Mailyn

Thank you. Much appreciated. I am still none the wiser. After reading four of her articles, I can not see why someone would label her a weirdo (in such a negative way) or why that same person would 'hate' MDL for not 'firing' her because of them. The articles themselves, are unpolished - much as I would expect from a fan, amateur writer, or one of my students - but other than that... unless it is for a different reason entirely.

I don't know. I have never heard of her - and to be honest, I don't go out of my way to note who writes something as I am more interested (or not by the time I have read it) in what was written. I shall have a quick look. Thank you. P.S. I found her page but again, I would not know how to find someone's articles.

Sorry, but are you replying to the wrong person? I was not the one who said "If proven guilty." I was quoting somebody else - hence the quote marks.

I, too, as a mature, intelligent and fair-minded person care about proof and guilt and proportion - just as I care about the damage that is done to anybody, not just celebrities, which is done by toxic people of which 'fans' are only a small part. So, you misunderstood the the meaning or the context of "Does that make me a 'murderer by proxy'." You were lumping everybody together, and I objected to you including me (as one of everybody) in your accusation. Let me put it another way. According to you, if I invite a colleague to read / comment on this post, then s/he, too, will immediately become a 'murderer by proxy' of anybody who might kill themselves anywhere in the world over something which zealous fans (or anti-fans) may have written. Do you get it now? Don't include me, or other innocent people, of being part of that toxic lifestyle. I am not a knetz - whatever that is, or a 'fan' and I am not interested in the lives of celebrities. Anything that I learn about them is from reading posts on MDL.

By the way. Do you realise that what you are saying is that we should never find people guilty of crimes in case they kill themselves. You also sidestepped the fact that tax avoidance is a crime whether you (or I) like it or not.

It was not my theory. I was quoting a source "Under Chinese law and judicial interpretations..." which discussed the legal position - as I stated. Neither did I say that I believed or disbelieved her statements. I was quite clear in that I said my own opinions were not germane to the conversation. Thus, given that my opinions were NOT given, how can you accuse me of being naive? I too, am old enough to know better (I have been driving for 55 years) - but you still missed the whole point of my post. You STATED (objectively) that it was a 'clear case of hit and run' without clarifying that it was your opinion (subjective) or saying whether you were referring to the laws of China or of your own country. That is, you did not back up your claim. My post was about your claim and not the actresses claims - false or otherwise.

Under Chinese law and judicial interpretations:
Leaving the scene for legitimate emergency medical treatment is not considered hit‑and‑run.

If the driver leaves to save their own life, and does not intend to evade responsibility, and can be located or contacts authorities afterward, then it is not treated as 肇事逃逸 [zhào shì táo yì].

Leaving a passenger at the scene actually strengthens the argument that the driver was not trying to escape responsibility.

I don't know what your nationality is but, whatever your opinion is about her actions, you can not accuse her or something which is against your own country's laws rather than hers.

(If my source is correct) Chinese law would not treat this as hit‑and‑run, and Western terminology would not call this hit‑and‑run, because no person was struck.

My opinion on whether or not she committed a crime is not germane to this post. An assistant claiming falsely to be the driver... Well, that is a different matter.

Yes. I agree. If she needs emergency treatment she should be able to leave the scene if a responsible passenger could be left in charge (after the police were notified). I can even understand (not condone) why Xu lied and said that she was driving the car but - just why did she (the actress) need to cancel the insurance claim? I suppose it depends on whose name it was filed under.

Just what is a 'dev'? Do you mean developer? And just who is 'this Alice weirdo' and what does she have to do with this article? As for standards of writing - I know nothing about your sister's ability to write but yours, I'm afraid, is seriously lacking. This, in itself, is not an issue but, as you, quite hypocritically, attack somebody else's writing with your own poor grammar and punctuation, I find it a tad annoying.

Really? And you do?
I believe that rich people should not be allowed to evade paying taxes in ways that the normal working person could never do. Does that make me (a normal taxpayer) 'psycho' (whether eager or not)? Does that mean that if a person that I don't even know is 'driven' to suicide (as a result of committing an illegal act ) that I am a murderer by proxy? You don't even allow for the fact that this person said, "If proven guilty of course." It is okay to have an opinion - as long as one is actually opining and not just emoting. In argument, one should attack what is said, and not the character of the one who says it - without resorting to colourful rhetoric.

Well said.

Perhaps management staff should also take note of this - as I understand that a lot of abuse of actors comes from within.

I, too, am annoyed by some drama endings - more so the ambiguous or perplexing ones than the sad ones. I have just gone back to re-watching some of the older sageuks - as I needed a change.

I skipped to the end without watching any of the episodes to see if she died (as the title implies). I saw the part where she supposedly dies. So how did she come back? (There was no explanation - unless hints are given throughout the drama)

Can anyone tell me...

Really? Can't she write? Can't she show him their marriage certificate? If that is missing, can't she get a replacement?* Of course she can, but then there would be no angsty drama to watch for those of us with nothing better do (at 4 o'clock in the morning) whilst we are awaiting something better. Hmm. Make that 'far' better.

Afterthought - just three minutes later. Does he ever question just how he is able to understand sign language. I shall be extremely annoyed if this issue is not addressed - long before he gets his memory back. 😒

Edit.
*She receives a phone-call in the car, saying "You've been married for three years..." So, if they are not married, why does he think that her mother would say that? Unless he thinks that he was tricked into marriage by his secretary and her mother. Even more😒now.

My opinion - after just watching 2:30 minutes.

Thanks. I shall put it on hold whilst I catch up on other dramas.

How toxic is the relationship between the leads - if at all? Is this another run-of-the-mill superficial drama about a red flag male lead or is the relationship / story more nuanced than that?

Yes. You are right. They are not so entitled - or shouldn't be, anyway. I tell people on MDL that I am not a 'fan' (as such - because of the connotations) because I am not even interested in, let alone fanatical about, the lives of actors and the points garnered on Douban - whatever that is.

Yes, I know that you were, but your wording was ambiguous (as I think you realised from your second reply). You are quite right about your description, but not all parasocial relationships are unhealthy. Apparently, they can be very healthy too. (Like a lot of things - they can be abused.) Also, it is not a new phenomenon, either. (Even the Romans new about such relationships!)
If you want to know more have a look at
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/parasocial-relationships

Do you mean as opposed to those parasocials who a) don't obsess or b) don't turn into haters? Or are you saying that all parasocials are fanatics?