真理是否愈辯愈明？我不知道。只知道辯論時雙方是但一方不講邏輯而大聲亂嗡，再加上花生友或慢打鑼等推波助瀾，就真理都變無理。
大家若修讀過邏輯學，就知道由「袋住先」引伸到「袋一世」根本無邏輯基礎，只是一兩個手持大律師執照的人喊出來的口號。但係將論據交給教邏輯的教授去仔細分析，就發覺箇中的漏弊。
一個小孩喊著要買玩具，父母問因由，他只是說我要你買玩具，不買就繼續喊，而且愈喊愈大聲。大家見過這樣的情景嗎？有父母屈服，買玩具氹番佢；有父母就話之佢，繼而走遠，細路仔可能死死地氣起來，跟回父母的步伐。
泛民不願解政改之結，中央對政改亦可有可無。檯底下有無角力或交易我不知道，但泛民兩大黨由鷹派為首，再配合激進派，雙方要談，一定要兜圈兜路，而且大家要講理由。
香港有無另一個白高敦，像蘇格蘭公投時最後解圍呢！
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
