關於 love in between 2010 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【一連七集，第五】哈佛知識分享: Trade-offs 如何「取捨」?

你要取得更多，就要捨棄更多。「取捨」is tough, but you have to do it!

股神巴菲特 Warren Buffett 有句名言好影響我:

"The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything.‘’

成功及非常成功嘅人分別就係非常成功嘅人對絕大部分事情都係 say No.

識我嘅朋友都知道，我經常講:「我乜都唔識、乜都唔買! 我只買幾千萬以下香港嘅街舖。 我唔買樓、唔買工廈、唔買商廈、唔買農地、唔買車位/骨灰龕位、唔買大灣區、英國樓、非洲農地、 火星月球。 全部都唔買，送畀我都唔要。Again … 我只買港幣五六千萬以下香港的街舖仔。 香港有十萬間，買十世我都買唔晒! 呢世我只想買一千間。」

哈佛大學教授 Michael Porter 亦講過: “Strategy is making trade-offs in competing. The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do."

策略就係要以「取捨」去競爭。 策略嘅精髓就係要知道唔做乜!

上一集講過，何謂一個好嘅策略 Good Strategy? 教授 Michael Porter 話要經得起五個 Tests:

A distinctive value proposition 獨特的價值主張

A tailored value chain 度身訂造的企業價值鏈

Trade-offs different from rivals 同競爭對手不同的「取捨」

Fit across value chain 成條企業價值鏈的活動要配合

Continuity over time 持續性、持續性，不能一時一樣

今集同你講第(3) Trade-offs different from rivals 要贏，就要有同競爭對手不同的「取捨」。

What are trade-offs?

"Trade-offs are the strategic equivalent of a fork in the road. If you take one path, you cannot simultaneously take the other." by Michael Porter

「取捨就好似去咗一個交叉路口咁， 你只可以二選其一，唔可以兩條路都行晒。」

做生意，唔係多啲，就好啲。 多啲產品、 多啲服務、多啲客戶， 唔代表你就係好啲。 因為你營業額可能多咗三成， 但利潤反而可能無咗一半。 咁我就情願營業額細啲，利潤多一倍好過。 記住一開始嘅時候我話 Michael Porter 講過:

"Competition is not about being the BEST, not about MARKET SHARE. Competition is about being UNIQUE, about earning PROFITS" by Michael Porter

競爭唔係要做到最好，最大嘅市佔率。競爭係要做到最獨特，同埋賺到錢，長遠地賺錢。

幾年前我講過，香港週街都係髮廊，但點解有間特別唔同?

video …

QB House (Quick Barber) 就係做咗好多「取捨」 trade-offs ， 好多嘢唔做，但反而吸引咗一班想「快、靚、正」 ，但又唔想求求其其、 污糟邋遢剪個頭髮嘅繁忙上班一族， most likely 男士們、三四五十歲左近。10 minutes, just cut!

QB House 專注培訓、建立系統，令呢班目標顧客群由原本一兩三個月先剪個頭髮，而家一兩三個星期就去剪轉一轉。 剪快咗、剪多咗，就令QB House 同佢嘅髮型師雖然做少咗嘢，但反而收入及利潤上升。This is what I call "trade-offs", LESS IS MORE!

就係因為 QB House 嘅 Trades-offs 同一般髮廊嘅競爭對手唔同，當初首創新嘅經營模式係日本做到最獨特， 亦都解釋咗點解佢1996年由東京一間開始， 短短幾年間就能夠開到全球幾百間分店，2018年仲係東京証交所主板上市， 依家市值近20億港幣。 雖然有好多人想抄佢，QB House 嘅專注，佢 make 嘅 trade-offs 至今依然令佢每年生意額都上升，到今日都保持住係「速剪」行業嘅領導地位。

我成日都話，「當你乜都做，等如你乜都唔做!」 …. 因為你無樣嘢做得好、無樣嘢做得專。When you please everybody, you please nobody. 做生意要「取捨」，唔放手，唔會得到更多。

可能你會覺得 Just-Cut, QB House 都做咗啦。 做髮廊仲可以點變? 根據 Michael Porter，大把方法變。 最緊要就係，唔係人做你做。Your trade-offs have to be different from your rivals, then you have a strategy.

你嘅「取捨」要同你競爭對手唔同，咁你就有好策略。人哋 Just-Cut, 咁你可唔可以 Just Perm 電髮? Just Color 染髮? Just Blow Dry 吹頭?

唉! Just Blow Dry? 美國加州有間咁嘅髮廊 …

佢就好似係 QB House 嘅翻版，但係 No Cuts No Color, Just Blowouts. 齋吹頭! 美金$40，45分鐘時間，班目標顧客群，即係長頭髮嘅二三四五十歲女士們， 就可以 enjoy 喺個輕鬆嘅環境洗下頭、按下頭、吹下頭、飲杯 champagne、聽下音樂、Relax 下，就有個清神爽利嘅頭見人!

因為做得夠專，懂得運用 Michael Porter 所指嘅 trade-offs ，同一般髮廊競爭對手唔同嘅 trade-offs, 好多女士就個個禮拜去幫襯，relax relax 下。2010年由美國加州第一間店開始， 十年間，全美開超過一百間分店， 擁有超過5000個髮型師， 每次美金$40，每個月幫緊20萬個客人吹頭。 淨係吹頭，依家營業額每年超過一億美金。

全球最大嘅傢俬公司，IKEA， 又係另一個Michael Porter 所指 Trade-Offs 嘅典型例子。佢由產品設計 (自己裝嵌)、產品種類 (簡單得來又多幾樣選擇)、 自己推住架車嘅購物模式、至到客戶服務 (間舖頭永遠唔易搵到人幫手，人客自己搞掂，慳番啲成本，換取平啲價錢)，到最後排隊畀錢、自己包裝、抬件貨返屋企 …. 如果唔係送貨要額外收費 (無得免費)。IKEA 成條嘅企業價值鏈 value chain 都係同其他一般嘅傢俬公司好唔同，有好唔同嘅 Trade-offs 取捨。

IKEA 嘅「取捨」，就能夠吸引咗一班 “with a thin wallet" 想價錢平，但又想 good design, 唔介意自己辛苦做多啲， 工餘時間，甚至乎自己花成日裝嵌埋嘅顧客。IKEA 明白佢唔會 serve 晒所有人。 我以前係美國讀大學、 或者啱啱出嚟 New York 做嘢，都好鍾意去 IKEA 買嘢，因為平! 而家? 叫我花成日嵌件傢俬，睬你都傻! I was an IKEA Customer, but not anymore! It's OK, you cannot please everybody! 做生意就係個「取捨」! 賺到錢就得啦。

美國最賺錢嘅航空公司 Southwest Airlines 西南航空都係一樣，No first class, No meals, No assigned seats, No baggage transfer, No planes other than Boeing 737s, No International Flight … so on and so forth.

無頭等、無飛機餐、無預設定座位、無行李轉運 、除咗波音737乜嘢客機都無、無國際航線。 仲有好多都比一般其他航空公司無。

但就係因為「冇」， 運動複雜程度及成本下降，Southwest 就可以專注做以下幾樣嘢特別好，就係「平」、「快」、「準時」、員工做得開心自然服務態度更好。其他乜都無， 但未必個個客人都啱!

於是 Southwest 有個好出名嘅 "Pen Pal" 故事，就有位乘客 Mrs. Crabapple， 經常好唔滿意 Southwest Airlines 乜都冇，無頭等、無飛機餐、無預設定座位、無行李轉運等等等等， 經常寫信去 Southwest 投訴，呢個「筆友」"Pen Pal" 個個客戶服務部同事都怕咗佢， 寫完又寫， 回覆左又寫，投訴完又投訴。 直至客戶服務 部嘅同事們都冇計， 叫當時嘅CEO/創辦人 Herb Kelleher 回覆。佢點寫? 真人真事! 60秒內，佢回覆:

“Dear Mrs. Crabapple. We will miss you. Love, Herb." 即係話，請佢走， 唔好再返來!

聽落好似好搞笑，但Michael Porter 話呢個係一個典型嘅 trade-offs 例子，you cannot please everyone. 記住，一開始嘅時候，我講過:

"Strategy is making trade-offs in competing. The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do." by Michael Porter.

策略就係要以「取捨」去競爭。 取捨嘅精髓就係要知道唔做乜!

"When you try to offer something for everybody, you tend to relax the trade-offs that underpin your competitive advantage." by Michael Porter.

當您嘗試做曬所有嘢去服務每一個人，你嘅「取捨」就會減少， 同時亦都會減少你嘅競爭優勢。

善用 Trade-offs 「取捨」去增強自己競爭力嘅機會隨處都係，爭在你願唔願意「放手」，先能夠取得「更多」。

包括我自己在內， 如果我乜嘢地產項目都投資，有賺錢就買， 甚至乎集資錢多地盤都搞埋， 我只係一個三四流嘅地產發展商。 我點同新鴻基/恒基/長實打呢? 但我專注幾千萬以下嘅香港街舖，我就係一個一流嘅商舖基金公司， 全香港人， 包括所有大嘅地產發展商，係街舖買賣都唔會夠我來。 社運/肺炎後，全香港買賣舖無人夠我哋多，呢個係事實!

"Trade-offs are choices that make strategies sustainable because they are not easy to match or to neutralize." by Michael Porter.

「取捨」會令到策略更有持續性，因為競爭對手 好難去複製或抵消你嘅優勢。特別是你嘅 first mover advantage 先行者優勢。

我係香港第一個商舖基金，就永遠都係香港第一個商舖基金。只我哋專注，未來幾十年，我知道係香港嘅街舖，無人會動搖到我哋嘅領導地位。

即是有人入嚟炒，Michael Porter 話新入嚟嘅 「模仿者」好多時都只係做 Straddling 跨騎， 即係好似「一腳踏兩船」咁， 自己本身嘅本業又做，商舖又做，結果兩邊都做唔「專」。

就係因為有自信我先咁講。因為好似今集一開始咁講，根據 Michael Porter 嘅 "Trade-offs different from rivals"， 我哋係放棄咗好多嘅嘢，同競爭對手大大唔同，先能夠建立到我哋今日係香港街舖嘅領導地位。 只要我哋專注，我哋嘅基金投資者會賺錢! I know it. 但如果有一日，我開始搞工廈、搞商廈、搞地盤、搞英國樓、搞埋茶餐廳、 補習社 、 酒樓、酒店等， 就係投資者應該攞錢走嘅時候! 乜都做，就開始等如乜都唔做!

你呢? What are your trade-offs? 你的「取捨」同競爭對手有咩唔同呢? 抑或人做你做，人客想要乜，你就俾佢乜呢?

There is no problem with that! 第一集一開始我就話，99%嘅公司都係咁，養家活兒可能好多年都冇問題， 但根據 Michael Porter，你只係停留係第二個 S - Sustaining 持續緊嘅階段。 做好多年，搵到食，但可能仍然冇人識你，無突破。Survive, Sustain, 但要去到第三個 S, Succeed, I mean Super Successful 好似一支箭咁標上去，等如以上 QB House, DryBar, IKEA, Southwest Airlines 咁，你就要有 strategy 策略。 你嘅「取捨」trade-offs 要同競爭對手截然不同。

李小龍嘅名言，亦都係掛喺我公司office嘅唯一名言: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

李小龍唔怕嗰啲踢過一萬種唔同腳法嘅人。但佢怕嗰啲踢過一種腳法一萬次嘅人。 你嘅腳法又點呢? 有興趣一齊研究下點做? 聽多啲 Michael Porter，就來我星期六嘅早餐會啦! 下集我再同你講 (4) Fit across value chain 成條企業價值鏈的活動，如何配合去增強你的競爭優勢?

。。。。。

My hobby 《星期六早餐會》!

九/十月份早餐會 Topic: Applying "Michael Porter" to your business: How to compete and win!

哈佛分享: 如何應用「米高波特」於你盤生意? 點競爭? 點贏?

講起哈佛策略教授， 無人出名過 Michael Porter. 有幸我2017年在哈佛親身上過他教的課程， 今次早餐會同你分享，希望對你做生意亦有所啟發。

有興趣參加啦 😃 每次限四位 (包括我)。 人多傾唔到計。

9月份，逢星期六早上9時開始，約三小時。地點中環。

對象: 中小企老闆/創業者/公司管理層，連我限4位。

有興趣參加的話，請 whatsapp 你的名片給 Suki (我助手) (+852) 5566 1335。

我唔係靠呢行搵食，免費，我請食早餐 😉 Be friends ..... 有機會到時見你。李根興 Edwin

www.edwinlee.com.hk
www.bwfund.com

聯絡李根興 whatsapp (+852) 90361143

#michael_porter #競爭策略

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

[時事英文] 散戶牛市 🐂💰

Is it investing or just gambling?

這到底是投資還是賭博呢?

★★★★★★★★★★★★

It’s one of the year’s biggest market stories: Mom-and-pop investors have fallen back in love with stocks, lured by free trading apps, a resurgent bull market led by technology companies and a pandemic that has left millions of Americans at home with little to do.

New data show a number of ways in which the individual-trading boom has reshaped the U.S. stock market. Here are five takeaways:

1. mom-and-pop investors 散戶、小型投資者
2. fall in love with 愛上
3. free trading apps 免費交易應用程式
4. resurgent 復興的；再次增長的；再度流行的
5. a bull market 牛市 (當某一市場、行業或金融工具呈上升趨勢時，通常稱之為牛市。)
6. little to do 無事可做
7. reshape 重塑

這是今年最大的市場熱點之一：在免費交易應用程式和科技公司引領的牛市重新抬頭的誘惑下，加上數以百萬計美國人因新冠大流行而在家無所事事，散戶重新愛上了股市。新的數據顯示散戶交易熱潮在多個方面重塑了美國股市。以下是五個要點:

★★★★★★★★★★★★

🐂 1. Individual stock trading is at a decade high 💰

個人股票交易達到了十年來的最高點

Trading by individuals accounts for a greater chunk of market activity than at any time during the past 10 years, according to Larry Tabb, head of market-structure research at Bloomberg Intelligence. During the first six months of this year, individual investors accounted for 19.5% of the shares traded in the U.S stock market, up from 14.9% last year and nearly double the level from 2010, Mr. Tabb estimates.

8. account for (sth) （在數量上）佔 ; 解釋、說明 ; 對...負有責任
9. a chunk of 一部分；（尤指）大部分，一大塊
10. market activity 市場活動

Bloomberg Intelligence市場結構研究主管Larry Tabb表示，個人交易在市場活動中的佔比超過了過去10年的任何時候。Tabb估計，今年前六個月，散戶投資者在美國股市交易量中的佔比為19.5%，高於去年的14.9%，是2010年水平的近兩倍。他的數據沒有進一步向前追溯。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

🐂 2. Small investors are powering big moves in some stocks 💰

小型投資者正在推動一些股票的大幅波動

It has been called the Robinhood effect, the idea that stampedes of investors using the popular app are driving irrational stock moves.

In fact, such activity doesn’t matter much for most stocks, according to Nick Maggiulli, chief operating officer of Ritholtz Wealth Management. But there is evidence of a Robinhood effect in some smaller stocks, he said.

11. power (v.) 為…提供動力，驅動
12. big moves 大幅波動
13. stampede （尤指獸群或人群因恐懼引發的）狂奔；奔逃，蜂擁
(這裡指散戶湧入股市)
14. drive irrational stock moves 驅動非理性股市走勢

這被稱為羅賓漢效應，這種觀點認為，使用這種廣受歡迎的應用程式的投資者紛紛湧入市場，正在推動非理性的股票走勢。

資產管理機構Ritholtz Wealth Management首席營運官Nick Maggiulli表示，事實上，對於大多數股票來說這些活動無關緊要。但他表示，有證據表明，一些較小型股票存在羅賓漢效應。
★★★★★★★★★★★★

🐂 3. Asia is where individual investors truly dominate 💰

在亞洲股市，散戶是真正的主力軍

Many Asian stock markets have traditionally been dominated by individual investors, unlike the institution-heavy U.S. market. In places such as mainland China, frenzied trading by individuals can create a casino-like feel, with exuberant bull runs followed by spectacular crashes.

Individuals often account for more than 80% of volume on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, while on the Korea Exchange’s main Kospi market, nearly 84% of shares traded so far this year were on behalf of individual investors, according to data compiled by Hee-Joon Ahn, a finance professor at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul.

15. be dominated by 由…所主導
16. individual investors 個人投資者
17. frenzied trading 狂熱交易
18. bull runs 行情
19. on behalf of 代表
20. data that is compiled by 由…整理的數據

不同於以機構投資者為主的美國股市，許多亞洲股市向來由個人投資者所主導。在中國A股等亞洲股市，散戶的狂熱交易會營造出賭場般的感覺，有時股市會牛氣沖天，隨後大幅跳水。

首爾成均館大學(Sungkyunkwan University)金融學教授Hee-Joon Ahn整理的數據顯示，在上海證券交易所，散戶的股票交易量通常佔到80%以上；在韓國證券交易所主要的Kospi市場，今年以來，有近84%的股票交易是代表個人投資者進行的。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

🐂 4. More of the U.S. stock market is going dark 💰

美股暗盤交易量上升

The individual-investing boom has led to historically high levels of “dark” trading, in which stocks are bought and sold on opaque private venues, rather than public exchanges. That is because online brokers typically funnel small investors’ trades to electronic-trading firms that execute the incoming orders.

In July, 43.2% of U.S. stock-trading volume took place off-exchange, according to Rosenblatt Securities, a brokerage firm. That is the highest level that the firm has recorded since it started tracking such data in 2008.

21. investing boom 投資熱潮
22. historically high levels of 歷史高位
23. “dark” trading 暗盤 (暗盤是指大利市機以外的股份交易買賣。 由於當中的買賣並不曝露於大眾之前，不會經證交所披露其中內容，所以這些買賣被稱之為暗盤。)

24. opaque 不透明的；不透光的
25. private venues 非公開場所
26. public exchanges 公開的交投
27. brokerage firm 證券商

個人投資熱潮已經導致股票暗盤交易量達到歷史高位，這種交易指的是股票在不透明的非公開場所買賣，而不是在公開的交易所進行交投。出現這種現象的原因是，在線經紀商通常會將小型投資者的交易單交給執行指令的電子交易公司。

據券商Rosenblatt Securities提供的數據，7月份，美國有43.2%的股票交易量發生在交易所外。這是該公司自2008年開始跟蹤此類數據以來所記錄到的最高水平。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

🐂 5. Big winners may be electronic traders 💰

大贏家可能是電子交易公司

The firms that execute individual investors’ orders have enjoyed surging volumes. The three biggest players in that business—Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial Inc. and Susquehanna International Group LLP—traded a combined 69.4 billion shares over the counter in June, more than triple the level from November, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. The vast majority of the firms’ over-the-counter trades come from individual investors. OTC trading is a type of off-exchange trading.

Electronic-trading firms profit from individuals’ trades by collecting a small difference between the buying and selling prices of a stock. It’s hard to know how much money they are making, though, because most are private and don’t report financials.

28. big winners 大贏家
29. surging volumes 交易量大幅上升
30. the biggest players 巨頭 ; 主要參與者；主力
31. according to 根據
32. the vast majority of 絕大多數
33. over-the-counter trades 場外交易 (場外交易是指證券投資機構之間不通過股票交易所，而以電話、電傳等方式相互進行的股票交易。)

為散戶執行交易指令的公司交易量大幅上升。據Bloomberg Intelligence的數據，這一領域的三巨頭是Citadel Securities、Virtu Financial Inc.和海納國際集團(Susquehanna International Group) ，6月份的場外交易總量為694億股，是去年11月的三倍多。這些公司的絕大多數場外交易來自散戶投資者。

電子交易公司通過收取股票買賣之間的微小差價從個人交易中獲利。不過，很難知道這些公司到底賺了多少錢，因為大多數公司都未上市，也不披露財務報告。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

What are some problems this phenomenon might cause? Benefits?

本現象將帶來什麼樣的問題？其利益呢?

《華爾街日報》完整內容：https://on.wsj.com/34TiE5V
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★

📰 華爾街日報訂閱方案: https://bit.ly/39ULVh1

🎓 華爾街日報獎助學金計畫 (A20): https://bit.ly/2C2tUAI

★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
時事英文講義：https://bit.ly/2XmRYXc

Text to speech reader (文字轉音檔):
https://www.naturalreaders.com/online/

Crossing the Caucasus Journey Video Series

Ali and Nino

The story, first told in the 1937 Austrian novel, Ali and Nino, is a familiar tale of lovers who end up in tragic circumstances that keep them apart. As opposed to warring families, in Ali and Nino’s case, it was the first World War. Ali, an Azerbaijani Muslim, falls in love with Georgian princess, Nino, but sadly, after they are finally able to get together, the war hits home and Ali is killed. The author of the novel is unknown, but despite the unknown origins, the title has become a literary classic in the area and is considered to be the national novel of Azerbaijan.

It was this famous love that inspired Georgian artist Tamara Kvesitadze to create her monumental moving sculpture in 2010. The giant metal artwork, also known as the “Statue of Love,” consists of two somewhat transparent figures made of stacked segments. The two figures slide towards each other, eventually merging as their segments pass between each other. never truly connecting. Sad stuff.

橫越高加索之旅影片系列

阿里與尼諾

1937年奧地利小說“阿里與尼諾”中講述了一個傳統的愛情故事，故事內容是由於交戰家庭的宗教對立，使他們最終陷入了悲慘的結局。故事講述在第一次世界大戰期間，阿里和尼諾兩人有著不同的身份的關係，阿里是一個阿塞拜疆穆斯林，他愛上的尼諾是一位格魯吉亞公主，他們雖然能相戀一起，但可悲的是戰爭打到了家園，阿里最終被殺。這部小說的作已經者不為人所知，儘管起源不明，但該小說已成為文學經典，並被認為是阿塞拜疆的民族小說。

正是這種著名的愛情激發了格魯吉亞藝術家Tamara Kvesitadze在2010年創造了她不朽的移動雕塑。巨大的金屬藝術品，也被稱為“愛情雕像”，由兩個可以重疊在一起的圖案組成。這兩個雕像相互轉動，在合併又分開，在過程中傳遞一個信息。他們永遠不會真正聯繫在一起，這是一個使人傷心訊息。

If you are a beginner, you would like to start losing weight but do not know which workout routine / plan / video to follow, DO THIS WORKOUT for the next 4-6 weeks!
This is a total body fat burning workout designed for beginner like you to start losing weight quick and effective. No equipments are needed, just you and your enthusiasm!
Do this workout 3 times weekly, together with cardio (swimming, jogging, walking, cycling, walking up the stairs etc), 3 times weekly for 30-45mins for best result.

Estimate Cals burn is between 350 - 450 Cals (4 sets). The heavier you are, the more you burn.

Remember that your food intake is 80% to your success so start cleaning up your diet and start seeing your weight dropping. You can go to my website www.joannasoh.com to get the Full Meal Plan and Workout Plan to guide you through. =)

Please LIKE and SHARE this video.
SUBSCRIBE to my channel for new fitness and nutritional video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/joannasohofficial

Stay connected with me via:
http://www.facebook.com/joannasohofficial
http://instagram.com/joannasohofficial
https://twitter.com/Joanna_Soh/

Subscribe to my website for daily inspiration, printable workouts & recipes:
http://www.joannasoh.com

Lots of Love xx

Music: Free YouTube Music

Here it is, a Full Vegan Meal Plan for you to lose weight effectively or even to maintain your weight! You can try it even if you are not a vegan. =)

As Vegans / Vegetarians, it is important to have enough protein in your meals, hence all the ingredients I chose are high in protein.

As always, my meals are very quick and easily put together, with simple everyday ingredients. You can prep all the meals under 30 minutes or less.

Remember, you don't have to follow the recipe, be creative and make your own. Here are some alternative/examples of high quality and natural food to choose:

Complex Carbs: Brown Rice, Whole Grain Pasta, Oatmeal, Sweet Potatoes, Wholemeal Bread, Wraps, Pita Bread, quinoa, cous cous.

High Protein Food: Tofu, chickpeas, kidney beans, baked beans, any other beans, almonds, any other nuts, peanut butter, soy milk, almond milk, avocado, tempeh, seitan, lentils, soy yoghurt, edamame, oats.

Healthy Fat: Nuts, Olive Oil, Seeds, Beans, Avocado, peanut butter.

In order for this plan to be Effective, you are recommended to:
1) Prepare Your Food in Bulk lasting 2 -- 3 days to make it stress free.

2) These meals are interchangeable. So you can have your snack for breakfast, breakfast for lunch etc.

3) Only use and Prepare high quality and natural food. So no processed, junk food and ready meals at all.

4) Adjust the portion size and calories according to the product you use. Mine might be slightly difference from yours. So read the food label carefully.

5) You must drink 3-4L of water every day.

6) You must eat every 3 -- 4 hours throughout the day in small portion.

7) Make it a habit to plan and pack your meals the night before and store them in the fridge for the next day; this will make your mornings easier, which will help to keep you on track.

8) Print your meal plan and stick in on your fridge as a daily reminder to stay on track.

9) Keep a food dairy of what you eat and how you feel, which contributes towards your weight lost progress.

10) Exercise 5--6 times a week between 45 -- 60 mins for maximum result.


Please like and share this video.
Subscribe to my channel for new fitness and nutritional video weekly:
http://www.youtube.com/user/joannasohofficial

Check me out and connect with me via facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/joannasohofficial

Go to my website for daily inspiration, printable workouts and to know what I'm up to:
http://www.joannasoh.com

Send me a mail:
ask@joannasoh.com

Lots of Love xx

Music Copyright:
Fun to Trade by Don Taylor
(Don Taylor Music © 2002-2010)