![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mom and Emma are going to be coming in around 4:30 on Saturday, and Mom will be coming with me to shul in the afternoon. I presume Em won't, but one never knows. And we'll be going to the dance party Saturday night. Between that and finding our way to MIT again, it should be a somewhat adventurous driving weekend. Also very busy. But now I'm off to go do laundry and homework/reading.
Mom and Emma are going to be coming in around 4:30 on Saturday, and Mom will be coming with me to shul in the afternoon. I presume Em won't, but one never knows. And we'll be going to the dance party Saturday night. Between that and finding our way to MIT again, it should be a somewhat adventurous driving weekend. Also very busy. But now I'm off to go do laundry and homework/reading.
I was sitting outside the Village laundry room for the last few hours, doing homework and waiting for my laundry to be finished (ahh, the joys of living off campus. I miss the clotheslines at home.), and watched the procession of groups in the multipurpose space: first bellydancers, then I think hiphop, then an a capella group. And watching the last group, it reminded me a lot of some of that high school-ish longing to fit in, to "be cool". Would I have been happier, or better off if I'd spent college trying to do the classic college thing, and worn the skimpy cloths, and gone to the parties and tried to learn that culture? Those sorts of folks always Look like they're having such a good time in such a classic way...
Somehow I doubt it. I've occcasionally tried to do that stuff, and it never goes over well. I've had a splendid time with my assorted geeky friends, and I oughtn't (and don't, except for 10 minute nonsense like this) doubt it or think less of it. I think the problem is that it's hard to see yourself or your friend-group from the outside. And from the inside, you only think about these things when you're not in the midst of social interaction.
Speaking of social interaction, we had the funniest time after Bible in Aramaic today, when![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
flyingstalins started talking about a hypothetical joke-thesis about how "pants aren't biblical", the text being "here are the verses in the Bible that don't mention pants:" and then a printout of all of the bible. The suggestion of "here are the verses in the Bible that deal with pants:" and a blank page isn't bulky enough to be impressive. But then we started pondering the question, and Prof. Wright pointed out that the priests are indeed required to wear some sort of pant-like things under their robes when ascending the altar- these are under-pants. Then we decided that one would have to study Indo-European word construction rules to see whether underpants mean garments worn under pants, or pants worn Under other garments. Then there was argument over whether such a garment would have a name like that if pants as a separate category didn't exist, and then Steve suggested something about panties, and we all stormed off. It was more fun than it probably sounds like.
Dunno, it was a funny day.
Somehow I doubt it. I've occcasionally tried to do that stuff, and it never goes over well. I've had a splendid time with my assorted geeky friends, and I oughtn't (and don't, except for 10 minute nonsense like this) doubt it or think less of it. I think the problem is that it's hard to see yourself or your friend-group from the outside. And from the inside, you only think about these things when you're not in the midst of social interaction.
Speaking of social interaction, we had the funniest time after Bible in Aramaic today, when
flyingstalins started talking about a hypothetical joke-thesis about how "pants aren't biblical", the text being "here are the verses in the Bible that don't mention pants:" and then a printout of all of the bible. The suggestion of "here are the verses in the Bible that deal with pants:" and a blank page isn't bulky enough to be impressive. But then we started pondering the question, and Prof. Wright pointed out that the priests are indeed required to wear some sort of pant-like things under their robes when ascending the altar- these are under-pants. Then we decided that one would have to study Indo-European word construction rules to see whether underpants mean garments worn under pants, or pants worn Under other garments. Then there was argument over whether such a garment would have a name like that if pants as a separate category didn't exist, and then Steve suggested something about panties, and we all stormed off. It was more fun than it probably sounds like. Dunno, it was a funny day.
I was sitting outside the Village laundry room for the last few hours, doing homework and waiting for my laundry to be finished (ahh, the joys of living off campus. I miss the clotheslines at home.), and watched the procession of groups in the multipurpose space: first bellydancers, then I think hiphop, then an a capella group. And watching the last group, it reminded me a lot of some of that high school-ish longing to fit in, to "be cool". Would I have been happier, or better off if I'd spent college trying to do the classic college thing, and worn the skimpy cloths, and gone to the parties and tried to learn that culture? Those sorts of folks always Look like they're having such a good time in such a classic way...
Somehow I doubt it. I've occcasionally tried to do that stuff, and it never goes over well. I've had a splendid time with my assorted geeky friends, and I oughtn't (and don't, except for 10 minute nonsense like this) doubt it or think less of it. I think the problem is that it's hard to see yourself or your friend-group from the outside. And from the inside, you only think about these things when you're not in the midst of social interaction.
Speaking of social interaction, we had the funniest time after Bible in Aramaic today, whenflyingstalins started talking about a hypothetical joke-thesis about how "pants aren't biblical", the text being "here are the verses in the Bible that don't mention pants:" and then a printout of all of the bible. The suggestion of "here are the verses in the Bible that deal with pants:" and a blank page isn't bulky enough to be impressive. But then we started pondering the question, and Prof. Wright pointed out that the priests are indeed required to wear some sort of pant-like things under their robes when ascending the altar- these are under-pants. Then we decided that one would have to study Indo-European word construction rules to see whether underpants mean garments worn under pants, or pants worn Under other garments. Then there was argument over whether such a garment would have a name like that if pants as a separate category didn't exist, and then Steve suggested something about panties, and we all stormed off. It was more fun than it probably sounds like.
Dunno, it was a funny day.
Somehow I doubt it. I've occcasionally tried to do that stuff, and it never goes over well. I've had a splendid time with my assorted geeky friends, and I oughtn't (and don't, except for 10 minute nonsense like this) doubt it or think less of it. I think the problem is that it's hard to see yourself or your friend-group from the outside. And from the inside, you only think about these things when you're not in the midst of social interaction.
Speaking of social interaction, we had the funniest time after Bible in Aramaic today, when
flyingstalins started talking about a hypothetical joke-thesis about how "pants aren't biblical", the text being "here are the verses in the Bible that don't mention pants:" and then a printout of all of the bible. The suggestion of "here are the verses in the Bible that deal with pants:" and a blank page isn't bulky enough to be impressive. But then we started pondering the question, and Prof. Wright pointed out that the priests are indeed required to wear some sort of pant-like things under their robes when ascending the altar- these are under-pants. Then we decided that one would have to study Indo-European word construction rules to see whether underpants mean garments worn under pants, or pants worn Under other garments. Then there was argument over whether such a garment would have a name like that if pants as a separate category didn't exist, and then Steve suggested something about panties, and we all stormed off. It was more fun than it probably sounds like. Dunno, it was a funny day.
.