點解近年特區政府高官常被人抽秤或鬧？我深信大部分原因並不是他們個人能力不濟，而是一來制度之限制，令他們不能或不敢大刀闊斧施政，但最重要是在面對群眾和傳媒時過於官腔或辭不達意，引致有時好事變壞事，被人有機可乘。這類例子由於篇幅所限，不再另贅。
點解奧巴馬之說話咁有說服力，能成為他贏大選的主因？其中一原因是他擅用幕僚，尤其是文膽，大家可知道上周奧巴馬講辭其中一位文膽是位廿七歲的小伙子，撰稿時甚至只身在某咖啡室。但這些「緊貼民情」的說話，往往就能振奮人心，而不是像某些高官講一些令人氣餒的說話。
不要誤會我要部分高官們請廿多歲小伙子做文膽，香港不少年青人根本無乜墨水，閱歷也不深，但高官們若要向傳媒或群眾解畫，用字修辭應以「心」出發，以「民」 為本。一句發人深省的說話，一句悲天憫人的語句，往往就能扭轉麻木不仁的形象，我深信各位高官全部都是全心全意為市民的，也請同樣以「人」的說話告訴市民你們是盡力造福市民。如覺得艱難，亦應請教坊間最有觸覺的文膽。
You are absolutely correct. By supporting a lot (as much as possible)
One can ascertain that one will achieve some kind of relative response depending on how co incidental the responsive data is to the attention. If the optimal supportive motivation is relative to the foundation (wether valid or not) a supportive return will follow.
Accuracy is the issue. This is an hypothetical deduction (not quite as comprehensive as educational requirements are about here in North America) but by any of the individuals motive intelligence. Linguistics and vocabulary play the most important part of communication. Gaps of data in verbal communication only provide confusion.
To express anything at all one must work untill one can say what one means in its entirety otherwise one will express a peer groups distrust and desire to avoid the issue. The bottom line is to study practical, basic, fundemental, primary, ground level technicalities of domestic level to know for sure one is known for sure and this aspect goes far and beyond the experience of the
marriage relationship which is considered by most the most complete education for the poor. From your good friend Bruce K. Paxton
