林尚義是踢而優則教，教而優則講，老一輩的評述員不論講甚麼領域都是字正腔圓，氣魄雄渾。我不打算批評現代評述員，可能不少電視台被近年西方思想感染，數據派講波在十多年間打開了不少空隙，也令年輕一輩的可以上位。但林尚義並無被淘汰，因為他用球員的經驗、教練的眼光以及教書的口吻，將整場波活靈活現講出來。現代球評人不可能有這三合一人的優點。
講唔出球員名又或講波慢半拍其實不是大罪過，反正電台講波時代無電視，幾快幾慢也無所謂。但有電視畫面，觀眾要求就相對較高，不過聽阿叔講波，根本就不是望聽數據和快節奏，反而是望見佢同陳譚新對罵，又或佢問福士德國點做，甚至講歷史古仔。這其實與董驃講馬的形式有異曲同工之妙，根本不是看精或準，而是節目的戲劇性。
不過現今的足球和賽馬節目，監製的要求不同，電視台也制度化。無時間和內容限制的自由發揮，只能在回憶中。
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
