Minutes To Another Meeting

The word ‘shagable’ was used too often over the course of a conversational session that lasted nearly 4 hours. I feel sleepy now. But it was fun to catch up and have good food and in my case, hot chocolate :P

Pictures of recent travels were shown (I want that pony!) and ahem, interesting experiences were shared. Which was risky, knowing how we only need to tell ‘the guy with the 3-storey syndrome (long story but has something to do with ‘deafness’. He lives in a 2-storey home now though) ‘ for it to become part of the gang’s gospel truth (with added spice) and oral history to be repeated almost every time we meet. :P

A topic of conversation was how I do not usually name people I’m referring to. I mean I have nicknames for almost everyone : the library girl, ‘panjang’, the carpark girl (don’t ask), the employer (not an employer in the true sense), the tiny girl, ‘si kerdil’, the PKM (Parti Komunis Malaysia or Pergilah Kau Mampus or an unspeakable Malay/Hokkien curse word for the said individual depending on my level of disgust with him), the leggy one, et cetera. Do you want to know what nickname I have for you? :P They wonder why I use it. Well, it makes reference easier ie where I met the person, which I would have related earlier.

And on the ladder theory, well we couldn’t agree on my disagreement of the theory. Well, admittedly males are very visual beings, but that does not mean when I say a girl is intelligent, witty, well-read, insightful, or kind the girl must be not attractive physically. It really means (well, in that particular instance) she has substance and a charming personality and her looks isn’t really important in my description of she because the qualities I mentioned are so overwhelmingly strong. And it was asserted that being male, I will probably be very good friends with her but wanting nothing more, on the basis that I did not mention her good looks while describing her, thus implying that she isn’t attractive physically by my standards.

Also, it was noted that how happy a liaison can get and whether you should take the risk to start something depends on the objectives of the relationship in the first place. Someone says it’s really 3 aims, emotionally, physically and intellectually. However, I find that more often than not, the objectives can’t be kept separate and what starts as one item usually ends up with a whole load of other baggage, in the heat of it all the objective(s) gets blurred and changed. And even when one does find all 3 elements in an individual and it is mutual, it can still fail miserably. I’m not sure what that extra ingredient is, but I know it when I need to cross the bridge, or not.

And to the camel-chaser : ahem, that phone number/emai/blog address/whatever information please? :P Yes, I can be obsessive. I'm that bored.