day-16 +3 days

seriously, i think i do have only some slim control on myself.
am i stressed? or not? by some stupid shits? was i stressed? or not? stupid shits are not supposed to make you stressed, or are they?

i'm experiencing some medium level of stomach ache, probably caused by too fresh soda or the stress.
what stress? why are you stressed?

it's the third day that i haven't drunk. i'm not smoking either.
there's no love, thus there's no suffering, either.
somehow it feels like my identity is crashing into itself or just simply collapses.

Dr. Bolo said that there's nothing to worry about. i assume that he has officially regarded me as one of those people who think they are sick but they are not.
should i feel fine after the consulting? but i do feel the uneasiness and minor pain.
he also said that drinking alcohol was not leading to those symptoms that i was talking about.


whatever





 

What about Martin Margiela

About Martin Margiela

Still, I don't get why Sarah Mower and Nicole Phelps got so many negative opinons about MMM's recent women collections. Mostly due to the so-called absence of Margiela in the house. Well, what else beside that? From an amateur's point of view, I can't really tell those differences and the lack of this and that. Indeed I should spend more time on "studying" collections and make some more efforts on "codes reading" but to be honestly, seldom was I into Margiela's show pieces, and I still don't now. From this angle, it's still pretty much coherent, those collections, at least to me.
Of course some of them are better than the others, but that isn't what those critics and journalists are talking about; all they point to is the absence of the person. And that comes along with fashionistas and who-knows-what-wannabes' original opinions/criticisms. Fairly bugging.

The point is that you cannot tell. He's there. He's not there. Who's ever being there? The fun thing is that it's so manipulative. And once again the power of media as well as the enthusiasm of parrots.


Wouldn't it be so simple that it's how they want you to see and to think in a certain way?
By they I mean MMM or the person behind or the person behind the person behind.
Ain't that funny. Drop an ink into a glass of water and see how it becomes. Somehow it coincides with the idea in Le Placard I watched earlier this evening. A hilarious story by the way.

                                                  
So, the whereabouts of Margiela.
It reminds me of collections he made while he's in Hermès when I see Céline's collections lately, especially when it comes to those leather-made garments. Who's doing what? Who's where?
Phoebe is adorable, so is her style.

By the way, MMM's last collection 2010aw isn't that good; I don't have the faintest idea what Sarah were praising about and what Nicole are bitching about the latest one comparing to which.

I might be the dumbest one that care about them after all.

What about Martin Margiela again?

                                                    

Anna Dello Russo by Garance Doré

Well, it's not so eccentric to me.
Does it really seem to be eccentric to the most of people out there? Not really, not really.
It's kinda nice. Is it exaggerating? Not for people there.
The picture is from Garance Doré.

At times you just fail to see the nice side of people, instead you see right through them. Which might

not be the courtesy at the time being.

Anyway, the picture is good, the words are good; as to the figure and the connotation, why care?

alcohol free alcohol

it's kinda difficult to be alcohol-free while there's free alcohol.



that's the dilemma.
or it's not.