tristanism ver3

the three-strike rule: once the third strike comes, its time to change my position (like the character of Mustafa of Will Ferrell on Austin Powers, where he had to be asked the same question thrice before he gives the answer)

ok, this is something hard to explain because its a case to case basis. so let's start with examples.

Civil Procedure
there was a time during the semester the professor gave me chances to get a decent grade on my recitations on her class. how many chances? three in all. i tried not to drop the subject, thinking i can pass it. but for some reason, i gave some weight on the three recitations, which was more of, three chances. and these recitations made me reconsider on my position that i will not drop the subject as much as possible. i construed the third time i failed on the recitation as a sign that im out of the game. third strike im out. to get a fourth strike would just make me sink deeper. and the chances of trying to erase those three strikes is so small, that it would be a very big risk to continue. add to the fact that the work load is making me crazy and stressing me out.

Haircut
it took three hints from my professor and three playful remarks from my blockmates referring to the professor's hints, before i decided to get my haircut. first is when the professor suggested during class that if my classmate fails to get the right answer, i will have my haircut. second is when he told a story of an applicant who had long hair only to be asked by the interviewer to have his hair cut. the third is when it was my turn to recite, and again took notice of my hair, joking that the barbershop is calling me. as for my blockmates, three of them made comments on the comments of the professor on my messy hair (all in separate instance of course, that's part of the 3-strike rule, it has to be separate and distinct instances). if only leni was able to raise the right to a messy hair before, i would have invoked that. anyway, by the third hint and comments, actually that would amount to six, i decided to have my hair cut.

Finals
(mentioned on my blog entry below...took three messages, one YM, two SMS before i changed my position from March30 to April 10)

Not sure if the examples clarified it but basically the three strike rule is taking three things or instances together, and having the effect of making me change my position come the third "strike". why the change? because i construe the three as signs that i have to reconsider something. why three? like baseball, im out only on the third strike. it means, by the time ive reached the third strike, i've already dug a deep grave for myself, a fourth strike would just make it deeper and would make it hard for me to get out. so before it gets any deeper, i better change my position. its like, three is the limit. one strike can be ignored, two strikes is still a bit acceptable but must be a cause for concern, and the third strike is the point where, it will be tolerated but one more and "you're a dead man".

so in the three examples, when i applied the 3-strike rule:
Example one: drop the subject
Example two: cut your hair
Example three:choose april 10

of course, it was explicit on the second example, and implicit on example one and three, especially on three (it requires interpretation). that is why i chose the three examples, all of them are different, and like i said, the 3-strike rule is a case to case basis thing. of course, its not all negative. it could be positive. example, for a guy to go for a girl, he may apply the three strike rule. if a girl does something in three separate and distinct instances that he construes as positive signs (whatever this means or whatever these are, its up to you...go nuts trying to think of examples...like she has a "wouldn't it be nice" ringtone, she's seen this movie by phoebe cates, she wants a partner in crime, etc), by the time the girl does the third sign, in comes the third strike, so he would have to change his position from being passive to active in trying to establish a romantic relationship between them.

anyway, its hard to really explain this, even i find it confusing.

never doubt the will of a crammer

"never doubt the heart of a champion" they say. but im not a champion, im a crammer. so i say "never doubt the will of a crammer".

so far, it got me somewhere. unfortunately, i doubted a while ago. i was supposed to take my credit exam on March 30 when i had the choice to take it on another later date, much later, April 10. why did i choose March 30? aside from i might be busy during the holy week and after holy week (meaning, i wont be able to study for it anyway), based from my assessment, i can take the exam on March 30th. im a crammer, so the way i saw it, i think i can equip myself with enough information on credit transactions in a few days to get a passing grade on the exam. so when jump told me i could still reschedule since the deadline for informing gladys about it is still hours away, i said im sticking to March 30. when allelu texted me and unintentionally reinforced the fact that im going solo on the exam since the rest of my blockmates are going to take it on April 10, i still stood by my decision to take it on the 30th. but when gladys texted to confirm and again reminded me that im the lone 2D student who will take the exam, i doubted the will of a crammer.

she texted me while i was studying for the exam which was just 27 hours away. why did i doubt? i dont know. maybe i felt i need to aim higher or i just felt the fear of not being able to cram everything. i mean, ok, i can take the exam on the 30th with enough information to get me through the subject, but why aim for a passing grade or why risk it if i have the choice not to cram? besides, it was more than the usual risk because it was my sister's graduation, meaning im going to be away the rest of the day, reducing the 27 hours to 18 hours. and of course, i had to sleep since i do badly on an exam if i have less than 7 hours of sleep. so, i have 11 hours left to study. but i had to reduce it for occasional breaks. so, maybe i have 9 hours left. is 9 hours enough? yes! but only enough to get a decent exam grade at the most, if my mind is in its optimal level (there are times my mind refuses to cooperate, so i have to reboot it by taking a short nap so when i wake up, i can focus on the fact im taking a final exam and not just some seatwork that's not graded or substantial).

anyway, to cut it short, i decided to go for the april 10 schedule. why? since im about to finish studying for credit, even if im busy during the holy week, at least the only thing i have to do is bits of reviews to refresh my memory here and there, and it might give me an opportunity to study more and aim a little higher than just a passing grade. this is one reason. i rarely change my mind or decide on something with just one reason, there has to be other reasons.

the other reason is that, when gladys texted me, i asked myself, is my "3-strike" rule applicable? this means, three persons sort of challenged my decision to push through with March 30 (this isn't the 3-strike rule, the 3 strike rule is when things comes in threes, obviously, and those three things, if taken together in such sequence, have the impact of making me reconsider or forces me to assess or re-assess a situation...hey, this is a tristanism) . they really didn't challenge me, but their queries or the short conversations i had with them made me doubt and re-think my decision to take the exam on the 30th. on the first two, jump and allelu, i was still convinced to take it on the 30th. but then came the 3rd strike, gladys' text message. and
the 3rd strike usually connotes a change in stance. that's why its a strike, im out, and i have to give in to the opposing view. weird way of making decisions but i do it from time to time (like dropping my civil procedure subject).

a third reason is that, it might be a case of courage vs foolishness. sometimes i find it hard to tell the difference between the two. to cram and take the exam on the 30th. is it courageous? or foolish? in any case its a risk. people with courage take risks. but foolish people also do. and unfortunately, there is nothing honorable with foolish risks and most of the time, such risks lead to failure. so i had to decide quickly, since i asked gladys to give me five minutes to decide. will it be foolish for me to continue? of course i wasnt thinking very much of courage, because sometimes, you just take risks but you dont contemplate whether if its courageous thing to do so. you just do it. its only afterwards that you start to think, "hey, that was brave of me to take the exam on the 30th". so if i think its a foolish decision to push through, then that's enough for me to reconsider. i saw it to be foolish because i didnt have to rush things when i have the option to take more time to study. i could use it to master the subject. its good to aim higher from time to time. even if im going to be busy the next few days, since i have read substantially what's supposed to be studied for credit, what i need to cram are those really important points (what the? this means, when i read, i only try to get an idea of things, not a good grasp yet, and at least i know where to find the information i need to remember when i need to memorize something). so, april 10 is the better option in so many ways. the good thing with march30 is that i wont have to worry about anything after april2 except the administrative law project which is due on the 25th of april. i could be busy with other things without being mindful of academic schedules. does that really outweigh april 10? no, so its foolish to choose march 30.

and with those reasons in mind, i doubted the will of a crammer and decided not to be a crammer if i have the option not to be one. why? because there are times cramming doesnt work and maybe my doubt is telling this is one of those. i may think i may be able to cram everything but it's never a guarantee that things will be ok.

rebel ducat

"Oh Hell Yeah" (Stone Cold Steve Austin Theme)
by H-Block

people think they know him, say he's wound a little tight
they say he goes looking for trouble, that he's always ready for a fight
but i think he's just an easy going guy, not crossing any lines
he's a caring individual, most of the time, most of the time?
quite a lot of the time!
its just that...
sometimes he makes a little mess,
sometimes he gets a little angry...
oh well, you know...

some people seem unhappy, with certain things he says
they seem to think he's impolite and uncultured in some way
but he's just an easy going guy, and he appreciates their advice
he believes in self-improvement and always being nice...
well, sometimes being nice...occasionally....
its just that...
sometimes he makes a little mess,
sometimes he gets a little angry...
well, yeah you know


This song somehow reflects who Ducat is, or was, on the 28th of March 2007 (well, modified in a sense that its a combination of the full length and remix versions and omitted inapplicable lyrics, like drinking beer and kicking ass).

What he did was wrong. It's not a case of "the end justifies the means". Like many people say, there are other ways of catching the public's attention to air out such grievances. There are a lot of peaceful forms of protest. He didn't have to get the children involved.

I've watched most of the coverage yesterday, and like Mike Enriquez said, not one of the people who knew him has anything bad to say about him. That is why they were surprised he did this. But then again, that wasn't the first time he held someone hostage. So is he mentally unstable? I don't know. Maybe he's just had enough of it. If he really is nice as people say, then one is bound to get frustrated with this world we live in. Like this episode on My Name is Earl last Tuesday on JackTV where Earl learns about global warming. He tries to do his share of helping the earth and realizes that no matter how much nice things he accomplishes, he gets cancelled out by the rest of the world because the rest of the world is not doing anything to save the planet. So what happened to Earl? He breaksdown! The advice he got was, just do his little share erveryday, and that would make a difference. He need not worry much of the big picture because if he did, he is bound to be overwhelmed and frustrated. Take things one step at a time. Going back to Ducat, the episode doesn't really fit neatly to what might be going through Ducat's mind, but he sounded like someone who's tired of Philippine politics. He did everything he can to make a change but i think he just feels that corruption done by other politicians are undoing his accomplishments. That he had devoted years of helping people but the rest of the world is making those accomplishments insignificant compared to the bad things done daily by insensitive and inconsiderate people. in the end, he probably just had enough of it. he's pissed and he's going to make sure the world takes notice. of course, like i said, i don't approve what he did. he did not have to use those children. but sometimes, a person just loses it. its like the feeling you get when you get a paper jam while printing a paper that's due in an hour. you've used good quality paper and you've followed the instruction manual for the printer, there's no reason why the printer should malfunction. but the paper still jams! why! you've done nothing wrong but the printer just has to piss you off. the next thing you know, you've thrown the printer out the window. ok, that's some analogy.

just woke up and read the papers, and as expected, it's mostly Ducat. there are so many things that can be said about what transpired yesterday but i have to study for an exam.

sorry about that

i forgot i enabled the cross-posting feature of multiply.

i want to be a backpacker!

the movie Turistas isnt that bad. at least not as bad as Pathfinder (see blog entry below...that movie really sucked, im sorry for those who really liked it but like i said to my blockmate, watching youtube videos are more enjoyable). I would have said its an average thriller movie, but its not really scary. so, i guess its just a so and so movie which one can watch (or preferably rent) when there's nothing left to watch. maybe the reason it didnt suck like the Pathfinder is because, well, its still a good movie. the only problem is that its a thriller, but its not scary. so, it failed on its supposed genre but its not something i would say unbearable to watch.

so is Pathfinder unbearable? heck no, its just a complete waste of time. i even managed to finish it hoping to see more of the hot indian girl (aside from hoping it will get better in the end, a fuckin twist perhaps!). i mean, the film already sucked but it would have sucked a million times more if there wasnt a hottie in sight! if im not mistaken, the hot indian was Moon Bloodgood (this is her screen name, not the character's name. come to think of it, aside from the characters of the movie were fuckin underdeveloped, they never had names. well, they had names but they were never really used. i dont think a name of a character was ever repeated more than three times, if not two. maybe i just stopped paying attention).

anyway, back to Turistas, so its not scary, why bother watch it? i dont know. maybe i thought it wasnt that bad because it involved backpackers. i really would like to be a backpacker one of these days (if i had the money and time). right now, i cant be backpacker primarily because i dont have the money. i dont work, so where the hell am i going to get some money? and if i do someday find myself employed, i wont have the time! ok, thats just speculation. anyway, while watching Turistas, i thought, how come i dont get to have that kind of memorable vacations? like, getting stranded in a place and have someone hunt you down, and probably kill you. its exciting right (well if you're some psycho...wait...i am!)? now that would just beat the boredom out of your usual out of towns. just think about it. you're with a group of friends, and then you get stranded in this unknown village (dont worry, this isnt a spoiler). and then the next thing you know, you're in a cat and mouse game and you have to think fast on how to escape the psycho cat (or cats). and not only that, its not only saving your ass, but saving the asses of all of your friends (unless, your evil side kicks in, and you decide to save only some, the better friends, but you know that in the movies, the karma police will come and get you, and you would be dead by the end of the movie). the best part of course is you get to live to tell it to your other friends (not to your family, they'll just have another reason for you not to hang out with your friends).

maybe that's why i didnt find Turistas that bad, i have a thing for backpackers running for their lives.

this movie sucked big time

just saw the movie Pathfinder a while ago and this movie is the worst movie i have seen this year. maybe not only this year, but one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. is it that bad? i dont know, i really didnt like it. there was never a single scene that made me understood what's the movie's point or why they made the movie in the first place. and i dont understand why it got high user ratings from some movie sites (maybe because it wont be released until April in the U.S., so maybe they based their votes on the movie trailer).

anyway, the scene changes sucked (the action scenes were confusing) and the actors are like students making a class project (ok, maybe im being harsh, let's just say, the actors didnt give their best performance in this movie). the accuracy of the film is questionable even if im not even familiar with the historical setting of the movie. i think i saw dogs that looked like rottweilers which were used by the vikings and the indians had this dog that looked like a terrier of some sort. i didnt want to watch the movie again just to confirm whether i saw it right. but i did watch the entire movie, hoping maybe it isnt that bad. maybe it will get better in the end. it didnt. the entire movie really sucked.

i would like to write more on how it sucked but just thinking about the movie again is not even worth it.

how many Spartans were there?

Go tell the Spartans, passerby, That here, by Spartan law, we lie - Frank Miller's 300

just saw the movie 300 a while ago. its a great movie but not that great as most of its reviews seem to say. its something i would say short of awesome. its not something that really blew me away (almost...but not quite). but its not a waste of time either. its a good watch.

is it a must see? it depends. its not something i would highly recommend for everyone. maybe there's just a type of audience for it. it can be enjoyed by most people but i think comic book fans are the ones who would truly appreciate the film. or those who really like the visual style of Frank Miller's Sin City.

anyway, i liked the movie. i like the visual style and the soundtrack's cool. the way they depicted the Battle of Thermopylae was great (i wish history classes could be presented like this). the only problem i had with the movie is that it lacked movie hotties. ok, that's a bit shallow, but hey, its something to be considered, right? King Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo may be hot, but she's not sizzling. aside from that, the movie's ok. it didnt blow me away because...i dont know, it just didnt. like i said, its short of awesome, but still a very good watch if you feel like watching a movie. this is the type of movie which is better to watch in a movie house than on DVD (unless you have a kick-ass home theater system)

nice fairy tale

just finished watching Pan's Labyrinth (or El Laberinto del Fauno for the Mexican title). its really a good movie (no wonder it won 3 oscars and got numerous nominations). Compared to the other fantasy movie ive watched the other day (Bridge to Terabithia), i like this one more. Not that Bridge to Terabithia's a bad movie, actually it was good. it was just more of, well, "for the kids" type of movie. and i didnt get to read the book from which it was based, so i wasnt able to fully appreciate the movie.

as for Pan's Labyrinth, which is a fairy tale movie that's more for adults because of its "seriousness" and scenes that are a bit disturbing for a young audience (vivid depiction of acts of cruelty), this is really a good watch (or maybe im getting tired of American movies...which would explain why i enjoy British comedy recently, because im getting tired of American sitcoms). another thing i liked about it is that the movie is something that is out of the ordinary. its not that kind of movie that you get to see usually. the story, for me, is a bit original and i really liked the way it was made.

one of the actresses in the movie looked familiar because she also starred in Y tu mamá también

where's the bridge? oh there it is...

another movie entry. just watched the movie Bridge to Terabithia a while ago. it was a good movie but unfortunately, it wasn't as good as i expected. well, maybe because of the good reviews it was getting, i was expecting something like a Narnia type of fantasy movie. this just shows how clueless i was of what the movie was about. what can i say, i sometimes rely on the top ten movies of the week and scan the reviews. what i failed to read about the reviews was it was originally a book! i should have read the book first because i would appreciate this movie more if i knew it was a film adaptation. anyway, the movie is really something for kids. weird part about watching this is, 90% of those in the movie house were senior citizens! didnt even see a single kid in the movie despite the General Patronage rating

tristanism ver2

another tristanism

general rule: no matter how much truth is said in jest, its still a joke to me. and, a yes is a yes and a no is a no.

they say jokes are half meant. ok, fine. but for me, that doesnt change the fact that its a joke. and no matter what the joke means, how much truth it contains, whether it be 99.9% true, maybe even 100% true, as long as its delivered by way of a joke, i will not take it seriously. well, most of the time of course, but so far, i havent encountered an exception to my general rule. why wont i consider what is meant in a joke? well, if the person cant say it seriously then why would i take it seriously? if they can say it only through jokes, then im going to treat it as a joke. besides, its a joke, cmon, would you expect me to take a joke seriously? if i do, im just joking, meaning im just pretending that im taking the joke seriously to play a joke on the person who made it.

now, with regard to a yes is a yes and a no is a no, its as simple as that. dont expect me to construe it in any other way. a yes may be a no and a no may be a yes to some people but not for me. if you say yes, i take it as a yes. a no is a no. of course there are exceptions, but those are rare instances, very rare. i dont want to complicate things by giving a different interpretation to a yes or to a no.