|
| A formal performance for my education sponsor's CSR program is over today (more like yesterday now) after much intense training, but due to my mistake of rushing back to school from celebration to attend a meeting only to miss it in the end, instead of being out all night having fun, I am stuck in my room nothing much to do except updating on club work and instant-messaging.
Wanting to attend the meeting after a long day of performance (not to mention many long days of practice) was a mistake in itself; my mind should have been set to celebration mode. But in my hours with nothing to do now, I should update this blog before it reaches a month since I last wrote. Thus, here I am to talk about the toilet seat battle.
To be frank, I do not understand this battle at all. I don't know who is on which side, whether girls want the seat up or guys want it down. I don't even know why people are arguing over this in the first place.
Let's see. I am a guy who prefers the seat up, so I should start with that point of view.
So, the upside of having the seat up (no pun intended) would be that the target area is increased, meaning that the guys can aim loosely, without having to be afraid to hit and dirty the seat. But the downside is that, when a girl wants to use the toilet, she has to make the extra move of putting down the toilet seat.
Since the action delays the rescuing of possible emergency situations (a.k.a. bursting bladders/bowels), we should have the toilet seat down at all times, right? But the problem with that is, the target area is reduced, and the seat can be easily stained with pee droplets, and even pubic hairs. Then, girls would have to take even more time to clean the seat before using the toilet, aside from being pissed (no pun intended again).
So, where is the argument in this? There is none, because this is not an battle; it is just a problem.
Therefore, guys should take the liberty of putting up the toilet seat before starting their business, and girls should make the move to put the seat down when they want to use the toilet. If you were to argue to have the seat up at all times, then do not complain about needing to lower it every time you use the toilet (every time you poop, for the guys); if you were to argue to have the seat down at all times, then do not fuss about having a stained seat to clean off. Although, guys should really clean after themselves.
This is not a battle. It is all just preferences and habits, and you should not force others into taking to yours to be considerate about others, because if you do that, you are not being considerate about others. Just deal with the fact that using the toilet can be slightly more troublesome than you expected.
But personally, I think the world would be a better place if everyone just took the initiative to raise/lower the toilet seat before/after using the toilet.
And I'm off to bed.
P.S.: CNY is coming and I have not gotten any new clothes yet. | | |
| Last week, I went to this chocolate exhibition or convention thing with my family. My sole purpose there was to hunt down 'pure chocolates', as in chocolate products with (at least) more than 50% cocoa or cocoa butter in them. I know that would only mean that the chocolates will be very bitter, but I don't care because that's the healthy chocolate. But the exhibition failed me, in that it only catered to the popular culture of sweet and fat-inducing chocolates. The only booth that actually had the purer chocolates (they had products with 99% chocolate!) was not selling until 5pm the next day, when the exhibition was going to be done. I'm guessing the Russian company was looking for Malaysian traders.
Anyway, so we only ended up with a couple bars and bottles of dark chocolates, which is as close as it could get to the stuff we were looking for. How sad. As my dad is a chemist, I've (more or less) always known that most chocolate products in the market are overly sweetened, and very unhealthy because of that. Eating chocolate products like that increases your sugar intake to really unnecessary levels, and only makes you sleepy on the short term and fat in the long run. It can't even keep you warm and fuzzy for long on a cold day, because the cocoa level is cheatingly low. It's like you're paying to eat sugar instead of chocolate. But still, these products sell so well; and the sole reason for that is very simple: stupid people like sweet, tasty treats! A show on Discovery: Home and Living about this guy producing pure bitter chocolates hit me with the health values of the purer chocolate products and the foolishness of, well, most people in the world. Onto the health values first, the manufacturer of the bitter chocolates--which he refers to as cacao--went to test its effects on the human body, and it is proven by a university experiment that while eating processed, sweetened chocolates makes you fat (as we know), taking his 'cacao', or real, low fat, low sugar chocolate actually stimulates your body to burn straight fats as you exercise. Now that is something I didn't know. Now let's move onto the foolishness of the general public. In the show, he brought this bunch of so-called 'chocoholics' into his factory for a visit, whether as a educational tour or marketing campaign, I'm unsure as I didn't catch the beginning of the program. Cutting the story short, these chocoholics were given samples of the pure chocolate products at its various stages of production, and all they said throughout were along the lines of, 'Ew, it's so bitter!' As if that wasn't enough to make me want to roll my eyes, after the factory tour ended, they were given the popular chocolates, like Cadbury and Galaxie, and they all looked like they were having the time of their lives after a trip to hell. At a part in the show, the manufacturer guy made a very good point, saying that these 'chocoholics' are not really in it for the chocolate, but for the flavours, like milk, dairy nuts, etc. And I must only agree! These people can't really be calling themselves chocoholics, because they are more like 'sugar-holics'. Chocoholics would eat real, bitter chocolate products for its natural fragrance and texture; not processed, flavoured chocolate products for their sweeteners and added tastes. I am not saying chocoholics are only allowed to eat bitter chocolates, but only people who appreciate pure chocolates as much as they do sweetened chocolates should be called chocoholics. But too bad the world does not work this way, and a lot of people are wannabe's. I'm not only talking about chocolates here. These wannabe's, when they know something thus like it, or like something thus know some things about it, they consider themselves experts, connoiseurs, or aficionados of of that something. They simply do not realise that there is more to learn than what they know. They just keep going on about whatever little things they have in their minds, thinking they are great people that should be given respect and all--when plenty other real experts probably consider what they know basics of the basics. Someone really need to pop that bubble of these wannabe's, and tell them to grow up. Now, I don't consider myself a chocoholic, but I have to say: real chocolates are bitter, and bitter chocolates taste good. Hmm, maybe I am just a creature of class... 
Chocoholic picture fail: empty-looking bags, despite the chocolate shirt and the face.
(Mom likes ruining pictures.) P.S.: Yes, I'm back to school now. It's neither good nor bad; just something that happens. Oh btw, I wrote something recently. | | |
| Recently, when I was checking through my footprints, I was linked to a chatbox, the content of which was very much undesirable for me, as the subject of the fantastic satire--by my old mates, mind you--was, well, me. Oh, I remember the good old days when we did it together on other non-Timmy subjects only for humour; and we did it so well, because the subject never knew, and never had to know. I guess I was the one who was good at it.
Anyway, my mind was immediately brought backwards to a negative social incident a couple of years back, more or less involving a friend clearly coming out about his changed feelings for me, ending with a severance of ties on his side. You can't really call it back-stabbing, as he clearly wanted me off of what suddenly became 'his' circle--whether or not he wanted me to see the actual stabbing is another case.
Obviously, if you can tell at all, I was fumed reading the content of the chatbox, in spite of myself. I thought I was completely over this case, but I guess I am just not the kind who would forgive and forget after all--well, when it comes to people affairs, at least. But that is not the focus of this stab-and-kick event.
The point is, well, at the very least he was honest about it. But not so much for the other participants in the chatbox. I'm not one who longs to be one of the sides of an argument (if you can call it that at all), but their words and actions only made me wonder: are they with or against me?
I mean, they seem fine with me, instant messaging and whatnot, considering we don't really meet much now that we are past our secondary school days. But would a real friend really be sniping about a person without their knowledge? I can't be sure if they were purely joking, doing it to please the other party, or downright being mean because they are part of the other party. I don't even know exactly who the main sniper was, as they all sniped with, well, my name. I have no proof at all to say this, but: could they actually be, like, two-facing?
And then, just now, as in a couple moments ago, I came across this post. I realised that the post contains all the right things to say to my suspects--if they are really doing what I think they are doing--but I also realised that is a second step to the matter of two-facing.
The first phase (or rule) should be that you never let the other person know you are talking behind their back. That is the ultimate trick to two-facing, not that I ever seriously two-faced or what. It is only when you made a bad landing, as in, the other person found out, that you should move to step two: stop pretending altogether. No confrontations needed; you know, I know, and that's quite enough.
But then again, I have no evidence whatsoever, so I am sticking to my policy: keeping it cool. I have to tell you: two-facing is not as easy as it looks; it takes some serious acting skills! But I also know that not everyone is the best actor in the world, so unless they suck so bad I see right through them, I am going to pretend that their act is real--if it was at all unreal (a.k.a., fake) in the first place. If otherwise, then obviously I won't have to reciprocate the pretence, as there would be none.
Of course, if they want to come right out of their act at me, that would save all the time and trouble in the world. Well, all my time and trouble, at least; not sure about theirs, as apparently they are free enough to put on charity (a.k.a., free!) shows.
Speaking of shows, hmm, maybe I should call some old mates out for a movie...
P.S.: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent," said Eleanor Roosevelt. I will never forget that, Choo.
| | |
| [I'm not only watching the pilot episode--I'm watching the whole thing! Those people really can sing!]
Oh, now, Christmas is over, and the song was fun, and as good as it is bad, just like Simon Cowell and most other things nowadays--and it's almost time we welcome and celebrate our 10th anniversary of the millennium year. That means 2010 is coming, duh. And I don't think we'll actually die in two years' time.
We all know what happens as New Year is coming, right? As much as it is losing meaning to me (oh c'mon, you can be doing this every other week, or even everyday), the coming of a new year means making some new year resolutions. Some people want better grades in school, some people want to find love, but not me. I think I'm okay the way I am now.
One thing I noticed about making these resolutions is that it often means change, or adding something to your life. If that is the case, I do not have any new year resolutions. Maybe it's only for now, but now as it is, I'm completely at ease with what I have. It's not a lot, but I'm good with it. I have school, I have music and arts in general, I have my friends and family, and I have myself. That's enough--for now.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am still going to work on all that I have to make them better, but that is by no means the 'change' implied in making new year resolutions. The change implied there more often than not takes a person to the opposite direction they are headed. Like, if they are stingy, they want to be more generous in the coming new year. That's not what I'm doing. I have something I'm already happy with, and I'm just improving on them. I'm still headed to the same direction, only further ahead than I already am. That's not really any 'resolution'. Improving is only natural.
It's only natural for me to want to get better grades than I already do; to play the piano and cello and, heck, sing better than I already do; to write better stories and songs than I'm already sketching; to be more comfortable onstage than I already am; to be closer to my family and friends than I already am (although I'm always open to making new friends); and to present, carry and manage myself better than I already do. I'm not saying I'm already extremely good at doing all the aforementioned, but I think I'm okay with them all, and there's nothing deliberate about improving.
What's deliberate is forcing change upon yourself--making new year resolutions. It's not necessarily a bad effort; if you're trying to turn from sexist to sexy, that's something good. But it's just deliberate, and I'm not doing that.
Okay, so maybe I wish for more athleticism--and that includes dancing. Crap, so much for not having resolutions.
Happy New Year. Oh wait, that's tomorrow. Oh screw it. | | |
|
[Hah, there's no song this time, because I'm listening back to my own song. Talk about irony.]
Well, it's Christmas today, and Christmas Eve and my sister's birthday yesterday. Oh, yesterday was also the day she got her PMR results. Yes, she's (so far) a straight-A's student.
Yesterday was also a relative's pre-nuptial buffet dinner, which means today will be the actual wedding dinner. It makes me wonder: why on earth are these people getting married on Christmas? I just think it's weird. And I'm imagining a Christmas-themed wedding dress, something that looks highly similar to a Christmas tree, completely with dangling ornaments. Oh, I can't bear the sight of it. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Nothing much is happening this Christmas, perhaps because my siblings and I are all growing up and we have our own lives to manage. My elder brother has some lab work to do for his final year project, the two younger siblings are having their carefree fun time with their friends, now that my younger brother can drive. As to me, well, I'm just at home, doing nothing serious, but not feeling bored.
And that got me thinking: what makes a good Christmas? I realised, it's nothing more than just yourself. Be it no plans, no partner, nothing to do--so long as you have yourself and you are okay with that, you've just scored yourself a merry Christmas!
Yes, and since I had a tune without words on my hands, I decided to just fill it up with words. Hah, and I actually recorded it down...all the way until 5 in the morning. I can't say I'm satisfied with what I have, but my voice was too hoarse to give anything else good, and my eyes were too tired to drop. I wanted to redo it today, but decided against it. What's better than raw results, right?
Oh, did I mention yesterday also witnessed the birth of my very own Christmas song? Since the file was small enough to upload, hear it out!
Have yourself a merry little Christmas.
P.S.: If you didn't know, I more or less have one specific favourite Christmas song every year; this year, it's my very own. Oh, please don't mind that the percussion and guitar are not completely in-sync, and I'm not completely in-sync with the music. It's hard to get everything right. | | |
|
|
