It still amazes me the extent to which celebrities believe they are either above the law or able to use their stardom to bend it to their will, in addition to their own inability to rein in the less pleasant aspects of their personality. Being famous may mean that some people put you on a pedestal, but it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and expect the media not to cover it. You're in the spotlight -- fame comes with its price and that price is constant attention.

I caught the last half-hour of Kurt & Courtney this afternoon (not the first time I've seen it) and every time I see that movie, it makes me think less of Courtney Love -- and at this point, I don't think I could think any less of anyone. I already hate her, her continued existence in the spotlight rankles me, but it just doesn't seem like she'll get hers anytime soon.

As documented in the film (and I've also heard this confirmed from other places), Courtney has repeatedly made death threats against journalists investigating her background and writing articles about her -- to the point where they were too scared to comment on her ever again because of their violent nature and harassing nature. She has physically attacked journalists, intimidated them so badly that they fled their houses and moved away from the cities they lived in, and threatened their families as well. In spite of that, she was a featured speaker at an ACLU event -- surprising, considering the organization champions free speech.

I've found Courtney to be pretty stupid, pretty crass, pretty violent, and not talented at all -- but more than that, I think she's a pretty poor excuse for a human being. Funny how it's the bad eggs who get famous and revered. It makes me doubt that there's justice in the world, because the worst punishment an egomaniac and megalomaniac like her can experience is a life of mediocrity in an unnoticed existence.

For Todd and any others who might need any further clarification on my little discourse on our current economic snapshot:

Basically, with the dot-com explosion, the demand started with all these startups needing equipment and personnel, as well as old-school companies taking advantage of the quickly-exploding Internet to expand their businesses too. The startups got seed money from venture capitalists, because the VCs thought that these companies would make them money (either through profits or stock options). Companies that made high-tech equipment (like servers, desktops, routers, etc.) were hiring more people due to increased demand for their products by startups and other companies who were modernizing to compete with the startups. The startups employed people who they paid, and in turn all these employed people went out and bought whatever they wanted -- cars, trips, DVD players, etc. -- which created consumer demand. The consumer demand created more jobs at companies that made these consumers products that people were buying, so now a lot of companies were doing well and unemployment was low and people were swimming in money and stock options. And there was much rejoicing.

However, all was not well in the land of Booming Economy. The warning signs started to come when stock prices on these startups and dot-coms began going through the roof, and there was no way that these companies would either be able to produce the earnings needed to keep up with their stock prices or make a profit in the first place. A stable company's price/earnings ratio (P/E) is usually 100 or less (meaning that the price of their stock times how many shares available is 100 times the amount they earned in a fiscal year) but some of these dot-coms were posting P/E ratios of over 2000, but they could never achieve the kind of earnings that could serve as a solid foundation for a stock price that high. So these stocks crashed and people lost a lot of money that existed only on paper, but they had already spent this "non-existent" money anyways on big houses and luxury cars so they were now in debt. People started to take a closer look at some of these dot-coms' business models and found that there was no way that they would be able to make any real profit -- take Kozmo, for example, a delivery company that maintained a massive distribution network and offered to deliver products to you at home or work either at cost or below cost in some cases, but there was no way that they could sustain themselves when they weren't taking in enough money per transaction to pay for the costs of purchasing the product and its transit through their system and eventually having the delivery guy bring it to you.

So three things happened:
1. All those companies that had bad business models or weren't making a profit began to go bankrupt -- they weren't taking in any money to sustain themselves. This dumped people out of companies and onto the street, so they no longer had disposible income to spend on all these consumer items. Additionally, they had all this equipment they'd bought that they had to get rid of.
2. With more and more companies going under and more people becoming unemployed and therefore not spending money anymore on these personal luxury/consumer items (cars, DVD players, computers, etc.), there was no longer a need for companies making these personal items to mass-produce them on the scale they were anymore. In order to cut production costs and reduce their production so they wouldn't flood the market, these companies reduced the number of items they were making. Also because they were taking in less money because less people were buying their stuff, they had to lay off people in order to keep themselves profitable -- which dumped more people into unemployment and reduced the number of people willing to buy frivolous personal items. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
3. The companies that were able to maintain profitability and keep producing had already upgraded their hardware (servers, mainframes, routers, etc.) and everything they needed to stay current, and, in a time when they were trying to cut costs, weren't willing to go through another round of infrastructure purchasing, so the companies that made that high-level equipment also slowed down and laid off people.

So basically what we've got now is a lot of laid-off people who don't want to buy stuff because they have no money, and companies who need those people to buy stuff before they can hire people back. Here's where we get into the big mess regarding that economic stimulus package.

The Republicans and the Democrats want to stimulate the economy from opposite ends. The Republicans want to give money to the big companies so they'll be able to jump-start things by hiring on more people, which gives them disposible income so they'll be able to buy consumer products again, stimulating demand for even more people to be hired by consumer-item-producing companies. The Democrats want to give money to the people so they'll buy the products, increasing demand for them and causing companies to hire people to produce them, creating more disposible income so more people will be able buy personal items again. But they couldn't decide on which was better, so the package was scuttled, Congress got a pay raise and they went on vacation.

Next class: how to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.

For Todd and any others who might need any further clarification on my little discourse on our current economic snapshot:

Basically, with the dot-com explosion, the demand started with all these startups needing equipment and personnel, as well as old-school companies taking advantage of the quickly-exploding Internet to expand their businesses too. The startups got seed money from venture capitalists, because the VCs thought that these companies would make them money (either through profits or stock options). Companies that made high-tech equipment (like servers, desktops, routers, etc.) were hiring more people due to increased demand for their products by startups and other companies who were modernizing to compete with the startups. The startups employed people who they paid, and in turn all these employed people went out and bought whatever they wanted -- cars, trips, DVD players, etc. -- which created consumer demand. The consumer demand created more jobs at companies that made these consumers products that people were buying, so now a lot of companies were doing well and unemployment was low and people were swimming in money and stock options. And there was much rejoicing.

However, all was not well in the land of Booming Economy. The warning signs started to come when stock prices on these startups and dot-coms began going through the roof, and there was no way that these companies would either be able to produce the earnings needed to keep up with their stock prices or make a profit in the first place. A stable company's price/earnings ratio (P/E) is usually 100 or less (meaning that the price of their stock times how many shares available is 100 times the amount they earned in a fiscal year) but some of these dot-coms were posting P/E ratios of over 2000, but they could never achieve the kind of earnings that could serve as a solid foundation for a stock price that high. So these stocks crashed and people lost a lot of money that existed only on paper, but they had already spent this "non-existent" money anyways on big houses and luxury cars so they were now in debt. People started to take a closer look at some of these dot-coms' business models and found that there was no way that they would be able to make any real profit -- take Kozmo, for example, a delivery company that maintained a massive distribution network and offered to deliver products to you at home or work either at cost or below cost in some cases, but there was no way that they could sustain themselves when they weren't taking in enough money per transaction to pay for the costs of purchasing the product and its transit through their system and eventually having the delivery guy bring it to you.

So three things happened:
1. All those companies that had bad business models or weren't making a profit began to go bankrupt -- they weren't taking in any money to sustain themselves. This dumped people out of companies and onto the street, so they no longer had disposible income to spend on all these consumer items. Additionally, they had all this equipment they'd bought that they had to get rid of.
2. With more and more companies going under and more people becoming unemployed and therefore not spending money anymore on these personal luxury/consumer items (cars, DVD players, computers, etc.), there was no longer a need for companies making these personal items to mass-produce them on the scale they were anymore. In order to cut production costs and reduce their production so they wouldn't flood the market, these companies reduced the number of items they were making. Also because they were taking in less money because less people were buying their stuff, they had to lay off people in order to keep themselves profitable -- which dumped more people into unemployment and reduced the number of people willing to buy frivolous personal items. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
3. The companies that were able to maintain profitability and keep producing had already upgraded their hardware (servers, mainframes, routers, etc.) and everything they needed to stay current, and, in a time when they were trying to cut costs, weren't willing to go through another round of infrastructure purchasing, so the companies that made that high-level equipment also slowed down and laid off people.

So basically what we've got now is a lot of laid-off people who don't want to buy stuff because they have no money, and companies who need those people to buy stuff before they can hire people back. Here's where we get into the big mess regarding that economic stimulus package.

The Republicans and the Democrats want to stimulate the economy from opposite ends. The Republicans want to give money to the big companies so they'll be able to jump-start things by hiring on more people, which gives them disposible income so they'll be able to buy consumer products again, stimulating demand for even more people to be hired by consumer-item-producing companies. The Democrats want to give money to the people so they'll buy the products, increasing demand for them and causing companies to hire people to produce them, creating more disposible income so more people will be able buy personal items again. But they couldn't decide on which was better, so the package was scuttled, Congress got a pay raise and they went on vacation.

Next class: how to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.

According to a survey done by AT&T WorldNet a couple of years ago, only around 18% of Americans routinely celebrate New Year's in a public place -- meaning they're not by themselves or at a friend's party, they're out at a club or in Times Square or something like that.

My New Year's celebrations, much like my Valentine's Day celebrations, have been spotty. I actually spent New Year's home last year, watching the ball drop on TV with my roommate. Tacky for sharing my New Year's with Dick Clark and not taking advantage of the full celebratory possibilities of being in a major city, I know, but I was leaving in 2 days for a whirlwind weekend trip to Monterey, California, for my company's annual meeting and then a week later I was leaving for 6 days in Mexico, so I justified the quiet night in.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really spent New Year's doing anything "public" or mind-shatteringly celebratory. For the millennium, I flew down to Baltimore -- one of my friends' families was having a small party in an empty luxury apartment in a high-rise overlooking the harbor where the fireworks were going off, so we had a bird's eye view of the pyrotechnics (someone organizing the party was related to the building's owner, so we didn't break in). I spent most of the New Year's during my college years at an old friend's house in town, a college friend drove up to spend it with me once. Nothing special.

This year, my friends are talking about getting tickets to a club downtown and asked me if I was coming. I'll most likely say yes because it'll be good to get out and do something, but it'll just seem like another weekend night where I went out on the town, except the people will be dressed a little better and they'll all be making out at a specific time instead of randomly all over the place throughout the night.

According to a survey done by AT&T WorldNet a couple of years ago, only around 18% of Americans routinely celebrate New Year's in a public place -- meaning they're not by themselves or at a friend's party, they're out at a club or in Times Square or something like that.

My New Year's celebrations, much like my Valentine's Day celebrations, have been spotty. I actually spent New Year's home last year, watching the ball drop on TV with my roommate. Tacky for sharing my New Year's with Dick Clark and not taking advantage of the full celebratory possibilities of being in a major city, I know, but I was leaving in 2 days for a whirlwind weekend trip to Monterey, California, for my company's annual meeting and then a week later I was leaving for 6 days in Mexico, so I justified the quiet night in.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really spent New Year's doing anything "public" or mind-shatteringly celebratory. For the millennium, I flew down to Baltimore -- one of my friends' families was having a small party in an empty luxury apartment in a high-rise overlooking the harbor where the fireworks were going off, so we had a bird's eye view of the pyrotechnics (someone organizing the party was related to the building's owner, so we didn't break in). I spent most of the New Year's during my college years at an old friend's house in town, a college friend drove up to spend it with me once. Nothing special.

This year, my friends are talking about getting tickets to a club downtown and asked me if I was coming. I'll most likely say yes because it'll be good to get out and do something, but it'll just seem like another weekend night where I went out on the town, except the people will be dressed a little better and they'll all be making out at a specific time instead of randomly all over the place throughout the night.

FOR SALE: American Male Model US-4JNE, 25 Years Old
College-educated 25 year old American male US-4JNE available to most qualified applicant. Unit claims addiction to music, the Internet and broadband, digital cable. Comes equipped with car (unit says that car ownership title and keys can be "pried from my cold dead fingers"), Apple Macintosh computer and large multimedia collection. Mostly low maintenance -- can perform basic errands, do own laundry, self-entertaining and can usually entertain owners if they appreciate sardonic/self-deprecating/dry/intelligent humor. Unit also claims aversion to stupidity, vegetables, Fred Durst, "TRL."

Seeking liberal-minded owner able to lavish unit with expensive electronic gifts and affection. Please inquire with management if you are interested in owning this unit.

FOR SALE: American Male Model US-4JNE, 25 Years Old
College-educated 25 year old American male US-4JNE available to most qualified applicant. Unit claims addiction to music, the Internet and broadband, digital cable. Comes equipped with car (unit says that car ownership title and keys can be "pried from my cold dead fingers"), Apple Macintosh computer and large multimedia collection. Mostly low maintenance -- can perform basic errands, do own laundry, self-entertaining and can usually entertain owners if they appreciate sardonic/self-deprecating/dry/intelligent humor. Unit also claims aversion to stupidity, vegetables, Fred Durst, "TRL."

Seeking liberal-minded owner able to lavish unit with expensive electronic gifts and affection. Please inquire with management if you are interested in owning this unit.

I took another look at an Ambien-laced post that I made last week and edited out a section that made absolutely no sense, though I know now what I meant to say. I really have to remind myself that once I take an Ambien, I need to immediately shut down the computer and climb into bed. Otherwise, bad things happen, including me making absolutely no sense and I also occasionally hallucinate after I've taken it. So.

What I was talking about in terms of "people needing X first" and "we need Y before we can do anything" was the current economic situation. You've all heard me say that I think that the recession will deepen after the New Year when people get their credit card bills from when they were "being patriotic," and they'll cut back on spending so they can pay off the card from all the 2001 shopping they did.

The problem with hauling the economy back into stable territory and getting some of all these unemployed people jobs is that you need to create the corporate demand for materials and services before you can hire the people on to produce them. With all these companies shedding jobs and cutting back on spending in order to bring themselves back to making a profit so that their shareholders will be happy and their stock will go up, they're not going to want to take the risk and expenditure of hiring on people they might not need to supply a demand that might not be there. But without those unemployed people having jobs and spending money that they've earned, some of the demand for products won't come around because without employment, people aren't going to be so frivolous and spending money on products.

To put it simply: companies need the demand in order to hire people to supply the demand, and people need to be hired in order to create the demand. It's kind of a Catch-22, and it'll be interesting to see what eventually will happen to yank us out of this recession.

In other geopolitical news, today's Boston Globe ran an article on the front page about how our government gave $43 million to the Taliban to keep Afghani farmers from reaping the highly-profitable and low-maintenance poppy plant, since those Afghan poppies account for around 75 percent of the world's opium and heroin supplies. Now that we've run the Taliban out of power, Afghan farmers are starting to farm poppies again en masse. So we're winning the War on Terrorism and losing the War on Drugs. Man, this all sounds so familiar... maybe because I beat the Globe on this topic by a full month?

I took another look at an Ambien-laced post that I made last week and edited out a section that made absolutely no sense, though I know now what I meant to say. I really have to remind myself that once I take an Ambien, I need to immediately shut down the computer and climb into bed. Otherwise, bad things happen, including me making absolutely no sense and I also occasionally hallucinate after I've taken it. So.

What I was talking about in terms of "people needing X first" and "we need Y before we can do anything" was the current economic situation. You've all heard me say that I think that the recession will deepen after the New Year when people get their credit card bills from when they were "being patriotic," and they'll cut back on spending so they can pay off the card from all the 2001 shopping they did.

The problem with hauling the economy back into stable territory and getting some of all these unemployed people jobs is that you need to create the corporate demand for materials and services before you can hire the people on to produce them. With all these companies shedding jobs and cutting back on spending in order to bring themselves back to making a profit so that their shareholders will be happy and their stock will go up, they're not going to want to take the risk and expenditure of hiring on people they might not need to supply a demand that might not be there. But without those unemployed people having jobs and spending money that they've earned, some of the demand for products won't come around because without employment, people aren't going to be so frivolous and spending money on products.

To put it simply: companies need the demand in order to hire people to supply the demand, and people need to be hired in order to create the demand. It's kind of a Catch-22, and it'll be interesting to see what eventually will happen to yank us out of this recession.

In other geopolitical news, today's Boston Globe ran an article on the front page about how our government gave $43 million to the Taliban to keep Afghani farmers from reaping the highly-profitable and low-maintenance poppy plant, since those Afghan poppies account for around 75 percent of the world's opium and heroin supplies. Now that we've run the Taliban out of power, Afghan farmers are starting to farm poppies again en masse. So we're winning the War on Terrorism and losing the War on Drugs. Man, this all sounds so familiar... maybe because I beat the Globe on this topic by a full month?

The facts, as they stand, are:

1. Yes, I have a long black coat. I like it. It's comfortable and warm. I look good in it.
2. Yes, the stupid morons who took out Columbine also wore long black coats.
3. Yes, the characters in The Matrix wore long black coats.
4. Yes, the Columbine idiots and the Matrix characters wore long black leather coats.
5. No, my coat is not leather, it's made of merino wool and clearly looks it.
6. No, I am not carrying any weaponry, nor am I planning on doing so anytime in the near future.
7. No, I especially was not planning on doing all of my grocery shopping (as evidenced by the mostly full shopping cart I was pushing) and then going up to the front of the store and start shooting people. And that would be especially hard seeing as how I don't have a gun.
8. No, this is not the first time I've been asked if I'm carrying a weapon.
9. Yes, there really are some stupid people around. Long black coat does not equal rampant murderer. I'd like to see you go up to some executive or someone else dressed in this kind of coat (since I've often seen people of such stature out on their lunch breaks wearing these coats over their suits) and ask them if they're carrying.

The facts, as they stand, are:

1. Yes, I have a long black coat. I like it. It's comfortable and warm. I look good in it.
2. Yes, the stupid morons who took out Columbine also wore long black coats.
3. Yes, the characters in The Matrix wore long black coats.
4. Yes, the Columbine idiots and the Matrix characters wore long black leather coats.
5. No, my coat is not leather, it's made of merino wool and clearly looks it.
6. No, I am not carrying any weaponry, nor am I planning on doing so anytime in the near future.
7. No, I especially was not planning on doing all of my grocery shopping (as evidenced by the mostly full shopping cart I was pushing) and then going up to the front of the store and start shooting people. And that would be especially hard seeing as how I don't have a gun.
8. No, this is not the first time I've been asked if I'm carrying a weapon.
9. Yes, there really are some stupid people around. Long black coat does not equal rampant murderer. I'd like to see you go up to some executive or someone else dressed in this kind of coat (since I've often seen people of such stature out on their lunch breaks wearing these coats over their suits) and ask them if they're carrying.

I told my mom that I was developing knee problems from using the Stairmaster and the elliptical trainer, but it was a Catch-22 because I needed to use those machines in order to lose weight but using those machines would cause me pain and other non-weight-related physical ailments that would affect me later in life so I shouldn't use them. She suggested that I try a treadmill. So I used one for the first time today, I did 45 minutes on it and I was pretty proud of myself that I stuck through the entire time since I'm not used to an exercise machine that doesn't allow me to use momentum to help propel myself.

Then I stepped off. Hoo boy, the world felt so different when it wasn't moving under my feet. I walked down the hallway in kind of a daze, completely feeling like I was chemically enhanced. It's a cheap high, I know, but it's better for you than drinking a sixer.

I told my mom that I was developing knee problems from using the Stairmaster and the elliptical trainer, but it was a Catch-22 because I needed to use those machines in order to lose weight but using those machines would cause me pain and other non-weight-related physical ailments that would affect me later in life so I shouldn't use them. She suggested that I try a treadmill. So I used one for the first time today, I did 45 minutes on it and I was pretty proud of myself that I stuck through the entire time since I'm not used to an exercise machine that doesn't allow me to use momentum to help propel myself.

Then I stepped off. Hoo boy, the world felt so different when it wasn't moving under my feet. I walked down the hallway in kind of a daze, completely feeling like I was chemically enhanced. It's a cheap high, I know, but it's better for you than drinking a sixer.

Given that for some reason, I've been asked by more than one female friend about how to approach issues with their relatively-new boyfriends, I'm going to put up a nice little list of guidelines and facts about how to handle men in the opening stages of relationships for your reading pleasure. In case anyone asks me again about this, I'll just refer them here.

The Basic Rules for Dealing with Men in the Opening Stages of Relationships
as given by the Platonic Male Friend

1. Men are dense. As a rule. Hinting about places you want to go, things you want to do or information you want out of us will do you no good except to aggravate you. If you want something, ask directly for it. Men aren't subtle in the least, we don't know the ways of subtlety at all. We can't send or receive on the subtle wavelength. We're not going to rear back and bite your arm off if you ask us a question or make a request. Well, most of us won't.

2. As with any relationship on both sides, men are suave in the beginning. We will do romantic things that will sweep you off your feet. We will make you feel like queens of the world. But over time, that starts to cool off. Nick Hornby was completely right when he wrote in High Fidelity about how in the beginning, things are new and the problems are cute like "we've seen the same movies and don't want to go again" and the underwear is exciting, but when things cool down, real problems erupt and the underwear is only occasionally exciting. So don't expect us to be able to perpetually wow you with the same kinds of dates. After a month or two, we're going to have cut back on the spending (unless we're making good money) and also things will settle into "comfortability" as opposed to "making a great impression." The worst thing you can say to a guy is "you used to take me out all over the place, etc." Once you're past the initial stages, it's time to really get to know each other, and it's hard to do that over dinner and dancing at some impressive, flashy and loud club downtown. Besides, how come you can't take us out or make the plans one night if you want to do something special?

3. Men wouldn't mind some wooing as well. E-mails, gifts, called-to-say-I-had-a-great-time, etc. A little positive reinforcement goes a long way.

4. Don't set up specific guidelines or procedures for each stage of the relationship. He doesn't have to introduce you as his girlfriend by any specific time, he doesn't have to take you to see his parents by a certain week, he doesn't have to gain approval from your cat by the third time he stays over. The acts themselves help, but the timing shouldn't be a dealbreaker. There are more important dealbreakers to contend with.

There's a few others, but they're not as important. And I should probably go work out and shower so I can go grocery shopping already because I'm hungry. That's one side effect I miss about being in deep like -- I stop eating and I never get hungry so I end up losing weight, and that's one of the main ways I can tell when I'm falling for someone. My freshman year of college, I fell in deep like for the first time in my life and I lost 35 pounds instead of gaining the freshman 15. Of course, since I am the PMF, it was unrequited and I lost five pounds very quickly at the end of the year when she started dating someone. And now, since it's been a long time since I've been in deep like, I'm eating which makes me feel more unattractive (and probably actually does make me more unattractive, hence the reason why I should go work out).

Given that for some reason, I've been asked by more than one female friend about how to approach issues with their relatively-new boyfriends, I'm going to put up a nice little list of guidelines and facts about how to handle men in the opening stages of relationships for your reading pleasure. In case anyone asks me again about this, I'll just refer them here.

The Basic Rules for Dealing with Men in the Opening Stages of Relationships
as given by the Platonic Male Friend

1. Men are dense. As a rule. Hinting about places you want to go, things you want to do or information you want out of us will do you no good except to aggravate you. If you want something, ask directly for it. Men aren't subtle in the least, we don't know the ways of subtlety at all. We can't send or receive on the subtle wavelength. We're not going to rear back and bite your arm off if you ask us a question or make a request. Well, most of us won't.

2. As with any relationship on both sides, men are suave in the beginning. We will do romantic things that will sweep you off your feet. We will make you feel like queens of the world. But over time, that starts to cool off. Nick Hornby was completely right when he wrote in High Fidelity about how in the beginning, things are new and the problems are cute like "we've seen the same movies and don't want to go again" and the underwear is exciting, but when things cool down, real problems erupt and the underwear is only occasionally exciting. So don't expect us to be able to perpetually wow you with the same kinds of dates. After a month or two, we're going to have cut back on the spending (unless we're making good money) and also things will settle into "comfortability" as opposed to "making a great impression." The worst thing you can say to a guy is "you used to take me out all over the place, etc." Once you're past the initial stages, it's time to really get to know each other, and it's hard to do that over dinner and dancing at some impressive, flashy and loud club downtown. Besides, how come you can't take us out or make the plans one night if you want to do something special?

3. Men wouldn't mind some wooing as well. E-mails, gifts, called-to-say-I-had-a-great-time, etc. A little positive reinforcement goes a long way.

4. Don't set up specific guidelines or procedures for each stage of the relationship. He doesn't have to introduce you as his girlfriend by any specific time, he doesn't have to take you to see his parents by a certain week, he doesn't have to gain approval from your cat by the third time he stays over. The acts themselves help, but the timing shouldn't be a dealbreaker. There are more important dealbreakers to contend with.

There's a few others, but they're not as important. And I should probably go work out and shower so I can go grocery shopping already because I'm hungry. That's one side effect I miss about being in deep like -- I stop eating and I never get hungry so I end up losing weight, and that's one of the main ways I can tell when I'm falling for someone. My freshman year of college, I fell in deep like for the first time in my life and I lost 35 pounds instead of gaining the freshman 15. Of course, since I am the PMF, it was unrequited and I lost five pounds very quickly at the end of the year when she started dating someone. And now, since it's been a long time since I've been in deep like, I'm eating which makes me feel more unattractive (and probably actually does make me more unattractive, hence the reason why I should go work out).