首先表明立場，我反對恐怖襲擊，譴責仇殺。
但像查理周刊般處處以優越白人眼光去踩踏非歐美文化和宗教，甚至刻意去犯伊斯蘭文化的禁忌，之後事事以新聞自由去作所謂擋箭牌。對不起，這是先撩者賤，絕對是做錯。
近年歐美以致香港傳媒，有點像當年十字軍東征，一唔啱自己的看法就撩交打，而真的被打時就玩悲情博國家和市民同情。世界各地文化、宗教和政治背景不同，我們不論在唸書甚至二十世紀末，都接受和尊重多元文化，入日本廟宇先洗手，入伊斯蘭清真寺除鞋，就算有朋友在政治和宗教看法與自己不同，也明白和理解，不去強辯。
放肆的挑釁，是近年不少人的放任行為，日後吃虧的一定是他們自己。今次恐怖分子做得很錯，但請記住撩起風波的是查理周刊本身。大家不妨評評理，你覺得這樣侮辱回教先知做得對嗎？
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
呢個咩世界，賤人俾人殺係啱！