Randomness

At work today, I was showing off a pic of the dress I got for Les Mis, and we started talking about guys and relationships and weddings (both ladies I work with just had daughters married in Feb, so it's kinda the topic of the hour). An interesting piece of advice cropped up which I believe reveals fundamental flaws in the people who follow it. The advice was "find someone who loves you more than you love him, that's how the best relationships work".

Now, there are a number of flaws in that saying that are glaring, but also *some* truth. Firstly, it's impossible for both partners in a relationship to heed that advice, which implies that any relationship based on that advice will be one-sided and biased, not exactly the best foundation. Secondly, the statement in itself is so self-centered it cannot be possible for anyone who follows that advice to have a great relationship, because it implies that only the person speaking matters, only their security and happiness seem to be important.

However, balanced against all that, is the fact that the guy is generally thought to be the one to wander first. But I wonder if that perception comes about only because the women feel that THEIR wandering is justified if their guy doesn't live up to this ridiculously one-sided farce? I mean, what guy could possibly live within that sort of relationship for their entire life and be even somewhat happy? Is that where the division begins? When years down the road someone realizes that things are not fair and even as they should be? When the guilt from not making things fair and even grows large enough to be unignorable? How does one determine whether love is equally shared within a relationship, or merely equally expressed? Can the expression be one-sided and the relationship still stand the test of time? Or do both expression and essence have to be balanced?

Interesting things to ponder, and that same general train of thought recalls a comment I made last night, regarding a "matching system" for plots. The comment was formulated entirely as bait, attempting to elicit a desired reaction. However, had it elicited the desired reaction, then the value of that reaction would be minimalized, if not elimintated entirely. Had it not elicited the desired reaction, it would have given me some degree of intelligence on what the enemy is thinking as of now. Luckily, the reaction I observed was somewhere in the neutral territory, and when you add in the fact that the comment had no basis in reality as far as it's threat to end operations in the absense of a counterattack, I guess that entire episode was a wash. The only solid thing to come of it was a "new" idea. Unfortunatly, my R&D department has determined that while the idea in itself is a great one, technology has not advanced to a point that would make that possible yet, plus current political feelings are that such a development would be decidedly premature given the current relations with the enemy. However, it will be held under consideration and reviewed for applicability every 30 days, or during the planning phases of the final assault.

And to finish off this post, I would like to state that while walking down the sidewalk on the way home for lunch, I was shot in the upper chest by an automatic sprinkler system at point blank range. The system opened fire after I had wandered well into it's kill zone, and it's aim was perfect, with the first full 3 seconds of spray cathing me on my chest, side, and back as I retreated.