A lunch can be an excuse to spend 2 hours with a friend.

that was a sentence that woke me up as i was reading my cs 100 textbk.. (ok ok.. stop your THE HORROR-ing already). the author was explaining about one of the 3 unifying themes in communications - meaning.

That sentence kinda hit a dingdong bell inside my head coz of this recurring thing tt keeps swinging back and forth between Brody and moiself.

let's just put it this way: He would prefer that i not engage in one-on-one "outings" with other dudes. and i.. i see nothing wrong with it watsoever.. i mean, they're my friends.. and before all this, i always went out one-on-one and nothing ever reali happened..

so I've always thought of it as more of a "jealousy" issue.. that im spending the time i could spend with him on someone else. But that one particular sentence in the book made me think for a bit. Maybe what the Brods is more concerned about is that there is sorta an "ulterior motive" for ppl asking me out for lunch or coffee that i never reali thought about.

honestly. really.

i never knew that something like a meal could have such embedded meanings in it. and now that i know, im kinda taken aback. but how bad can it be right? i mean.. a meal is a meal.. how much info can u squeeze out for me in a meal? and im not reali the kind of person who would pause eating just to talk. i'd rather stuff it in and then eat some more.

and wat abt those ppl i asked out? wat if they think that by asking them out for lunch i'm implying something more than wat i reali want when all i reali want to do is just meet them and eat?

are there many of such coded, embedded, secret and "universally understood" things around? which brings me to a small thing tts been bugging me for quite a while.

can someone tell me wat tea-bagging is? coz i was nonchalantly dipping and undipping my teabag while sitting with my "liberal" friends one day when one of them asked if i was tea-bagging.. and then the rest laughed and refused to tell me wats so funny. is it a code too?

anyhoot, im not saying im like THAT naiive u know.. by the smirks on their faces i knew its not exactly something as wholesome as David Haselhoff (i just felt like using the name).

but i guess i have to understand and accept that not everything is spelt out at face value.. but, if so.. where do we draw the line between reading in between the lines and reading too much into something? like u totally didn mean or intend for any circumstances when u comunicate sthg.. but somehow someone just reads too much into it and the repercussions then sort of get blown out of proportion?

i guess then thats the importance of feedback.. when u ask the communicator what the intended meaning was.

sigh.

so much for random thoughts.

back to the books.