最近听说u盘涨价了，残念- -b

毛毛已经收房了，下个月我也得寻找出路呃呃呃...

aaa老求潦~~~难过 泪眼

早点振作起来挖

You'll never walk alone


When you walk through a storm,
Hold your head up high,
And don't be afraid of the dark.
At the end of a storm,
There's a golden sky,
And the sweet silver song of a lark.
Walk on through the wind,

Walk on through the rain,
Though your dreams be tossed and blown..
Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart,
And you'll never walk alone...
Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart,
And you'll never walk alone...
You'll never walk alone.

ur not a loser, for u can still move ur finger.

God won't ask what you did to help yourself, but will ask what you did to help others.

李维《罗马史》第二十二卷，51

中文：众神不会把所有美事赐给同一个人。汉尼拔哟，你知道怎样取胜，可是你不知道怎样利用你的胜利。

砍奈之战，汉尼拔大败罗马人，五万罗马人死于此战，数万精壮被俘。离奇的事情是，汉尼拔并未乘胜攻进罗马城，错失彻底击败罗马的机会。

literal translation: my girl doesnt love me. Bey, girl! Catullus is tough: Poet doesnt love the girl, doesnt praise the beauty of the girl, doesnt give the roses to the girl, and doesnt kiss the girl! My anger is great! Im tough, my girl-but Im not good without you.

你从来也没有爱过我！

我坚强无比：我也并不爱你，既没有歌颂过你的美丽，也没有送过你玫瑰，更不曾亲吻你！我怒火中烧！我多么坚韧，虽然没有你很难。

4 men together on Christmas Eve seemed like we were abandoned, but not.

those days rotted in godden 90s now turns to be nightmare interviews me several times.

5 hours earier omg

and today is not yesterday

so

surperise

we try to let it pass

i knew what happened

and because i knew that

frankly, also for nothings going to be worse any more

so

i forgive

you dont know what i know and i will not let you know what i know then you never know i know

thats not a pleasant dream

i dont want it happen again

一道道的坎，有这么多的艰难时刻，一直想着等过去就好了，结果你翻过这座山，看见另一座山。人生到站了，却置身崇山峻岭之间。壮观。

任何时候，都给自己留够时间，做点想做的事情。

不要游手好闲。

你的职业精神落到哪里了？！

Maybe one day you'll settle down, that's a kind of destiny, I say maybe...

I dream of you we back to the old days

colourful warm and cosy

pushed away as it did one more time

With the advancement of technology, our world becomes more and more a small place as someone called "Earth Village". We are facing with a wave of globalization, new problems rise and nations need to promote cooperation with each other. To some extent, I tend to agree with the speaker that it is necessary to establish a global university, however, some problems must be addressed out and well cope with to make sure the proposal feasible.

One compelling argument in favor of a global university has to do with the fact that bring faclturies and students from various nations together will help to exchange ideas and values and address problems which gendered from communication. In this way, we can promote the level of academic and find a way to cope with culture confilicts.

Another compelling argument in favor of a global university has to do with the needs of cooperation to solve many persistent social problems all the nations shalled including environmental, economic, and political problems. It has been said that "environmental problems are global and respect to no nation's boundaries." For example, Greenhouse Effect worldwide brings us longer summers or vice versa, longer winters, and as we know cutting off rainforests in South America can set into motion a chain of animal extinction that threatens the delicate balance upon which all animals-including humans-depend. A global university will help scholers and students from various nations study together and find out the solution to worldwide environmental problems.

In addition, globalization also created a seamless web of worldwide economic. Consider, the multinational companies, which depend their raw materials, labor employees, consumer markets and equipments in other nations will definitely have something to do with other nation's economic development. Therefore, raising many social problems connected closely with those companies. Depression in one country might get a multinational company lost its primary consuming market and run bankrupted. Thus caused its employees in other nations lost their job and become burden of those nations. A global university's establishment is necessary in order to help the government to deal with those problems.

Notwithstanding the foregoing benefits which a global university brings, I can hard-pressed to consider the feasibility of the proposal. Establishing a global university would have to overcome a myriad of administrational and political impediments. To my observation, every nation which participated the proposal will naturally put its own interests priory to other nations. It probably will give raise to decide which filed or what kind of problems should take the priority to research. That is to say, the distribution of research resources may arouse contention. To this extent, a global university might arouse more contention among participating nations. If we could not deal with all those conflicts and impediments, the proposal of establishing a global university will be only a dream.

To sum up, we need to establish a global university with all nations participate in the process of solving the persisted common social problems. On the other hand, more compromises between nations and more respect on each other are needed to make the establishment of such a university possible.

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.

I tend to agree with the assertion that art, not the art critic, provides something of lasting value to society. I concede, critic contribute a lot on helping us appreciate and understand art, however, the functions of art critic are proved to be problematic on examination.

In the first place, critics can help us understand and interpret art. Appropriate critical evaluation might entice the people's attention toward those works. Actually, this function is better accomplished by teachers and docents, whose knowledgement is sufficient to enhance a layperson's appreciation and understanding of art by providing an object. Besides, it is by way of our hearts more than heads that we appreciate art. So, it is art, but not criticism, encouraging and cultivating us certain positive emotions and feeling--such as compassion and sympathy-- society dearly stands to benefit.

In the second place, a critical evaluation of an art work serves as a filter, which could free people from the art which is unworthy of spending time and attention on it. It is true that we gain more time to turn attention to better working art with the benefit of criticism, yet, in the role of judge, critics have misled us repeatedly. History is filled with examples involving Shakespear who was rejected by Voltaire as barbaric for not conforming to neo-classical principles of unity. Moreover, critical judgment is often misguided by the ego. Then the value of critical evaluation is suspected. In short, we shall be very wary of critic who filters out bad art from the worthwhile. 

Last but not least, critics provide feedback to artists and constructive criticism, if accepted by artists, might result in improving the level of artworks. But, nobody in Hollywood makes movies to please just one critic. In fact, most of us, if have studied art, would agree that true art is based on the spirit, aesthetic value, creativity, imagination and passion of artist which make it unique. In other words, criticism probably tends to undermine and constrain the creativity of artist, if overemphasized.

In sum, by his work of art, artist provides us an invaluable and unique mirror which gives a reflection of his contemporary time, including culture, social and political situations and so forth. Those masterpieces of art not only benefit contemporary world, but also facilitate future generations to gaze into for insight and appreciation with historical retrospect. By contrast, critic only serves a subordinate role to society. More often than not, its negative effects outweigh the positive ones, let alone of lasting value.

issue 38. "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."

The speaker contends that watching television serves people as good as reading books when it comes to learning. I tend to disagree with the speaker. I concede that television has some advantages over books for imparting certain types of knowledge. However, books still cannot be replaced by television as a medium for learning.

Admittedly, through films and videos alike, television provides us information as vivid records in conveying temporal, spatial events and experiences those books or other written works could not. For example, a writer, no matter how keen in observation and skilled in writing, could not describe every details completely and objectively in the events such as the final of World Cup 2006, or the launching of Chinese first manned spacecraft, Shenzhou, in October 2003. Besides, in today's rapid changing society, television plays a much more important role than books in helping us keep pace closely with trends of times development. By contrast, it becomes a more heavy task for newspaper reporters and writers to describe the current events and other temporal changing of the world in printed forms.

Despite the merits provides by television, the speaker overlooks several shortages of television which make television less superior to books. First, the efficiency of television in learning is impaired by too many advertisements or other information irrelevant to individual's needs. Secondly, depending on electricity makes television available only in limited time and in a given place. In that sense, books are far more portable than television sets. Last but not least, in order to appeal to the widest viewing audience and maximize the profit, the information which television provides has been filtered already. That is, television would have to lower its criteria as to please more people. The end result is that, some viewers might not get complete and balanced information, they have to rely on books or other ways to get more informed and intelligent opinions about important social and political issues.

Furthermore, books bring us some pleasant experiences which television cannot duplicate. A beautiful printed book is an artwork itself which attracts people to gaze into. As for bibliophiles who enjoy collecting various books, a rare finding ancient book will probably make a bibliophile immerse in the excitement of getting it for days.

And scanning and perusing the books in a library are far more pleasant than switching television channels at home.

In sum, television serves as a more efficient means for us to stay abreast of current affairs than books do. However, books facilitate us in the way of learning and suffer fewer limits than television. In some respects, books provide us better perspective an insight than television. It is unfair to allege books are less useful as they bring us some certain pleasant feeling cannot be well replaced by television.

A195

In this argument, the arguer contents that Liber should return to publishing only the works of regional small-town authors in order to resolve the financial troubles. To support his recommendation, the aguer cites that Liber gets in serious financial trouble after publish the works of regional small-town authors instead of those of big-city authors. It seems to be sound at the first glance, however, we could find several critical flaws after a further examination.

In the first place, the arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to prove there is a causal relationship between its new missions with the financial trouble which Liber suffered in recent years. The financial trouble may due to the cost of publishing books have raised a lot which may get Liber in trouble with turnover of funds. It is also possible that Liber's propagandistic strategy does not work very well and lost his consumers. People turn their attention to TV programs and other entertainments may contribute to the decline of its consumer market. Unless the arguer proves more information about the serious financial trouble, nobody could confirm that the new mission has something to do with Liber's financial trouble.

In the second place, the arguer makes a hasty generation. He simply put that returning to the original mission will save Liber form financial trouble without giving any solid information about how could Liber make more profit by returning to its original mission. As the arguer claims, changing from Liber's original mission have been intended to increase profits, it is possible that Liber has already get in trouble before the change. Then it won't be help to turning back.

Given that, moving away from its original mission is turned out to be a mistake which is the culprit of Liber's financial trouble, there is no guarantee that returning back will save Liber. If Liber's financial trouble is mainly caused by the depression of publishing national wide, it is not wise to rely on returning to the original mission.

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen its commendation, the arguer has to provide more information about how could Liber increase profits after returned to its original mission. Additionally, more information about the financial trouble of Liber is needed to make the solution seems pointed to the trouble.

TOPIC: ISSUE26 - "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."

As our society is changing day by day, new controversy arises that which one will be priory between the old buildings and the news. Some people insist that the old buildings still plays a very important role in the constructing a new world, however, some one contents that modern development should take the priority as the speaker do. In my view, we should construct a balance between the old buildings and the news.

To begin with, old buildings which carry historic value still contribute a lot to our society. Old buildings carried technology, intelligence and diligence of our ancestors, and they serve us a vivid example as a means to transmit traditional values and culture to new generations.  Children learned to cherish our modern life. Also, old buildings reminded us our forefathers, they are the memory of old times, and they provide identity to our nation and society. On appreciating the old buildings, people share a common proud and experience of history which drive people an understanding of national values and a commitment to national loyalty. Moreover, old buildings provide us a mirror that reflects the contemporary social, culture, and political conditions, and for future generations to gaze into for insight and appreciation of history.

Unfortunately, as our modern society develops, old buildings could hardly catch up with the rapidly changing world. We find they could no longer satisfy the utilitarian needs of community. For example, today's population grows more and more big, calling for large buildings which could solve people's need for living. Or, consider, a building of great historic value which might located in the only place available to a hospital desperately needing additional parking area. There’s another problem we should take into caution that old buildings which constructed in old architectural technology might not guarantee the security of our modern life.

However, old buildings and modern ones do not always mutually excusive, we can construct a balance between them. Architecturally appropriate retrofits can help to solve the structure problems without sacrificing the old buildings of historic value, and alternative locations for new buildings and new bridges can be found in order to preserve the historic buildings. Actually, many old castles and churches in Europe proved to be embraced very well by people's modern life. Moreover, old buildings could also making contribution to the traveling of a city. For example, Old London Bridge was pulled down for it is too dangerous to carry on its utilitarian duty. Then an American merchant brought the bridge to Arizona by marking every part of the bridge when pulling it down. He rebuilt the bridge with the help of the marks and finally made it tourist attraction for Britain culture.

In sum, no matter how our world develops, there is no necessary endeavor need to supplant, reject or totally shun old buildings. Whether modern development should give precedence over the old buildings should be determined on a case-to-case basis. I believe, there could be a balance between the old buildings and the news.

青瓷~~~~

Education will be truely effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student.

The speaker contents that education should base on individual needs and interests, and then could it provide a marvelous effect on the students, otherwise, the education will be ineffectual. I strongly disagree. I concede that different people probably have different needs and interests, and appropriate education on individual would reap a good harvest. However, in fact, it is not possible for us to provide every student specifically designed education.  

In ancient China, there was once a famous educator, Confucius who advocated that education should consider the individual needs and interests of each student as they are always different. The student who's going to be a general should learn techniques of battle affairs. He will teach a student who is impulsive to be patient and stir up the courage of a coward student. His education met their needs and interests well which had inflicted marvelous effect in this way and won his name for his glorious success.

In our modern life, education should be specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests as well. A fair tale for the graduates would be too simple and do nothing help to them. How could a junior complete a psychoanalysis paper? Only when the education matches what people need, then it shall be effective.

However, the speaker overlooks the resource of education is always quite limited. Our society could not provide every student what they need and what they want. They have to struggle for further study. In China, there's only a small part of students can go to college and among those guys, an even smaller part win their chance to do further research what they interest. Most of the students have to learn more on basic job-related skills which they may not interest at all. In most cases, education is designed for the service of society but not depended on what individual interests.  Many poor parents are caught in one of the oldest webs of love and duty and guilt. They are trying to steer their sons and daughters toward a secure future. The kids have no idea to make a choice and strive their own way. There is no escaping the fact that in some areas where are suffering poverty, many families have to sent their children to factory to make money after the kids grow up. Those students could not even get a chance to college, not bothering to receive education which designed to meet their needs and interests.

In sum, it is the society not the individual decided how the education should be designed. And the speaker also ignores that only a prosperous society can guarantee individual welfare and provide more and more people appropriate education which specifically designed to meet their needs and interests.  

issue69

Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

The speaker contends that scientific research and development should go as freely as possible. I concede that scientific discoveries and technological advances have produced tremendous improvements in the quality of human life. However, the progress of science without control could also bring serious problems as well.

Admittedly, scientific research and development often fruit us revolutionary technologies which greatly improve the quality of human life and largely change the world. Take genetic engineering for example, the rapid development of research on controlling the gene will eventually lead a promising future for the entire planet as a whole. With the advantage of humanity's ability to control the gene, the agricultural techniques will be improved which may bring an end of the worldwide famine and starvation. It is also possible that by using genetic engineering or more specifically, gene therapy, some diseases like AIDS will be cured at the DNA level.

Despite the merits of scientific research and development, the effect of science is not always positive. Scientific research without any restricting would be dangerous to our society.

In some certain realms, science has illustrated once again that it can be both a blessing and a curse. In recent decades, scientific research on cloning has already lent a lot to transplant operation. As long as the research goes, human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. It is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed clones.

The government, as the representative of the country, bears the certain obligation of providing all that is necessary to improve the welfare of the society, to allow citizens to attain a better living environment and to ensure that this environment improves continuously. How could the government turn a deaf ear to the voice of complaining about ethical issues caused by scientific research, not to mention the public resources which involves in. And if the society pays too much attention on researching the weapons, our society might find itself bogged down in the sea of arm race between nations. History supports this caution. Last century, the military competition especially on nuclear weapons between Soviet Union and the United States almost caused a third World War, and the whole world can not escape the fear of a potential unparalleled catastrophe as the Sword of Damocles hanging ever since.

In sum, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker. The negative consequences of science must be very wary of, government should keep its eyes open and put appropriate restriction on scientific research and development and induce it to a sound way.

issue17

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Generally speaking, for the purpose of govern a society and to control the behavior of its members, laws are established by custom, agreement, or authority. By using different criterion, people probably get different verdicts on the fairness of laws. No matter what people think of laws, it is very dangerous to disobey and resist them.

Whether the law is just or unjust depends on our values system. Hundreds of years ago, in China, woman is restricted badly by laws. Once a woman gets married, she then turns into the subordination to her husband, and she could not divorce unless her husband drops her. On the contrary, it is legally for a man to have concubines if he could afford them. He does not have to request the consent of his wife if he wants get rid of her. For thousands of years, people take that for granted, as woman's obedience shall be her best merit and that will contribute to the harmony of the society. However, today, most of us will definitely consider those laws unjust for woman for the values system has changed a lot. In the modern era, we have learnt that all men are created equal and woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights. We also know that social distinctions can be based only on the common utility.

The fairness of laws also depends on one's personal interest or stake. Ancient Greece supports us a vivid example, when Solon was in power, he drew up a lot of laws which made it illegal for loans to be secured by anyone's property or person and freed those who had already fallen into slavery through debt. The debts of the sharecroppers were also canceled. Many would appreciate these laws as just for soothing the host tensions between the rich and the poor by alleviating the suffering of the poor for they were losing the struggle to survive in early sixth-century Athenian state. However, the rich felt lost and dissatisfied with his laws as unjust to them. In the realm of business nowadays, antitrust laws are established to cut down the monopoly profits. In the position of giants of enterprise, we may also be upset with the economic punishment for violation of antitrust or anti-dumping laws.

When you are driving on the street and see a red light, you stop and will not think it as a curb to your freedom. On the contrary, you know it is there to protect you. However, if people take a negative attitude to laws and disobey or resist them as they are unjust, our society would be in a mess. Some people in China share the same view that waiting for the red light when crossing the street without any car coming near is rather stupid and if they were to take their time or for other reasons alike, then breaking the traffic laws shall be wise for them. That's why there are so many traffic accidents every year. In certain cases, violation of laws, even you think it is definitely unjust, probably causes great damages to the society. Hitler reminds us of the horrible consequences of fighting against laws which he considered unjust.

In conclusion, laws are designed to protect basic rights and freedoms, and to treat everyone fairly. It is quite naive to expect a law which could satisfy everyone or suitable for the society for ever as laws are established by human and our wit are limited. No matter whether we judge a law is just or unjust, we'd better to obey the law rather than resist it. 

Issue 36

"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."

Can a person's greatness be recognized only in retrospect, by those who live after the person, as the speaker maintains? I tend to disagree with the speaker. I concede that we need a rear-view mirror to recognize scientific greatness. In many other realms, however, Individuals could gain reputation from contemporaries.

As we know, in sports circle, the achievement of an excellent athlete is always immediately recognized. The referee must make judgments along with the game and winner must be confirmed with on deny at the end of game. Michael Jordan is recognized as one of the best players in the history of NBA. He won the MVP 6 times with the Chicago Bulls. Nobody is going to doubt the greatness of this famous player. Diego Maradona who led Argentina won the 1986 World Cup championship is regarded a legend. He earned acclaim when scoring a goal, winning a match, mounting the podium and lifting the cup.

The artistic greatness can be judged at face value. There's nothing to be later proved or disproved, affirmed or discredited with the advancing of technology and the increasing of knowledge. In fact, it is the emotional, even visceral impact that art has on our senses, spirits, and souls that moves us. The appreciation of art is, more often that not, all out of reason or facticity. Shakespear was famous for his operas and poems even during his lifetime. Winning the Pope's appreciation, Michelangelo got a pretty fortune.

By contrast, in the realm of science, it is difficult to identify the greatness of a scientist without the benefit of historical perspective. A theorist's contribution to the status of historical footnote might be demoted for the disproving of his theory some day. It is also possible that his theory might withstand centuries of rigorous scientific scrutiny or even serve as a springboard to theoretical science. A current example involves the celebrity, Newton, who made a great contribution to physical science for Newton's laws. Yet, even he enjoyed reputation during his life time, still could not escape querying by the late scientists. The most representative one, Einstein, pointed out the limitation of Newton's laws and giving birth to the quantum theory by standing on the shoulder of Newton's laws. Therefore, the greatness of theoretical scientists cannot be judged by their contemporaries, but by scientists who follow them only.

In sum, the speaker overlooked many individuals, particularly in the realm of sports and art, whose greatness can be properly recognized during their own time. Nevertheless, in some cases, great achievements, especially those made by theoretical scientists, cannot be confirmed without being tested over time.

我还能说什么。

————————————工作取得回报的分割线————————————

减掉了多余的脂肪。

节食（oh，有多久没吃早饭了mygod），加上不断训练。包括有球20米冲刺折返跑，急停。

这是多么重要。

君の後にいる、ずっといる、ちょっと顧みたらすぐ見えるところに_﹎

米兰德比之后。好，开始专心学习吧。11月之前不再熬夜看球了。

    穆里尼奥的第一百个主场不败，萨队代表国米的第六百场比赛，结果是1比0。没有什么比一场胜利更让人开心。

    一百个主场不败，这样的数据也许在FM上看我们才不觉得意外。然而，2008年9月25日凌晨，穆里尼奥在梅阿查球场完成了这个壮举。当2004年波尔图捧起大耳朵杯时，我只觉得这只是冠军杯上的一次意外，穆里尼奥是谁？我不知道。切尔西在拉涅利时代我绝不会把它同豪门两个字联系起来。是穆里尼奥让蓝军成为英超赛场上令所有对手胆寒的球队。全民公敌？铁匠球队？没关系，胜利会让所有的人闭嘴。即便穆里尼奥在切尔西取得了辉煌的战绩；即便他极具人格魅力；即便他巧妙地处理了和俄罗斯老板的关系使自己的工作顺利进行，让我不由得总是把他和国际米兰相联系；然而，当倒曼风潮一波波涌起，我却站在曼奇尼一边，不是不相信穆里尼奥而是担心球队好不容易在曼奇尼治下稳定下来却又重蹈几年前换帅的动荡覆辙。曼奇尼在夏天拿到了第三个意甲冠军，夺冠庆典却难以掩饰黯淡神情，我就想也许换帅的传闻恐怕并非空穴来风。球队在曼奇尼辞职闹剧之后的表现相信大家都很清楚，也许不换帅才是动荡时代的开始。我开始从早到晚不停地刷网页，期待看到穆帅入主的官方消息。说真的，我也觉得奇怪，这几年再也没有哪条新闻比穆里尼奥加盟国际米兰更让我感到高兴的。我看到很多童子们热切展望穆氏国米，拍砖的也不乏其人。我宁可保持沉默，他还什么都没做呢！我相信很多人都听过这句话：人类一思考，上帝就发笑。你永远也不会知道未来会发生什么事，不管做出怎样完美的预测，总有许多事情超出我们的想象。好吧，谈论结果为时尚早，至少穆里尼奥接手工作以来所展现出来的态度已经足够赢得我们的尊敬。说到战绩，联赛4战3胜1平，冠军杯首场2比0在希腊人的魔鬼主场成功带走3分。你还能要求什么？曼奇尼的影子？假如一点都没有才奇怪，你不会真的相信意大利少帅三个联赛冠军是捡来的吧？乌龙球？让通县县队去意甲比赛看看能不能整出个乌龙球？恐怕结果是相反的吧。塞萨尔的英勇？的确，他不是签来国际米兰看球的。圣塞是国米球迷这几年最幸福的原因之一。你不会真的指望对方球队完全制造不出威胁吧？即便只是一只所谓鱼腩球队。如果真的是那样，我想我们还是换台去看郭德纲相声好了。赛季还很长，穆氏国米在比赛中让我们看到期待已久的控制力和执着的求胜欲望。曼奇尼的4前锋？那个时候确实让我们心潮澎湃，但是我还不想这么早就得在陈旧的录像中享受记忆，我们想要更多的胜利，更多的欢呼。

    伟大的队长，伟大的心。萨队还是一如既往的稳健，时光仿佛从未流逝。尽管他成名的右后卫位置已经被麦子完美继承，队长的蓝黑传奇仍在继续。再次向队长致敬！

    德比永远是球迷的节日，或者到了周末更担心米兰德比的应该是米兰的球迷了，而我们已经习惯了胜利。

你们真的没看见吗？你觉得我们相信吗？

也许扎乌里只是诈伤。可是后来意大利人被担架抬了出去。

我说了牛肉炒面里不要放辣椒。大叔我是来吃面的拜托（打死卖辣椒的）他也可以一句我确实没放搪塞。

是你忘记了吧？习惯手太顺了吧？

好吧，每次我受骗了被搪塞了敷衍了我都想起山县老头儿的话，你是五岁的小孩子吗？

是的，我真可笑，竟然还为这些事情生气。各位继续。

花了40W买的守门员被宠物狗咬伤停赛6轮。（珍爱生命，远离狗狗。）

训练赛被同级别队伍5比1扫荡。

新人杯0比1出局。

月饼杯0比2出局。

假如对手很强我就不说了，然而球队仿佛因为一条狗而迷失了。

闷热，难道真的是秋老虎？

我说了这么多废话，到底怎么样才能让你满意呢？

不可能因为你恶劣浮躁的心境而停下工作。

2.不喝汽水可乐等碳酸饮料。如果没有别的可以喝。

以前做过是我错了，以后再这样就是OOXX！

以上。

无论在任何场合下，我都不会掩饰我对穆里尼奥的欣赏。至少面对数万人的嘘声，西装笔挺的不为所动。

而我却因为周围一些人的偏见，把自己弄成了胖子。我从来没想过，多出10斤肉简直是一种折磨。

你们喜欢丑陋的，喜欢争吵的，喜欢侮辱的，喜欢嘲笑的，喜欢放纵的爱怎么样就怎么样，只是不要跟我有关系。