I just heard the neighbour in question talking to the other neighbour who lives above me. I took this opportunity to endeavour a reasonable conversation. My timing was poor, as said individual was so drunk as to bearly intelligible conversation. Said discussion did highlight some interesting issues, however.
It seems my poster did cause offence, hence its removal. The poster was what caused the neighbour below to talk with the neighbour above our apartment, as it was assumed to be his bike that was stolen. I took the opportunity of correcting them. The conversation was repeatedly attempted to gain favour and popularity to their issues and problems. I kept bringing the matter at hand back to the issue of the theft of my bike and unlocked doors, but with no successful outcome for today.
The one good thing is that there were no further issues of friction, potential or otherwise, although the matter does not end here. Having said that, loud music from below followed our discussion. Methinks this individual isn't too comfortable with being spoken to in a calm and professional manner by someone better placed to do so. Damn shame, that.
Watch this space, dear readers.
I hope you are all having a great weekend.
Rachael.... ♥
PS: I am revising still for my impending and final exam for this semester. I am trying to revise about deductive and inductive arguments, which is quite interesting for the most part, however, when it comes to revising about sound/unsound and valid/invalid arguments, I tend to lose interest rather rapidly. For example:
All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
See what I mean? Now, if I were reading philosophy, then maybe, just maybe, I might remain interested, but as it stands, I am not reading philosophy, and quite frankly, this stuff bores me.
It seems my poster did cause offence, hence its removal. The poster was what caused the neighbour below to talk with the neighbour above our apartment, as it was assumed to be his bike that was stolen. I took the opportunity of correcting them. The conversation was repeatedly attempted to gain favour and popularity to their issues and problems. I kept bringing the matter at hand back to the issue of the theft of my bike and unlocked doors, but with no successful outcome for today.
The one good thing is that there were no further issues of friction, potential or otherwise, although the matter does not end here. Having said that, loud music from below followed our discussion. Methinks this individual isn't too comfortable with being spoken to in a calm and professional manner by someone better placed to do so. Damn shame, that.
Watch this space, dear readers.
I hope you are all having a great weekend.
Rachael.... ♥
PS: I am revising still for my impending and final exam for this semester. I am trying to revise about deductive and inductive arguments, which is quite interesting for the most part, however, when it comes to revising about sound/unsound and valid/invalid arguments, I tend to lose interest rather rapidly. For example:
All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
See what I mean? Now, if I were reading philosophy, then maybe, just maybe, I might remain interested, but as it stands, I am not reading philosophy, and quite frankly, this stuff bores me.
