56k？

一木 今晚我在家煲藥 有時間看回很多以前的留言 我覺得你這首詩 令人感動 又：你是不是忘了把你的電話號碼留給她？

再 又：你用的是不是流動電話？是那一個台的？？

唉... .... 問世間情為何物?

Ling 看來今晚他都出去了......嘻嘻，或許是轉了台，終於等倒了！

離奇離題 我想請問 電影節既catalogue係出左, 比人攞晒, 定係未出? 我先頭响文化中心攞唔到. 請請!

離奇離題之二 小花生你出現了！今天我有話想和你傾下！

採菊 請多多指教!

係想請教你 今日我又上證覺精舍喎，點知上山半途見一老嫗拉車而上啦，咁嘻嘻，結果我仲跟埋佢上山頂的紫霞閣，咁個阿婆就話我聽，今日係上元誕，好熱鬧架！嘻嘻其實我第一個問題是想知咩係上元誕？

採菊 only don"t know ^^ 顯宗既一切我都唔係好知架! sorry!

採菊 點解當時你唔問下阿婆婆呢? 唉, 今日十五, 我唔記得茹素. :(

恕我無知 咁結果我搞到成四點先下山啦，又去返證覺精舍，嘻嘻我今次見到上次提起的願西法師了，只見眾人簇擁著佢，我都無乜機會行埋，但見佢晌度吸煙喎......我的第二個問題係，可能你會覺得我很無知，但法師吸煙是否沒有問題的？我總有點奇怪的感覺．

補數啦 唔緊要啦不如你聽日補飛咪得囉！

不必再等 採菊： 先多謝你喜歡這首詩。 我想，以後也不用再等電話了(至少一段長時間不用再等)

採菊, 小弟插個嘴啦 我係新生來的，各位前輩多多指教啦∼ 恕小弟不才，法師吸煙鮮有聞之，聽說佛教徒是禁止吸煙的，更別徨論是出家人了。

採菊 //法師吸煙是否沒有問題的？我總有點奇怪的感覺．// 五戒冇話明唔比食煙既, 我唔係好知, 不過呢方面我冇judgement 修密修禪既人我冇見過食煙(強調:係我冇見過), 好似話食煙會block d氣脈block得好勁, 好似, 所以會影響修行.

"亦"風 //佛教徒是禁止吸煙的// 唔係呀, 睇你受左咩戒啦, 好似小花生咁係可以食煙架, 唔犯戒架!

小花生：離奇離題 既然明知離題，為何不另開闊新的討論線（thread)？ 如此任性，不理會約定俗成的守則，若眾人都仿效此越軌做法，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！ 我正是依據目錄的指引到此，想看看一木的「草草寫下的草草的詩」，以為對號入座，哪知...... 我們是否需要多點自律？否則，目錄的設置就失去意義了。

謝謝小花生和逆風兄 謝謝兩位仗義指教，我比新生更新也！ 謝謝一木兄借這個地盆給我們離題離到離晒大譜！

其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。 否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。

多謝寸心 不過依然感謝寸心的仗義。多謝！

採菊草草寫下的草草的詩 採菊有問求指導 花生細意解煩惱 逆風仗義心地好 寸心大人請息怒 採菊知錯了,不要生氣嘛^_^

一木 一木﹕//其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。 // 我不同意你的理由，這是你自私的想法。 我不再回覆或討論下去，否則我會在第一次必須干預而犯規下，繼續犯規下去了！再見。

這個題目是我開的，我喜歡怎樣自私也可以。 主人家都不介意，過路的反而..... 終於知道什麼叫皇帝不急太......

一木兄 親愛的一木兄： 對不起，竟使你也受到牽連， 我想說，你一點都不自私！ 謝謝你的包容！ ＊－＞－

寸心 我都知錯啦! 對不起呀!

海闊天空之道 嘻嘻小花生下次我們還是退到肥羊那邊講話吧......(其實你是不是和我一樣，有點摸不著頭腦？只記得海闊天空之道？)夜了，祝你和一木兄都好！

人類簡史 < 標點符號的傳奇 --- 人類簡史 > ** 房遠華 一、 問號 ？ 感嘆號 ！ 混沌初開 盤古開天 宇宙浩瀚 時空玄奧 人類仰天長嘆 滿天發出「問號」無數 無邊？無際？無限？無終？ 宇宙回應的只是 一柱擎天的「感嘆號」！ 二、 頓號 、 省略號 …… 林木森森 雷電交加 前天茹毛飲血 昨日鑽木取火 從狩獵到農耕 人類殺出重圍 但只稍微停頓 今天又得匆匆踏上征途 從弓箭到導彈 從野火烤到電磁爐 人類走過彎彎長路 工業社會、後工業社會、後現代社會…… 連接「頓號」的是「省略號」 當前要趕赴「知識經濟」快速列車 路遙遙、夜漫漫 不眠不休不止不息 八小時工作制崩塌 朝朝暮暮上下求索 三、 逗號 ， 分號 ； 弱肉強食是鐵律 戰爭連連是常規 殺戮、流血、死亡、毀滅 第一次世界大戰只是「逗號」， 或者充其量只是「分號」； 只二十年歇息 就迎來六千萬屍骸遍野的 第二次世界大戰 然而 上帝沒承諾這是「終極之戰」 誰知道 明天還是後天 核子塵帶來人類的滅絕？ 四、 破折號 --- 無政府狀態是愚昧落後 科層統治體現歷史躍步 階級鬥爭推動社會改造 人類社會顛簸迂迴演變 重重波折過後仍是波折 破折號連接著曲折崎嶇 這正是歷史的金科玉律 五、 書名號 ＜ ＞ 冒號 ： 引號「 」 ＜日心說＞、＜人權宣言＞ ＜進化論＞、＜共產黨宣言＞ 用的都是「書名號」 理論是人類智慧的精妙結晶 亦是人類經驗的血淚沉澱 它見證社會秩序幾許瘋癲 更體現神權的大崩裂 在天翻地覆的歷史長河 從四腳爬行到兩足站立 人類向幽幽蒼冥 自信狂傲地宣告 宣告由「冒號」和「引號」帶出 這是驚天動地的豪言壯語﹕ 「人類破解基因圖譜， 標誌人類掌握生命全部！」 六、 括號 （ ） 句號 。 據說人類前途繫於全球化 國家不論強弱 民族不計大小 全球化就是建構地球村 此宏圖偉略 就是大同世界 環球同此涼熱 四海之內皆兄弟也 喂喂，要注意啊 那個「括號」裡面， 不明明寫下 （全球化就是資本主義化與美國化） 它意味貧富更懸殊 它指涉南北更對抗 它是一極化的廣泛淪喪 它是霸權主義全球肆暴 人類美麗新世界 仍然只是烏托邦 人類的桃花源 近似飄渺虛無 大同路 望不盡 幸福徑 走不了 這是無限申延的小徑長路 這未完成的幸福篇章 還有待人類填入「句號」。 （2002年10月1日）

認同寸心的見地 有理說不清, 就爛撻撻說自己自私. 衷心支持寸心, 道理得失寸心知.

過來人 其實乖d係會方便第二d唔知頭唔知路既網友既! 所以為他人著想, 都係乖d好!

小花生 小花生所言甚是！其實我今天想到很多話想和你講，現在已打好並發至你的電郵郵箱，不再在這裡影響別人了，請查收，謝謝！

採菊 收到你的電郵了! 謝謝 我這幾天會很忙, 但會盡量嘗試回復你的!^^ 祝好!

默書零旦 回覆

//認同寸心的見地 有理說不清, 就爛撻撻說自己自私. 衷心支持寸心, 道理得失寸心知. // 本來人家走進來我的欄目談天我真的不介意，但這樣竟然也給人說不是。蠻不講理的程度真是難以想像。情形就好像我開了一間租書店，本來規矩是定了不准別人進來打書釘或聊天的，但店主我心情好，由得他們。不過有些人卻看不過眼，出言阻止；這時店主為了息事寧人，也為了免傷和氣，好言相勸。怎料這些人不領情，還要責備店主不懂道理。請問這算不算喧賓奪主？算不算沒有禮貌？ 現在我這自己的欄目裡說些離題的話又怎樣？是否要你們這些自以為正義，實質不知變通、不懂禮貌的路人甲批准？

所謂犯規,是誰的規? 寸心兄本來抱著好意,走進來說人違規. 可惜寸心兄是否發覺,自己說人違規本身也違規了(如果有規的話). 規是誰人定?你定?我定?你說的規本身又是什麼?若然所有留言都要和草草寫下的草草的詩有關,是否說所有人都只可在這題目下讚或彈這詩?如果另作一詩,和草草寫下的草草的詩無關,是否又離題了? 寫這麼大段野,我其實只是說,在網編定的規中根本沒有無關題者不得說一規, 何況一木兄也說沒問題.(一木兄是立題人)希望寸心兄說人前先細想

^^ 打破混沌的句號 驚而發出感嘆號 問號背後有問號 人生當有些頓號 最終原是省略號 復歸完美的句號

此處是公眾空間 前言﹕此處的爭辯源於一木君的討論欄目（thread)＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞，有興趣知道其來龍去脈的網友宜先去該處瀏覽一遍，以便了解爭辯的問題所在。 __________________ 一木 2003-02-16 02:27:45 //來人家走進來我的欄目談天我真的不介意，但這樣竟然也給人說不是。蠻不講理的程度真是難以想像。情形就好像我開了一間租書店，本來規矩是定了不准別人進來打書釘或聊天的，但店主我心情好，由得他們。不過有些人卻看不過眼，出言阻止；這時店主為了息事寧人，也為了免傷和氣，好言相勸。怎料這些人不領情，還要責備店主不懂道理。請問這算不算喧賓奪主？算不算沒有禮貌？ 現在我這自己的欄目裡說些離題的話又怎樣？是否要你們這些自以為正義，實質不知變通、不懂禮貌的路人甲批准？// 一木君﹕我首先很想知道，你所說的「我的欄目」是什麼意思？ 我的理解是﹕這是指由你提出討論內容的欄目，如此而已。由於此處是公眾空間，而非私人俱樂部，因此，所有人都可以提出討論欄目，所有人都可以自由進入任何欄目，或只是瀏覽，或加入討論。 我必須指出﹕開闢新欄目者其實只是此討論內容的「提議者」，他絕不擁有此欄目的「業權」；其實，由此平台的設計，我們就可以得悉此點---任何人都可以自由進出，此處亦沒有會員的限制。 明乎此，你一木君決非＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞欄目的「業主」（或店主），這是很清楚明白的。亦因此之故，你說「情形就好像我開了一間租書店....」，我認為，這是屬於「比喻不當」的例子；必須弄清楚的是，你不是店主！ 接著要解釋討論欄目（thread)的作用，我認為﹕討論欄目等同一本書的篇章，放在平台首頁就成為討論區的目錄。眾人依據不同欄目而加入討論是約定俗成的守則，事實上，現時狀況是﹕眾網友大抵都依照此目錄而對號入座參與討論。這是一個討論區可以維持井然有序的保證，否則，天下大亂矣。 可能出現的情形是﹕在討論新詩的欄目中，眾人七嘴八舌竟然討論愛因斯坦的相對論、香港特區政府的23條立法、上帝與石頭...等等，你們希望出現此種混亂局面嗎？ 所以，一木君說「在我這自己的欄目裡說些離題的話又怎樣？」是不合適的。 假若眾人都仿效「老子愛怎樣做就怎樣做」的話，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！ 然則此留言區有否規定對號入座此做法？當然沒有。我在＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞欄目裡已指出，這是「約定俗成的守則」，又說﹕「我們是否需要多點自律？否則，目錄的設置就失去意義了。」 另外，我不明白一些網友動輒指責別人「自以為正義」，但卻提不出人家如何「不正義」，不知何故，「正義」竟然成為貶詞！好像非要剷平不可？哀哉。

我說了一堆不合理又不正義的話(又離題了) 如果寸心的題目是此處是公眾空間的話,寸心又離題了,如果題目是此處是公眾空間,我們應該研究的是這是否公眾空間?而非借命題來話人一個稀巴爛.寸心兄一直在話人,話完人後就從自己文章中抽一句當命題,難怪離題了? 人家又不是爆粗,何必苦苦相纏? 何謂題?真禪

天越君 離題？我上次貼文的主旨，通篇正是解釋「為何本討論區是公眾空間，而非私人俱樂部」，我究竟如何離題了？莫名其妙！ 天越君﹕//人家又不是爆粗,何必苦苦相纏?// 上次我的貼文是回應一木君的貼文，這叫做「苦苦相纏」？再次莫名其妙！

回禮 回禮由草草的詩一題斬到公眾場所? 由解釋此處是公眾空間變了大說一木不是? 又無中生有不淮在留言板說私話一例,又說公眾場所不淮說私話,難道我們不能在商場說私話,不要說竊竊私語,就算高談闊論,警察叔叔也不會因此捉我番警局,除非這世界是你的世界,這商場是你所定義的商場

莫名其妙！ 1. 天越 //回禮由草草的詩一題斬到公眾場所? // 不大掌握你的意思。你是說為何我不在＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞此欄目回應一木君，卻另闢新欄目？ 假若是這個意思，我已在＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞此欄目提出了解答。現將答案抄在下面﹕ 寸心 2003-02-15 23:30:02 // 我不再回覆或討論下去，否則我會在第一次必須干預而犯規下，繼續犯規下去了！再見。// 2, 天越 //由解釋此處是公眾空間變了大說一木不是?// 我是回應一木君的「店主論」（姑名之，方便討論），指出他的看法是錯誤的（詳見本欄目我的第一個貼文）。既然是回應他，且認為他的看法是錯誤的，自然就在論說一木的不是了！這有什麼奇怪？莫名其妙！ 3. 天越 //又無中生有不淮在留言板說私話一例,又說公眾場所不淮說私話,難道我們不能在商場說私話,不要說竊竊私語,就算高談闊論,警察叔叔也不會因此捉我番警局,除非這世界是你的世界,這商場是你所定義的商場// 我何曾說過「不淮在留言板說私話」？可否指明出處？否則無中生有的正是閣下！ 又﹕「公眾場所不淮（准）說私話」是你的原話，我又何曾說過？也麻煩你指明出處。 唉，莫名其妙！莫名其妙！莫名其妙！

寸心說得對，只可惜......... 離題是生活的一部分 生活的主題，就是不斷的離題 說私話，可以開一欄說過飽，我也看得開心的！

如果我向業主租了一個舖位賣玩具，我當然不是這個舖位的「主人」了，因為我只是這個舖位的租客罷了。但如果有人拿我的貨品拋來拋去，我作為店主是否有權要求他們停止或趕他們出去呢？又或者，假如我心情好，任得他們胡作妄為(可能是中了六合彩)，看不過眼的客人甲乙地趕他們出去，還責備我處事不當(他認為)，請問這個人到底有沒有這種權力呢？他算不算多管閒事呢？ 照這個人的思維，萬一我想趕這個客人甲乙出去，是否要先聯絡這個舖位的業主，得到他的批准才可以呢？(他說我不是主人嘛！)

朝拜 //認同寸心的見地 //有理說不清, 就爛撻撻說自己自私. 衷心支持寸心, 道理得失寸心知. // //寸心說得對，只可惜.........// 這個人很怪，他開口埋口「認同」、「衷心支持」、「說得對」，但為什麼認同和怎樣說得對卻說不出個所以然來，盲目朝拜的程度直逼失蹤了的揣摩。 早知我都多弄幾個複製人出來撐撐場，反正都是說幾句空泛的話，花不了多少時間。

目的 由草草的詩一題斬到公眾場所是描繪閣下的苦苦相纏,不是如你所猜一樣,對不起. 閣下經常說人不貼題,可惜自己卻說與題無大關係的說話,我本想進來看看你如何解釋和描繪此處是公眾空間,可惜進來看見的,卻是一些和題目沒關係的話,公眾空間只出現過一次,其他全是罵人的話. (我何曾說過「不淮在留言板說私話」？可否指明出處？否則無中生有的正是閣下！ ) 看來寸心兄忘記自己本來為何罵人了,你走進一木兄的留言板題目罵採菊和小花生說私話(也就是你說的離題話語)這便是出處了.另外,我為何說閣下無中生有,因為閣下自行把自己的主觀規則說成像網編立的規則一樣,正等於在足球比賽裏,前鋒說龍門犯規,因為龍門倚賴龍門柱救波一樣無中生有. (又﹕「公眾場所不淮（准）說私話」是你的原話，我又何曾說過？也麻煩你指明出處。 ) 閣下說留言板是公眾場所,公眾場所不准說私話=留言板不准說私話,是你罵人的目的呀,是否失憶了,或是故作不知?

//所以，一木君說「在我這自己的欄目裡說些離題的話又怎樣？」是不合適的。 假若眾人都仿效「老子愛怎樣做就怎樣做」的話，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！ // 「說些離題的話」是否等如「愛怎樣做就怎樣做」？ 我和朋友討論一些問題可以突然說些題外話，相信這位朋友也不會介意。但是否就代表我可以突然一拳打向這位朋友呢？ 如果我是一個老師，在堂上教課文的時候忽然想起一些與課程無關的事情，想和同學享一下，同學是否可以說這位老師破壞規矩呢？ 是否一路照課程去講課，由上課一路教到下課的便是好老師呢？那麼為何不用一部錄音機呢？還要老師來幹什麼？

在公眾空間送禮物可以嗎？ 終於等到一木和天越都到場了，嘻嘻因為我覺得兩位都很好人，所以我今早一起來就決定，要等齊兩位，然後在這裡各送一對在元宵夜由李生改造的"邱彼特箭"給兩位，以示我對你們的欣賞和支持． 給一木的：＊－－＞　＊－－＞ 給天越的：＊－－＞　＊－－＞ 祝兩位情場網業兩得意！ 外各人加一個 ★═★═★ ║打唔甩║ ☆　の　☆ ║愛情符║ ★═★═★ ★═★═★ ║打唔甩║ ☆　の　☆ ║愛情符║ ★═★═★ 對不起中場休息完畢請各位繼續！ ＊－＞－ 採菊者贈

丁蟹 //另外，我不明白一些網友動輒指責別人「自以為正義」，但卻提不出人家如何「不正義」，不知何故，「正義」竟然成為貶詞！好像非要剷平不可？哀哉。 // 「正義」不是貶詞，「自以為正義」才是貶詞(句？)(和理解能力有問題溝通是痛苦的) 至於例子，其實店主那個例子已是了。或許有人理解不到。 有沒有聽過「皇帝唔急太監急」？(網管有沒有出來阻止？) 有沒有看過「大時代」？知不知道丁蟹是誰？沒看過請買vcd來看，就會知道什麼是自以為正義了。

離題地說聲多謝 採菊： 多謝！

又離題了 多謝多謝

給李天命老師的忠告 奉勸老師以後留言還是不要說那麼多題外話了(尤其是留幾句詩作回應，人家未必理解的)，以免被人說「李天命在李天命網上思考的留言區上離題」

請大家說些離題的話 如果我開了一個題目叫「請大家說些離題的話」，結果會怎樣呢？ 如果離題，就是符合題目了；但同時也就等如沒有離題，亦即是不符合題目......

在公眾空間說句不用謝謝 兩位不用謝謝．別客氣． 另外我想既然"此處是公眾空間"， 說聲多謝應該沒有問題吧？ 希望以上包含題目"此處是公眾空間"的說話，沒有犯到離題之條吧．諸位不如返去肥羊那邊玩下小花生的心理測驗仲開心啦！

路過的 羅素悖論? 路過問問題算唔算離題?

在公眾空間考一天越 天越 考題呀！！ 一木兄所講的離題就不離題， 不離題就離題． 可唔可以做羅素悖論之例呀？

如果我開了一個題目叫「請大家說些離題的話」，結果會怎樣呢？ 如果離題，就是符合題目了；但同時也就等如沒有離題，亦即是不符合題目...... 羅素悖論?

天越 要答就開個thread la.. 唔係就........

今夜在此公眾空間送的最後一份禮 阿豪,今晚最後一set. ＊－－＞ ＊－－＞ ★═★═★ ║打唔甩║ ☆　の　☆ ║愛情符║ ★═★═★ 祝你玩得夠"放"！ ＊－＞－ 採菊者贈

你地鍾意開就開啦，我冇意見。

絕不離題 一木: 草草的一木草草的詩 縷縷的情愁縷縷的詞 戀戀的昨日戀戀的你 深深的寥落深深的癡 p.s. 很高興再見到你的詩！

離題萬丈 唔好意思，下面的「東西」貼錯o左thread添！

絕不離題 一木: 草草的一木草草的詩 縷縷的情愁縷縷的詞 戀戀的昨日戀戀的你 深深的寥落深深的癡 p.s. 很高興再見到你的詩！

<< 舞別 >>的變奏 李天命的<<舞別>>,常見被徵引: 翩然的輕盈翩然的舞 嫣然的意態嫣然的妒 黯然的夜盡黯然的別 茫然的曉寒茫然的路 水中花的那首詩,是否<<舞別>>的變奏?

<<舞別>>的變奏 李天命的<<舞別>>,常見被徵引: 翩然的輕盈翩然的舞 嫣然的意態嫣然的妒 黯然的夜盡黯然的別 茫然的曉寒茫然的路 水中花的那首詩,是否<<舞別>>的變奏?

離題「詩」 草草的一木暗暗的淚流 縷縷的情愁絲絲的楊柳 戀戀的昨日依依的退後 深深的寥落淡淡的離愁

Sorry 貼錯「詩」 要搬家

離題「詩」再度現身 離題「詩」 草草的一木暗暗的淚流 縷縷的情愁絲絲的楊柳 戀戀的昨日依依的退後 深深的寥落淡淡的離愁

上下皆空 :) 鏡中花，水中月 鏡中月，水中花 如夢幻泡影 如露亦如電 應作如是觀

不能少了我.

等待的心情 一木,等待的心情美麗 但不要讓自己身心俱疲。 快樂人生。

蕭遙： 等待可以很美麗 快樂也可以很疲累

水月： 好詩好詩，多謝賜教。

一木兄,很久沒見.

水中花： 見到你我也很高興。 見到你的詩就更高興了。

? 請問甚麼叫做「子矛子盾法」?何謂「時空有限而無界」?請賜教.

盲辯 嘻皮笑臉，蠻不講理﹔ 和尚打傘，無法無天； 此之謂「多數人的暴政」！

何謂「時空有限而無界」? 上帝從永恆中創造混沌 我們人和人之間，都不能有自主權決定我要不要被父母所生，何況是上帝創造我們！ 當上帝造天使時，你也不能說，難道上帝很無聊寂寞，造一些天使陪祂玩玩！你這樣想也是反邏輯的思考方向，因為神不寂寞，神也不需要創造我們，神也不需要創造萬物和天使；神就是神，祂是一切豐盛的本體，本來就有。神也不必回答我們這些問題，因為連你問的這個問題本身，都還是神主權給你的機會，不然，你連機會問都沒有機會問！你早就不存在啦！ 有人解釋地球為什麼是「混沌」，他們說，是神造完天使後，天使墮落，把地球搞得亂七八糟，上帝和天使曾經動一場屬靈的大戰，所以地球變成一團似水似泥、混沌黑暗不成形的物質，所以神重新再造。 第二種解釋聽起來，好像很有道理，可以解釋得通，但是聖經沒有直接寫得很清楚，只有說大地一片荒涼。沒有直接說明為什麼會荒涼。 但你若站在上帝主權的立場，就講不通。因為，神不是無能！無能到會使祂所造的天使，把祂的家搞得亂七八糟，隨地大小便，亂丟垃圾，充滿污蔑。因為，聖經啟示我們連黑暗都是神所造的，天使的行動皆在神的掌握當中。因此，第二種解釋，只是一種猜測的想像，而不是聖經直接的根據。 我們只能憑信心接受，在時空有限的範圍及因果關係的次序裡，神藉著這個似水似土的「混沌」，黑暗未成形的物質材料，運用祂全能的大能，運行在第一天、第二天、第三天、第四天、第五天、第六天，創造萬物，以這種人能明白的表達，造了地球。 神在第二天把水的物質分開，上層為天。然後，到第三天將下層水中的土，土中的水分開，水變成大海，土變成大地。然後，第四天，造宇宙的星體、太陽、月亮、各類星星，按照時間的次序，地球是比任何星體還優先被造。然後，第五天造天空的生物，水中的生物。然後，第六天造地上的生物，最後造人。 對人的時空角度看，好像世界的成形是從開始的一點爆炸出來，或者是從一個點進化過來，這種觀念，是人的一種猜想、一種哲學理念、科學假設，並不是聖經的啟示；是科學家假設前提的一種信念，並沒有科學上的證據。 沒有一個人能明白地球及萬物是如何形成的，因為萬物比人先存在，人無法倒回去重新明白世界的形成過程，也無法在實驗室裡重新來過或是反覆試驗。若不是從神的啟示，沒有人能知道世界如何形成。 然而，上帝告訴我們，我們為何存在？世界為何存在？乃是因為祂先創造了世界，然後再造我們。為什麼祂要造我們？當你每一天向你的父母說：「你為什麼要生下我？」你渴望的答案是什麼？

請問甚麼叫做「子矛子盾法」? These are all examples of 「子矛子盾法」, understand? Sorry 貼錯「詩」 離題「詩」 離題萬丈 唔好意思，下面的「東西」貼錯o左thread添！ 你地鍾意開就開啦，我冇意見。 奉勸老師以後留言還是不要說那麼多題外話了(尤其是留幾句詩作回應，人家未必理解的)，以免被人說「李天命在李天命網上思考的留言區上離題」

鬼故事 第一章 阿呆之黑帽子 人物：阿呆.IQ=0/四通 地點：家中 時間：九八年元旦 先說說阿呆吧，他是四通在北京的網管之一，原本是為各大雜誌社寫 稿子的自由記者，現在正致力於搞一個遊戲俱樂部。上次我告訴他我正在 寫這個系列的故事，他第一個反應就是：你要是敢把我上次的事說出來， 你來一次我踢你一次。我苦笑著說：放心吧，不會的後來直到寫了好多人 的事以後，我才發現，如果因為怕得罪人而放棄，那就算不上是真正的對 朋友負責，寫就寫了吧，沒什麼好怕的。 阿呆帶上帽子(就是網管的意思)也好長時間了，一般來說，除非是特 別過分的情況他才踢人的，那天正好是元旦，四通就只有二三個人在聊天， 他進去看了看打了聲招呼就想離開了，這時候正好進來了一個叫“超級網 管”的人，他覺得有點興趣就留下來看看，那個人一進來就說：嗨，你們 想不想要四通的帽子啊？我這裏拍賣，用visa付帳好了。阿呆就問起來： “你是誰啊？四通有你這樣的網管嗎？這種玩笑怎麼能亂開啊。”那個人 似乎有點吃驚：“恩？IQ=0，我賣我的帽子，和你有什麼關係？”，阿呆 一看這人能叫的出自己另外的名字，定是熟人無疑，就說：“如果你再說 這種話，小心踢你出去。”那人有點生氣了，說：“踢我？你算老幾啊， 你才帶了幾天帽子，小心我炸了你丫的”，阿呆也沒說話就直接把那人的 IP查到準備開踢，誰知道剛一把名字輸進去就死機了，他想也許是那人先 動手把自己炸了，就又重新啟動，準備再踢一次，誰知道剛連上線又死機 了，連續幾次，他已知道事情不大對頭了，重新調試了撥號上網，終於進 到四通裏，發現那人還在，就一腳踢了過去，剛一回車，頭就感到一陣劇 痛，再一看螢幕上還是好好的，於是又試了一次結果和剛才一樣，這時候 螢幕上那個“超級網管”說了一句話“阿呆，嘿嘿，帽子帶的還合適吧？ 是不是有點緊啊？”嚇得阿呆馬上把電腦關了，坐在椅子上大口大口地喘 粗氣，這時他一回頭，嚇了一跳，床上不知道什麼時候多了一頂帽子，黑 色的禮帽，上面用深灰的絲線繡了OP兩個字母.....(本來聽他說這件事的 時候我是一點也不信的，直到見了那頂看上去非常邪惡的帽子後，我才知 道這不是一件普通的黑客事件) 從那以後的幾乎再也沒見過阿呆踢人了。 解決方式：以後網管踢人的時候可要三思而後行啊.....

謝 謝 觀 看 從中華民國政府撤退到臺灣，至「中壢事件」發生為止，我們稱這段期間為臺灣民主發展奠立基礎的時期。這段期間臺灣所面臨的國內外環境有幾個特徵： 第一、在安全上，中華民國面臨來自中共的武力威脅是立即且明顯的。民國三十八年的「金門古寧頭戰役」、民國四十三年至四十四年的「大陳島戰役」和民國四十七年的「八二三砲戰」，都是國共雙方激烈交戰的軍事戰役。在中共「血洗臺灣」及「武裝解放臺灣」的政策下，臺灣的生存面臨了極大的威脅。 「八二三砲戰」之後至民國五十四年間，國共雙方仍有多次的零星接觸和海戰；民國五十四年後，雙方政局漸趨緩和，直接發生軍事衝突的情形逐漸減少。 第二、在外交上，中華民國因為得到美國的支持，在民國六十年退出聯合國前，一直在國際上以中國的合法代表地位，與大多數民主國家維持密切的外交關係。但是在退出聯合國後，中華民國的國際地位大受影響，邦交國從一百多個銳減到約三十個左右。 第三、在經濟上，政府遷臺初期，民生凋蔽，百廢待舉，經濟發展成為建設的首要目標。民國四十年代和五十年代，經濟建設的基本目標在改善國民生活水準，增強國家實力，民國六十年代以後，重點則成為建立自主的經濟體系。

What is terrism? COMPELLING EVIDENCE THATTHE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART ,BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA. THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11. PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS. PART 1 Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm ) People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn㦙 matter how angry the USA might have been, it𠏋 just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn㦙 possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so. And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making. Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it𠏋 reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone𠏋 guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden𠏋 guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It𠏋 not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnal and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn㦙 care who did September 11. They were happy to use it as oppotunity to attack anyone at whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges that they were already making plans for Afghanistan. These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September 11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better, from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned. While this is possible, it isn㦙 really probable. It𠏋 just too convenient. It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point, assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan: 1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely suprised by it, but saw the propaganda oppotunities for its forthcoming war, and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits. 2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for propaganda reasons. 3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan. While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios, common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned, then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was coming. But this doesn㦙 make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept 11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1) That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat. The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation. PART 2 On the morning of September 11, the largest aviation crisis in the history of the world took place. Before continuing, it is relevant to examine the standard proceedures which take place in the event of a hijacking, the approach of an unauthorised or unidentified aircraft, the failure of communications, or any other unscheduled aviation activity, regardless of whether any immediate threat is perceived. The air force is alerted and jet fighters are put into the air immediately. According to a report on a Russian website, the commander in chief of the Russian air force says that such a situation can be responded to in about 1 minute. In fact, he said that the terrorist attack on Sept 11, should have been impossible to carry out, if normal security proceedures were in place, and claimed that Russia itself had easily dealt with a similar situation there, although he declined to give any details. (httpp://emperors-clothes. com/news/airf. htm ) The purpose of interception is to closely shadow the plane, thus giving exact information about its movements, possibly keeping radio contact, and perhaps learning more of the pilots situation or intentions. It also provides the oppotunity, but not the obligation, to force down or shoot down the plane, if it becomes apparrent that it𠏋 intentions are hostile. Interception itself, is not an agressive move. There are standardised signals, which are part of the aviation code, which an airforce pilot will give to a civillian airliner if radio contact is unavailable. When pilots are off course and disorientated, the fighter pilot will guide them back to the correct course. But the airforce also has a record of having previously forced down, or shot down civillian aircraft which were behaving in a manner which was considered to be a deliberate agressive flouting of aviation rules, likely to present a danger. While the end result of September 11, large commercial airliners flying into buildings, is unprecedented, the events leading up to the crashes are routine. Planes off course, transponders not working, reports of hijackings. Such events are handled regularly by the US airforce with expert efficiency. Normally, interception of these planes would have been well and truly in place, before it became apparrent that their intentions were hostile. What is unusual about September 11 , is that these normal airforce proceedures, activated automatically, and without the need for high level authority simply didn㦙 happen. The routine proceedures were waived for every one of the planes involved. The 4 hijacked planes were all being tracked on Federal Aviation Authority radar, and air traffic controllers across the country were in communication with each other. Since no junoir officer would have the authority to override the interception routines. the failure to activate them, can only have come from orders to that effect, from the very highest levels. In the case of the plane which struck the pentagon, United Airlines flight 77, It should have been intercepted, as it approached Washington, by fighters from Andrews airbase, a mere 10 miles from the pentagon. In fact in should have been intercepted a lot earlier than that. By 9.05 at the very latest, the Pentagon knew that two hijacked planes, had struck the world trade centre, and that at least one more hijacked plane was at large. It may not have been clear by this time, that flight 77 was headed to Washington, but it was clear that a terrorist attack of massive proportions was taking place, and that at least one more plane probably had intentions to strike somewhere. The fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground. By 9.25 at the very latest, it was clear that this plane was headed to Washington. The Andrews airbase fighters stayed on the ground, and whichever squadron was responsible for covering the area where the plane was originally hijacked, had also failed to activate. At 9.41, just 2 minutes before the plane struck the pentagon, two F16 fighters from Langley airbase, were dispatched to intercept it. Langley airbase is 130 miles away!They had no hope whatsoever of intercepting it. Meanwhile the fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground!The official story is that no fighters were available at Andrews that day. This is clearly a lie. The specific mandate of the fighters at Andrews airbase, is to protect WashingtonDC. And if none were available, how did they miraculously appear in the sky over Washinton DC, a few minutes after the pentagon was hit? And do they seriously expect us to believe that the Pentagon is only defended on a part time basis? Another official story is that, they thought at the time, that the plane was targeting the White House. So what? Isn't that even more reason to have activated the airforce? And if that's what they thought, why was the White House, not evacuated until 2 minutes after the Pentagon crash? As far as I can make out the timetable, that's about 10 minutes after the plane would have flown past the target, which they allegedly thought it was heading to! Overall, 45 minutes passed between the time that Flight 77𠏋 transponder was turned off, (which is when automatic interception proceedures should have begun, even on a normal day), and the time that it crashed into the pentagon. That there was no interception, is all the more incredible, given that at the the time it𠏋 transponder was turned off, it was already 10 minutes since one hijacked airliner, United airlines flight 175, had crashed into the world trade centre, and about 5 minutes, since it had become known, that a third plane, American airlines flight 11, had been hijacked. At 9.03, flight 11, also hit the world trade centre, and still no movement at Andrews. By 9.25, there was no doubt that flight 77 was headed to Washington, and still no movement at Andrews, and no evacuation of either the Pentagon or White House. But the Andrews fighters got into the air, and the evacuation of the White House took place, just for show it would seem, immediately after flight 77 had completed it𠏋 mission. So this plane, at a time when a security crisis of huge proportions was taking place, was able to turn off its transponder, change course, and fly 300 miles, being tracked by radar the whole way, without being intercepted. And then approach the nations capital, fly past the white house, and crash into the pentagon, without even being challenged. At 10.10, it was known that a fourth plane, United airlines flight 93 had been hijacked. This was also spared the normal practice of interception. It crashed in Pensalvania at 10.37. (Note:There is some discrepency between different information sources, about the exact times involved with this one, I will confirm the exact time in a further update, once I can establish it for certain. )It𠏋 difficult to say exactly what the official stories are, concerning the failure to intercept the two planes which hit the WTC, because the stories keep changing, but it is has been admitted by Norad that it was alerted to a hijacking as early as 8.35, but didn㦙 activate any airforce action until after the pentagon was hit, while at the same time admitting that interception of civilian aircraft by jet fighters is a routine proceedure. Their story regarding flight 93 is that they could have shot it down if they had wanted to. This is most unconvincing. If they "could have shot it down", then why hadn't they at least gone through the routine proceedure of intercepting it and checking it out? They had 27 minutes to do so, and after all, there had already been 3 suicide crashes that morning. Exactly how were they going to shoot it down? With a plane which wasn't there? With a long range missile, when interception by fighters would have been far more safe, and would have also provided the possibility of forcing it down, and also given the oppotunity to check with greater certainty that that was the only option? And when were they going to shoot it down? How long were they going to wait? Vice president Cheney, in response to questioning about this bizarre scenario, has deliberately tried to confuse interception with shooting down, trying to create the impression, that the reason nothing was done, was because officials were agonizingly biting their nails, over whether to take the dramatic step of shooting down a plane full of innocent civillians. Cheny knows very well that interception, while giving the oppotunity to shoot down the plane, does not commit one to that action. And also, at the same time that Cheny is spinning this smokescreen, they're telling us that the only reason interception didn't happen in the case of flight 77, is because no fighters were available at Andrews. Make up your minds!And also, that in the case of flight 93, that they "could have shot it down" even though no interception had taken place, which could only be interpreted as meaning that they were prepared to use a missile. If that's the case why such agonising over the process of interception? And how does Cheney's statement reconcile, with Norad's admission that interception is a routine proceedure? There is no possible explanation for these events, and the extraordinarily garbled confusion of unconvincing cover up stories, except that to say that someone very high up in the Airforce or the Bush Administration was determined to nobble the air force and make sure that the attacks were successful. We will now turn our attention the president, and demonstrate conclusivley that he was involved. At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children. It is curious to say the least, that 14 minutes later, at 9.00, it seems that no one had informed the president of the emergency which was unfolding across the nation. Not only had the world trade centre been hit, air traffic controllers were aware of at least one more hijacked plane at large, and may have been aware of 2 by this time. It must have also been apparent by this time that the air force was standing idly by, waiving normal proceedures of intervention. At 9.00, the president had settled down with second grade children, and was reading about a litttle girls𠏋 pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear. According to reporters at the scene, the president "turned briefly sombre. " Others who claim to have seen footage of this event describe his reaction as more like a nod of confirmation to something which he had been expecting. It becomes even more unbelievable. The president did not react by leaving the school, convening an emergency meeting, and intervening to ensure that the airforce did it𠏋 job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class, at the same time as, at 9.06, the NY police department was broadcasting "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon" (NY Daily News Sept 12). The situation, then, at 9.05, is that at least 3 planes have been hijacked this morning, and are known to be on terrorist suicide missions, two have already struck their targets, with spectacular effect, at least one is known to be still in the air, the airforce is doing nothing, and the President, who has apparently only just been informed, decides to continue reading to children about a little girl𠏋 pet goat! He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes! In an interview for newsweek, Bush recalls the moment he was told. "I'm the commander in chief, and the country had just come under attack. " So why did he continue to find pet goats such a fascinating subject for the next 24 minutes? Doesn't this prove that at the very best, he's unfit to be in charge on matters of national security, and at the worst, indictable for treason? By 9.30 the president had had enough of pet goats and decided that it might be time to say something about the terrorist attacks, but not to do anything about them. Rather than calling an emergency meeting, or taking direct command of the airforce, or at least demanding to know what the hell was going on with the airforce, he decided to stay at the school, and give a television address to the nation, to tell them what everybody already knew, that there had been an "apparrent terrorist attack". A totally useless response, a blatant evasion of his duty to do everything possible to take command of the situation, even at the same time as flight 77, known, more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked ,had now reached Washington, being tracked by radar, and the Andrews fighters were still on the ground. Bush either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care. By 9.35, as the president was wasting his time with the pointless address to the nation, the third plane was over Washington, had flown past the white house and, all the time being tracked by radar, done a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, which is not being evacuated, even though staff there have already heard about the twin attacks on the World trade centre, and were already nervous about also being a target, even before this plane approached Washington. Forty minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that, yet another plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce. He was clearly involved in active collusion to ensure that the attacks were a success. To suggest that such actions were simply a result of incompetence and confusion is not credible. But for those who wish to cling to this implausible explanation of incompetence, I now cross reference back to part 1, and the point about it not being credible that the USA could organise the attack on Afghanistan in a mere 25 days. If we are asked to believe that the USA military is so razor sharp, that it can execute an operation of this type within a time that defies what is known to be logistically possible, then how can we be simultaneously expected to believe that the same country is capable of such a staggering, inconceivable level of incompetence, in instituting routine domestic security measures? It allowed, without even a challenge, the success of an attack, which the commander in chief of the Russian airforce claims, should have been impossible to carry out. Was this blundering, useless, confused thing, called the US airforce, suddenly, in the space of 25 days, transformed into a lethal, efficient fighting force, that has reduced the Taliban to nothing, in impressively quick time? The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To give any credence whatsoever to the posibilty that the highly successful, and well organised attack on Afghanistan was organised in 25 days, as a response to September 11, we must then, on the balance of the evidence, accept the events of September 11 as conclusive proof of collusion, which creates the thorny problem of why there was a retaliatory response to something which USA authorities were themselves involved in. Or alternatively, if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the possibility that the events of September 11 were innocent incompetence on a staggering scale, we must be highly suspicious, to say the least, that the attack on Afghanistan was already into an advanced stage of planning by Sept 11, in which case we are again asking ourselves to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened, by co-incidence, to take place at a time which could not have been more convenient, from a propaganda point of view, for the already planned war. Just the raw facts of what actually happened on the morning of September 11 are by themselves enough to conclusively prove that USA authorities were involved in collusion. But there is a deeper pattern to the evidence which hammers this home even harder. The pattern that is emerging, so far, is that if we wish to believe that USA authorities are innocent of any involvement in Septemeber 11, and that the attack on Afghanistan is genuinely a response to the events of that day, we find ourselves, in every aspect so far examined, in the awkward position of having to continually choose, one after the other, the scenario which common sense tells us is the least likely, rather than the most, further complicated by a tangle of mutually exclusive scenarios, whereas, when we postulate the opposite theory, everything falls into place, as perfectly obvious events. In the light of this evidence, there appears to be no rational, objective basis why we should not be suggesting with some confidence that USA authorities were involved in September 11, and had pre planned the attack on Afghanistan. The only basis for refusing to do so, seems to be based on preconceived bias, rather than a genuine attempt to examine the evidence objectively. And if it is to be claimed that the evidence for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do that to its own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Northwoods" document demonstrates that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but the favoured option was the shooting down of a US civilian airliner. (http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm ) And there𠏋 plenty more: The problem of the mutually exclusive scenarios regarding the competance, or lack of, concerning the US air force, repeats itself in relation to US intelligence services. How is it that they can have had no warning whatsoever of the largest, most difficult and complicated terrorist attack in the history of the world, but then be allegedly able to nail the culprit, almost beyond doubt, in less than a day, and beyond any doubt at all in 2 days? If they genuinely had no warning of the attack, then we can only assume that they are lying, when within 2 days, thay claim to be so confident of Bin Laden𠏋 guilt, that they are already threatening to attack Afghanistan, in response. Or if they had some forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, if they were allegedly on the alert for "something" from Bin Laden, then the inaction of the president and the airforce on the morning of Semptember 11 is confirmed even more conclusively, if that𠏋 possible, as collusion rather than incompetence. Strong supporting evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a curious aside to the Pentagon attack. The plane which flew into the Pentagon, had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot to cripple the Pentagon𠏋 key operations and kill many important senior staff. But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle just a week before. (Source, CNN TV report on the morning of Sept 12, Australian time) All the important people and operations had moved to other side, and the unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Very little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon. They swapped sides a week before the attack! This is powerful evidence that someone very high up in the Pentagon knew that the attack was coming. Once again, to postulate otherwise means choosing the least likely explanation on the basis of a preconceived conclusion. How many times are we prepared to do that? Now, we turn in detail, to the totally unsubstantiated allegations against Osama Bin Laden: Remember that from day 1, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. We had, in fact, up until mid December, nothing but the continued repetition of his name, as if by repeating something often enough, we can somehow make it true. Then came the video tape, which, is a complete joke. This is an age of technology where film of crystal clear quality can show Forest Gump shaking hands with JFK, where simulated cyclones can be animated into a movie set, where dinasours, extinct for 200 million years can be shown so clearly, that you would swear they were there. All this is done with such startling reality, that the only way we know it𠏋 not true is that we have pre-existing knowledge that it𠏋 a fake. By comparison, the video tape of Bin Laden, is of such poor quality that we have no way of even knowing for sure whether it𠏋 actually him on the tape. In feature movies of top quality, it is common practice to use a stand-in to replace the real actor for much of the filming. An extra of similar hight and build, is given the same clothing and hair style, and the two are virtually indistinguisable. Such a substitution would be even easier on a poor quality video. And when the main charachter has a long beard, a headress, and loose clothing, it's an absolute snap. On the Bin Laden tape, the poor quality prevents any analysis of whether the dialogue is genuinely live, or overdubbed. We also have had to rely on translations of dubious independence. The timeline of when and where the tape was allegedly made, and where it was allegedly found is also, although possible, somewhat perplexing. Allegedly, it was made in Kandahar on November 9, and found in a house in Jalalbad. Jalalabad fell to anti-taliban forces on November 14. This means that there was only 4 days in which the newly made tape could have been taken from Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was already under fierce seige and serious threat by then. So, we are asked to believe that upon making the tape, someone almost immediately, for no apparrent reason, took it to Jalalbad, which was about to fall, and then conveniently left it there, to be found by anti taliban forces. It𠏋 not impossible, but it does have the strong smell of a set up. Also, according to the Weekend Australian of Dec 15/16, the sequence of real time events had been reversed on the tape. This means it must have been edited. Why, and by whom? (A question not examineed by the press of course, although I suppose we should be grateful that at least it was reported.) Also, did the date stamp of Nov 9, as reported on television, refer to the date of the filming, or the date that the edited version was finalised? If it was the former, which would seem to be more likely, then this leaves even less time for it to have been taken from the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was on the point of being overrun. It's highly supicious. Or was it edited by US authorities? They've been forced to admit that the "translation" they've released is doctored. Of course they don't state it in those terms but try to cloud it in euphemisms. "The tape is NOT a verbatim translation of every word spoken during the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow" says a department of defense spokesman. "The translation is what it is. We made it very clear that it's not a literal translation" says the pentagon. But will the pentagon work at a more complete translation? No. Will the full transcript be released to the public? No. (http://news. ninemsn. com. au/world/story_23359. asp ) To be objective, none of this proves that the tape is a fake, but equally, it𠏋 authenticity can hardly be claimed as proven either. And even if it is genuine, we've been given a selectively edited version of it. If this is the only evidence against Bin Laden, then the case is in an awful lot of trouble. And what other evidence is there? It𠏋 no surprise, therefore that no formal charges have been laid against Bin Laden. The normal practice of the law is that it𠏋 neccesary to actually have evidence, in order to lay charges. The irony, is that if the tape is genuine, it only serves to prove that Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind behind the attacks. While it would indicate that he had some prior knowledge of it, and was therefore, by definition involved in some capacity, he clearly states(if we accept the tape as clearly stating anything) that he was told about the impending the attack 5 days before it happened. If that𠏋 the case, he can㦙 possibly have been the main organiser. Who told him about it? Presumably the person(s) who actually organised it, still unknown, but definitely not Bin Laden. In all the frenzied outrage against Bin Laden that this convenient tape has engendered, it seems that very few people have actually viewed the tape carefully enough to ask the important question that flows from Bin Laden𠏋 admission to have been told about the attack 5 days in advance. Who actually organised it? Tape or no tape, if we think clearly and logically about the likelihood of Bin Laden being involved, we actually find that it𠏋 impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the USA knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made about the ridiculously short span of time which passed, before Bin Laden was pronounced guilty, and the fact that this sets up mutually exclusive scenarios. If he was involved, then it can㦙 have been a surprise, which in turn proves beyond any doubt that the inaction of the airforce and the president on September 11 was collusion, rather than incompetence. But the evidence doesn㦙 end there. It is curious to say the least, that no other suspect was ever even contemplated, however briefly (even though the US has plenty of enemies.) This becomes downright suspicious if we think clearly about the logistics of actually setting up a real inquiry into the events of September 11. Firstly, let𠏋 put it in context. It took 17 years to catch the unabomber, and it took 7 weeks of investigation into September 11 merely to confirm the nationalities of the 19 alleged hijackers, while the person who masterminded the whole thing was allegedly known within a few hours. I don㦙 think so! Now, imagine that we𠆫e actually trying to set up an inquiry into September 11 in the first minutes after the attack, while the dust is still settling. And it would have had to have been literally, in the first minutes, because they claim to have had him nailed within a few hours. Who did this terrible thing? While a list of suspects might spring to mind, it𠏋 not as if we could walk outside and see the letters "Bin Laden" written in clouds up in the sky. Was not Saddam Hussein also a suspect? Libya? A Palestinian group? Cuba? Russia? China? Local right wing militias? Anti-globalisation fanatics? Syria? Someone completely unknown and unexpected? etc etc. The list of possibilites which would spring to mind would be huge. Bin Laden would have only been one of these. Where do we start, in setting up such an inquiry? Firstly, we obviously need to recruit people with aviation expertise to the inquiry. But they must also be people with appropriate security clearances. Start drawing up a list of possible people who might be useful in this context. We need people with architectural expertise, to examine the exact nature of the collapse of the world trade centre. Was it only the planes which caused the collapse, or were explosives also used? Again start making a list. We need people who𠏋 main field is airport security. Did someone in the airports deliberately let the hijackers through? Start drawing up a list. We need people with financial expertise to try to trace where some of the considerable funds needed for this operation came from. Start drawing up a list. We need to examine immigration records and cross reference these with the granting of pilot𠏋 licences. We need an urgent review of internal security, in case it was an "inside job. " Such a review is a delicate operation to say the least. As you can see, it𠏋 quite a task, simply to start drawing up the lists of possible suspects, possible personnel for the inquiry, and the main angles of investigation for the inquiry. Then all of these people have to contacted, and gotten together in a group, or at least hooked up with communications to each other. But hang on! Aircraft are grounded. Even the president's having trouble getting around. Many communication networks are down, many financial instutions closed, and large parts of New York and Washington are inaccessible. And the whole country's crawling with security blockades. How do we get hold of the people we want? How do we get them all together, and start delegating responsibilities? Did they all miraculously happen to have been hanging out together, in the one place, which was also the place where the inquiry co-ordinater was hanging out, so there was no need to wait till people could get back from other assignments, in various parts of the US, or overseas? To have even drawn up a list of possible suspects, prospective personnel, and basic strategies for the inquiry, within 2 days, would have been an astonishing, perhaps impossible task, under these circumstances. To have actually held a meeting of the senior agents to be involved in the inquiry, within less than 3 days would probably have been impossible. And yet, by this time, the US had already claimed to have held it𠏋 "inquiry" , and established Bin Laden𠏋 guilt. How? Was anything, ever, more obviously, a set up? And then, once the basic parameters of the inquiry were established, and the nuts and bolts of the everyday research and investigation were begun, in however many weeks it would have taken to get to that stage, it𠏋 not as if all the inquiry personnel just sit around and say "what do we think? Bin Laden?" and everyone says "yeah", so the team leader phones the president and says "Bin Laden" and the president says"that𠏋 good enough for me" and immediately threatens to attack Afghanistan. Extensive field work, and computer work would have to be done. The reports would have to be written up, summarised, checked for security clearances, printed, and given to the president and his top advisers, who would have to read at least the summaries, and then discuss them with the invetsigation panel. And all this was done in less than 12 hours, in a country which was in chaos and confusion at the time? This is one of the most preposterous suggestions of this whole affair. And even in the unlikely event that any evidence whatsoever, could have been gathered in this time, it𠏋 one thing to start to focus on a main suspect and feel that you may be getting close to a conclusion, but it𠏋 another altogether to be so certain that you𠆫e threatening a war over it. It simply isn㦙 possible. And even if it was, it again sets up the mutually exclusive scenario, of how someone could have organised such a huge operation in total secrecy, such that it took authorities completely by surprise, but at the same time have left his "fingerprints everywhere", evidence lying around in copious quantities, to the extent that guilt was obvious within a few hours, even under the difficult circumstances that Amercia found itself in, for several days after the attack. Tony Blair confirmed that this whole thing is a lie, with a careless statement made at the beginning of November in response to polls showing that support for the war was falling in Britain. He said. "There is no doubt about Bin Laden𠏋 guilt. The evidence against him, first a trickle, then a flow, has now become a torrent. " (World news page on nine MSN website)This statement was made nearly two months after Septemeber 11. The key words are "trickle", "flow" "now" and "torrent". Since they were already procaliaming Bin Laden almost certainly guilty, within a few hours, Blair is inadverdently admitting that it was a lie. Did the evidence progess from "trickle"to "flow" to "torrent" all in a few hours? This would seem a very strange way to describe such a process, especially, when the phrase was not employed until nearly two months later, and was described as "has NOW become a torrent. " So, he is inadverdantly admitting that they were already declaring Bin Laden guilty, and threatening Afghanistan, at a time when the evidence was still only a "trickle". His words after all, not mine!(They somehow knew at the time that it would become a "torrent" "later?) But a "torrent" of evidence is apparently still not sufficient to lay any formal charges, or release any of this "torrent" to the public? An important question remains to be cleared up. The pilots were obviously on a suicide mission, which is known to be a common theme amongst Middle Eastern, Islamic terrorists, but totally foreign to American culture. It is difficult to believe that Americans, or those loyal to the US would knowingly participate in a suicide mission. But this doesn㦙 present any real problem for the scenario which has been postulated. The obvious explanation is that some of the hijackers were genuinely hostile to the USA, and were participating in an attack which they thought would damage the US, unaware that they were pawns in a double play, and were part of a larger CIA plan. In fact, in late November, media reports began to emerge, that some of the hijackers may not have been aware that they were about to participate in a suicide mission. I don㦙 know how this evidence has emerged, or what the basis of it is, but that𠏋 what𠏋 been reported. (ABC Newsradio report) This would fit very neatly with the rest of the information we have. Some of those who were not aware that they would be committing suicide, would have been the CIA operatives, probably ordered to set up the terrorists and take part in the hijacking, while being kept in the dark about the full extent of the plans, while those who were knowingly committing suicide, were those genuinely hostile to the USA. (If this is the case, the final moments of the black box flight recorder data, would make interesting listening, to say the least. Is this why it𠏋 being kept so quiet?). It is clear that this could not have been organised without the use of pawns, who thought that they were about to strike a blow against the US. This is where Bin Laden fits in. He deceived and sacrificed his own people in the same way that the Americans involved, deceived and sacrificed their's. The evidence that Bin Laden and the CIA are in active co-operation in this atrocity will become clearer in part 3. This might also explain the otherwise incomprensible scenario of Bin Laden producing an incriminating video tape, and then immediately taking it to a place where it was sure to fall into American hands. PART 3 In fact, there is plenty of evidence to implicate Bin Laden, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Adminsitration, the CIA , George Bush senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and it𠏋 allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family, who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the rest of it could not be further from the truth. Bin Laden is well known as being a CIA operative. He had a close working relationship with the CIA in the 1980𠏋. This isn㦙 denied by anyone. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie. For a start, many of the US military installations in the Middle east, to which Bin Laden allegedly has a violent objection, were actually built by Bin Laden𠏋 construction company. There is a continuous history of close business ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, stretching back more than a decade, and continuing to this day. (Wall Street Journal Sept 27 2001 and www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html ) The Bush Administration has attempted to throw a smokescreen over this by claiming that the rest of Bin Laden's family has disowned him, but as we shall see, this isn't true. The Bin Ladens are significant investors in the huge arms dealing firm Carlyle group which, by it𠏋 own boast, stands to make a lot of money from the Afghanistan war. George Bush senior is a significant figure in Carlyle group. Other major investors, or senior executives include ex British PM, John Major, James A Baker, who was secretary of defence, under President Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and former secretary of defence and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci, who is a fomer college classmate of current defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A quote from Carlyle's company profile at hoover's online. "Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list. " "Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. " (www.hoovers.com/premium/profile/6/0, 2147, 42166, 00. html ) Neither can it be claimed that Bush senior was unaware of the Bin Laden𠏋 shareholding. He has met the Bin Laden family at least twice, in 1998 and in 2000, long after Bin Laden had already been officially declared by the USA as the most wanted man in the world, for alleged terrorist activities. Why was George Bush Sr. meeting with this man's family, when the official story was that the Clinton administration had already declared its determination to eliminate Al Qaida and Bin Laden at any cost and by any means neccesary? In 1995, US authorities named Bin Laden as a co-conspiritor in the 1993, WTC bombing. But a year after this accusation, when the Sudanese government had Bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the US, the US govenement said it was not interested and told the Sudanese government to let him go to Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has declared Bin Laden as the main suspect in terrorist attacks on two US embassies, and for attacks against a US warship and a US military barracks in the the Middle East (one of those which Bin Laden𠏋 construction company helped to build). And yet he was allowed to invest, via his family, in Carlyle group and George Bush senior was meeting with his family as recently as 2000. It is a lie that Bin Laden is estranged from his family. Bin Laden is known to have talked regularly with his mother and with other family members during this time of alleged estragement. In fact when Bin Laden was hospitalised in Dubai, in July 2001, he is known to have been visited by family members. And what was the most wanted terrorist in the world doing in a Dubai hospital anyway? Why wasn㦙 he immediately arrested, instead of being given hospital treatment, and then allowed to go free? During this hospitalisation, he was also allegedly visited by the local CIA agent, and by several prominent Saudis and Emiratis, also US allies. (Le Figero Nov 1 2001) Furthermore, Bin Laden𠏋 Al Qaida network, is known to have fought alongside Nato forces, in the Kosovo liberation army, a terrorist group supported by the CIA. ( www.thedubyareport.com/terrupdt.html and www.emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm )It is no co-incidence that the Australian, David Hicks, who has been arrested for fighting for the Taliban, has fought for Al Qaida in both the Kosovo Liberation army, and the Taliban. So it appears that Bin Laden𠏋 Al Qaida is our enemy in Afghanistan, but our ally in Yugoslavia. Apparrently, Al Qaida is a liberation force in Yugoslavia, but a terrorist group everywhere else. Furthermore, Pakistan, another of our allies in the "war against terror" has also long been a supporter of Al Qaida, and it is no coincidence that David Hicks also received training in Pakistan. And we already know that Sept 11 was at least partially funded by a Pakistani sheik, highly placed in the Pakistan secret service. He has not been indicted or even pursued. Given that it was known that Bin Laden𠏋 family visited him in hospital in Dubai, it is curious that the Bush admistration and the media continue with the lie that he is estranged from his family. While this may be merely curious, it is scandalous that several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US on September 11, and were allowed to leave a few days later, without any questioning, given that the US had already declared Bin Laden guilty without trial (or even charge). The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and has expressed frustration at the apparrent refusal to allow it to fully investigate the events of September 11. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm ) It will be no surprise if Bin Laden miraculously escapes to another country, giving the US the excuse to attack there. At the time of writing an update to this, (Dec 20 2001), my guess is Iran. Let's see if I'm right. PART 4 Some miscellaneous peices of information, and observations, which contribute to the scenario outlined above. Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the black box data. This is highly unusual. Is this information being censored? A possible reason for this has already been alluded to. In the first few hours after the attacks, there were immediately reports on CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold off before hand. There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may have profited from their actions. For "terrorists", subsitute, "Bin Laden". Within a few hours, the media was already into an unquestioning hysteria of Bin Laden bashing. Bin Laden must have been insider trading, we were told. A tautological loop had already been established. Whoever had done the terrorist attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the attacks, then it must have been Bin Laden who was insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks. We were assuured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital question. The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who knew about the terrorist attacks before hand, which gives us a pretty good idea about who did it. Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the media, almost as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been made. Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Laden𠏋 guilt. And it is information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security implications. And yet this aspect of the investigation (if it is still proceeding at all) is being kept very quiet. One can only assume, that it began to turn up answers which US authorities did not want anyone to know. Given what we know about the close business relationship of the Bush and Bin Laden families, this is hardly surprising. However, one financial fact which is known, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani secret service (our allies in the "war against terror") wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the Sept 11 group, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report)Although this fact is known, and publicly available, the USA is quite uninterested in pursuing any action against this person, in spite of President Bush𠏋 huffing and puffing that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our allies, it seems. The Sheik was forced to resign his position, once his involvement in September 11 became known. Forced to resign? No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over? No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state? On the contrary, the USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world (apart from itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having been involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden, while showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose complicity in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied by anyone. The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country which harbours him. In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in the war AGAINST terrorism! On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the maximum possible damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USA𠏋 government in one hit, could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11. Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were confident enough to go for the pentagon. In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official. No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the US was(allegedly) able to organise a war in record time, despite having had a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about how that reshuffle a week before, meant that the Pentagon was able to get on with business, almost unhampered!) While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage to general public was enormous, in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA𠏋 ability to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing the targets more sensibly. IMPLICATIONS It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a continuation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to have murdered (as of 1990 )a minimum of 6 million civillians around the world, in covert CIA operations ,over the previous 30 years, and to have , at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries. ("The Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell) Up until now, people in the West have been safe. The game has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era. Consider the following domestic developments since September 11. In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or evidence, laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited power to monitor and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and intercept email and internet traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert law enforcement agencies, as well as sweeping new powers of arrest, surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist" organisations to be defined according to political belief not according to any evidence that they are prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under the new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens party is now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be tried in military, rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of the trial, and no right of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations between the accused and their solicitors. (That𠏋 if they even get a trial) In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House of Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks of civil liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British cabinet recently described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the past, in the post- September 11 world. "In Australia: laws for 48 hours detention of anyone, without legal representation, even if they are not suspected of terrorism, but may have information which might be useful. At the time of writing this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government will shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is that there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the west now, anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all civil rights, and anybody can be arbitarily accused. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would approve enthusiastically. All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling. And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the first time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed president, while the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the extraordinary resources which were poured into George W Bush𠏋 republican nomination push, against other candidates, who were far better qualified to take on Gore, followed by an election which was clearly rigged, it becomes obvious that George W Bush was always going to be president, no matter what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back well before November 2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically planned by then, I can㦙 say, but it𠏋 clear that the wider agenda had been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who is a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA which helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man who was meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably for business purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is that the President is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the back of this war, and it would appear that the alleged target of the war is also set to make a tidy profit. Along with the secretary of state. A conflict, scripted by the protaganists, where they are the only people who don㦙 get hurt. WHY? The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . In fact Donald Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost defence budgets. I'll bet that Carlyle group, and Rumsfeld's old buddy, the chairman of the company, will get a tidy share of it. Colin Powell appears to have the snout in the trough as well, unless he's severed all his former ties with Carlyle group and disposed of his shareholding, in which case I apologise. Can someone find out if this is the case?The president's father will certainly be making a lot of money, out of increased European defence budgets. (Incidently, Bush senior's grandfather was also an arms dealer, and didn't mind doing business with the Nazis.) (http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm ) But the wider agenda is the pursuit of the huge unexploited reserves of oil and gas under the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran, I would suggest, not for much longer if the USA has it𠏋 way. It has been US policy since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan. Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves. For years now, US covert foreign policy has been to sponsor terrorist organisations in the south of the former Soviet Union, in order to nibble away the area of Russian territory which borders the Caspian sea, and Afghanistan. This process is now almost complete with breakaway governments having been succesfully formed in Kazakshtan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygyzstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Only the the area to the North of the last two, now needs to be broken off, for Russia to lose it𠏋 territorial rights to the Caspian Sea. Please note that I have no problem, in principle with local regional governments being formed to free people from the hegemeony of large powers such as Russia, but the reality is that the local breakaway movements, which may have been genuine in their origin, have been distorted into self-interested terrorist movements by covert CIA action, and the new autonomous countries will now simply become subject to US hegemony, rather than Russian, and rather than being genuine expressions of local culture, identity and self determination, will be dominated by local tyrants and terrorists doing corrupt deals for the sake of their own power. The US is more than happy to talk business, in fact that𠏋 the whole idea of setting up these local tyrants. Jimmy Carter𠏋 national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, at the time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, proudly described his policy achievements in Afghanistan, in the following terms: The USA, by stirring up local uprisings, did everything possible to goad the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and once it had achieved this, then backed the other side (The Taliban). This had a twofold purpose. It wasted Soviet resources in a long war of attrition, which they couldn㦙 win, and it destabilised a part of the world which was strategically important, to the USA Some direct quotes from Brzezinski: "We didn㦙 push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. " "Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it?The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to president Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR it𠏋 Vietnam war." ( http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm ) So, the 20-year civil war which has ravaged Afghanistan, and caused such apalling death, poverty and misery, was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA, who backed the Taliban all the way through, and is now giving them, their final "reward. " Furthermore, the last quote from Brzezenski is a tacit admission that much of the antagonism towards the West, amongst Muslims, was deliberately engineered by the US, as part of its destabilisation plans for the Middle East and South Asia. I won't go into this, any further, but considerable coverage is given to this aspect of the history, at the first website referred to, at the end of this document. This US plan is so far-reaching that they may find it neccesary to pound the whole of South Asia into the ground, in order to achieve it. One way or another, they must control all of the aforementioned countries, as well as Iran and Pakistan. Some are likley to cave in out of a combination of intimidation and bribery, as is so far the case in Pakistan. Others may need to be attacked. The September 11 events gave the USA a blank cheque to attack any country in the world, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". The three latest countries(at the time of writing this) to be named as targets in the war against terror, are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, three countries we𠐔e heard very little about, previously, in relation to terrorism. But surpise, surprise, one only needs to glance at a map of the world, to see their strategic significance. Somalia and Yemen, between them, form both sides of the mouth of the gulf of Aden, which is the entrance to the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, and therefore, the shortest route, between Europe, and the Indian ocean, where it borders South Asia. Control of these countries, by the US would also place extra pressure on Saudi Arabia, and Eygpt to continue with US-friendly policies. Sudan forms most of the southern edge of the Red Sea. Iraq is strategic because it borders Iran on the west. The September 11 attacks also give the US and allies such as Britain, a blank cheque to roll back civil liberties to the extent that any of their own citizens, who might make a fuss, can be silenced, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". It also places extreme pressure on other allies, such as Australia to do the same. Presumably, they remember the bitter lesson they learned about the power of domestic opposition, during the Vietnam war. When President Bush said "You are with us or against us," it was a thinly veiled warning to every other country in the world, including Australia, that unless the US recieves absolute unquestioning obedience, anybody is fair game. Doubtless, all world leaders, including Australia𠏋, have heard the message loud and clear. It would also appear that the ALP heard it loud and clear. During the election campaign, Kim Beazley was falling over himself, to make it clear that an ALP government would obey the US totally, and with

係人都可以做李天命 咦？有人自說自話，仲精神分裂，一人分飾多角添。(詳見題目「草草的詩」)。 反駁唔到，以為一句盲辯就搞得掂？咁容易，係人都可以做李天命。

To : asd //請問甚麼叫做「子矛子盾法」?何謂「時空有限而無界」?請賜教. // 子矛子盾法: <<李天命的思考藝術>>之中的「思辯與宗教」. 時空有限而無界: A.Einstein:< >XXXI.

書名飛走左! A.Einstein :Relativity, ch.XXXI.

在此公眾空間問候一木兄 一木兄! 我又來了! 你今天過得好嗎?

一木 聲明一：我不是寸心． 聲明二：我贊成寸心的看法，未必贊成每一句說話． 聲明三：你的書店論實在荒謬，至於如何荒謬，你在後來的留言中已自行補鑊，不用細表． 聲明四：離題是生活的一部分，無所謂，也很有趣．但近來這留言區幾乎只剩下離題的私話笑語，頗覺可惜． 聲明五：離題語句與開題主題不同，浪費大家閱讀的時間． 聲明六：我的慢動作寬頻，click入有時要五秒一次，人人都離題，好浪費時間．

2047 很贊同你的說法. 我認為間中離題無妨, 但太多離題就會天下大亂, 浪費大家的時間. 不知是誰（是否寸心?聲明: 我沒有說"是"﹞用"子矛子盾法"展示某些說法的荒謬, 應已能令提出那些說法的人體會到那些說法是不通的了.

56k？ //聲明三：你的書店論實在荒謬，至於如何荒謬，你在後來的留言中已自行補鑊，不用細表． // 是不是補鑊，不是由你來說的。對於我來說，那是對那些理解能力有問題的人的一些更加詳細的解釋。 我開始懷疑有人對店主這個名稱的理解有誤解。是否那間店的業主才可以叫做店主？如果我租了那間舖來開一間玩具店，那人家可不可以叫我做店主？那間舖內發生的事我是否沒權過問？ 你口口聲聲說荒謬，但又說不出什麼地方荒謬，究竟是你懶不想打字？還是根本就舉不出什麼地方荒謬，只不過因為我的說法不符合你的想法，覺得會影響你這個56k的用戶(我覺得這個才是重點，是否破壞規矩已經是附加的了)，所以人家和你一般遭遇的便一味死命支持、贊成；而我這些持相反意見說的無論有否道理，都一概口號式地反對、打倒？ 說人家自私，說到底還不是為了自己？因為用56k就要大家不准說題外話以免影響觀看速度？那好像是閣下的事喎！任何事情都有其限制的，閣下只有56k便得忍受56k的限制(別忘記我們的月費比你們貴很多的，不是毫無付出的)。網上好些片段都要安裝寬頻才看到的，難道又要網站的人遷就你們？有些相片用56k要開很久才開到，甚至開不到，是否又要網站的人將相片執細一點來就你們打開？

＊－＞－ 過得還不錯，謝謝。

有人自問自答，仲真係以為自已答左添，真係令人目不暇給，嘆為觀止。

ZZ的人ZZ的話(zzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzz...) 眾批評者： 睇詩就應該預咗裡面D人會離題，睇第一頁就可以。不過太多離題都唔係好事。 一木： 租鋪嘅店主同開題者o既性質仍然有啲唔同，因為唔係每一個行入間鋪頭嘅人都可以管間鋪，你再諗諗佢啦。(我無話一木係啱或錯)

Faustus 「心」 「鏡花水月兩不虛 只問吾心欲往隨」 Faustus，用上面果兩句應你曾經講過既「心」「執著」。你有冇乜野睇法啊？

再評「店主論」------回一木君 因事忙未能回應，可以回應時此處已混雜一片（此正是不自律、不對號入座的後果，也是我不願見到的情況）。因沒有必要（也沒有時間）一一回應，我只就最重要的「店主論」分析如下﹕（再次說明，「店主論」乃方便討論而命名的） 再評「店主論」﹕ 一木君在他的回應中認為我不理解他的立論，錯！未評論前，我先說明，其實我提出的是「業權論」，我再張貼我的全文如下﹕ //我的理解是﹕這是指由你提出討論內容的欄目，如此而已。由於此處是公眾空間，而非私人俱樂部，因此，所有人都可以提出討論欄目，所有人都可以自由進入任何欄目，或只是瀏覽，或加入討論。 我必須指出﹕開闢新欄目者其實只是此討論內容的「提議者」，他絕不擁有此欄目的「業權」；其實，由此平台的設計，我們就可以得悉此點---任何人都可以自由進出，此處亦沒有會員的限制。 明乎此，你一木君決非＜草草寫下的草草的詩＞欄目的「業主」（或店主），這是很清楚明白的。亦因此之故，你說「情形就好像我開了一間租書店....」，我認為，這是屬於「比喻不當」的例子；必須弄清楚的是，你不是店主！ // 據上文，我很清楚指出﹕ 1. 此處是公眾空間，而非私人俱樂部，因此，所有人都可以提出討論欄目，自由進入任何欄目，或瀏覽，或討論。 2. 討論內容的「提議者」絕不擁有此欄目的「業權」。 也許，此處需要解釋一下何謂「業權」。一般來說，物業（包括本平台）的業權（包括管理權，除非另有契約限制）全歸業主。但在業主將物業租予租客時，通常也會將部份管理權暫時（依合約年期而定）移交租客。 我想，一木的「店主論」大抵是這個意思，對吧？ 我的批評﹕ 1. 根據哪一條規定，此處可以申請討論欄目（thread）的租用權？我要辦理什麼手續成為租客？ 2. 此租客有何管理權？管理範圍多大？ 3. 租客憑什麼權力行使管理權？他真的可以行使此權力嗎？ 4. 讓我們看看自稱「租客」的一木如何可以管理好他「已租用」的書店吧。 先引述他的貼文﹕ 一木﹕//少如果我向業主租了一個舖位賣玩具，我當然不是這個舖位的「主人」了，因為我只是這個舖位的租客罷了。但如果有人拿我的貨品拋來拋去，我作為店主是否有權要求他們停止或趕他們出去呢？又或者，假如我心情好，任得他們胡作妄為(可能是中了六合彩)，看不過眼的客人甲乙地趕他們出去，還責備我處事不當(他認為)，請問這個人到底有沒有這種權力呢？他算不算多管閒事呢？// 看官，一木的書店現今狀況如何？情況不是書籍散滿一地，處處垃圾嗎？我們何曾須要問准他，才可以在他的「書店」塗鴉？他的「書店」不是如「無掩雞籠」，雞鴨鵝甚至豬牛羊都可以自由進出嗎？ 為何一木此租客如此「無能」、連自己的書店也管不著？ 答案很明顯，因為﹕此處根本就是我所說的「公眾空間」，任何人都可以自由進出！此處何來店主、租客呢？因此，要一木君做好子虛鳥有的角色，根本就不可能！此所以我評定一木君「店主論」比喻不當，現在你明白嗎？ 5. 本來按邏輯思路，主張離題無妨、無需遵守「對號入座」此約定俗成做法的網友，應該贊同我的「公眾空間論」才是，可是他們一方面在言論上批評我（但論點混亂、薄弱），另方面在行動上卻像我所描述的情況，自由進入任何欄目、自由離題討論等等，其實他們的行動在在支持我的「公眾空間論」。這大抵叫做「自我推翻」吧？ ____________________ 謝謝其他網友的支持。 若有需要，你們可以表示你門不是我的化身。（雖然此表示未足以證明，但一木君卻亂指你是我的化身！）

聲明 本人回應asd, 但不是asd. 一木: 你說//有人自問自答//, 指誰呀?根據什麼這樣說呀?

盲辯﹕雖有理說不清，但也再次解釋吧！ 1. 天越﹕//看來寸心兄忘記自己本來為何罵人了,你走進一木兄的留言板題目罵採菊和小花生說私話(也就是你說的離題話語)這便是出處了.// 唉，莫名其妙！ 在你所說的留言板題目（按﹕指「草草寫下的草草的詩」一欄），我只留言過兩次，第一次給小花生君，第二次給一木君。但我從沒有留言給採菊君，兩次留言也沒有說過「採菊和小花生說私話」！ 為搞清楚真相，我只好再貼出原文（全文！）﹕ 寸心﹕//小花生：離奇離題 既然明知離題，為何不另開闊新的討論線（thread）？ 如此任性，不理會約定俗成的守則，若眾人都仿效此越軌做法，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！ 我正是依據目錄的指引到此，想看看一木的「草草寫下的草草的詩」，以為對號入座，哪知...... 我們是否需要多點自律？否則，目錄的設置就失去意義了。// 請天越君一字一句再閱讀一次，我何處「罵採菊和小花生說私話」？你說的出處究竟在何處？ 請勿無中生有！好嗎？ 2. 天越﹕//另外,我為何說閣下無中生有,因為閣下自行把自己的主觀規則說成像網編立的規則一樣,正等於在足球比賽裏,前鋒說龍門犯規,因為龍門倚賴龍門柱救波一樣無中生有. // 天越﹕//所謂犯規,是誰的規?// 請重看上面我的貼文吧。我說得很清楚﹕「如此任性，不理會約定俗成的守則，若眾人都仿效此越軌做法，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！」 我說的是守則（不是「網編立的規則」），而且是「約定俗成的守則」，究竟你看得明白沒有？ 3. 天越﹕// (又﹕「公眾場所不淮（准）說私話」是你的原話，我又何曾說過？也麻煩你指明出處。 ) 閣下說留言板是公眾場所,公眾場所不准說私話=留言板不准說私話,是你罵人的目的呀,是否失憶了,或是故作不知? // 唉，再次莫名其妙！ 我沒有「失憶」，也沒有「故作不知」！ 我只說過「此處是公眾空間」，沒有說過「公眾場所不准說私話」，也沒有說過「=留言板不准說私話」，。幸好此處一切有留言為證！請你引述我的貼文原文吧，不要再無中生有！ 與盲辯者討論問題，甚苦！真的是有理說不清！ 4. 我的第二次留言，與上面的討論無關，但為免有人不斷無中生有，我只好把我給一木君的留言再貼在下面﹕ 寸心2003-02-15 23:30:02 // (一木﹕//其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。 // ) 我不同意你的理由，這是你自私的想法。 我不再回覆或討論下去，否則我會在第一次必須干預而犯規下，繼續犯規下去了！再見。 //

公眾空間？ //為何一木此租客如此「無能」、連自己的書店也管不著？ 答案很明顯，因為﹕此處根本就是我所說的「公眾空間」，任何人都可以自由進出！此處何來店主、租客呢？因此，要一木君做好子虛鳥有的角色，根本就不可能！此所以我評定一木君「店主論」比喻不當，現在你明白嗎？ // 首先，這不是我是否無能的問題，而是我「是否介意」的問題。朋友帶著小孩來我家拜年，弄得我家七國咁亂，但我卻由得他，是否表示我無能呢？是否表示我連一個幾歲的小孩也管不著呢？如果我義正辭嚴地責備他，連帶責備他的父母(我的朋友)，不錯我是絕對有權這樣做，但結果只會令大家不愉快罷了。在盲目地守所謂的規矩的時候，是否要學學什麼叫人情世故呢？ 因為我不介意別人在我的某個題目內講離題的話，所以就算多混亂，也輪不到旁人來說三道四。 我以前也試過在另一個題目上趕人走的，而那個人也在我和另一些網友的圍合力之下被趕走，因為他在和我討論某些問題的時候不斷歪曲我和其他網友的意思。所以我想說明一件事，如果我有心想趕人走的話，還是有可能做到的。只是看情況如何而已。 胡亂說人家無能，只會顯示出自己思想的無能罷了。(最好笑是口口聲聲說這裡是公眾空間，任何人也可以進出。可以自由進出，卻不可以自由發言，請問有沒有這樣矛盾的一個公眾空間了？)

只有網站主管才真有能力！ 1. 一木﹕//胡亂說人家無能，只會顯示出自己思想的無能罷了。// //這不是我是否無能的問題，而是我「是否介意」的問題。// 唉，一木呀一木呀，你真的以為在「你的欄目」內，你是租客（或店主）？你真的有能力趕走塗鴉者？怎樣驅逐呀？在你的書店（？！﹞「草草寫下的草草的詩」，我看見不少人離題萬丈，我判斷﹕他們不少是胡搞的（當然很難証明）。也有跡象顯示，他們似乎正運用「子矛子盾法」去示範﹕在公共空間，要井然有序必須靠眾人自律（這一直就是我的主張），否則就會秩序混亂。 你可否說明你在「草草寫下的草草的詩」內如何行使「租客」的管理權？你的管理權何來？莫名其妙！真有人堅持塗鴉，你如何用你的管理權力趕走他？ 真有能力趕走塗鴉者，只有網站主管，因為他真的有能力，辦法是﹕刪除他的留言！只有他有此能耐，也許，你可以尋求他授權。究竟你明白沒有？ 至於你舉的例子﹕「我以前也試過在另一個題目上趕人走的，而那個人也在我和另一些網友的圍合力之下被趕走，因為他在和我討論某些問題的時候不斷歪曲我和其他網友的意思。所以我想說明一件事，如果我有心想趕人走的話，還是有可能做到的。只是看情況如何而已。 」 呀也，此例子怎可以證明你有能力（管理權）呢？他走的原因眾多，我無需揣測。 其實你何必介意我說你無能，所有人（除了網管）在此方面也是無能者！原因？我再說一遍﹕//因為﹕此處根本就是我所說的「公眾空間」，任何人都可以自由進出！此處何來店主、租客呢？因此，要一木君做好子虛鳥有的角色，根本就不可能！// 2. 一木：//最好笑是口口聲聲說這裡是公眾空間，任何人也可以進出。可以自由進出，卻不可以自由發言，請問有沒有這樣矛盾的一個公眾空間了？// 唉，我不是說得很清楚嗎？ 寸心 2003-02-16 20:34:51 //所有人都可以提出討論欄目，所有人都可以自由進入任何欄目，或只是瀏覽，或加入討論。// 他們何來「不可以自由發言」？我一再說了：他們可以自由塗鴉我們也無能為力！究竟我要再說多少遍呢？正正這個原因，我只能力盡筋疲呼喚﹕請自律！！！

寸心說了我想說的話 一木似乎轉移了視線，說叫人不要離題的人以為長篇大論學術討論才是本網頁主旨．我只想講，我沒有這個意思． 我只是覺得，若每一篇都離題萬丈，大家會好苦，如果大家喜歡如此，就不用開題了，一個題目甚麼也談就可以了．

如果說我轉移視線，我想有人更懂得轉移視線。有人一味像瘋狗般死咬著我的「店主論」(有人生安的)，但對我另外一些意見(如老師的比喻)卻視而不見，不知道是反駁不了，還是眼大睇過籠(不想胡亂猜測)。 其實我打店主這個比喻本來，本來只是想說明什麼事情都有分「莊」、「閒」；但有人卻混淆視聽，幾乎要搬出一大堆法律、條例出來要反駁我在這裡沒有權利和能力做什麼什麼。事實上上次那個人是比我和網友氣走的，要趕走一個人不一定要用罵的，有時不回應，當他透明也可以趕他走的；此外還有很多方法，你不懂是你無能而已。不過我聲明我一早說過只是「有可能」趕走，而不是「一定能」趕走。對那些毫無理性，根本不是想在討論上一決高下，只是胡亂放一大段無關痛癢的文章上來「踩場」的畜性，根本毋須理會。有頭狗向著你吠，難道你跟牠說道理嗎？難道血牠回吠嗎？ 「草草的一木....」那個題目是我開的，說我是「莊」應該也不算過份吧！因為其他人走進來對我所說的有什麼意見的話，作為開題者或多或少也該回應回應吧！而現在好明顯便是有人在我的題目內說「題外話」，而有人「抱打不平」說他們破壞規矩；而作為開題者，本來好心想來個打圓場，而對「抱打不平」者亦表示了謝意(詳見題目「草草的一木....」)，怎料有人蠻不講理，連做莊的也臭罵一番，說我自私云云。請問這樣便是待人處世之道嗎？覺得道理在手便可以狂妄無禮嗎？(問題是我根本沒有犯規，只是幫所謂的犯規者說句好話而己，這樣也要罵？)。在不斷以為真理站在自己這邊而狂呼「你明白了沒有」的時候，先檢討一下自己的態度吧！你明白了沒有？

不懂禮貌的最佳例子 //一木 2003-02-15 23:22:52 其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。 否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。 // //一木 2003-02-15 23:23:35 多謝寸心 不過依然感謝寸心的仗義。多謝！ // /寸心 2003-02-15 23:30:02 一木 一木﹕//其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。 // 我不同意你的理由，這是你自私的想法。 怎樣？夠無禮了吧？ 打了人一巴掌，還要人貼貼服服地屈服於他的大道理之下，如何叫人信服？知道丁蟹是怎樣的人了吧？

根本這場罵戰就是緣於有人態度無禮。其實之前小花生、採菊等說「題外話」的人本來已經有歉意。但我就是不明白為何世上竟然可以有人這樣蠻不講理。根本整件事本來是不關我的事的，但我就是看不過眼有人當自己是美國佬，以為自己是這裡的「世界警察」。

I think all that 寸心 asks for is to be a bit more relevant when posting your messages, which I think most people would agree because this will indeed make it a lot more convenient for all the people who come to this website. (anyone against that?)

分歧不大 傾到依家, 我諗其實寸心同一木既意見分歧唔係太大 只係寸心認為開題者冇辦法可以管到留言串既內容, 所以要求大家自律, 唔好離題萬哩, 造成他人不便 而一木認為開題者有義務睇住自己個留言串, 適時驅逐滋事分子 (例如我) 其實到底個留言串係要邊個管理, 我諗係呢度冇清楚指引既 所以網編同李生係唔係可以比番個拍指引大家呢?

的確大家對離題的看法分歧不大 現在不是已經很好嗎? 但我看不過眼是一木的反應 論對錯，一木由自稱店主，退一步說是租客，再退一步說是莊家，很明顯知道自己是比喻不當，但仍然理直氣壯！ 論態度，看一木的引述，寸心只說了一句「自私」，你則十倍奉還，「瘋狗」，「畜牲」都用上了，如果我與寸心是瘋狗，則一木該當甚麼？

呀一木兄與寸心二人聰明而又口才了得 睇泥呢場文鬥都沒完沒了你們若然還執著於誰勝誰負 大家可約出泥泥場武鬥 打返場爛仔交 (如果寸心是女的話 一木兄你可先讓三拳)咁就可泥過了結

2047 有些事情真的只可以隻眼開隻眼閉! 冇辦法!

花君 我都想隻眼開隻眼閉，但每次路過都火起，有擾清聽，不好意思．

2047 同情兼了解

擸波子的上帝 以下是採菊，小花生，一木兄對寸心兄/姊言論第一個反應的留言，原本一大早就可以和和平平地解決，而採菊和小花生也真的會留意不會再這樣做的，但到底為甚麼發展到今天的局面（！我也很驚訝！）？我覺得關鍵在於的"態度"，"語氣"和"描述別人的字眼"（如果有朋友認為以上句子欠完整，請自行修正或加上合適字眼等等）． 為免被人誤會"斷章取義"，採菊極力鼓勵有興趣的朋友看回"草草..."原文（雖然我猜有興趣的朋友不多）． //採菊：（打這句的時候，寸心兄/姊還未出現的，我送出後才知寸心兄/姊已開始留言） 謝謝小花生和逆風兄 謝謝兩位仗義指教，我比新生更新也！ 謝謝一木兄借這個地盆給我們離題離到離晒大譜！ （寸心兄/姊出現並留言） 一木：其實也沒所謂吧，大家賞面才進來的。 否則這個題目可能已石沉大海了。 一木：多謝寸心 不過依然感謝寸心的仗義。多謝！ 採菊：草草寫下的草草的詩 採菊有問求指導 花生細意解煩惱 逆風仗義心地好 寸心大人請息怒 採菊知錯了,不要生氣嘛^_^ 小花生：（給）寸心 我都知錯啦! 對不起呀!// ---------------------------------- 我開始懷疑寸心真是上帝！

傻笑兄 咦咦我覺得傻笑(兄!)更有真正擸波子之人的氣勢！ 傻笑兄，若要跟大佬，我跟硬你！ 既有傻笑兄之言，諸看觀對採菊之微言，大可置之一笑不加理會！

相信雙方都同意「留言者應自律」吧， 既然一木那麼懂得「人情世故」，便王要再回應，讓對方自己明白好嗎？(人情世故這回事是需要經歷的) 至於寸心､2047等也不要再回應了。 休戰好嗎？ (各位會不會認為我太多口？)

突然醒起 觀應為官

回應不回應 你不多口，我會封口，仍然是個好朋友：＞

黑白不分，拿X上身 //論態度，看一木的引述，寸心只說了一句「自私」，你則十倍奉還，「瘋狗」，「畜牲」都用上了，如果我與寸心是瘋狗，則一木該當甚麼？ // 請不要斷章取義，讓不清楚來龍去脈的人以為某君真的只是說了一句「自私」就被我一句「瘋狗」十倍打回去。事實上某君一路咬著我不放，而他一路的留言可以說是小弟的十倍也不為過，不清楚的請看回之前的留言，就可以知道某君如何長篇大論。某君甚至出言侮辱小弟「無能」(可能某君覺得這句說話不算侮辱，正如講慣粗口的人不覺自己粗俗)；當小弟反駁時，某君又無賴地說我毋須這樣介懷別人說自己無能，請問這是什麼態度？出言侮辱人，人家表示不滿，反而被視作小器？我是否應該多謝他「塞錢入我袋」了？這裡的人何時變得如此黑白不分？ 還有請不要對號入座，阿數字君你要認做瘋狗的我也沒辦法(為什麼你會認為是說你呢？)；至於那些畜牲就絕對不是說你們兩位，只是說另一個題目「草草的一木....」那些胡亂放一大段東西來玩野的物體。除非閣下就是這些物體，否則斷不應該無故拿X上身。

中間人 其實大家討論的重點在於'在討論中應否說些離題的話?'而對於這個問題,我認為不能想得太兩極化.若一個題目有九成以上的留言也和主題不相干的,那麼這的確會為大家造成不便.但若要完全禁止離題的留言,又會影響了此討論區的氣氛,及對一批喜歡'吹水'的朋友也不公平,而且我們亦沒有那樣的權力.這是很明顯的.因此我認為應否容許離題的留言只是程度的問題而不是絕對的應該或不應該.若大家的意見有分歧的話,我們可透過理性討論去解決問題.但若討論解決不了的話,還是有很多方法的(當然不是用暴力). 寸心對一木(及相關的網友)的批評,主要是建基於他認為這個討有一個約定俗成的守則,而該守則應是 //討論欄目等同一本書的篇章，放在平台首頁就成為討論區的目錄。眾人依據不同欄目而加入討論是約定俗成的守則 //而不理會守則的結果是//如此任性，不理會約定俗成的守則，若眾人都仿效此越軌做法，此留言區目錄的指引作用，就給破壞了！ //但大家也知道,約定俗成是雖要大部份人支持才行,而不是由一兩個人去決定.因此最簡單的方法就是由大家去投票決定.而這就是最公平的做法.雖然投票的結果沒有任何約束力,但起碼可終止這場爭論.就讓大家去決定到底有沒有那條'約定俗成的守則'吧.同意嗎?一木,吋心.

其實嘛，一句文責自負己經夠了 至於那些無相干的留言就一於: 我睇你唔到，我睇你唔到...

心胸！ 這是重點。

andycool //因此最簡單的方法就是由大家去投票決定.而這就是最公平的做法.雖然投票的結果沒有任何約束力,但起碼可終止這場爭論.就讓大家去決定到底有沒有那條'約定俗成的守則'吧// cool先生:既然此處是自由開放討論區,又何必投票決定(約定俗成的守則)呢? 說真的...千萬不可咁快收韁 正所謂兩雄相辯各有千秋... 收韁咪冇嘢睇

投票會否勞煩網編？ 若網編不理，可玩分身假民主，但要網編插手好像很勞煩人家吧~ 而且，對後來的人又如何呢？莫非到時要告訴他「在某年某月某日我們如此這般進行了某個投票」？對他有說服力嗎？ 其實大家(反對嚴重離題者)以身作則，應該就很足夠了。

修正 若網編不理，或者會有人玩分身假民主；但若要網編插手又好像很勞煩人家

絕對認同andycool的說話

重點(2) 容立別人........眾生皆平等也

大家認為有沒有投票的必要呢？

? 其實我提出投票的原因,是基於這次爭論涉及到這討論區的一些守則(但不是規則),而如果大家對這些守則也有共識的話,則會對大家也有好處.1.可減少一些不必要的爭論.2.可幫助部份網友節省時間.而我所說的投票,不是用來一決生死,輸了便自動消失那種,(我巳說過//雖然投票的結果沒有任何約束力//),而只是參考大家的意見去尋求共識.而所謂的投票亦不一定是要表明是支持或反對.大家只要有意見就說出來,到最後誰是誰非自然一目了然.對於這些事單靠一兩個人去討論是不會有結果的. 根據以上所說,我認為提出//大家認為有沒有投票的必要呢？//這種問題非常無謂.若認為要投票的人自然會投票或發表意見,若認為不需要的不投票就是了,又沒有人去迫你!而且結果也只反映大家意願而沒有實際的約束力.我們有需要去討論有沒有必要去投票嗎? //若網編不理，可玩分身假民主，但要網編插手好像很勞煩人家吧~ // 網編插手?那要不要登記身份證No.? 可玩分身假民主?難度董建華和葉太會在此投票? //而且，對後來的人又如何呢？莫非到時要告訴他「在某年某月某日我們如此這般進行了某個投票」？對他有說服力嗎?// 我不是巳表明了//投票的結果沒有任何約束力//嗎?那只是個共識,而不是規則.我只想澄清一點,以上那些蠢話不是我說的,亦不是我的原意. //cool先生:既然此處是自由開放討論區,又何必投票決定(約定俗成的守則)呢?// 烈火,其實你你認為此處是自由開放討論區,就表示你不太介意這裏會有一些'離題'的對話.你巳講出了你的意了.:-)

吹咩 我話比你地知，我就係鍾意離題，吹咩，你咬我食呀！離唔離題我話曬事。本來都唔想出聲，不過睇見你地留成六十幾個留言就火鬼滾。寸心，人地鍾意離題，你就係吹佢唔漲，唔好激氣。一木，人地鍾意話你地離題，咪由得佢囉！吹水之碼，實行你有你吹，佢有佢吹，我有我吹。到最後吹得最勁，最高境界──好似低能仔一樣，自己同自己吹。我唸唸下，越唸越條氣唔順，越唸越激氣，因為連我都學埋你地，又忍唔住要出聲，境界其低，自己激自己，自己囉泥激氣，正一痴線仔，正一低b仔，低死！！！

雖然野蠻，又幾可愛 哈！

正 有時狂言反有道理,可愛可愛,過瘾過瘾

係幾蠢:p(有部份留言無留心睇) 既然係咁，就是但一位想投票o既網友去開個新標題啦~ (Andycool:你唔駛次次都咁大段掛~)

黐線 //(Andycool:你唔駛次次都咁大段掛~) // 黐線! 完.

新增網頁1 舊事重提，再次爭辯？