關於 business letter opening ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【DKSH Taiwan 大昌華嘉】#徵才說明會
(DKSH 2018 Campus Recruitment Info session)

想到外商實習嗎?
就是明天!! 快來!! 都來!!


說明會上將讓各位更了解來自🇨🇭瑞士🇨🇭的DKSH，並且針對2018年職缺進行更深入的說明!✍🏻立刻標註你的行事曆，透過以下的連結來報名吧！


Time: 2018/ 3/ 22 (Thu) 12:30 - 14:00
(✨✨提供限量美味餐點😍，預報從速!)
Location:清華大學 台積館 120教室 TSMC Bldg. R120
Sign up 報名表單連結>> https://goo.gl/6vtGyt


🎉【抽獎活動來了 💪】🎉
說明會後將從有確實簽到的名單之中，抽出一位幸運兒，由身經百戰的DKSH Business Development Specialists親自替您一對一履歷健診 👍🏻
給予你在職涯上最直接、最實際有用的建議！


==========-
【職缺】
Business Development & Marketing Specialist(Fulltime)：1 opening
Business Development Intern：6 - 8 openings
【職位描述】
Business Development & Marketing Specialist>>
https://goo.gl/Xkq12a
Business Development Intern>>
https://goo.gl/jvuMot
【申請流程】
Submit your CV & cover letter in English (PDF file)
by Mar. 26 to [email protected]
・Email Title: TEC_Fulltime/Intern_NAME_姓名
・CV Title: TEC_Fulltime/Intern_CV_NAME_姓名
・Cover Letter Title: TEC_Fulltime/Intern_CL_NAME_姓名
【到職時間】
Business Development & Marketing Specialist：July, 2018 (TBD)
Business Development Intern：July, 2018 (TBD)
Location：Taipei Headquarter

➡More Info：https://goo.gl/UqTdQY

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

想起就讀政大的時候，
學校附近都沒有Live house、獨立唱片行，
經常往公館師大跑，
我很希望獨坐文山的政大也能有這樣的氣氛。

得到指南路上的「橘屋」南洋餐館老闆以及小白兔唱片行KK支持，
在那裏舉辦了幾次不插電表演，
也從小白兔帶了CD過去讓大家試聽、選購。
薄荷葉、芭娜娜、Green! Eyes等樂團情義相挺，

幾次活動都有學生族群湧入，老闆很開心，
在眾多指南路上競爭激烈的小餐廳中，
橘屋分外讓人眼紅。
然後警察就來了。

輕鬆的不插電吵不到人，不售票演出當然也沒有違法，
老闆說，可能是附近的商家報警的吧，
雖然沒事，但三番兩次
她害怕，
於是活動嘎然而止。
---------------------------------------------------------

禮拜五晚上，瓢蟲樂隊在 Legacy Taipei 傳 音樂展演空間
舉辦睽違已久的告別演出，
禮拜五早上九點，我們將去台北市議會捍衛我們該有的權利。
這是我們規模龐大的「小眾」市場
不是那些自救「良民」所謂的地下文化。

更何況他們不是良民，
他們只是一群貪得無厭、沒有文化素養的痞子。

如果這個國家的法律獨自落後於全世界，
如果公權力只能保障有錢人，
讓無恥之徒以正義之名，行迫害之實，
那我們就被迫得革命。
(http://thehousenews.com/…/%E8%8B%B1%E5%9C%8B%E6%94%BE%E5%A…/)

To the Fans of Underworld and Independent Art:As you may already know, Underworld is once again in trouble and in need of your support. With this letter, we hope to clarify why we closed in July, why we re-opened in August, and what is happening right now.
Why did we close?
We closed because we could see the writing on the wall. After being open for over 15 years (during which time we had passed all the yearly fire inspections), we were suddenly told by inspectors that our fire exits were too narrow, despite the fact that our space had not been altered, and the law had not been changed.
We were left to conclude that the inspectors had suddenly taken notice of us due to pressure from the Shidahood Association, a group of residents that has made it their mission to close the majority of businesses in Shida, regardless of their legality. Their campaign has been remarkably successful. A quick stroll through Shida reveals a neighborhood in transition, its streets now lined with shuttered storefronts.
Once the Association took notice of us, we knew then that we had a short lease on life. We closed up shop to lick our wounds and consider our next move.
Why did we re-open?
We did not waste any time after closing our doors. We sought the help of the government, trusting that they would have an interest in protecting one of Taipei’s most valuable sources of independent art culture: us.
We were right. The Taipei City Department of Cultural sympathized with our plight and began work on a Livehouse project, which would grant a new form of business license to music clubs around Taipei City. This was indeed great news. Being granted special designation as a livehouse would help protect us from being bullied by the Shidahood Association. The city government even agreed to help us build another fire escape, ensuring that we could remain open despite the efforts of others to shut us down.
Confident now that we had the support we needed, we re-opened in August.
What is happening now?Things have not been going well. Since re-opening, we have seen a rise in the level of harassment from police and government inspectors. The Livehouse project that offered so much hope to the independent music scene has mysteriously stalled. We know now that we will not receive the help we were promised from the government.
It is not our purpose now to speculate on the reasons why, but it would appear as though there are some powerful people in Taipei City that would love to see Underworld shut down for good.
In 10 days we’ve received 2 fines (60,000NT each) from the Taipei City Construction Management. One is due to the fire exits being too narrow (though this should have been prevented by the Livehouse project). The other fine is due to them arguing that our business registration is as a restaurant, which means it can’t be a livehouse. But by this rationale, there can be no livehouses anywhere in Taiwan, because there is no license for livehouses!The fines have begun, and the clock is now ticking. It is only a matter of time before we are extinguished by a group of people who do not value youth culture, who view us only as obstacles in their way.
What can we do?We are going to take the fight back to the government. The main goal of the protest this Friday is to demand that the Department of Culture follows through on their promise to designate us as a Livehouse, and to do it quickly!
10/26(Fri) 9 AM, Taipei City COUNCIL
join Underworld fight for INDEPENDENT ART CULTURE!!
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
SEE U at Taipei City Council 9 am This Friday (10/26) !!!

Watch this video to the end to discover 3 weird and unconventional ways of staying married without killing each other. In it, you’ll discover an Uber driver’s secrets to have a happy marriage.

Enjoyed this video? Click here to watch how to overcome sexual temptation in a relationship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onX4bLDeQSU

★☆★BONUS FOR A LIMITED TIME★☆★
You can download Dan Lok's best-selling book F.U. Money for FREE: http://staymarried.danlok.link

★☆★ SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ★☆★
https://www.youtube.com/user/vanentrepreneurgroup?sub_confirmation=1

Check out these Top Trending Playlist:
1.) How to Sell High Ticket Products & Services: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46PlgDZSSo-gxM8ahZ9RtNQE

2.) The Art of High Ticket Sales - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46NufVkPfYhpUJAD1OBoQEEd

3.) Millionaire Mindset - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46O591glMGzRMoHaIJB-bQiq

Dan Lok, a.k.a. The King of High-Ticket Sales is one of the highest-paid and most respected consultants in the luxury and “high-ticket” space.

Dan is the creator of High-Ticket Millions Methodology™, the world's most advanced system for getting high-end clients and commanding high fees with no resistance.

Dan works exclusively with coaches, consultants, thought leaders and other service professionals who want a more sustainable, leveraged lifestyle and business through High-Ticket programs and Equity Income.

Dan is one of the rare keynote speakers and business consultants that actually owns a portfolio of highly profitable business ventures.

Not only he is a two times TEDx opening speaker, he's also an international best-selling author of over 12 books and the host of Shoulders of Titans show.

Dan's availability is extremely limited. As such, he's very selective and he is expensive (although it will be FAR less expensive than staying where you are).

Many of his clients are seeing a positive return on their investments in days, not months.

But if you think your business might benefit from one-on-one interaction with Dan, visit http://danlok.com

★☆★ WANT TO OWN DAN'S BOOKS? ★☆★
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Lok/e/B002BLXW1K

★☆★ NEED SOLID ADVICE? ★☆★

Request a call with Dan:
https://clarity.fm/danlok


★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★

Blog: http://www.danlok.com/blog/
Podcast: http://www.shouldersoftitans.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/danthemanlok
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/danlok/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/vanentrepreneurgroup
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danlok
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Lok/e/B002BLXW1K

This video is about How To Stay Married Without Killing Each Other
https://youtu.be/eHEZUMChUP4
https://youtu.be/eHEZUMChUP4