Catching up (with little success)

So the move to being "more serious" on OKC, admittedly an oxymoron if there ever were, is coinciding with a week where all responsibility in my life decided to get really, really busy.

(Except for sleep, that is. I'm so jazzed at 1:30 a.m. when I finally lie down it takes another full hour to relax. This morning I checked in on a friend's blog -- a friend who has a 3-year old and 1-year old triplets, all of whom have been sick for several weeks -- to read about how she hasn't been sleeping more than 4 hours a night. It's sad that, when I have no right to, I felt I could relate. Even sadder: she's got a really good attitude about it, which thus gives me an inferiority complex ... but I digress.)

This is probably a good thing. It's been difficult enough to focus and complete tasks as it is without fielding a chat request from a philosophy grad student who claims his girlfriend really doesn't care if he's online at 12:45 a.m. with (his words) "hot women" and when questioned about the possible validity of this, claims that he even shares the chats and photos of "hot women" with said girlfriend.

Like I said, probably a good thing.

The downside of serious, as you might expect knowing 20- and 30- (and 40-) something men as you do, traffic to my profile has ground to a serious halt. Which while probably a good thing, too, does make me slightly nostalgic for the occasional "where might this go?" titillation. And does leave me with few people to start conversations.

With that in mind.

A couple nights ago a 33-y-old from Cambridge viewed my profile. He was notable-looking enough (dark-rimmed glasses, sidelong glance, funky-nerdy vibe) that I recognized him as repeat visitor. I also remembered him because on October 2, while I was at work, he had sent along an IM request that I never answered because (duh) I was at work. It was a better lead-in than most:

Glasses: I once happened upon an anonymous dating
blogger with whom I was about to have a date.

Glasses: One of my goals, though devious, was to make it on her blog

Hmm. That's certainly of higher quality than IM requests that start with "Hellllooooo!" And on first glance he's quite attractive. Nonetheless, I don't remember why I never circled back, other than I was probably just otherwise busy and preoccupied.

So with no randy requests to fend off, this man's profile was one of several old IM requesters that I dug down into .... just to see. Without divulging too much, he has a lot going for him. Including that he seems to be a trail runner and musician and works in financial services and writes like a smart-ass.

Worthy, IMO. Worthy of at least a response in its own right. Even worthier, because he checked out my profile again this week, so is obviously still a) on the prowl; b) interested in me on some level; and c) interesting, on some level, to me.

Thus:

Karin: So,

I've been out of the message-responding groove the last several weeks for several elaborate reasons. When you stalked by today (are you also disappointed that they've dispensed with that term?) I was reminded of my gaffe in not responding to say that I tend to have no shame about blogging about dates, especially first and second dates who earn their stories.

Do I get to hear if your devious goal was executed? And how?

Hmm. That was Tuesday night. He's been online since and re-viewed my profile, again, but has not explained his devious goal. Naturally, now, I'm dissecting this 20 ways to Friday as to how I mis-approached this. The super-casual sarcasm? The 18-day delay? Too obvious? A mistake to try to catch up on old hellos? That I've taken "strong hands" off my profile?

So much for seriousness. Randy requests require a lot less distracting thought .....