關於 what happened 17 years ago ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

=================================
「Would」の活用法（総まとめ）
=================================
　
これまで私が生徒さんから最もよくされた質問の一つが「would」の使い方でしょう。wouldを用いた表現は本当に沢山あり、それら全てを説明するのは容易ではありません。そこで今回、過去の記事でも紹介した用法を含め、日常会話において基本となるwouldの用法を、4つの状況毎になるべく分かりやすくまとめてみました。長くなりますが、どうぞ最後まで読んでみて下さい。
　
　
～過去の話をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) I thought it would rain.
→「雨が降ると思っていました」
--------------------------------------------------
　
過去のある時点で、その先に起こることを予め予測や推測をしていたことを示す言い方です。例えば、「I thought it would rain so I brought an umbrella.（雨が降ると思っていたので、傘を持ってきました）」や「Since I was a kid, I knew I would become a teacher.（私は子供の時から先生になると分かっていました）」のように表現できます。

また、「He said he would _____.（彼が〜すると言っていました）」のように誰かが（過去に）言ったことを他の誰かに伝える状況でも使われます。ポイントは、誰かが何かをすると約束したり、何かをすると意思を述べたことを、他の誰かに伝える状況で用いるのが一般的です。例えば、「He said he would buy coffee for us.（彼は私たちにコーヒーを買うと言っていました。）」や「She said she would talk to him about that issue.（その問題について、彼女は彼に話すと言っていました）」という具合に使われます。
　
✔Wouldの後は動詞の原形がフォロー。
　
＜例文＞
　
When I met my wife 5 years ago, I knew I would marry her one day.
（５年前に妻と出会った当初から、私たちは結婚すると思っていました。）
　
I never thought this proposal would go through.
（この提案が通らないことは最初から分かっていました。）
　
She said she would come to the party.
（彼女はパーティーに来ると言っていました。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) She would not help me.
→「彼女は手伝ってくれようとしませんでした」
--------------------------------------------------
　
Wouldの後にnotを付け、否定文（Would not）にすることで「〜しようとしなかった」という意味になります。基本的に何かしらの依頼や申し出に対し、乗り気じゃない、協力的じゃない、積極的に応える意欲がない、などのニュアンスで断ったことを表します。例えば、親に何度も仕送りをして欲しいと頼んでるが、いっこうにしてくれない状況では「My parents would not send me money.（私の両親は、仕送りをしようとしてくれない）」と言うことができます。

また、人に限らずテレビやパソコン、車などの機能に対してもwould notを使うことができます。例えば、「今朝、車のエンジンがかかりませんでした」は「My car would not start this morning.」となります。
　
✔肯定文にしても「〜してくれた」とはならず、意味が変わってしまうので注意。「My parents would send me money」と言うと「両親が仕送りをしてくれた」とはならずに、「両親が（何度も）送金した」を意味する。詳しくは下記の3)の解説を参照。
　
＜例文＞
　
I asked him many times but he would not tell me what happened.
（彼に何回も聞きましたが、何が起こったのか教えてくれませんでした。）
　
My girlfriend is really upset with me. She would not talk to me.
（彼女は私に怒っていて口をきいてくれませんでした。）
　
I charged my phone but it would not turn on.
（携帯を充電したけど電源が入らなかった。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) In the summer, I would go camping with my friends.
→「夏によく友達とキャンピングに行っていました」
--------------------------------------------------
　
過去によくやっていた行動パターンや習慣を表す際にもwouldが使われ、used to（よく～したものだ）と似たような役割を果たします。しかし、used toの場合は、習慣となっている行動がより高頻度なもので、且つ“今はもうしていない”ということを強調するニュアンスがあるのに対し、wouldの場合は、習慣となっていた行動頻度が週1回であろうと年1回であろうと、その頻度には関係なく「よく〜した」ということが話の趣旨となります。例えば、「When I was a kid, my grandmother would bake cookies.（子供の頃、私の祖母はよくクッキーを焼いてくれていました）」と言うと、クッキーを作る頻度ではなく、祖母がクッキーを作ってくれていたことが要点になります。それに対し、「私は高校生の頃、毎日サッカーの練習をしていました」と言いたいのであれば、used toを使って、「I used to practice soccer every day in high school.」と言うのが適切です。“毎日練習していた”ことが強調され、且つ“今はもう練習をしていない”ことが相手に伝わります。
　
✔過去の“状態”を表す場合はwouldではなくused toを使う。例えば「過去にオートバイを持っていました」は「I used to have a motorocycle.」と言い、「I would have a motorcycle」とは言わない。
　
＜例文＞
　
When I lived in Japan, I would go out drinking almost every week.
（日本に住んでいた頃、ほぼ毎週飲みに行っていました。）
　
Sometimes she would come over and cook Mexican food for us.
（時々、彼女はうちにきてメキシカン料理を作ってくれました。）
　
During the winter, I would get together with my friends and do a nabe party.
（冬に友達とよく鍋パーティーをしていました。）
　
　
～仮定の話をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) If I won the lottery I would buy a house.
→「もし宝くじが当たったら家を買います」
　
架空の話や実際には起こり得ない出来事について話す時にもwouldを使います。一般的に「If _____, I would _____.（〜だったら〜する）」の形式で表現します。例えば、「世界中のどこにでも住めるとしたら、ハワイに住みます」は「If I could live anywhere in the world, I would live in Hawaii.」と言います。
　
✔文末に「if I knew」に付け足してもOK。
　
＜例文＞
　
If you could date a celebrity, who would it be?
（もし、芸能人と付き合えるとしたら、誰と付き合う？）
　
I would tell you where she was if I knew.
（彼女がどこにいるか知っていたら教えているよ。）
　
If I found a hundred dollars on the ground, I would take it to the police station.
（もし100ドルを拾ったら交番に届けます。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) Would you try online dating?
→「あなただったら出会い系サイトを試してみますか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
相手に“もしも”の質問を投げかける時は「Would you _____?」と表現するのが定番で「あなただったら〜しますか？」を意味します。相手の意見やアドバイスを尋ねる場合は「What would you _____?」と表現します。例えば、「あなただったらどうしますか？」と聞くなら「What would you do?」、販売員に「あなただったら何をお勧めしますか？」と尋ねるなら「What would you recommend?」となります。
　
＜例文＞

Would you date someone older than you?
（あなただったら年上の人とお付き合いしますか？）
　
What would you do? Would you apologize?
（あなただったらどうしますか？謝りますか？）
　
Would you be open to living abroad?
（あなただったら外国に住むのはありですか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) If I were you I would apologize.
→「私だったら謝ります」
--------------------------------------------------
　
「私だったら〜する」と相手の立場になって何かしらのアドバイスや提案をする場合に使われる表現です。shouldを使った表現よりも控えめに助言したい場合にピッタリの言い回しです。例えば、東京で給料の良い仕事のオファーが入ったが、家族の不幸で地元に引っ越さないといけなくなってしまったと友達に相談され、「私だったら仕事のオファーを断るかな」と言うなら「If I were you I would turn down the offer.」となります。
　
✔日常会話では「If I were you」を省いて、「I would _____」と直接言うことも一般的。
　
✔「If I were in your shoes, I would ______.（私があなたの立場だったら、〜をします」という言い方もある。
　
＜例文＞
　
If I were you I wouldn't go.
（私だったら行かないね。）
　
This milk expired 5 days ago. I wouldn't drink that if I were you.
（この牛乳の消費期限、5日前じゃん。私だったら飲まないよ。）
　
I would call them and ask for a refund.
（私だったら電話して返金を求めるけど。）
　
　
～丁寧・控えめな発言をする時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) Would you turn down the volume?
→「音量を下げてくれますか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
人に何かをリクエストや依頼をする際に「Can you _____?（〜してくれる？）」よりも丁寧にお願いする場合は「Would you _____?（〜してくれますか？）」と表現します。例えば、「この用紙に記入してくれますか？」と丁寧に言いたいなら「Would you fill out this form?」になります。
　
✔より丁寧な言い方が「Would you mind _____?（〜してくれますか？）」。相手に気を使ったとても優しい質問の仕方。
　
＜例文＞
　
Would you close that window?
（あの窓を閉めてもらえますか？）
　
Would you be able to help?
（手伝っていただけないでしょうか？）
　
Would you mind changing seats?
（席を変わっていただけませんか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) Would you like a drink?
→「お飲物はいかがですか？」
--------------------------------------------------
　
相手に「〜はいかがですか？」と何かを丁寧にオファーする際にピッタリの表現が「Would you like _____?」です。顧客や年上の人、または面識のない人に対して何かオファーする場合は、この表現を使うのが最も無難でしょう。例えば、会社に訪れた顧客に「熱いお茶はいかがですか？」と聞く場合は「Would you like some hot tea?」と言います。
　
✔友達や家族など、仲の良い人に対してこの表現はちょっと丁寧過ぎる。親しい関係であれば「Do you want _____?」でOK。
　
＜例文＞
　
Would you like a refill?
（飲み物のお代わりはいかがですか？）
　
Would you like to join us?
（よかったら一緒にどうですか？）
　
Would you like me to drive?
（私が運転しましょうか？）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
3) I would say _____.
→「〜だと思う」
--------------------------------------------------
　
この言い方は自分の意見を述べたり何かを推定する時に使われ「〜だと思う」や「恐らく〜だろう」「〜かな」などに相当する表現です。ハッキリと言い切る感じではなく、物腰柔らかく控えめに発言している印象があります。例えば、「彼女、何歳だと思いますか？」と聞かれた際、相手に失礼ないよう謙虚に意見を述べる場合、「I’d say early thirties. Maybe 32.（30代前半だと思う。32歳くらいかな）」という具合に使います。
　
✔日常会話では「I would say」を「I’d say」と省略して言うことが多い。
　
✔大抵の場合、「I think」の代わりに「I’d say」が使える。「I think」よりも控えめな響き。
　
✔必ず答えが求めらるような質問をされた際、決定的な発言や返答を和らげる言い方として「I would have to say _____（〜と言わざるを得ない）」がある。
　
＜例文＞
　
I'd say it's a four to five hour drive.
（車で4時間から５時間くらいかかるかな。）
　
I'd say this logo looks the best. I like the color and simplicity.
（私はこのロゴが一番だと思います。色とシンプルさがいいと思います。）
　
Both speeches were excellent but I would have to say Adam's speech was better.
（二人ともスピーチは素晴らしかったですが、私はアダムのスピーチの方が良かったと思います。）
　
　
～自分の願望を述べる時～
　
--------------------------------------------------
1) I would love to go.
→「是非行きたいです」
--------------------------------------------------
　
「I would love to」は「I want to」と似た意味で「〜を(が)したい」といった強い願望を伝える時に使われれます。「I want to」の気持ちをより強調した言い方です。例えば、同僚に食事を一緒にしないかと誘われた際、「I would love to join you guys for dinner.」と言います。
　
✔相手の誘いを快く受け入れるときに使われる定番フレーズが「I’d love to!（喜んで！）」
　
✔その他、相手の誘いを丁寧に断るときに使われる決まり文句でもあり、「I’d love to ____ but _____（〜したいのは山々なのですが、〜）」が定番フレーズになる。
　
＜例文＞
　
I would love to meet with you next week.
（是非、来週お会いしたいと思います。）
　
I'd love to! What time should I be there?
（喜んで！何時に行けばいいですか？）
　
I'd love to stay and chat some more but I have to get going.
（残ってもっとお話をしたいのですが、そろそろ行かないといけません。）
　
　
--------------------------------------------------
2) I would like to think that ____.
→「〜であると考えたい」
--------------------------------------------------
　
この表現は「真相はわからないけど、そうであって欲しい・・・」のようなニュアンスとして使われます。例えば、Facebookの個人情報の取り扱いに対し、多少の疑いはあるものの情報はしっかり保護されていると信じたいといった気持ちを表す場合は「I would like to think that Facebook protects our personal information.」となります。また、自分の発言や意見を物腰柔らかく控えめなニュアンスにする役割もあります。例えば、「あなたは良い父親だと思いますか？」という質問に対し「I would like to think I’m a good father.」と答えると、「私は良い父親であると考えたいのですが・・・」といった具合に謙虚な響きになります。
　
✔日常会話では「I would」を「I'd」と短縮して言うことが多い。
　
✔「そうだと思いたい」は「I would like to think so.」
　
＜例文＞
　
I would like to think that hard work pays off.
（努力は報われると信じたいです。）
　
I would like to think professional athletes don't use drugs.
（プロスポーツ選手は、薬物を使用していないと信じたい。）
　
I would like to think my English is getting better.
（自分の英語力が上達してるって思いたいや〜ん。）
　
　
　
　
　
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
　
無料メルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』配信中！
　
通勤・通学などのちょとした合間を利用して英語が学べるメルマガ『1日1フレーズ！生英語』を平日の毎朝6時に配信中！ただ単にフレーズを紹介しているだけではなく、音声を使った学習プロセスが組み込まれているので、メルマガを読むこと自体が学習方法！
　
https://hapaeikaiwa.com/mailmagazine/
　
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～

Live by the “Present Truth”

“Therefore I will not be negligent to remind you of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth...For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We heard this voice come out of heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.” (2 Peter‬ ‭1:12, 16-18‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The apostle Peter wrote to the church, saying that they were “established in the present truth”.

The existence of a present truth necessitates that there was a former truth.

I believe that he was referring to the change in covenants, from the Old Covenant of the Law (former truth) to the New Covenant of Grace (present truth).

He was probably addressing those who disbelieved that the Law has been replaced by Grace, and who wanted to continue keeping the Ten Commandments.

The New Covenant of Grace is all about God’s Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peter then recounted an incident that happened to him many years ago, when he saw Jesus transfigured on the mountain.

“After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him. Peter answered, and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you want, let’s make three tents here: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. Behold, a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.” When the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces, and were very afraid. Jesus came and touched them and said, “Get up, and don’t be afraid.” Lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, except Jesus alone. As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Don’t tell anyone what you saw, until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.”” (Matthew‬ ‭17:1-9‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The transfiguration was firmly etched in Peter’s mind. He saw Jesus’ majesty—the glory He had before His incarnation.

But right after seeing that, he was starstruck when he saw Moses and Elijah who appeared and spoke with Jesus.

Moses is the mediator of the Old Covenant of the Law, while Elijah is one of the most highly esteemed Old Testament prophets.

He stumbled over these two great men of God, and put Jesus on the same level as them by asking if he should pitch three tents for them to stay in.

God the Father was displeased by this, and He overshadowed Jesus, Moses and Elijah with a bright cloud, and told Peter, James, and John to listen to Jesus only.

Moses and Elijah disappeared, and the apostles only saw Jesus alone.

This is the way God the Father intended—for His Son to receive all the glory, honor, and majesty.

Under the New Covenant of Grace, the “present truth” is that we listen to Jesus alone.

It is not about keeping the Ten Commandments or observing the ominous warnings of the prophets anymore. Don’t be deceived by “cunningly devised fables” invented by the minds of men who seek to use the Law to enforce behavior modification on ignorant believers.

The entire Bible is about Jesus and the revelation of His story.

“Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke‬ ‭24:27‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Notice how Jesus expounded the Scriptures to Cleopas and the other disciples on the road to Emmaus, by explaining to them the things concerning Himself. Moses refers to the first five books of the Old Testament which were written by Moses, and the prophets are represented by Elijah.

Both Moses and Elijah are pointing to Jesus Christ who would be born as a Man to redeem mankind from their sins by dying on the cross, and eventually, Jesus will return to reign on David’s throne as the eternal King of Israel!

Did you ever wonder why Jesus only brought Peter, James and John to the mountain? I believe they were chosen because of their names.

Peter means “stone”, representing the Law which was engraved on stone tablets. James means “to supplant” (to be replaced). John means “grace of God”.

Putting their names together, we derive this meaning: the Law has been replaced by Grace.

The Law is the former truth, while Grace is the present truth which we are to be established in. We need to be constantly reminded of this truth so that we can keep our eyes on Jesus. Like Abba God said from the bright cloud, “Listen to Him.”

“For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” (John‬ ‭1:17‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

No matter what challenges you are facing today, choose to keep your eyes on Jesus, and let His Spirit lead you. Jesus is the full realization of grace and truth. He is God’s righteousness. We must stop mixing the covenants and live by Grace alone!

——

When you understand the four gospels through the lens of the New Covenant of Grace, you will be empowered to bring forth fresh revelations about God and Jesus from the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament.
When you get this four eBook bundle, you will learn the meaning of every one of Jesus’ miracles, parables and incidents.
Let this resource replace wrong legalistic beliefs, and position you to receive the abundance of God’s Grace through unhindered faith!

A customer, Linda B, said this about the eBook bundle: “Well worth the money. Wish I had done it sooner. Wonderful study.”

Download “Understand the Four Gospels Through the Lens of Grace” now ===> https://www.miltongoh.net/store/p18/understand-the-four-gospels-through-the-lens-of-grace.html

I suppose we can only vlog so much,
but taking pen to paper and writing down thoughts and ideas,
leaving fond memories to look back at is quite precious.
we started just last night our new habit for 2018,
and we hope we can keep it up for a few moths more haha
... it's kinda like a conversation I had during dinner yesterday...
what had happened took place only 2 years ago,
but I was struggling to remember it exactly...
no worries, it's all safe with our diary now
thx mum and dad❤️

hope you've all had a great start to 2018❤️

not sponsored


______________________________
______________________________


filmed with Olympus EM5ii https://www.olympus.com.hk/tc/omstore/details.html?pcd=31&mid=645
lens 12-40mm M.Zuiko Pro https://www.olympus.com.hk/tc/omstore/details.html?pcd=4&mid=349

On a night the Philadelphia 76ers reached 50 wins for the first time in 11 years, they honored the leader of their last 50-win club.

The 76ers became the first Eastern Conference team with 50 wins this season as they retired Charles Barkley's No. 34 and rode Allen Iverson's near triple-double to a 102-89 victory over the woeful Golden State Warriors.

"That's great because I've never been on a team in the NBA that won 50 games," Iverson said. "It's great. It all comes together. Everything that happened with Charles, winning the game, it being our 50th win, it was just a great night."

"It's a tremendous accomplishment," 76ers coach Larry Brown said. "Now, hopefully we'll get a little confidence from this game. It is an accomplishment when you consider four or five years ago we won 21 or 22, then 31."

With just their second win in eight games, Philadelphia improved to 50-22, one game behind San Antonio for the best record in the NBA. The 76ers surpassed last season's win total and reached 50 wins for the first time since the 1989-90 campaign.

That team won the Atlantic Division title and was powered by Barkley, who spent the first eight years of his 16-year career with the Sixers and in 1996 was named one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players.

Before a sellout crowd of 20,958 at the First Union Center, Barkley was honored in a halftime ceremony that included many family members, former coaches and teammates. He was brought to tears by a standing ovation and repeated his desire to enter the Basketball Hall of Fame as a Sixer before a banner bearing his No. 34 was hoisted to the rafters.

"It was especially nice with Charles here," Brown said. "The ceremony was phenomenal, seeing his number go up. He meant a lot to this franchise and this league. I personally admire the hell out of him. I thought it was really nicely done."

The prolonged ceremony seemed to spark the Sixers, who have had their troubles in the third quarter of late but instead turned a five-point halftime lead into a 77-61 advantage.

Iverson scored 17 in the period, just two shy of Golden State's total. He finished with 35 points, a career-high 11 rebounds and nine assists, just missing his first career triple-double.

"I really wanted it because I never did it before. To have a triple double, that's a great all-around game. And on a night like this when you have one of the greatest players to ever play the game, the whole all-around game, and he gets his jersey retired, it was something I wanted to look back on. It was a great night, my mom got to see Charles get his jersey retired, I got a chance to see it. It was something special, something I'll cherish for the rest of my life."

Tyrone Hill had a season-high 21 points and 14 rebounds for the Sixers, who went 16-12 against the powerful Western Conference this season. Philadelphia has won its last six meetings with Golden State.

Hill has a personal memory of playing against Barkley.

"I remember when I was a rookie and we played them at Golden State," he said. "He said to me `Rookie, you keep playing hard like you've been playing and you'll be in the league a long time.' He knows all about work ethic."

Antawn Jamison scored 32 points for the Warriors, who have lost seven in a row on the road and 22 of 24 overall since the All-Star break.

The Sixers never trailed after using a 7-0 spurt to open a 9-2 lead. They led 23-19 after one quarter and by 10 points in the second period before settling for a 47-42 halftime lead.

The ceremony for Barkley lasted 30 minutes, more than twice as long as a normal halftime, which did not bode well for the Sixers. In their last six losses, they had managed just 102 points in the third quarter.

A 3-pointer by Jamison pulled Golden State within 54-52 with 7:36 left before Philadelphia rattled off 14 consecutive points. Iverson had two 3-pointers and Hill and George Lynch had two baskets each during the spurt, which gave the Sixers a 68-52 advantage with 3:28 remaining.

"Iverson just took over," Warriors coach Dave Cowens said. "We went down by 14 and he made two 3-pointers. Of the 14 points, he accounted for six of them. Great players step up when they have to and that's what he did tonight. That's when the game got away."

"We knew that we couldn't let then stay in the game and gain some confidence," Hill said. "So, we stepped it up defensively and we got some easy baskets and got some easy looks."

Philadelphia led 77-61 entering the fourth quarter and opened its largest lead at 92-71 on a basket by Jumaine Jones with 6:25 to go.

Kobe Bryant, often unstoppable, played at a
higher level than even he imagined possible.

The Los Angeles Lakers' star scored a phenomenal 81 points
Sunday night -- the second-highest total in NBA history -- in a
122-104 victory over the Toronto Raptors.

Only Wilt Chamberlain's storied 100-point game nearly 44 years
ago ranks higher.

"Not even in my dreams," Bryant said. "That was something
that just happened. It's tough to explain. It's just one of those
things.

"It really hasn't, like, set in for me. It's about the `W,'
that's why I turned it on. It turned into something special. To sit
here and say I grasp what happened, that would be lying."

The Lakers trailed by as many as 18 points early in the third
quarter, angering Bryant.

"He was ticked off," teammate Lamar Odom said.

When asked what Bryant said at that stage, Odom replied:
"Nothing. That's when it's bad."

Bryant scored 51 points after the Raptors extended a 63-49
halftime lead to 71-53. The Lakers outscored the Raptors 38-14 to
finish the third quarter to go ahead for good.

"That was incredible, remarkable," Odom said.

Bryant, the NBA's leading scorer, left to a standing ovation
with 4.2 seconds remaining, having shot 28-of-46 from the floor,
including 7-of-13 from 3-point range, and 18-of-20 from the foul
line.

With the 18,997 fans at Staples Center chanting "MVP! MVP!"
Bryant made two free throws with 43.4 seconds remaining for his
final points. He scored 27 points in the third quarter, 28 in the
fourth.

"We are on a journey, and to put on a show like this for the
fans here in L.A. is truly something special," Bryant said. "I
grew up in front of these people, and now they are seeing me as an
older, young man."

The 27-year-old Bryant joined the Lakers out of high school, and
is in his 10th NBA season.

Chamberlain scored 100 points for Philadelphia against the New York Knicks at Hershey, Pa., on March 2, 1962, shooting 36-of-63 from the field and 28-of-32 from the foul line while playing all 48 minutes.

Chamberlain had 59 points in the second half -- the only player
with more points in a half than Bryant's 55 after halftime in this
game.

Chamberlain's second-highest total was 78 against the Lakers in
three overtimes on Dec. 8, 1961.

Michael Jordan's career high was 69 points, and only four
players had ever scored more than 70 -- Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor,
David Thompson and David Robinson.

Bryant made it five. His previous career high was 62 points
during a 112-90 victory over Dallas last month -- he sat out the
fourth quarter because of the one-sided nature of the game.

"I was just determined. I was just locked in, tuned into what
was going on out there," Bryant said. "These points tonight
mattered. We needed them. The points I put in the basket were
instrumental. It means a lot more."

Bryant raised his scoring average to an NBA-leading 35.9 points
this season.

"I never imagined I would see history like that," said Devean
George, a teammate of Bryant's with the Lakers for 6½ seasons. "I
can't tell you where that came from. He just kept attacking,
attacking, attacking -- every time he got the ball."

Bryant played nearly 42 minutes, going the entire second half
until being lifted by coach Phil Jackson.

Jackson coached Jordan and the Chicago Bulls to six
championships in the 1990s and the Lakers, with Bryant and
Shaquille O'Neal, to three more titles, from 2000-02.

"That was something to behold," Jackson said. "It was another
level. I've seen some remarkable games, but I've never seen one
like that before."

Baylor held the Lakers' previous franchise record of 71 points
at New York on Nov. 15, 1960. Lakers special assistant Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar, the NBA's all-time leading scorer, saw that game,
too.

"Elgin's game was an incredible performance, also,"
Abdul-Jabbar said. "I don't think there's any comparison. Elgin
did it without 3-point lines. His game was attacking the hoop and
hitting jumpers inside 20 feet. Kobe's range is unreal, and he does
it his way.

"It was a real treat. His ability to shoot from long range and
also attack the hoop, split the defense and get in close for
opportunities near the basket is unique. He's made a niche for
himself, and he deserves it."