frank lloyd wrong

i'm so sorry, that's the worst title ever. but there it stays, taunting you with its badness.

one of our faithful readers informs me that our blog is difficult to comment on because the stories are so random. and since we only have a few faithful readers, that means a significant percentage of our readership refuses to become commentor-ship, which is a problem. so today i implore you to please help me by commenting on this story:

if you've been reading along, you'll know that my good blogmate recently went on a date with a local architecture buff. sounded good. only it turned out that he wasn't really an architecture buff, but didn't actually like architecture, or anything else, and he was so undecided about the date that he called back to make sure she understood it wasn't a real date, and couldn't carry a two-sentence conversation for the whole thing. so it was a non-good non-date with a non-architecture buff. my biggest disappointment is that, once again, i didn't get to spy on them. but the bigger problem is that my blogmate is taking the suckiness of the non-date personally. my argument to the contrary?

1) you cannot make someone un-boring
2) you cannot make someone un-depressed or un-dysthymic
3) you cannot give someone tact
4) you cannot remove someone's receding hairline or bad teeth
5) you can run, but you cannot hide someone's fatness

but most importantly: she only went in the first place to see a) if she remembered who this guy was, and b) since he was clearly dysfunctional and broken from his previous relationship, at least he might be funny enough for not a romantic rendezvous, but a life-coaching situation where she got to give him advice on girls while they watched the wb and ate pizza. therefore:

6) if your highest aspiration for the guy is that you might be able to recognize him on the street and laugh at his anti-social tendencies, i say you cannot take it personally if the guy doesn't sweep you off your feet.

people, help me here.