Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

You know what else bugs me? Perforated edges that don't rip. Yeah.

Excellent. I went out and bought some books for some light spring reading. All of them were recommendations by other people and most of them were under $10... except for The Curious Incident of the Dog at Night Time, which for some reason was priced at a comical $19.95. This book better be as life-altering as Courtney claims it to be.

I can't believe it. The first day back and I'm already bored out of my mind. I should go buy some books to read. I do have a short book list that is supposed to keep me occupied on weekends when there's little to do. The giant party at Hamilton was fun though. I got to see Karen. Soon, I'll run out of fingers on which to count the number of times we've met.

It takes 4-5 hours to bus from NYC to Washington DC. That's not even including the time it would take me to get from Monticello NY to NYC, which is something like 2 hours.

Ha! New revelation. Todd was incorrect in his depiction of the term gallivant. For those of you not familiar with this exchange, permit me to rehash it:

“And here we are, gallivanting towards Karen’s dormitory” – Jon Wong
“God Jon, we’re not gallivanting! We’re just walking. If we were gallivanting, we’d be doing this” – Todd (who then proceeds to prance about demonstrating his interpretation of the term “gallivant”)

Todd's demonstration of gallivant was in fact, a demonstration of the term "romp," which I also use on a frequent basis. To romp means to frolic in a lively or boisterous manner. Gallivant, in point of fact, means to wander aimlessly in search of pleasure. That's right.

I use the two terms interchangeably but for accuracy's sake, Todd's demonstration was that of romping, not gallivanting.

P.S. Michael Genin is drunk of his face and singing.

I've thought of a way to describe my cognitive processes during any night of heavy drinking. I always remember everything that happened, including everything I did, but I can never remember my rationale for doing them. All I know is that I have a rationale behind everything I do while drunk... and these reasons are perfectly clear to me while I'm in the aforementioned drunken stupor. But wake up the next morning and while I remember the events, I can never remember the rationale behind them.

Hmm. Coffee as laxative. Interesting...

This is by far the best exchange ever from Overheard @ Queen's:

Girl 1: I was reading about Jack the Ripper and now I can't sleep.
Girl 2: He's dead, you're safe, go to sleep.
Girl 1: But how do you know? He could come after me and murder me!
Girl 2: I'm pretty sure he only killed prostitutes in England. Have you had sex for money recently?
Girl 1: Well, [boyfriend] took me out for dinner, and I'm pretty sure we had sex the night before...
Girl 2: I think you're safe.
Girl 1: I miss the days when Pluto was a planet.
Girl 2: Would Pluto the planet have saved you from the deceased Jack the Ripper, who lived across the world from here and only killed hookers?
Girl 1: Yes! Its orbit had grand effects on the world.
Girl 2: I think it still orbits, regardless of whether or not it's technically a planet.
Girl 1: The fact that it's not a planet anymore made it sad and threw its orbit off.

Priceless.

Another weirdo thing I noticed about myself. A lot of people drink coffee because they say it helps them stay awake and stuff right? I mean, that's generally proven to be true. If that's the case, I must be some sort of freak. Coffee has the following effects on me:

1. I drink coffee because I like the taste, not for its effects
2. I always need to go the bathroom really soon, really badly after a cup of coffee
3. Instead of waking me up, coffee makes me tired, drains my energy, and kills my appetite

So I must be a freak. It's the only explanation. I would never drink coffee as a wake-up beverage because it has the exact opposite effect on me. I drink it because I like the taste.

Also, I've realized that I really don't like the fact that my window faces west. It messes up my biological clock because my room is brightest during sunset and darkest in the morning. I think windows facing east are much better suited because your room is brighest in the morning, and after noon, as the day winds down, your room gets darker. But with the window facing west, you wake up and it's dark. After noon, it gradually gets brighter even though the day is ending. It completely throws me off. Yeah.

Most of you can probably guess correctly that the one of the reasons why our keyboard is set up the way it is (QWERTYUIOP along the top, ASDFGHJKL along the middle, and ZXCVBNM along the bottom) is because that permutation of letters means that as many words as possible can be spelt with alternating hands, assuming you type with the right fingers on the keyboard. However, did you all know that there are three long words that are typed completely with the left or right hand? Stewardesses, lollipop, and monopoly only utilize one hand if you type properly. I assume that they sacrificed the convinience of these three words in order to make all other words easier to type quickly.

My apologies to Lewis Carroll for butchering your name. It did it on my Victorian Lit exam too and didn't realize my error until I got my English-department shirt today with your quotation on it.

"Life may not be great... but it's definitely worth living"
-- Justin G.

Wow, I've read "motivateus" as mo-ti-va-teus for the last... 5 years without realizing that it's actually motivate-us. God, I can be an imbicile sometimes. By the way, speaking of which. How would you all pronounce this word:

Unionized

So who read it as union-ized? Makes sense right?

How about un-ionized? Yeah, normally only the chemistry geeks get it.

Woke up this morning to find that it was snowing! It wasn't really what I wanted to see on the morning of my english exam though. See, t'was 0 degrees outside and naturally, snow that falls at 0 degrees is wet. Kingston, being an old city, has a terrible drainage system so naturally, the city was flooded. I managed to get to my exam with minimal damage though. My exam was out of 280 marks and the first question was to choose 16 out of 21 ID questions. That's right. 16 out of 21. Not 15 out of 20 because that would have been too normal for Prof Bongie. He's a funny guy, but sometimes I think he's mad as a hatter. Ironically, we talked about the Mad Hatter since it was written by Lewis Carrol, who is a Victorian literature author. Did you all know that Carrol was high on opium when he wrote that book? Explains a lot doesn't it.

Whoopie. My computer crashed today. The entired interface got wiped out. This will be fun.

Oh yeah... it's Friday the 13th. Maybe that's why.

Don't mind me. I think I'm just pissed at the world for some reason.

"We lost a couple of ball games we shouldn't have lost... but you know, you take heart in the fact that they were all close losses you know? 1 run ball games. 5-6, 4-5, 8-9, that sort of thing"
-- John Gibbons

What? Since when does losing all your ball games by 1 run indicate that it's something you should take heart in? Ok, admittedly, it doesn't look good when you get destroyed 12-3 or something like that, but you know what 1-run ball games tell me? That your team chokes. If it was ahead but lost by 1 run, it means that your pitchers choke and can't lock down anything close. If you came from behind but lost by 1 run, it means that your offense chokes and can't really produce when it counts. Either way, your team doesn't coordinate. Ergo, your team sucks. Yeah, that's right I said it. Sometimes, I hate being a Jays fan. They're amazingly good at getting fans hyped up about a season before it starts but come game time, BAM. They better win the World Series within the next 3 years. I think Toronto sports teams generally suck balls. When was the last time we won anything? Even the one time I watched the Toronto lacrosse team, they got shallacked 15-2 or something.

"I feel small in this picture... and I look like a total idiot"
"When do you not?"
-- Underneath a picture

Possibly the most entertaining response to the common "I look like an idiot" comment under many facebook pictures. I am going to use that from now on for anyone who says "I look like an idiot" under a picture. Be warned.

If you're going to fall in love with a physical trait, love the eyes; it's the only part of them that never grows old.

Look! Two rants in two days. Ok, this isn't really a rant but another debate that came up today. This has to deal with bringing "uninvited guests" to an occasion. I'm going to try to use all hypothetical situations here so any resemblance to events, places, or persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental. I just don't want to have to say "guy 1" and "guy 3".

Situation 1:
So let's say I've arranged to hang out with Omair, David, Grant, and Denise. 10 minutes before the agreed time, Denise calls and suddenly asks if she can bring her boyfriend (in this hypothetical situation, Denise has a boyfriend). What's wrong with this situation?

I don't think it's a good idea to randomly introduce someone new into an already established group of friends, especially if you're not the one who's organizing or hosting. It's just unfair on everyone else because a. now everyone's sorta under this obligation to "behave" around a guest, b. you may have inadvertedly messed up the host(ess)'s plans, and c. you gave no indication of this when the planning actually took place and in fact, did not until 10 minutes before the event.

Situation 2:
Let's say I'm arranging a reunion of sorts. Grant, David, Omair, Elaine, Karen, etc. Assume that you all know each other and are on friendly terms. Actually, let's say we all went to high school together and we've been talking about having a reunion and I go about organizing it. Because I'm stressed or something, I forget to invite Omair. Obviously, since we're all friends and it's a reunion and everything, it just slipped my mind. I go over the guest list with David and he notices that Omair's name is not on the list. He doesn't say anything, even though he knows Omair's probably supposed to be on that guest list. Doesn't mention anything to me, or Omair, even if he sees either of us before the reunion. At the reunion, it suddenly hits me that Omair's not there and I lament about the mistake. David hears me and says "yeah, I noticed he was on the list and I thought it was weird. I even saw him yesterday too but my policy is that I don't invite people unless I'm the host." Again, what's wrong with this situation?

Both situations are on the polar extremes of the normally hazy topic of bringing people that aren't on a supposed guest list. I actually know people on both polar extremes. I have a situation 1 friend who just doesn't take into account where she's going, who she's going with, or whatever. She'll just call 10 minutes before and ask "is it ok if xyz comes?" xyz could be her boyfriend, or simply a friend we don't know. Regardless, she's one-minded that way. She believes that everyone can mingle since everyone will technically know her and the social atmosphere will be just fine for it.

I also have a situation 2 friend who is an absolute prude about inviting people who haven't otherwise been invited, regardless of the situation, even if it's just a friend who in fact is already good friends with the people who are at the event. Both situations amount to this. There are people who just don't know how to use social discretion, either in one way or another. They're either unaware that such thing as social discretion exists (situation 1) or they just so wary of accidentally making the wrong social discretion that they choose not to practice it at all (situation 2), even in blatantly obvious situations such as the one I've described above.

In between of course, is an enormous range of possibilities. Like the first time Grant came up to Queen's, obviously he didn't know anyone but I wanted to show him around you know. Can you imagine if I was a situation 2 person and I was like, "sorry... you can't meet my friends in the Doorbell Room cause you know, they're the host of all the parties and since you don't know them and all... I guess you can't go". Sounds ridiculous right? See, it all depends on the social context and I agree, it's a completely hazy and sometime arbitrary practice. But that's exactly what it is! A practice. I mean, sure you might screw up once or twice but you gotta experiment and the more you do it, the more you understand what types of social situations call for what actions. Situation 1 people can ended up placing others in very awkward situations sometimes cause of course, no one wants to say "Actually... we don't want your friend here because this event is for a specific purpose". Situation 2 people can end up causing some of their friends to miss out on events that quite simply don't have such restrictions.

It's a fine line sometimes I agree, but to be blunt, you're going to be a social retard if you stick to either being completely oblivious to, or completely aloof of social situations.

Ok, this has come to a head and I am addressing it right now as a rant. First, a disclaimer because I so love these things in order to not offend my non-existent readers. David, I will use you as an example to move into my point but this post is in no way directed *at* you... rather, you have provided a good springboard. Ok, now that that's done, here we go.

Messages such as this: "We must do something you slut" bother me. Not coming from David particularly, per se, because obviously we've known each other for awhile and it was obviously not meant to be derogatory. But I have a problem with the principle and this is something Grant and I discussed at McMaster a few months ago. Somewhere along the line, it became a trend... a norm that the fact of knowing someone well meant that you were allowed to insult them and address them with such terms as "loser," "slut," "retard," etc. Why? Well, it became a sign of intimacy somehow; a display of familiarity because where we would be offended if some random person called us a "loser," we're not likely to take offense if someone we know used the same term cause we're "buddies" and all. Right?

What? Since when did it become ok to refer to other people by derogatory terms as a sign of familiarity? I understand the principle behind it, i.e. that when you're close, you can do these things and no offence is taken as proof of your friendship... but I completely disagree with this principle. Is Queen's the only place where this trend *hasn't* caught on? The trend at Queen's seems to be that familiarity entitles you to use flamboyantly endearing terms you would not otherwise use with other people because it would seem weird. Now, I'm not completely in favor of the Queen's trend because the terms, "I absolutely love/adore xyz" are tossed around as a sign of familarity... which makes it harder to discern between feelings of friendship and feelings of affection. But still, I think I prefer the Queen's system.

I'm putting a new spin on "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Beauty is in the eye of the movie they're in. I'm talking celebrity-wise and this came up in a discussion I had just under an hour ago with some friends. The following are actresses whom I had seen before, but absolutely and unequivocally did not find attractive until I saw them in that particular movie:

Christina Ricci - Anything Else
Scarlett Johansson - The Island
Jessica Alba - Fantastic 4
Nicole Kidman - Moulin Rouge
Naomi Watts - King Kong
Elisha Cuthburt - The Girl Next Door

See, Linda says that she can look at a poster of a girl and find her attractive (Linda likes to flaunt her attraction to the female figure sometimes). I don't think I can in the same way. Sure, there are some celebrities that I think are hot generally even without having seen them in anything (read: Katie Holmes) but it turns out that I guess I need to see someone in a role before I can actually say with confidence that she's not hot. Natelie Portman's a good example. Despite all her really good roles in really good movies, I just don't find her physically attractive.

I'm sure you all enjoyed reading that cause you had nothing better to do.

Movies about high school/college kids doing stuff that results in hilarity frequently make me chuckle thoroughly... but rarely make any lasting impression on my mind. In other words, while I enjoy a good comedy flick, I rarely actually like them to the point where I would recommend them to other people. Why? Cause they're a ton of comedy movies that'll all probably make you laugh. The first comedy I ever saw that made a remotely lasting impression on me was Van Wilder (possibly because it was seen under comical circumstances). My list of recommendable comedy films includes I think... Love Actually, Eurotrip, and The Girl Next Door. I don't really count Anything Else as a comedy despite its comical nature. I'm not even sure Love Actually falls into the category. While Love Actually I think can be billed as a comedy, it's not a prototypical comic movie, which is what I'm talking about here.

Oh yes, I've also seen She's The Man... which is memorable, like Van Wilder, partly because it was seen under comical circumstances including casual face breakage and Grant thinking that some guy's last name was "fuckman". I wouldn't really see She's The Man again though.