Life at home

...and?

I'm generally a cheerleader for people who want an attachment, to find an attachment. If it's Kicky, or you, or Lash, or whomever.

Yes, a person who has lived in several countries and has shared interests (littlek has long talked about her interest in string theory) and is attractive and -- this is the most important part -- who for whatever combination of reasons not contained in a single sentence causes someone to swoon... sounds promising.

He turned out not to be, but I don't think it's as predictable as you seem to think. I served on the "screening" (it wasn't called that) committee for several prospective members of the housing co-op I lived in, and the deepest, most incisive questions and attempts to plumb the depths did not always keep out the total idiots. Then there were the ones who barely passed who turned out to be absolutely fabulous. (And others who didn't pass who may have been fabulous, who knows.) Living together is intense, and it's hard to predict who will and won't work out.

(Oh, more stuff while I was typing, I was responding to this.)

yep, soz, i know, but nimh is gone. delivered his sermon and now is gone. again. :wink:

nimh, you're one of my most favorite people here, but i don't deal with the high moral ground, talking down to people, extremely well. there are different ways of doing it. you did admit this is personal to you. that would perhaps have been a better starting ground (explanation) rather than telling people they are shallow and depressing. you know, the "I" lense instead of "you" lense. Whatever, that's just a communication aside. I did get what you're saying. But it took me a few rereads and I admit getting a bit upset the first few times I read it, before I understoon your main point.

i know i'm guilty of the same, in much grander and uglier proportions, towards him, so i can't say all that much. Though I intensely dislike him, and he's not on this board (no excuse).

Everyone judges people, and are "shallow" to some extent...for littlek and dag to initially talk about him being good looking & very intelligent, so what?

I definitely "discriminate" when looking for roommates/tenants, I'm looking for a younger/professional type I think is going to pay the bills ok. As far as women being good looking I could honestly care less. Since I rent by the room, I just don't want to rent to circus freaks, which will turn off other potentials.

I said I'd be out of here and I kept my promise; didnt post here for, what, a year?

As soon as you made a decision on how to deal with the situation (dont ask him to leave, but dont stop bitching about him either; or to put it in your perspective, bitch about him here in order to be able to let him stay), I knew I didnt have much to contribute.. Well, you know why, because I said what I thought at the time. It struck me as sort of passive agressive, the thing that some women do that some men, like eh, me, dont .. hhmm .. have a generous helping of patience for. Mars, Venus, whatever.

(Here, I'm trying to put it as non-forcefully as I can without becoming dishonest. :wink: )

So, I'm out of here until 'bout a year later I'm following around your or littlek's posts, because they're usually interesting, and see it said here that (my rephrasing), we only took him because we had no choice, we were unenthusiastic... 'k, so that stuck in my craw because I remember how y'all were raving about him because he was at MIT, a scientist, good-looking.

OK, now as for how I put it. I see that it upset you, and that you are saying that I "lectured on your morals", "delivered a sermon", and "talked down to people from the high moral ground".

Also, you say I should have used "the "I" lense instead of "you" lense".

OK. So I just reread my post. This was the full extent of my own commenting there:

[size=10]I remember I got mighty annoyed at how you two were talking about these guys. Found it depressing, the shallowness of it. So if it [i]is[/i] still the same guy I'm gonna have a hell of a time not saying "I told you so." Also, if it is still him I guess you shoulda taken Margo's advice and asked the wabbit to check him out beforehand :wink: [..] There's a lesson in there somewhere. [/size]

That's it.

OK, here's what I see.

a) I did use the "I" lense right from the start. I remember how I got mighty annoyed at how you two were talking, at the time ... that I found it depressing ... Its all about how it came across to me. Just my reaction to it.

b) The whole post I think has exactly one craw-sticking quality sentence: "(I) found it depressing, the shallowness of it." That's "lecturing", "delivering a sermon", and "talking down to people from the high moral ground"? <raises eyebrow>

(Uhm... <cough> "putting things a little too forcefully" <cough> :wink:)

If thats a "sermon", Church services should be very short...

well, why shouldn't it be a plus if he was a scientist and handsome? should i favor ugly and uneducated people? or purposefully become blind?

so that part i don't agree with.

passive aggressive- yup, very much so. as i said many times, we are guilty of that. but if you've read along (i presume not), you'll also know that vast majority of issues raised here were also repeatedly discussed with him.

and, again. it wasn't so much the content of your post (i got it in the end) as the manner in which it has been delivered.

well, nimh, you shared your feelings, i shared mine.


Perhaps i should have expressed it more clearly. Yes, you used the word "I".... but your explanation of why you felt how you felt came in the end, not in the beginning... So I did have a feeling of being talked down to. Take it or leave it, that was my feeling.

I guess, just to express it clearly and then i'm dropping it for good:

1) I found it depressing and shallow.

2) I found it depressing and shallow because I ...(whatever you said at the end... imagined being judged on these grounds... whatever you want to use to condition it).

That would have made the difference. Their both statements, but first one comes across as judgmental. And perhaps it is. I can't tell.

In any case I DID read it as if it was in the second variant in the end, doing the footwork on my own. Just sharing my impressions, fully related to communication, not contents. I do assume you did not intend to insult us, and that is why I did the footwork, that's all i'm saying.

errr.... i only agreed with the first part above. Just noticed the second.... Now, let me be non-forceful yet honest, too... Women=passive aggressive, Men=not? For real? I know quite a few passive aggressive men myself. Women, too...but the gender thing...tsk tsk nimh.

and you said my reaction was overworded, and I thought yours was <shrugs>


Fair enough. <nods>


Yeah yeah, I know.. its a cliche, a stereotype.. fo sure there's lots of passive agressive men. Lots.

Just that - OK, so there was this situation where you decided to stick with him, and eventually told people here, basically, stop telling us how we could still change flatmates or ask him to leave or whatever - we've decided to just bear it, but the only way we can do that is by bitching about him here, so we need you to just be here to sympathise, kinda.

And allright, I think that kind of thing - I mean, that kind of situation - I dunno. That does seem to be a - uhmm - ok, the kind of decision you see more women make than men, in general, exceptions excepted. And men, on average, being pretty notoriously inept in tolerating that ("either do something about it already, or stop bitching about it!")

Its this whole, you know - she comes with a problem she has at work or, especially, with a friend, and moans to him, and he goes, "well why dont you just?", and starts thinking up practical solutions, and she gets all frustrated because she doesnt want a solution, all she wanted was to vent, and he gets all impatient listening to the same complaints over and again when he thinks well do something about it then! That stuff. There's times that roles are reversed, but in general its such standard men/women miscommunication fodder, you heard your exasperated friends about it, read it in the advice column, seen it discussed on Oprah, whatever. So yeah, not like - every man, every woman - and I actually hated that Mars/Venus book - but there's some things...

I know you didn't mean every man and every woman, but still. I just don't see the gender thing. I don't see that it would be a particularly female thing. I could be wrong, but going over 'life' evidence - people in my life - I just don't see that. That we (kris and I) are guilty of that here - that I readily admitted many times. In real life- less so. We communicate pretty directly with him. It gets harsh at times, since he wishes to be told Everything. But it works some of the times (unfortunately less often than with most people. He has the 'right to forget' as he puts it... Nevermind - haha, this is precisely the bitching you don't want to hear I'm sure, so enuff said.)

I get that you dislike our approach. Well, that happens. I have some regrets, but not many. We won't agree on everything and that makes life worthwhile and interesting. (well, not this thread...i mean, in general... )

Geez, you two are still arguing!?!?

kris, give dag a couple stiff drinks, just to calm her down a bit.

I seriously can not take too much more of her whining.

Actually, it's her gin, I'm just drinking it...... she's not here anyway.

Apparently the gin is having an effect on your comprehension.

Is it?

Yes.

arguing? no, i don't think we were arguing.

oh..... ok.