Good day everyone. I'm a 33-year-old man with Asperger's syndrome on AISH who (for 4 years) has worked as a cashier in my area (Manning area NE Edmonton, near Cabela's, Cineplex, etc), though I only get 4-5 hrs/week presently.

I've done landscaping, roofing labour, cleaning, demo cleanup and hauling. I'm free of addiction (save from coffee and a very occasional nicotine vape) and I'm bondable (a citizen with no rap sheet). I am a hardworking, gentle and kind soul that is motivated, determined and fastidious. I love animals, people, art, music, history, linguistics and humanities. I have 2-years in a second language (ASL) and I'd very much like to save up so that I can complete my interpreters' license.

I have a bus pass and I'm open to any hours, early or late. Ideally I'd like to work in the NE area or somewhere with easy LRT access, though alternatively I very well may be willing to also work in other areas.

If you figure I might be a viable fit let me know. You can message me here or give my landline a call. Sadly, my cellphone ended up stolen during an outing with a friend. Replacing that is my top priority.

I'm also grateful for any and all potential consideration and I genuinely appreciate your time. Thank you for reading and please excuse my preponderance towards sesquipedalian (long, polysyllabic) words.

Regarding that I have a long-winded disclaimer below for those who like to read. It became by accident a small lecture coupled with my own very unique critiques regarding select rare people that we all likely know and love (or try to at least), so please do feel free to omit that part if the above has enough words for you.



DISCLAIMER:

A few reproachfully (blame-worthy) and vehemently (intensely in passion/emotion) impetuous (acting in a rash and impatient manner) troglodytes (caveman-like folk) of whom mayhaps, I suspect, perceive loquacity (expressing oneself articulately, fluently, or glibly) as though it is either or both grandiloquent (pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress) and abstruse (vague, obscure), almost to a point that implies to some the impression of deliberately being diminutive or condescending; hitherto such souls, I believe, may seek to obtund (dullen sensitivity) against such verbosity (wordiness) leaving yours truly somewhat perplexed and crestfallen. I also can attest that I can be likened to, in certain infrequent aspects, a luddite (opposed to change/modernization), yet only partly so and never in any manner of self-projection; only instead exclusively in a manner of unbiased contemplations and inclinations. I thus never cared for stereotypes in any literal sense. I truly can only comprehend them figuratively in a broad generalized sense.

I think of myself as one who knows infinitesimally few words yet I have a profound and inexorable (impossible to stop or prevent) adoration for lexicology (the study of the definition, meaning, and use of words) and etymology (the study of the historical origins and evolution of words) as it builds a strong foundation for greater nuance, fluidity and depth to language. In my dearest great-grandparents day, as I've come to learn in childhood through the great-vine of family, eloquence in speech was commonly held as a mark of great esteem and value, most notably (within primary and secondary living memory) during the late 19th to early 20th century. I may be a little nutty or cooky that way I suppose. I extend my sincerest apologies if the above illustration may appear disparaging. It is from this precedent (what came before) that I may to some extent (in my own discourse, not in others') caused me to oppose the obsoletion of many lexemes (units of meaning from a single word) and lemmas (single core words and their primary meaning; most often 'headwords' in dictionaries). Rest assured that I will never attempt to correct another's grammar; albeit if it's something rudimentary I might offer to correct it by stating "now, did you know..." for example and test the waters that way. If one shows no interest I then would leave it be.

Bare in mind that herein it is my intention to convey my own reflection of how I at times can feel misunderstood and hence isolated; therein, my expoundations (detailed explanations) and elucidations (explanations that clarify or reify; give form/shape to) are solely intended to be my best attempt at expressing emotion and feeling over logic (i.e right vs wrong). Words after all are not things. They are concepts which are frequently abstract and contextually-based and thereby oft can be prone to being misconstrued and misinterpreted.

What can I say other than I view myself more as an idiot (Greek: idiotes; a private citizen outside of democracy, state or union) than a (Latin) civis/citizen (from civitas/city or state; Greek equivalent polites, from polis; a self-governing city-state). The utmost paramount thing that I value in life is liberty and freewill for all of humankind; absolute sovereignty and autonomy of mind, heart and soul. Simply put, I'm a very philosophical *individual (*Latin in- dividuus; not divisible; i.e an indivisible whole). I am one who unceasingly seeks questions above seeking answers.


*A brief footnote on the word "person". As confusing as it may seem, the word does mean human. I particularly tend to avoid this word myself because, as mentioned, I am one heck of a special snowflake as you may have noticed, though I have nothing against the modern use of the word whatever. I tend to use instead human, one, individual, soul, man/woman, guy/gal, et cetera; or descriptors such as comrade, gem, soldier and so on. If I genuinely adore someone I may call them a homo sapien (wise-human). I know, I'm weird, yet as my favourite quote reads: "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Suess

"Person" was first adopted into Latin around 450 BC/BCE from Greek prosopon (the mask an actor would wear; i.e a character or narrator). It then evolved to gain a second definition via Roman jurisprudence (theory of law) and it first officially came into law in 161 AD/CE when the Roman jurist Gaius first used the term "persona" singularly to distinguish between legal subjects (persons) and legal objects (things) in his textbook "Institutes" as a sort-of umbrella word which then became its new primary definition. It wasn't until much later (I'm not exactly sure when but I think somewhere around the 16th century, in the Age of Enlightenment, or slightly earlier) that the French word "persona" (defined as persoun/person, dated approximately in 1200 AD/CE with its earlier secondary definition still intact) overtime came into Latin. The plebians of Rome (common-folk) who largely could not read or write as formal education was limited mostly to the upper-class. They had long prior been accustomed to using persona (in the legal definition) with the meaning or sense of 'human'.

This gives credence as to why in modern law there arrived further distinctions between 'natural' and 'unnatural' persons and also as to why English formed the two words "person" and "persona" from when both Latin and Italian have only one.

A very confusing and fascinating word thus is if you ask me! Also, please forgive me if I bored you with (possibly to most) dry and scholarly information.
When you call please mention you found this ad listing on OKz.ca