If I avoid the topic, nothing gets solved. If I try to address it, my concerns are waved off. Had I been unlucky enough to not be able to express myself that the problem was a needs issue, would it have been just written off as a problem of perspective? It would seem as though my thoughts and feelings mean naught in practice. What one says and one actually does are in conflict.

I'm doing my oncology question and powerpoint presentation because I'm happy to do it for my group. Not because I'm obliged to do so for I could have easily signed it off to someone else, or just as easily given my path tute on Thurs and my acute day on Thurs itself as an excuse to not do it. There's a not-so-subtle difference there. Is it not obvious?

My ceroc dance is so far limited to three steps. I'm told that I should be happy with that, and that after time, once the three steps fall into routine I wouldn't be unhappy with only three steps. It's all a matter of perspective after all. I've always detested having to compare myself with others, I rather compare internally with what I have and what I want and strive to acheive the latter. But when one system gives up, the others are inclined to follow and break down. So I'm supposed to be happy with three steps because if I learn too many I wouldn't appreciate the beauty in them anymore, and I'm better off than those who don't know any at all after all.

Jack of all trades, master of none. If I have to simply be a jack who knows only three steps, then I'm probably no better than those who know none. Could I possibly be worse off? For then I know that I'm lacking and am distressed by it, wanting to be better. If I knew none to start with and hadn't a need to increase it anymore, then I wouldn't be distressed at all. Is it not better that way then?

A pet may grow or not, but if it's needs are not met, would it die? If the owner isn't worried it would die, but the pet is, is there a problem there or not? Is this a case where it's like Spongebob, when he forgets about Gary and Gary then leaves, and Spongebob then realises that he misses Gary. Why does it sound familiar? Because it's happened before but in a different setting. But then it seems the owner is happy to let the pet have needs go unmet over and over again.

The pet spends most of it's time with that of it's own, and rarely sees the owner. The owner said it is inevitable when the pet growled that it was practically weaning off the owner. The owner said that his own kind have needs too and that he had been neglecting his fellow humans. The pet understands the need, but why does the word inevitable gets used only with the pet? The pet questions the reason behind the owner's words for it feels that it does not get much more time with the owner than other humans. The owner gets upset when the pet plays with others of its kind when the pet ends up seeing more of its own kind, but yet the pet is told to be content with what it's getting even if it's not getting enough to meet its needs.

Off to read some more oncology for Friday. Acute day tomorrow! Hurrah!