關於 distinction meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Signet Ring of Authority

“Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Because God has shown you all of this, there is no one so discreet and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and according to your word will all my people be ruled. Only in the throne I will be greater than you.” Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in robes of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck, and he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had. They cried before him, “Bow the knee!” He set him over all the land of Egypt. Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without you shall no man lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.”” (Genesis‬ ‭41:39-44‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before Pharaoh put on the signet ring on Joseph’s hand, he spoke, giving Joseph authority over the nation of Egypt. The ring therefore represents the authority of the King. Whoever wears the ring has been authorized to act on the King’s behalf, and the Kingdom’s resources are at this person’s disposal.

In the story of Joseph, Joseph is a picture of Jesus, who was accused of committing a crime that He did not commit, and then subsequently raised to the right hand of God, having all authority and power, as well as the name above every other name.

Jesus endured the greatest humiliation in order to purchase the greatest salvation for mankind. That is why Abba God gave Jesus the “signet ring”—all authority, glory, honor, and power.

We don’t really find any significant thing about rings until Jesus mentions it in His parable of the prodigal son. I believe He was drawing a reference to the story of Joseph because the “best robe” also parallels with the “robes of fine linen” that Pharaoh gave to Joseph.

““But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate.” (Luke‬ ‭15:22-24‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

In the parable, we find that the ring is given to the prodigal son who is a picture of us who are saved by Grace through faith. We did not do anything to deserve forgiveness, but God forgave and restored us to sonship because of His love and Grace.

So Jesus was the original recipient of the ring, and then Jesus said that Abba God gave the ring to us.

In the context of the parable, a family ring like that would have an insignia of the rich family, and when buying things, the prodigal son could just show the signet, meaning to say, “Charge the bill to my father’s tab.”

The ring being given to us tells us that we have received authority from God to act in His name, and to receive good things because of being in His family. We enjoy all these benefits at God’s expense, and He is most willing to provide what we need.

“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me.” (John‬ ‭17:22-23‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Before Jesus was arrested and eventually crucified, He prayed to the Father that the glory which belonged to Him (Jesus) should be given to us as well. This is like giving the signet ring which was His, to us.

See yourself as one with God, and make no distinction between what is His and what is yours. We have been joined to Christ through the new birth and the New Covenant of Grace.

““He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.” (Luke‬ ‭15:31‬ ‭WEB‬)

Do you believe this, that everything that belongs to God also belongs to you? You are so wealthy because God gave you every spiritual blessing so that you lack nothing.

Whenever you feel like you have nothing, use the signet ring as a visual aid. Imagine Abba God placing it on your finger and reminding you that all authority that belongs to Jesus has also been given to you. In Christ, you have everything that you need!

The four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain many powerful truths that will help you in life. Understand them through the lens of Grace: https://bit.ly/understandeveryparable

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

Taipei Times 英文臺北時報今刊出讀者投書致賴揆：
官方一直示範菜英文，還想列英文為第二官語？

舉例之一：交通部觀光局行之五年的「借問站」計劃英文宣傳名稱「Taiwan Ask Me」是「菜英文」。無誤！

繼之前的菜英文「Taiwan Touch Your Heart」之後，不意外。

最後這一段切中要害：

// Finally, Premier Lai, how can Taiwan effectively pursue the valuable and challenging goal of making English an official language of this country if the ROC government’s own ministries are not even able to correctly compose a simple advertisement in English? //

猜測作者 Xue Meng-ren 很可能是薛孟仁（Dr. Bruce G. Shapiro），逢甲大學外國語文學系副教授。

謝謝薛教授用專業的聲音告誡政府勿失策。

以下全文轉錄投書內容，連結見留言。

-----------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to Premier William Lai

By Xue Meng-ren

Wed, Oct 24, 2018

Dear Premier William Lai (賴清德):

You have admirably and lately led Taiwan in an ongoing discussion about whether to make English a second “official” language. Many articles have appeared defending both sides of this argument.

As it stands, Taiwan uses the traditional style of Mandarin Chinese for all official government, legal and business documents. However, the Taiwanese government frequently uses English in a non-official capacity to facilitate outreach initiatives and better communication with non-Chinese-speaking residents and tourists.

“Taiwan Ask Me” is one such governmental initiative, which the Ministry of Transportation and Communications initiated five years ago.

As a Cabinet-level governmental body charged with communications, the ministry’s standard of English should be a model of English usage for the rest of the nation, particularly the tourism industry, which the ministry also officially administers.

Unfortunately, the ministry has demonstrated that its use of English is both inept and even — albeit inadvertently — insulting.

On the Republic of China’s National Day, on page 5 of the Taipei Times, the ministry’s Tourism Bureau published an announcement about the fifth anniversary of the “Taiwan Ask Me” initiative. This announcement features not only elementary grammatical errors, but also incorrect English usage that renders it meaningless and embarrassing.

To begin, in English, the phrase “Taiwan Ask Me” is nonsense, that is, it has no meaning. It must at least have some defining punctuation, such as, “Taiwan? Ask Me” or “Taiwan, Ask Me.”

The service is supposed to be for tourists in need of answers to questions about traveling around Taiwan, but the phrase “Taiwan Ask Me” absurdly means that Taiwan should ask someone, “me,” something about itself.

And, who does this “me” refer to? Certainly, the initiative does not limit itself to employing a single individual, but rather a team of individuals. Therefore, the phrase should be “Taiwan, Ask Us” not “me.”

This type of error, along with the rest of the advertisement, not only demonstrates poor English usage, but more importantly, it suggests a lack of awareness about what service to others actually means.

It suggests that the initiative “Taiwan Ask Me” is merely paying lip service to a valuable concept of a democratic government that it does not truly value or even understand. This poorly written advertisement reveals that it is more interested in celebrating its own anniversary than it is in providing the service for which it is lauding itself.

The announcement states that the ministry “launched the ‘Taiwan Ask Me’ friendly travel information service” five years ago, and now has 450 Information Stations “that prove warm and friendly services.”

Obviously, the Information Services must provide not “prove” their services. “Prove” is the incorrect English word, unless the intention is for the ministry to pat itself on the back by saying that over the past five years the service has “proved its services are warm and friendly,” but then the grammar is still incorrect.

Furthermore, the use of both “warm” and “friendly” is repetitive, since the words are synonymous in this context. Using repetitive words in this way is a feature of the elementary English usage quite common in Taiwan, but governmental English has no excuse for being elementary.

In addition to offering “domestic and foreign tourists the warmest greetings,” through the Taiwan Ask Me Information Stations, “the service further incorporates rich travel elements.” The phrase “rich travel elements” is verbal nonsense. It correctly connects words that have no discernible meaning. The article does not define or elaborate upon them.

In the following run-on sentence, the article connects these “rich travel elements” with “five unique features,” the first of which is “local gourmets.” Why would a tourist want to meet a gourmet? And what kind of a gourmet?

The ministry probably means “local food” or perhaps “local delicacies,” whereas a “gourmet” is a food connoisseur, that is, a lover of good food. “Gourmets” is an example of another English error common in Taiwan, which is to use the incorrect English word to say something related to that word.

Using Google Translate often helps Taiwanese students make these ridiculous English errors. Unfortunately, government ministers are no longer students. Thus, one expects them to have a better grasp of English, certainly as it pertains to their own special purpose or field of employment.

Together, the “five unique features” mentioned in the article are supposed to “form [a] synergistic local economy of tourism,” whatever that is. Thus, the advertisement uses yet another nonsensical phrase, the meaning of which even the necessary grammatical insertion of “a” does not clarify.

The tourist economy in Taiwan is definitely important, and it is possibly important to connect different aspects of the tourist economy into a unified plan for development. However, linking the so-called five unique features does not create an economic synergy.

Taiwan Ask Me is a free information service. It does not make money or use money to link things together to form economic relationships. Even a government minister should recognize that specious phrases reveal fake values.

For the fifth anniversary event, “Eunice LIN,” (which should be “Eunice Lin,”) “is invited to be the tour guide, and experience the friendliness of ‘Taiwan Ask Me.” This sentence means that Ms Lin is going act as a tourist guide and experience for herself the friendly services of the Information Stations. More absurd nonsense, for why would she be both the tourist guide and the tourist?

Furthermore, the ministry should take responsibility for inviting Ms Lin. Instead of writing “Eunice LIN, a popular TV personality, is invited,” the correct sentence would be: “The MOTC has invited Eunice Lin, a popular TV personality, to be a tour guide.”

Finally, Ms Lin may be a local celebrity, but she is a Taiwanese film and television actor, not a TV personality. The latter is someone who appears on TV as herself, perhaps as the host of a variety show, but not someone who appears as characters in films or a TV series. (“Actor” refers to either male or female, the distinction “actress” being no longer necessary.)

The next sentence in the article is so riddled with grammatical errors, it would take several more paragraphs to explain them all. Suffice it to say that much of what the sentence tries to say means the opposite of what it must intend, which is the major problem with the article in question, especially its conclusion.

The advertisement closes with an egregious insult to all foreign residents and tourists.

Setting aside the grammatical errors and confusing phrasing, the advertisement announces the “Hi Taiwan! Give Me 5 Point Collection Campaign,” which started on Oct. 1.

However, this campaign is only for “all citizens of Taiwan [who] are invited to visit Information Stations and get a taste of the warm and friendly services of ‘Taiwan Ask Me.’”

Apparently, foreign tourists are not allowed to “experience in-depth local travels” and only “citizens will also get an opportunity to win lovely prizes!”

Who in the world is this advertisement for? It would seem to be for foreign tourists and residents since it is in English and appears in the only English print newspaper published in Taiwan. And what citizen of Taiwan needs to read an English advertisement? Surely, any citizen of Taiwan can read all about “Taiwan Ask Me” in Chinese. And yet, this advertisement about a tourism service concludes by disinviting the foreign residents and tourists who are not only most likely to read the advertisement, but also most likely to benefit from the Taiwan Ask Me initiative.

With this appalling advertisement, the ministry makes a mockery of not only the government’s attempts to use English effectively but also its own ministerial responsibility over communication and tourism in Taiwan.

If the Taiwanese government does have the personnel to compose articles in correct English that do not insult English readers and tourists and perhaps visiting foreign dignitaries, then it should hire copy editors with the skills to do it for them. It is certainly worth the expense when compared to the embarrassing cost of losing face, which means so much to Taiwanese society.

Finally, Premier Lai, how can Taiwan effectively pursue the valuable and challenging goal of making English an official language of this country if the ROC government’s own ministries are not even able to correctly compose a simple advertisement in English?

What a conundrum, and where does one begin to solve it?

Respectfully yours,

Xue Meng-ren

Taichung

Allen Iverson squared up, hit a 3-pointer and raised his arms to the air, having thwarted Golden State's final charge. There was no downplaying the importance of this win that put the Denver Nuggets in control of the race for the final playoff spot in the Western Conference.

The win moved Denver (48-31) a full game ahead of the Warriors in the race for eighth place in the West with only three games remaining. The Nuggets also control the tiebreaker, meaning they can clinch their fifth straight playoff berth by winning two of their final three games.

Golden State (47-32) probably will need to win its final three games and hope Denver loses twice to avoid the distinction of being the winningest team ever to miss the NBA playoffs. Houston won 45 games in 2000-01.

"They're in the catbird seat right now," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "We've got a big problem as far as making the playoffs at this particular time. We're going to need a lot of luck and probably have to win out."

The Nuggets erased the early deficit by scoring 19 straight points in the second quarter and built the lead up from there, putting the back-to-back losses to Sacramento and Seattle from last weekend behind them.

"It was a must win for us. We came up with that attitude," said Anthony, who had 25 points, including a 3-pointer that made it 104-90 with 7:52 to go. "It was 'win or go home' in our minds."

The lead grew to 17 before the Warriors mounted one last run, scoring nine straight points to cut it to 107-99 on Kelenna Azubuike's 3-pointer with just over 4 minutes remaining.

Golden State had two chances to cut into the lead more before Iverson's jumper got the lead back to 10. Iverson then hit the 3-pointer that made it 112-101 with 2:06 to go, icing the most important game of the season.

"AI likes to take that 3, that dagger 3," coach George Karl said. "We were kind of caught in the quandary of should we try to score or run clock. That 3 ended the quandary. It got us over that hump where we didn't have to be scared to death of them making that 3."

Both teams talked about how this game had a playoff feel to it. The yellow "We Believe" placards that were prevalent during the Warriors' playoff run a year ago were taped to each seat. But the Warriors have not been playing with the same energy down the stretch this season as they did during their memorable playoff run a year ago.

They have lost nine of the past 16 games in a lackluster finish to their best season in 14 years. Golden State committed an uncharacteristically high 18 turnovers, missed nine of 24 free throws and got poor shooting nights from Stephen Jackson and Baron Davis.

Davis had a triple-double with 20 points, 11 assists and 10 rebounds, but shot only 9-for-25. Jackson had 18 points on 5-for-17 shooting. Monta Ellis led the way with 29 points and Al Harrington added 20.

"We've got a job to do, we've still got games," Jackson said. "We can't sit and dwell on this game because we lost. Definitely, everybody's upset, but at the same time we can't do anything about it. We've got to get ready to play the next game."

The notoriously slow-starting Warriors had their best opening quarter in months, taking a 37-22 lead after one for their best start since leading Cleveland by 16 after one back on Dec. 23. That advantage was quickly erased when the Iverson and Smith found their stroke and the Warriors struggled against Denver's zone early in the second.

"All I know is zones change offenses," Karl said. "When teams zone us, I'm not sure it works but it makes us play different. It makes us play in a way we aren't 100 percent comfortable."

It had a similar effect on the Warriors, who missed their first eight shots of the quarter. Iverson had nine points and Smith scored eight in the big run that gave Denver a 43-38 lead.

Game notes
Golden State F Brandan Wright and Denver F Nene missed the game with groin injuries. ... Davis has three triple-doubles this season. ... The Warriors have not won back-to-back games since taking three in a row March 7-12.
Iverson scored 33 points, J.R. Smith added 24 off the bench and the Nuggets overcame a 16-point deficit in the first quarter to win their playoff showdown with the Warriors 114-105 Thursday night.

"Everybody knew what was at stake," Iverson said. "It's easy for players to say it's just another game. But everybody knows it wasn't just another game. It was a game that both teams felt they had to have."