two children are running around in a playground. they both stumble and scrape their knee.
the first kid is wearing shorts. the scrape is obvious. the kid is bawling.
the second kid is wearing pants. the scrape is hidden. the kid is holding back tears.
who's more hurt???
the children have to write a quiz after recess.
the first kid is still sobbing and seems unfit to write the quiz. the teacher excuses the kid.
the second kid is in a bit of a bind. the kid is distracted and can't focus on the quiz. the scrape is still hurting because it hasn't been tended to yet. so the kid asks the teacher to be excused. but there's no outward sign of anything seriously wrong, so the teacher refuses to excuse the kid.
first kid gets another chance. second kid fails.
the end.
---
ok... now i'm done.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
garbage
i wonder about this world sometimes.
say one person is born into poverty. say another person made stupid mistakes and ended up in poverty. now two people are in poverty. who are people gonna be sorry for? who are people gonna try to help? who is more deserving of your pity?
of course you're gonna pick the one who didn't ask to be poor. you're gonna feel more sorry for the one who couldn't help being born poor. the other one deserves it. right??
say one person is born with a disease. like AIDS. say another person made stupid mistakes and ended up with AIDS. who are you gonna pity? who would you help?
of course people are gonna wanna help those innocent children. cuz they're innocent, after all... people who make stupid mistakes deserve whatever happens to them. right??
unless... UNLESS...
you made stupid mistakes once. and you experienced first-hand the consequences of your mistakes. and you remember how horrible it felt... in a sense, more horrible than if someone had always suffered those consequences. but no one would see it that way, cuz it doesn't occur to people how relativity comes into play, how if you're born blind, yes it is a pity, but if you were able to see once and then you did something stupid and you became blind, how the consequences are THAT much heavier to bear and THAT much harder to swallow... and what, someone who can't help their suffering is going through a worse kind of suffering than someone who creates their own suffering? says who?? is any human being in the position to weigh it out and make that kind of call??
i feel bad for people who are afflicted and it's not their fault. but actually, i feel worse for those afflicted who've brought it upon themselves and therefore seemingly deserve it. the typical mindset is that people who are helplessly afflicted deserve a chance at a better life. people are gonna wanna help them... people who aren't in their position but feel sorry for them. but the reckless ones? only people who have been in the same position before will understand what they're going through. who else would want to give them another chance? who would want to help them get better after the stupid things they've done? they're the ones people are gonna overlook. they're the write0ffs in society. their causes aren't worthy enough to those who have their lives all together. they have the least hope to get better because they're shown the least amount of sympathy.
garbage.
---
Romans 3:10 - As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one.
say one person is born into poverty. say another person made stupid mistakes and ended up in poverty. now two people are in poverty. who are people gonna be sorry for? who are people gonna try to help? who is more deserving of your pity?
of course you're gonna pick the one who didn't ask to be poor. you're gonna feel more sorry for the one who couldn't help being born poor. the other one deserves it. right??
say one person is born with a disease. like AIDS. say another person made stupid mistakes and ended up with AIDS. who are you gonna pity? who would you help?
of course people are gonna wanna help those innocent children. cuz they're innocent, after all... people who make stupid mistakes deserve whatever happens to them. right??
unless... UNLESS...
you made stupid mistakes once. and you experienced first-hand the consequences of your mistakes. and you remember how horrible it felt... in a sense, more horrible than if someone had always suffered those consequences. but no one would see it that way, cuz it doesn't occur to people how relativity comes into play, how if you're born blind, yes it is a pity, but if you were able to see once and then you did something stupid and you became blind, how the consequences are THAT much heavier to bear and THAT much harder to swallow... and what, someone who can't help their suffering is going through a worse kind of suffering than someone who creates their own suffering? says who?? is any human being in the position to weigh it out and make that kind of call??
i feel bad for people who are afflicted and it's not their fault. but actually, i feel worse for those afflicted who've brought it upon themselves and therefore seemingly deserve it. the typical mindset is that people who are helplessly afflicted deserve a chance at a better life. people are gonna wanna help them... people who aren't in their position but feel sorry for them. but the reckless ones? only people who have been in the same position before will understand what they're going through. who else would want to give them another chance? who would want to help them get better after the stupid things they've done? they're the ones people are gonna overlook. they're the write0ffs in society. their causes aren't worthy enough to those who have their lives all together. they have the least hope to get better because they're shown the least amount of sympathy.
garbage.
---
Romans 3:10 - As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Be With You Ima, Ai Ni Yukimasu
i apologize for the vagueness of my last post. it's cuz i want everyone to watch it and i don't wanna give anything away! :P though i suppose anyone could look it up and spoil it for themselves... but at least you won't hear it from me.
the movie came out in japan in 2004, but i just found out that there's an american remake in the works... and i don't think i'm too pleased. it's supposed to come out next year and jennifer garner's been casted (apparently). i'm really skeptical about this......
if you ask me, i say it's better to watch the original japanese version first. at least before the english one comes out. it's just a different portrayal of life and love and appreciation of beauty unique to japan and its culture.
the movie came out in japan in 2004, but i just found out that there's an american remake in the works... and i don't think i'm too pleased. it's supposed to come out next year and jennifer garner's been casted (apparently). i'm really skeptical about this......
if you ask me, i say it's better to watch the original japanese version first. at least before the english one comes out. it's just a different portrayal of life and love and appreciation of beauty unique to japan and its culture.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Be With You
alice recommended this movie to me. it's a japanese flick... such a refreshing change from your typical north american love story. (i'm disenchanted by most of them.) Be With You is so sweet and simple and innocent. i admire the characters portrayed in the movie... wish i carried their demeanor, actually. and their lifestyle too. and the storyline itself isn't that simple... it really makes you wonder. i thought i got it the first time, but the more i thought about it, the more i wondered how it could've played out... and i'm still trying to work it out in my head.
i really really like this movie.
i really really like this movie.
Monday, February 20, 2006
quelque fois
sometimes i wish life could be as simple as msn and star trek.
we could go around with signs on our backs or on our foreheads or something. if we're in the mood to socialize, we can let people know. and we can easily find other people to talk to who are in the same mood. if we're not in the greatest of moods, we can display whatever mood we're in and people will know by just looking at us so we don't have to explain ourselves. if we don't wanna be disturbed, we can indicate that too. and as a last resort, if we can't indicate how we feel clearly enough and we just wanna be completely invisible so as to avoid any kind of [mis]communication, we can use a cloaking device.
isn't that a lot better than being misunderstood? or having to give a play-by-play every time someone asks?
i think my tank is empty. i think it has been empty for a while. i think i am only going through the motions. i think... i dun wanna do it anymore.
can i? dare i?? will life allow me to shut down so that i can recharge???
i wonder......
if i can drop a course at this point and not receive an F.
if i can give up all my ministries. and maybe, just maybe, keep one.
if i can cancel my phone plan. or any other types of plans.
if i can be anti-social and not have anyone notice.
we could go around with signs on our backs or on our foreheads or something. if we're in the mood to socialize, we can let people know. and we can easily find other people to talk to who are in the same mood. if we're not in the greatest of moods, we can display whatever mood we're in and people will know by just looking at us so we don't have to explain ourselves. if we don't wanna be disturbed, we can indicate that too. and as a last resort, if we can't indicate how we feel clearly enough and we just wanna be completely invisible so as to avoid any kind of [mis]communication, we can use a cloaking device.
isn't that a lot better than being misunderstood? or having to give a play-by-play every time someone asks?
i think my tank is empty. i think it has been empty for a while. i think i am only going through the motions. i think... i dun wanna do it anymore.
can i? dare i?? will life allow me to shut down so that i can recharge???
i wonder......
if i can drop a course at this point and not receive an F.
if i can give up all my ministries. and maybe, just maybe, keep one.
if i can cancel my phone plan. or any other types of plans.
if i can be anti-social and not have anyone notice.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
burning!!!
tabasco sauce is amazing. i love my spicy almost as much as my sweet. we have a jumbo bottle at home, and i've gone overboard with the tabasco lately... i drench my meals in it. one of the reasons i love tabasco sauce so much is cuz it actually tastes good to me. i like the fermented pepper taste, and the fact that it's not a thick sauce. for example, i really don't dig the ketchup-thick hot sauces they serve at pho's... i'd rather use the chili oil, and it's quite upsetting when restaurants don't carry the chili oil.
so i was having some tabasco-soaked salmon yesterday as a "late-night" snack. anyway, the problem with sauces in general is that they tend to get messy. but i don't remember it getting messy last night. and so i was careless enough to rub my eyes before going to bed, and...
ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
my first reaction was to wash it out. but then (and i hate it when this happens), my idiotic curiosity took over and i wondered to myself, how long does burning last? i wanted to find out.
so i lay down and closed my eyes and.... buuuurrrnnneddd.... for a while. in the meantime, i was thinking of other things... like, what molecular properties constitute spicy? how is it that we are able to sense spicy only in certain places (like the mouth, eyes, nose, etc.)? what do those areas have that other areas lack? are there unique spicy receptors? how is sensing spicy related to sensing hot? does spicy do any damage to the areas that can sense it? why is it that the spicy feeling lasts so much longer than the spicy taste?
i may have drifted off, i'm not sure... but i was aware that my eyes were no longer burning about 40 minutes after i first closed them.
i dunno if i'll ever get around to answering all of my questions. maybe if this happens again. and knowing absent-minded little me, it just might ;)
so i was having some tabasco-soaked salmon yesterday as a "late-night" snack. anyway, the problem with sauces in general is that they tend to get messy. but i don't remember it getting messy last night. and so i was careless enough to rub my eyes before going to bed, and...
ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
my first reaction was to wash it out. but then (and i hate it when this happens), my idiotic curiosity took over and i wondered to myself, how long does burning last? i wanted to find out.
so i lay down and closed my eyes and.... buuuurrrnnneddd.... for a while. in the meantime, i was thinking of other things... like, what molecular properties constitute spicy? how is it that we are able to sense spicy only in certain places (like the mouth, eyes, nose, etc.)? what do those areas have that other areas lack? are there unique spicy receptors? how is sensing spicy related to sensing hot? does spicy do any damage to the areas that can sense it? why is it that the spicy feeling lasts so much longer than the spicy taste?
i may have drifted off, i'm not sure... but i was aware that my eyes were no longer burning about 40 minutes after i first closed them.
i dunno if i'll ever get around to answering all of my questions. maybe if this happens again. and knowing absent-minded little me, it just might ;)
Monday, February 13, 2006
overheard ;)
"love is not some syrupy mish-mash. . . ." tony costa in his feb.11 workshop on church denominations
(yes, church denominations :P)
(yes, church denominations :P)
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
submission
this topic keeps resurfacing... i've been thinking about it again lately cuz it came up in class, plus i was reflecting on it while preparing for one of my papers. you know the submission blurb in Ephesians 5? a portion of it from the NIV looks like this:
v.21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
v.22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
what immediately stands out? the heading, right? even though the headings we find in our Bibles are technically not a part of Scripture, we actually read more into them than we should, non? i confess to using them... like when i'm skimming the pages to look for a certain passage, i use the headings as markers. you know who puts them there? not the translators. the editors. yes, i realize they're trying to be helpful... but there's no escaping subjectivity when it comes to matters of perspective, which is what these headings ultimately boil down to. take the above verses... did you know that verses 21 and 22 constitute a single sentence in the original Greek? the English translation actually breaks down a lot of the single Greek sentences into multiple ones... for example, verses 15-20 also comprise a single sentence... wait, maybe verses 21-22 are even a part of that sentence? i can't remember now. but either way, those two verses are a part of a single train of thought. basically something like, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and wives to your husbands. so first of all, the English translation cuts it into two sentences. and then the editors read the English and arbitrarily decide that v.22 is the start of a new train of thought concerning wives and husbands, and so they put the heading in. do you not admit to interpreting the verses differently with the sentence split and the heading than if you were to have read the original Greek?
ok, i'm done with that. i also wanted to share a perspective on submission that i've been struggling with for a while. i do advocate the discipline of submission, by the way, even though i may not be coming across as such... but even then, it's quite complicated. so here's the thing... i believe we ought to submit to one another, and wives to their husbands as an extension... and ideally, this works out. if we all love each other the way we should, there should be no fear in submitting to one another. but all it takes is one person to not do their part, and the whole thing collapses. or does it?? because by saying that, i'm assuming that submission is a two-way street. is it? ideally, yes, because two-way submission is beneficial and hence a positive experience for both parties. but if one person submits and the other does not, and worse yet, the other person takes advantage of the one person's submission, then what?? do i continue to advocate submission even then? i want to say no. because it is so hard to know where and when and how to draw the line... for example, abuse. but here's the irony of it all: the essence of submission is most clearly demonstrated when it's one-way. kinda like how you know how much faith a person truly has only when it's put to the test. ** added feb 9: i thought of something else... you know that passage on loving your enemies? if you love only your loved ones, or basically anyone who would love you back, to what extent is that really love? i mean, it's love, no doubt... but it's conditional. and for some reason, i have no problem classifying unconditional love as greater than conditional love. but does submission work the same way? or are there a lot more loopholes to it? ** if you can submit to a person only if that person submits to you and it's equal between both parties, how genuine of a submission is that?
which leads me back to square one. ahhh... there's no place like home.
v.21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
v.22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
what immediately stands out? the heading, right? even though the headings we find in our Bibles are technically not a part of Scripture, we actually read more into them than we should, non? i confess to using them... like when i'm skimming the pages to look for a certain passage, i use the headings as markers. you know who puts them there? not the translators. the editors. yes, i realize they're trying to be helpful... but there's no escaping subjectivity when it comes to matters of perspective, which is what these headings ultimately boil down to. take the above verses... did you know that verses 21 and 22 constitute a single sentence in the original Greek? the English translation actually breaks down a lot of the single Greek sentences into multiple ones... for example, verses 15-20 also comprise a single sentence... wait, maybe verses 21-22 are even a part of that sentence? i can't remember now. but either way, those two verses are a part of a single train of thought. basically something like, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and wives to your husbands. so first of all, the English translation cuts it into two sentences. and then the editors read the English and arbitrarily decide that v.22 is the start of a new train of thought concerning wives and husbands, and so they put the heading in. do you not admit to interpreting the verses differently with the sentence split and the heading than if you were to have read the original Greek?
ok, i'm done with that. i also wanted to share a perspective on submission that i've been struggling with for a while. i do advocate the discipline of submission, by the way, even though i may not be coming across as such... but even then, it's quite complicated. so here's the thing... i believe we ought to submit to one another, and wives to their husbands as an extension... and ideally, this works out. if we all love each other the way we should, there should be no fear in submitting to one another. but all it takes is one person to not do their part, and the whole thing collapses. or does it?? because by saying that, i'm assuming that submission is a two-way street. is it? ideally, yes, because two-way submission is beneficial and hence a positive experience for both parties. but if one person submits and the other does not, and worse yet, the other person takes advantage of the one person's submission, then what?? do i continue to advocate submission even then? i want to say no. because it is so hard to know where and when and how to draw the line... for example, abuse. but here's the irony of it all: the essence of submission is most clearly demonstrated when it's one-way. kinda like how you know how much faith a person truly has only when it's put to the test. ** added feb 9: i thought of something else... you know that passage on loving your enemies? if you love only your loved ones, or basically anyone who would love you back, to what extent is that really love? i mean, it's love, no doubt... but it's conditional. and for some reason, i have no problem classifying unconditional love as greater than conditional love. but does submission work the same way? or are there a lot more loopholes to it? ** if you can submit to a person only if that person submits to you and it's equal between both parties, how genuine of a submission is that?
which leads me back to square one. ahhh... there's no place like home.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
based on a true story
mother and daughter step out of the house. it is bright and sunny outside.
achoo!!
the sneeze begins a much repeated and overplayed conversation.
daughter: it's the sun, i tell you.
mother: oh really. and how does the sun make people sneeze? explain yourself, daughter.
daughter: the light triggers something... and then... i can actually feel the sneeze coming on...
mother: oh, daughter! you crack me up. sometimes i question your science background! you know better than that... your explanation makes no sense. it's all in your head.
daughter: but mother, i've observed and analyzed my sneezes over the years! i know what i'm talking about.
mother: more than a nurse does? let me ask you something... can pepper going up your nose make your pupils constrict? can light entering your eyes tickle your nose and make you sneeze?
daughter: but it does!!! i feel it!
mother: prove it, daughter. prove it. your explanations are weak. where's the evidence? you know, it's probably psychological.
daughter: just wait, i'm gonna look it up and prove you wrong...
mother: yah, you keep saying that...
so after many years of skepticism from mother, daughter finally bothers to do some research on this strange behaviour to prove mother wrong. she's a bit lazy so she decides to just google it. sure enough, there are plenty of sun-sneezing links. she goes through a few of them and picks one with sufficient information. she emails the link to mother. she tells mother to check her email and stands behind mother while mother reads the article.
mother: look at the name of this site! madsci?? you expect me to trust a source called madsci? and who is this author? anyone can put an MD or a PhD beside their name. where are his references? i don't see any. statistics, where are they? my goodness. there is nothing in this article with sufficient proof. nice try, daughter.
daughter: oh please! he tells you that he's read articles from medical journals! so what if he doesn't reference them? this is obviously not an academic paper, so you can't call his writing style wrong... and why would he lie? besides, the explanation makes perfect sense! and i don't have to search those journals to know those articles are there. who's looking for such a hardcore scientific breakdown anyway? i just wanted to let you know that there was such a thing.
mother: look at the language he uses! i could interpret that to mean mere speculation. if i don't have stats, references, hard evidence... you can't expect me to believe it's true.
daughter is getting peeved. very peeved. when did mother lose her sound judgment?? what is mother learning at school?? is she getting brainwashed to the point where she feels that she must apply scientific methods to everything, including conversations with daughter?? mother should know better than that. and mother should not forget that daughter is just like mother and will not have the rug pulled out so easily from under her. mother is getting carried away. time to fight fire with fire.
daughter: scholars are divided on the Old Testament, and no one can conclusively prove that Moses even wrote the Pentateuch, so i guess we can't believe that either eh?
now daughter is also getting carried away.
mother: oh c'mon, you can't make that jump!
daughter: so let me get this straight... you really don't believe this article? you want me to take the time to go through some medical journal to find a paper to prove to you what this article already states??
mother: yes! exactly!
daughter: forget it! it's not worth it to find you an academic paper just so you can critique it and find some sort of flaw for you to undermine the validity of sun-sneezing.
daughter storms off. she knows she is overreacting, but at the same time, mother knows daughter well enough to know what buttons to push, and daughter believes that mother has aggravated her on purpose. but that's ok... two can play this game.
a couple of days pass... daughter finds out from someone that there is actually no conclusive evidence that MSG is bad. daughter doesn't even bother to confirm this because she is solely intent on figuring out a way to pushing mother's buttons and knows that mother is very much against using MSG.
daughter: did you know that there is no conclusive evidence that MSG is bad for you?
mother: of course it is, don't be silly.
daughter: nope. you can look it up, you won't find anything.
daughter knows she cannot verify this but keeps going anyway.
mother: too much sodium is bad for you. at least with salt, your sense of taste can tell you when you've had too much. MSG is dangerous because you can't taste how much sodium you're actually ingesting.
daughter: yah yah, but where's your hard evidence? where are your references? at least that guy on madsci had an MD and a PhD on top of that... where's yours? you're only an RN, so you're less credible than him.
mother begins to rant and rave, and daughter can't remember anything mother says for the next little while except that mother's voice is really really loud.
daughter smiles :)
mission accomplished.
--
an hour later: daughter goes to mother's room to keep mother company and eventually falls asleep while mother continues to study (because mother is a very good student and daughter is a delinquent in comparison). once again, all is right with the world.
achoo!!
the sneeze begins a much repeated and overplayed conversation.
daughter: it's the sun, i tell you.
mother: oh really. and how does the sun make people sneeze? explain yourself, daughter.
daughter: the light triggers something... and then... i can actually feel the sneeze coming on...
mother: oh, daughter! you crack me up. sometimes i question your science background! you know better than that... your explanation makes no sense. it's all in your head.
daughter: but mother, i've observed and analyzed my sneezes over the years! i know what i'm talking about.
mother: more than a nurse does? let me ask you something... can pepper going up your nose make your pupils constrict? can light entering your eyes tickle your nose and make you sneeze?
daughter: but it does!!! i feel it!
mother: prove it, daughter. prove it. your explanations are weak. where's the evidence? you know, it's probably psychological.
daughter: just wait, i'm gonna look it up and prove you wrong...
mother: yah, you keep saying that...
so after many years of skepticism from mother, daughter finally bothers to do some research on this strange behaviour to prove mother wrong. she's a bit lazy so she decides to just google it. sure enough, there are plenty of sun-sneezing links. she goes through a few of them and picks one with sufficient information. she emails the link to mother. she tells mother to check her email and stands behind mother while mother reads the article.
mother: look at the name of this site! madsci?? you expect me to trust a source called madsci? and who is this author? anyone can put an MD or a PhD beside their name. where are his references? i don't see any. statistics, where are they? my goodness. there is nothing in this article with sufficient proof. nice try, daughter.
daughter: oh please! he tells you that he's read articles from medical journals! so what if he doesn't reference them? this is obviously not an academic paper, so you can't call his writing style wrong... and why would he lie? besides, the explanation makes perfect sense! and i don't have to search those journals to know those articles are there. who's looking for such a hardcore scientific breakdown anyway? i just wanted to let you know that there was such a thing.
mother: look at the language he uses! i could interpret that to mean mere speculation. if i don't have stats, references, hard evidence... you can't expect me to believe it's true.
daughter is getting peeved. very peeved. when did mother lose her sound judgment?? what is mother learning at school?? is she getting brainwashed to the point where she feels that she must apply scientific methods to everything, including conversations with daughter?? mother should know better than that. and mother should not forget that daughter is just like mother and will not have the rug pulled out so easily from under her. mother is getting carried away. time to fight fire with fire.
daughter: scholars are divided on the Old Testament, and no one can conclusively prove that Moses even wrote the Pentateuch, so i guess we can't believe that either eh?
now daughter is also getting carried away.
mother: oh c'mon, you can't make that jump!
daughter: so let me get this straight... you really don't believe this article? you want me to take the time to go through some medical journal to find a paper to prove to you what this article already states??
mother: yes! exactly!
daughter: forget it! it's not worth it to find you an academic paper just so you can critique it and find some sort of flaw for you to undermine the validity of sun-sneezing.
daughter storms off. she knows she is overreacting, but at the same time, mother knows daughter well enough to know what buttons to push, and daughter believes that mother has aggravated her on purpose. but that's ok... two can play this game.
a couple of days pass... daughter finds out from someone that there is actually no conclusive evidence that MSG is bad. daughter doesn't even bother to confirm this because she is solely intent on figuring out a way to pushing mother's buttons and knows that mother is very much against using MSG.
daughter: did you know that there is no conclusive evidence that MSG is bad for you?
mother: of course it is, don't be silly.
daughter: nope. you can look it up, you won't find anything.
daughter knows she cannot verify this but keeps going anyway.
mother: too much sodium is bad for you. at least with salt, your sense of taste can tell you when you've had too much. MSG is dangerous because you can't taste how much sodium you're actually ingesting.
daughter: yah yah, but where's your hard evidence? where are your references? at least that guy on madsci had an MD and a PhD on top of that... where's yours? you're only an RN, so you're less credible than him.
mother begins to rant and rave, and daughter can't remember anything mother says for the next little while except that mother's voice is really really loud.
daughter smiles :)
mission accomplished.
--
an hour later: daughter goes to mother's room to keep mother company and eventually falls asleep while mother continues to study (because mother is a very good student and daughter is a delinquent in comparison). once again, all is right with the world.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
pop quiz
inspired by a (semi? non?) accurate observation my prof made about my personality the other day, i had the sudden urge to test myself with some of the personality inventories available online. anyway, i stumbled across this one site and took most of their tests... some were lighter in nature, others more complex and profound. looking at some of my results, i dunno whether to laugh or cry laughing! i'm all over the place. i took the myers-briggs inventory last semester and there was enough fluctuation then, but i thought i finally got it right in the end. apparently i've changed again. and the end descriptions i got for some of the tests were so negative and depressing, it was hilarious really... but there's always a bit of truth behind all humour, so yah... dunno what to make of it all. except laugh :) the word association test is what i would consider one of the lighter ones... they give you a bunch of words that you're supposed to rate as positive, negative or neutral, and the premise is that answering delays may correspond to issues with that particular word. my top 5 delays are listed below. i don't really believe this means anything ;)
Take Word Association Test
| I have issues with... |
| future money history men walls |
Monday, January 30, 2006
*sniffle*
i got a cold over the wknd. not sure why... the weather, maybe? anyway, i hate colds... the nasal congestion drives me insane at night. and now i'm so dehydrated... in class today i felt like my lips were gonna fall off my face. so what did i do about it? buy myself a cup of coffee, of course... you know, the best hydrating drink ever.
i'm trying to be healthy, really ;) but it's sooo hard. my chocolate consumption has sky-rocketed since last month and it's hard enough to control that. though i've cut down a bit as of late. of course, when i've eaten up all my chocolate and i haven't gone out to buy some more, it makes cutting down a little easier. people, PLEASE, for the sake of my health, do not feed me chocolate!!
my mom mixed in some brown rice with the white for last night's dinner. i flipped. i can eat brown rice at other people's houses, but when it's being cooked in my own kitchen, for some reason it drives me nuts. yes yes, it's healthy, i know, but i'm not asking for much... i have very simple tastes... i'm perfectly happy with stuff like white rice, white bread, broth... heck, i could have that as a meal! but please, leave my white rice and white bread alone!
although... i did see a commercial on tv [confession: i started watching american idol a coupla weeks ago] and apparently wonderbread has this new kind of bread that has all the nutrients of brown bread except it still tastes just like their white bread. now THAT'S innovation! i'll have to try some and see for myself if the bread lives up to what it promises in the commercial.
ughhh... i hate the sniffles......
p.s. i don't like DADF#AD tuning. sorry B, but my bar chords sound horrible! my fingers weren't meant to bar. i could even stretch that and say they weren't meant to play guitar... but i don't want samuel to feel unloved :P
i'm trying to be healthy, really ;) but it's sooo hard. my chocolate consumption has sky-rocketed since last month and it's hard enough to control that. though i've cut down a bit as of late. of course, when i've eaten up all my chocolate and i haven't gone out to buy some more, it makes cutting down a little easier. people, PLEASE, for the sake of my health, do not feed me chocolate!!
my mom mixed in some brown rice with the white for last night's dinner. i flipped. i can eat brown rice at other people's houses, but when it's being cooked in my own kitchen, for some reason it drives me nuts. yes yes, it's healthy, i know, but i'm not asking for much... i have very simple tastes... i'm perfectly happy with stuff like white rice, white bread, broth... heck, i could have that as a meal! but please, leave my white rice and white bread alone!
although... i did see a commercial on tv [confession: i started watching american idol a coupla weeks ago] and apparently wonderbread has this new kind of bread that has all the nutrients of brown bread except it still tastes just like their white bread. now THAT'S innovation! i'll have to try some and see for myself if the bread lives up to what it promises in the commercial.
ughhh... i hate the sniffles......
p.s. i don't like DADF#AD tuning. sorry B, but my bar chords sound horrible! my fingers weren't meant to bar. i could even stretch that and say they weren't meant to play guitar... but i don't want samuel to feel unloved :P
Monday, January 23, 2006
holy DADGAD, batman!
alternate tuning, where have you been all my life?!
to think i coulda been playing open DADGAD chords all this time... *smacking forehead*
anyway, i came up with a name for my guitar:
- samuel Xavier martin -
what? explain the name? sure! his first name is samuel because he's a lot like old testament samuel. hannah (which coincidentally means grace) was barren and she prayed earnestly for a son, promising the Lord that if He blessed her with one, she would "give him to the Lord all the days of his life" (1 Sam 1:11 NASB). did you know that i went eight years without my own guitar?? yah... so anyway, when the Lord blessed hannah with a son, "she named him Samuel, saying, 'Because I have asked him of the Lord' " (v. 20). well same here. and so, like hannah, "for this boy [guitar] i prayed, and the Lord has given me my petition which i asked of Him. so i have also dedicated him to the Lord; as long as he lives he is dedicated to the Lord" (v. 27-28).
his middle name is Xavier because i wanted to name him after the X-series line that he's from... model 000X1, to be exact. and his last name is martin cuz... well, cuz he's a martin!
---
i have a confession to make. i was actually praying for a piano :P but i guess i wasn't meant to have one. yet. anyway, i'm very happy with samuel :) and besides, there are too many female guitars at church... they're all gonna be fighting over samuel! granted, he's smaller and skinnier and more fragile than they are... not much to look at... but he's still da man ;)
to think i coulda been playing open DADGAD chords all this time... *smacking forehead*
anyway, i came up with a name for my guitar:
- samuel Xavier martin -
what? explain the name? sure! his first name is samuel because he's a lot like old testament samuel. hannah (which coincidentally means grace) was barren and she prayed earnestly for a son, promising the Lord that if He blessed her with one, she would "give him to the Lord all the days of his life" (1 Sam 1:11 NASB). did you know that i went eight years without my own guitar?? yah... so anyway, when the Lord blessed hannah with a son, "she named him Samuel, saying, 'Because I have asked him of the Lord' " (v. 20). well same here. and so, like hannah, "for this boy [guitar] i prayed, and the Lord has given me my petition which i asked of Him. so i have also dedicated him to the Lord; as long as he lives he is dedicated to the Lord" (v. 27-28).
his middle name is Xavier because i wanted to name him after the X-series line that he's from... model 000X1, to be exact. and his last name is martin cuz... well, cuz he's a martin!
---
i have a confession to make. i was actually praying for a piano :P but i guess i wasn't meant to have one. yet. anyway, i'm very happy with samuel :) and besides, there are too many female guitars at church... they're all gonna be fighting over samuel! granted, he's smaller and skinnier and more fragile than they are... not much to look at... but he's still da man ;)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
much ado about nothing
my patience is wearing thin with my applications...
the CanIL one was easy enough. too bad i couldn't pay online, but that's ok... so i have to bust out my chequebook, write out a cheque, stick it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and mail it... but i thought the whole point of an online application was to avoid the whole mailing hassle? anyway, that's fine. though i wish i had known earlier, then i woulda just snailmailed the whole package. transcript-wise, UofT's ROSI is really convenient... i request it online, pay it online, and they send it out for me which saves me the time and effort of making the trek downtown and using up another stamp. so i can't complain there. (and sorry to be so hung up on the stamps, but first of all, i don't mail things out on a regular basis so it's not like i own a set of stamps that i can grab at my convenience... anything i need to mail out will require an extra trip down to the nearest post office, which requires even more time and effort, not to mention the added hassle of arranging transportation since vehicles are not readily available at my house.) tyndale, on the other hand...... anyway, that's ok. i'll work it out with them at the end of the month after transcripts are available.
but ACTS... yes, that application is really something... so first of all, i opted for the online application. but i can't just start applying, i have to create an account with TWU. ok, that's fine. so they sent all the login info to my email account. great. wait... where is it? usually these things get sent within the minute. well... that's ok, i'll just wait patiently... go down and grab a quick snack. honestly, i don't know how long i actually waited, but i couldn't wait any longer so i resubmitted my request. a few minutes later, i get the email. so i try to log in with it... but it doesn't work! oh, wait, could it be because i resubmitted my request and so they resetted my password and now i have to wait for the second email? lovely. ok... so i get the second email after some time, log in, and *finally* begin the application.
one of my peeves (and again i have to apologize for the whining, but i'm afraid i might implode if i don't) is when applications don't give me enough space to write out my whole name. yes, it's a bit on the long side, but it's not that long!!! the ACTS application gives 15 spaces for first names. my whole first name, including the two spaces separating the three names, takes up 16 spaces. so what do i do? combine the first two? cut off a letter? only use 'grace'? for unofficial things, maybe... but not for an application. so i sat there annoyed for a few minutes and eventually typed in 'Merry June Grac', and right below it, in the preferred name box, i typed 'Grace (won't fit above)'. so then i was satisfied. but then my dear observant brain caught something... how many spaces does 'Grace (won't fit above)' take up? count them, ppl... 23!!! i proceeded to count the total number of available spaces in that box. 3o. 30, ppl!! because you know, generally people have these short official first names of less than 15 characters that appear on their birth certificates, but when it comes to what they want people to call them, these preferred names have the tendency to be MUCH MUCH longer, twice as long in fact, up to 30 spaces long!
ok. moving on. so i filled out my step 2 personal info just fine. oh yah, all that stuff above, that counts as my contact info, step 1. there are 14 steps in total to this application. but as soon as i got to step 3... oh boy, here we go again.
when i first found out about ACTS seminaries, i thought it was one big school made up of a bunch of little schools in collaboration with each other. i wasn't totally wrong, but really, i should've known better after being severely scarred by UofT. let me briefly explain myself before i go on.
my entire UofT story is a novel in itself, but anyway... if i had to give advice to prospective students, i would tell them the exact opposite of what those horrible people at the university fair told me: NO, UofT is NOT the same wherever you attend, and YES, it makes a HUGE difference what campus you choose, because NO, they are NOT the same even if they offer the same programs, so DO NOT get fooled and think you can easily transfer from one campus to another because it's the same university anyway, because each campus runs things so differently from one another that they might as well be separate universities! the most ridiculous example i can come up with about my own devastating transfer from UTSC to St. George is the fact that my first year bio wasn't directly transferrable because scarborough campus lacked an evolution component, and my first year chem only counted for half a credit because scarborough campus lacked an organic component. and these are core first-year science courses, ppl! RIDICULOUS! THEY'RE BOTH UOFT! shouldn't at least their core courses be transferrable?? ahhh, but now you see what i mean... anyway, some of you know that the theory of evolution doesn't sit well with me, especially back then when i was particularly headstrong in my 'creationist' mindset, so imagine what went on in my head when i found out that i HAD to take an evolution course in order for my program requirement of first year bio to count so that i could graduate... yah. and the chem? i can't remember how i worked that one out, but that's ok, i don't wanna dwell on this subject anymore.
ok, back to my ACTS application. so i'm on step 3, academic interests, and i come upon this...
My seminary choice is:
oh. ok. interesting. no wonder no one's ever heard of ACTS... people keep giving me these blank faces whenever i mention it. now i know why. it's just an umbrella title. cuz i'm sure people have heard of trinity western or canadian baptist or pentecostal or any of the other seminaries mentioned.
so after my short-lived eureka moment, the dilemma began to sink in... which seminary do i choose?? i didn't even realize i had to choose one! my church is non-denominational (at least that's what p. andrew told me when i applied to tyndale) so that doesn't help. if i opt for no preference, that means they'll be choosing for me and who knows where they'll stick me! i might as well make an informed decision. so i emailed a wise friend of mine (who also happens to be a pastor and living out west) hoping that he would share a bit of wisdom and guidance in the matter. and of course, some prayer is needed before i make my final decision.
in the meantime, i wanted to skip the question. the next one asks, where did i hear about ACTS? so some parts of the application are required and others are optional. unbelievably, this is one of their mandatory questions. that's fine, i wouldn't even mention this question, except for the fact that i couldn't choose! 15 choices and none of them were 'from another seminary' or 'in a coursebook' or something along those lines... and no, they didn't have 'none of the above' or even 'other' which usually comes with a blank for me to write something in. so i couldn't make up my mind which lie to choose (cuz that's what i'm essentially doing if none of the given choices were how i really heard about ACTS), so i wanted to skip the whole page and go on to the next step.
they wouldn't let me. i have to fill out ALL of the required fields before i can move on to any of the other pages. and yah, i have to go through the steps chronologically, so until i decide what seminary to study under and what lie to choose about how i heard of ACTS, i can't fill out anything else. isn't that just lovely?? and to top it all off, i recalled the payment incident with my CanIL application so i wanted to find out if ACTS accepts online payment, but that's not until step 12.
and...... that's all for now.
excuse me, i'll be needing my chocolate fix for the afternoon.
the CanIL one was easy enough. too bad i couldn't pay online, but that's ok... so i have to bust out my chequebook, write out a cheque, stick it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and mail it... but i thought the whole point of an online application was to avoid the whole mailing hassle? anyway, that's fine. though i wish i had known earlier, then i woulda just snailmailed the whole package. transcript-wise, UofT's ROSI is really convenient... i request it online, pay it online, and they send it out for me which saves me the time and effort of making the trek downtown and using up another stamp. so i can't complain there. (and sorry to be so hung up on the stamps, but first of all, i don't mail things out on a regular basis so it's not like i own a set of stamps that i can grab at my convenience... anything i need to mail out will require an extra trip down to the nearest post office, which requires even more time and effort, not to mention the added hassle of arranging transportation since vehicles are not readily available at my house.) tyndale, on the other hand...... anyway, that's ok. i'll work it out with them at the end of the month after transcripts are available.
but ACTS... yes, that application is really something... so first of all, i opted for the online application. but i can't just start applying, i have to create an account with TWU. ok, that's fine. so they sent all the login info to my email account. great. wait... where is it? usually these things get sent within the minute. well... that's ok, i'll just wait patiently... go down and grab a quick snack. honestly, i don't know how long i actually waited, but i couldn't wait any longer so i resubmitted my request. a few minutes later, i get the email. so i try to log in with it... but it doesn't work! oh, wait, could it be because i resubmitted my request and so they resetted my password and now i have to wait for the second email? lovely. ok... so i get the second email after some time, log in, and *finally* begin the application.
one of my peeves (and again i have to apologize for the whining, but i'm afraid i might implode if i don't) is when applications don't give me enough space to write out my whole name. yes, it's a bit on the long side, but it's not that long!!! the ACTS application gives 15 spaces for first names. my whole first name, including the two spaces separating the three names, takes up 16 spaces. so what do i do? combine the first two? cut off a letter? only use 'grace'? for unofficial things, maybe... but not for an application. so i sat there annoyed for a few minutes and eventually typed in 'Merry June Grac', and right below it, in the preferred name box, i typed 'Grace (won't fit above)'. so then i was satisfied. but then my dear observant brain caught something... how many spaces does 'Grace (won't fit above)' take up? count them, ppl... 23!!! i proceeded to count the total number of available spaces in that box. 3o. 30, ppl!! because you know, generally people have these short official first names of less than 15 characters that appear on their birth certificates, but when it comes to what they want people to call them, these preferred names have the tendency to be MUCH MUCH longer, twice as long in fact, up to 30 spaces long!
ok. moving on. so i filled out my step 2 personal info just fine. oh yah, all that stuff above, that counts as my contact info, step 1. there are 14 steps in total to this application. but as soon as i got to step 3... oh boy, here we go again.
when i first found out about ACTS seminaries, i thought it was one big school made up of a bunch of little schools in collaboration with each other. i wasn't totally wrong, but really, i should've known better after being severely scarred by UofT. let me briefly explain myself before i go on.
my entire UofT story is a novel in itself, but anyway... if i had to give advice to prospective students, i would tell them the exact opposite of what those horrible people at the university fair told me: NO, UofT is NOT the same wherever you attend, and YES, it makes a HUGE difference what campus you choose, because NO, they are NOT the same even if they offer the same programs, so DO NOT get fooled and think you can easily transfer from one campus to another because it's the same university anyway, because each campus runs things so differently from one another that they might as well be separate universities! the most ridiculous example i can come up with about my own devastating transfer from UTSC to St. George is the fact that my first year bio wasn't directly transferrable because scarborough campus lacked an evolution component, and my first year chem only counted for half a credit because scarborough campus lacked an organic component. and these are core first-year science courses, ppl! RIDICULOUS! THEY'RE BOTH UOFT! shouldn't at least their core courses be transferrable?? ahhh, but now you see what i mean... anyway, some of you know that the theory of evolution doesn't sit well with me, especially back then when i was particularly headstrong in my 'creationist' mindset, so imagine what went on in my head when i found out that i HAD to take an evolution course in order for my program requirement of first year bio to count so that i could graduate... yah. and the chem? i can't remember how i worked that one out, but that's ok, i don't wanna dwell on this subject anymore.
ok, back to my ACTS application. so i'm on step 3, academic interests, and i come upon this...
My seminary choice is:
- Canadian Baptist Seminary
- Canadian Pentecostal Seminary
- Candadian Theological Seminary
- Northwest Baptist Seminary
- Trinity Western Seminary
- Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary
- No Preference
* ACTS is associated with six theological seminaries. Please select one from the list above to study under.
oh. ok. interesting. no wonder no one's ever heard of ACTS... people keep giving me these blank faces whenever i mention it. now i know why. it's just an umbrella title. cuz i'm sure people have heard of trinity western or canadian baptist or pentecostal or any of the other seminaries mentioned.
so after my short-lived eureka moment, the dilemma began to sink in... which seminary do i choose?? i didn't even realize i had to choose one! my church is non-denominational (at least that's what p. andrew told me when i applied to tyndale) so that doesn't help. if i opt for no preference, that means they'll be choosing for me and who knows where they'll stick me! i might as well make an informed decision. so i emailed a wise friend of mine (who also happens to be a pastor and living out west) hoping that he would share a bit of wisdom and guidance in the matter. and of course, some prayer is needed before i make my final decision.
in the meantime, i wanted to skip the question. the next one asks, where did i hear about ACTS? so some parts of the application are required and others are optional. unbelievably, this is one of their mandatory questions. that's fine, i wouldn't even mention this question, except for the fact that i couldn't choose! 15 choices and none of them were 'from another seminary' or 'in a coursebook' or something along those lines... and no, they didn't have 'none of the above' or even 'other' which usually comes with a blank for me to write something in. so i couldn't make up my mind which lie to choose (cuz that's what i'm essentially doing if none of the given choices were how i really heard about ACTS), so i wanted to skip the whole page and go on to the next step.
they wouldn't let me. i have to fill out ALL of the required fields before i can move on to any of the other pages. and yah, i have to go through the steps chronologically, so until i decide what seminary to study under and what lie to choose about how i heard of ACTS, i can't fill out anything else. isn't that just lovely?? and to top it all off, i recalled the payment incident with my CanIL application so i wanted to find out if ACTS accepts online payment, but that's not until step 12.
and...... that's all for now.
excuse me, i'll be needing my chocolate fix for the afternoon.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
weeeeee
it's a skating rink out there! i nearly slipped five times this afternoon by virtue of just standing... of course, there were several contributing factors (aside from the freezing rain): no-grip shoes, sloped ground, strong winds, and lack of mass. the funniest was at the gas station... i stepped out of the van with one foot on the ground and one hand on the door, only to have this big gust of wind blow the door out and me along with it. i did slip, but i was clinging to the door so i managed to keep my butt off the ground. i had to pull myself along just to get to the tank, and i had to hold on to the van while pumping the gas cuz the wind kept blowing and the ground was sloped and i kept gliding away......
Monday, January 16, 2006
amandes chocolat
i scarfed down an entire box of chocolate-covered almonds in one sitting just now.
and now i have the hiccups. not to mention all the saturated fats i need for the next two days.
warning: don't try this at home.
and now i have the hiccups. not to mention all the saturated fats i need for the next two days.
warning: don't try this at home.
Friday, January 13, 2006
no words
speaking of Christian... this totally blew me away:
http://headtochrist.com/
make sure to check out the whole site... bio, journal, news, everything...
let me know what you think.
http://headtochrist.com/
make sure to check out the whole site... bio, journal, news, everything...
let me know what you think.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
over drinks
i don't normally post on the spur of the moment, but this reeeaallly had me thinking:
"we're automatically drawn to God..." (that is, the evidence of His presence in other people's lives.)
this was the explanation a friend gave me over drinks tonight. yah, i know, it's not Christian rocket science... but if you were to suddenly realize that this is what's governing all the laws of attraction in your world, i bet you would have a eureka moment too.
"we're automatically drawn to God..." (that is, the evidence of His presence in other people's lives.)
this was the explanation a friend gave me over drinks tonight. yah, i know, it's not Christian rocket science... but if you were to suddenly realize that this is what's governing all the laws of attraction in your world, i bet you would have a eureka moment too.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
it's morphin' time ;)
happy new year, tout le monde!
so i thought i'd change the look of my blog a bit. you know, make the switch from one default template to another. hard work, i know.
i didn't get as much rest as i would've liked over the holidays. i was writing papers up until the morning i left for san diego, and the entire trip was pretty jam-packed and more stressful than your average vacation (though i was able to marvel at God's creation a few times, and those precious moments alone made the trip worth it). for the second year in a row, i spent the bulk of my birthday in an airport / on a plane and was barely awake for the countdown. and then i blinked and found myself back in school first week into the new year. and yes, i'm already behind... ugggghh.
so what was i doing a year ago today?
i was able to visit the hospital i was born in just over 24 years ago.
i also got a chance to visit my old house.
i took these pics from my yahoo photo album of last year's trip to the philippines. click here for a refresher.
i would've made an album of my cali trip, but i had to leave my camera behind for my dad to use. my mom took a million pics, but it's not the same cuz it's not my story to tell. though i might post the odd pic... like the one of the chocolate fountain at my aunt's wedding. i'm drooling just thinking about it!! next time, next time.
so i thought i'd change the look of my blog a bit. you know, make the switch from one default template to another. hard work, i know.
i didn't get as much rest as i would've liked over the holidays. i was writing papers up until the morning i left for san diego, and the entire trip was pretty jam-packed and more stressful than your average vacation (though i was able to marvel at God's creation a few times, and those precious moments alone made the trip worth it). for the second year in a row, i spent the bulk of my birthday in an airport / on a plane and was barely awake for the countdown. and then i blinked and found myself back in school first week into the new year. and yes, i'm already behind... ugggghh.
so what was i doing a year ago today?
i was able to visit the hospital i was born in just over 24 years ago.
i also got a chance to visit my old house.
i took these pics from my yahoo photo album of last year's trip to the philippines. click here for a refresher.
i would've made an album of my cali trip, but i had to leave my camera behind for my dad to use. my mom took a million pics, but it's not the same cuz it's not my story to tell. though i might post the odd pic... like the one of the chocolate fountain at my aunt's wedding. i'm drooling just thinking about it!! next time, next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
