. however, i did find out that the maintenance men nap in the wherehouse on occassion, and that they maybe conduct secret rendezvous-es with lovers. so really, my transgressions are oh so slight.



but the point is that people in the office have certain places that they park, certain places they eat, certain routes they go on for walks. take off too early during a break, walk too slowly, you might be in no man's land -- faced with the backsides of the quality assurance girls and the approaching danger that is the computer guy. what is an administrative assistant to do? sometimes i get surprised by co-workers coming around the bush and i'm forced to do the slight smile, head nod, walk on by move. i hate that move.



i can always tell when my boss' are in or not. they park in the same spots, all the time. right in front of the building. nobody parks in their spots even though they are usually the last ones to arrive. one of these days, in a final act of insubordination, i'll park in one of their spots and see what happens. and then i'll jam the copier with one gazillion pieces of loose leaf paper. and then i'll send long distance faxes to outer space, in an effort to contact my people. i'm not bitter. i didn't even touch her.



this is what they mean by "the culture of the office". know where you step boy, know where you step.

so drink this through your pointed teeth and critique it. in looking for new careers, i think i've found one i might like. it will start like this. someone will put out a product -- a film, a cd, a book, a restaurant, a child, whatever. someone will be paid to review it and thus attempt to direct public attention towards or away from the product. i will then come swooping in and be paid vast sums of money to review the reviews. i will be the watchdog that makes sure the reviewers are being honest and fair. in this manner, i won't actually have to disseminate or analyze any new information -- since i am wholly incapable of doing this intelligently. all i have to do is gather all the reviews and then make a few useful comments about them. i'd sort of be like a rotten tomato. this would be a very useful service because people can just come to me for a consensus review of a product, as well as ask me my opinion on the trustworthiness of certain reviewers. isn't it great?



and once people start reviewing me and my reviews, i will just go over the top of them and start reviewing them and their reviews of me! this job will be similar to the world's oldest profession in that you just can't ever run out of targets. now, what would this position be called? nothing as simple as "reviewer of reviews" i'm sure. i'm thinking maybe my business card should say "review amalgamator" or "aggregate reviewer", either of which would be nice. maybe just "the final word." although that is already a tv show i think. i might need to go with something more original. then again, the whole point of this particular job is that i don't have to be original at all. i can just piggyback on the works of others.



i'm so brilliant sometimes i (confuse) amuse (only) myself.

chuck klosterman wrote a piece for esquire magazine this month in which he described the difference between a nemesis (a hated, but close friend) and an archenemy. the key point in determining whether someone represents an archenemy is as such:



"the satisfaction you feel from your own successes pales in comparison to the despair you feel at this person's triumphs, even if those triumphs are completely unrelated to your life."

despite klosterman's hairy-chested prose, this collection is more than a mensa edition of maxim magazine. "the lady or the tiger," his essay on the metaphysics of breakfast cereal, is a clever parsing of what coolness is all about. he notes that most advertisements for kids' breakfast cereals rely heavily on the tantalus myth: the cocoa puffs bird has been driven "coo-coo" by his unfulfillable dream of digging into a bowl of chocolatey goodness. then there is that silly rabbit, whose peculiar pathology cannot admit the a priori fact that trix are for kids, or the faintly homoerotic obsession barney rubble has with fred flintsone's forbidden fruity pebbles. "they're the first step to indoctrination of future hipsters," writes klosterman. "cereal commercials teach us that anything desirable is exclusionary."



he hits here on "exclusionary cool," the device subcultures rely on, mostly through various signifiers -- purple mohawks, hot pants, split tongues, neil young's discography. these are designed to separate the cool from the uncool, and to cultivate the psychology of belonging to a club. and it all starts with the most important meal of the day.

it's a traveshamockery! how do girls do it? how do they wear tight ass clothes and not feel weird? specifically pants. isn't it constraining? i'm trying to imagine a thin piece of cloth that hugs every curve on your body. ugh. that must be very uncomfortable. i guess i can sort of relate to wearing a tight top or something (tube perhaps?), since guys can wear tight t-shirts or muscle shirts sometimes. but pants that cling? how does that work? i feel like ride up would be a problem. and sitting down and walking/running from mall store to mall store, or dancing even. is there some secret to wearing tight pants that i am not aware of? should i go consult my FOB brothers? should they make super tight pants for guys the way they make fake baby stomachs, so that guys can know what women go through?



and for girls, everything is mad tight so on display all the time -- not a huge complaint -- but doesn't that just feel weird? imagine being a girl who wears baggy clothes as a youth, only to transition to tight ass clothes later. it must be a shock. the body must wonder what it did wrong to deserve lifetime imprisonment. what would the world be like if all humans, male and female, were clad in spandex tight clothes? scary right? i guess the system is fine the way it is. thank heavens -- for you gentle reader -- that my knees, thighs, arms, body in general, are never exposed to the outside world. people might drop dead.

ten things you will like about me. when walking around, people should really carry a list of the most interesting talking points about themselves. like a paper-based profile page, a physical, friendster to go if you will. you meet someone, you exchange lists, politely turn away from each other to read them, then engage in conversation. "oh i see here that you mountain climb, tell me about that. oh! we both like little bo peep? that's so cool!" this would really cut out the idle chatter and skip the whole fishing around for interesting things to connect on part of the conversation. and if nothing really interests you about them, you can give the profile page back and say "thanks, it was really nice meeting you, best of luck with your animal mutilation hobby, please, don't call me to hang out."



and notice how sometimes, in sometimes conversations, you have to giftwrap something to talk about? something that you know the other person just has to ask you about? you are essentially providing them with an irresistible hook from which to set up a conversation bite. "and last week, me and my twin sister went to a wedding." i know that by slipping in the fact that i have a twin sister, the other person will probably ask about her and i'm inviting them to do it. and i'm oh so ready to present the asker with my stock answers to questions like "how far apart were you born? who's older? are you close? are you guys identical? are you telepathic? was it fun to have a twin? do you look alike? is she single and available?" i've answered these questions many times in my life, i'm ready to go there, it's effortless. by using this method properly, in a see saw manner, you enable an exchange of information -- as well as experience the joy that must come from "getting to know" someone. it's also a good way to kill a few minutes and useful in delaying the delivery of the essential "i'll be right back, i have to use the bathroom" line.



sometimes, when i'm feeling particularly feisty and very evil knievel, i purposely avoid the hook just to see if they'll try to re-hook me. "and last year i rappelled mt everest!" "um, that's nice, hand me the salt please? how do you like your french fries?" by totally sidestepping the obvious hook, i am able to amuse myself by seeing if they will somehow bring it back up again. "so, this stairmaster exercise is really similar to my experiences RAPPELLING DOWN MT EVEREST." okay already, i'll ask about everest, shit. some people try too hard.



most times you talk to people, you are pretty much trying to present your more interesting side anyway, trying to subtly (or not so subtly) work in facts about yourself. why not just cut to the chase and present a type written, well organized list? streamline the process. this would be a major breakthrough in modern day communication don't you think? you can also put down -- in small print and under a red fonted heading of "caution" -- a list of things that you do not want to talk about or items that stand a high chance of offending you. "i am not comfortable discussing bodily functions, only talk about these things if you have a good joke. thank you." or "i am easily offended by comments that disparage the mentally challenged, i have an uncle who is retarded so please watch what you say." we cannot wait around for love to make the world a better place. we must pin our hopes on, and utilize, advance scouting and a comprehensive system of information exchange.



hell, we might as well go all out and add testimonials too. it would be really affirming (not to mention intriguing) to know that the person i'm talking to is "the hottest little biznitch in san diego", or that i am currently engaged in talks with "the absolute essence of masculine diva-dom". it would be good for down times too since you could just look at your little laminated card whenever you are sad and be reminded that you are loved by all. even if your friends only said nice things in an effort to troll for reciprocally nice comments.



is this not the greatest idea since lusting after unrequited loves? i'll make my card if you guys make yours and we can start to better the world right now. vive le revolution.

eliza 3.0. i have a friend who likes to think of herself as a "cyber girl". no, she is not a techno punk skating around on suped up roller blades, with wires flying out of her cranium, ready to hack into the nearest computer. she is instead, semi-jokingly convinced that she is everyone's preferred internet female of choice. she is also not a porn star by the way. sickos. as a cyber girl, she is "better" online than in person. more vibrant, more interesting, more engaging, more everything. regardless of whether this is true or not in this particular case (it's not true), it's kind of interesting.



what if somebody is really interesting via text, aims and emails? but loses all semblance of excitement as a flesh and blood person? i would generally think that people who write interestingly would be interesting in real life. but this is probably not the case. maybe a person is shy, maybe they stutter, maybe they tic nervously, whatever it is, the online persona translates much more effectively than the real one. by taking away the social exchange vibe and the physical distractions, you get to just concentrate on people's words. yet another reason to retreat to the world of text-based information exchange.



assertion numero fifty three: nobody can be boring on aim, nobody. if you are, ouch. i mean c'mon, you get time to fully prepare your responses and you can research anything relevant on google. the only boring aim-ers are the slow typers, those kill me. type f.a.s.t.e.r. learn to type, it's good for you. it's even given me the secretarial career that i have today! i'm done griping.



is this lying or misrepresenting yourself? should we strive to be the same online as we are offlline? then again, that ruins part of the appeal of the internet. i remember when chatrooms first became popular and the biggest thing was you could pretend to be a thirteen year old girl and talk to people and "teehee" and "heehee" through your conversations. i never did this, i just watched. honest. people in the chatrooms would ask "age/gender/location" all the time and you could say anything you wanted. a giant game of pretend, that was the internet. but now, people are all trying to establish authenticity, presenting their personalities online with icons and fonts and colors and "who am i" pages. strange how that works. all this work put into separating yourself from the bland html masses. "generic webpage layout? heavens no!" it's like a blade of grass standing (on tippy toes) among the other billion blades of grass screaming "look at me! i'm different!" i guess in this respect the internet mirrors real life most accurately. we all just want to be convinced of our uniqueness.



is it wrong that i feel like i can oftentimes find out more about a person in three minutes of web browsing than in three hours of actual conversation? (secret embedded message to jon g, i found this site with your 13-ish year old picture on it, made my day. i will refrain from posting it, because you might hurt me.) if you have a good web prescence i've probably already googled you and found random tidbits about your other lives you don't tell me about. it's a hobby, it's a fascination, it's a sickness, i google people for kicks okay? what do you want me to do? feel bad about it?



invariably, if you blog stalk as much as i do, you have to wonder what these people you are reading about are really like. are they disappointing? cooler than cool? are they just as funny? funnier? socially inept? what are they? even reading friends' blogs, you get this sense of "hum, totally didn't know any of this about them. why does this never come up?" this is why i prefer to follow blogs that don't really detail what people do -- because really, i don't care what my friends do -- but what they thought about due to a certain event or what they think period. stories are always good too. the "i made my three pm fedex deadline today" blogs do nothing for me.



back to cyber girl/guy-dom. actually, i have nothing left to say on the subject. but i'm compiling a list of cyber girl/guy-isms. "how to tell if your friends think you are more fun electronically." number one: they avoid physical interaction with you but always part with the words "i'll see you online!" number two: when you hear this a lot, "no no, don't call me, write me an email." number three: when someone always says "so, what'd you blog about today?" before asking you a normal question.



there must be more to this list but i'm still working on it. i'll try the rest on you in person, unless you want me to give you the email version instead. bastards.

this past weekend we judged a random someone, somewhat favorably, by her use of the word "predisposed" in conversation and mid-sentence. are we too easily impressed, setting our expectations too low, or on a high horse and full of it? when did i become an asshole?



don't answer that.

infultrated!! this is a new post. i'm not anachronic. i'm someone different and i'm here to shed some different light on the subject of blogs. for years and years i've read, watched, followed mr hyperwest here. and now i've infultrated. i decided to come strong and give the most boring, mispelled, and unreadable blog the world has ever known. yes i am the anti-bloggar. notice that after this intro i will type what i had for breakfast, why my black shoes are my favorite, and how much anger i have towards that red light on main street. blogs around the world have been suffering from my disease, but this blog. no this blog, has withstood the test of time, however today, the first month of may, i have found my arch nemesis's weakness and decided to take full advantage....



beweare, be very weare.



"so today i had mcdonalds for lunch. i hate how they look at you when you're deciding. like you've memorized the menu or something. i hate ronald mcdonald, he was in a few of my early child hood nightmares. and grimace, what's up with him? he's like a pansy oscar the grouch. horrible. then i drove home, it was cool cause i rolled the window down and put my arm out the window, but a stupid bug hit me on the arm while i was on the freeway. sucks. luckily i had some extra mcdonalds napkins in my pocket, so i wiped what i could of the beetle like remains. yuk.



since it was saturday (still is saturday) i took a nap. i love naps cause you just sleep. and sleeping makes me feel so much better than when i'm at work, like a normal weekday. i'm on a tangent, but that's ok.



i don't know what to do today. my car is dirty and my hair needs to get cut. what do i do? why don't you leave a comment and tell me, the comments with the most votes will win, and i'll go and do that thing, you know, car wash, or hair cut. and then you'll waste 10more minutes (if you read slow like me) reading about my experience doing those things! well that's all for now! go lakers!"



muhahahha anachronic = infultrated!