Dating 101: The First Date…and Getting the Second…
Okay, as promised a couple weeks ago, here’s Cousin Nora’s attempt at some advice for eligible gents (and ladies) who are subjecting themselves to the joys and pitfalls of modern dating. Ugh. First, allow me to present my “credentials:” I’ve dated a lot. I was married once. I’ve had many GREAT relationships with fantastic men who just weren’t right for me. And I’ve gone on more dates than I care to remember. I’ve dated some daddy mac ladies men and can tell you what makes them so annoyingly endearing. I also have a brother who always gets the babes and another brother who never does and has given up trying. This is fortunate for the women of the world, since he’s the hairiest man alive. I also have four sisters by blood and many sisters by choice (hey, girls!) I have lots of guy friends as well. What do we talk about? Dating and relationships, of course. And here’s a place where I’m hoping to share some information, information derived from countless hours spent discussing men and women and every combination thereof.
I’d been thinking about writing a dating blog – and have even toyed with the idea of writing a book about my unique dating stories and relationship tales. I was further inspired to action when one of my closest friends and I inadvertently observed a date while she and I worked at a café in Silicon Valley (a mecca for the ladies since eligible nerds abound). Anyhow, Alexis and I were at this café and ended up sitting next to a man and woman who appeared to be in their mid-30’s. It was quickly clear to us that we had stumbled upon an internet date. Alexis and I have been on many of these dates (not with each other, tragically, as she and I share an addiction to men and their accouterment – more on why I’m bitter later lol). 
So allow me to present our daters: Dude: Attractive (but not hot), fit, white guy wearing jeans, good shirt, great boots (guys, don’t underestimate the importance of selecting the right shoes) (Chick Magnet image courtesy of the Funny T Shirt category). Chick: Attractive, fit, Asian (turned out to be Japanese) woman nicely dressed and coiffed. Let’s name the dude, hm, Brent and the chick Kathy.
It’s clear that Brent and Kathy have had at least some communication online because Kathy has brought a Tupperware container with stewed bananas in sauce and, at some point, the two share this dish. So they must’ve discussed it before they met, unless Kathy just travels with prepared snacks. When Alexis and I first sat down, Brent and Kathy’s conversation seemed to be going pretty well. We could hear Brent very clearly since a. The table was pretty close to ours and b. his voice was on the loud side. In fact, we couldn’t have ignored him if we’d tried. According to what we heard, Brent worked in technical sales and had a couple kids and an ex-wife who now lived in Japan. He liked to ride bicycles. In fact, he said that, at one point, he compulsively rode bicycles and had to discipline himself from overdoing it. Red flag number one: In talking about his exercise this way, Brent was bragging and pretending that he considered his compulsive exercise a flaw. It was like he just wanted to show Kathy how hardcore he was about cycling. At this point, Brent disappointed me and I thought he made himself sound like a total wanker. But Kathy seemed okay…her body language for at least the first 30 minutes of the date showed that she was into Brent and he had a chance at a second date.
But then Alexis and I noticed that he was talking about his ex an awful late. HUGE red flag! Not only did he talk about her too much, but when he talked about doing different activities, he referred to “we” instead of “I.” This was weird. Was he talking about him and his kids? Him and his ex and their kids? Was he thinking he was King Brent and utilizing the “royal we?” WTF, Brent?! He never clarified who “we” meant and, at this point, we noticed that Kathy seemed less enthusiastic. Why, you wonder? In addition to the “we” thing, at this point in the date, we know all this stuff about Brent, but nothing about Kathy because HE DOESN’T ASK OR SEEM TO CARE. We know Kathy’s from Japan. We know she cooks bananas in sauce (which looked pretty good), and we know she lives in or near Oakland because Brent thanked her for driving down to the peninsula and talked about Oakland restaurants near her.
Towards the end of the date, Brent kept bringing up different restaurants in Kathy’s area, clearly hinting that he wanted to have dinner with her. Kathy ignored these attempts at establishing date number two. Neither Alexis nor I heard Brent asking her for that second date, but what I did notice was that he asked her something, she responded, and then he said, “Well, nice meeting you,” turned quickly and walked out of the café as quickly as he could without breaking into a sprint. Crash and burn. Poor Brent. Alexis and I felt really bad for the guy because he seemed nice, interesting, and intelligent – and he was cute, as well. So what went wrong?
Fatal error: Brent talked waaaaay too much about himself. If we (ha) were to divide the time he spent talking and the time Kathy spent talking, I’d estimate the proportion to be 75% (Brent) vs. 25% (Kathy). That’s way too much talking time from Brent. And, not only was he talking too much, but he talked about himself the whole time. And about Japan and his fondness for all things Japanese. This creeped me out, since I was wondering if Brent had an Asian fetish and was just looking for Kathy to fulfill his Asian fantasy (or substitute for his Japanese ex). Anyhow, Kathy wasn’t as loud as Brent – maybe she didn’t want to share her business with that particular corner of the café or maybe she was shy or, by that point, wanted to end the date as quickly as possible – so Alexis and I couldn’t hear her as well. But it was obvious that he talked most of the time. By the second 30 minutes of the date, Kathy had shifted into leaning back against the chair with her arms crossed.
So here’s my advice:
This morning, I went for a walk with one of my closest and oldest (as in long-term, not seniorly) friends, Denise, and we discussed relationships. Since I am on a self-imposed “guyatus,” I’ve taken the last few months to reflect on dating, relationships, and my romantic life. As such, I’ve been talking with my closest friends about this, of course, and what I told Denise was that I’ve decided that I only want to date men who could be secret agents. How did I come to this decision? I was at dinner with my ICB (“Inner-Circle Bitches”), four women who seriously kick ass. As I looked around the table, I thought about how smart, funny, and pretty these women were…and how we all complement one another’s areas of expertise, skills, and talents. This train of thought evolved into a fantasy of us forming a secret agent den, combatting evil and saving the world. Then I thought about the men I admire, the ones who really get to me. Hm. They seemed like secret agents, too. The ones I wasn’t that into? Not secret agent material. James Bond knows how to date (duh). How does James Bond get so many chicks? Well, Denise and I think it’s because he knows how to engage in ACTIVE LISTENING with women. What’s that, you ask (because you ARE “listening.”) It’s when a guy (or chick) really engages and cares about what you’re saying – and AUTHENTICALLY questions and follows up on the information you’re giving them. Don’t just pretend to listen while you’re slyly gazing down her blouse (secret agents are VERY discreet about this, too, btw). Don’t give the standard answers or ask the standard questions. Really listen, like your future depends on it. Because it could. Listen, follow up, and remember what she said on that first date. And if she talks too much about herself, maybe she’s not the right one for you, no matter what she’s packing. And can nerds be secret agents? Hell yes! In fact, nerds are better choices for partners because they aren’t routinely shot at, they don’t have access to all sorts of hot women at work every day, and they come in very handy when it comes to stuff like integrating comments into your cousin’s blog (more on that in a second).
And those are my initial thoughts about dating and first dates…Cousin Dave (Head Nerd) is looking into making comments more visible, but, in the meantime, to comment on this (or any) blog, click on the blog title.
In the next post, I think I’ll revisit first dates and share some of the better ones I’ve enjoyed over the years…sigh…anyhow, I hope this helps in your search for THE ONE (ah, yes, Highlander…now HE would definitely NOT talk too much about himself on date one…or two… or three….J )
Cousin Nora over and out!
Silver Linings Playbook Review
“Silver Linings Playbook:” Great game with a fourth quarter fumble
When I went to see this movie, I had no idea what it was about. When it started, I was happy to discover that, “Pat,” the main character (Bradley Cooper) was a patient in a mental hospital. So is his pal “Danny,” played by Chris Tucker. For some reason, I enjoy movies set in mental wards; maybe it just makes me all warm and fuzzy for home. “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is an all-time favorite and my brother and I grew up repeating classic lines from it. There are also lots of movies that romanticize mental wards and the residents within. Another one that sticks in my brain is “Crazy People” with Dudley Moore, who recruits mental hospital patients to help him develop ad campaigns. And ANOTHER scary one I recently re-watched was “Shutter Island” with Leonardo Dicaprio. That was worth a see. Anyhow, if you read this and are offended by my language, I should disclose that I feel like I should get a pass because my sister is mentally ill and I’ve had to deal with that all my life, as has my whole family. There’s a fine line between genius and insanity and members of my family straddle that line more often than not. That’s why I liked this movie, “Silver Linings Playbook.” It provides a glimpse of what it’s like to have a member of the family struggle with mental illness. Wait. It’s never just one member because mental illness is a struggle for family members involved – and for family members who have chosen to no longer be involved.
But let’s start back at the beginning: In “Silver Linings Playbook,” we see that Pat is obsessed with his (ex)wife and won’t stop talking about her and the song “Ma Cherie Amor” by Stevie Wonder. The movie really starts when Pat’s mom, played convincingly by Jacki Weaver, pulls up in the Caddy to take Pat home…and then she stops and picks up Chris Tucker, another patient who seems to have also been released and needs a ride. Chris climbs in, only to be returned to the hospital shortly thereafter (seems his release wasn’t kosher and he’s more like one of those hitchhiking Pirates of the Caribbean ghosts). But the Chris Tucker character is really just a minor add-on that provides a funny beginning.
The movie revolves around the life of Pat and his parents, who let their son move back into their house. Pat and mom walk into their solidly middle class Philadelphia home and, as they do so, I was happily surprised to discover a domesticated Robert DeNiro as dad (I really didn’t pay any attention to this movie before I saw it, except that I saw it had good reviews). Robert seems surprised to see his son as well and there’s tension as we wonder if dad’s going to let Pat stay. But then dad embraces son and we all move in. This movie does a REALLY good job of portraying what it’s like to be living with someone who’s bipolar. Now, for those of us who deal with mentally ill family members, this is a pivotal moment: How do you balance having your own peaceful life with making sure your sibling/daughter/son/parent is being taken care of, preferably somewhere else? If you don’t have mentally ill family or friends in your life, watching scenes of Pat’s manic episodes provides a glimpse: At around 3:00 a.m., Pat crashes into his parents’ bedroom and wakes them up because he can’t find his wedding video. DeNiro and Weaver play this scene beautifully, as does Cooper. It felt so real to me and brought back memories of similar episodes with bipolar sis. Another vivid scene involves a similar episode that turns into an awkward physical confrontation where dad’s frustration and anger comes through sadly well. Wow. These people can act.
But this movie isn’t just about the difficulties of living with mental illness. It’s also very funny. The DeNiro dad lives and breathes Philadelphia Eagles and all sports of the Philadelphia type (Flipadelphia from Always Sunny image courtesy of the Funny T Shirt category). Seeing DeNiro in plaid sans-a-belt golf pants and Eagles cardigans cracked me up. Pretty quickly, we’re also introduced to Pat’s circle of friends, which includes a classic suburban couple who still socialize with Pat’s (ex-ish)wife. In an unoriginal twist, we see flashbacks of this wife, who Pat catches cheating on him, an event that ends with Pat beating the bejeebus out of some dude and Pat being institutionalized. We’re also introduced to the Jennifer Lawrence (main chick from Hunger Games) character, Tiffany. Tiffany is very cute, quirky crazy, and recently widowed. She and Pat immediately connect in a bizarre way and Tiffany begins reeling him in. There are interactions between Pat and Tiffany that are great and their relationship unfolds in a nice way…but then things go awry and the movie takes a big detour into Hollywoodland and never regains its original course.
I won’t spoil anything, and the movie’s still worth a watch, but the ending was lame. The lameness begins when Pat and Tiffany enter a dance contest. That in itself wasn’t bad, but the dance contest is connected with a bet DeNiro makes with his crony. That’s the part that’s lame and that provides the means for a triple dose of a Hollywood ending. It’s like the really clever writers who were doing a good job of creating authentic script and relationships got overruled by the producer who just wanted a happy ending. To follow the sports metaphor, the coach has been scribbling down some fantastic plays and the players have been following them brilliantly, but, sure of a victory, coach tries a 4th quarter play that bombs. Did the ending have to be so happy that the movie became another syrupy romantic comedy? I mean, I liked these characters and wanted there to be a “happily ever after” for them all, but did it just have to happen in such a clichéd way? It felt lazy and uninvented, which this movie hadn’t been. So, in a nutshell, is this movie worth the price of admission and two hours of your time? Yes, if only for Cooper’s portrayal of Pat, the fabulous characterization of Pat’s parents, and the scene where Tiffany wows DeNiro (a la Marisa Tomei’s classic “My Cousin Vinny” courtroom scene). The movie’s received much praise and deserves it, but did have its shortcomings, primarily at the end. On the whole, I’d give this movie an A-/B+. And there you have it. Over and out…until the next time.
Have a comment on this review? Post right below this review. If you don’t see a section for comments click here.
Flight Movie Review
Cousin Nora reporting in for movie review #2—and also a theatre review for San Francisco Bay Area local folks. Last Wednesday, I went to see Flight at the New Parkway Theatre in Oakland with my friend Sr. Mary (yes, I hang out with nuns, especially hilarious and cool ones, like Mary, aka, “Sista”). Seeing this particular movie probably wasn’t such a great idea for Sr. Mary, since she was flying to Chicago the next day, but we both left the theater in awe of Denzel Washington and the recurring statement was, “That was a good movie.” So here are some thoughts about the movie and about the New Parkway, a “living room” theater complete with couches, food, and booze.
About the movie: Wow, Denzel rocked my world. I’ve never been one of those people who’ve thought Denzel super hot; now, I know this might surprise those of you who know me, but it’s true. But this movie converted me to a true Denzel fan. I’ve always appreciated his acting talents and especially enjoyed him in “Man on Fire,” partially because he protected Dakota Fanning, who looks like my niece. Anyhow, Denzel in Flight was monumental. The opening scene captures the movie very nicely: Denzel and hot chick wake up in an anonymous hotel room to a phone call from Denzel’s ex-wife, who’s asking for money. An otherwise cranky and clearly hung-over Denzel ogles his date’s assets (wink) as he argues with the ex-wife. You can see from the paraphernalia strewn about the room that Denzel and friend have had a wild night and, at this point, I wondered whether the chick was a prostitute. You can hear from the phone conversation that Denzel’s an airline pilot who’s about the take the wheel (joystick?) on a morning flight. Yikes. The next shot is of Denzel, cleaned up and looking like the movie star he is, as he walks down the hotel hallway in his pilot uniform. And so begins our ascent…and descent. Keeping the seat belt on for the entire performance is key. White knuckles will also ensue. (note-I stuck in the Airplane image from our collection of Funny T-Shirts. Sorry, I couldn’t resist-Dave)
If you have a fear of flying, don’t see this movie, unless your therapist recommends it as a way to deal with this fear. It’s no spoiler to tell you that, within the first 15 minutes of the movie, there’s a big ‘ol crash – and you’re privy to what happens in the cockpit and in the passenger area when a big ‘ol crash happens. Again, keeping on your seat belt is key. At this point, Sr. Mary and I brace in our crash positions, abandoning any thoughts of enjoying the Parkway’s food and beverage service until we land safely.
Basically, what happens is that the beginning of the movie sets up the fact that Denzel (just shorter to type than Washington) is a one-in-a-million pilot who’s also a raging alcoholic. I’m not giving anything away: The rest of the movie consists of watching Denzel self-destruct over and over again. Every time he reached for another drink, audience members audibly gasped. It was painful to watch. He meets a chick in the hospital who turns out to be a heroin addict and you think, “Oh, man, that’s exactly the wrong person for him to hook up with,” but she actually ends up being the sensible one. Denzel also has an old friend and a lawyer who figure out how they might get him out of the charges…and then there’s John Goodman, who’s more of an addiction accomplice. Goodman’s performance—especially the scene at the end of the movie—is classic, albeit a bit much. But it’s entertaining, for sure.
The whole movie leads up to the crucial episode where Denzel faces the investigatory board at the hearing that will determine his fate. I won’t spoil the ending, but I’ll say this: Denzel is absolutely brilliant throughout the movie. The way he’s able to portray the pilot is nothing less than genius. You feel sorry for him, but you also don’t because the dude has everything and throws it away because he’s too stubborn to sit through an AA meeting. I wanted him to go to prison and sober up. But he seems to think he can kick the habit on his own, but, wow, he’s a mess! The character rang true and had me thinking deep about addicts I’ve known, people who could be intelligent and successful and charming, but were no match for their addictions. This portrayal was painfully authentic and, even if the movie sucked, which it didn’t, it’d be worth it just to see Denzel act. In fact, I’m thinking I might go see it again, something I rarely do because there are always so many movies I want to see. Like in Man on Fire, Denzel’s character is haunting in that he’s simultaneously strong—make it downright bad-ass—but he’s also a hot mess. He’s like real people we all know—maybe even ourselves, to get deep about it. Like I said, this movie converted me into a Denzel fan and I might go back and see some other films just to watch him.
The ending does the performance justice and was well-written. I won’t spoil anything, so just go see it and let me know what you think. Watching that movie made me wonder: Would Denzel been a worse, better, or same pilot if he weren’t loaded? What do you think?
Now, for Bay Area folks, here are my thoughts on the New Parkway: It’s no surprise that it’s great. The Wednesday 2-for-1 special got Sr. Mary and me in the door for $6 total. But first, we had to find the door, which proved a challenge. The theatre is on 24th between Telegraph and Broadway (the Downtown YMCA’s on Broadway at that corner). We knew the theater was on that block, we both know Oakland very well, and yet we drove right past it. We discovered that there’s no sign on the outside of the building and, at night, it was hard to see that the building had spray-painted signage. We scored on a pretty good parking spot, but give yourself some time as parking in that area’s a bit scarce during times when the Y is open. Also, it’s pretty much a dark alley, so don’t leave anything in your car and bring a buddy with you. As for the theatre itself, there was good and bad: The interior signage was also not great, so we wandered into theater 2 thinking it was theater 1. Theater 2 seriously rocked. There were sets of living room arrangements around a big, square room with lots of comfy and retro-fun coaches, settees, and chairs. Some of the arrangements had shelving and all had tables for food and beverages. So we sat down and waited for our food.
The set-up is like the old Parkway, where you order food at the counter and they bring it to you, which is great because you don’t have to schlep your stuff yourself when you’re finding a seat. Anyhow, we sat down on this very groovy red sofa and waited for our stuff, marveling at the décor and set-up. We noted that we were the only people in the theater, but didn’t think much of it. Then our food came and the theater guy told us we were in the wrong theatre. See? Bad signage. So we went to theater 1, which wasn’t nearly as cool or well set up as theater 2. Theater 1 had two levels: The downstairs was set up with dining tables and chairs, with a row of movie theaters on the back of one wall. This room didn’t feel cozy or comfy and, if you were sitting there for the movie, you’d have to look up at the screen. We went upstairs, where the seating consisted mostly of big cushy office chairs with side tables. There were three tiers of seating and we opted for the furthest one back, soon discovering that a railing would block our views of the screen. So we moved down to the second tier, which had a better view, but the screen was below us. I thought this would be annoying, but it wasn’t, maybe because the movie was riveting from early on. The key for theater 1 would be to get there early to get the best seats.
All in all, the décor was funky and chic, just as you’d expect from this venue. The food was really good! I had a “Seinfeldian” salad, which wasn’t what I’d expected (I’m a salad connoisseur), but it was delicious with romaine, bleu cheese, cranberries (or some other dried fruit sweetness), carmelized walnuts, and balsamic. The portion was good and I think it was $7. Sr. Mary had two slices of pizza, one cheese and one with chicken apple sausage and something else I forget. She said they were both good, but the cheese was best. Again, the portions were generous and two slices were around $6 total. We didn’t order drinks—although beer and wine are available—but they had water with lemon available, which was nice. The crowd was fairly typical Oakland and the theater was actually pretty full on the top level. Like the old Parkway, before previews rolled, a staff member came out and greeted the audience, telling us about upcoming events. There weren’t any filmed announcements like the old owner/manager used to do. All in all, the New Parkway’s a great addition to downtown and I’ll definitely go back as often as possible.
Okay, thanks for listening and let me know what you think about Flight! I promised you my dating tips and haven’t forgotten, but wanted to write about this movie before I forgot details and impressions. Over and out for now.
Nora
This is 40? Um, not so much…
Hi there, this is cousin Nora, signing on for my first movie review. It might be a little rambly, but hopefully you’ll enjoy my perspective. When I chose to see “This is 40,” I did so to avoid more overtly depressing flicks like Django and Les Mis. After a Christmas/New Year’s vacation without any sunshine, I needed to laugh and not think about slavery or oppression, two topics I deal with everyday at work (literally and figuratively, but I’ll refrain from the digression for now…) Anyhow, “This is 40” had its funny moments and great one-liners, but, holy crap, if that were my life at 40, I would’ve shaved my head, packed my s***and headed to Tibet. I couldn’t put my finger on what was so jarring about this movie and why it was taking up so much brainspace after I’d seen it – and it wasn’t that, “Wow, that was provocative” kind of brain space, but more of a “wtf” kind of brainspace. Then my B, Alexis, saw the movie and she summed it up nicely in two words: “Annoying and disheartening.”
Where to begin: The plot. There wasn’t one. This is 40 was a “slice of life” deal that looked at the lives of “Pete” and “Debbie,” who you would know from “Knocked Up,” if you’d seen that. In “Knocked Up,” Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann played Katherine Heigl’s sister and brother-in-law. In small doses, Pete and Debbie’s constant bickering and vitriol was hilarious, but a whole 2 hours of hate and bitterness kinda sucked. Why? Cuz it’s rarely that simple: A couple who hate each other usually do so in much more subtle ways. The characters of Pete and Debbie were constantly bitching at one another and their relationship didn’t show any depth. Every once in a while, they’d have episodes where they professed their love for one another, but that fell flat because, for most of the movie, they were just being complete assholes to one each other.
There was a funny scene where they escaped their two kids – brilliantly played by Judd Apatow’s own little girls. On a sidenote, the little girls were constantly bickering and mean to each other, with only a rare instance of sibling love. 
Anyhow, while at a posh hotel, Pete and Debbie eat some pot cookies and have a party for two (with the room service waiter looking on as they order tray after tray of desserts). But that was just about the only scene where they seemed to like each other at all, so, overall, the relationship came off as shallow. You’re left wondering why these two didn’t get divorced years ago. (Loved & Lost image courtesy of the Funny T Shirt category)
And, speaking of shallow, since this is the nerd blog, I’ll say that, as a nerd, I would be very happy to see this movie because it shows how tiresome and ridiculous the LA/So. Cal. lifestyle can be. Pete and Debbie emBODY that dream: They drive (probably lease) $100k in cars, live in a beautiful home, work out regularly, and look, well, like people from movies. But, just below the surface, you find that both are miserable. In one scene, Debbie confronts her daughter’s classmate, a kid who has a crush on the daughter and, therefore, teases the daughter. The kid even puts the daughter in the “not” category of his “hot or not” list (the ultimate insult for an LA kid, obviously). The kid’s mother ends up being Melissa McCarthy, who gives a brilliant performance when she, Pete, and Debbie are summoned to the principal’s office. In this scene, McCarthy’s character provides commentary on superficiality and she’s funny as hell. Other highlights include the adorable Jason Segal as the unlikely trainer and hot Megan Fox in her underwear/bikini. Also, John Lithgow and Albert Brooks as Debbie and Pete’s dads were interesting, but, again, there was a cringe factor. Which brings me to my main point: This movie didn’t know what it wanted to be when it grew up. Was it a lighthearted comedy? Not so much. Was it a serious look at relationships? Nope, because, like I said, the relationship seemed to consist solely on bitter back-and-forths. And the relationships between other family members (the daughters, Pete and his dad, Debbie and her dad) were also bizarre and under-developed.
So, now that I’ve seen this movie, would I recommend it? Hm. That’s a tough one. It did have some clever writing and I laughed a lot. The acting was fine, which led to a pretty big cringe factor. So here’s the deal: If you’re in a low point in your love life, like maybe you’re on a “guyatus” or a “shebattical” and have just endured a rough holiday season, this might be a good movie for you. It’ll make you grateful to be single. If you’re happily married or in a good relationship, it’ll make you appreciate your partner for their genuine spirit and overall kindness, even if they don’t look like a movie star or drive a BMW. If you’re in a relationship that resembles that of Pete and Debbie, seeing this movie with your “Debbie” or “Pete” might provide a means to finally deal with your misery. But, all in all, this movie didn’t really know what it wanted to be: Was it goofy, funny, and sweet like Knocked Up? No. Was it serious and soul-searching? It was set in LA, so the answer’s obviously no. But it was a weird combo of the two, which made it uncomfortable and awkward. If I were to choose again, I’d skip this movie and just go for Django or Les Mis. With those choices, at least I know what I’m getting into…overall, I give “This is 40” a C+, the C for a movie that’s just sort of “meh” and the plus for good acting and, at times, clever dialogue. And there you have it. Thanks for “listening.”
