okay, being bored as usual, i watch some old movies that i have and some new ones that i rented from the video store in my neighbourhood. i was going to rent the lord of the ring series, but the fellowship was not available, so i ended up getting "keeping mum", "akeelah and the bee", and "fast and furious: tokyo drift".

keeping mum

anyway on saturday i watched "notting hill" and "mickey blue eyes", was going for a hugh grant hatrick but i just watch "briget jones' dairy" the other day so.. and today i watch the videos rented from the store. "keeping", "akeelah", and "fast"

okay anyway this entry isn't about videos or the likes of it. its actually about a much more serious topic. in the movie "keeping" there is actually a scene, no wait, two scenes showing the vicar's daughter's breast.

i was, how should i say, pleasantly surprised? haha. then again its a video i got from the video store. isn't those scene edited out by some censors before releasing it into the market? i was thinking holy, now what would happen if children sees it. i could still vividly remember times when i was just a boy and my mom would cover my eyes whenever there is a kissing scene on television. and now they are showing breasts; on home videos no less.

then i caught myself. it's just breasts. why am i making a big deal out of it? just as julia roberts' character asked hugh grant's in the movie "notting hill". she said "why are men so interested in breasts? every other person in this universe has a pair of it. your mum has it, your sister has it, they are used for feeding for god's sake."

and i guess my answer is the same as hugh's. "i don't know. let me take a look and find out." haha

sigh its the time of the year again, birthday. let see what i have done in the past year.

november - finished an upgrading course, posted back to ship
december - can't remember
january - went thailand to learn diving
febuary - sailing, and seeing bahrain for the second time
march - sailing, visited dubai and fujaira*
april - sailing
may - sailing, had a huge row with my immediate supervisor, went for the first 99.oo dollars haircut at le salon when back in singapore, a pair of girls asking me for a threesome
june - went thailand for hoidays with neighbour
july - bought 3ooo dollars worth of furnitures
august - had a girlfriend, went to bbdc to take up driving theory, thought up a business plan
september - broke up with girlfiend, neighbour told me she's getting married
october - got my basic theory, when for a meet-the-man session

scary thing it really is because thinking back i realise i have not really achieve anything significant over the past year.

quadra pop 3d

i don't even dare to play quadra pop anymore for fear of deleting your name from the high score list. not very smart am i.

g loves j, and j said she loves g too. so why can't  they be together?

i told the little girl that most of the time there is always the one who is giving more and the other taking more it's never really 50-50, it's more like 70-30, or 60-40. and this litlle girl surprise me by telling me that it wasn't really a matter of 50-50, it should be love when it's 100-100, when each person is giving as much as they are able to give.

j feels that one day g would leave her because she isn't able to give enough. but does j knows that g loves j too much to care about the quantity she's giving. besides it isn't the matter of how much you give, but the fact that you have given as much as you are able to.

j wanted to break up, g doesn't want to. j kept asking to breakup, and g tries not to, but after awhile he wasn't sure about whether or not j still loves him?

why would anyone let go of the person they love?

ultimately g did let go of the relationship. he doesn't want j to feels that he is a cockroach, because j so adamantly wants to go.

j wanted to go because she is afraid that one day she would be hurt when g leaves. and g let go because he is afraid if he persist to hold on to the relationship, he might be treated like a cockroach.

why would anyone let go of the person they love? selfishness is perhaps the reason.

ever wonder why are oriental people are smaller in size as compared with our western counterparts? well after a tcss session with a friend of mine, we've come up with this theory. and it goes like this: it all boils down to "kungfu"..

yup you heard me right "kungfu"! the reason why we the oriental species never had the need to outgrow our petite frame is because we have kungfu. whereas in the culture our western counterparts size counts for everything. the bigger you are the less likely you are going to be slamed by your opponent, and the more likely you are going to win the wrestling match, but whereas we have "wu ling gao shou" and they are usually smaller in size and more agile in movement. growing into too big a size would be rather cumbersome when it comes to flying from your rooftop to your next-next-door neighbour's roof.

just look at the tv you'll know. look at all the wwe's wrestlers which one of them weights less than 200 pounds. triple h, kevin nash, and oh classics like hulk hogan, razor ramon, to name a few. i think they weights an average of say 280 pounds? ya i think thats about right. and 280 pounds is equivalent to about 127 kg. impressive.

and now let's compare them with the heroes with kungfu we see on tvs. look at wong fei hong, regardless of whether its played by jet li or jacky chan, they hardly weight more than 70 kg. or look at the yang guo played by andy lau or louis koo, again they hardly weights more than what 70 kg? featherweight when compared with the farangs.

so yes, that's the idea of kungfu in relation to our physical difference when compared with a farang.

note: farang is basically angmoh in the thai language.