Heard this morning's broadcasting about an angry husband's blame on me.
I heard I was blamed for ridiculously announced a child for him. Well, my famous "It must be the deservedness" comment was echoing the episode that, rumored, his wife proudly produced, which featured how the husband, together with his cousins, all sharing a child each from the same woman. I was just echoing the story I heard that was broadcasted, never the authentic source for its accuracy. The husband's anger targeting me is ridiculous and absurd enough.
Gosh, the wife is talented. I heard she mimicked every single person's voice that was featured for the first almost 2/3 of this morning's episode, including my current "got a flu voice".
So, I won't be the person to worry about my web blog's public access, as announced without a "note", by the Chinese team.
----Nov. 28th, 2018
About my web-gifting idea, if it is intrusive to every warm-heart or hot-heart people's privacy if I asking too much information to gift?
I have no such intention to be intrusive. As I said, I only intend to personally gift to my friends or relatives that I do mind if gifting to someone who is negative enough or even harmful to me, and I do appreciate every warm-heart, hot-heart persons kindness to me. Everything else I don't need to know as long as it is lawful for me to gift, such as a checkbox to acknowledge "not to use for unlawful activities", or a note to myself how much is the max appropriateness for this friend for per tax year or per event, or a combined max if appropriate only for both per year and per event, etc.. I am thinking how not to be intrusive. I reject the idea to out-source the evaluation of my own appreciation or the gifting to my friends or relatives.
----Nov. 28th, 2018
Also, some said if this would encourage somebody to "violate laws on my behave" to demand gift from me?
I say this somebody would need to check if I have money for this person to demand first, and if I have money which certainly means I am protected by laws effectively to have my lawful money, well, it means I am the person will put a note on that web-gifting website to remind everyone that Laws forbid financial rewarding efforts to encourage anyone to violate laws.
Currently, the money "still in concern" if can be my money are those paid out providing that I have not received yet (such as $400Million per year), and some intellectual incomes I earned. I am obviously safe and well protected by laws. I will reject any demand for me to reward any violating laws efforts.
----published on Nov. 29th, 2018
If I would ever accept the recommendation of "friends list" from somebody who publicly denounced my eligibility to be an associated to that somebody self?
I say why would this can be anybody's expectation for me? Especially those who are so denounced me because of my so not so rich childhood.
My answer for this type of curiosity is: I will do my own decision based on the list itself, my personal gifting is to my personal own friends, not whoever's personal own friend(s).
----Nov. 28th, 2018
我方敏现在是在美国有名的大学名城，麻州波士顿。很多以前在中国的认识的一些人的小孩可能也都已经到了可以出国留学的年经了，也可能会在波士顿念书。我相信他们这些做了家长的，肯定是不希望自己的孩子有任何麻烦，我本人也不认为他们的孩子远道而来就有能力帮得上我的忙，更不用提在目前的大环境下是否有意愿。我没有任何需要就我是否有合法的巨额财产而向任何人说明的地方，我有钱没钱都是一切是法律一切依据法律。
我的态度也就和二三十年前上学时一样，就只是坐在一间教室里上课而已，同学之间确实没有任何互相需要的地方，也不应该有任何利益冲突的地方，当年大学毕业因为“哪来哪去”政策连毕业分配同学之间都没有任何利益冲突。现在最多也就只是在同一个城市而已，所以我的态度也就和二三十年前上学时一样，处得来出，处不来不处。这么多年没交往，家家日子也都过的挺好。美国有法律，也就是在同一个学校上过课而已，又不是谁欠了谁的，没什么必须交往的，也不应该有什么就是不准交往的。
对这些人当中的一部分人来说，我方敏就是死绝了他们都不会在乎，有些甚至巴不得我早死早好，我还有什么方面包括有钱没钱，有孩没孩，是他们居然会如何在乎的？要是居然在乎了，又是为谁在乎，为什么原因在乎？我方敏也没有任何需要他们的地方？我方敏也不会在乎盼着我早死的这些人？
----2018年11月28日。