-Yet another conclave.
Bryan: Conclave!!!
Yi Siang: Seriously, this practice has become an addiction; and I don't deem it apt for a public blog!
Samuel: Well I see no harm in this practice, even if it were an addiction. And your attitude seems to be among the leading causes for our emotional instability - which is what instigates the conclaves for your information.
Bryan: Though it would be far from fair to put the blame on him or on such pride. Giving full vent to the predicaments and woes of our life won't solve a thing either. Besides, half the motivation behind public rants is the desire for attention.
Samuel: 'Tis not entirely a heinous is it - a desire for attention? Before we digress further into other topics to keep us occupied until we fall into the greatly therapeutic slumber, I would just like to say that, apropos to the recent "shock" to our equilibrium, sometimes inaction is the most efficient action.
Yi Siang: I would have to concur; I am certainly willing to sacrifice the value of time for our sanity.
Bryan: Nonetheless, the chagrin lies in the fact that the lack of courage and strength has prevented us from harvesting the value of every moment without affecting our emotional state.
Yi Siang: The inevitable truth is that solving the problems of life does require some sort of emotional energy. And by straining what you have left, you end up harvesting less instead. Let the soil rest and the next harvest would be in folds.
Samuel: Haha.. I suppose we have got used to rushing through everything; life included.
Bryan: Perhaps 'tis because we feel so "behind". Though ironically, we've established quite firmly that there is no gauge to progress - a cup is not "half filled" or "half empty", 'tis filled to the rim, just half with water, half with air.
Samuel: *Smiles* That thought pertains to life in general. We, individually speaking, are allowed to be motivated by certain aspirations; though we believe that acquiring such aspirations will not put us in front of other individuals in life.
Bryan: Well I consider today's conclave a success. Adjourned!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Biodiversity Gone Wild
Opening:
I would first like to say that my stance with regard to this post on environmentalism is neither against nor for. The purpose of this post is to provide some food for thought as human beings do tend to think ahead of ourselves.
Article in the limelight:
http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/education/1.cfm?lang=eng
In short, this Government website provides tips and guidelines on how residence owners can have biodiversity in their backyard.
Quote: "Rock, log, mulch and compost piles provide places for rabbits, shrews, mice, snakes and salamanders to lay their eggs and raise their young."
Discussion:
Biodiversity has been receiving quite a lot of attention for the last few decades I believe. Many would agree that humans are part of the ecosystem and without biodiversity, we would too find ourselves in deep waters.
However, when many environmentalist advocate for biodiversity building, has it ever occur to them why we got into our state in the first place? Has it ever occur to them why we got rid of snakes from our backyard in the first place?
I was so tempted to ask my Cities and Environment Professor as he mourned the loss of natural species such as coyotes, and rattle snakes in southern ontario whether he would still think the same if he were to find a rattle snake in his son's room.
Yes! Biodiversity is extremely important! But to what extent? We sit here comfortably in a lecture hall lamenting the extinction of species, feeling high and noble on the podium of conscience. Do we really know what we are truly implying?
The question that I think needs most to be answered is, what is the optimum mix of biodiversity where we can care for our long term existence and also maintain for our current welfare.
I would first like to say that my stance with regard to this post on environmentalism is neither against nor for. The purpose of this post is to provide some food for thought as human beings do tend to think ahead of ourselves.
Article in the limelight:
http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/education/1.cfm?lang=eng
In short, this Government website provides tips and guidelines on how residence owners can have biodiversity in their backyard.
Quote: "Rock, log, mulch and compost piles provide places for rabbits, shrews, mice, snakes and salamanders to lay their eggs and raise their young."
Discussion:
Biodiversity has been receiving quite a lot of attention for the last few decades I believe. Many would agree that humans are part of the ecosystem and without biodiversity, we would too find ourselves in deep waters.
However, when many environmentalist advocate for biodiversity building, has it ever occur to them why we got into our state in the first place? Has it ever occur to them why we got rid of snakes from our backyard in the first place?
I was so tempted to ask my Cities and Environment Professor as he mourned the loss of natural species such as coyotes, and rattle snakes in southern ontario whether he would still think the same if he were to find a rattle snake in his son's room.
Yes! Biodiversity is extremely important! But to what extent? We sit here comfortably in a lecture hall lamenting the extinction of species, feeling high and noble on the podium of conscience. Do we really know what we are truly implying?The question that I think needs most to be answered is, what is the optimum mix of biodiversity where we can care for our long term existence and also maintain for our current welfare.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
How I learned English...
-my secret!
*All word definitions provided were attained from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/*
Sentence: The registrar's office approval of Bryan's registration for a 7th course prevented a possible tirade.
*Hmph... what's tirade? Let's refer to the dictionary.*
Tirade - a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.
*Hmph, what's vituperative?*
Vituperative - uttering or given to censure : containing or characterized by verbal abuse.
*What the hell is censure?!*
Censure - a judgment involving condemnation; an official reprimand.
*What is reprimand?* Sobs
Reprimand - a severe or formal reproof.
*What is reproof?!* Mommy!
Reproof - criticism for a fault
*OH!*
*What was the first word I wanted to know again?*
Absurd dictionaries like the aforementioned which relentlessly inundated me with new words, albeit piqued me tremendously, enriched my vocabulary.
:D
Enjoy.
*All word definitions provided were attained from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/*
Sentence: The registrar's office approval of Bryan's registration for a 7th course prevented a possible tirade.
*Hmph... what's tirade? Let's refer to the dictionary.*
Tirade - a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.
*Hmph, what's vituperative?*
Vituperative - uttering or given to censure : containing or characterized by verbal abuse.
*What the hell is censure?!*
Censure - a judgment involving condemnation; an official reprimand.
*What is reprimand?* Sobs
Reprimand - a severe or formal reproof.
*What is reproof?!* Mommy!
Reproof - criticism for a fault
*OH!*
*What was the first word I wanted to know again?*
Absurd dictionaries like the aforementioned which relentlessly inundated me with new words, albeit piqued me tremendously, enriched my vocabulary.
:D
Enjoy.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Donor's Dilemma
-Who said economics is useless in everyday life decisions? [Pun origin: Prisoner's Dilemma]
*Issue*
Whether or not to continue sponsoring a child after the culmination of work term - zero income.
*Chart*
*Legend*
Guilt (P) = Guilt of spending money from parents
Guilt (C) = Guilt of withdrawing sponsorship
Welfare (I) = My welfare
*Utility Chart*
1 Guilt (P) point = -4 Utility Points
1 Guilt (C) point = -2 Utility Points
1 Welfare (I) point = -5 Utility Points
*Analysis*
1. Continue Sponsoring and scrimping with parental approval
= 1/4 Guilt (P) - Welfare (I)
= -6 Utility Points
2. Continue sponsoring and scrimping with parental disapproval
= -7/4 Guilt(P) - Welfare (I)
= - 12 Utility Points
3. Continue sponsoring without scrimping with parental approval
= Guilt (P)
= -4 Utility Points
4. Continue sponsoring without scrimping with parental disapproval
=+15/4 Guilt (P)
=-15 Utility Points
5. Stop Sponsoring
= Guilt (C)
= -2 Utility Points
*Conclusion*
Least Utility Penalty incurred if stop sponsoring; hence Bryan shall stop sponsoring.
I guess I'd have to make a call to World Vision tomorrow to cancel the pledge and endure a very unpleasant phone conversation whereby on top of canceling my pledge after a short 4 month period, I'd have to turn down every other alternative of providing support, which World Vision would, most likely, perpetually suggest.
*Issue*
Whether or not to continue sponsoring a child after the culmination of work term - zero income.
*Chart*
*Legend*
Guilt (P) = Guilt of spending money from parents
Guilt (C) = Guilt of withdrawing sponsorship
Welfare (I) = My welfare
*Utility Chart*
1 Guilt (P) point = -4 Utility Points
1 Guilt (C) point = -2 Utility Points
1 Welfare (I) point = -5 Utility Points
*Analysis*
1. Continue Sponsoring and scrimping with parental approval
= 1/4 Guilt (P) - Welfare (I)
= -6 Utility Points
2. Continue sponsoring and scrimping with parental disapproval
= -7/4 Guilt(P) - Welfare (I)
= - 12 Utility Points
3. Continue sponsoring without scrimping with parental approval
= Guilt (P)
= -4 Utility Points
4. Continue sponsoring without scrimping with parental disapproval
=+15/4 Guilt (P)
=-15 Utility Points
5. Stop Sponsoring
= Guilt (C)
= -2 Utility Points
*Conclusion*
Least Utility Penalty incurred if stop sponsoring; hence Bryan shall stop sponsoring.
I guess I'd have to make a call to World Vision tomorrow to cancel the pledge and endure a very unpleasant phone conversation whereby on top of canceling my pledge after a short 4 month period, I'd have to turn down every other alternative of providing support, which World Vision would, most likely, perpetually suggest.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Dictation
*Evolution*
God: Now I want you to transcribe how I created human beings and this land they inhabit. It's really quite a complicated process, so listen carefully. First, I had to design elementary particles, then instigate this complex process, which I will call for now, "Big Bang". Then when earth was fully formed, I had to make sure it was a conducive environment, namely by forming an electro-magnetic field that shields the earth, creating the atmosphere, etc etc. And then, there is the entire process of creating organisms and diversifying them through the process, which I will now call, "evolution".
Author: *Stares agape*
God: *In frustration* Fine, this is the truncated version - I created the world in seven days...The first day, I created heaven and earth, then I created light and darkness, etc etc.
Author: *Smiles* That makes sense! Genesis 1. In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth....
*Marriage*
God to prophets: Now my enlightened prophets and children, go preach to your brothers and sisters about the virtues of unions - whereby my creations come together and commune among each other, beyond families and tribes, communities and cultures.
Prophets to others: Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
God to prophets: Halt! When did I endorse such exclusivity whereby unions only extend to a man and a woman?
Prophets to God: My Lord, throughout my life, I have only seen such unions, please enlighten us.
God to prophets: Every single creation of mine contains my spirit. When one finds that one's path is barren of light, my other creations can come forth and allow their spirit to illuminate the darkened path. Such unions are diverse. When one is young, one shall have the company of one's parents or caregivers. When parents leave the fellowship through death, detachment or abandonment, one would still have the company of one's peers. The latter type of union that extends beyond familial ties is so fascinating that it is hard to describe. It can be in form of a man and a woman, which you are familiar with, whereby the two share the burden throughout the journey of life. Though in the past, a man and many women form such unions as during such times, many women needed the aid of a man. And as humanity consolidates and as my creations socialise more among themselves, other unions such as friendship, might be equally, if not more important than marriage. When procreation ceases to be as imperative to growth, unions between men and men, or women and women would be more common. And as gender roles dissipate, the term men and women wouldn't even be applicable. I would also not be too surprised when there come a time when humans and animals or even machines form strong bonds.
Prophets: *Stares agape*
God: Oh nevermind! Preach as you wish, as long as you convey the virtue to contemporary society.
*Religion*
God to prophets: Now my children of many regions, preach to your community that the Gods they worship, fear, sacrifice for, and use as excuses to persecution are unreal. Tell them that I am the only true God, and that my values should be embraced.
Hebrew prophet: *In hebrew* He is the only true God, conducting any other sort of worshipping is commiting idoltry, and should be condemened.
Arab prophet: *In arabic* He is the only true God, pray only to Him or be punished in Hell.
God to self: Oh dear... *sigh*
-Testimony-
Bryan:
Perhaps I am committing blesphemy, but since the tenets of the major religions fail to help me understand the phenomena I see happening on earth, I had to develop a faith that does.
Interpretation:
*Evolution* - Science
The first conflict between religion and science which I learned of was between Galileo and the Church. All occured because the Church interpreted the bible with contemporary knowledge that they had, and hence claimed that the bible spoke for them and against Galileo.
Suppose that God created the world using solid science, he could not have conveyed such knowledge and wisdom to human beings who have yet to discover such knowledge, be it evolution to the people of the past, or some crazy theory to the people of the 21st century. Hence, how can one use the Bible to refute scientific discoveries when the Bible was written in the perspective of the authors who have yet to learn these discoveries?
*Marriage* - Values
Many of times, I've witnessed people using citations of ONE or at most TWO phrases in chapters of the Bible to substantiate an accusation - the decadance of same-sex love; the deprecation of females; the unrighteousness of abortion. And half the times, the usage of the cited phrases is not even germane to the message of the chapter itself.
If God were indeed against homosexuality, don't you think he would dedicate at least an entire chapter regarding the sin, instead of just a few lines here and there in different chapters which do not even pertain to same-sex relationships. There is not even a parable on homosexuality; just a few lines or even WORDS here and there.
As mentioned above, if indeed the bible was written in the narrow perspective of the author, should we not try to understand the values that God has asked them to convey instead of reading their words per se? Aren't words are just means of translating God's values in the mindset of the contemporary authors and hence skewed based on the knowledge of the contemporary authors?
*Religion* - Reconciliation
Like a few others, I feel that the main values of the major religions I see today are the same! Can you be so sure that the Christian God isn't in fact the Islamic Allah? Can you be so sure that God wasn't wise enough to send two or more messiashs to different regions of the world to preach the same values?
*End of annoying religious rant*
God: Now I want you to transcribe how I created human beings and this land they inhabit. It's really quite a complicated process, so listen carefully. First, I had to design elementary particles, then instigate this complex process, which I will call for now, "Big Bang". Then when earth was fully formed, I had to make sure it was a conducive environment, namely by forming an electro-magnetic field that shields the earth, creating the atmosphere, etc etc. And then, there is the entire process of creating organisms and diversifying them through the process, which I will now call, "evolution".
Author: *Stares agape*
God: *In frustration* Fine, this is the truncated version - I created the world in seven days...The first day, I created heaven and earth, then I created light and darkness, etc etc.
Author: *Smiles* That makes sense! Genesis 1. In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth....
*Marriage*
God to prophets: Now my enlightened prophets and children, go preach to your brothers and sisters about the virtues of unions - whereby my creations come together and commune among each other, beyond families and tribes, communities and cultures.
Prophets to others: Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
God to prophets: Halt! When did I endorse such exclusivity whereby unions only extend to a man and a woman?
Prophets to God: My Lord, throughout my life, I have only seen such unions, please enlighten us.
God to prophets: Every single creation of mine contains my spirit. When one finds that one's path is barren of light, my other creations can come forth and allow their spirit to illuminate the darkened path. Such unions are diverse. When one is young, one shall have the company of one's parents or caregivers. When parents leave the fellowship through death, detachment or abandonment, one would still have the company of one's peers. The latter type of union that extends beyond familial ties is so fascinating that it is hard to describe. It can be in form of a man and a woman, which you are familiar with, whereby the two share the burden throughout the journey of life. Though in the past, a man and many women form such unions as during such times, many women needed the aid of a man. And as humanity consolidates and as my creations socialise more among themselves, other unions such as friendship, might be equally, if not more important than marriage. When procreation ceases to be as imperative to growth, unions between men and men, or women and women would be more common. And as gender roles dissipate, the term men and women wouldn't even be applicable. I would also not be too surprised when there come a time when humans and animals or even machines form strong bonds.
Prophets: *Stares agape*
God: Oh nevermind! Preach as you wish, as long as you convey the virtue to contemporary society.
*Religion*
God to prophets: Now my children of many regions, preach to your community that the Gods they worship, fear, sacrifice for, and use as excuses to persecution are unreal. Tell them that I am the only true God, and that my values should be embraced.
Hebrew prophet: *In hebrew* He is the only true God, conducting any other sort of worshipping is commiting idoltry, and should be condemened.
Arab prophet: *In arabic* He is the only true God, pray only to Him or be punished in Hell.
God to self: Oh dear... *sigh*
-Testimony-
Bryan:
Perhaps I am committing blesphemy, but since the tenets of the major religions fail to help me understand the phenomena I see happening on earth, I had to develop a faith that does.
Interpretation:
*Evolution* - Science
The first conflict between religion and science which I learned of was between Galileo and the Church. All occured because the Church interpreted the bible with contemporary knowledge that they had, and hence claimed that the bible spoke for them and against Galileo.
Suppose that God created the world using solid science, he could not have conveyed such knowledge and wisdom to human beings who have yet to discover such knowledge, be it evolution to the people of the past, or some crazy theory to the people of the 21st century. Hence, how can one use the Bible to refute scientific discoveries when the Bible was written in the perspective of the authors who have yet to learn these discoveries?
*Marriage* - Values
Many of times, I've witnessed people using citations of ONE or at most TWO phrases in chapters of the Bible to substantiate an accusation - the decadance of same-sex love; the deprecation of females; the unrighteousness of abortion. And half the times, the usage of the cited phrases is not even germane to the message of the chapter itself.
If God were indeed against homosexuality, don't you think he would dedicate at least an entire chapter regarding the sin, instead of just a few lines here and there in different chapters which do not even pertain to same-sex relationships. There is not even a parable on homosexuality; just a few lines or even WORDS here and there.
As mentioned above, if indeed the bible was written in the narrow perspective of the author, should we not try to understand the values that God has asked them to convey instead of reading their words per se? Aren't words are just means of translating God's values in the mindset of the contemporary authors and hence skewed based on the knowledge of the contemporary authors?
*Religion* - Reconciliation
Like a few others, I feel that the main values of the major religions I see today are the same! Can you be so sure that the Christian God isn't in fact the Islamic Allah? Can you be so sure that God wasn't wise enough to send two or more messiashs to different regions of the world to preach the same values?
*End of annoying religious rant*
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Grand Conclave Part 2
Motion: When in doubt, write!
Bryan: Once again, I summon forth the second public conclave between the three personae of Bryan Samuel Matthews Tai Yi Siang. Discuss.
Yi Siang: This is pathetically absurd; nonetheless hilarious. Are we to simply confabulate nonchalantly every ruddy time you feel a tad bit uncomfortable with your emotions?
Samuel: There there; this is a cliche three musketeer scenario - "one for all and all for one" - don't you think you ought to be a tad bit more supportive. Though, arguably 'tis your role to be discouraging.
Bryan: We just need some idle chatter to occupy our minds for the rest of the evening. Soon enough, it would be time for bed, and we would once again embrace another day bestowed on us.
Yi Siang: Frankly, sometimes you do engage in unnecessary and deleterious musings. Not all questions need to have an answer; not all parables need to be understood; and certainly not all moments need to be analyzed.
Bryan: Moments not analyzed would remain adrift and not become parables; parables not understood would stay barren and not produce knowledge capable of answering questions; lastly, questions not answered would increase in numbers and afflict us like a malignant cancer.
Yi Siang: 'Tis only true if you let unanswered questions do any harm.
Samuel: Alas, is it not our very nature to be vexed by the unknown? Our inquisitive nature is both our worry and our comfort.
Yi Siang: Ironic is it not? It exacerbates our worries by increasing the number of unanswered questions, and provides comfort by solving them.
Bryan: Sad - I would call it.
Samuel: It's really not that bad. It's just a part of life. We surely can attempt to answer every question; albeit some shall certainly remain unanswered and accompany us to the morrow. We've all made a promise; might as well make the best of it.
Bryan: Excellent! The night draws nigh. Another day of work beckons. Group dismissed. Have a good night.
Bryan: Once again, I summon forth the second public conclave between the three personae of Bryan Samuel Matthews Tai Yi Siang. Discuss.
Yi Siang: This is pathetically absurd; nonetheless hilarious. Are we to simply confabulate nonchalantly every ruddy time you feel a tad bit uncomfortable with your emotions?
Samuel: There there; this is a cliche three musketeer scenario - "one for all and all for one" - don't you think you ought to be a tad bit more supportive. Though, arguably 'tis your role to be discouraging.
Bryan: We just need some idle chatter to occupy our minds for the rest of the evening. Soon enough, it would be time for bed, and we would once again embrace another day bestowed on us.
Yi Siang: Frankly, sometimes you do engage in unnecessary and deleterious musings. Not all questions need to have an answer; not all parables need to be understood; and certainly not all moments need to be analyzed.
Bryan: Moments not analyzed would remain adrift and not become parables; parables not understood would stay barren and not produce knowledge capable of answering questions; lastly, questions not answered would increase in numbers and afflict us like a malignant cancer.
Yi Siang: 'Tis only true if you let unanswered questions do any harm.
Samuel: Alas, is it not our very nature to be vexed by the unknown? Our inquisitive nature is both our worry and our comfort.
Yi Siang: Ironic is it not? It exacerbates our worries by increasing the number of unanswered questions, and provides comfort by solving them.
Bryan: Sad - I would call it.
Samuel: It's really not that bad. It's just a part of life. We surely can attempt to answer every question; albeit some shall certainly remain unanswered and accompany us to the morrow. We've all made a promise; might as well make the best of it.
Bryan: Excellent! The night draws nigh. Another day of work beckons. Group dismissed. Have a good night.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Mythbuster Episode 3!!
Myth: Bryan Samuel Matthews Tai Yi Siang is white-washed!
Even the most careless scrutiny on the activities which I have conducted today is enough to debunk such a ludicrous myth.
So what did I do today? I indulged in yet another of Sammi Cheng's sublime performance, portrayed in the show 我左眼見到鬼 [My left Eye Sees Ghost]. :D
Evidence 1: A Taste in Cinematography that would not be considered white-washed!
Short synopsis of the show:
Sammi Cheng's husband, whom she only knew for a mere seven days at a vacation island before tying the knot, died in an underwater accident shortly after the marraige in the very same vacation island, leaving behind much fortune. His supercilious and wealthy family had a very low opinion of her and her family background when she was acquainted with them after returning from the island.
Three years later, after a car accident befells her, ghosts were miraculously visable to her left eye. Consequently, she befriended a ghost who is purportedly her highschool classmate. For almost a year, the ghost became her closest friend, bringing a tinge of happiness and sanity into her life. The ghost inevitably expressed affection which was unrequited for she still loved her husband dearly.
Not too long after the ghost cross-overed, she met the real classmate whom the ghost claims to be - very much alive. Upon the incident, she came to realize that the ghost was in fact her husband and that he engaged in imposture; firstly to hide his identity, and secondly because apparently the classmate was deemed an apt partner for her.
A memorable scence:
Setting: Sammi Cheng confessing her love for her husband to her ghost friend, who, unbeknownst to her, is in fact her husband.
Translation:
Sammi: I don't care if you would beleive it or not, I really do love my husband. Though I really don't feel like publicizing it. Nobody would believe it. They would surely have said: "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money." Even for those who purports that they do, they probably think the same - "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money." Sometimes, I would muse to myself as well: "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money. Is such heartache necessary?" But indeed, I really do miss my husband dearly. Ever since ghosts became visible to me, I've seen many of them, but not my husband. Perhaps, he shared the same thought - "Love?! She'd only known me for seven days! She probably just fell in love with my money."
Evidence 2: A taste in music that would not be considered white-washed!
The song in the show which I am playing repeatedly on youtube:
Conclusion: Bryan Samuel Matthews Tai Yi Siang is not white-washed; he truly appreciates a variety of cultures!
"Cheh! 有几爱阿！只识一个月！还不是爱他的样！(And the entire post probably served as a facade; just so I could utter this line.)
Even the most careless scrutiny on the activities which I have conducted today is enough to debunk such a ludicrous myth.
So what did I do today? I indulged in yet another of Sammi Cheng's sublime performance, portrayed in the show 我左眼見到鬼 [My left Eye Sees Ghost]. :D
Evidence 1: A Taste in Cinematography that would not be considered white-washed!
Short synopsis of the show:
Sammi Cheng's husband, whom she only knew for a mere seven days at a vacation island before tying the knot, died in an underwater accident shortly after the marraige in the very same vacation island, leaving behind much fortune. His supercilious and wealthy family had a very low opinion of her and her family background when she was acquainted with them after returning from the island.
Three years later, after a car accident befells her, ghosts were miraculously visable to her left eye. Consequently, she befriended a ghost who is purportedly her highschool classmate. For almost a year, the ghost became her closest friend, bringing a tinge of happiness and sanity into her life. The ghost inevitably expressed affection which was unrequited for she still loved her husband dearly.
Not too long after the ghost cross-overed, she met the real classmate whom the ghost claims to be - very much alive. Upon the incident, she came to realize that the ghost was in fact her husband and that he engaged in imposture; firstly to hide his identity, and secondly because apparently the classmate was deemed an apt partner for her.
A memorable scence:
Setting: Sammi Cheng confessing her love for her husband to her ghost friend, who, unbeknownst to her, is in fact her husband.
Translation:
Sammi: I don't care if you would beleive it or not, I really do love my husband. Though I really don't feel like publicizing it. Nobody would believe it. They would surely have said: "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money." Even for those who purports that they do, they probably think the same - "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money." Sometimes, I would muse to myself as well: "Love?! You've only known him for seven days! You probably just fell in love with his money. Is such heartache necessary?" But indeed, I really do miss my husband dearly. Ever since ghosts became visible to me, I've seen many of them, but not my husband. Perhaps, he shared the same thought - "Love?! She'd only known me for seven days! She probably just fell in love with my money."
Evidence 2: A taste in music that would not be considered white-washed!
The song in the show which I am playing repeatedly on youtube:
Conclusion: Bryan Samuel Matthews Tai Yi Siang is not white-washed; he truly appreciates a variety of cultures!
"Cheh! 有几爱阿！只识一个月！还不是爱他的样！(And the entire post probably served as a facade; just so I could utter this line.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
