The Ups the Downs and the Sideways of Having Co-Workers

Typical workplace gathering at one of my many workplaces

Retirement means no more workplace. I exchange good mornings with the missus but that’s it. In a workplace you can have over a dozen good mornings to get through before the workday starts in earnest. Some of those include how-are-yous. Monday’s there are how-was-your-weekends. Friday’s there’s always some idiot who says: “Hey, it’s Friday.” (Thanks for the calendar update!). On Wednesdays someone might refer to the fact that it’s hump day. I had one co-worker who referred to Thursday as “junior Friday.” Somehow that never bothered me like me it should have. No one, ever, never said anything about Tuesday other than a vice-principal who pointed out that “Tuesday is a day with no personality.” At her memorial service I mentioned that to someone who said, “I don’t know about that.” To which I thought: “oh do fuck off.” I hate when people try to argue with you when you share what someone else said. The messenger is not to be killed.

I got along perfectly well with most of my co-workers. Some became friends as tends to happen. I mentioned something to this effect in class once not terribly long ago and a few students were aghast. I believe it was a student from China an another from France who said that should never happen, friendships with workmates are strictly verboten. I meant to explore the topic at greater length. It might have been their lines of work, I don’t know that it was necessarily a French or Chinese thing. But they were adamant. 

My goodness, imagine how many co-workers I had over the years. We’re talking about fifty years worth. Some passed through and were literally gone in a day or two, there were two people I worked with for over twenty year (poor sods) others close to that long. You can really get to know a person, then again you can really not. Some people keep to themselves and are private about their home lives. Sometimes you find out things about a person that are stunning. Usually not. Most people aren’t all that interesting. Oh sure, they have unique thoughts on some topics and are expert in others and have many fine qualities but no one would write a biography about them.

I had one colleague for half a day. Turned out she was a bit of a nutter. Came in her first day and commenced complaining to her higher-ups about a variety of topics. It was the day of a large student intake which meant orientation — everyone was too busy to listen to her. So she called the company’s bigwigs. Evidently they were not amused. She was fired at lunch time. Who needs that kind of nonsense.

In my younger days I had romances with co-workers. When you’re in your early twenties (alternative newspaper in a college town) that’s not at all uncommon. Could it get awkward? I should say so. Regrets? Nah, I was basically a randy kid, what did you expect? I’ll tell what could be a bigger problem, asking out or hitting on a co-worker and getting rejected. Ouch.

There were a few co-workers over the year who I disliked. Not many. Even a few — again, not many — who I detested. Part of it was that I was a volatile personality with an out-sized ego. Part of it was that some people are — at least at particular places in particular times of their lives — awful. One might argue that I was.

I’m thinking of the last few co-workers who I had a strong distaste for and console myself in the fact that others disliked them too. One was a hot-headed, misogynist. People HATED him. He was fired. 

I recently worked with some chap who took over from someone who I quite liked. That’s tough. He was very different. That’s tougher. But he was also strange. Never ended class on time. Not even close. I was always careful about that to such a degree that I ended class at 11:44 (it went until 11:45). The other thing is that this guy was a flake. Taking personal days, vacations and constantly sick. He was also late a few times. Here’s the capper. After a few weeks on the job he called me by the wrong name. At this point the school had six employees. He had to learn six motherfucking names and couldn’t pull it off. Thankfully he left after a few months. In his last week this asshole called me by the wrong name again. To top if off he referred to another teacher by the wrong name. Talk about something that isn’t rocket science.

Some co-workers are aloof. Some are painfully shy. Some — and this is a far greater sin — are chatterboxes. I remember working with one woman who could’t shut up to save her life (ask her students). I learned early on never to ask how her weekend was or I’d have to brace myself for an endless detailing of every movement over the preceding forty-eight hours. The problem is that some co-workers vastly overrate how interested you are in the minutia of their daily lives. 

Some co-workers you feel like you know after a few days. Others you spend years with and they’re a total mystery.

What’s also weird is that for some people their entire circle of friends consists of co-workers. What, you can’t make friends outside of work?

I had male co-workers who were fans of rival teams, a few of them were jerks about it. That’s a male thing. Men can be jerks about all sorts of things and don’t hesitate to constantly tease one another, often cruelly. I hated that. Women co-workers are nicer. That nurturing instinct.

You’ve got to draw boundaries with people at work. You’ve got to let people know what topics are off limits, how much you’ll share about your family, your psychosis, your personal history, your religious beliefs or lack thereof, your politics. Early in sobriety I confided in the wrong person that I was in a twelve-step program. He broadcast to the rest of the school and worse weaponized it against me later. I was, he asserted, more fun when I was drinking. Just what a recovering alcoholic needs to hear.

Of course I haven’t even gotten into one particular form of co-worker — the boss. That’s a huge topic worthy of it’s own post. I’ve a lot to say on the topic and if you’re good boys and girls you’ll hear it one day.

Before I go I’ve got one vignette. I worked with a woman who was big in the union. A real leader among teachers who reveled in her successes. She once told a few of us how important it was to treat the staff, secretaries, custodians etc. as equals. My reaction: you really think you need to say that to us? And aren’t you suggesting that they AREN’T equals, just that they need to be treated “as if” they were.” Whatta….(I won’t use that word in this blog).

I’ll add another note to that. My best friend was a member of the staff (a student safety officer) and another friend was a custodian. I got along swimmingly with the secretaries and everyone else on the staff. You never had to tell them we were all equal. They were the type of people who knew. Bless ‘em. 

Recently there was a memorial service for someone I worked with for close to the twenty years I mentioned earlier. I mentioned earlier. He became a vice-principal and was a popular supervisor, even I liked him. It was a great occasion to honor his life but for a lot of us it was a chance to see people we'd been through the wars with. People we'd worked with, fought with, laughed with, argued with, shared stories with. Any animosity that had existed among us was gone. I hadn't seen some of the people in decades. We had a bond, the kind you develop with co-workers. 

Anyway I don’t have co-workers to share space with anymore (unless the wife lets me hire a secretary). I already miss them, for all the aggravation they can cause. After all they’re all people (that may start changing) and getting to know other people is one of life’s great joys.

Exactly One Year Later Part Two of: A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up

Charlie Chaplin

It has taken exactly one year but part two has arrived at last. On this day in 2025, I enthralled readers all over the world with a post titled: “A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up.” At the end of said post I suggested that there might be a part two forthcoming. Well it has indeed forth come — so to speak. Here are ten more directors I greatly admire, a brief summary of their work and mention of one film that, to me, best sums up their oeuvre.

Howard Hawks. In sports they’ll often say of a player: he can do it all. Hawks could “do it all.’ Gangster film? Scarface. Noir? The Big Sleep. Screwball comedy? Bringing up Baby. Western? Red River. He was a jack of all trades and master of all of them. He made over a dozen great American films. He knew how to pick a script and how to cast a film. He lovingly shot some of the big stars of Hollywood: Bogie, Bacall, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Carole Lombard, Montgomery Clift, Barbara Stanwyck. Hawks made my favorite picture of all time, His Girl Friday. It was a masterclass of directing. Everything from perfect pacing to exact framing.

Luis Buñuel. He did some strange stuff but it mostly all worked. He was our great mainstream surrealistic director whose favorite target was the bourgeoise. The best example of how Buñuel turned cinema on its head was Exterminating Angel which is “about” a group of people who can’t seem to leave a dinner party. Forget can’t seem to, they bloody well can’t. Then there’s the The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie which concerns a group of French bourgeoisie and a fictional South American—despite continual interruptions—to dine together. That Obscure Object of Desire follows an aging, wealthy man whose obsessive pursuit of a beautiful young woman becomes a cycle of seduction, rejection and humiliation. My favorite of his work is Viridiana in which an idealistic young novice tries to live according to Christian principles after inheriting her wealthy uncle’s estate, including turning the house into a refuge for beggars. Her efforts end disastrously and for her and viewers, lessons are learned. Nothing ordinary came out of Buñuel film.

Charlie Chaplin He started when silent films were becoming culturally significant and continued well into the sound era finally, reluctantly making talkies. He made movies full of heart and compassion and love. The word pathos is often ascribed to his movies — quite aptly I made add. Of course most were played for laughs too. Gold Rush and Circus are particularly funny as are his earlier shorts. The Kid is funny and moving. Woman of Paris is strictly a drama and an excellent one. He’s perhaps best known for his first films after sound intruded: Modern Times, The Great Dictator (both hilarious AND message films) but to me the ultimate Chaplin is City Lights. It is a brilliantly constructed film, one that can illicit both laughs and tears.

Alfred Hitchcock. One of the greatest bodies of work in cinematic history — if not the greatest. From silent classics like The Lodger through his last film Family Plot from 1976. He earned the moniker, master of suspense, but also made an excellent screwball comedy, Mr. And Mrs. Smith. His visual sense is practically unmatched among directors with so many memorable shots. See the umbrellas in Foreign Correspondent, Kim Novak transforming in Vertigo and of course the iconic shower scene in Psycho. For me his work is epitomized by Shadow of a Doubt. The menace, the tension, the touches of humor, the evil entering an ordinary setting.

Akira Kurosawa. Two words: visual style. Kurosawa films can be watched without sound just to appreciate what you’re seeing. Go ahead and enjoy his movies on your computer but if ever a director was made for the big screen, this is your man. Kagemusha, Seven Samurai and Ran on huge IMAX screens. Throne of Blood, Hidden Fortress, Yokjimbo deserve Dolby Cinema. He also made more intimate films like the brilliant Rashomon and Drunken Angel. My favorite of his films is Ikiru, essentially the story of a dying bureaucrat. It shows the breadth and depth of Kurosawa’s talent.

Stanley Kubrick. Yeah he was a bit different wasn’t he? He made some extraordinary films. A classic horror film, The Shining. A classic war picture, Paths of Glory. An absolutely luscious period piece, Barry Lyndon. One of the greatest sci-fi film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like many great directors he was meticulous and demanding. For me his masterpiece is his adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. It’s a stunning movie to look at with visual power that doesn’t let go. Kubrick films didn’t often ask a lot out of actors but he got what he needed and never more so than from Malcolm McDowell here. But it’s still the verve, the viscerally striking scenes that make this a cinematic classic.

Wong Kar Wai. You see one of Wai’s film and you know one thing for sure: this is a person who loves making movies and has fun doing it. The raw energy of Chungking Express is proof enough that his talent matches his ambition. Other films of his like As Tears Go By, Fallen Angels, Happy Together and 2046, reveal a director who has mastered the human, the visual, the aural and the imagination that makes a filmmaker special. But nothing matches his masterpiece, In the Mood for Love, one of cinema’s most beautiful works. An unforgettable story of love and heartache that fully reveals a director’s desire and ability to explore the human condition.

Michelangelo Antonioni. He’s not for everyone but the people he’s for he’s really for. The man who made movies about ennui entertaining. La Notte, L’Avventura, L’Eclisse and Red Desert was a remarkable four-film run of vaguely related films in the early sixties. They were sandwiched in between two other terrific films, Il Grido and the English language Blow-Up. Antonioni would test audience’s patience but passing the test meant enjoying sumptuous stories. Monica Vitti often starred, another plus. But it was a later English language film, The Passenger, that sticks out for me. I’m going to cheat and let Vincent Canby of the New York Times sum it up: “a suspense melodrama, a story so basically conventional that it isn't until you're at least half‐way through it you realize it's a magnificent nightmare, and that you are on the inside looking out."

Hal Ashby (L) directing The Last Detail

Hal Ashby. Ashby had a brief but oh-so-spectacular run in the Seventies from The Landlord in 1970 through Being There in 1979. He told unconventional stories, such as Harold and Maude about not-so-much a May-December romance as a March very late December romance, with the woman being the older party. If I held a film festival of movies that explain the Sixties I’d most definitely include The Landlord the story of a privileged white man who takes ownership of an inner city tenement. Ashby, who started as an editor, directed ten actors to Oscar-nominated performances. For me Ashby’s best film is The Last Detail (1973) starring Jack Nicholson. It is brimming with humanity, humor and realism. 

Roberto Rossellini. One of the early — and perhaps the best — practitioner of Neo realism. More than almost all other directors he told deeply human stories. Films such as Stromboli, The Flowers of St. Francis and Viaggo di Italia were powerful explorations of character. There was a simplicity to his films but concurrent richness and power. For me the ultimate Rossellini film is Open City (1945) the Neo realist war film made in Rome just after the events described. Open City feels so real that it’s hard to believe you’re not watching actual footage from the war.

What’s next? Will their be a part three one year from today? Or will it come sooner? Stay tuned to find out.

Are You a Racist? I Start Off Writing About Words But Segue to Posing Questions to Trumpy

This is one of those deals where I feel like I should write a blog post but don’t have anything to write about. Should I have written “anything in particular” to write about? What’s the deal with “particular”? You might here someone say that “this particular case is interesting.” What exactly is the word “particularly” doing? I’ll go ahead and answer that: nothing. It’s similar to something else I’ve complained about. Some. Get out of here with that word. At Cal football games we’re asked to “make some noise.” Some? It’s like: I’m going to get some lunch. Some? Or. Do you want some coffee. Some?

I hate extra words. Clutter. Sure, just like everyone else I can be guilty of using them. I’m so imperfect you wouldn’t believe it.

There’s a Trumpyism. “Like you wouldn’t believe.” He uses that and “they’ve never seen anything like it.” He loves adjectives too. Say that reminds me, I have some questions for Trumpy. I’ll put him here and hope that he comes across them.

Tumpy: You recently said the following while speaking at a law-and-order event at the David S. Mack Center for Training and Intelligence in New York: "These young, these gorgeous, beautiful girls... they come, 'Mr. President, may I speak to you? Yes.' 'Thank you, sir. Thank you.' I said, 'Why are you thanking me?' 'Because a year and a half ago, I was afraid to leave—I was afraid to open the door of my apartment. And now I walk to the White House every morning and I have absolutely no fear, thank you sir.'" My question is: who are these women? Do they work in the White House? In what positions? Are all the women who come up to thank you “gorgeous, beautiful girls”? Do any ordinary or even homely girls thank you? Why do they call you “sir” and not “Mr. President”? Is this something you made up? Sure sound like it.

Are you going to continue to call former President Joe Biden, “Sleepy Joe” when you’re constantly seen dozing off in the oval office and at public functions. Isn’t it hypocritical of you?

I understand that you plan to build a 250-foot arch in Washington DC at Memorial Circle. I further understand that the structure would house large numbers of drones, rooftop snipers, and sniper ammunition storage. Is this because you’re expecting foreign armies to invade the nation’s capital? Should we expect invading armies? Or will the weapons be used against peaceful domestic demonstrators? Please tell us exactly why we need to weaponize (literally) the Memorial Plaza.

Why do you directly contradict empirically verifiable facts? You claim that climate change is a hoax when very close to one hundred per cent of climate scientists say that is quite real and the result of human activity. You even go so far as to mock people who understand that it’s real. (Which is most of the rest of the world.) Do you think mocking people is a good strategy?

Speaking of mocking people….Why do you continue to lash out at journalists for the sin of asking you tough questions? Can’t you handle tough questions? What purpose does it serve to call them things like stupid? Indeed what’s the benefit of calling political rivals stupid or “low IQ” people? Does that serve political discourse or does it make you sound like a schoolyard bully?

How are the American people benefiting from your vendettas against people like Jack Smith, James Coney and Letitia James? Instead of desperately trying to pin something on your enemies (of which there are legions) why not use that energy to serve the needs of the American people?

Why do you cozy up to authoritarian leaders like North Korea’s Kim Jung-un while criticizing democratically-elected allies like Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney? Is it because you wish that you had the same sort of power that dictators had? Is it because you both don’t understand and don’t really believe in the U.S. Constitution?

Why does it seem like you never read books, watch movies or TV shows or have a good hearty laugh? You don’t have any pets. You don’t seem especially close to your wife or children. You don’t seem to have normal relationships. Is every relationship transactional to you? You don’t seem like a normal person. Are you? How much damage do you reckon your father did to you?

Why don’t you want the full unexpurgated Epstein Files released? Is it because we’d get a fuller look at your own sex crimes? Is it true that you raped and beat underage girls? Do you have the slightest bit of shame? Are you a total narcissist who has not a scintilla of empathy for other human beings?

Have you taken an honest look at recent polls that show how deeply unpopular you are? Are you too divorced from reality to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans don’t like either you or your policies? Is reality a foreigner to you? (And we know how you feel about foreigners.)

You’ve personally made billions of dollars while president yet brag about not accepting your salary. Don’t you realize what a bad look that is? Don’t you understand ethics? Why not take your salary but stop personally profiting from being president?

How hard is it for you to hide your dislike of people of color? Ever tempted to come out of the closet as the full-fledged racist that you in reality are?

You don’t really understand tariffs, do you?

Why have you totally failed to fulfill your campaign promises? For example inflation is worse now than it was under Biden. It should have been easy to keep us out of foreign wars but you got the country into a totally senseless one that for awhile you kept saying we’d won and was about to be over. Is it hard to keep your stories straight?

Why do you insist on changing names of things like lakes and gulfs and forms of intelligence? Why do you want to put your own goddamned name on everything you can? How far is this going to go? Will the White House be renamed the Trump House? Will it be Trump D.C.? The United States of Trump? Jesus, I haven’t given you any ideas, have I?

It's Films I've Watched Lately Some of Which I Liked Greatly -- With a Twist

Stromboli

Traditionally the “Films I’ve Watched Lately” Feature consists of capsule reviews of the last seven or eight films I’ve watched. Ever the experimenter, with this edition I’m not going to write specifically about the movies, instead focusing on thoughts that viewing of the films inspired. 

Stromboli (1950 Rossellini. Between 1945 and 1975 Italian cinema produced many of the greatest films of all time. No other country can match it. There have been strong ten, even twenty-year periods but nothing to compare with what came out of Italy for thirty years. They were blessed with directors such as Federico Fellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, Vittorio De Sica and Roberto Rossellini who directed Stromboli (along with Rome: Open City, the Flowers of St. Francis and Voyage to Italy). Stromboli stars Ingrid Bergman in one of her greatest roles. 

The Weight (2926) McKinley. It’s not easy to make thoroughly watchable, entertaining movies like this one. What’s even harder is to make those kinds of film that also offer something else like a compelling lead character whose motivations are understandable, if not always defensible. Showing what people do and making it interesting is hard. Showing what people do and why is even harder. The Weight stars the excellent Ethan Hawke in a perfectly entertaining new film. But his talents aren’t fully utilized in a movie that is all what and little why.

Something Wild (1986) Demme. Some directors boast about not using non-professional actors for some or even all of the roles in a particular film and I’m never impressed. (Why not try using amateurs to do your cinema photography, editing, set designs or to write your screenplay?) Something Wild provides an argument for using professional actors. Ray Liotta shows up about halfway through the film and turns an off beat romance into an entirely different film and one that through sheer force of personality he totally dominates — in the best possible way. As he later demonstrated in Goodfellas, Liotta was a terrific actor and by God movies need them.

Jackie Brown (1997) Tarantino. For me Quentin Tarantino has made four great films, Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Basterds, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and this one. He calls Jackie Brown a “hang out” movie that gets better with each viewing. That gives me an idea for another future blog post: hangout films. Plot becomes secondary, being with the characters in a particular time and place is the picture’s real reward. Goodfellas is a great example. So is John Ford’s Long Voyage Home. The Last Picture Show, among its other gifts, is a hangout movie. Radio Days, Mean Streets, Red River, Diner, Local Hero, Animal House, Amarcord, The Big Lebowski are all movies where you can hang.

Boogie Nights (1997) P.T. Anderson. Well look here, another hangout movie. You’ve got characters beautifully realized by the likes of Burt Reynolds, William H. Macy. John C. Reilly, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, Don Cheadle, Alfred Molina and Mark Wahlberg and his amazing prosthetic dick. It’s not a warm and cozy hang given all the indiscriminate sex and the constant threat of violence, but there are a lot of people looking for family and love. Cinema is good at exploring the human desire for companionship. Sometimes sex suffices, other times a group is required, a parental figure, someone to take care of. Even here within the porn industry of the late seventies and eighties in San Fernando Valley, the basic desire is to find a surrogate family.

Shame (1969) Bergman. Speaking of great runs of film-making, how about Ingmar Bergman from 1953 through 1976 (you could start it earlier and end it later and get no argument from me). I count sixteen movies in that period that range from very good to masterpieces. Shame is in the latter category and may be his most underrated. Frequent collaborators Liv Ullman and Max von Sydow co-star and one has to understand that casting was a large part of the great Swedish director’s success. That and getting the most out of his actors. His time spent directing in the theater contributed mightily to his success and style which is typified by the intimacy of his films and the performances. For me Bergman is the greatest director of all time.

A Night at the Opera (1935) Wood. There was early, anarchic Marx Brothers and there was later studio formulaic Marx Brothers. The former included their masterpiece, Duck Soup, along with other great comedies such as Horse Feathers and Monkey Business. The latter was littered with duds such as Go West, At the Circus and The Big Store. Admittedly these later films did feature some of the brothers at their best but the boys were surrounded by sappy love stories and dreary songs which helped dilute the comedy. A Night at the Opera was the bridge between these two eras. There was still a lot of the comic brilliance (see the stateroom scene) that made the Marx Brothers so much fun, but there was also Alan Jones singing and thus grinding the comedy to a screeching halt.

Othello (1951) Welles. The great bard — Shakespeare, William — wrote many of the greatest plays of all time and unsurprisingly this has inspired some fantastic films, Orson Welles’ Othello among them. I suppose one could argue that there should have been by now even more great film based on Shakespeare’s plays. There have been a couple of good Henry V films, two good Hamlets, a Richard III, Othello, a few versions of Romeo and Juliet, three really good versions of Macbeth, two A Midsummer Night Dream and scattered others. There’s a lot but should there be more? Sounds like a future blog post.

Dating Advice From An Unlikely Source (Me) But Check It Out Anyway

Last week I wrote a post on this site (where else?) on the perils of dating. Today I’m providing a follow-up wherein I offer dating tips for those of you single folks (if you’re in a relationship you can still go ahead and read this, but shame on you if you consider utilizing any of my suggestions — go hug your significant other.) 

Am I the right person to be giving men dating advice? Given my dating history you’d think not. Most of the time during my dating years I was high. For all of that time I was something of a cad. What they call a “player” these days. Obviously I’m not proud of it. So who’d want to take advice from me?

I’d argue that I’m uniquely qualified because I know precisely what NOT to do and I’ve spent decades wishing I’d done A rather than B. I’ve also got one helluva lot of life experience (you can’t even begin to imagine how old I am). Anyway, I’m confident that I can help.

I’m writing this from the perspective of the heterosexual male but I’m sure women could utilize this as could gay people. Trans folks maybe too. Here goes.

Don’t ask someone out for the sole purpose of getting laid. That’s just wrong. Of course you find the person attractive and may indulge sexual fantasies about them — that’s natural. But you should also be able to imagine and desire a relationship outside of the bedroom. After all, even in those early days when you’re going after each other like rabbits in heat, you’re spending most of your time together NOT making love. So the first question about a person you’re interested in is: do I want to do more with them than fuck? If the answer is yes, proceed.

Given that you’re interested in more than getting the person in the sack, suggestion two SHOULD go without saying. It’s best if you know a little bit about the person, maybe have a relationship of some sort. You’re in a class together, you go to the same gym, you work in the same field, you live in the same apartment complex. You should have — at the very least — exchanged a “hi, how are you?” or two or better still had a bit of a chat. If not, where did you derive your interest in this person? Any brief encounters you’ve had should have established that you genuinely like the person and you have common ground.

Okay, you find a person attractive. You’ve exchanged pleasantries but you should also feel a connection, an undefinable vibe. If the other person feels the same towards you, you’re suggestion of a date is going to be met with enthusiasm and there’s a good chance you two have a future. I’m speaking of chemistry. A man can think a woman is the most gorgeous creature on earth, she can be single, they may have something tangible in common, but without chemistry, it ain’t going anywhere. You’ll know it if it’s there. If it isn’t you might still want to do things together and ultimately become friends. Sometimes chemistry develops over time, but it shouldn't take too long.

Try to figure out their relationship status. This might require a little detective work but it’s worth it. If they’re living with someone or engaged or been dating someone for awhile, just forget it. Don’t try to break people up. Don’t try to make someone cheat. Of course, you can check back, people do break up.

When you do go out don’t dominate the conversation. Ask questions. Get to know the person. Aim to let them do at least sixty per cent of the talking. They’ll appreciate this and it will help you get a sense of whether future dates are in order.

Don’t try to impress them. Just be straight forward about your past, present and hopes for the future. Don't exaggerate, certainly don’t lie. It’s better to compliment them then to self promote. 

Speaking of compliments, don’t go overboard with them, especially about their appearance. One comment on beautiful eyes can go along way, pouring it on begins to sound like you just want to get laid. Also compliment them on more than looks. People like that. If you can’t think of anything else nice to say them, then what the hell are you doing with this person?

Remember details. If they mention having two younger brothers or that their father died when they were in high school, make sure you store that away. People like that you remember details about them, especially important life events.

Are you boring them? If so, change the subject or ask a question. Don’t ramble on about something that they don’t care about. Read the room. If their eyes have glazed over while you discussed your coin collection maybe move on to the weather.

Be enthusiastic. Seem like an energetic, happy person with particular passions. No one wants to hang out with a dullard. You want to seem like someone who it would be fun to be with (and if you aren't someone fun to hang out with, you need to sort that before you start dating).

Look for clues that you’ve got a future together — or don’t. If you like the same kind of music, especially particular singers or groups, that’s a big plus. If she loves reggae and you hate it…uh oh. If you’re polar opposites politically you can still make it work (people do) but the odds aren’t great. Certain lifestyle differences can work. You like romcoms, they like sci fi, maybe not a big deal. You love baseball, they don’t — maybe not a big deal. But if they like to go hiking on weekends and you prefer a museum, that can be significant. If you want to explore South American beaches but they want to go to European capitals, that’s a biggie. Two people who love rock climbing and two people who like to go to poetry readings have a much better chance than…well, you get the picture. The key is how big the differences are, because there’ll be some. Another key is how many differences. You have different musical tastes but like the same sports, movie genres, food, you're probably good to go.

Look for warning signs: Is the other person damaged? Do they want a relationship or need one? Are they looking to be fixed? Your goal is to find romance, not to be a therapist. Everyone has issues, but are this person’s issues plentiful, serious and on full display? At the same time we all have issues that we're dealing with. If you cross people out because of one challenge they're facing, you'll be alone a lot.

If you’re going to propose a second date be smart about it. If there’s a forthcoming concert they mentioned wanting to go to and you wouldn’t mind taking in…..If an interest was expressed in a new restaurant….If there’s a play opening next week and they're into theater….Be smart about this. Don’t offer to take her to a baseball game if she’s not a fan — unless she expressed an interest in taking in her first game. 

Towards the date’s end assess whether you still like them as much. Maybe the chemistry wasn’t really there. Maybe you’re too different. Maybe it’s clear they don’t like you. You may need to cut your losses.

If, on the other hand, you feel like you’re falling in love (you’re not, not yet, anyway, give it time) don’t let them know that. People get scared off if someone is too effusive or seems needy. A lot of people need to ease into a relationship. Whirlwind affairs are rare.

Here are five things to “be.” You be these, you be fine: 

Be polite. Be honest. Be yourself. Be fun. Be honorable.