近期有多位模特兒投入評馬行列，有朋友問我意見。
以前百業興旺，娛樂圈好景時，馬圈只是個跳版，靚女主持不論技巧或賽馬知識，只要有姿色，大台就提供機會。
但近兩年娛樂圈每況愈下，資金外流兼北上，相反地賽馬電子及網絡傳媒由不同方針主理，只要女主持得到宅男Like多，在網絡有反應，就不愁無工作。當然近年賽馬主持(不論電台或網網絡甚至文字)薪酬比起十多二十年前專業主持時還差一大截，但比起現在娛樂圈有電子傳媒連糧也出不到以及多項活動都要免費出席或出鏡，有份做主持，夠錢養家或供樓已算不錯了。
在外資及中資湧入香港彩池，的確令馬會不少預算鬆動了，馬會視聽部的預算我當然不知道，但論人手與公元二千年比較，起碼多了超過一倍，Airtime在各電視台也有，多了幾多大家都有目共睹。一家獨大，有時未必不是好事，馬會其實養活了不少影視中的精英。
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
