上周某教育界博彩會委員在某報紙批評馬會賽馬搞抽獎是「賭上加賭」，我覺得這委員此番話在邏輯上甚有問題。
百貨公司搞抽獎及商場搞抽獎，意識形態也是一樣，這位委員又為何不批評。更荒謬的是，教育界小一電腦派位，形式上也是抽獎，為何他又不批評政府和教育局？
某社已被傳媒稱為道德塔利班，其實香港教育界絕大部分人士都十分開明和向前邁進，該委員的言論實令人氣餒，無端端令教育界予人盲塞的感覺（其實教育界根本絕不盲塞），更不幸的是，這種言論更令人質疑博獎會的角色和政府挑選博獎會委員，究竟是為有效宏觀監管博彩業，還是只為反賭博人士製造一個出氣的地方？
禁賭和反賭博是中世紀的想法，根本與時代脫節。博獎會的角色是規範和監管博彩，不是反賭。政府絕對有必要邀請對賽馬博彩及足智彩有深厚認識的專家擔任委員，知己知彼，監管才真正有效。
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
