Going off to Norwich in two days, and the apprehension increases; it's very much delving into the unknown. I don't know how much different doing a PhD will be to doing the research part of my MRes; hopefully the two will be quite similar, because if they are, it should be a very rewarding three years ahead.

Some will remember that I had some friendship issues some years ago. Most people seem to follow an unwritten rule that all conflicts involving friendships are the friend's fault and that you need to "move on" by "cutting the friend out of your life". Although I didn't have many issues at Leeds University, one of the people on my course fell foul of this one, she had an unfortunate clash with someone else, and everyone assumed she was stringing the person along and cut her out. She was effectively a scapegoat.

I believe that principle stems from the general idea "family matters, friendship is unimportant", as in family conflicts this principle never seems to apply. However, if a person follows it, it doesn't mean the person sees friendship as unimportant- as it's widely accepted without question, most people tend to follow it regardless of their other related beliefs. Whatever, it causes many innocent friends to become scapegoats.

In recent weeks, I've got back in touch with quite a number of people I never thought I'd get back in touch with again. And, if I'd followed the above unwritten rule, chances are I'd have "cut most of them out of my life", rendering myself worse off in the long run. Yes, I know it's seen as "moving on" in the sense of moving from old friends to new friends, but I've never been keen on the idea that moving on means holding lifelong grudges against people, often for things they haven't done, and that letting go of said grudges is a sign of not having moved on! Another line of evidence for my argument perhaps.