while reading that article you sent me:

it's interesting 'cause it's about something that nobody talks about : the assumption that people are a waste of time, in general. What i don't get is that the author says that people aren't satisfying as she (clearly a she, no guy would get that emotional about a poet's insult, and no guy would mention that the poet walked around like he had a huge cock) talks about going out with her friends every night. If people aren't that satisfying, why have friends?

the logical conclusion to why poor charades players are bad at being people just doesn't hold salt, water, substance, whatever it is that logic holds. In fact, her whole argument about everything doesn't add up.

"whenever I get involved in a relationship, my idea of who I think I am utterly collides with the reality of who I actually am." Clearly ,she is bad at being a person. It's pretty easy to figure out who you are. A psychologist would have a field day wtih that quote, but I'll put it this way: She pretends that she thinks too much and doesn't act enough. it's obviously fake 'cause she wants to not act at all and sit inside all day/night and stay away from people. I find it hard to believe that she was happy when living in Montreal without knowing anybody and then suddently she met people and became less happy. Please, woman, who're you trying to fool? the whole argument is crap.

The end , wow, terrible. The answer was obvious all along, yet she tries to show that her argument is going somewhere when it never left the ground. It was the question that was incorrect. We don't need to go out, no sir. We need people, though, especially if we are to be a person. No sane person lives without people.