小树的森林

Remarks of Bill Gates

Harvard Commencement

(Text as prepared for delivery)

President Bok, former President Rudenstine, incoming President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, parents, and especially, the graduates:

I’ve been waiting more than 30 years to say this: “Dad, I always told you I’d come back and get my degree.”

I want to thank Harvard for this timely honor. I’ll be changing my job next year … and it will be nice to finally have a college degree on my resume.

I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your degrees. For my part, I’m just happy that the Crimson has called me “Harvard’s most successful dropout.” I guess that makes me valedictorian of my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.

But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop out of business school. I’m a bad influence. That’s why I was invited to speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you might be here today.

Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn’t even signed up for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House. There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing things, because everyone knew I didn’t worry about getting up in the morning. That’s how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social people.

Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson that improving your odds doesn’t guarantee success.

One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making the world’s first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.

I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up on me. Instead they said: “We’re not quite ready, come see us in a month,” which was a good thing, because we hadn’t written the software yet. From that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable journey with Microsoft.

What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege – and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.

But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.

I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.

I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.

But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.

I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.

It took me decades to find out.

You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the world’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I hope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.

Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. Where would you spend it?

For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.

During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.

We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.

If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: “This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.”

So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”

The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.

But you and I have both.

We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.

I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: “Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care.” I completely disagree.

I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.

All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.

The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.

To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.

Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.

But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: “Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent.”

The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.

We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away.

If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.

Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks “How can I help?,” then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.

Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.

The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.

Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.

The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.

You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.

But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.

I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.

What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?

You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.

Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.

The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.

Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: “I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation.”

Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.

The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.

The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.

At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.

We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.

Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.

What for?

There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?

Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:

Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?

Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?

Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?

These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.

My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”

When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.

In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.

Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.

You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.

Knowing what you know, how could you not?

And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.

Good luck.

IN the modern world, everyone seems to be crazily busy with numerous tasks: attending meetings, answering e-mails and phone calls, making appointments.

Many are busy without even knowing how they got that way.

And they are apparently too busy to stop to think it over. They simply accept busyness as a fact of life.

However, has it ever occurred to you that the time you have left on this earth is quite limited and that if you do not make sure that you are doing what matters most to you, you may end up in nothing but deep regret?

If you are coming to realize the importance of having a better control of your time and just want the advice on how to achieve it, the book "CrazyBusy" by Edward M. Hallowell is helpful.

This is a book that is aimed at helping you to make this fast, crazy world work for you instead of against you.

To make you feel good about what you're doing, an important step, as Hallowell suggests, is to "make sure you do what matters most to you," and then devote yourself to what makes you feel best.

I can't agree more with Hallowell in this respect. When I first graduated from university, I joined a world-renowned accounting firm and worked as an auditor.

I don't really like dealing with figures, but it was a popular job for a graduate with an accounting major.

Besides, with high pay and promising prospects, this is widely recognized as a good job. So I carried on.

Since then, I was busy with my work day and night as the job required a lot of work overtime.

However, I found I rarely got a sense of achievement from my work except for the high pay.

Besides, I couldn't endure a life totally occupied by my job.

Every day I hardly had time to enjoy sunshine, not to say spare time for my hobbies and reading.

In the end, I decided to quit before I got totally lost in the dull figures and endless overtime hours.

Luckily, I soon found a new job that I'm interested in and that enables me to have my own time after work.

And it turns out to be quite a sensible decision as I am now able to live a much happier and productive life.

Take your time

So I share Hallowell's suggestion recommendation for a work-play balance. I can't help nodding on reading: "the best reason to take your time is that this is the only time you'll ever have. You must take it or it will be taken from you."

People often think they must stay busy to succeed. But the fact is that everyone needs time to ponder instead of being kept frantic all the time.

Instead of thinking of work as something you don't want to do, think of it as a way you create value for others.

Instead of defining play as something you want to do, define it as a way to create pleasure for yourself, as Hallowell advises.

And rest or playing is often the best time for exercising one's imagination as one is likely to do the best thinking when his or her mind is free from stress or trivia. Hallowell also has prepared a series of simple steps that can help prevent the busiest person from being caught up in a maelstrom of frustrating activity.

One important suggestion is that one should develop a rhythm in one's work.

Imagine a cook in a crowded restaurant. He or she must simultaneously take orders, cook various foods and deliver full plates.

But the job is by no means routine, because each order can be different. Therefore, the cook has to work in a rhythm to keep every step under control.

And Hallowell also prepares a personal rating scale for readers to better evaluate which activities are worth doing.

Modern life can be crazy, but it should never be boring.

If you find yourself busy for the sake of being busy, it's high time that you make a difference for yourself.

        没有其它行业比记者更具有焕发生命的兴奋感，这是没有地图的旅行，在生命的湍流中穿梭前进。
        前进的动力就是激情。这是一种浪漫的追寻真相的状态。记者笔下的新闻，是一篇又一篇的故事--Story，但这些Story不是虚构的、也不是想象的，但却可以呈现出现实中最具戏剧性的一面。记者不是小说家，但却像小说家一样重视场面的描述p人物性格的刻画p情节的纠葛p高潮迭起，而一切都在匆忙的截稿时间之前完成。一切都是匆匆的，没有太多的修饰，但却紧抓现实的核心，发现真相，也让真相与读者相遇。
       这就是匆忙的文学。如果文学是追求真善美，新闻就是匆忙的真善美。在匆忙的真善美追求中，也要展示平衡的、公道的、不虚假的特色。唯有真的基础，才有善的追求，也才有美学的感染力。
       当然今日的新闻也是明日的历史，匆忙的文学，也是匆忙的历史。但历史的真实需要不断的沉淀，因而新闻的探索也是不懈的努力，在匆忙中呈现更全面的真相。新闻作为历史的一份草稿，为历史真相作出更重要的铺垫。在漫长的历史跑道上，别输在起跑点上，因而记者采访就肩负严肃的任务：这不是一时之争，而是永恒的追求与永恒的志业。
        永恒的志业其实来自一股浪漫的动力。在不断移动的风景及往往难以预测的世界中，不断发掘事件的真貌。尤其在一些调查性报道中，记者要打开一些被锁住的真相，发掘一些本来永远被埋葬的新闻。这是一场浪漫的p冒险的旅程，航行在险恶的新闻水域，虽千回百转，但豁然开朗时，轻舟已过万重山。
       其实，新闻是浪漫的也是智能的。光靠一股傻劲，可能很快便在新闻的旅程中迷失了方向，甚至惨遭没顶，事实上，真正的浪漫主义是一种快速的学习能力，一种可以在匆匆的岁月中掌握一些本来不熟悉的知识。比如在报道一则经济丑闻时，记者要立刻学习查核账目的能力，在短时间内理解最新的税务条例；在一宗外交纠纷的新闻中，记者要快速追溯事件的历史源头和国际法判例。记者不可能是每个方面的专家，但却拥有成为速成专家的学习能力，拥有提炼更多智能的能力。
       匆忙的文学，也是匆忙的人文积累，让记者拥有开放的心灵空间，可以随着新闻的变化而不断提升自己的“战斗力”。这也许是人世间最好的职业，可以提供终身学习的契机。身经百战的记者，也在匆忙的积累中，不断改善自己的新闻体质，提升自己的新闻素养。
        不过记者的终极考验，往往不是能力而是伦理。中国当前最常见的就是“有偿新闻”。新闻成为商品的奴隶，这和官场上的“权钱交易”都是一样的腐败。
       作为一名记者，不得不抗拒种种的诱惑。损害记者专业自主性的力量来自四方八面，而记者的防守阵线必须固若金汤，不能让其越雷池半步。记者的操守也许和皇后的贞操一样，绝对不能让人怀疑。如果权力和金钱可以使新闻变形，那么记者的专业也就崩解，新闻的公信力也会荡然无存。
       这也许不是一夕之间就出现的，但就像青蛙跳进温水里，一步一步地加热，最终会杀死新闻专业的独立性和自主性。防微杜渐，勿以恶小而为之，也勿以善小而不为。初为记者不但要拥抱激情，更要有虽千万人吾往矣的孤独激情。人孤字不孤，在匆忙的文学中，在匆忙的人文积累中，记者是中国改革的先锋，让一篇又一篇的新闻故事，展现中国现代化历程的戏剧张力，也展现中国新闻改革的强大生命力。 （本文系为《初为记者》一书作的序）
       
       （香港）邱立本  邱立本：男，《亚洲周刊》总编辑。

这几天一直浸淫在微醉的幸福之中

在我即将跨入大四的年份，还有这样的转折点，感觉真的很不错，整个人的精神状态也为之一振。

特别爱看书、特别温柔、特别沉得下心、特别享受生活，要是人生的每一天都像这些天该多好。

我看青山多妩媚，青山看我应如是。。。嘻嘻

那天晚上在宾馆，奔波了一天的妈妈兴奋地跟我说起她们同学聚会的事～还被我嘲伊竟然也是发起人。在豫园给她老人家买了一件唐装兮兮的外套。她一个劲地说：“这种贵妇人似的衣服穿不来”。想想妈妈年轻时候也是人见人爱大名鼎鼎的小美女一个，爸爸也是玉树临风的帅哥一个。怎么基因突变到我就全失了风采，反正父母的一小点丑都集中到我身上。欲哭无泪啊！

我决定另辟一章写写我的shopping经历，应该小有故事。

今天跟美女一起看《风筝》（blue kite写得像韩文的那部）。开始fan濮存昕。就是一个小细节让我的眼泪突然袭击了眼框。他在下放发配前（姑且这么叫），给妻儿做好了整整一年要用的煤饼。现在想来也没什么好感动。但当初怎么就这么动情呢？许是想到别的地方了吧：）小女人，我还不知道你咋想的。


好久没来打理blog，有很多话要说。可是1：30的现状让我不得不务实一下

觉得自己的blog像我的衣橱，想放什么就把它扔进去，下次应该记得分分类，这么混乱不堪以后咋整啊？

除了半夜开车的的哥、晚上睡不着的打工妹打工仔外，晚上熬夜的学生也许是收听深夜广播热线节目的“中坚力量”。在一大片主持人的“和风细雨”中，“骂”是个别几个主持人特有的标签。他们为什么那么“凶”？这般凶法到底是好是坏？恐怕最有发言权的就是深更半夜把耳朵贡献给主持人骂的他们了。
                   　　受访者
                   　　■丫丫：女热能与动力工程专业学生
                   　　■康康：男广告专业学生
                   　　■小树：女新闻专业学生
                   　　■Ban：男电气工程及自动化专业学生
                   　　问
                   　　你听深夜广播热线节目吗？理由是什么？
                   　　丫丫：要熬夜的时候，比如大学里期末考试，还有高三，没办法，觉得无聊会听一下。平时不太听。
                   　　康康：不听，现在身边已经没有可以收听广播的设备了。不过初中、高中住校的时候寝室里一堆男生会凑在一起抱着收音机听深夜性教育节目。
                   　　小树：读中学的时候暑假住爷爷奶奶家，晚上一个人睡有点害怕，会听听收音机。有次调到《相伴到黎明》，那段时间报纸杂志上介绍这个节目的也比较多，就听了一段时间。现在不太听了。
                   　　Ban：深夜节目听的，但只听读书版块。以前每星期五听《相伴到黎明》的一个读书栏目。听到过一两次他们的情感热线，打进电话的人都为些鸡毛蒜皮的小事叽叽歪歪，后来碰到情感热线就不听。
                   　　问
                   　　你是否觉得有些主持人的态度不是那么和蔼？比如谁？
                   　　丫丫：叶沙吧。听过她以前的《相伴到黎明》和现在的《上海心情》。她的风格挺鲜明的，一听就能听出今天做节目的是她。
                   　　如果打进电话的人价值观和她不同，她好像就会变得尖刻起来的人。别人的话还没讲完她就要把话头夺过去了。记得有次一个先生打电话过去，说在金钱和爱情之间难以选择什么的。聊了一会儿，叶沙说，其实你已经选择好了，那就是金钱。然后她就把电话挂了。当时我想，这个人有性格的，但未免太带有个人情绪了吧。
                   　　康康：万峰。他在浙江一带很受欢迎，去年暑假我回杭州还在出租车上听到了他的节目。其他人对打进电话的听众都是好说歹说挺温柔的就他会乱骂。
                   　　他思想挺保守的，经常在节目里说“现在的小青年不负责任”之类的话。如果有人因为生活不太检点，怀疑自己得了病，一般的主持人都会叫他去医院看看，但是万峰不会。他会直接骂“你怎么这么道德败坏”。有时候打进电话的人和他在节目里吵起来，他还会把人家的手机号码公布出来，说是让大家一起骂他。
                   　　还有一次，节目快结束的时候有人打电话过来，问为什么和女朋友做爱的时候她不太舒服，结果万峰说：“你自己回家琢磨去吧”。
                   　　小树：叶沙和万峰吧。我听过叶沙的节目，万峰的倒是没听过，但是在电视里看到过讲他的节目。听说他在杭州挺火的，有本新的杂志为了吸引读者，在创刊号上用了三分之一的篇幅来做关于他的内容。
                   　　Ban：叶沙？也就她说话比较直接了。不过我也没觉得她有多凶，对她最深的印象是书读得挺多的。
                   　　问
                   　　你认为他们为什么这样？你喜欢这种风格吗？你觉得这种态度对于解决听众的问题有没有帮助？或是反作用？
                   　　丫丫：这就是她选择的主持风格吧。而且有的打进电话的人是挺可恶的，这种电话听多了无名火就上来了。是不是他们听这些故事听得耳朵老茧也要出来了，想快点骂骂打发了算了？或者是想用刺激的方法点醒他们？
                   　　我是不太喜欢这种风格，太凶了，要是我打过去的肯定受不了。我有个同学说，深夜节目好几个主持人，就是不想听她的。
                   　　至于有没有帮助，要看听众本身了。也许有的人就是抱着讨骂的态度打去的，被骂骂还蛮有效果的。
                   　　康康：万峰好像从一开始主持节目时就是这样，是他自己的风格吧。我见过他本人，他就住在我奶奶家楼上。平时他戴一副深色眼镜，看上去就像是坐办公室的普通中年男人。
                   　　喜欢？还可以吧，我肯定不会崇拜他。读中学的时候对性方面的知识比较好奇，那时又没有很多渠道去接触这方面的信息，再加上大家一起听他骂人挺有意思的，所以听得比较多。
                   　　其实他也不是对所有人都骂。如果不是很“恶劣”的问题，他还是会给人解答的。对女的他还是以教育为主，只有碰到那些恶作剧的或是在他看来“道德败坏”的才会骂。当时我听他骂人的时候觉得有种快感，男生本来就不大正经嘛。不过之后再想想，打电话过去的人要公开自己的隐私还是很需要勇气的，毕竟大多数是不光彩的事情。他们本来是为了寻求安慰，现在被骂了回来，不知道会不会有人做出极端的行为。
                   　　小树：叶沙一开始就很凶的，大概她就是这样的性格，倒不像是在做秀。虽然我没听过万峰的节目，不过从电视上看到的他来看，他就像是一个严父。他可能有时候是故意用一些比较重的字眼，想对懵懵懂懂的年轻人起到威慑作用吧。
                   　　尽管叶沙和万峰都蛮凶的，不过我觉得他们还是不太一样。万峰好像有把女孩子骂哭的，在我印象里叶沙没有，即使有哭的也是自己觉得难受不是她骂哭的。感觉叶沙的凶要有礼有节有分寸一点。
                   　　作为听众，我不太喜欢叶沙的风格。让我不能接受，有点听不下去。但我觉得打电话过去的人应该是喜欢她的，因为叶沙骂他们是在为他们着想。也许十个打过去的人，有八个会听进去她说的话。就像我自己实习的时候要是有什么做得不好，带教老师跟我好好说，我可能过两三个月就忘了。但是他如果骂了我，我就会记得很牢。打电话的时候挨骂，当时会很难过，但还是能起到效果的。
                   　　Ban：她也是没办法。有些人罗里罗嗦，同一个意思重复好几遍浪费时间。这种直播节目时间来不及了怎么办呢，不骂他就挂不了电话。而且每天都听那些人说什么老公有外遇，男朋友不要我了这种大同小异的事，难免会受不了嘛。所以我后来就不听了。
                   　　她这样主持听了是比较难受，还是做读书节目比较好。虽然有时也会和嘉宾争论，但并不是对所有的人都很凶，对谈得来的就不凶了。
                   　　有的人打过去就是为了发牢骚，不被人家骂回去可能反而觉得不爽。而且打电话过去的人都知道她的性格，有时候一上来就会说你等会儿不要骂我。这样的人很多的。
                   　　问
                   　　有什么想对那些“凶主持”们说的吗？
                   　　丫丫：如果觉得自己的这种风格好的话，那就继续下去吧。不过可不可以不要那么残忍？尤其是对女性听众。
                   　　康康：万峰节目的广告语我记得特别清楚，就对他说这个吧：性教育要从零岁开始。
                   　　小树：我想说继续吧。也许他们凶是为了节目的收听率，但是如果真的能解决问题也挺好的，那我愿意牺牲我的耳朵让他们骂吧。
                   　　Ban：想对叶沙说，其实你不适合做情感热线，还是一门心思做读书节目吧，我喜欢。

今天要去刘德华的见面会。
昨晚还神经兮兮上网做了点功课，许是养成了习惯，明天有什么事发生，先上网了解一下前因后果的。
我这人不迷星，不追星，高中时代看同桌喜欢巴蒂，还写了一文聊表鄙夷；即使傻乎乎的看超女，也是时刻保持理性状态，静静的，不多说一句话。
昨天在会上，那么多成人听到德华要来，还是屏不住发出一阵欢呼，我似乎无动于衷。只当众人哄抢所谓的内部票时，我觉得再不有所行动的话太不好意思了，遂也要了。




这个世界上最缺乏自信的人！

享受到了小小的妇人心的满足

原来可以要求快乐，得到的快乐也是很原始的那份幸福。。。









苔花如米小，也学牡丹开——刘心武

今天真是神经发作，一下子添了个位数条日志，我的BLOG迎来了它的校庆日：p

可为什么评论还是未开发的处女地呢？

期待中。。。

在北京，在大连，在上海