Superfluous Third Wheel

I fear that I may have lost something irreplaceable, but I'm presently too gutless to probe further and find out for definite. I am instead inclined to utilise caution, given that the outcome may not turn out to be in my favour after all. In which case, I'd prefer that things remain ambiguous for the time being, so there does remain at least even the merest illusion (delusion?) of hope. Besides, I need to know her mind before I would even consider taking the plunge. I couldn't face the prospect of rejection, not now. It'd probably kill me -.-

Disorder	Rating
Paranoid:	Moderate
Schizoid:	Low
Schizotypal:	Low
Antisocial:	Low
Borderline:	Low
Histrionic:	High
Narcissistic:	High
Avoidant:	Moderate
Dependent:	Moderate
Obsessive-Compulsive:	Moderate
-- Personality Disorder Test - Take It! --

Hardly a major revelation, to be honest :P

I'm sorry Lisa. I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry. I have behaved like a complete and utter arsehole. If I had had any idea what you were going through then I never would've been so petty and stupid. I know you're probably not interested, and I've quite likely fucked things up beyond all hope, but I still want to be friends, I still love you, and I am still here if you want someone to talk to. Please, if there's anything I can do... I just want to help.

The term "truce" would imply a mutual compromise; a cessation of hostility between two parties. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that I was never actively hostile in the first place - and of course, when I did originally propose a truce, you simply threw it back in my face, along with a little extra for good measure. Besides, neither of us is actively hostile anymore, and thus such a truce would accomplish nothing more than to re-affirm our present neutrality. In which case, why bother? If you "didn't intend to end everything", then what in the hell were you attempting to accomplish? Because whatever it was, it could probably have been worded in a somewhat more tactful manner; a manner perhaps more befitting of correspondence between two friends. Whether or not something "needs" to be said - whether for the sake of our relationship, or for the good of others - I wouldn't deem "fuck you" to be a necessary component of said correspondence. The simple truth is, you really hurt me. And, well, if you don't value my friendship, and never have done; if you're not the least bit interested in a reconciliation (as your e-mail would quite strongly suggest), then what's the point? Damn right - that little riposte of yours made your opinion of me quite clear. So at least now I have some idea as to what was really going on behind that veil of flattery and reassurance you so often wore during our frequent conversations on MSN.

If you truly gave a rat's ass about my feelings; about our relationship, then you would never have sent that god-forsaken e-mail in the first place. I can't even begin to comprehend any underlying motivation or justification behind such an unwarranted tirade of abuse. I try to bury the hatchet, and instead you plant it firmly in my back. For fuck's sake, WHY? Or maybe it's just that you never honestly gave a damn to start with.

And yes, I would much prefer to have been able to tell you this via MSN, but you disappeared. So please, don't accuse me of cowardice; I would deem this to be one more point that "needed" making.

I know deep down that I'd forgive her, completely and without hesitation. Does that make me weak?

Thanks for the advice; perhaps someone who could throw away such a great friendship so callously and so utterly without remorse really isn't worth getting hung-up over after all. Although that doesn't for one moment mean I can't mourn what I thought we had - even if it was nothing more than a superficial pretense on her part. Letting go is altogether more difficult when you actually give a shit about the person in question.

Today I slept from 7 until 10:30pm because I lost the will to remain awake.

Art beckons me forth once more, and once more do I find myself incapable of completing the work due to something so trivial as lack of a Pritt Stick. Fortunately, I also happen to have two free periods and a PSPM tomorrow... so perhaps one might be disposed to make some headway in that regard; otherwise, one may simply retire to the senior library and sleep it out. Life has suddenly become so very flat, grey and meaningless; academic pursuits seem trivial and unimportant, and I am entirely sure I know why. Right now all I want to do is rewind back to the point at which I actually stole a fleeting glimpse of true happiness and contentment. Damn right it's characterisitcally naïve and oh-so pathetic of me to churn out such clichéd bullshit, but it's nonetheless true.

It has come to my attention that I am an arsehole, and that at least 4 people endorse that claim. Which is nice to know. Really.

Guess I tried my luck one too many times. Ugh, I disgust myself. What's the point? Why does it matter so much to me that I should be right all the fucking time? Why do I value correctness over tact? Wow... so maybe I was "right". Maybe I argued the "right" points for the "right" reasons. Well big fucking hurrah... how utterly callous and self-centred I am. These things shouldn't matter to anyone with an ounce of fucking humanity, and I don't have an ounce to give away. The best friend I could ever hope to have, and I throw her away over some stupid fucking difference of opinion about some guy in Y7 who lost his glasses. It'd be funny, if it weren't so tragically pathetic. There'd be more ranting, but I'm tired. Just plain tired. Goodnight.

I will accept that I am wrong when you actually succeed in refuting my spoken argument; you cannot, however, refute an opinion, and once a dispute boils down to conflict of interest, the only feasible result is either utter deadlock, or some form of compromise. Why can't we just agree to disagree? I don't object to your holding opposing views to my own at all; I object to being treated as if I am somehow to be condemned for "daring" to disagree with you in the first place. I was attempting to debate a valid point objectively, and If you had given me half a chance to clarify my point without getting so bloody emotional about the whole thing, then I would never have needed to post to my blog in order to get my thoughts in order. You can interpret my "attitude" however you want, but the fact of the matter is that I was conducting a rational argument on the basis that I do not, for one moment, believe that the excuse "he was just a Year 7" is adequate justification for such a distinct lack of common sense, and I similarly do not agree that he should thus be considered exempt from being held accountable for his own mistakes, on that basis alone - not least because I myself was a Year 7 once (yes, even me), and would never have been so careless, in spite of the fact that my vision defect is considerably less notable, and I am known to keep numerous spare pairs of spectacles at home. I am not blaming him directly for misplacing his specs - it could not, after all, have been anything other than a tragic accident - and, contrary to what you may think, I never said anything to that end; I simply identified it as being the indirect result of an error in judgment on the part of everyone involved, which implies that no single person can necessarily be held directly accountable for his loss; whether or not there was definite malice behind the deed (and I sincerely doubt there was), he didn't take due care and consideration, and as a result, he lost an item of significant personal value. If you cannot see beyond one metre in front of your own face, then you should probably take much greater consideration as to the possible consequences of any carelessness with regard to the only thing that stands between you and effective blindness, and teach yourself to be more responsible. I lost a mobile phone as a result of not taking the recommended precautions, and though I am fully aware that it wasn't my fault, I still kick myself occasionally for having ever been so pathetically naïve to start with - however, the loss of that phone is really nothing but a financial setback, and hardly a matter of personal safety. If a child wanders into the middle of the road, and is knocked down by a car, it is a tragedy - there is no doubt about that - but why should it necessarily be the driver's fault any more than the child's? In this case, of course, the consequences were not fatal, he will doubtless learn from his mistakes, and there will be no future repetition of this incident. However, I happen to think it very likely that - being a child; a Year 7; a new kid, as you yourself said - he may well be mistaken in the accusation that a 6th-former deliberately acted out of a conscious intent to inflict harm on him, because he feels generally angry and frustrated at himself in light of the fact that such a tragedy could have so easily been averted, and perhaps fails to understand that something so small and meaningless to everyone else - however significant to him - could be overlooked more easily than one might think, especially in a large crowd of people who are single-mindedly fixed on one task, and one task only: getting to where they need to be next. Thus, it is my belief that the teachers' little "witch-hunt" is a futile exercise; we shall see.

However, when I sought to confront you with this as a passive observation, and proceeded to defend my argument, all you could do was to repeat the words "he is a year 7! for god's sake! he's just a child!" in such an unnecessarily hysterical and over-the-top fashion that it frustrated me to the point where I hardly cared who I offended anymore. Social conduct?! Hah! If your social conduct wasn't so out of line; if arguing with you didn't always have to be such a god-damned emotional ordeal, maybe I would've come forward and said all this to your face. Then again, maybe I wouldn't have needed to. I was merely speculating from the outset, and I am entitled to my opinion on the matter; you were the one who seemingly chose to escalate it into a full-blown conflict. How am I supposed to think straight when my brain is urgently cobbling together responses in order to try and justify my opinions and "clear" my name? My god, I felt like I was being prosecuted; being rebuked like an ill-mannered child for daring to speak my mind. As a matter of fact, I actually felt quite guilty and dejected afterwards, so congratulations; I didn't have the heart to pursue the topic further with you on a personal basis, because, in my mind, I already felt that I had been condemned. You assumed that the prior blog entry was in some way directed at you, just like you seemed to take my argument as a direct insult; in reality, it is a necessary form of catharsis, the details of which I'm sure I needn't go into. True, I am reluctant to accept it, if and when I am wrong; however, I am nonethless tolerant of others' opinions, even if I happen to disagree with them - I will proceed to raise a particular issue time and time again, only because I am of the pious nature which inclines me to place so much confidence in the righteousness of my own beliefs that I feel as if I owe it to everyone else to "pull the wool" from over their eyes. Equally, that is why any apparent fallibility; any chink in my armour, is so difficult for me to come to terms with. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant - we're supposed to be FRIENDS, for fuck's sake; we should be able to debate in a calm and rational manner, and yet you made me feel totally inadequate; like an outsider; like I wasn't human because I didn't wear my emotions on my sleeve and chose to be clinical and detached in my observations. Perhaps it was a little tactless, but I resent being made to feel like that; particularly when the original intention behind it all was for a polite discussion of the subject, nothing more, and certainly not petty bickering, or kicking the kid when he's down.

And yes, I made a spelling mistake. In light of this revelation, it's beginning to look like I'm not a cold, heartless automaton after all; I'll bet it's as much of a shock to your system as it is to mine, eh?

My point is that, if this was all deliberate, than it is not his fault, but could nonetheless have been averted; if it was accidental, then he has no-one to blame but himself. Either way, in failing to take due care and attention, he did, to a certain extent, "bring it upon himself". I'm not saying that he deserves it, I am simply being objective. We may perhaps have very different ideas on how one would classify someone as a "child", to what extent children are responsible for their own actions, precisely when the transition from "child" to "adult can be deemed complete, etc. etc. etc. but nevertheless, at the end of the day, this is a stupid and wildly overblown conflict founded on a fundamental difference of opinion. I never intended it to be an all-out confrontation, I am sorry for having offended your sense of tact and moral principle, and I think we should simply put our differences to one side. I know there are people who share my view, as I am sure there are equally as many who think quite the opposite. So fucking what? This isn't worth fighting over.

Friends :P?

Just a side-note, to whomever it may concern: I am not one who takes kindly to being viewed with obvious contempt by those around me, merely for happening to possess the higher cognitive faculties which will, from time to time, lead me to the formation of opinions that are, perhaps, contradictory to those harboured by certain individuals from amongst my intellectual peers; such conflict is, of course, inevitable. Simply because I have the tendency to adopt a more detached and objective standpoint in these matters, taking various factors into consideration before composing a solid cross-examination of the issue, that does not in any way, shape or form indicate a complete absence of sympathy for (or indeed, empathy with) the undeniable plight of the child in question. Believe it or not, I am human, and as such, am no less capable of compassion than anyone else; nevertheless, in addition to this, I am also entitled to put emotion to one side and give voice to my opinions in whatever way I deem suitable. Others may or may not conform to my individual take on the situation; that is entirely their prerogative. However, I wholly reserve my right to back up any and all such opinions by means of a logical and rational argument, without fear of reprisal, and under the assumption that my fellow participants will be possessing of maturity sufficient that they would not misinterpret my contradiction as a direct attack on their personal beliefs, or being borne of outright malicious intent. Out of interest was I to assume the role of Devil's Advocate in presenting a controversial - but nonethless, perfectly valid - argument, which anyone was entirely free to refute at their individual discretion, and yet I was somewhat bemused to find myself flatly condemned as though I had committed some great injustice in refusing to accept the "party line". Is it no longer possible for one to maintain an open mind; to argue impartially, without it becoming a deep-rooted, moral and ethical conflict? For God's sake, pull yourselves together. If you are entirely incapable of being objective in your consideration of others' opinions - perhaps even, god forbid, those which dare be formed in opposition to your own - then you will never make any headway in society. End transmission -.-

Lisa is "developing" a crush, and is, moreover, quite determined that she should not vouchsafe to us any information as to whom her girlish infatuations now concern. Logic dictates, therefore, that the object of her clandestine affections be either Mr. Kemp or the tree which lies just inside the school gates, adjacent to the parking lot. Who can know for sure? Only time will tell ;)

Oftentimes do I desire so profoundly to be the archetypal "good friend"; to be loyal, supportive and understanding - to be "there" for someone in their hour of greatest need - and yet something so entirely trivial as my own emotional insecurity will incline me to wholly refrain from such endeavours. Perhaps I may wish simply to embrace someone; to reassure them that they are not alone in their torment - that everything will work out in the end - but every time I do so am I to be invariably deluged by a proverbial flash-flood of negative karma. I pull no punches in saying that having spent sixteen years being continually derided and disparaged by my peers on the basis of superficial inadequacies has drawn me to the inevitable conclusion that I see fit to inflict myself upon these individuals against their own free will; that it is, in fact, they themselves who are providing me a service, simply by means of enduring physical contact with something so physically repugnant. And of course, simultaneously do I feel under obligation to perform these actions as being inherent in my sworn duty as a friend and confidante to the individual in question, which in turn serves only to render me beset by a profound sensation of emotional incapacity at having failed in this respect. Damn straight it fucking eats me up inside.

After all, no-one wants hugs from ugly people, do they?

I just took an I.Q. test and scored 146. Woohoo ^^

In other news, it would seem that I am quite so utterly sexless as to have developed the incisive and innuendo-laden wit of a gay man, in spite of being straight as two parallel lines. Which is, in itself, its own reward... I suppose :P