there's no shame in talking about it...i think.

so, everyone in blogland has made mention of it somehow, at least once. this is how we know it's a social disease. i am referring, of course, to the phenomenon known as friendster. and today, it's my turn to talk about it.

it's funny, it's become a joke to tell people that after an argument they're no longer "friendsters." but, here's the thing: when someone actually goes through with it, why is there nothing to inform people of this fact? no message or memo? i mean, presumably people will notice when one of their friends (or friendsters) goes missing, but why not reinforce the point? is it to spare our feelings? to keep from adding insult to injury? i mean, there are people out there with hundreds of friendsters--what if a friendship was damaged because someone couldn't pick an empty space out of the multitudes? (well, okay, that would probably point to the fact that the friendship was on shaky ground anyway, but...yeah)

i ask merely because today, someone chose to de-friendster me (and not just me, apparently), and when the obvious suspect turned out not to be the perpetrator (*relief*), i had to look at my friends and find out who. and now i know who, no thanks to the service itself, i just need to figure out why. and while there's no memo for the latter, i would have preferred to be informed about the former.

man, when that service starts charging, i hope that someone has the sense to add that function--if friendster could do double duty as a breakup device, they'd make MILLIONS.