DawnW2007-06-09 20:07:09回複悄悄話
Some comments on Mr Yan:
1. 潤濤閻第一定律就夠了:生命在於忽悠. You are not only proposing the first law of life, you are in fact implementing it, and can be logically called an expert of doing 忽悠. An expert, but not necessarily scientific. For being the scientific expert, you need scientific data. For being an expert only, you can make up the data and cited in the way that people take them as objectively collected. Which type you'd like to call yourself? Given you are very good in presenting an argument with a lot of examples, i.e. the well use of the inductive method, you may like to call yourself the scientific expert in the subject of 忽悠 is our life?
Then you use another method to make your point about the bad effect of bra - the pure method of 忽悠, which can hardly accepted as scientific at this moment of scientific community (pity, right?). It is true,忽悠 is part of our life, but it is not necessarily an evidence to support your call for abandoning bra. Indeed, the conclusion is to be drawn by the readers themselves, and which can be used as a partial criteria for the judgment of success or failure of your skill in 忽悠.
PS: I'd wish to read the article(s) which talking about the positive correlation between wearing bra and the increased risk of breast cancer.
2. 忽悠是運動,但運動並不一定是忽悠. Wrong. The only difference is, 運動 refers to the movement of the physical body; 忽悠 means the sort of movement of your belief and thought in mind (whether the movement is caused by their own intention, or caused by other people's physical acts or the powers of their speech). ;-). Think, you can write the articles which are liked by many people, but in the meanwhile, their mind is being 忽悠ed by you as well.
(Just a joke, do not be too serious. Like your article for its entertainment value anyway)
可是如今社會就是奉行"忽悠",閻老哥說得有理
下麵沒有打全了
不過怎麽有一種又被發明了一回的感覺。
歡迎一切喜歡忽有的ID!
1. 潤濤閻第一定律就夠了:生命在於忽悠. You are not only proposing the first law of life, you are in fact implementing it, and can be logically called an expert of doing 忽悠. An expert, but not necessarily scientific. For being the scientific expert, you need scientific data. For being an expert only, you can make up the data and cited in the way that people take them as objectively collected. Which type you'd like to call yourself? Given you are very good in presenting an argument with a lot of examples, i.e. the well use of the inductive method, you may like to call yourself the scientific expert in the subject of 忽悠 is our life?
Then you use another method to make your point about the bad effect of bra - the pure method of 忽悠, which can hardly accepted as scientific at this moment of scientific community (pity, right?). It is true,忽悠 is part of our life, but it is not necessarily an evidence to support your call for abandoning bra. Indeed, the conclusion is to be drawn by the readers themselves, and which can be used as a partial criteria for the judgment of success or failure of your skill in 忽悠.
PS: I'd wish to read the article(s) which talking about the positive correlation between wearing bra and the increased risk of breast cancer.
2. 忽悠是運動,但運動並不一定是忽悠. Wrong. The only difference is, 運動 refers to the movement of the physical body; 忽悠 means the sort of movement of your belief and thought in mind (whether the movement is caused by their own intention, or caused by other people's physical acts or the powers of their speech). ;-). Think, you can write the articles which are liked by many people, but in the meanwhile, their mind is being 忽悠ed by you as well.
(Just a joke, do not be too serious. Like your article for its entertainment value anyway)
請看俺忽悠的"再來忽悠"-說明一下啊您在看之前最好先熟悉一下咱土村的特色和人物
先看書記的鏈接;http://members.wenxuecity.com/profile.php?cid=Q0hJSFVP
再看俺的忽悠: http://blog.wenxuecity.com/blogview.php?date=200706&postID=1409