顶起来，给那些头脑僵化，曾经文过避责，断章取义，罗织构陷，现在恐惧真理前行，将继续以施展猥琐下流手段为得计，以为能恣意混淆颠倒，掩饰恶行，蒙混罪责，为一己之私，视民族国家利益为粪土的高贵的文明蠢驴（马克思语）们对照。

2011.4.24

不要抬杠哦。揪蠢材，替天行道，梁山好汉们也会的。嘿嘿。要命的事太多。

5.25

阿猫阿狗的手段都使上了。惭愧啊。要是觉得这样说有羞辱人之嫌，向啥地反映反映？反本溯源，肯定可以请出砖假大石级的始作俑者的嘛。让他出头我跟他单挑？又不是小脚女人。藏也不找个藏得住的地方藏。写下这些字很不好意思哈。

6.20

夜已深，在楼下门口竟见人民币一张。捡了起来，一元，一笔不小的财富。不知有什么兆头否。请算命先生推详一下，够算命钱否？

6..22

清晨锻炼，一老者对我说：“你每天总拿个纸片，在学习吗，是个很好的习惯。”我正心里唱歌呢。“你是个博士吗？还是什么玩意儿啊？”老同志在意学位那玩意儿。著名海归69把海龟海鳖土鳖土龟统统叫做玩意

君思人世间
观夫白月与浮云
神风拂于上
江河依稀逝于下
倩谁知水清水浑

きみがよを

つきすどそおもう

かみかせや

みもしそかわの

すまんかぎりは

きみか世をつきしとそお（も）ふ神風やみもすそかはのすまんかきりは

http://www.9tour.cn/Filess/unnana4167.jpg

元跨革囊的由来 

央视国际 (2005年03月25日 10:56)

    1936年从今云南昭通市（三国时属朱提郡）洒鱼河畔的古墓中发掘出一颗刻有“汉叟邑长”四个字的铜印，旁边还有汉砖出土，这颗铜印是东汉或蜀汉颁发给当地叟族酋长的信印。

   《华阳国志》卷4《南中志》:“夷人大种曰昆，小种曰叟。”昆当即昆明。昆和叟是

    如果我死了,希望我的墓用鸭嘴兽驼碑。……似乎暴殄天物啊，鸭嘴兽和那些名字古怪长得象龟的龙大概同属两栖类，还可能都可归为爬行动物，但虽然珍稀，毕竟并非神物，哪驼得动啊。那就在碑的底座刻一只鸭嘴兽吧。我考证了南北朝高僧慧深到过他称为女国的澳大利亚，担心不被人承认。刻在石头里，也许可以保存得久一些。
    墓碑的正面刻选自熊应先生棋网上的一局圆道围棋局。虽然英国物理学家狄拉克说过可以做一种圆环面棋盘的围棋，肯定也想到过这种圆柱面棋盘的围棋，但是他并没有推广这两种棋。在有了网络的今天，我们才能努力推广，并略有成绩。所以我愿称自己为这种自创的新的圆柱面盘围棋的发明人。清华大学有人抢在我前面申请了一种圆柱面棋盘的实用新型专利。可惜，我在网络宣传圆柱面盘围棋比他们提出专利申请的时间早得多。我是不会把发明的荣誉让给他们的。要不然倒让我象剽窃者似的。
    碑的背面刻上我部落系谱研究的第三个图吧。为了这个图，我的鬓角第一次出现了小片白发。其实我的圆柱面盘围棋是部落系谱研究的副产品。如果我的部落系谱研究继续前进，我希望新围棋可以附着于它得到推广。

心槎一叶随游览
楚越群山访圣盘
睿智长标风雨路
愚凡每误旋洑滩
攀龙附凤观灵像
折骨惊心驾壑船
意气轻扬凌日壮
帝关飘渺彻心寒
万劫闲演炎凉味
因果焉得血泪参
不为忧愁贫病叹
慈仁未有海天宽

    这样的译文能换钱吗？
    下午刚打一个钱电话，拐过街角便听到一女大声对大概是她的孩子问“你的口袋里还有钱吗?”。如果有人这样问马克思，他会想到纽约的稿费还是恩格斯？
    上午婶婶希望我说说我的研究的意义。我说，简单地说，可以改变中国人的文化心理，让中国人在西方文化面前不再自卑。应该以中国文化为中心把世界文化编织在一起。中国文化就像一个坐标。要说得让人信服可能不容易，我又何必去说这种大话，现在有太多小问题太费心。我又说，以前中国人被西方人打压一二百年，认为西方的才是好的，比如五四打倒孔家店，要请德先生和赛先生，认为中国传统的都不行。
    这不是想否定五四吗？将置科学社会主义于何地？置中国共产党于何地？
    这个……这个……哪焊哪啊？就不能平心静气讨论一下具体问题吗？要是摩尔根错了，怎么办呢？要是中国研究总结出了更具兼容性的学说，一定要想方设法否定、抑制吗？那不成了中国自有科学，民主也未必没有，那还请德先生和赛先生啥劲？荷荷。

Part IV
GROWTH FO THE IDEA OF PROPERTY

Chapter I
THE THREE RULES OF INHERITANCE

It remains to consider the growth of property in the several ethnical periods, the rules that sprang up with respect to its ownership and inheritance and the influence which it exerted upon ancient society.

The earliest ideas of property were intimately associated with the procurement of subsistence, which was the primary need. The objects of ownership would naturally increase in each successive ethnical period with the multiplication of those arts upon which the means of subsistence depended. The growth of property would thus keep pace with the progress of inventions and discoveries. Each ethnical period shows a marked advance upon its predecessor, not only in the number of inventions, but also in the variety and amount of property which resulted therefrom. The multiplicity of the farms of property would be accompanied by the grow

Chapter VI
SEQUENCE OF INSTITUTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE FAMILY

It remains to place in their relations the customs and institutions which have contributed to the growth of the family through successive forms. Their articulation in a sequence is in part hypothetical; but there is an intimate and undoubted connection between them.

This sequence embodies the principal social and domestic institutions which have influenced the growth of the family from the consanguine to the monogamian.[1] They are to be understood as originating in the several branches of the human family substantially in the order named, and as existing generally in these branches while in the corresponding status.

First Stage of Sequence.

I. Promiscuous Intercourse.

II. Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters, own and collateral, in a Group: Giving,-

III. The Consanguine Family. (First Stage of the Family): Giving,

Chapter V
THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY

The origin of society has been so constantly traced to the monogamian family that the comparatively modern date now assigned to this family bears the semblance of novelty. Those writers who have investigated the origin of society philosophically, found it difficult to conceive of its existence apart from the family as its unit, or of the family itself as other than monogamian. They also found it necessary to regard the married pair as the nucleus of a group of persons, a part of whom were servile, and all of whom were under power; thus arriving at the conclusion that society began in the patriarchal family, when it first became organized. Such, in fact, was the most ancient form of the institution made known to us among the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew tribes. Thus, by relation, the patriarchal family was made the typical family of primitive society