1. He was a conceited monster. Never for a moment did he look at the world or at people, except in relation to himself. To himself, he was not merely the most important person in the world; in his own eyes he was the only person who existed. He considered himself to be one of the greatest playwrights in the world, one of the greatest thinkers, and one of the greatest composers. If you hear him talk, it seems as if he were the mixture of Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Plato. And you have no trouble in hearing him talk. He was one of the most exhausting conversationalists that ever lived. An evening spent with him was an evening spent listening to a monologue. At times, he was brilliant, at other times, he was annoyingly tiresome. But whether he was brilliant or dull, he had only one topic of conversation: himself, what he thought and what he did.
   2. He thought arrogantly that he was always in the fight. The slightest hint of disagreement, from anyone, on the most trivial point, was enough to set him off on a harangue that might last for several hours, in which he proved himself right in so many ways, and with such exhausting volubility, that finally his hearer, stunned and deafened, would agree with him, for the sake of peace.

Another cultural difference has to do with the much greater emphasis that Chinese people have traditionally placed on face, on form and on being polite. Americans, in contrast, in their daily interaction, do not often talk about losing face, gaining face, or giving face. Americans are concerned about reputations and they do think about "looking good" and making others "look good". However, in daily interaction they tend to focus more on the substance of it and not on whether or not a particular action will result in someone losing or gaining face. Such issues as personal status, which are important in Chinese concepts of face, are less important to Americans and less likely to enter their minds when thinking about substantive matters.

   
   As is known to all, prior to the invention of the Internet, face-to-face conversations are a traditional and dominant way for people to communicate with each other in their life and work. But the emergence and popularization of the Internet has given rise to the wide use of e-mails in people's communication with one another. It is no exaggeration to say that e-mails have offered a challenge to face-to-face coversations in people's spiritual life. Within such a social context, a thought-provoking as well as controversial issue arises. Which is better, an e-mail or a face-to-face conversation?
   According to a recent survey conducted by a linguistic research organization in China, forty-eight percent of respondents prefer to send e-mails in their communication with others. Sending e-mails is their cup of tea because, on the one hand, it is a low-cost cultural consumption; come to think of it, an e-mail costs much less than a telephone call; on the other hand, it is conducive to an individual's communication with other people acoss space and time. That is to say, it is convenient for people who are within the same time zone as well as those who are not to exchange their viewpoints by means of the Internet.
   On the contrary, fifty-two percent of respodents are of the opinion that face-to-face conversations are better than e-mails because face-to-face conversations enable people to see one another more clearly, including one another's appearances, looks and manners. They maintain that face-to-face conversations do better than e-mails in the sense that the former are much closer to reality than the latter in interpersonal interactions.
   As for me, my face-to-face conversations are chiefly targeted at people who have close bonds with me. My e-mails are mainly targeted at those who are working on bonds with me or who experience a distant relationship with me.