某大學就周秀娜高曝光率現象做一個研討會，但最特別的是居然請周秀娜親自出席，不排除有公關高人提點大學如想搏出位，結果未開研討會就惹來坊間議論紛紛，未研討就已成鬧劇，這個研討會的學術性質是否已褪色，留待各位看官自行定奪。
我覺得大學請周秀娜親自出席除非是搏宣傳或見報，否則真的是請錯對象，要請就應請周秀娜的經理人公司負責人，問他為何咁醒掌握到低俗文化，而用周秀娜的所謂誘惑而吸住電車男及龍友？要請就應該請港聞版及娛樂版編輯和記者，問他們為何會為電車男或龍友大增周秀娜的篇幅和報道？
周秀娜搞了咁多綽頭嘢，佢自己入袋有幾多錢？這樣曝光率算不算是成功人士？日後她再有沒有市場價值？這熱潮會否過去？這一切並不重要。要佩服的是諗到捧佢的人，不過捧周秀娜的難度，遠比當年美國捧紅孔慶翔為低？By The Way，點解當年某大學又不搞「孔慶翔現象」研討會呢？
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
