Redian新闻
>
生男生女是随机事件吗?
avatar
n*e
2
在精子形成的最后一步减数分裂,男性两个染色体X和Y分离。如果带有Y染色体的精子
与卵子结合就是男孩,X染色体精子生女孩。一个卵子被X还是Y受孕,看起来应该是随
机事件。
但是,在生活中我们可以注意到,如果一对夫妻第一个生的是男孩,第二个也多半是男
孩。反过来也一样。也就是是说,同性别孩子家庭多于杂性别孩子家庭。这种现象就意
味着生男生女并不是随机事件。
如果大样本调查支持这种现象。生男生女的奥秘可能还是中医说对了。不是随机的。
avatar
r*e
3
感觉像是很爽的晒太阳

【在 c*******7 的大作中提到】
: 哦也
avatar
D*a
4
你自己看吧
1
00:00:01,200 --> 00:00:03,130
Hello, and welcome back to Animal
Behavior.
2
00:00:04,590 --> 00:00:06,189
When sexually reproducing animals
produce
3
00:00:06,189 --> 00:00:08,330
their offspring, they have a choice.
4
00:00:08,330 --> 00:00:13,030
They can produce either a son or a
daughter in any given reproductive event.
5
00:00:13,030 --> 00:00:15,730
In this lecture, we'll look at the
question of whether in certain
6
00:00:15,730 --> 00:00:17,330
circumstances it might pay parents to
7
00:00:17,330 --> 00:00:21,210
preferentially produce either a son or
daughter.
8
00:00:21,210 --> 00:00:23,300
Now for a long time it was assumed
9
00:00:23,300 --> 00:00:26,207
that in species with genetic sex
determination - animals like
10
00:00:26,207 --> 00:00:30,100
birds or mammals - that sex determination
was pretty random -
11
00:00:30,100 --> 00:00:32,960
that it couldn't really be influenced by
the parents.
12
00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:35,552
But we now know that a huge variety of
organisms, including birds
13
00:00:35,552 --> 00:00:40,240
and mammals are capable of
manipulating the sex of their offspring.
14
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:43,159
And manipulating the sex in ways that
increase their fitness.
15
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:47,968
To understand interesting patterns of sex
allocation we
16
00:00:47,968 --> 00:00:51,926
first have to understand why from an
evolutionary perspective,
17
00:00:51,926 --> 00:00:56,062
we expect investment in the two sexes to
be equal at the population level.
18
00:00:56,062 --> 00:00:58,862
Now at first, this seems rather counter-
intuitive. After all, if the
19
00:00:58,862 --> 00:01:03,030
sperm of a single male can fertilize lots
of different females,
20
00:01:03,030 --> 00:01:06,570
why not produce a sex ratio of say, 1 male
for every 10 females.
21
00:01:07,900 --> 00:01:10,930
Now we can see why that wouldn't work by
doing a thought experiment.
22
00:01:12,190 --> 00:01:16,450
Suppose we had a population in which there
were ten times as many females as males.
23
00:01:18,170 --> 00:01:23,240
Such a female bias sex ratio can't be
evolutionarily stable. Why?
24
00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:27,465
Well, because any parent that produces a
rare male will gain about ten times as
25
00:01:27,465 --> 00:01:33,880
much reproductive success
as any individual that produces a female.
26
00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:37,219
That's because this male can potentially
mate with on average,
27
00:01:37,219 --> 00:01:38,588
10 females,
28
00:01:38,588 --> 00:01:42,660
whereas each of these females can only
mate with this one male.
29
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:45,967
As a consequence, any gene that causes
parents to
30
00:01:45,967 --> 00:01:49,152
produce a son, will rapidly spread through
the population,
31
00:01:49,152 --> 00:01:53,110
and the proportion of sons will steadily
increase to more than one in ten.
32
00:01:57,080 --> 00:01:59,690
But the converse is equally unstable.
33
00:01:59,690 --> 00:02:04,171
If there are ten males all competing to
fertilize the eggs of a single female,
34
00:02:04,171 --> 00:02:06,280
then daughters are going to have an
enormous
35
00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:09,860
fitness advantage because only one of
these ten males.
36
00:02:09,860 --> 00:02:13,685
Can fertilize the offspring that's
produced by this female.
37
00:02:13,685 --> 00:02:17,585
So even though this female can only
produce one offspring, each of these males
38
00:02:17,585 --> 00:02:22,460
has only a one in ten chance of being the
father of that offspring.
39
00:02:22,460 --> 00:02:24,568
So again, there's a ten fold advantage in
40
00:02:24,568 --> 00:02:28,235
terms of reproduction to females in this
situation.
41
00:02:28,235 --> 00:02:31,384
Both sexes will only have the same
reproductive success
42
00:02:31,384 --> 00:02:36,090
when the population sex ratio is exactly
one to one.
43
00:02:36,090 --> 00:02:39,058
Even tiny deviations from that ratio are
going to provide fitness
44
00:02:39,058 --> 00:02:43,770
advantages that'll favor bias towards the
sex that returns better fitness.
45
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:47,518
This insight, that persistent sex ratio
bias
46
00:02:47,518 --> 00:02:50,450
of the population can't be stable,
47
00:02:50,450 --> 00:02:53,320
came from a famous theoretician by the
name of Ronald Fisher.
48
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:55,814
And the way that Fisher expressed it was
that "the sex
49
00:02:55,814 --> 00:03:00,507
ratio will so adjust itself, under the
influence of natural selection,
50
00:03:00,507 --> 00:03:02,885
that the total parental expenditure
incurred in
51
00:03:02,885 --> 00:03:06,000
respect of children of each sex will be
equal.
52
00:03:07,890 --> 00:03:10,374
A nice way to test Fisher's theory is to
experimentally
53
00:03:10,374 --> 00:03:12,642
push the sex ratio away from parity and
then try and
54
00:03:12,642 --> 00:03:16,460
observe whether it evolves back to that
point.
55
00:03:16,460 --> 00:03:18,566
And you can do that in species that have
unusual
56
00:03:18,566 --> 00:03:23,570
forms of sex determination by manipulating
the frequency of the sex alleles.
57
00:03:23,570 --> 00:03:26,540
And this little fish for example, which is
called a Southern Platyfish,
58
00:03:26,540 --> 00:03:31,130
sex is determined by a single
genetic locus that has three alleles.
59
00:03:31,130 --> 00:03:36,580
There are three female genotypes and there
are two male genotypes.
60
00:03:38,010 --> 00:03:38,505
Alexandra Basolo showed
61
00:03:38,505 --> 00:03:41,420
that if the relative frequency of those alleles
62
00:03:41,420 --> 00:03:46,403
is changed - by setting up populations
with biased sex ratio -
63
00:03:46,403 --> 00:03:48,704
selection will favor the rarer sex, and
within
64
00:03:48,704 --> 00:03:53,090
a few generations the ratio swings back to
parity.
65
00:03:53,090 --> 00:03:57,713
So in this case here, if we start off with
a population that is female biased, that
66
00:03:57,713 --> 00:04:03,822
has a relatively low proportion of males.
As we go through the generations,
67
00:04:03,822 --> 00:04:07,630
the sex ratio quickly swings back to
parity.
68
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:14,120
The same is true if we start with a
population that is quite male biased.
69
00:04:14,120 --> 00:04:16,457
So here we have a high proportion of
males, again,
70
00:04:16,457 --> 00:04:20,944
as we move through just a couple of
generations of reproduction,
71
00:04:20,944 --> 00:04:24,500
we end up with a population that
ends up back at parity.
72
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:28,870
We can refine Fisher's argument by
rephrasing it in terms of the resources
73
00:04:28,870 --> 00:04:32,066
that are invested.
So far, we've implicitly assumed
74
00:04:32,066 --> 00:04:32,457
75
00:04:32,457 --> 00:04:35,760
that daughters and sons are equally costly to
produce.
76
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:37,416
But what if we imagine that sons are twice
as
77
00:04:37,416 --> 00:04:41,120
costly as daughters to produce, because
they're twice as big,
78
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:43,030
and eat twice as much food while they're
developing?
79
00:04:44,470 --> 00:04:46,268
Now, when the sex ratio is one to one, a
80
00:04:46,268 --> 00:04:49,800
son has the same number of children as a
daughter.
81
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:51,714
But because the sons are twice as costly
82
00:04:51,714 --> 00:04:55,620
to make, they're a bad investment for a
parent.
83
00:04:55,620 --> 00:04:57,720
Because each of the grandchildren that's
84
00:04:57,720 --> 00:04:59,700
produced here, is twice as expensive as
85
00:04:59,700 --> 00:05:03,585
the grandchildren that are produced by a
daughter.
86
00:05:03,585 --> 00:05:07,890
It should therefore pay parents to produce
daughters instead.
87
00:05:09,510 --> 00:05:12,575
We expect the sex ratio to swing toward
the female bias.
88
00:05:12,575 --> 00:05:17,440
And as that happens, the expected
reproductive success of a son will go up.
89
00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:19,378
Until the average son produces twice the
90
00:05:19,378 --> 00:05:22,680
number of grand offspring as the average
daughter.
91
00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:27,620
At that point, sons and daughters will
give exactly the same return per unit of
92
00:05:27,620 --> 00:05:33,077
investment.
Because even though a son costs twice as
93
00:05:33,077 --> 00:05:39,370
much, he provides twice as many offspring
as a daughter does.
94
00:05:42,690 --> 00:05:45,919
What this means is that when the sexes
differ in their costs,
95
00:05:45,919 --> 00:05:48,051
the stable strategy for parents is not to
produce
96
00:05:48,051 --> 00:05:51,920
equal numbers of the two sexes, but to
invest equally.
97
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:56,250
If males are twice as costly as females,
parents should only produce half as many.
98
00:05:59,800 --> 00:06:01,440
Now to test this prediction, all we need
to do is to
99
00:06:01,440 --> 00:06:04,990
find a study system where the costs of
producing sons and daughters differs.
100
00:06:06,230 --> 00:06:10,060
And a nice example of this comes from two
closely related wasp species.
101
00:06:11,570 --> 00:06:16,050
Polistes variatus is a species where males
and females are equal in size.
102
00:06:17,490 --> 00:06:20,087
A closely related species, Polistes
metricus, has females
103
00:06:20,087 --> 00:06:22,199
that are half the size of males.
104
00:06:24,340 --> 00:06:27,092
Now, in metricus female wasps produce
twice as many
105
00:06:27,092 --> 00:06:31,960
females as in males amd variatis equal
numbers are produced.
106
00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:34,816
So, exactly as predicted by Fisher, when
males cost
107
00:06:34,816 --> 00:06:39,060
twice as much as females, half as many are
produced.
108
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:42,828
So, the take home message from this
lecture is that at the
109
00:06:42,828 --> 00:06:47,040
population level we expect sex ratios to
be pretty near parity.
110
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:49,432
A parent should invest in sons and
daughters near
111
00:06:49,432 --> 00:06:53,670
equally, based on how many are produced
and what they cost to produce.
112
00:06:55,030 --> 00:06:58,038
However, we'll see in the next lecture
that there are some contexts that might
113
00:06:58,038 --> 00:07:02,460
favor a bias in production of sons and
daughters at the level of the individual.
avatar
T*u
5
哈哈,第一张很优雅,低二张很高兴。
avatar
n*e
6
幸好没拷贝大英百科全书。

【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 你自己看吧
: 1
: 00:00:01,200 --> 00:00:03,130
: Hello, and welcome back to Animal
: Behavior.
: 2
: 00:00:04,590 --> 00:00:06,189
: When sexually reproducing animals
: produce
: 3

avatar
B*e
7
男的女的?
avatar
D*a
8
七分钟的视频而已..论坛传不了,我有么办法

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 幸好没拷贝大英百科全书。
avatar
i*l
9
今天周末 有几秒钟,就回一个:
班门弄斧
avatar
n*e
10
能简明表达观点吗?随机或非随机。

【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 七分钟的视频而已..论坛传不了,我有么办法
avatar
D*a
11
简明了就不准了。
要准的话:随机和非随机都作用于男女(雌雄)比例

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 能简明表达观点吗?随机或非随机。
avatar
n*e
12
看来你还是将道理的。一般而言,如果有非随机的因素存在。我们就不能说一个事件是
随机发生的。所以随机非随机存在内在排斥,不可同时有理。

【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 简明了就不准了。
: 要准的话:随机和非随机都作用于男女(雌雄)比例

avatar
D*a
13
也对也不对。
非随机是大量统计的结果,是指整体的一个种群而言,但是具体到某一家/某一窝,还
是不能预测的。
你可以看看这篇,http://www.guokr.com/post/502618/
讲的不如我这个视频细,但是也差不多

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 看来你还是将道理的。一般而言,如果有非随机的因素存在。我们就不能说一个事件是
: 随机发生的。所以随机非随机存在内在排斥,不可同时有理。

avatar
n*e
14
Genetics 课本上说其实北美白人初级性别比(出生比)男:女大约1.06:1也就是出生
男孩多。其解释是因动量定理Y精子速度更快,我也觉得这个很扯,不过是个可能的假
设。然后考察整个人群(男女老少都考察)的次级性别比就发现男比女无限接近1:1了
。原因是男婴多病早夭(X染色体剂量效应相关,女人2份X屏蔽一份且随机(理论上)
,男人没这好处),而且男人死得早。
avatar
v*e
15
还是随机事件,只不过有相关性。楼主显然没搞明白什么叫做随机什么叫做不随机。另
外说一句,随机不随机,都和旧医没关系。
avatar
a*n
16
这个不好说,不过某些人精神分裂注册马甲化妆成普通网友来吹捧自己
肯定不是随机的,估计是手机信号辐射太多,造成的生理病变

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 在精子形成的最后一步减数分裂,男性两个染色体X和Y分离。如果带有Y染色体的精子
: 与卵子结合就是男孩,X染色体精子生女孩。一个卵子被X还是Y受孕,看起来应该是随
: 机事件。
: 但是,在生活中我们可以注意到,如果一对夫妻第一个生的是男孩,第二个也多半是男
: 孩。反过来也一样。也就是是说,同性别孩子家庭多于杂性别孩子家庭。这种现象就意
: 味着生男生女并不是随机事件。
: 如果大样本调查支持这种现象。生男生女的奥秘可能还是中医说对了。不是随机的。

avatar
l*z
17
哈哈, 笑坏了.

【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: 这个不好说,不过某些人精神分裂注册马甲化妆成普通网友来吹捧自己
: 肯定不是随机的,估计是手机信号辐射太多,造成的生理病变

avatar
n*e
18
你错了,随机是大量统计的结果。男女比非常接近1:1(在没有任意堕胎的国家)。现
在我质疑的就是这一点。具体到每一家就可以发现有优先生男或者优先生女的趋势。这
当然是局部经验。要得出结论需要大样本统计。
我先假定一下调查统计的结果。如果。如果。在两个孩子的家庭,单性别明显多于杂性
别。在三个孩子家庭,前两个孩子单性别明显多于杂性别。在四个孩子家庭,前三个孩
子单性别明显多于杂性别。你就必须承认,生男生女不是随机事件。
所以不要用大量统计男女均衡的结果来反驳我的观点。应该证明即使nile假设的结果是
事实,也不能表明生男生女不是随机的。

【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 也对也不对。
: 非随机是大量统计的结果,是指整体的一个种群而言,但是具体到某一家/某一窝,还
: 是不能预测的。
: 你可以看看这篇,http://www.guokr.com/post/502618/
: 讲的不如我这个视频细,但是也差不多

avatar
n*e
19
随机事件,特征是结果不可预测,可能性各半。
我在原帖中就表明了这两个特征:在精子形成的最后一步减数分裂,男性两个染色体X
和Y分离。如果带有Y染色体的精子与卵子结合就是男孩,X染色体精子生女孩。一个卵
子被X还是Y受孕,看起来应该是随机事件。
请问我怎么“没搞明白什么叫做随机什么叫做不随机”。
你认为是随机不是随机都可以。关键不是你的观点。而是你为观点提供的论据。
另外说一句。中医不认为生男生女是随机的。只是中医关于这方面的理论,你根本就没
有读过。不要讨论你没有知识的事务。那会显得你很无知。

【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: 还是随机事件,只不过有相关性。楼主显然没搞明白什么叫做随机什么叫做不随机。另
: 外说一句,随机不随机,都和旧医没关系。

avatar
v*e
20

可能性1/4:3/4的也是随机事件。不光是1/2:1/2。

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 随机事件,特征是结果不可预测,可能性各半。
: 我在原帖中就表明了这两个特征:在精子形成的最后一步减数分裂,男性两个染色体X
: 和Y分离。如果带有Y染色体的精子与卵子结合就是男孩,X染色体精子生女孩。一个卵
: 子被X还是Y受孕,看起来应该是随机事件。
: 请问我怎么“没搞明白什么叫做随机什么叫做不随机”。
: 你认为是随机不是随机都可以。关键不是你的观点。而是你为观点提供的论据。
: 另外说一句。中医不认为生男生女是随机的。只是中医关于这方面的理论,你根本就没
: 有读过。不要讨论你没有知识的事务。那会显得你很无知。

avatar
n*e
21
有些公认的东西就不必抠字眼了。精子只有带X 和带Y的两种,所以这里的随机事件只
需考虑一半对一半的。

【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
:
: 可能性1/4:3/4的也是随机事件。不光是1/2:1/2。

avatar
n*e
22
网络无赖们的特征是用语言暴力人身攻击代替对客观事物的讨论。一大嗜好就是强行给
人戴上精神病的帽子。这一点与世界各国的暴君对待政敌的手法极为相似。所以爱因斯
坦有句名言:天才的暴君总是由无赖来继承。
最近网络无赖们把强制精神病的诊断水平发挥到了新的高度。有人声称精神病根本原因
是大脑前列腺受损。根据他理解的医学科学知识,他的大脑应该是长在比邻膀胱和直肠
的地方,而他脖子上的球状物体唯一的功能就是用来排泄肮脏的语言。这种人类罕见的
畸形只有家族遗传性基因缺陷才可以解释。
不过这位畸形儿对佛法颇有悟性。知道“诳语”死后是要割舌下地狱的。他说“微镜”
就是nile的马甲。Nile用马甲吹捧自己就是“诳语”。
“诳语”比较正式的用词是妄语,属于佛家基本戒律之一。首要内容就是不能撒谎,也
就是不能伪造事实歪曲事实。nile没说过的话硬要说他就是这么说的。Nile没有伪造任
何人的言论硬说nile伪造。人与马吸收植物蛋白的能力基本相同,硬要说有巨大不同。
不是生物专家,硬要冒充生物专家。这就是妄语,按佛家的说法,死后是要割舌下地狱
的。
回到微镜是不是nile的马甲问题上,标准还是事实。本人对这种指控一直采取的态度是
不加回应。第一个理由是无法出示证据证明微镜不是nile的马甲。也没有义务提供证据
证明微镜是nile的马甲。更重要的理由是那个指控nile用马甲自我吹捧的无赖完全没有
资格对nile的诚信问题作出道德评判。
不论微镜是不是nile的马甲,微镜对nile的评价和对肥版版主封禁nile的评价都是是个
人观点的真实陈述,与“诳语”没有丝毫联系。某人既然指控微镜是nile的马甲,自然
应该用事实证明所言真实不虚。
如果你并不知道微镜是不是nile的马甲,请不要用你从你祖先那里继承下来的长在裤裆
里的“大脑”先去思考,也不要流着满口污秽追着nile问来问去自寻烦恼。等你和诽谤
nile的人一同割舌下地狱的时候,自然有恶鬼告诉你微镜是不是nile的马甲。
avatar
a*n
23
你别乱扯,micromirror是不是你马甲,你就说个话
你要是不敢说,就不是男人没种。
给你这样的人说话,要照顾到你的智商,所以我把我的问题简化一下,
来做选择题
micromirror是不是nile的马甲
(A)是
(B)不是
你来选吧,是A还是B
你要是认怂不敢选,以后见了本大侠,就给我规规矩矩的把尾巴夹紧。

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 网络无赖们的特征是用语言暴力人身攻击代替对客观事物的讨论。一大嗜好就是强行给
: 人戴上精神病的帽子。这一点与世界各国的暴君对待政敌的手法极为相似。所以爱因斯
: 坦有句名言:天才的暴君总是由无赖来继承。
: 最近网络无赖们把强制精神病的诊断水平发挥到了新的高度。有人声称精神病根本原因
: 是大脑前列腺受损。根据他理解的医学科学知识,他的大脑应该是长在比邻膀胱和直肠
: 的地方,而他脖子上的球状物体唯一的功能就是用来排泄肮脏的语言。这种人类罕见的
: 畸形只有家族遗传性基因缺陷才可以解释。
: 不过这位畸形儿对佛法颇有悟性。知道“诳语”死后是要割舌下地狱的。他说“微镜”
: 就是nile的马甲。Nile用马甲吹捧自己就是“诳语”。
: “诳语”比较正式的用词是妄语,属于佛家基本戒律之一。首要内容就是不能撒谎,也

avatar
a*n
24
哈哈哈哈
你看过micrormirror的发帖记录啦?就是我签名档里面的链接。
怎么样,你能猜出来吗

【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: 哈哈, 笑坏了.
avatar
x*e
25
精子是只有X和Y,但含X和Y的精子生存率,游动快慢等可以不一样啊

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 有些公认的东西就不必抠字眼了。精子只有带X 和带Y的两种,所以这里的随机事件只
: 需考虑一半对一半的。

avatar
n*e
26
如果你真的长了个脑袋,应该看出来这里讨论的不是1.06:1的问题吧。

【在 x********e 的大作中提到】
: 精子是只有X和Y,但含X和Y的精子生存率,游动快慢等可以不一样啊
avatar
x*e
27
1.06是你拍脑袋臆想出来的吧

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 如果你真的长了个脑袋,应该看出来这里讨论的不是1.06:1的问题吧。
avatar
a*t
28
我盯你很久了。从来就没有看到你说一句实话。
这么说吧。如果你没有M某某是N某某的马甲证据。你就不是人养的。
这个帖子你三番五次说是N某某写的。
同主题阅读:素食给我健康之——素食与腋臭
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Dreamer/34028641.html
如果是你写的,你就是从猪屁股里爬出来的。

【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: 这个不好说,不过某些人精神分裂注册马甲化妆成普通网友来吹捧自己
: 肯定不是随机的,估计是手机信号辐射太多,造成的生理病变

avatar
n*e
29
智商一个很重要的指标就是看一个人对数字是否敏感。你太差了。不要推脱说你没看过
第一页回帖。千万不要再打脸了。

【在 x********e 的大作中提到】
: 1.06是你拍脑袋臆想出来的吧
avatar
n*e
30
我觉得他应该从猪pp爬回去。

【在 a*********t 的大作中提到】
: 我盯你很久了。从来就没有看到你说一句实话。
: 这么说吧。如果你没有M某某是N某某的马甲证据。你就不是人养的。
: 这个帖子你三番五次说是N某某写的。
: 同主题阅读:素食给我健康之——素食与腋臭
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Dreamer/34028641.html
: 如果是你写的,你就是从猪屁股里爬出来的。

avatar
h*n
31
你说的这个没有任何依据。 如果有, 请提供链接。

【在 n**e 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得他应该从猪pp爬回去。
avatar
a*n
32
不要和精神分裂的病人争吵

【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 你说的这个没有任何依据。 如果有, 请提供链接。
avatar
n*e
33
我反复说过这不是统计结论。是个人经验。你可以提出相反的观点。

【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 你说的这个没有任何依据。 如果有, 请提供链接。
avatar
h*n
34
我错了。

【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: 不要和精神分裂的病人争吵
avatar
n*e
35
你的质疑我本无需回答。因为前面已经回答过。回答是对你表示尊重。不过你不配。所
以送你三个字母 SOB。

【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 我错了。
相关阅读
logo
联系我们隐私协议©2024 redian.news
Redian新闻
Redian.news刊载任何文章,不代表同意其说法或描述,仅为提供更多信息,也不构成任何建议。文章信息的合法性及真实性由其作者负责,与Redian.news及其运营公司无关。欢迎投稿,如发现稿件侵权,或作者不愿在本网发表文章,请版权拥有者通知本网处理。