I am growing stronger. As documented in I Like Being This Person, I have been slowly healing. Although I am currently looking back at a week of tracked project work with the fewest hours since I started, I know and am capable of remembering that having continued to track my time and make my minimum quotas of time, humble though they are, is still an ongoing success, and a strength.
For two days, yesterday and most of the day before, I was down in a slump and lazy, after a sobbing breakdown Tuesday morning. And here I am awake, thinking about priorities, flitting from one thing to another, getting little things done here and then there, rather than getting trapped like a fly on the deadly adhesive thought of how very much there is to do.
It is strange, growing healthier. It feels strange, from the inside. Occasionally dramatic, but pretty much only in reflection or in my emotional extremes, blazing fury or torrential brightness which I worry will all spend itself out and leave me exhausted... and sometimes it does.
It feels strange that largely my improvement seems to be that I have gotten better at sleeping. It almost feels like magic sometimes how noticing my heaviness and excusing myself from my social contexts and going and laying down, no matter how much it feels like I "shouldn't be tired already", leads to my actually being able to sleep within just a few minutes. I don't exactly wake up feeling highly energized very often. I often wish I had someone to help pull me out of bed because lifting my body on my own feels exhausting in a sort of grim, repetitive persistence sort of way. But much of the tired that had been on my shoulders has gone once I can get moving and doing something, if I do something at all rather than just re-watching old YouTube videos.
Most times, I take my laptop with me, because it would bother me and keep me awake being tempted to go and get it so that if I can't sleep, I have it there to do things with. And I close it up and put it next to my bed, and sleep, comfortable enough in the knowledge that if I were to wake restless it would be there for me.
When I am well-rested, and sleeping more or less consistently during the nights and for long enough periods of time, wakefulness becomes different. It is more than once or twice a month that I feel distinctly capable of getting things done. I cook for myself, and while I am cooking, my mind wanders, and it seizes on ideas and desires and strings them together and insists I must write them down, tell my friends, do something to capture the resulting inspiration before it evaporates.
Sometimes it feels like I can't catch my breath and actually follow through on the ongoing project I've committed to, just because I'm so busy catching and coping with other inspirations and ideas for things I want to get done which are oozing out of my ears and eyes and mouth, burbling over and getting all over my face and in my heart so I can't focus.
It is as though my brain has formed a long, long queue of all the many things I have dreamed about while slogging through my days, half-awake; and so on the rare occasions I wake up, my whole workspace becomes covered in petitions to make them real.
I have learned important strategies from Finish It! for coping. I have been putting those things in writing but then putting them aside. I have learned important strategies for keeping going even when I don't feel like it at all. I have put consequences behind my quotas, and it has been working.
My life may be a heavy and clunking machine, sometimes clumsy and very base, but I have been getting some of its motors to stop coughing and dying so much and run sort of smoothly for a few hours at a time. Well, who'd have thought? It's exhausting work, but it can be done. And there's a bunch of neat stuff among the flies and dust being coughed out of this machine now that it's running well enough to actually disgorge some of the ideas which have been stuck in the pipes almost-formed for months.
Showing posts with label Twelve Virtues of Rationality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twelve Virtues of Rationality. Show all posts
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Monday, September 18, 2017
Double Negatives and the Philosophy of Overthinking
Yesterday, I sent an email to a lecturer at my college asking about a quiz question on an online testing resource my course uses on which I was marked wrong. I thought the question may have a mistake in it, because of a double-negative in the wording of the question and the "correct" answer. Today, I received an email back praising my understanding of the content, and suggesting that the publisher might think I was overthinking the question. This is an excerpt of my response.
I stand firm by a belief that if thinking about a question obscures the answer, it is probably a bad or poorly worded question. Getting distracted by minutia is one thing, and a personal foible it's fair to test resistance to. Thinking, however, should never be an enemy in an academic subject. I would argue that a double-negative in the core structure of a question is not minutia, as they are frequently used intentionally to ensure a student is reading the question thoroughly. If the correct answer isn't actually correct because whoever wrote the question forgot the double-negative, that is a problem with the question, not with me, and I hope others will understand if I object to being docked marks for a mistake someone else made.
If on the other hand there's something I'm not seeing that explains why the answer the publisher registers as correct is actually the most correct answer to the question as posed, I want to know, for the sake of my own understanding.
Regarding "overthinking"...
People have often accused me of thinking too much. I have come to resent it. It does not tell me how, or whether, my conclusion was wrong, which I think ought to be, generally speaking, the measure against which my thinking is judged.
I also find it is frequently used as an excuse to dismiss constructive criticism or complaints I attempt to make, to save someone else the effort of updating a flawed system, habit or stance.
On the other hand, sometimes people are only trying to advise me not to waste my time on something they don't think is worth it. Well-intentioned, but I would usually prefer they didn't do that.
If I 'over-think' quiz questions, it is not likely that I fail to think when deciding how to spend my minutes and my effort. Besides that, how I spend my time and effort is my business.
The quality of study and testing materials in a school I attend is also my business, as well as the business of every other student in the course, and the school itself. I think it justifies a little bit of time and effort giving feedback if I notice a flaw, and there is even a small chance that it might be improved on for later years. Every change must start somewhere, with someone noticing something that could be better and doing something about it. Student engagement is often criticised as dangerously low, and generally I agree. I do my best to compensate in what small ways I can.
I stand firm by a belief that if thinking about a question obscures the answer, it is probably a bad or poorly worded question. Getting distracted by minutia is one thing, and a personal foible it's fair to test resistance to. Thinking, however, should never be an enemy in an academic subject. I would argue that a double-negative in the core structure of a question is not minutia, as they are frequently used intentionally to ensure a student is reading the question thoroughly. If the correct answer isn't actually correct because whoever wrote the question forgot the double-negative, that is a problem with the question, not with me, and I hope others will understand if I object to being docked marks for a mistake someone else made.
If on the other hand there's something I'm not seeing that explains why the answer the publisher registers as correct is actually the most correct answer to the question as posed, I want to know, for the sake of my own understanding.
Regarding "overthinking"...
People have often accused me of thinking too much. I have come to resent it. It does not tell me how, or whether, my conclusion was wrong, which I think ought to be, generally speaking, the measure against which my thinking is judged.
I also find it is frequently used as an excuse to dismiss constructive criticism or complaints I attempt to make, to save someone else the effort of updating a flawed system, habit or stance.
On the other hand, sometimes people are only trying to advise me not to waste my time on something they don't think is worth it. Well-intentioned, but I would usually prefer they didn't do that.
If I 'over-think' quiz questions, it is not likely that I fail to think when deciding how to spend my minutes and my effort. Besides that, how I spend my time and effort is my business.
The quality of study and testing materials in a school I attend is also my business, as well as the business of every other student in the course, and the school itself. I think it justifies a little bit of time and effort giving feedback if I notice a flaw, and there is even a small chance that it might be improved on for later years. Every change must start somewhere, with someone noticing something that could be better and doing something about it. Student engagement is often criticised as dangerously low, and generally I agree. I do my best to compensate in what small ways I can.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Prisoner's Dilemma in Romantic Relationships
So, I was just watching some videos on the prisoner's dilemma and Nash equilibrium. I realized that in a metaphorical analogy, the prisoner's dilemma reflects pretty accurately on the problems that arise in a bad relationship:
Imagine being in a troubled romantic relationship with someone you don't really feel you can trust, as much as you might want to. The prisoner's dilemma is remarkably reflective of it. Either party could put more effort into the relationship in order to be kind and giving, but if partner A tries, partner B gets benefit without having to do anything, and would still have to make some sacrifices in order to return the generosity, so they may choose not to do so and just enjoy A's generosity. In that case, however, A will stop trying because they are being taken advantage of and the Nash equilibrium is that both end up in a resentful relationship, tolerating it because they don't want to bother opening themselves up only to be taken advantage of again.
If the two could trust each other to effectively collude, and continue to make sacrifices even when in the short-term, it does in fact make them a little less happy to do so, they can enjoy a relationship that generally exists in the try/try quadrant of the relationship. Of course, relationships are more complicated and it's possible to try to do something nice and have it completely backfire because of different values, but on a very basic level, the analogy is quite apt.
Imagine being in a troubled romantic relationship with someone you don't really feel you can trust, as much as you might want to. The prisoner's dilemma is remarkably reflective of it. Either party could put more effort into the relationship in order to be kind and giving, but if partner A tries, partner B gets benefit without having to do anything, and would still have to make some sacrifices in order to return the generosity, so they may choose not to do so and just enjoy A's generosity. In that case, however, A will stop trying because they are being taken advantage of and the Nash equilibrium is that both end up in a resentful relationship, tolerating it because they don't want to bother opening themselves up only to be taken advantage of again.
If the two could trust each other to effectively collude, and continue to make sacrifices even when in the short-term, it does in fact make them a little less happy to do so, they can enjoy a relationship that generally exists in the try/try quadrant of the relationship. Of course, relationships are more complicated and it's possible to try to do something nice and have it completely backfire because of different values, but on a very basic level, the analogy is quite apt.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Thinking in Poetry Again
The beautiful, absolute world of mathematics mocks my relentless imperfection...
And the inexorable call of death mocks my mortal limitations,
reminding me, my time is short; I can do anything, but not everything.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
To what do I set my mind, my very life?
Days slip by unrecorded, my focus on other priorities; on study, scores of 100%, cooking, cleaning myself, maintaining some basic standard of health and happiness, talking with my roommates...
The physical law that there are only 24 hours in each day, 356 days in a year, and only so many years in a lifetime... Although that number is not set, it seems to close in like a ceiling, and cause me great claustrophobia. The x variable glares down at me from an unknown height, declaring with historical empiricality an extremely low chance of anything over 100.
100 years seems so short a time when one thinks of all the things there are to learn, and improve...
And the inexorable call of death mocks my mortal limitations,
reminding me, my time is short; I can do anything, but not everything.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
To what do I set my mind, my very life?
Days slip by unrecorded, my focus on other priorities; on study, scores of 100%, cooking, cleaning myself, maintaining some basic standard of health and happiness, talking with my roommates...
The physical law that there are only 24 hours in each day, 356 days in a year, and only so many years in a lifetime... Although that number is not set, it seems to close in like a ceiling, and cause me great claustrophobia. The x variable glares down at me from an unknown height, declaring with historical empiricality an extremely low chance of anything over 100.
100 years seems so short a time when one thinks of all the things there are to learn, and improve...
Monday, December 1, 2014
Validate Me Please
Have I been born or at some point rendered unable to detect an important tell between incredulity expressed out of pure and simple confusion, and incredulity expressed out of anger; frustration; exasperation?
Is there not a valid associative tie between incredulity and annoyance, then? I've seen a correlation too often for that to seem right.
It may have been emphasized harmfully by Mother.
Could Mother really be innocent after all, my understanding of her passive aggression false? No, I doubt it. There is some burden of responsibility that a mother should bear the brunt of maturity for with her child. That a lover should not have to bear the brunt of maturity for with a lover.
What, exactly?
I have felt a desperate need for, and lack of, validation for my interpretations of social interactions all my life. Having thought about that for a moment, yes, I believe all my life within useful memory.
Where is the sense that the validity of interpretation is to be assumed supposed to come from? Certainly, with my upbringing, it was undermined if not entirely destroyed. If I were to be allowed to assume that my interpretations were valid, Mother would have allowed me to defend myself from her passive-aggressiveness with logic. Which of course I did anyway, but it was continually invalidated at the point of my observations so that no argument I made could stick to her.
Narcissist. What have you done to me.
So I crave explicit validation of my interpretations as at least reasonable or understandable, and I crave it constantly. I become anxious and aggravated if it is not present and I begin to feel doubt.
What has this to do with incredulity? Mother often spoke to me in incredulous tones. From her, it seemed to mean that I was an unbelievably bad child. That my inconsideration and selfishness were so great that it was almost inconceivable I even existed. And so when she was angry at me, she would shout at me incredulously. How dare I question the love she undeniably had, while she complained at every juncture of what I was costing her and how much trouble I was that she put up with, and no matter how hard I hurt and raged and explained, trying to make her understand that she was hurting me, she never stepped down. Not once. Because she loved me, clearly.
So incredulity became the badge of "you horrid thing", to not back down became the abuse I was most used to, and letting me have my way became the golden grail I sought that represented the love I never got at home?
Perhaps, but of course I left home horribly twisted, and did not get my way often.
Things to learn and clarify:
To let me get my way is not what loving me is.
One can love me and not let me get away with shit.
One can not love me and let me get my way.
I know this, but the assumed lie may still be deeply ingrained in my emotional responses, moreso than for most.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
There are things someone may not understand about me other than how horrible I am.
An unfortunate number of people have the bad habit, but not everyone thinks something is bad just because they don't understand it.
What else?
The validity of my interpretations is assumed to be present, not absent, where no remark of it is made.
Gods, it's going to be a nightmare to reverse engineer that one. Geesus.
Is there not a valid associative tie between incredulity and annoyance, then? I've seen a correlation too often for that to seem right.
It may have been emphasized harmfully by Mother.
Could Mother really be innocent after all, my understanding of her passive aggression false? No, I doubt it. There is some burden of responsibility that a mother should bear the brunt of maturity for with her child. That a lover should not have to bear the brunt of maturity for with a lover.
What, exactly?
I have felt a desperate need for, and lack of, validation for my interpretations of social interactions all my life. Having thought about that for a moment, yes, I believe all my life within useful memory.
Where is the sense that the validity of interpretation is to be assumed supposed to come from? Certainly, with my upbringing, it was undermined if not entirely destroyed. If I were to be allowed to assume that my interpretations were valid, Mother would have allowed me to defend myself from her passive-aggressiveness with logic. Which of course I did anyway, but it was continually invalidated at the point of my observations so that no argument I made could stick to her.
Narcissist. What have you done to me.
So I crave explicit validation of my interpretations as at least reasonable or understandable, and I crave it constantly. I become anxious and aggravated if it is not present and I begin to feel doubt.
What has this to do with incredulity? Mother often spoke to me in incredulous tones. From her, it seemed to mean that I was an unbelievably bad child. That my inconsideration and selfishness were so great that it was almost inconceivable I even existed. And so when she was angry at me, she would shout at me incredulously. How dare I question the love she undeniably had, while she complained at every juncture of what I was costing her and how much trouble I was that she put up with, and no matter how hard I hurt and raged and explained, trying to make her understand that she was hurting me, she never stepped down. Not once. Because she loved me, clearly.
So incredulity became the badge of "you horrid thing", to not back down became the abuse I was most used to, and letting me have my way became the golden grail I sought that represented the love I never got at home?
Perhaps, but of course I left home horribly twisted, and did not get my way often.
Things to learn and clarify:
To let me get my way is not what loving me is.
One can love me and not let me get away with shit.
One can not love me and let me get my way.
I know this, but the assumed lie may still be deeply ingrained in my emotional responses, moreso than for most.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
Confusion is not inherently condemnation.
There are things someone may not understand about me other than how horrible I am.
An unfortunate number of people have the bad habit, but not everyone thinks something is bad just because they don't understand it.
What else?
The validity of my interpretations is assumed to be present, not absent, where no remark of it is made.
Gods, it's going to be a nightmare to reverse engineer that one. Geesus.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Fools Of Us
You just cannot win when you're wrong
Though the battle be bloody and long
Oh, the truth will make fools of us all
And the longer you cling to illusion,
the harder you'll fall.
We were all of us ignorant, once
We fought with our lies and the battles were lost
To have wisdom, we must pay the cost
Bitter remedy swallowed with pride
'neath the hat of the dunce
The truth will come out...
It always does, in time.
And the louder you shout
The more foolish you'll look, to yourself
at the end of the line
You just cannot win when you're wrong
Though the battle be bloody and long
Oh, the truth will make fools of us all
And the longer you cling to illusion,
the harder you'll fall.
You just cannot win when you're wrong
Though your allies be wordy, your arguments strong
You may hide behind tyranny, authority,
maybe last your whole life;
Doesn't matter how long, you will never be right
The truth will come out...
It always does, in time.
And the louder you shout
The more foolish you'll look, to yourself
at the end of the line
You just cannot win when you're wrong
Though your allies be wordy, your arguments strong
You may silence dissent, but what victory is that?
You're no closer to truth for each tongue you cut loose
And the truth will come out...
As always, it's yours to decide...
To acknolwedge the loss;
To abandon your pride;
To be wrong,
to be free,
to be right...
Oh the truth will make fools of us-
You just cannot win when you're wrong
Though the battle be bloody and long
Oh, the truth will make fools of us all
And the longer you cling to illusion,
the harder you'll fall.
The truth will make fools of us all!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Right... So...
Well, the first thing anyone should be able to see about this blog so far is that it has been a massive failure, and that I am incredibly lazy. This is a trend you are likely to see continue, because I have always been more or less incapable of self-imposed structure.
But! There is a reason I have returned, because I did in fact pop my head into LessWrong.com last night while nearly collapsing from fatigue (due to my own stubborn refusal to sleep until I have to, not because I had anything important to be doing) and found a couple of interesting things, one of which was a reiteration of the general wisdom that you don't get anywhere without actually taking a couple of steps... but not remotely in those words. "Quantity over quality" was the message of the post, the reasoning being that realistically, quantity of production and activity is the only way to achieve quality. That is, when you do something many, many times, you learn from your mistakes (if you're paying any attention, at least, and being rational about what you're doing) and hone your technique. There was a cute story about a pottery class that demonstrated this point neatly, too, though there's no citation, so it may be merely a mythical anecdote.
Here's the post, for those interested.
Some of the responses posted there are interesting to read, too, and raise interesting points, and I found myself investigating links as though trapped in TVtropes, because as bad as I am at committing to independently showing up and studying it, I am, really, I promise, interested in this stuff.
I found myself here, at a post about the moral void, and how it seems many people are so terrified of it, they will allow the concept of an external measure of morality to "turn off" their inner perception of it. Personally, I'm kind of proud that my initial reaction to the question "Would you kill babies if it was inherently the right thing to do? Yes or no?" was "In what circumstance could killing babies possibly be inherently the right thing to do? Are our theoretical babies all suffering from incurable and agonizing diseases, or being born to mothers whose bodies are incapable of surviving childbirth, or something?"... And my reaction after considering it for a moment, and especially after reading the rest of the post, was "No." Not, mind you, a "no" with 100% certainty. If somehow the imaginary stone tablet of the universe manifested itself to me without room for any doubt whatsoever and turned out to read that inflicting pain was morally right, it would give me something to pause and think very hard about, and probably very painfully. But I'm pretty sure that's impossible, so let's discount it for now. Oh, and by the way (in case you didn't visit the link), circumstantial morality like killing a fetus to be born to a mother whose body is unlikely to be able to survive childbirth is not what I'm talking about. I think, in this case, that would be the rational answer.
Next stop along the way was the Twelve Virtues of Rationality: Curiosity, Relinquishment, Lightness, Evenness, Argument, Empiricism, Simplicity, Humility, Perfectionism, Precision, Scholarship, and The Void - The void being the one whose name is least obviously indicative as to what exactly the virtue is, and that is precisely the point. This virtue is the as-yet unknown truth, that which makes any statement or observation true or untrue. It is referred to as the unnamed virtue, and several other things, and it essentially means "correctness", which is the highest goal of the rationalist, the other virtues all being ways of seeking it out effectively.
This page, though, led me to do some thinking about myself as a rationalist (without warning in a spontaneous conversation with one of my friends, because I tend to lose my train of thought and all its coherence if I'm not talking or typing to someone when I'm thinking something through - I was duly chastised for my rudeness and inconsideration), and come to the conclusion that as in many other parts of my life, my biggest problem is that either I have no motivation, I cannot properly identify or remember my motivation, or I don't accept my motivation as legitimate, and thus reject and suppress it, leading to the second explanation. These listed in increasing order of accuracy, decreasing order of self-deception. Why do I want to, why do I bother, to be rational? It doesn't guarantee financial success or security unless that's exactly what your motivation is, and it isn't mine. But it's not as hard to remember as I had expected it to be. What's my motivation? ... Well... Saving the world, of course, in little ways here and there. By teaching people. And yes, yes, I know I'm not doing that in the most effective way. I'm doing it in ways I can already, though, and trying to reach a higher level of mental health and self-acceptance. After all, I only have myself to do things with.
I guess I was inspired by the message of quantity over quality, and decided to stop procrastinating and actually post. I may have been actively suffering from paralyzing perfectionism without being actively aware of it in this case. Either way, I think it's a positive step going from never posting at all to posting once, several months after I told myself I was supposed to.
I'm not going to promise any kind of structure to the times I post here anymore. It was overambitious of me to do so. But maybe, just maybe, it'll at least be less than three or four months before I post again. I think so, but I may be exhibiting unrealistic optimism.
But! There is a reason I have returned, because I did in fact pop my head into LessWrong.com last night while nearly collapsing from fatigue (due to my own stubborn refusal to sleep until I have to, not because I had anything important to be doing) and found a couple of interesting things, one of which was a reiteration of the general wisdom that you don't get anywhere without actually taking a couple of steps... but not remotely in those words. "Quantity over quality" was the message of the post, the reasoning being that realistically, quantity of production and activity is the only way to achieve quality. That is, when you do something many, many times, you learn from your mistakes (if you're paying any attention, at least, and being rational about what you're doing) and hone your technique. There was a cute story about a pottery class that demonstrated this point neatly, too, though there's no citation, so it may be merely a mythical anecdote.
Here's the post, for those interested.
Some of the responses posted there are interesting to read, too, and raise interesting points, and I found myself investigating links as though trapped in TVtropes, because as bad as I am at committing to independently showing up and studying it, I am, really, I promise, interested in this stuff.
I found myself here, at a post about the moral void, and how it seems many people are so terrified of it, they will allow the concept of an external measure of morality to "turn off" their inner perception of it. Personally, I'm kind of proud that my initial reaction to the question "Would you kill babies if it was inherently the right thing to do? Yes or no?" was "In what circumstance could killing babies possibly be inherently the right thing to do? Are our theoretical babies all suffering from incurable and agonizing diseases, or being born to mothers whose bodies are incapable of surviving childbirth, or something?"... And my reaction after considering it for a moment, and especially after reading the rest of the post, was "No." Not, mind you, a "no" with 100% certainty. If somehow the imaginary stone tablet of the universe manifested itself to me without room for any doubt whatsoever and turned out to read that inflicting pain was morally right, it would give me something to pause and think very hard about, and probably very painfully. But I'm pretty sure that's impossible, so let's discount it for now. Oh, and by the way (in case you didn't visit the link), circumstantial morality like killing a fetus to be born to a mother whose body is unlikely to be able to survive childbirth is not what I'm talking about. I think, in this case, that would be the rational answer.
Next stop along the way was the Twelve Virtues of Rationality: Curiosity, Relinquishment, Lightness, Evenness, Argument, Empiricism, Simplicity, Humility, Perfectionism, Precision, Scholarship, and The Void - The void being the one whose name is least obviously indicative as to what exactly the virtue is, and that is precisely the point. This virtue is the as-yet unknown truth, that which makes any statement or observation true or untrue. It is referred to as the unnamed virtue, and several other things, and it essentially means "correctness", which is the highest goal of the rationalist, the other virtues all being ways of seeking it out effectively.
This page, though, led me to do some thinking about myself as a rationalist (without warning in a spontaneous conversation with one of my friends, because I tend to lose my train of thought and all its coherence if I'm not talking or typing to someone when I'm thinking something through - I was duly chastised for my rudeness and inconsideration), and come to the conclusion that as in many other parts of my life, my biggest problem is that either I have no motivation, I cannot properly identify or remember my motivation, or I don't accept my motivation as legitimate, and thus reject and suppress it, leading to the second explanation. These listed in increasing order of accuracy, decreasing order of self-deception. Why do I want to, why do I bother, to be rational? It doesn't guarantee financial success or security unless that's exactly what your motivation is, and it isn't mine. But it's not as hard to remember as I had expected it to be. What's my motivation? ... Well... Saving the world, of course, in little ways here and there. By teaching people. And yes, yes, I know I'm not doing that in the most effective way. I'm doing it in ways I can already, though, and trying to reach a higher level of mental health and self-acceptance. After all, I only have myself to do things with.
I guess I was inspired by the message of quantity over quality, and decided to stop procrastinating and actually post. I may have been actively suffering from paralyzing perfectionism without being actively aware of it in this case. Either way, I think it's a positive step going from never posting at all to posting once, several months after I told myself I was supposed to.
I'm not going to promise any kind of structure to the times I post here anymore. It was overambitious of me to do so. But maybe, just maybe, it'll at least be less than three or four months before I post again. I think so, but I may be exhibiting unrealistic optimism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)