http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xri1uw_legal-high-ep08_tv?search_algo=2

Thinking of my ex girlfriend and me

情之至者，自己為所愛的人犧牲，而所愛者毫不在乎，人間滑稽莫過於此。

情之至者，所愛者毫不在乎，而自己為所愛的人犧牲，人間浪漫莫過於此。

Legal High 03

To sum up the character of Chinese:

1. Confucius thoughts :Scholarism over Commercialism and Craftsmanship --> Autocratic thoughts + Reliance on Socio-structure + Underdevelopment in economy and advanced technology

2. Over-rule of king --> Bad decision making + Corruption + Suspicion and Fear amongst bureaucrats

3. Peaceful thoughts --> Lack of pragmaticism + Proper attitude towards society and injustice

4. Rigid Customs and Moral Standards --> Suppressed human nature + Lacking in social development + Inequality of king and bureaucratics vs peasants

5. Cronyism --> No civic and citizenship + Unfair judgment and small circles + Unwilling to aid

6. Long term humiliation (Qing + War Lost) --> Self-belittlement --> Self-Boasting --> Cultural Revolution

7. Further aggrevation [Self-belittlement --> Self-Boasting = Vicious Circle] i.e. Either can be inducing factor, but more common is being traumatised and humiliated..

Dear Kenneth,

Presume lately you have been extremely busy for the start of Legco as well as starting to get a bit tangled up with teaching, hope things are well for you. Although we have agreed to meet up when I have finished the reading to make the conversation focused, perhaps sometimes later would be better. 

Though for that you might not be able to reply due to your urgency in other businesses, I would still like to take some time to tell you some progress of my honours project, as you may be my second reader, if you are willing to, and some other matters.

Have already roughly finished most of the readings required, I am now regretting have chosen the topic of tactical voting. The empirical evidence is weak, as shown in the occasional paper being done. However, perhaps the paper is not reflecting an adequate understanding of tactical voting, due to the largely rational-voted based theory when looking onto the matter. 

That for example we won't be able to identify some DAB and FTU voters because they are doing tactical voting from the viewpoint of results, however the highly rational-choice based theory does not seem to be applying to them. They don't seem to be particularly highly-educated, more election concerned than the others, well-informed of the situation than others.

That being said, which means we might have to divide vote allocation into parties - voters perspectives separately, still it is difficult because the proof we are trying to construct is not solely voter-based, but to join the dots between electoral results together with interviews from Councillors and piecemeal journals from newspapers. It does not seem too optimistic that the results can be convincing for the fragments it would contain.

In addition I tried to look at some ways to explain it in electoral/party law (Remembered on class you mentioned the importance of studying the constitution, for example, in EU, but due to lack of understanding in it and well as resources our department has yet to include a course in this area), things in here don't seem to be progressing and I am trying to give up that thought. Moments I spent in front of the computer and my mind was completely blank.

The other thing that concerned me was that I made an improper joke to a law professor, that when talking about exam he said all the questions will only be from materials distributed, I said "Is that contractible?" 

I don't know why, but I always feel an urge to exhibit myself, and then at some moments after feeling a bit depressed. That thought persisted when I was in primary school (Guess it's to do with the bullying I got there), WYK, and even now in HKBU. That I think shall have something to do with not at peace with myself, perhaps pressure and failure brought by public exams, inability to trust, looking at myself too lowly that I have to inflate myself a bit more highly. 

Noticed that it would interfere with my life and studies, these three years here I have consistently combated it. Some success was achieved, but it's still not a habit of mine, and therefore when not conscious, sometimes it still happens, I would make borderline statements or actions. It's like, madness, but then if I am really jerky, why would I feel depressed after behaving like that? 

Don't really believe that we can know god, what he says, what he's like, what does he want us to do, because of men's limits, but then I do believe that the whole Universe has a creator, and I have always secretly hoped that he'd help me with that. May the force be with you too. 

Your student

Talk with Prof leads to two conclusions:

1) Reconciliation is only good for me, not for reality.

2) If I'd name it incident instead of guilt, it would bring a bit more objectivity.


The concept of tactical voting is getting a bit more difficult, it seems that tactical on one hand emphasise on the rationality of voters, short term instrumental. The situation of PR seems to differ a little from the usual understanding of it, which put forte over the short term rationality. What if the voters already had in mind the sum of party's strategic planning?

初頭只係覺得睇波就夠 後來覺得原來睇波賭埋會刺激好多 但係我頭幾次咪話唔緊張 因為始終都十八九歲讀緊書無搵錢 輸左就輸左 後來輸左幾次開始無乜信心 於是就覺得不如賭賠率 但係都只係十蚊十蚊咁買 後來我發覺其實咁賭好傻子 記得有次真係爆大冷一鋪清 於是就開始覺得都係靠唔住 結果就覺得橫死掂死不如博博 熱剌2:1 1:3曼聯 El Classico和波 居然都俾我博中尾飛，其他都只不過差一球 從個時開始我就覺得你一定要信 下下你即場投注十五十六其實唔低 賠率海鮮價咁一兩球就可以變得好大 明明1.5倍買輸左一球即刻2.4又老淆 所以D人話別人恐懼時貪婪然後又掉轉 我覺得無錯，你做人做事一定做自己覺得係啱既野 好似你睇往績馬會傻的嗎巴塞1.7，但係和波3.8 我心諗皇馬近排算ok，抵到爛無理由唔Hi 結果真係中左 你賭波做野好多時一個Moment就會變唔少 But the point is 你唔係賭個一時，你賭既係結果 一時高低唔應該作為考慮 就算死都死係自己手對不對

沉船事件發生在國慶當天，香港各界都震驚，紛紛表達對死難者的關心和同情。

此時為數不少的人走出來公開表達對事情的感受，問題在於這很吊詭，其實除了難過以外你還能有什麼的情感，用得著公開表現？但是中共的官員就站在特首面前解釋事件，而據理沒理由中聯辦比特首更清楚事件。打著道德的旗號去作政治的表態，有沒有這樣的必要？動不動就需要出來跑秀，說點事就能辱華就能破壞一國兩制，這個政府也真的很弱。

香港人民也不甘示弱，就是英國對沉船者表示慰問，上上討論區就有百多個正評，當中不少純粹伺機表達對九七前的懷念，並覺得這種是英國的表態行為。前者有意打槍但是無人理會，後者無意打槍卻讓人借題發揮。

然後今天又有人跑出來，說覺得傷心、懷念、需要心理輔導的人都很虛偽。不看白不看，一看原來二百多人正評了，推算此等帖文政治含量不足五毛未必有意，當中港人應佔數不少。

真是把你當成個人都不行，你偏要做禽獸。

死難者當中大部份都是家屬，很多都是小朋友，他們都還沒有體驗過人生最美好的事就離世，有些還在死前要眼睜睜和父母目送。每天都有人死這是不爭的，但多少人像他們這樣還沒有意識到死亡的來臨就要離開？這不值得傷心，但是你買不到票搭不上車就很難過？

同理心可算是人和禽獸，不，就算禽獸都叫有同理心，不同情也不像人需要洋洋灑灑，旁徵博引議論必需發上幾百字才有不同意並討厭別人同情的理由。人這種生物非惡非善，一切全看環境和條件。你可以覺得別人來問你借電話都是對你電話圖謀不軌，但到了要救人或者危險的關頭你沒有質疑別人依舊會無動於中的理由。

沒有人叫你任何時候都要發光發亮，平時麻木了現在想傷心一下都是裝逼的，按這個邏輯幫忙去做善後的都是想引人注意。至於你覺得他們不是真心這無關宏旨，你猜測別人的動機能證明嗎又有意義嗎？我猜你寫這樣的東西想要個五毛這又有意思嗎？最低限度，禽獸想學人一樣，那是說明人的可貴。從來都是低下的壞的附庸風雅，這才更給人性的光輝添了光環。

瞻仰遺容，生者不能喚醒死者，死者卻能喚醒生者。不意識自己的死亡，你就只這麼活一次，不可能在生時對於生命充滿珍惜和熱愛。連逝者都不放過，傷心流淚都說成是替白花油賣廣告，為什麼哭要理由，不哭的才算正常？連這些人類應有而不常被喚起的情感，都要網上匿名留言隨意罵來消費掉，你還能算個人麼？

So far in life

The more I am digging into my readings, the more I realise it would be impossible to prove tactical voting by mere deduction. It seems that the theoretical basis of evidence are not enough to support the claim in this aspect. It would be better to explain a bit the topic, and place tactical voting under such a category: The Proportional Disrepresentation: Investigation into 2012 Legco Election with Focus on Electoral Behaviour.

I quit facebook but just keeping it a bit to make sure everybody thinks I am not insame or something. But then I am generally tired of it, like a blackhole, all the things in my life that is distracting me. Xanga is the same thing. Hkgolden is okay in the sense sometimes you find good posts and you read human nature in it, just that I am noticing too the proportion of rubbish in it. When will people realise that they are amusing themselves to death?