pls pardon my englishbut i dont understand whether u agree or not to my statement. the first sentence seems like you felt my description of xiao zi is very relevant and pertinent. but ur 2nd sentence seems like you dont really agree on my definition as it left out some important characteristics of xiao zi. Let whichever be the case, what i tried to say was if you had those characteristics, you would be VERY LIKELY a xiao zi.
well, what i am trying to express is, love cant compromise anything; love cant compromise the differences due to different background. And if you can choose a simple life , find someone compatible, why do u want to make life difficult and trying to succumb the difference betw u and ur partner?
i believe you made good argument.
what i have said, said, am saying and will say is seldom with readability; inasmuch as it be dispensed with without any significant lose of amenity.
as regards love and the derived partnership buttressed by affection and intimacy and backed by legislation, it is nevertheless extremely uneasy to forsake the importance of the effects of precondition, as was being well explicated in your previous entry.
as regards love and the derived partnership buttressed by affection and intimacy and backed by legislation, it is nevertheless extremely uneasy to forsake the importance of the effects of precondition, as was being well explicated in your previous entry.
Huasing Association 1999 - 2013