This survey was conducted intermittently for 8-years.  There were 76 respondents (22 females and 54 males) from age 65 to 80, all retired but claimed they were actively engaged in productive activities, were above–average in health, and domiciled in Asia, North America and Western Europe.

          The 76 respondents said that the following reasons helped them go on living despite their old age; maintain their self-discipline; pursue healthy life styles; and, gave them enormous hope during times of adversity:

1. 55 respondents said they were not worried dying of an illness, only from an accident or a man-made circumstance;  (A man from western Europe said,  “You can’t choose the manner of being born, but you can choose how to die.”)
2. 53 respondents believed that they have not outlived their usefulness;
3. 42 said they still had some personal goals to achieve;
4. 35 said they loved mental and physical exercises almost to a fault;
5. 32 said they laughed at their own mistakes;
6. 28 said they have resolved their internal conflicts about their religion;  (A woman from North America said,  “Men fear death, as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased in tales so is the other.  I don’t.”)
7. 25 respondents said they were not tired of fighting for their rights and strong beliefs;
8. 23 said they were justifiably agitated by the evils in this world;
9. 20 said they hadn’t lost their sexual appetite;
10. 19 said they were determined to outlive somebody;  (A man from Asia said, “To die will be an awfully big adventure.”)
11. 16 said they were not worried whether they would go to heaven or not.  (One respondent said something like this,  “When I’m dead, my dearest, sing no sad songs for me.”)

          There were other reasons given, but the 11 above were repeated by, at least, 20% of the respondents.  The minimum 20% cut-off was unilaterally decided upon by this writer and his associates because the other 19 reasons below the 20%, were widely dispersed.

          Damned Floyd if he did, damned him if he didn’t. Every time little Floyd told everybody that he was the number one, everybody would counter that he was facing “el numero uno.” After he won handily, everybody now tells him to pick his own size. All other sour comments and hindsight are not only funny, but downright contradictions:

          1. Why blame Mayweather for fighting Marquez, blame the promoters. Didn’t everybody say loudly that Marquez had a good chance of beating Mayweather?  This maverick writer was the only one who said that Marquez would be over-matched.

          2. There’s a nice description by President Obama for somebody like Sugar Shane Mosley —jack-ass. Mosley is now luring a smaller Mayweather to fight him after being rebuffed by promoters from fighting a much smaller Pacquiao, due to his preposterous demand.

          The gullible would quickly excuse the 2nd jack-ass by saying he was “allowed” by the post-fight TV interviewer to come up the ring and verbally bully Mayweather into a future match.

          Why can’t TV viewers see through the setting up of Kanye West’s coarse outburst? Pageant producers and their stage director knew of a previous Kanye West outburst and “neglected” to order stage security to watch out for the 1st jack-ass. The coarse outburst increased the pageant’s TV ratings, so not even a routine case of misdemeanour was filed.

          I can foresee Mayweather accepting to fight Mosley only for $30 million. Now, that’s giving the 2nd jack-ass a dose of his own medicine. In the meantime, those who insist that Money Weather must fight the 2nd jack-ass can eat their hearts out.

      You’d be surprised how many those things are.  I’ll have to focus on what family, relatives and friends thought were part of what we learned in UP, but actually weren’t.  They assumed that positive aspects of our personalities were ingrained while in UP and that the negatives were, likewise, acquired.      

          In a democratized educational institution with a high standard of teaching and learning, a UP student comes from some kind of an elite family:  intellectual elite, business and professional elites, political elite, celebrity elite, elite dissenter, radical elite, criminal elite, and elite wannabe’s, apart from those who yearn that their child becomes an elite. 

          The distinction of the university plus the impression on students, contribute to an enviable image brought down only by the vicissitudes and other realities of life.  There were many things taught hard in UP but the following were not:

1.   How to dress for success;

2.   How to play dumb;

3.   How to deal with threatened superiors in the work place;

4.   How to be slick by using non-confrontational methods in dealing with competition;

5.   How to feign condescension in verbal and written communication;

6.   How to spot dangerous elders in the 3 different categories:

        6.1       The elder who declares that he will stab you;

        6.2       The elder who will surely stab you, but says he won’t ever; and,

        6.3       The elder who can make you become thankful, for his stabbing you.

7.  How to motivate smart-alecky but politically indifferent neighbours;

8.   How to be patient with bluffers, underachievers, and dummies;

9.  How not to look laughable by refusing hair dye since the absence of grey hair is incongruous to the old batch one belongs to;   

10.  How to rock the boat without sinking it;

11.  How to maintain the moral compass when one aspires for, or fears losing a lofty position,  and the trappings of power while in the government;

12. How to maintain the moral compass when one is tempted to unleash restrained libido (during scholarly years) and not use his/her professional ascendancy to seduce the opposite (or same) sex; and,

13. Why all those who founded a religion didn’t have any sense of humour.  And why men will wrangle for religion, write for it, fight for it, die for it; anything but live for it.

          Faculty members and administrators will be quick to explain that,”…The UP curriculum is widely accepted as relatively more compressed (a 3-unit subject is equal to 6 units in other colleges and universities).  Our students learn those things in their extra and co-curricular activities outside the classroom.”

          “Many students, because of their upbringing, inherent taste or preference, and early political exposure acquire the knowledge through ingenious ways while in UP or thereafter,” they add.

          My elder sister, a College of Nursing dean in a better known university downtown and, who never found the necessity to work abroad except during international conferences, tried to refute an item in my list.  “I can do #8.  I am always patient with them.”

          “Of course, you are patient with them compared to me,” I clarified.  “But compared with a nurse who graduated from another university, like your ‘comadre’ who also considers herself patient in relation to #8, you’re much less patient!”  End of argument.  

            The issue which many would rather not spend time to think and write about is the prevalence of annoyingly malicious commenting (as differentiated from posting discussion topics) in the Internet forums.  The Newsweek, Time, Economist and Esquire magazines and also the Readers Digest have criticized the lack of finesse among most commenters.  They are enjoining readers to contribute practical efforts to discourage these practitioners of mischief.

            I am taking up the cudgels for these media institutions, in my own small way.  I would like to start a shame campaign by characterizing these ill-mannered habitués of the Internet. 

            Those who submit discourteous, insensible, and dirty comments in the Internet are:

1.   People with low self-esteem who brazenly demonstrate their ugly side because they can hide their identities;

2.   Lacking in education.  They may think they have enough, but their meaningless comments reflect their low absorption of what has been taught to them;

          2.1    They are trying to cover up their mediocre knowledge, comprehension, analytical and communication abilities with shameful expletives and bad words;

          2.2    They lack sufficient ability to engage in a technical or organized debate, thinking their name-calling antics could substitute for their lack of well thought-out arguments;

3.   Having delusions that being able to operate a computer and having a little knowledge of public issues (which they cannot ably defend) make them equal with all others;

4.   Scared of competing head-to-head with fairness and diligence;

5.   Confused by their shallow and perverted understanding of the freedom of speech; and

6.   Fooling themselves that they, and others like them, should monopolize the Internet forums.  They make-believe that they can, arrogantly, drive away serious commenters from their self-proclaimed turf.

          I also enjoin my valued friends to discourage these insufferable, and seemingly, under-achievers from continuing their dastardly habits.

          These people should realize that every forum in the world (written, oral, televised, on location, electronic, etc)  is an Implicit Recitation Class (IRC).   They must never forget that every time they participate in an IRC, what they say or write reflect their upbringing, education, character and level of maturity.  Although they have avatars to conceal their real identities, they still have their self-respect to preserve.

          Help a little.  Please forward.

          Every time I have a new relationship with another woman, and there were quite a few, I make it a point to express my feelings this way:

          Someday an old familiar rain

          Will come along and know my name.

          And then my shelter will be gone 

          And I’ll have to move along.

                    But‘till I do, I’ll stay awhile  

                    And track the hidden country of your smile.

          Someday the man I used to be

          Will come along and call on me.

          And then because I’m just a man

          You’ll find my feet are made of sand.

                    But ‘till that time, I’ll tell you lies

                    And chart the hidden boundaries of your eyes.

          Someday the world I used to know

          Will come along and bid me go.

          Then I’ll be leaving you behind

          For love is just a state of mind.

                    But ‘till that day, I’ll be your man

                    And love away your troubles, if I can.

                    Until that day, I’ll be your man

                    And love away your troubles, if I can.

          The reactions of my women have been either positive or negative, but always resulted into timeless moments without regrets for both of us.

          A departed college friend gave the poem to me as a birthday gift together with the book — Enjoying Modern Art, by Sarah Newmeyer.

          If you’re a man, will you say the same things to your woman?  If you’re a woman, how would feel if your man tells you these things?

          The following was my prediction in June 8, 2009 about an alternative fight for Manny Pacquiao, in case his prioritized fight against Sugar Shane Mosley didn’t push through:

“On Cotto — For all his strengths and terrifying advantages against Pacquiao, he ranks high in the priority list simply because he is hungry for his biggest million dollar fight. He is susceptible to a fixed loss. I have the opinion that Cotto will not be that expensive to entice, next to Mosley. A controversial loss to Pacquiao won’t ruin a prospective rematch with the man he beat. The same man who mauled Margarito, his vanquisher. The paying public wants the three of them to settle their pairing contradictions.

A Pacquiao win in a dubious fight.”

          The above early prediction about the forthcoming Pacquiao vs. Cotto fight was part of my article entitled, “Pacquiao’s Fight Opportunities:  He Couldn’t Buy Sincere Friends, But He got A Better Class of Opponents.”  In said article, I enumerated Pacquiao’s preferred opponents after he, supposedly, KO’d Ricky Hatton.

          Each preferred opponent was ranked according to the Desirability Index he received from me, as I role-played Pacquiao’s manager and promoters.  My article is now like a well charted course, wittingly or unwittingly, being implemented by Team Pacquiao.

          Don’t take my word for it .  See for yourself.  It is just 6 articles down.

        The negative implications of the title are not intended to characterize a single nationality.  Different nationalities vote unwisely, in varying degrees.

        Defined in two contexts that are mutually inclusive, a “wise voter” is:  1) A person who has, at least, 75% knowledge of the current issues and has a satisfactory ability for logical reasoning; and,  2) The same voter, preferring a candidate with a platform believed to be the solution to the urgent problems of the country and which will give people long-term benefits.

        A candidate voted into office by wise voters won’t necessarily perform as expected.  This problem is not within the purview of title, and must be essayed separately.

        What prevents voters from voting wisely?

Reason #1:  The triangular distribution of human intelligence, particularly of voters, precludes rational voting.  According to the law of averages, there’ll forever be more dummies than bright people.  (For the sake of simplicity and convenience, a “bright” person is somebody with an internationally accepted equivalent level of IQ and EQ.)

        If dummies are always in the majority, is it true that the election winner is always elected by dummies?  It does not necessarily follow.  The triangular distribution of voter-intelligence actually means that when all dummies vote in unison, they will out-vote all bright voters also voting in unison, any time.  In reality, however, dummies and bright voters coalesce in different permutations during elections.  (Abstainers are not included in this analysis.)

        If the opposite becomes true, i.e., bright voters significantly outnumbering dummies, will the chances of electing better qualified candidates improve?  There two more reasons why this will not be so.

Reason #2:  The adoption of the ideal requirements or criteria for electing a political candidate is a myth.  The ideal requirements are, almost always, set aside by both dummies and bright voters.

        During the early campaign, voters seek loudly for:    

2.1 A highly qualified candidate with the relevant academic and experience track records plus a perceived strength of moral character;

  2.2 A candidate who proposes a truly responsive (necessarily radical but neither extreme left nor right) platform appertaining to economic, political and social reforms; and, 

2.3 Somebody with an efficient political machinery, well funded, and manned by committed and creative volunteers who have, almost, zero vested interests.

        However, sometime during the campaign, majority of voters compromise and supplant the ideal requirements by adopting these:

Reason # 3:  The practical or realistic requirements for winning: 

3.1 The candidate must be a charismatic leader, preferably a household name at the outset and a good copy; 

3.2 He proposes an ambiguous and “safe” platform; and, 

3.3 He is supported by a well-funded and fluid political machinery that adapts to the vested interests and idiosyncrasies of its numerous leaders who take advantage of the weaknesses or defects of the electoral system.

        No. 2 above is the perpetual pretext of bright voters.  However, no. 1 will prevail because of sheer number.  Ergo, the tug-of-war between no. 1 and no. 2 will gravitate to a compromise, no. 3 — the adoption of the practical or realistic requirements for winning.  This adoption of Reason #3 by both dummies and bright voters is the eternal spring of the paradoxical cry, “Why can’t people vote wisely?”

We will never save the planet on time, from environmental degradation, unless we all ascend within five years the Moral High Ground of the problem.  This Moral High Ground (MHG) means our active, immediate, and resolute acceptance “that no matter how big the monetary profits and social benefits a particular undertaking gives us, we will stop it if it causes environmental degradation.”

1.  The first hurdle in ascending the MHG is the interplay between world politics and big business.

      1.1  The old super powers want to maintain their military and economic edge.  The new super powers (lumped together with China and India) want to catch up with the former’s military might by accelerating the development and utilization of their natural resources, strongly expanding their business internationally, and attaining parity of the standard of living of their people with those of the super powers.

      1.2  If the old super powers are to maintain their edge, they must either be economically and financially more productive than those trying to catch up with them, or “make” the new super powers decelerate in their catching up.  This not discounting that the latter’s real intention might be to surpass the former.

      1.3  The old super powers accuse the new super powers of causing the biggest percentage of environmental pollution.  However, the accused counter that their accusers actually cause the bigger per-capita pollution.

              China, the leading defender of polluters among the emerging powers, says that it only wants its citizens to live as lavishly as the Americans, British, French, Canadians, Germans, and the Japanese.  That if first world families have one car and the other basic home appliances, why can’t a Chinese family have the same?  Furthermore, why can’t it put up more factories to produce them locally and export them?  Incidentally, China has begun manufacturing the European Airbus since last year.

      1.4  On the other hand, many countries that belong to the third world and long for higher standards of living are themselves worriedly perplexed.  “Can we imagine how much pollution there will be, if 50% of Chinese and 50% of Indian families have cars and all the basic home appliances?”  Again, that’s not counting the added emissions of new factories that will produce them.

2.  The second hurdle is the offsetting of pluses and minuses for each side, including the issues of who does what, when, and how many or how much.

      2.1  How and when will the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Japan decrease their per-capita pollution without further deepening their respective recessions?  The acceptable answer which cannot be implemented is, “through extremely advanced technology that must be completely and fully adopted by all, within five years.”    

     2.2  How and when can China and India achieve comparable standard of living with the 1^st world by accelerating   production and consumption, without considerably increasing pollution?  The same answer as 2.1 and optimistically, after half a century.

      2.3  How and when can the “proper” give-and-take between the old and the new super powers take off vis-a-vis,  ”We reduce our pollution by this much, how much will you reduce yours?”  The same answer as 2.2, but in the first place, who does it first?

Numbers 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 require the entire world to dream that the USA et al. and China et al. will unite and have one government within the optimistic time frame.

      2.4  This next issue is far more dangerous:  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) is forever stalled, because the treaty does not merely require the non-nuclear powers (all nations aspiring, the most prominent being Iran and North Korea) to give up their ambitions of acquiring nukes.  The treaty also obliges the old nuclear powers (USA, Russia and its former satellite states, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel) to dismantle their existing nuclear arsenals.

If the old nuclear powers do not show “motu propio” initiative to perform their side of the bargain, the resentment of the aspiring nuclear powers will grow and their unwillingness to agree on more stringent inspections will also grow.  Meanwhile, nuclear materials and production know-how continue to spread worldwide.  

      2.5  Can technology advance fast enough to significantly minimize pollution of both the old and new super powers while they compete commercially with each other?  Maybe and optimistically, after half a century.

      2.6  It now becomes clear that pollution and its dreadful consequences will overtake all the usual remedial measures (read: palliatives).  It is urgently imperative to replace the obsolete paradigm that, “the maintenance of economic and military superiority by the super powers and attainment of parity by the emerging nations through their simultaneous exploitation of the earth’s resources is all good.”  This obsolete paradigm has produced both good and very bad results.  Human activities keep on expanding.  The earth does not.

      2.7  Consider these long forgotten prohibitions that make smart and responsible people laugh when told about:  Rivers, natural creeks and canals are not meant to be asphalted or cemented over; mountains are not meant to be denuded to make way for houses and malls; forests and jungles, like those in the Amazon, are neither meant to be cleared away and replaced by dams nor to be mined.

     2.8  Nature has its awesome ways of going back to its original form, self-correct its degradations and impose its will through global warming, floods, landslides, earthquakes, water shortage, viral epidemics afflicting both humans and farm animals, El niño, La niña, red tide, receding of ice caps and erosion of icebergs, etc. 

Nature’s ways of getting even is limited only by mankind’s unlimited excesses.

     2.9  Is technological advancement the only solution? Certainly not.   How about scaling down economic activities? Or accelerating creative destruction evenly across all business, political, social and religious entities, since most of them need to be phased-out in the first place?

3.  The third hurdle is truly the biggest of them all.  It lies internally within each human being, without any exception.  We are all required to ascend the Moral High Ground of the environmental issue.  I repeat the prologue:  This Moral High Ground (MHG) means our active, immediate, and resolute acceptance “that no matter how big the monetary profits and social benefits a particular undertaking will give us, we will stop it if it causes environmental degradation.”

      3.1  The bottom-line is, we individually can’t ever attain the MHG.  Not even 50% of us.  This writer included.  Consider how impossible it is to swallow these bitter pills:

                3.1.1  Contract or cap global economic activities.  Who would allow, let alone initiate, the contraction or capping of one’s business or employment?  Nobody would.

 When blatantly excessive deforestation, underground dumping of nuclear waste, whale hunting, pouring tons of human excreta into the bays and rivers, or leaking oil unto the ground and sea beds… couldn’t be stopped because they are debated exhaustively tooth-and-nail, how can we expect to contract or cap “harmless” economic activities such as producing billion more cell phones, PCs and laptops, infant milk formulas, plastic bottles, tires and other rubber products, hazardous metals, cholesterol-sugar-uric-acid ridden foods, as well as the trading of investment derivatives?     

               3.1.2  The long-term method of contracting the world economy is to decrease by 50% the birth-rate of the 20 most populated countries (based on the per sq. kilometre of their urban lands). 

                                  3.1.2.1  Businesses stubbornly cling to the sales myth that  “…the bigger the population, the bigger the market,” never mind that what is rationally preferable is a smaller market with big purchasing power rather than a bigger but impoverished market.

                                  3.1.2.2  All college graduates want to acquire the fine material goods like cars, houses, appliances and other status symbols while half-a-million babies are born every day on the planet.  How can we ever hope to significantly reduce pollution when pollution has been, and will always be, the by-product of an industrialized civilization?  There are just too many people.    

               3.1.3  Judged by its effects on mankind, environmental degradation is the new reality of the Malthusian Theory.  Either we ascend the Moral High Ground in a hurry or the Malthusian Theory does its indiscriminate selection for mankind.

                                  3.1.3.1  Even for the sake of argument, we are able to attain 50% of the Moral High Ground; it will not be sufficient and timely to stop environmental degradation.  It’s too late.  The minimum must be 80% ascension of MHG in 5 years. An indisputable impossibility.  We simply can’t.

                                 3.1.3.2  Remember the favourite analogy of  lecturers on strategic planning and of facilitators in team building exercises?  We will be like the frog inside a water-filled pot slowly being heated to boil. The poor thing acclimatized with the slowly rising temperature and got cooked unaware, unlike the 2^nd frog that jumped instinctively out of a boiling pot.

          Just like diet and exercise (part 1), the confluence of world problems will begin to be solved, in earnest, only when it’s already too late.

          Anyway, after 1,000 years, the earth will just be a big ball of ice.  By then, nothing matters.

This must fit into everybody’s schedule, with determined regularity. The very sad reality, however, is that no matter how beneficial this is, it neither will be done nor adhered to until it’s too late.

 
That is the nature of human beings. Everybody is subconsciously engaged in health brinkmanship. According to the law of averages, there is a small percentage of people who are obsessed with this activity, because they are the exceptions.

DIETING AND EXERCISING TO LOSE FAT

1. Above all, the inclination for diet and exercise is not only inborn, it is a life style. But those not born with inclination, yet become heavily influenced by the obsolete notion that being on the plump-side is a status symbol — a sign of affluence.

Simply ask yourself. Who do you perceive as the one living in comfort, all other things being equal, a person 20% overweight or somebody who is 20% underweight? Definitely, the former is the prevalent myth.

2. As a young person matures, his/her preoccupations make him oblivious to the rationalities of disciplined living invoked by the adage “health is wealth.” Instead, he/she succumbs to the stereo-typing or branding by promoters of “the lesser the effort, the better.” He/she chooses to spend a lot taking in calories and fat, while refusing to spend a little more to expell the excess from his body.

3. People fail to grasp the financial reality that eating in opulence is actually cheaper than dieting and exercising opulently. Or, it is more expensive in terms of both time and money, to diet and exercise elegantly than to just eat heartily.

3.1 Health foods are more expensive to produce, let alone selecting them;

 
3.2 Acquiring specialized cooking and processing appliances are none essential items that cost a lot;

 
3.3 Keeping stock of food supplements, designer vitamins, protein, VCO, grape seed and other anti-oxidants are usually exclusive of everybody’s basic monthly household budget;

 
3.4 Either going to the gym or building/accumulating quality exercise gadgets and machines and buying imported reading materials are serious financial undertakings;

 
3.5 Keeping a regular physical fitness regimen get in the way of earning more income (like spending for serious tournament practices and the consequential work absence when avoiding a match default);

 
3.6 Being a physical fitness buff, in some cases, has a downside including having a selected social base; unless not one of your associates and friends ever call you names such lazy, dumb Pollack, bimbo, narcissist, etc. Or, unless nobody in your, erstwhile, circle is insecure with his/her physical makeup.

 
If the deeper analysis shows that the inseparable combination of dieting and exercising is the real measure of financial status, why is it not aspired for by the status conscious?

 
4. It isn’t aspired for Virginia, because the disinclined have been numbed by the consumerist belief that, “working hard and long hours will automatically make them succeed.” What they conveniently forget is that, the consumerism culture will automatically accelerate their growing old. They have their chosen lifestyle and no amount of urgency will suffice. Perhaps the hackneyed expression in the vernacular seems appropriate, “Kung gusto, maraming paraan. Kung ayaw, maraming dahilan.” (If inherently desired, there are countless ways. If inherently disliked, so many alibis.)

 
5. The most meaningless question asked of me by friends, who by any standard could be considered intelligent, “You’re neither fat nor overweight, so why are you exercising vigorously?”

 
Somehow, I’ve managed to riposte that, “That’s precisely the point. I want to maintain my ideal weight.” And then took my turn in asking them, “Do wait until you become fat before you diet and exercise?”

 
5.1 Bright and intelligent people are instinctive readers. They take advantage of the minute opportunities to read, test opposing ideas and are quick in organizing their thoughts before expressing them.

 
5.2 The same can be said about people who are physical fitness conscious. Whether they are on their daily work routine, on field work, or on a short vacation, they find the slightest pretext to exercise and play;

 
6. Those who have the propensity to spend for liposuction or reconstructive surgery are only solving a third of their problem. After the successful operation, a more shapely body is achieved but, there is still the need to exercise the lungs and the heart. What good is a shapely body when the heart and the lungs are not in good condition? The same can be said about oral medications for slimming.

 
7. Here is the dreadful finish-line. People who are disinclined to engage in the real status symbol will only be compelled after they have been medically prescribed and politely warned that they would die in the very near future, or when it is already too late.

 
8. The only time that the chosen overweight-lifestyle overtakes the financial status of maintaining an underweight- lifestyle, is during the prolonged period of terminal hospitalization. “Oh, how catastrophic! Our family spent millions in his/her hospitalization,” is the usual lamentation and dissimulated bragging.

 
9. Isn’t it pathetic for many senior citizens, resigned to fade away inexpensively and effortlessly, to unfairly chide others? “You’re already old, why bother to look shapely and younger than your actual age?” Not contended with that sabotaging remark they say further, “Those who engage in very tiresome and, sometimes, painful exercises, are either masochists or narcissists.”

 
10. This writer is not wont to dissuade others from dyeing their hair or undergo dermatological and cosmetic modifications for vanity. It is their personal choice. But I prefer to maintain a healthy respiratory, skeletal, muscular and cardio-vascular system, and balancing the required activities with regular reading, writing and other intellectual pursuits, aside from getting an optimum amount of good sex. Listen: no balanced physical and mental conditionings, equals no elegant maturing and dying.

 
10.1 While we’re into sex, I am narrating this anecdote, exclusively for the male readers. Unmarried ladies need matured discretion.

 
During the first alumni homecoming, where the others seated in my table were all males, I heard a batch mate complained about having been served with small sautéed squids. He asked for the bigger, and obviously, more expensive ones. Somebody in our table admonished him that the bigger squids couldn’t be digested efficiently by matured alumni like the rest of those seated among us. The admonisher said further, “The bigger squids are more difficult to chew because they are rubbery.”

 
10.2 I offered my own gleeful warning. “Almost everybody in this table has studied and worked abroad, toured other continents and has eaten almost every conceivable delicacy…” I paused, gave the naughty punch line. “We have eaten all kinds of pussies…blonde, brunette, red haired, white and black haired. Can’t we moderate our intakes and concentrate on the health foods?” The cheering, jeering and giving of hi-fives made the occupants at the farthest tables turned their heads toward us.

 
10.3 Another batch mate not wanting to be outdone narrated his story with a poignant irony, “During my prime, I was disparaged for too much playing after work. The disparagers were contemptuous of me because I didn’t seem to work hard enough, like them, though I surpassed my own forecast every time.”

 
He felt satisfied seeing each one of us intently listening to him. He disclosed the real irony. “When I confronted them with the question, ‘What will you do after working endlessly during your prime?’ Their surprising but unfailing answer was, ‘I will also play.’ ”

 
10.4 A fourth batch mate concluded, “The irony is eventually realized when aging persons couldn’t anymore engage in balanced physical and mental regimens, after they have already contracted debilitating ailments resulting from their abhorrence or disinclination to perform those regimens during their prime. All what is left of them is hindsight…’I should have done this…I should have done that…’ while undergoing physical therapy and rehab. ”

 
10.5 The youngest in the group doused cold water. “…But can you tell me if what La Rochefoucauld (LR) said is true? LR said that, ‘It is a wearisome illness to preserve one’s health by too strict a regimen.’ ”

 
That particular alumni homecoming was one of the most relaxing and rewarding venues for discussion, after all these years.