Classification

Part of my job would be to classify risk. We do risk profiling and base on the risks, we try to rate them off. This usually works well for most cases. There are some cases whereby you don't know how to classify the risk, which baskets to place them in. That's where it gets tricky.

On a personal life basis, I always had and still have the bad? habit of trying to classify people. The more I can't classify them, the more intrigue I'll be and the more fascinated and harder I'll try.

I'm not sure if this habit of mine has been intensified due to my job.

I would say that this is a gift, skill that i've learnt well. (apart from people lying to me about their age) But I'm starting to think that this shouldn't be applied to everyone. Maybe I'm making life hard for myself in wanting to do this classification for everyone. Really, right or wrong, won't make a difference if the person's not going to stay and will disappear soon enough.

In my quest to classify them, sometimes I give them multiple roles. Ie: Sex,Friend,Potential. Maybe the best way to go about it would be to have everyone a singular role. I believe most people do that except me.

Mr Stability

Here comes a new character, Mr L. Which is totally the opposite of Mr Fuckalicious. Mr L as the title suggest is really good for a long(er) term relationship. He's really husband material. Stability, Commitment, Practical. All the virtues one would want to find for a relationship. Add in that cause Mr L, flies for a living, there's so much more individual space. That comes as an added bonus.

But anything long term requires stability, and that lacks the unpredictable excitement, the adrenaline rush. The honeymoon period of being forlorn prolly only lasted half a month. It's been only 3 months, though it seem a bit longer than that.

At the end of the day, the problem is this: you can bring the boy out of the party, but you can't bring the party out of the boy.

I've given up settling down for many years now. It just doesn't seem that possible/realistic. Maybe it's an evasion of potential problems that i decide to back down from the start. But 1 school of thought is that you shldn't live your life like that. It's not living everyday to the fullest. The other however, is why jump into something you fully know won't work out eventually?

Mr Fuckalicious

I have to return to blogging for this entry as it has been quite an experience. I haven got fucked (in more ways than 1) by a guy for a really long time. And amnesia seems to be occuring as the numbers on the cake keep jumping. It's good to keep a written record.

Mr S, as he shall be known. (S isn't taken up and does repesent him well). Raunchy details I will not go into. But it has been a long time since anyone made me that insecure. And I realize subsequently from the conversations I had with him. I was trying to quantify myself every sentance.

Its weird how I'm being bugged by language of all things. People will be bugged by more practical/realistic things like when will I see him again, if he likes me. Things along those lines.

It bugged me so badly I sought some advice.


What i wrote to was:

(boy induced) but i think the way i speaks kind of lack confident. its the way the sentence is constructed. Been bothered for 2 days. I can only think of 1 example off hand right now

I'll say: technically speaking. I'm the most sober person.
He'll say: i'm the most sober person.

The first 2 words seem to make a lot of difference?

Another example: I think u'll find that i'm quite a good friend and you'll recommmend me to anyone suitable VS I know u'll find that i'm quite a good friend and you'll recommmend me to anyone suitable

and when i think about it now, it seems like i'm trying to justify myself, that my opinion is quantified.


The technical answer I got was this:

I suck at sociolinguistics, so i found this: "A qualifier is a word or phrase that changed how absolute, certain or generalized a statement is."
In your two examples (plus more in your msg - you used three qualifiers in your first two sentences alone!), the qualifiers are those of certainty.
so, yes - in statements asserting your opinions, you self-qualify, and that suggests:- uncertainty; - a desire to please; - looking for an escape route because you're unable to prove/defend your statement if and when challenged.

in your first example, "technically speaking" suggests the speaker is being (pre-emptively) defensive, just in case their statement is challenged by somebody. "technically speaking" is the escape route. the second example is all mixed messages! while it's true that "i know" is more assertive than "i think", again, the relative qualifier "quite" suggests the anticipation of a challenge to one's assertion. otoh, what can be inferred from both sentences in the second example is some self-confidence in one's ability to be so good a friend as to warrant another's recommendation.

But after mulling over it for a while. I decided to fuck it all. I'm going to talk the way I talk, which call it the most insecure manner of talking, if you like (but oxymoron, I have to be quite confident to talk in the most insecure manner, or I'm just really foolish to not/refuse to learn) I would however talk from it, the need to be more concious to change to speaking in a more assertive, confident manner when i deal with people who will help/influence/affect my carrer. However again, this doesn't really apply to my current situation, as office is quite a causal, informal setting. The benefits of being assertive will not have a much greater impact than if I didn't use such language.