打仗是要親臨戰場，不是得把口在大後方指指點點的。
香港很得意，在網上或茶餘飯後喜歡指點江山的人很多，但認識他們後，就明白他們部分對機構的認識十分有限。
當然他們不少很有熱誠，但部分意見則十分得人驚，也缺乏可行性，如有關當局聽取而採用的話，後果將十分「精采」。
我也明白任何政策並無完美，而政府施政亦應以利民紓困為大原則。但若由外行意見去影響內行政策，對業界不是好事。
但作為政府或機構執政者，公關技巧也要與時並進。與其用艱澀的專業語言，不如將部分內容簡化，又或減少官腔，而機構公關大員亦要提點主政者有關言行，自己也要不斷吸收業界知識，以應付突襲。
以上意見並不是針對任何機構和行業，只是我對近年香港各行各業的一個宏觀的觀察心得。請記住我是研究機構行為學的。
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
