關於 trust and respect others ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Unashamed of the Gospel

“For I am not ashamed of the Good News of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek. For in it is revealed God’s righteousness from faith to faith. As it is written, “But the righteous shall live by faith.”” (Romans‬ ‭1:16-17‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

Even if you are outnumbered, still live by what you believe in.

Don’t compromise just because others may think you are weird.

If you don’t stand up for what you believe in, how will outsiders ever respect the faith?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God for salvation. You have this precious treasure that others don’t. If they don’t want it, it’s fine, but you don’t have to act like what you have is worthless.

This God-confidence has to be instilled in your children from young.

The new generation of believers have the pressure of social media and similar things that influence them to crave to be liked.

More often than not, you can’t please God and please the world at the same time.

“The fear of man proves to be a snare, but whoever puts his trust in Yahweh is kept safe.” (Proverbs‬ ‭29:25‬ ‭WEB‬‬)

The one who truly loves you and has your back at all times is God, not man.

Man will betray you when you have no perceived value to them, but God saved you when you had no intrinsic value to Him.

Know this day who deserves your attention and whose words you should obey. You are blood-bought anyway 👍

The enemy has many dirty tactics, but the spiritual weapons we have in Christ are much stronger. He has no defense against what is of God. Learn how Christians can emerge victorious in spiritual warfare in my eBook “Silencing the Serpent”: https://bit.ly/silence-the-serpent-now

#IELTSSPEAKING PART 3 - DẠNG CÂU HỎI "WHY" (Kèm link tải PDF)
🎗Why do some people become workaholics?

Some people work compulsively for several reasons. First, they are genuinely passionate about what they’re doing, so they are willing to spend 12 or even 16 hours a day working on their projects. Second, those people tend to be more competitive than others. They don’t want to be left behind by their colleagues or their peers. So, their top priority is their work, and it’s really hard for them not to think about it. Third, some people immerse themselves in their work because they want to forget their broken relationships or escape from their boring personal life.

Tại sao một số người trở thành người nghiện công việc?

Một số người làm việc một cách ép buộc vì nhiều lý do. Đầu tiên, họ thực sự đam mê những gì họ làm, vì vậy họ sẵn sàng dành 12 hoặc thậm chí 16 giờ mỗi ngày để làm việc cho các dự án của họ. Thứ hai, những người đó có xu hướng cạnh tranh hơn những người khác. Họ không muốn bị bỏ lại phía sau bởi các đồng nghiệp hoặc bạn bè của họ. Vì vậy, ưu tiên hàng đầu của họ là công việc, và thật khó để họ không nghĩ về điều đó. Thứ ba, một số người đắm mình vào công việc vì họ muốn quên đi mối những quan hệ tan vỡ hoặc thoát khỏi cuộc sống cá nhân nhàm chán.

🎗Why do people like to know about the private lives of famous people?

I think people want to know more about what celebrities actually do every day because they want to learn something from them. For example, I’ve learned a great deal by watching YouTube videos called ‘A day in my life’ about Bill Gates or Brian Tracy. I’ve learned how to avoid bad habits and form good habits, how to accomplish my goals and how to make my life more organised. The second reason is curiosity. Ordinary people are curious about how wealthy, successful and famous people actually live, how big their houses are, how much their outfits cost, etc. Those are some of the reasons why many of us are so interested in the lives of celebrities.

Tại sao mọi người thích biết về cuộc sống riêng tư của những người nổi tiếng?

Tôi nghĩ mọi người muốn biết nhiều hơn về những gì người nổi tiếng thực sự làm mỗi ngày bởi vì họ muốn học hỏi điều gì đó từ họ. Ví dụ, tôi đã học được rất nhiều điều bằng cách xem các video trên YouTube có tên “Một ngày trong cuộc đời của tôi” về Bill Gates hoặc Brian Tracy. Tôi đã học được cách tránh những thói quen xấu và hình thành thói quen tốt, cách hoàn thành mục tiêu và làm thế nào để cuộc sống của tôi có tổ chức hơn. Lý do thứ hai là sự tò mò. Người bình thường tò mò về việc những người giàu có, thành đạt và nổi tiếng thực sự sống như thế nào, nhà của họ lớn như thế nào, trang phục của họ có giá bao nhiêu, v.v … Đó là một số lý do khiến nhiều người trong chúng ta quan tâm đến cuộc sống của những người nổi tiếng.

🎗Why do you think people need to show their status in society?

I think the first reason is to build trust. For example, if you are a CEO of a company, whenever you go out, you need to wear a suit, a pair of polished shoes, and an expensive watch to show that you are successful and your business is going well. People, especially your clients and investors, are more likely to believe in you and decide to invest in your company. People need to display their social status so that more people will respect them. These people are usually treated with more respect and admiration, compared to those who don’t show off their status.

Tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng mọi người cần thể hiện địa vị của họ trong xã hội?

Tôi nghĩ lý do đầu tiên là để xây dựng niềm tin. Ví dụ, nếu bạn là CEO của một công ty, bất cứ khi nào bạn ra ngoài, bạn cần mặc một bộ đồ vest, mang một đôi giày được đánh bóng và một chiếc đồng hồ đắt tiền để cho thấy rằng bạn thành công và công việc kinh doanh của bạn đang tiến triển tốt. Mọi người, đặc biệt là khách hàng và nhà đầu tư của bạn, có nhiều khả năng tin tưởng vào bạn và quyết định đầu tư vào công ty của bạn. Mọi người cần thể hiện địa vị xã hội của họ để nhiều người sẽ tôn trọng họ. Những người này thường được đối xử với sự tôn trọng và ngưỡng mộ hơn, so với những người không thể hiện địa vị.

🎗Why do you think politicians and movie stars are famous and popular around the world?

I think the main reason is that they appear too often in the media. Nowadays, newspapers, magazines and social media have a great influence on our society. If you want to become famous, you just need to appear more frequently on TV or in newspapers. And that’s exactly what happens to politicians and movie stars around the world. It’s really hard for us not to pay attention to them when they’re usually in the headlines of famous newspapers or on TV channels.

Tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng các chính trị gia và ngôi sao điện ảnh nổi tiếng và được biết đến trên toàn thế giới?

Tôi nghĩ lý do chính là vì họ xuất hiện quá thường xuyên trên các phương tiện truyền thông. Ngày nay, báo, chí và phương tiện truyền thông xã hội có ảnh hưởng lớn đến xã hội của chúng ta. Nếu bạn muốn trở nên nổi tiếng, bạn chỉ cần xuất hiện thường xuyên hơn trên TV hoặc trên báo. Và đó chính xác là những gì xảy ra với các chính trị gia và ngôi sao điện ảnh trên toàn thế giới. Rất khó để chúng ta không chú ý đến họ khi họ thường xuất hiện trên các tiêu đề của các tờ báo nổi tiếng hoặc trên các kênh truyền hình.

🎗Why do you think people spend so much money buying the latest devices?

People spend a huge amount of money on the latest devices for so many reasons. The first reason is that some people just want to show that they’re rich and cool. They believe that people will admire them when they carry an iPhone X rather than an iPhone 5 or 6. The second reason is peer pressure. What I mean here is that if their friends have the latest version of the iPhone, for example, they have to buy one immediately because they don’t want to be left behind. This pressure pushes them to do so even if they don’t have enough money. They will have to find a way to do it. This is really sad, but this is exactly what is happening around the world.

Tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng mọi người chi rất nhiều tiền để mua các thiết bị mới nhất?

Mọi người chi một số tiền rất lớn cho các thiết bị mới nhất vì rất nhiều lý do. Lý do đầu tiên là một số người chỉ muốn chứng tỏ rằng họ rất giàu có và ngầu. Họ tin rằng mọi người sẽ ngưỡng mộ họ khi họ mang iPhone X chứ không phải iPhone 5 hoặc 6. Lý do thứ hai là áp lực bạn bè đồng trang lứa. Điều tôi muốn nói ở đây là nếu bạn bè của họ có phiên bản iPhone mới nhất chẳng hạn, họ phải mua ngay lập tức vì họ không muốn bị thua kém. Áp lực này thúc đẩy họ làm như vậy ngay cả khi họ không có đủ tiền. Họ sẽ phải tìm cách gì đó để làm bằng được. Điều này thực sự đáng buồn, nhưng đây chính xác là những gì đang xảy ra trên khắp thế giới.

Link PDF page mình lấy tại đây nhé:
https://ielts-nguyenhuyen.com/ielts-speaking-part-3-model-answers-why-do-some-people/
#ieltsnguyenhuyen

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”

Hello, I am umino.Thank you for watching this video.This description uses Google Translate.

People who don't understand Japanese can't understand what I'm talking about in this video. So I will explain it in the summary column.
日本語が分からない人はこの動画で私が喋っていることが全く理解できないと思う。なので概要欄の方で説明をします。

This video was tapping the five kinds of different things. Glass bowls, wooden boxes, styrofoam, small containers, notepads, I think there's something I like about this video.
今回の動画は5種類の様々な物をタッピングした。ガラスボウル、木の箱、発泡スチロール、小さいコンテナ、メモ帳、この動画に何かしら好きな音はあると思う。

There are few views of tapping videos on this channel. I don't know if tapping isn't popular or doesn't suit this channel. Actually I know, this channel is bad. Is tapping popular overseas? Do you talk about tapping with your friends? I will not do it. I think I sometimes do tapping in my spare time. A desk, a smartphone, a car handle, etc.
このチャンネルではタッピングの動画は視聴数が少ない。タッピングの人気がないのか、このチャンネルには合わないのか、私には分からない。実際には分かっている、このチャンネルが悪いんだ。海外ではタッピングは人気ですか？あなたは友だちとタッピングの話する？私はしない。ついつい暇な時にタッピングをすることはあると思う。机とかスマホとか車のハンドルとか。

The video answers viewers' worries. The important point is that you have answered but not solved. In the first place, it would be nonsense if the problem was solved just because someone said something. It doesn't make any sense without the process of getting advice and thinking based on it. I would like overseas viewers to comment if they have any concerns.
動画では視聴者の悩みに答えている。答えただけで解決してないことが重要なポイントだ。そもそも人に何かを言われただけで問題が解決してしまってはナンセンスだ。アドバイスを貰い、それを踏まえて自分で考えるという過程がないと何の意味もないのだ。海外の視聴者も何か悩みがあったらコメントして欲しい。

The problem this time is that I want to be careful about younger children who do not use honorifics, but I do not want to be hated. Probably a consultation of junior high school students.
今回の悩みは敬語を使わない年下の子に注意をしたいけど、嫌われたくないというものだ。多分、中学生の相談だろう。

There is a culture of honorifics in Japan. Basically, it is better to use honorifics for superiors. You must use honorifics even if you have no respect for them. Damn it.
日本には敬語という文化がある。目上の人に対しては基本的に敬語を使った方がいいというものだ。何も尊敬する部分がなくても敬語を使わなければいけない。くそったれだ。

Many people may not know the culture of honorifics, so I would like to talk about what you should do to be careful and not dislike it. The bottom line is that you are serious and hardworking. And I think the relationship of trust with the target person is important.
敬語の文化については分からない人も多いだろうから、人に注意をすることとそれによって嫌われないためには、どうすればいいのかについて話したい。結論から言えば、自分が注意されないような人間であること。そして、注意される人との信頼関係が大事だと思う。

If people who take things seriously are careful, those who are careful will be satisfied. If you want to say something without being disliked by others, it is important to correct your daily activities and gain the trust of others. I can't do that.
何事にも真面目に取り組む人に注意されれば、注意される側も納得するだろう。人には嫌われず自分が何かを言いたいのであれば、日々の行動を正して周りからの信頼を得ることが重要だ。私にはそれはできそうもない。

If you get the attention of your close friends, you'll be able to accept it, but if you're told by someone you haven't spoken to, that would be difficult.
親しい友人に注意を受ければ、それを受け入れることもできるだろうが、あまり話したこともない人に言われた場合、それは難しいだろう。

In the first place, humans may like someone and vice versa. The people here tend to like me relatively, but some people dislike it. (I think seeing people you don't like is a waste of your life.) People who hate me are probably liked or disliked by someone else. What I want to say is that you can't do anything if you fear being hated. Even if you are disliked because you are careful, you should build a relationship of trust after that.
そもそも、人間は誰かを好きになることもあればその逆もある。ここにいる人は私のことを比較的好きだろうが、もしかしたら嫌いな人もいる。(嫌いな人を見ること程、人生の無駄遣いもないと思うが)私のことを嫌いな人は多分他の誰かからは好かれているし、嫌われてもいるはずだ。何が言いたいかというと、嫌われることを恐れていては何もできないぞ。例え注意したことで嫌われたとしても、その後に信頼関係を築けばいいじゃない。

Good night.
というわけで、おやすみの。


イヤホンまたはヘッドホンをつけてお楽しみください。もし動画が良かったら高評価を押していただけると励みになります。

SNS
Twitter: https://goo.gl/Y9uFpW
Twitter(通知用): https://goo.gl/WHEa8c
Instagram: https://goo.gl/sL8M1r
サブチャンネル: https://goo.gl/C7yDgn

無劣化音声の購入はこちらから
https://bit.ly/2ktOOjm

Copyright © 2017 UMINO ASMR All Rights Reserved.

《我在哈佛學的領袖技能》工作坊 : Invitation - 2020年2月8日或15日 (星期六)《Leadership Workshop》9am to 1pm

我曾經在哈佛讀過三年(2012/13/14)教授 Robert Steven Kaplan 的領袖課程。Changed my life!

農曆新年後，連我自己18年創業經驗，我希望和你分享我在哈佛學到及應用了什麼 (幸運地，我公司過去幾年的同事們 turnover 都是近0)，可能令你的領袖能力亦有所啟發。

題目: 六步提升你的領袖能力 (6 Steps to Become A Better Leader) based on Harvard Professor Robert Steven Kaplan's teaching and his 3 books.
日期: 2020年2月8日或15日 (星期六)
時間: 9am to 1pm
地點: Classified Cafe and My Office at New World Tower, 16 Queens Road Central, HK.
人數: 每場限20位，
對象: 免費，但只適合工作經驗5至10年以上的管理人士參與。
教材: 講廣東話，內容是英文
Agenda:
(1) Speed dating, self intro and expectations.
(2) Split into teams of 2 or 3 people.
(3) Go thru the leadership framework by Prof. Robert Steven Kaplan (現任美國達拉斯 Dallas 聯邦儲備銀行行長卡普蘭)
(4) Ask those questions and answer in teams.
(5) 回答你任何對做生意的問題，takeaway value and let's all be friends.

報名方法: 請WhatsApp你的卡片給Suki/Monica +852 9218 5223

我之前關於 Prof. Robert Steven Kaplan 的領袖影片:

https://youtu.be/YVplfngE9KM

https://youtu.be/PhPBbbq9oc0

https://youtu.be/Oloo1uA3UvE

Note: 如果之後你覺得此 workshop 有用，希望你可以考慮捐款 support 我 brother-in-law (Derrick Pang) 創立的 Lifewire.hk 慈善組織，幫助患有罕見疾病的兒童。

http://www.lifewire.hk/tc/support-lifewire/How-To-Donate.html

#哈佛領袖技巧工作坊，#Leadership_Workshop

............................................

Leadership Framework (by Harvard Prof. Robert Steven Kaplan)

A. STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND KEY CHOICES

(1) Ownership Mindset (Leadership is not about position, is mindset)
(2) What Do You Believe In?
(3) Have You Acted On It?
(4) Add Value To Others
(5) Vision (Where? Why? Distinctive?)
(6) Priorities (3 or 4)
(7) Alignment
- People
- Task
- Organization
- You

With active communication of vision and priorites everyday.

..........................................................................

B. DEVELOPING YOURSELF AS LEADER

Understanding yourself:
A. Assess your own strengths and weaknesses
- Write down your own
- Find others write on yours too
B. Finding your passion
C. Value, ethics, morals
D. What is your story? Be authentic

Why leaders fail?
A. Open to learn?
B. Ask questions?
C. Do you listen?
D. Fight through isolation
E. Ok feeling vulnerable

The leader as role model
A. Do you act as role model?
B. What are the two to three key messages you want to send to people?
C. Do your behaviors match your words
D. How do you plan to improve on your weaknesses, and build on your strengths?

Tools to become better leader:
A. Support group
B. Keep a journal (to do, ideas, knowledge, etc)
C. Face to face communication
D. Interview people (how u do it?)
E. Think one level up.
..........................................................................

C. BUILDING RELATIONSHIP (YOU CAN'T DO IT ALONE)

(1) Build Relationship
. Mutual Understanding
. Mutual Trust
. Mutual Respect
(2) Self disclosure
(3) Inquiry
(4) Advice seeking

Build Relationship Exercise:
A. Write down something about yourself that the other person probably doesn't know. Have the other person do the same.
B. Write down a question you like to ask the other person that would help you understand him or her better. The other person do the same. Ask them.
C. Write down an area of deep self doubt. Disclose to other person and ask for advise.

........................................................................

D. GETTING AND GIVING FEEDBACK

Giving and getting feedback
A. Seek feedback and seek coaching .
B. Actively coach others. Coach up and coach down. Are your advice specific, timely, actionable?
- Coaching is watching vs mentoring is telling.
C. Not year end review alone. It will be a verdict. Review frequently.

Communication with peers:
A. Ask why do you work here? What's great?
B. What do you hate about here?
C. Can you suggest what action to improve above?

......................................................................

E. ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF TIME

Managing time
A. Do you know how you spend your time?
B. Does it match the key priorities?
C. 1, 2, 3.
(1) One is related to priorities and must be done by you
(2) Two is related to priorities but can be done by someone else (at least partly)
(3) Three is not related to priorities

....................................................................

F. EVALUATION AND RE-ALIGNMENT

A. Design of company still align with vision and priorities?
B. Blank sheet of paper exercise, what should you / we do? If so, what's stopping you?

END

What’s Better Than Meditation? Using Humor Consistently Can Skyrocket Your Health And Your Ability To Influence Others. Click Here To Discover How To Get To Success And Significance Through The 6 Stages Of Life: http://betterthanmeditation.danlok.link

What’s the secret ingredient to instantly connecting with people and making them like you? In this video, Dan sits down with Karyn Buxman and discuss the story and science behind humor, and how you can apply it in your business or in public speaking to instantly become more charismatic and influence your audience to like, trust, and respect you.

Karyn Buxman is an international speaker, successful author of 8 books, and a neurohumorist. She is a pioneer in the field of applied humor, and more than 500 organizations - including NASA and the Million Dollar Round Table - have hired Karyn to educate, inspire, and entertain their audiences. Karyn is one of 227 people in the world to be inducted into the National Speakers Association’s Hall Of Fame For Speakers.

? SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ?
https://www.youtube.com/danlok?sub_confirmation=1

Check out these Top Trending Playlists -
1.) Boss In The Bentley - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46OWsrbWGPnPW8mvDtjge_6-

2.) Sales Tips That Get People To Buy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Csz_hvXzw&list=PLEmTTOfet46PvAsPpWByNgUWZ5dLJd_I4

3.) Dan Lok’s Best Secrets - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZNmFJUuTRs&list=PLEmTTOfet46N3NIYsBQ9wku8UBNhtT9QQ

Not long ago, Dan Lok was just a poor immigrant boy. He had nothing but a strong desire to get out of debt and make enough to provide for his single mom. With this strong desire, Dan quit his job as a grocery bagger. He dropped out of college. And he became an entrepreneur.

After 13 failed businesses, Dan finally became a self-made millionaire at age 27 and multi-millionaire by age 30.

Fast forward to today, Dan is now an official Forbes Book author with over 13 internationally best-selling books. He’s the founder and chairman of several multimillion dollar businesses. And outside of his business success, he is one of the most-watched, most quoted and most followed educators of our time. In total, his videos have been watched over 100-million times across his social media platforms. His emails are read by over 2,000,000 people every month.

If you want the no b.s. way to master your financial destiny, then learn from Dan. Subscribe to his channel now.

★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★
YouTube: http://youtube.danlok.link
Dan Lok Blog: http://blog.danlok.link
Facebook: http://facebook.danlok.link
Instagram: http://instagram.danlok.link
Linkedin: http://mylinkedin.danlok.link
Podcast: http://thedanlokshow.danlok.link

#DanLok #KarynBuxman #Meditation

Please understand that by watching Dan’s videos or enrolling in his programs does not mean you’ll get results close to what he’s been able to do (or do anything for that matter).

He’s been in business for over 20 years and his results are not typical.

Most people who watch his videos or enroll in his programs get the “how to” but never take action with the information. Dan is only sharing what has worked for him and his students.

Your results are dependent on many factors… including but not limited to your ability to work hard, commit yourself, and do whatever it takes.

Entering any business is going to involve a level of risk as well as massive commitment and action. If you're not willing to accept that, please DO NOT WATCH DAN’S VIDEOS OR SIGN UP FOR ONE OF HIS PROGRAMS.

This video is about Better Than Meditation? The Story And Science Behind Humor
https://youtu.be/p1CvQfxyyB8
https://youtu.be/p1CvQfxyyB8