Hello.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it is to be a friend. I’ve been called out recently on making people feel important, but then not treating them as such. This causes me a lot of confusion, so I’d really like some feedback.
1) I’m very logical. I state what sort of time I have for people, what I’m expecting (if anything), or if winging it seems like a better idea. I request feedback in the same way.
2) I compartmentalize. If I am spending time with you, I’m spending time with you. I will step out if I absolutely have to answer a text, or will do so around you if that’s something we’ve established as being ok. That means when I am not around you, I am doing this for other people, which means I will likely not respond to a text from you immediately.
3) I will always respond to emergencies. I will rarely respond to small talk. That means I have to be informed if it’s an emergency.
4) I do not have my own set of emotions, or at least not ones that I have had any sort of regular access to for a long time, if ever. I empathize extraordinarily well, but this requires me to be around someone. I used to think drinking brought out emotions in me, but I think it just makes me more of an empath.
5) I am busy. I set aside segments of time for people. I seriously did a pie chart the other day of how many hours I spend on which tasks, and showed it to people who thought they weren’t getting a lot of my time. 3 hours a week of hang-out is seriously 15% of my social time.
Basically, this boils down to me being very good at making people feel special. I’m very good at starting friendships, though some are arguing that I’m not good at maintaining them. Because making people feel special is bad? Apparently when you do that, they want to spend time with you, even when you have made it clear you don’t have time. Also, if you make someone other than a close friend feel special, it detracts from them? I don’t get it. So what do I do? Stop making people feel special? Because I’m not good at that.
Serious confusion going on here. Please do give me some advice. Comments are allowed to be anonymous, and are screened. Please do say what you think. If you want it to be responded to and thus publicized, please say as such in comment.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
Well, keeping in mind this is speculation, and based entirely on the few facts you’ve presented, it seems like you’re having trouble with the fact that people tend to characterize their relationships.
Most people don’t view relationships as fully constructed things that only have the features they agree or communicate about, or have a more conservative set of default behaviors. They view relationships as existing in classes, where behaviors or features imply membership in that class, and thus can be expected to have all the characteristics of that class of relationship.
To be extreme, if someone were to go on a date, and engage in extremely intimate behavior, professing love and affection and undying devotion, and then to never speak to that person again, you can expect the abandoned person to be upset, even if no continuing relationship was ever discussed or agreed upon, because we tend to view that sort of behavior as belonging to a class of relationship that implies long association, and continuing behaviors.
Most people I’ve known tend to model their relationships with people on a few different types of friends, family and associates they’ve had, usually in their child or young adulthood, who then become the archetype of the kinds of behaviors they expect in that class of friend.
It sounds like you tend to interact with people in an intensity or in ways that, to them, imply you are a Class A-5 associate, which, for them, implies many other features of friendship/association, but to you has other features. So to them your behavior can seem disappointing, even deceptive, whereas to you, they are presuming upon your association by expecting too much, or the wrong thing.
These kinds of mismatches are quite common, actually, particularly in new social strata. On LiveJournal, for example, people can build up very complex types of relationships, sharing incredibly intimate and complex details and trusting each other, while maintaining that the person has no right to know where you live, or could be expected to loan you five dollars for lunch, things a bland association at an impersonal workplace might allow. Understandably, people have differing intuitive notions of this, which can cause great pain.
Reply or publicize if interesting to you.
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
Thank you, Naj.
Also, yes to brunch soon. Maybe next weekend? We should do somewhere else though, as my and Baron’s new abode is not fully set up.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
Re: speculative and rambling
(Unscreening is fine.)
I also benchmark off how they treat others. Being a mostly hands-off person myself, I know I can come off as cold when I don’t mean to be. I’m also super-busy, and I’ve had people feel that I disliked them due to my Schedule of Doom. Eek. I do a lot of group events when my time is short, but there are people for whom that means that I must not “really” like them. But if I have really limited social time and thirty people to fit in it, sometimes a dinner for ten really is the best I can do. So people who require a lot of consistent one on one time tend to filter themselves out of my social circle when I’m time-crunched. I feel a little guilty about this, but am unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent this. And yes, when everyone thinks that they should be the most highly prioritized, that’s a setup for fail.
As far as asking for time, I default to “invite liberally, take offense conservatively”. I don’t get upset if someone is declining most of my invites; I assume that they’re busy like I am. Unfortunately, this means that if they are deliberately avoiding me, it takes me like ten declined invites to clue in. Ah well. I still maintain that overall it saves me angst.
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)
speculative and rambling
Perhaps people misunderstand initially (or are uncertain and hopeful about) what it means for you to regard them as special, and what sort of friendship that will lead to? Different people are differently effusive, and I do notice myself gauging “how much it means” that someone is warm towards me by how they seem to interact with others. If they are warm toward me, warm towards others in all the interactions I see, and don’t seem to be trying to spend much time with me, I generally figure that they’re a lovely friendly person who’s either quite busy or not feeling much specific connection. (I try not to make assumptions about which.) That doesn’t have to be sad/disappointing, but I suspect that people are more likely to have hurt feelings the more time elapses between feeling special and finding out what to expect (whether “what to expect” is based on your time constraints or whatever).
On the other hand, you indicate that you make a point of letting people know how much time you have, so it may not be something you can change with quicker expectation-setting. It’s also the case that some people are hurt by the idea that they have time for someone but that person doesn’t have time for them, or that they aren’t “worthwhile” enough for that person to knock something else off of their schedule. At the extreme end, this comes across to me looking like they feel entitled to someone else’s time. Not terribly much you can do about that besides continue to be clear about what people can and can’t expect from you.
My perspective is limited, but I think you’re doing fine. It’s a tough one for anyone who’s sufficiently busy. (I struggle here too- especially when I get busy enough that planning ahead makes me anxious because I already feel too booked. Then I stop responding to people who want to make plans, and, well, flaky doom.) I’ll admit that I’m not sure I have a clear idea of how much of your time I should ask for, but I suspect that’s my brain as much as anything. (“Should I suggest another brunch soon? Should I wait a bit? Wait, when would actually work for that for me, anyhow? Ah well, I’ll figure that out later.”) Perhaps people who give you the feedback in your post are jarred by what feels to them like an imbalance between intensity of interactions (because you’re right, you do make people feel special and you do focus on the person you’re spending time with) and frequency of interactions? I think many folks expect those to stay in step with one another…
(I’m fine with this being unscreened.)