作為雜誌社社長，我絕對認為社會各界應維護新聞工作者的採訪自由，不應受任何阻撓，社會各界也應支持新聞從業員公正和專業的採訪。
但我也絕對鄙視一些借自己是新聞從業員作出非專業及不恰當行為的人，更覺得假冒或夾硬認自己為新聞從業員而從事為非作歹活動的人可恥。
在採訪過程中，近年有不少從業員對受訪者作出挑釁性的問題，這也無可厚非，因為他們的辦報或搞電台主子可能是有政治立場，問此類問題得出的答案往往(O岩)主子口味，只要問題是專業，站在捍衛新聞自由立場，這是踩線卻非不可接受。
但恃自己是傳媒身份，在示威現場襲擊或挑起事端，這是過份；而更過份的是，近年所謂網媒的興起，有部份根本並無專業資格或受過新聞訓練，卻以報導新聞為名參予或鼓勵暴亂，令真正專業的新聞界蒙羞，這是可鄙及可惡的行為，專業新聞團體應可以譴責。
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
