今次澳洲之旅有個獨特體驗，就是馬場保安的工作，執法得公正嚴明。
兩天在費明頓馬場會員席，男士的服飾規定要穿西裝兼打領帶，缺一不可，入場券封套上，已有清楚說明。
守住會員席出入口的保安，見到有違規的會員，一律不准進入。我見到其中有會員發難，又說自己是誰，又說識得某某董事，又炒低保安員的姓名說要投訴，但保安員都堅守崗位，服飾不合者，一律被拒諸門外。
我曾問過當地馬會高層如何應付這類投訴保安的情形。他只是笑笑口說：「那位保安會受到表揚！」
借人家名字來狐假虎威，是不少人士在自己理虧時慣用的伎倆。但身為執法人員，只要秉公辦事，無必要怕投訴，因為上司大多數是明白事理的人。
我曾駕車去馬場進錯入口，保安十分有禮貌，一直解釋我應去的位置，又叫他的同事幫忙引路，做得好！
吳嵩
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
