So, yes, I've been pretty silent lately. But don't feel *too* neglected. I've been silent to just about everyone. I've been so sick that getting to work takes a huge effort. Which makes collapsing when I get home and resting up over the weekend my new "old" way of life.
It's now old because I've changed which office I work out of. I feel tons better already. Coincidence? Hmmm.
But, unfortunately, part of the drama of the old job followed me to work at the end of the day today. My former deskmate has a habit of misunderstanding everything. I kid you not. So, when I was being told what she believed my now-former managers said regarding my previous work, I didn't quite believe what she said. Many times I've caught her--not in a lie, mind you--in misrepresenting the truth. Well, it's HER truth, maybe, but nowhere close to actual life. But, unfortunately after our short phone conversation, I was then misrepresented to said now-former managers. Now everyone's mad and/or crying. Okay, for once I'm not the one allegedly crying. And I'm frustrated, surely.
Tomorrow will be interesting. What do you do when you really can't believe anything someone says? It is quite like she's the end part of the game of gossip, but she should have a better grasp on what people actually say. It's possible that she hears only some things...and none of them good. Really, how can my encouraging her in her new position (my recent one) lead to her telling others that I'm not going to help!?! What I said was she already knew how to do the job and don't worry, you can do this. She heard that I wasn't going to orient her on the particular complexities of my clients. Not true. And my past managers should KNOW that about me. When have I ever left anyone in the lurch? I, who on being let go from a past company, was asked to stay on two extra weeks so I could train the next person. When that next person didn't want training I then wrote up detailed instructions and made them obvious to follow. That's the kind of person I am. Not: Later, Losers!
I am incredibly grateful that I'm at the new office. I explained the situation to my new manager who is going to smooth over the situation (hopefully) with my past team. I wonder how long it will take them to understand that everything this person says must be taken with a salt lick? Really, a grain is far too little.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Out of tCeOxNt
When you don't have all the information, it's easy to jump to conclusions which have no basis in fact. Because we tend to see the world through our own filter, we make assumptions all the time about why people do the things they do or say what they say, etc. Someone decided that all caps is yelling. YOU CAN SEE WHY WHEN YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS: IT SEEMS THAT WHAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND MAYBE LOUD. It also can be annoying. Don't worry, I'm not actually yelling. In fact, if you believe I am, that is your perception. I was using it as an example and you didn't actually hear me. I promise.
The more we move into an electronic age of instant communication, the easier it is to misunderstand the messages we send. Since I like to write, my texts are often long and (hopefully) grammatically correct, except for the occasional slang. I actually type something like "too funny" or "that made me laugh!" - not LOL. And this is how I usually express that I don't know or care or whatever: <shrug>. I like it much better than IDK. Also, a shrug can convey so much more than the phrase "I don't know."
And because I'm wordy; when I receive brief replies of one or two words, I imagine that the person on the other end is perhaps angry or annoyed. That's because *I* get quiet when I'm mad. But, if the responder is a guy, well, they typically use less words a day than women do. Men are used to being brief. I don't know how to be. So, somehow I have to stop thinking that briefness equals anger. It probably means someone's a neat, concise thinker.
I want you to realize that anything, ANYthing, can be taken out of context. The media is quite good at it. I've learned how to read the movie reviews. If they use a major network's minor affiliate's critique, then they had to go down pretty far to get a good review...somewhere. They can also lift phrases from a larger, probably negative critique, like so: "I tried hard to find something to like in this dreck that is trying to pass as good cinema, but the best movie of the year it's not" can become "...the best movie of the year...."
This happens in politics as well. Instead of opponents actually explaining where they stand on issues (which, if they were honest, may not get them enough votes to win so they have to be vague or risk actually getting a firm base with people who agree with their policies and opinions), mostly they get to the point of pulling things out of context and using them in an inflammatory manner to do that old muckraking shtick. How the media decides to use these tactics actually shows their bias. For, if they are just reporting facts only, which in themselves can be subjective by which tidbits they choose to share, it is when they purposely choose a phrase or topic without the rest of the sentence or speech that causes sensationalism and probably contributes to the success of the person they are not defaming. And win them more viewers/readers/listeners who dislike the candidates having the proverbial mud flung at them.
So, yes, when you don't tend to speak to people face to face, where you can see what they're expressing physically or actually hear the tone of their voice, it is way to easy to misunderstand them. Perhaps some people think I'm preachy. However, how would they know that I'm really trying to use a wry wit? Or that I make amusing faces when I'm writing? Or the way I dramatically emphasize certain things when I read something out loud to see if it makes sense?
Context: don't be out of it on purpose. And please talk to people in person. That shouldn't be so rare anymore. We might misunderstand each other less. Notice that I'm not saying that communication will be perfectly understood. How could it be? None of us are perfect and we (thankfully) cannot read each others' minds.
The more we move into an electronic age of instant communication, the easier it is to misunderstand the messages we send. Since I like to write, my texts are often long and (hopefully) grammatically correct, except for the occasional slang. I actually type something like "too funny" or "that made me laugh!" - not LOL. And this is how I usually express that I don't know or care or whatever: <shrug>. I like it much better than IDK. Also, a shrug can convey so much more than the phrase "I don't know."
And because I'm wordy; when I receive brief replies of one or two words, I imagine that the person on the other end is perhaps angry or annoyed. That's because *I* get quiet when I'm mad. But, if the responder is a guy, well, they typically use less words a day than women do. Men are used to being brief. I don't know how to be. So, somehow I have to stop thinking that briefness equals anger. It probably means someone's a neat, concise thinker.
I want you to realize that anything, ANYthing, can be taken out of context. The media is quite good at it. I've learned how to read the movie reviews. If they use a major network's minor affiliate's critique, then they had to go down pretty far to get a good review...somewhere. They can also lift phrases from a larger, probably negative critique, like so: "I tried hard to find something to like in this dreck that is trying to pass as good cinema, but the best movie of the year it's not" can become "...the best movie of the year...."
This happens in politics as well. Instead of opponents actually explaining where they stand on issues (which, if they were honest, may not get them enough votes to win so they have to be vague or risk actually getting a firm base with people who agree with their policies and opinions), mostly they get to the point of pulling things out of context and using them in an inflammatory manner to do that old muckraking shtick. How the media decides to use these tactics actually shows their bias. For, if they are just reporting facts only, which in themselves can be subjective by which tidbits they choose to share, it is when they purposely choose a phrase or topic without the rest of the sentence or speech that causes sensationalism and probably contributes to the success of the person they are not defaming. And win them more viewers/readers/listeners who dislike the candidates having the proverbial mud flung at them.
So, yes, when you don't tend to speak to people face to face, where you can see what they're expressing physically or actually hear the tone of their voice, it is way to easy to misunderstand them. Perhaps some people think I'm preachy. However, how would they know that I'm really trying to use a wry wit? Or that I make amusing faces when I'm writing? Or the way I dramatically emphasize certain things when I read something out loud to see if it makes sense?
Context: don't be out of it on purpose. And please talk to people in person. That shouldn't be so rare anymore. We might misunderstand each other less. Notice that I'm not saying that communication will be perfectly understood. How could it be? None of us are perfect and we (thankfully) cannot read each others' minds.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Thoughts on the Nature of Love
I love my family. Every single one of them. There's not a one I don't cherish or love fiercely. They are mine and I'm keeping them. But I don't love them all the exact same way. How could I? They are not the same person cloned over and over. I was thinking out loud with a friend when I came to this mind-blowing revelation. So, within my family, I have a different type of love for each parent, each sibling, each sibling's spouse, and each of their children. So, right there I have 18 different types of love. And they aren't the only ones I love. I love my friends, co-workers, fellow congregants at church, and don't get me started on cute, furry animals.
And then there are all the people who love *me!* Each one of them loves me a different way than the next person. No one loves me exactly the same. And God loves us all, too! And He loves us as individuals. So, He loves us all differently, too, but I bet it's the same amount for each of us. Just...different. And catered to us personally.
It's like I realized there's this exponential outpouring of love in an infinite manner. The more people you meet and get to know, the more opportunities you have for loving someone new. Isn't that amazing?!?!?
That's all. I just wanted to share my "aha" moment.
And then there are all the people who love *me!* Each one of them loves me a different way than the next person. No one loves me exactly the same. And God loves us all, too! And He loves us as individuals. So, He loves us all differently, too, but I bet it's the same amount for each of us. Just...different. And catered to us personally.
It's like I realized there's this exponential outpouring of love in an infinite manner. The more people you meet and get to know, the more opportunities you have for loving someone new. Isn't that amazing?!?!?
That's all. I just wanted to share my "aha" moment.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
There are More Types of Love Than Can Be Counted By Scientists and Philosophers
When I was meeting new people at the very beginning of my freshman year of college, an older guy (what, 21? 22?) told me that there were two types of women: women you date and women you marry. He told me that I was the kind that you marry and I would do well (marriage-wise) at the university. I had no idea what that meant at the time. I think I've finally figured it out. He was wrong about me getting married in my college years, but I think it's because boys raised in today's world view haven't been taught that principle.
There are women who are fun to date, but you don't/shouldn't take home to mom. These are the girls that are super fun, but have no clear plans for settling down and raising a family. However, since you marry who you date, lots of guys are convincing these oh-so-exciting girls to marry them, start a family, and then watch as she walks away leaving the kids with him and going in search of finding herself. It's possible that she would have been the marriageable-type later, but apparently not at the time she actually made the Commitment.
Those other women, the more dependable-type, the ones that are good at commitment and fidelity and respect, etc., these are the ones that most boys I know avoid like they have some type of highly contagious and easily transmitted disease. Those are the ones that are the best type to marry. *Those* girls. Like me, apparently.
Movies and television have decided that what constitutes compatibility is that first meeting of two people. If there's no "spark," if that initial overwhelming attraction (really, just lust) isn't there, then you're not "right" for each other. What baloney! Malarkey, even. You don't even KNOW that person! They could be a psychopath who just happens to be highly physically attractive. Should that mean that because you both desire each other on your very first impression that that is who you should be with? I don't know about you, but I'd like to find out if the guy I'm dating is actually sane before any major decisions are made. I'm not saying I don't get crushes, because I do, but I also realize that the crush is based on a fantasy. Actual romantic-type love may come later, but never initially. Because it can't. Fictional media doesn't usually portray a slow, yet deeply-felt love very often. Pride & Prejudice (or any Jane Austen book/film, for that matter) is an example of the first impression not being indicative of who is best for one another. But most films don't want to take the time to tell a story of people falling in love over a certain number of months, years, or decades. They like to sell the love-at-first-sight bit. It's easier to write and doesn't have to involve much character development. Or depth. Or plot.
I have rediscovered that I don't do well on dating sites. My picture isn't doctored to make me look like a tan, tall, skinny Barbie-type. Therefore, not a lot of guys message me. I got a bite on Christmas Day, though, by a man twenty years my senior. He could almost be my father. I still think it's creepy. I'm not ready for that age-range yet. He'd have to be STELLAR for me to consider it. And his profile said he might want kids. He'd be almost 80 when his child graduated high school if he fathered one now. I realize that Tony Randall had children late in life, but he's passed away leaving a young wife (50 years younger than him) and two young children behind. That is the risk you take by marrying a much older man.
But I digress. I was the only one of my high school friends to go to college out-of-state. I was told by one of my girlfriends during the summer break after our freshman year that the entire gang (sans myself) had gotten together for dinner one night and the subject turned to me at some point. I guess that the guys in my group of friends shared that they ALL had liked me at one time or another. Every. Single. One. Wait, could that be why I'm facebook friends with all the guys, but not all the girls? Hmmmm.
So, that's why I said in a previous post that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that guys could be in love with me and not even know it. I am the type of girl that guys fall for slowly, incrementally, and mayhaps inevitably. But they have to get to know me, first. Running away or refusing to speak to me will not accomplish that part. But if men don't know about that kind of slow-burn love, how would they even know they were experiencing it until it was too late and I was already out of their lives? Would they consider me a possibility to date if there was no immediate spark? Will one of them take the necessary time to woo me until he finally realizes that he couldn't live without me?
I don't know. But I'm sure I'll find out eventually.
Usually hopeful though occasionally frustrated,
Dee
There are women who are fun to date, but you don't/shouldn't take home to mom. These are the girls that are super fun, but have no clear plans for settling down and raising a family. However, since you marry who you date, lots of guys are convincing these oh-so-exciting girls to marry them, start a family, and then watch as she walks away leaving the kids with him and going in search of finding herself. It's possible that she would have been the marriageable-type later, but apparently not at the time she actually made the Commitment.
Those other women, the more dependable-type, the ones that are good at commitment and fidelity and respect, etc., these are the ones that most boys I know avoid like they have some type of highly contagious and easily transmitted disease. Those are the ones that are the best type to marry. *Those* girls. Like me, apparently.
Movies and television have decided that what constitutes compatibility is that first meeting of two people. If there's no "spark," if that initial overwhelming attraction (really, just lust) isn't there, then you're not "right" for each other. What baloney! Malarkey, even. You don't even KNOW that person! They could be a psychopath who just happens to be highly physically attractive. Should that mean that because you both desire each other on your very first impression that that is who you should be with? I don't know about you, but I'd like to find out if the guy I'm dating is actually sane before any major decisions are made. I'm not saying I don't get crushes, because I do, but I also realize that the crush is based on a fantasy. Actual romantic-type love may come later, but never initially. Because it can't. Fictional media doesn't usually portray a slow, yet deeply-felt love very often. Pride & Prejudice (or any Jane Austen book/film, for that matter) is an example of the first impression not being indicative of who is best for one another. But most films don't want to take the time to tell a story of people falling in love over a certain number of months, years, or decades. They like to sell the love-at-first-sight bit. It's easier to write and doesn't have to involve much character development. Or depth. Or plot.
I have rediscovered that I don't do well on dating sites. My picture isn't doctored to make me look like a tan, tall, skinny Barbie-type. Therefore, not a lot of guys message me. I got a bite on Christmas Day, though, by a man twenty years my senior. He could almost be my father. I still think it's creepy. I'm not ready for that age-range yet. He'd have to be STELLAR for me to consider it. And his profile said he might want kids. He'd be almost 80 when his child graduated high school if he fathered one now. I realize that Tony Randall had children late in life, but he's passed away leaving a young wife (50 years younger than him) and two young children behind. That is the risk you take by marrying a much older man.
But I digress. I was the only one of my high school friends to go to college out-of-state. I was told by one of my girlfriends during the summer break after our freshman year that the entire gang (sans myself) had gotten together for dinner one night and the subject turned to me at some point. I guess that the guys in my group of friends shared that they ALL had liked me at one time or another. Every. Single. One. Wait, could that be why I'm facebook friends with all the guys, but not all the girls? Hmmmm.
So, that's why I said in a previous post that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that guys could be in love with me and not even know it. I am the type of girl that guys fall for slowly, incrementally, and mayhaps inevitably. But they have to get to know me, first. Running away or refusing to speak to me will not accomplish that part. But if men don't know about that kind of slow-burn love, how would they even know they were experiencing it until it was too late and I was already out of their lives? Would they consider me a possibility to date if there was no immediate spark? Will one of them take the necessary time to woo me until he finally realizes that he couldn't live without me?
I don't know. But I'm sure I'll find out eventually.
Usually hopeful though occasionally frustrated,
Dee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)