After all I have just said, let’s look at an Example:

(蟑螂：「人家抱怨你都不換行」
Sol：「那是我的特色呀~」而且如果換行的話，右手邊的滾輪就會小到看不見啦
蟑螂：「那如果我從句首走到句尾我大概也斷氣了...」
Sol：「小強你不要死!!你是我唯一的朋友了!!」)

(天呀我...進化成笨蛋先生了)

經過Reich的疲勞轟炸之後，現在來看看一個例子吧，
取自高二下第一次段考英文科的閱讀測驗(當時的我邊燦笑邊寫)

Have you ever thought about how many tissues you'd use per year? Greenpeace, an international environmental group, hopes you'll start taking this question seriously by launching a campaign called"Shop Smart, Save forests."

The campaign aimed to encourage people to give up their soft tissue paper and start using recycles tissue paper instead. "Recycled paper does the trick," said a Greenpeace representative. "The very soft tissue papaer sold by the paper industry is overkill."

Meanwhile, however, the tissue paper industry continued to encourage consumers to buy the luxury tissues and toilet paper. Their advertising campaigns highlighted the softness of their products. For example, and executive at the Kimberly-Clark company said, "Many consumers simply desire the softness from the ultra soft tissue paper, which is something recycled paper just can't deliver." For these consumers, the company offered the premium "Kleenex" brand, made of non-recycled paper. As for the rest of the consumers, the claimed that they did use recycled paper to produce less expensive brands.

Not good enough, insisted Greenpeace. They explained that Kimberly-Clark and its competitors had been using "virgin" fibers in Canada's forests instead of from recycled fibers. "How many trees have to be destroyed so people can blow their noses?"(I think it would be quite fun to be like"How many trees have to be destroyed so people can wipe their butts?") asked a Greenpeace representative.

Activist from Greenpeace had spread the word by talking to people on the streets in some of America's major cities. Using blind tests, they asked consumers to compare the premium tissue paper with the recycled tissue to see if they could tell the difference. The result was that most consumers could actually tell the difference but they claimed that difference to be slight. And most said that they's be willing to switch to the recycled paper to help save the environment.

As part of their campaign, Greenpeace had also asked consumers to write to Kimberly-Clark and request that they start using recyced paper for their entire product line. Kimberly-Clark later reported having received thousands of e-mails and letters. However, they have not given up on the non-recycled paper yet. Has this campaignaffected their bottom line?"No, our profits are up since then." said executives from the company.

對於這種勢單力薄的輿論撻伐，某部份而言是浪費力氣的行為。

我欽佩為了理念走到路上跟路人宣揚的熱情舉動(只是在台北人行道上有點不太可行)，但若這尺度是整個造紙產業與區域的森林破壞，這麼做是不是有點杯水車薪?

雖然我不是很清楚英文考卷上閱讀測驗中，文章的來源與真實性，

但顯然這篇文章的撰文者犯了些Reich談到的毛病。

文中既然已提到「Kimberly-Clark and its competitors」

卻沒有注意到後段的「e-mails and letters」只是聚焦單一企業，

那「Kimberly-Clark's competitors」呢?

是不是要像闖關遊戲那樣? 一個接著一個地將魔王打到，再進入下一關。

這樣的路徑是費力且無止境的。

.

相較於「接近完美的時代」，利益團體的力量已衰微。

近幾年來環保意識高漲，正是利益團體可以極力宣導的時刻，

卻將這辛辛苦苦凝聚的公民力量往死胡同裡丟。

.

蟑螂先生，如果你有注意到，

我在做換行文。