A Mafan

Last year for CNY one of the things I sent her was a wrist watch. I mailed it and then remembered about the clocks. I was freaking out but she told me it does not apply to wrist watches. I dont know if she said that to let me off the hook. It doesn't apply to wristwatches because the superstition is regarding a homonym of "sending a clock" (song zhong). Sending a wristwatch (song biao/song shoubiao) cannot have the same homonym.

But they ARE "gotcha" questions - you start off with "It seems". Why does it seem? You are reading WAY more than what is in front of you - both in the papers and here on the board. It would take a lot more to convince me that global warming is NOT happening than it took to convince you that it IS happening. Cold temperatures are colder than warm temperatures - that's all I'm agreeing to. Everything else seems like pure politics and economics. Fair enough. FWIW, I analyze everything. It is my job, my hobby, and probably just part of my personality. I always seek to understand everything I encounter. Sometimes that results in overanalyzation, overthinking. Sometimes I make a wrong assumption, and actually get onto a completely wrong path that is a bigger mistake than just over-analyzing. But because I do it so much, I get more out of it than some might think. It has certainly made my life much better, and directly or indirectly improved the lives of dozens of others, if not hundreds. So I'm not going to stop now.

You seem to think that cold weather should not ever be averaged into the global average. Why is that? At what point could extensive, broad-area, multi-year record colder weather convince you there is no global warming? If actual cold weather measurements don't mean anything, then why do adjusted hot weather measurements convince you? This isn't an argument, these are serious questions. Why would it seem that way?? Why would actual cold weather measurements not mean anything? You need need to get out of your own box, guy! Face what you have, not what you imagine and, most of all, . . . NOT what you read in the papers!. Because just about every time someone mentions unseasonably or record cold temperature, you mention a refrigerator analogy, implying that anti-global warming folks are using cold weather to deny global warming. I'm not sure what box you think I'm in. You'll have to be more specific. I'm always happy to answer honest questions asked in goof faith (i.e., not "gotcha" questions). I assure you these are not "gotcha" questions. I'm also not sure how the box you think I'm in impacts my questions to you. I haven't been posting anything about unseasonably cold weather, nor am I one of the people saying it directly disproves global warming. In any case, I'm still curious: what would it take to convince you that global warming is not happening?

You seem to think that cold weather should not ever be averaged into the global average. Why is that? At what point could extensive, broad-area, multi-year record colder weather convince you there is no global warming? If actual cold weather measurements don't mean anything, then why do adjusted hot weather measurements convince you? This isn't an argument, these are serious questions.

Eats like a bird at home, but wears her hollow legs to the buffet.

Selfless when they feel secure Responsible Pragmatic Passionate/Hot-tempered Blunt (regarding some things) Indirect (regarding their own needs) Prideful

No argument that everyone is an individual. No argument that the variation within a population is often greater than between two separate populations. However, men and women are different. US culture and Chinese culture are different. There are ways men talk/think about money, love, sex and marriage that tend to be somewhat in common. Likewise, there ways women talk/thinkabout money, love, sex and marriage that tend to be somewhat in common. The words used are the same, but the meanings attached to those words vary based on the perception filter of both gender and cultural assumptions. While there are always exceptions, there is great value in trying to find the most common views of American males and explaining them to Chinese females in terms they are more likely to understand, and in trying to find the most common views of Chinese females and explaining them to American males in terms they are most likely to understand. It can't be 100% accurate, of course. No one ever claimed that, least of all me. There is often shock and dismay and even hostile reactions when some things are said bluntly, but that is usually because it involves a paradigm shift to accept. People hate shifting their paradigms. Some people would rather attack the messenger than let go of deeply-believed illusions. Still, as inaccurate and occasionally unhelpful as generalizations might be, they are the best way we have to communicate our experiences and observations to help other people through a tough time. If everyone is different, if there is nothing in common, if generalizations should not be allowed, if observation/analyzation/assessment is never going to be even partially correct, then there is no reason for this board to exist and everyone is a fool for participating. If everyone is different, and there is no common element of Chinese women or American men to be recognized, then there is no point in discussing how to get visas, how to answer GUZ questions, how to deal with relationship problems, etc. But people have been helped, this site is useful, we aren't fools for seeking help and seeking to help through this board. So if you think everyone is different and this topic is useless, don't participate. Humor those of us who think we see common elements.

I think you're right. But she feels a loss of face. Divorce is still frowned upon in China. People are expected to find a way to work things out. She may be afraid that you will judge her by her parents' marriage failure, perhaps decide she is damaged fruit from the tree of her parents' failed marriage? She might not be able to put it into words, so asking her directly might not help. Dunno.

Because they don't have out-of-control spending is part of it, true. But we got out of the recession caused by the Sept 11th attack on our economy by cutting taxes. It increased confidence in the idea that people could keep more of their money if they worked harder, so they worked harder. It may be counterintuitive, but it works. And I'm confident China's economic growth after this will help provide more evidence.

There's nothing to argue. For the vast majority of characters (including these two), the right side of a character is about the pronunciation group, and has nothing to do with meaning. But the original post was tongue-in-cheek. Is that a classical or modern argument? In classical chinese, fewer characters meant more meaning.... I'm sure you know this. I sense you want a modern interpretation and I tend to always look at the classical usage. So we may differ in interpretation. i want to know a meaning for the last few thousand years, not the last few hundred. »éÒö didn't exist until, well, »éÒö existed. Its formulation is what is valid here. Since Òö is constructed so that the left side provides topic cues, and the right side provides pronunciation cues, the meaning of the right side of Òö is immaterial. It isn't being used for pronunciation. Like I said, the original post was tongue-in-cheek. If you want to argue that I'm full of crap, the best way is to point out that the "woman" radical does not necessarily mean a woman. It is often used to indicate family, home, hearth issues.

There's nothing to argue. For the vast majority of characters (including these two), the right side of a character is about the pronunciation group, and has nothing to do with meaning. But the original post was tongue-in-cheek.

In character construction, the right hand side sets the pronunciation, the left hand radical sets the topic. In any case, the inside of the right hand character is "big". If you want to push forward with calling it a man, then I have to point out that the character then clearly indicates that marriage is women putting a (big) man into a small box.

The Chinese word for marriage is »éÒö The right part of each character is the pronunciation basis. The left hand is the topic classification. An expert could probably explain that better, and some characters don't follow that formulation, but that's the basic idea for these characters and this word. Please note that there is no character for "man" anywhere in there. This means that to the Chinese, marriage is all about the woman. Discuss the implications.

Memorize, learn, use, and practice as many of these roots, prefixes, and suffixes as you can. This is also a good list of prefixes. This page contains free worksheets, online activities and other educational resources to help with prefixes and suffixes. I think this website has exercises, but Java is blocked on my work computer, so I¡¯m not sure. Here is another great list of prefixes. You can compare and contrast with the other lists¡­or a different explanation may help you understand it better. This looks like a great place to do some practice quizzes on prefixes (there are some other training quizzes here, too).

Yep, that's what I was talking about. The bastards are targeting Iraqis for mass murder.

For those of you who know where I am and are watching the news: I was nowhere near the event. ...I wasn't sure which forum to put this in, so feel free to move if appropriate.

Bump. I had missed this the first time around.

I'm not sure how much of an expert on China this guy is, so take it for what it is worth:

I would just like to see some tangible evidence it is working. This is not criticism of President Obama; trying to make a fresh start is not bad/evil/wrong. My concern is that no country seems to be responding the way President Obama predicted/wanted.

Huh. I considered it a choice by China, not really criticism of Obama's transparency. Did we read the same article? I went to the one linked in your post. It mentioned that China didn't allow any questions at the beginning, after that, it was pretty much all about Obama. I guess this only proves your point about connecting the dots. I went back and read the article again and reached the same conclusion. It was more about Obama's light-footing it with the press than about any Chinese censorship. I am referring to the article you had linked to in the highlighted sentence in your post. I probably didn't make it clear. Example: someone has a post deleted from a board for racist comments. That's one level of censorship: they are allowed to speak, but restricted from specific topics. Then someone is banned from the board. Even if they would stay away from dangerous topics, they are still unable to post. That's the way I see this. The censorship of President Obama is a higher order of censorship: hundreds of millions of Chinese don't even get to hear him at all, not just hear him cut off for starting to mention the three Ts. Now, I think that is a reactive choice of President Obama, who wants to "restore our standing" in the world by not rocking the boat with people whose good will he wants to earn. I think it is a wrong choice that will not pay dividends. But I recognize it is one of several valid choices made in response to China's decision to prevent President Obama's access to most Chinese citizens. I don't think it President Obama is deliberately attempting to reduce transparency. That may or may not be the end result, but I recognize that isn't the intent by President Obama. The censorship is China's intent.

Huh. I considered it a choice by China, not really criticism of Obama's transparency.

If you could tell they were cutting President Bush off mid-sentence, then so could everyone else. I'm sure urban Chinese were very clear about the three Ts, as well. Perhaps the less-educated rural residents may not have noticed the omission. I think that not even allowing the broadcast of Obama's words to reach the nation is censorship of a higher order. In fact, President Obama didn't take any questions from the press, which marks a departure from previous Presidents. Connecting the dots is always an exercise in judgment.

Is President Obama going to play some hoops with any members of the Chinese bastketball team? That could actually be some effective diplomacy. The best thing the US ever did to win China's love/esteem was make Yao Ming an NBA star...and I'm only slightly exaggerating.

FWIW, I didn't take his questions about Bush's accomplishments to be bashing. I wasn't bothered by it because no one can remember anything, and questions are an attempt to acquire knowledge, or assistance in acquiring knowledge. I also didn't intend my questions about President Obama's accomplishments to be seen as bashing, either. I'm not insisting he has no accomplishments, I am not insisting anything has been screwed up. I guess I didn't make that clear enough. I am hoping someone can remind me of some diplomatic breakthrough or international gain since President Obama took office. I completely accept that I have either forgot or didn't notice one. Anyone can feel free to PM me with answers.