I work for a small company. I direct all of the marketing and advertising efforts. In fact, I am the marketing and advertising departments, in their entirety.

I used to also be the IT department, but we’ve grown enough to outsource most of the tech stuff in order to free me to focus on marketing (which is really where I do well, and where I’d rather be).

That growth has been good (narrowing the scope of my responsibilities, allowing me to focus more on work that I truly enjoy), but it’s also presented some challenges…

To a large extent our recent growth has been the direct result of a change in management. Our new owner/CEO is much more focused than the previous owner. We’ve gone from being a fairly laid-back business where most of the employees were family, and where things got done, but slowly, to a “real” business (most of the family members left when the owners sold out) where productivity and growth are expected.

That’s all well and good, and I appreciate that a business has to grow in order to remain viable (and to continue to pay its employees). But at the same time, I’ve been chafing a bit at the increased rigidity, which sometimes feels quite a bit like a noose tightening around my neck.

I used to be able to work at home at will, and there wasn’t much concern with what time I got to the office, or how long I took off for lunch, or when I left for the day. I don’t feel like I’ve ever really abused this flexibility, and for the most part I’ve always completed my assigned tasks within the timeframes expected.

Now I’m no longer able to work at home. There’s more concern for when I show up for work, and when I go home. The company’s “personal leave” policy has never been enforced (I didn’t even know what it was until I had been here 5 or 6 years), but now I’m expected to account for hours missed, and those hours are counted against the ten days I’m allowed each year. As I write this I realize that I’m whining about things that almost everyone else has to deal with in their employment… But recognizing that these things are “normal” doesn’t make it any easier to handle the changes.

I’ve never done well with rigidity and excessive structure.

Part of it is my ADHD, which I’ve chosen to manage without medication. I manage fairly well most of the time, partly by allowing my mind to wander now and then when I hit a wall.

A lot of it, too, is my need for validation, acceptance, and positive reinforcement. When pressure builds and expectations become more structured, I worry (excessively) that I’ll disappoint, upset, or offend the person applying the pressure if I don’t meet their expectations. This worry cripples me, creatively, and makes it even more likely that I’ll fail to meet the deadline, which stresses me out… and the vicious cycle continues.

At my first “real” (i.e. non-food-service-related) job, my bosses raved about the work I was doing (designing 3D transitions for video editing software). Then the business started to struggle, and they started applying additional pressure for me to perform (determined to get every last drop of “value” out of the time that they were paying for). I choked under the increased pressure, and things ended badly. That was a traumatic enough experience that it’s influenced my approach to employment ever since.

As I’ve noticed a continuing trend toward structure and rigidity, and an increasing loss in flexibility, I’ve worried that this job is going to turn out just like the other. I finally took my concerns to my new boss a couple of weeks ago, and earlier this week we sat down to discuss options.

He made it clear that he appreciates the work that I do, and that he recognizes that my skill set is a perfect fit for the company. He indicated that he would like for us to continue working together. He quite bluntly stated that we will never go back to how things used to be, and that in fact the trend toward structure and rigidity will definitely continue. Then he proposed three options:

If I honestly feel like I simply can’t handle the structure and don’t want to work with the company anymore, he’ll work with me over a period of weeks or months as I find and train a replacement and find another job.

Or I can suck it up, recognize that this new situation is “normal” in the corporate world and learn to deal with less flexibility and greater expectations. He indicated that if I’m successfully able to do so, and to become more productive than I’ve managed to be the last several months, there’s still a lot of potential for raises and bonuses and growth in my position.

Finally, as a sort of “best of both worlds” scenario, he suggested that I consider becoming a consultant/contractor for the company, rather than an employee. As a consultant, I’d be free to set my own hours, to work at home… all of the “perks” that I’ve been missing these last several months. The company would continue to benefit from my skills and my knowledge of our product lines, and could probably provide enough work to keep me as busy as I want to be, even if I didn’t get much work from other sources.

As I write this, it seems like a no-brainer… But there are a few things about going freelance that concern me…

I’ve done it before (I actually started working with this company as a freelancer, then I was put on retainer, then they hired me full time). I’d need to worry about saving money for taxes (no taxes withheld as a contractor). Income can be very much a “feast or famine” sort of thing—there were months when I’d make several thousand dollars and months when I wouldn’t make a cent, and it can be hard to budget with such huge fluctuations in income.

Then too, I know how hard it can be to drum up work (especially since I’ve been out of the freelance scene for several years now, and haven’t stayed in touch with the “network” that I used to get work through). Theoretically, I’d have all the work I could handle from my current employer (and if the company continues to grow at its current rate, it wouldn’t be long before I’d have more than I could handle without farming some of it out or hiring someone to help me). But I worry that I won’t be good enough, or productive enough, or priced reasonably enough, and that that source of work would dry up and leave me to my own resources (which are slim at the moment).

I’m not sure what to do… Do I trade happiness for security and try to make things work as an employee? Do I take a leap of faith and choose consulting over employment (which would be better for me emotionally, but could cause financial stress… which wouldn’t be good for me emotionally…)? Do I take an even bigger leap of faith and look for a job with another small, family-run business that’s willing to give me the flexibility (and compensation) that I had gotten used to?

We’re supposed to talk again next Tuesday, at which point I’m supposed to tell my boss what direction I want to go… I hope I can choose wisely.

It’s one of the most recognizable phrases in an Oscar-winning movie (confession: I haven’t seen “Jerry Maguire”, though it’s on my “to-watch” list). That sentence, and the dialog that surrounds it, is seen by many as a beautifully romantic declaraion of love.

And it’s rubbish.

There’s a term for the sort of relationship the “you complete me” / “better half” mindset encourages: codependent.

This approach to relationships suggests that each of us is merely a half-person, unwhole and incomplete until we find that “other half” who will fit us perfectly. It denigrates the individuals in a relationship and makes them worthless—or at least worth less—without the partner.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for the idea that a healthy relationship with a loving partner can inspire us to be our best selves. I believe absolutely that the best pairings are synergystic—that the partnership can be better than the sum of the partners.

But I also believe that in order for that to happen you need to bring two complete, whole, and strong individuals together, so that each can contribute a full measure of effort and energy to the relationship.

In fact, I believe that the ideal relationship is one in which each partner inspires the other to be a better individual, completely independent of the partnership.

I have some experience with codependency. For nearly fifteen years my sense of self was defined entirely by my relationship with Sarah—or more accurately, by my contributions to that relationship. I believed that it was my job, as her husband, to see to her every need—even to the complete disregard for my own needs. I was lost, emotionally, when I was unable to meet her needs or to serve her or to make her happy.

She completed me, and even the thought of a life without her terrified me, because without her I was less than a whole person.

It’s possible that this abandonment of self was related to my buried attraction to men. Perhaps I hoped to absolve myself of the guilt that those unrecognized attractions dredged up by being the best husband I could be.

In the process I did Sarah a great disservice. I robbed her of countless opportunities for growth. I prevented her from discovering her potential. By insisting that she be my “other half” I made her less than a whole person too.

I’m a recovering codependent. I still haven’t mastered the ability to consider my own needs in addition to (not instead of) Sarah’s. In attempting to learn the skill I’ve overcompensated at times, and been more selfish and less attentive to her needs than I should be (as a friend, if not as a husband). And there are still plenty of occasions when I slip into old ways and define myself by what I can do for her. But I am learning.

It’s been a learning process for Sarah too. She’s had to learn to do for herself things that I haven’t let her do in the past. But after I set her free (against her will, to some extent) I’ve watched her soar, and I’ve been awed by her strength.

My codependent nature has expressed itself in other relationships too—and it’s rarely (if ever) been a good thing. I hope to continue to get better at resisting the compulsion to define myself by others’ needs.

… And I intend to be whole and complete and strong if/when I find someone special (who is also whole and complete) to call “partner”. I intend that he and I will inspire each other to become the best individuals we can be, so that our partnership can be something truly and wholly amazing.

A homophone is one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but are spelled differently. The word comes from the Greek homo (“same”) and ph?n? (“voice” or “sound”). A homograph (“same writing”) is one of a group of words that share the same spelling but mean different things. A homonym (“same name”) is technically one of a group of words that share the same spelling and pronunciation but mean different things—but the term is often more loosely used to refer to words that are either homophones or homographs.

In the English language there are three homophones pronounced “t??” (IPA “tu?”). They are spelled “two”, “to” and “too”.

Most people seem to know and understand that “two” refers to the numeral 2. But there seems to be too much confusion about the other two…

“To” has two uses:

It can be a preposition (which means it always precedes a noun) that indicates “direction”, as in “Jack went to the store”, or “possession”, as in “The candy belonged to Jack”.

It can also be an infinitive (which precedes a verb), as in “Jack needs to brush his teeth”.

“Too” has two uses too:

It can mean “also”, as in “Jack is going to the store, and Jill is going too“.

It can also indicate “an excess of”, as in “Jack bought too much candy”.

Here’s how to decide which homophone to use:

1. Are you talking about a number? Use “two” (again, most people seem to get this one right most of the time).
2. Can you substitute “also” or “an excess of” for the words? Then you also need an excess of ‘o’s. Use “too”.
3. Neither of the above? Use “to”.

Exercise: Transcribe the sentence from this recording:

The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please try the following: Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly. If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted. Click the Back button to try another link. HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS) Technical Information (for support personnel) Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404. Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.

Use the mouse to highlight/select the text in the box below to see if you got it right:

Jack had to go to too many stores to find two candies that Jill liked too.

I started a long rambling post about depression and isolation in an attempt to figure out what’s had me so down lately. I was a thousand words in when I figured out what the problem is. So I’ll make that long story short and focus instead on what I need to do to fix it…

Short version:

I have felt, the last few weeks, like I don’t really have any friends. I try to get out and be social, but even when I’m in a social situation with a lot of people I’m alone. I go to Simply Social alone. I go to karaoke at JAM alone. I went to Lady Gaga alone.

In my abandoned post I was ready to launch into a lamentation about how I don’t have any friends. Everyone I see at Simply Social or at Jam or at concerts or whatever is with someone, whether it’s a boyfriend or partner or just a group of buddies. I’m always by myself (and even when I do run into people I know they’re usually with someone else, and I’m still an outsider).

Of course, I had barely started whining about the situation when it occurred to me that I do have friends, and that I even have friends who invite me to things. Like the three or four parties I’ve gone to in the last month at various friends’ houses.

Problem is, even at those parties I felt alone, isolated, disconnected. In fact, I even feel that way at my own parties.

So here’s the problem as I see it:

First of all, I don’t think I’m entirely imagining things: I really don’t have as many “hang out” types of friends as a lot of gay guys do. That’s not to say that I don’t have any friends at all—just that the friends I do have (who I love dearly) are too busy with life to go out, or don’t like going out, or don’t (often) think to invite me along when they do.

That said: the isolation I feel is probably self-imposed, at least to an extent. When I feel uncomfortably disconnected at a party with a bunch of friends (and alcohol, even) it’s probably largely just me isolating myself by shutting down and withdrawing from the group.

In fact, it’s entirely likely that my withdrawal is obvious enough to others that they are uncomfortable for me, and therefore less likely to invite me to hang out (so I’m probably feeding that problem).

I’ve never really been a social butterfly. I’ve never been comfortable reaching out and initiating conversations and making friends. I think I’m better at it than I used to be, but it still requires an effort that is, at least sometimes, more than I can muster.

So how do I fix this? I want to be social. I want to be able to have fun hanging out with friends. There have been times when I’ve genuinely enjoy going out to eat with friends, or going to the club with friends for dancing or karaoke, or hanging out at a friend’s house, watching a movie or playing games. I don’t want to be a wallflower or shrinking violet or any other floral-based metaphor.

But sometimes the walls between me and others seem unbreakable and insurmountable.

Suggestions?

In the comments on that post Sarah references a Facebook discussion that I was extensively involved in. In examining that conversation I have, perhaps, been better able to understand my own views on tolerance, anger, acceptance, etc…

The post that started the whole thing wasn’t specifically about gay issues, though it was tangentially related as a response to the DoJ decision not to defend DOMA. The poster accused President Obama of attempting to “divide” and “destroy” the country (by forcing gay marriage down our throats).

I responded to the comment, stating that rhetoric such as this (from both sides of the political divide) was the real divisive element, and that it was disingenuous to accuse the President of intentional malice in his actions. I stated that no matter what I thought of a President and his policies, I still acknowledged that he was doing what he felt was best for the country.

The poster’s response shifted the conversation to a direct discussion of legalized gay marriage, and she made several statements about the supposed threats to religious freedom that such legalization would present.

In reply, I expressed a hope that the poster would learn a bit more about the subject before parroting misrepresentations and half-truths. I shared three examples of a religion’s freedom to practice its beliefs specific to marriage even when they were more restrictive than the civil government’s:

Catholic doctrine prohibits divorce, and a Catholic priest will refuse to re-marry someone who has divorced. Despite the fact that civil law does not prohibit a divorced individual from remarrying, the government will not force a Catholic priest to solemnize such a marriage, as it respects the religion’s right to practice its beliefs.

LDS “doctrine” used to prevent blacks from entering the temples (as an extension of the priesthood ban). Despite the fact that the civil government allowed blacks to marry, it would not force the LDS church to solemnize such marriages in the temple (which would have been a violation of the church’s “doctrine”/policies at that point).

Finally, non-LDS couples (or even LDS couples that are “unworthy”) are not allowed to marry in the temple, and the government has not (and will not) force the church to solemnize such marriages against the dictates of its belief.

The poster then expressed a belief in “equality” and support for “civil unions” for gay couples, but reasserted her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and asked that I respect said belief.

I think that it was at this point that Sarah got involved in the conversation, and her comment more or less echoed my sentiments. Another neighbor jumped in at this point as well, saying that we shouldn’t let fear of being seen as “uncaring, prejudiced, uneducated or brainwashed” prevent us from taking sides on this issue, and that we shouldn’t take offense at opposing views.

I replied that I was not offended, and that I do respect every individual’s right to his/her own beliefs, unless those beliefs are used to justify attempts to rob other individuals of their “inalianable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Further, I feel no obligation to respect beliefs that are not honestly obtained, but that are based on unquestioning acceptance of the statements of others–especially when said statements are full of half-truths and distortions.

That’s when I bowed out of the conversation (because I had an appointment that took me away from the computer), and that’s when things apparently went downhill. The other neighbor (not the original poster) threw some of Sarah’s words back at her (she hates when people do that!) and misconstrued (unintentionally, I’m sure) some of her comments, and the whole thing fell apart.

… That’s probably a longer summary than was needful, but here’s what I’ve learned about my own views on tolerance, acceptance, and anger:

I am not required to tolerate “evil”. I put that word in quotes because it has the potential to be seen as inflammatory, but I can’t think of another word to express what I’m trying to say… I see “good” as anything that uplifts, aids, supports, or otherwise positively impacts others, and “evil” as anything that represses, harms, degrades, or otherwise negatively impacts others. Both good and evil can be either intended or unintended, but even unintended evil is “wrong”, and even though I should take the perpetrator’s intentions into account, still I am not required to react positively to the end result.

As a footnote to my views on “good” and “evil”, I generally (though perhaps not entirely) reject the notion that there’s a “greater good” that can justify or sanitize an evil act. At least not when that “greater good” is nothing more than an idea. There may be times when harm to an individual can prevent greater harm to multiple individuals (and when “evil” might be therefore justified). But ideas are never more important or more valuable than people, and harm to an individual or group in defense of an idea (with no discernable benefit to individual humans or humankind) is never justified.

In this light, I see the attempt to deny full equality (in marriage and every other aspect of life) as “evil”. The only “valid” (i.e. not thorougly discredited by carefule legal and/or social examination) justification for opposing full equality is that the “greater good” (i.e. the idea of the “institution of marriage” as delineated by “God’s will”) requires it. As noted, I reject that justification.

At the same time, I can still “respect”, “tolerate”, “understand” and “accept” another person’s belief that gay marriage is contrary to the “greater good”–just so long as they don’t try to justify the “evil” of denying someone their rights based on that belief.

In the case of the question of gay marriage, unfortunately, some people take the idea of a “greater good” even further, believing that their interest in the “greater good” not only justifies their opposition to legal same-sex marriage, but that it also justifies misrepresenting fact, distorting truth, and even outright lying to further their position.

That approach I am even less required to “tolerate”, and in fact I will actively fight against it, and I will be justified in feeling anger toward those who use such tactics.

Ideally I will make an effort to understand those whose views differ from mine. Not only does this reduce contention, but it also allows me to better frame my own position in the debate in a manner that they will be able to relate to.

Ideally, I will not allow my anger to unduly influence me to the point where I fight evil with evil. I will not resort to name-calling, or to violence. I will not assume that someone takes a certain position or feels a certain way simply because they are Christian or Mormon. I will respect each individual’s worth as a human being and respond to the opposition without ire. Sometimes that is so difficult as to be virtually impossible, and sometimes I will regret my harshness. Hopefully I will, at least, learn from such experiences.

But whether I respond in anger or with patience, I still will not “tolerate” evil.

I recently stumbled across two videos (click the UK on the map to proceed to the page with the videos) discussing “dress standards” for young members of the church who wish to attend the church-sponsored “EFY” (Especially For Youth) in the UK. Some of the ideas put forward by these videos bothered me.

The one intended for the Young Women was the worst. The general thrust of the video is that young women need to dress modestly because immodest dress will put bad thoughts into the young mens’ heads, making them unworthy to serve missions.

One illustrative quote from the video:

Elder Oaks taught us that when young women choose to dress immodestly they become pornography.

And another:

You know, if you dress immodestly, you are responsible for putting those thoughts into those boys’ heads… They are responsible for getting rid of them, but you are the one who put those thoughts into their head.

…

…

WTF?

I honestly don’t even know how to begin to respond to that. A young woman in a spaghetti strap or a bikini is pornography? And she is responsible for every sexual thought in the head of every young man who sees her?

Aaargh!

I have a teenage daughter. She is beautiful and pure, and I appreciate that she wants to dress modestly. But I sincerely hope that she doesn’t buy into this idea that she would become pornography if she dressed otherwise, or that she is responsible for what anyone else thinks.

… And I hope, too, that she doesn’t succumb to the idea that her body—or anyone’s body—is anything to be ashamed of, or that sexuality is anything other that normal and natural and beautiful.

I’m all for a modest and decorous attitude toward dress, but the church takes the idea of “modesty” and “appropriateness” way too far. From the young mens’ video:

The fireside–it wasn’t even in our ward, it was just a general fireside for the future missionaries, and so I thought I’d wear a blue shirt. I had a blue shirt on, and I had a tie and everything … and as I shook his hand he said to me “Let’s hope that we see you in a white shirt next time.” … I just felt like *this big* [holds finger and thumb an inch apart], and I just felt like the biggest idiot, and I said “I’m never, ever going to do anything church-related again, unless I have a white shirt on.”

Why would we ever feel like it was right and good for a church leader—someone who is looked up to and respected—to make someone feel “this big”—like “the biggest idiot”—purely for their choice in clothing?

I might be able to understand and excuse the insistence on some sort of “uniform” (white shirts) for a priesthood ordinance (like passing the sacrament).

But this was a damn fireside! There is no excuse for calling someone out on their choice of dress and making him feel small and stupid for failing to conform to an arbitrary standard. That’s certainly not something Jesus would have done!

In my mind, this judgmental, holier-than-thou, elitist and conformist attitude (which displays itself elsewhere in LDS culture, not just in “dress standards”) is one of the most backward and harmful aspects of the modern LDS church.

… And for the record: I’m not responsible for any thoughts I might have when I look at the picture attached to this post. It’s his fault for dressing that way.

When I first arrived in Philadelphia as a fresh missionary I saw the tattoo shops in our area and fantasized about getting a CTR emblem or angel Moroni in an inconspicuous place (yeah, I know…). If I hadn’t known that body art was frowned upon by the church (and believed that that prohibition was inspired) I’m certain I would have gotten one.

I don’t have any reason not to, anymore, and I’m seriously considering it. At the same time, I’m a little bit nervous about making what amounts to a permanent decision—I have to be absolutely certain about what I want and where I want it if I’m going to live with it for the rest of my life (though this may not be as pertinent an issue as it used to be—organic inks have been developed that are permanent until the substance that encapsulates the ink is broken up with a laser, at which point the ink is absorbed and eliminated by the body).

As well, I suppose I wonder a little bit about the impact (positive or negative) that a tattoo might have on my dating prospects, but ultimately, of course, a tattoo would be for me.

I’ve spent some time considering what I like. Here are some of the things I would shoot for before finally deciding on a design and location:

With almost no exceptions, I tend to prefer monochromatic tattoos with sharp contrast—think “tribal” designs and the like. Color should be minimal or non-existent, and shading or gradations of black and white should be minimal as well.

I prefer subtleness and understatement. I’m generally not interested in full “sleeves” or other designs that cover a large percentage of the body. Less is more.

I prefer designs that fit… That look like they belong on the body and convincingly incorporate the body’s curves and features. Even better are designs that successfully guide the eye to the best features of the body.

Of course, in light of this last characteristic, I should probably wait until I actually have a body with features worth highlighting—without exception the tattoos that really appeal to me are displayed on skin with well-defined muscle underneath.

Given that fact, I’ll be considering my options for quite a while—I still have a way to go before I’ve got the “canvas” the way I want it. In the meantime, I’m open to any and all suggestions: What do you find sexy in a tattoo (assuming you even find them appealing at all)? What would you get if you decided to get a tattoo (or what have you gotten, if you already have one or more)? References to excellent artists in the Salt Lake area are welcome.

Below is a gallery of tattoo images that I find appealing. Enjoy!

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

Doctrine & Covenants 89:9

… And some Iranian researches have proven it. According to this article tea drinkers who only wait a couple of minutes after pouring to start drinking are five times more likely to develop throat cancer than those who wait four or more minutes.

The exact reason for the correlation is unknown, but presumably drinking too-hot coffee or even too-hot cocoa would similarly increase the risk of throat cancer.

… And of course we all know that hot drinks pose other risks.

I uploaded several of these photos to Facebook, but I thought I’d share them here because they’re so beautiful.

The city of Midway, UT has hosted an “exhibit” of “ice castles” for at least the last couple of years. These aren’t “ice sculptures” as you might traditionally think of them—where a block of ice is carved (usually with chainsaws) into something.

Instead, these sculptures are “grown” by strategic placement of pipes, sprinklers, etc. over the course of several weeks. Some cutting is involved too—mostly to carve pathways among the castles—but for the most part it’s an additive rather than a subtractive process. Some of the structures are grown around lights, which become embedded in the ice and create an ethereal glow. You can read more about the process (and see more stunning photos) on the artist’s blog.

The results are stunning, especially when viewed at dusk on a clear evening. We were in Midway over the weekend, staying in my parents’ condo, and we spent nearly an hour wandering through the exhibit and taking pictures.

I didn’t have my “good” camera (a digital SLR) with me, so all of these pics were taken with the camera in my iPhone. Still, they didn’t turn out too badly, if I say so myself.

Enjoy!

It’s been interesting to see who has un-friended me. Once or twice, it’s been a surprise to me, as I considered the person a real friend (as opposed to a Facebook-only friend)—someone who I had met in person and shared common views or experiences with. In these cases, I couldn’t help but wonder if I had offended the person in some way. And as a general rule, I never re-request friendship with these people, because I assume that they had a good reason (in their own minds, at least) for un-friending me, and I don’t want to be a pest.

My own policy on Facebook friends has been a very relaxed one, very lazily enforced. Officially (in my own mind) I don’t accept friend requests from people I’ve never met (either online or in person), unless that request is accompanied by a message explaining why the individual wants to be Facebook friends with me.

In practice, though, I tend to accept a friend request from a stranger (without an accompanying message) if we have enough friends in common (with “enough” being some arbitrary number that might change day to day).

As a result, I have a friend list that contains quite a few people I’ve never met, never communicated with, and know nothing about.

I’m not an extremely private person, so this doesn’t concern me from a privacy perspective at all. But it does bother me a little bit that my news feed tends to be so crowded that I miss what I might consider important updates from the people I sincerely care about if I don’t check my feed every hour or two.

As I write this, it all seems a little silly… that I should feel obligated to keep an eye on my friends’ statuses and posts… That is how people seem to “keep in touch” these day, but I do remember a time when I knew far less about the lives of the people close to me and wasn’t bothered by that fact.

Still, it’s nice to know that so-and-so is now in a relationship (so I can congratulate him), or that such-and-such is having a bad day (so that I can offer sympathy and whatever help I might be able to give).

Anyway…

It’s gotten to the point where I’m seriously considering a “purge” of my friends list—something I’ve never done before. The only thing that holds me back is the fear that I’ll upset someone who values the tenuous link that we have in our Facebook-friendship (even if that’s all we have). I hate hurting peoples’ feelings!

What do you think? Is there any harm in removing from my friend list people I have never met and never communicate with? Should I be more vigilant in enforcing my “only if we’ve met or you send me a message” policy?