Friend Rules (Part 1?)

TITLE: Friend Rules (Part 1?)
STATUS: Publish
ALLOW COMMENTS: 1
CONVERT BREAKS: 1
ALLOW PINGS: 1
PRIMARY CATEGORY: Musings
CATEGORY: Friends
CATEGORY: Musings

DATE: 01/23/2003 02:39:53 PM
-----
BODY:

-----
EXTENDED BODY:
This subject comes up from time to time, so I figured it deserves an entry.  

As a general rule, I see myself as a good friend to others.  I also view my close friends as some of the finest people that anyone could know.  In a way, they are an extension of my family.  I hope these feelings are not foreign to anyone reading this.  

Though I don't generally show my friendship through buying gifts or spending money, there is one thing that I can, with 99.5% probablility, be counted on to give: my <i>time</i>.   I always make time for my friends, even to the detriment of work and/or school.  If a friend needs to talk or needs a favor, I will make time for them.  

<b>Friends (n).  Individuals who share personal, sometimes intimate details about themselves and their families with one another; relations deemed closer than acquaintances. </b>

Perhaps naively, I expect those whom I consider friends to treat me the same way.  That's not to say I expect them to drop everything when I come calling; I'm not completely unreasonable.  But unless there is some kind of extenuating circumstance (an emergency, trip, etc.), I do expect them to adhere to certain rules of common courtesy.  

One rule is: if we are <i>in the same city</i>, and I try to get in touch with someone, the person should return the favor within a reasonable timeframe.  This especially applies if I make more than one attempt.  The friend doesn't have to call or even send a personal e-mail.  Just a simple two-line message saying you're busy is quite acceptable; several of my friends do that.  Shit, even a mass-mailing telling everyone that you're busy and you'll get back to them soon will be fine.  Something is better than nothing.
(REMEMBER: this rule does *not* apply if we are not in the same city or time zone.  Also, if you 1) have an emergency, 2) go away, or 3) wait a week, that's fine.)  

My philosophy behind this rule is: yes, someone might be busy...indeed, we are *all* busy.  Yet, we make time for the things we care about.  I try to get in touch with people because I am genuinely concerned with their welfare.  Not responding at all makes me think one of two things --  
One: Holy shit!   There must be something seriously wrong.  I hope nobody died or anything.  
Two: This person doesn't care enough about my feelings to let me know they're okay - or to check on <i>my</i> well-being.

It doesn't take more than five minutes to send an e-mail (mass or othewise), or leave a voicemail.  Everyone has the time.  All it takes is a tiny bit of effort.  If a person living in the same city can't put in that effort, I will soon cease to consider that person a friend.  

I guess everyone has weird issues that piss them off that others don't have a problem with.  This one happens to be one of mine.  Any questions?
Agree/disagree?  Comments?  
-----

KEYWORDS:

-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jide_cabana
URL:
DATE: 01/26/2003 11:03:07 AM
Joe, J-Lo will NEVER make good music, period.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Joe
URL:
DATE: 01/26/2003 03:35:02 AM
I am too busy to read your posts...  I have no emergencies right now in my life, I'm not planning on going anywhere for a while... I guess I'll wait two weeks before I post again!@

PS You know I love you!  <3

PPS When will J-Lo make some good music WITHOUT ripping off an old-school hip-hop beat???
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: jide_cabana
URL:
DATE: 01/25/2003 05:02:28 PM
How so?
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: yoni
URL: http://www.jknoll.org/
DATE: 01/24/2003 05:54:37 AM
ooh. that first line makes me proud!
-----

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit