I think that "More Lane, less Kirk" should be GG's motto every season.
Natter 33 1/3
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I don't mind the cold. That is, I'm resigned to it. In the sense of, "How could I possibly expect the weather to not suck? This is the way things are - accept it."
To combat my seemingly endless supply of bile, I'm going to suck down as much hot tea as I can possibly stand, and then spend a few moments every hour contemplating comics and good Mexican food.
Oh, and the cookies.
But what kind of cookies, Nilly?
On GG, I'll repeat what I said before, that there needs to be a lot less Kirk and a lot more Lane this season.
I'll happily take more Lane, but only if it's not accompanied by that idiot boyfriend of hers. I hate him . What happened to Dave? We liked him, he was cute!
This is the way things are - accept it."
No, A thousand times no.
Oh, okay, I'll pack some more sweaters.
I come see your new place and steal your boxes on Sunday afternoon. I could bring pie.
That's the sort of theft I'm down with.
More Lane would be nice, but less Kirk is mandatory.
Congratulations to your friends, Nilly!
NIlly, that wedding sounds lovely. I'm glad everyone had such a good time.
If Kirk has more than a couple of lines then that is too much.
If Kirk has more than a couple of lines then that is too much.
Yes, last weeks diner scenes were painful every time he spoke.
I was just reading a (rather self-serving) article in the NYTimes about why the lack of cohesion on the Yankees is actually a strength.
I read that. I expect the underlying social science -- group dynamics -- is perfectly sound, but its application to the Yankees was silly and wrongheaded. (That goes double, trying to contrast the "loose-knit" Yankees to the "tight-knit" Red Sox. It's not that the Sox were a lovefest; it's that one of their primary spokesmen is a social butterfly.)
(Actually, Spring Training gossip has been little short of venomous, in regard to people who have left the Sox over this past winter.)
The basic idea is that cliques are not necessarily a detriment to group functioning, and that they will naturally arise in a large enough group. Smaller social units mean that, if there's a falling-out, the whole group doesn't go into disarray. The keys, though, are people who can function in more than one clique, providing the social bridges from one group to another, like the skater kid Hec mentions above.
I am really really not a bridge person, but I can usually recognize one when I meet him/her. On LiveJournal, there are people I call superconnectors through whom you just sort of naturally meet other people you wouldn't otherwise meet.