『七一上街』反對網絡審查、思想監控、愚民政治
各位7.1遊行參加者：
在7.1遊行中，本群組的「維護公民自主權，反對網絡廿三條」參與隊伍會於以下時間、地點集合：
時間：7月1日下午3時
地點：維園（中央圖書館方向出入口）
公民社會網絡
Alliber
明日的香港，會否是今日的中國？
隔岸觀火，我們旁觀綠壩肆虐中華，繼網絡長城(great firewall)和金盾之後，繼續以過濾色情訊為名，行政治審查之實。(*1)
而網絡審查的魅影，亦正在無聲無息中，意圖伸延到香港。
去年，香港政府提出《淫褻及不雅物品管制條例》諮詢文件，由蘇錦樑（民建聯前副主席、香港商務及經濟發展局副局長）操掌大旗。當中運用誤導手法欺騙公眾，例如以「澳洲、法國也強制ISP（互聯網供應商）提供過濾服務」為由，提出ISP層面的過濾建議。但這種說法完全違背事實，捏造論據。(*2)
今年，政府又公佈了一項誤導市民的民意調查，並希望透過這種充滿誤導性質的工具作為民意基礎，以求達到從嚴規限網絡資訊的目的，重施誤導之技倆。(*3)
缺德如此的政府，又如何「興禮樂之教」，反對「不良資訊」？不知明日香港，會否只許高官狗嗡，不許poor guy鳴冤？
昔有03年50萬人民反對廿三條，今有網絡廿三條潛伏於下半年的第二輪諮詢。
各位市民，希望你們能夠上街表達對彷如「代表香港市民論」的大家長主義管治的不滿，反對思想監控，反對愚民政治。
我們維護公民社會的網絡資訊，反對愚民社會的網絡廿三條。
七月一日，綠壩登陸華夏。七月一日，我們為中華的自由文化發聲。
*1: 綠壩受測試之後，發現其中的關鍵過濾字庫，只有約2700個詞彙與色情資訊有關，卻有多達約6500個詞彙屬政治審查
*2:莫乃光《淫褻條例諮詢誤導市民？ 》：
http://charlesmok.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-post.html
*3莫乃光《淫管條例民調反映討論未能聚焦》：
http://charlesmok.blogspot.com/2009/05/blog-post_18.html
Some Good Comments from the Petition Signers
WOO Chun-hong
It is pathetic that I am being forced to sign a petition against a measure that the HKSAR Government should never have even considered. The inclusion of intelligent design/creationism as part of the school curriculum goes against all scientific principles. Similar measures have been roundly defeated in Western countries, Germany, for example. That Hong Kong considers itself a ‘world class city’ rings hollow when there is no clear separation of church and state.
Fok Sze Man
Education is very important. We should consider this matter seriously and carefully in order not to mislead children.
Anonymous #160
The actions of the creationists are disgusting.
I have heard from a biology student in our school that the biology teacher said, ‘Evolution has been rejected generally.’
It gets me furious.
My school is a college founded by CCC.
Francis Bijo
It is a shame that the children, during their early ages of formation, are introduced to ideologies sponsored and supported by religious beliefs. The question is, whether religion, which is also a form of knowledge, is a matter of mere option between two or more inevitabilities or an informed choice? I urge the administration of HKSAR review its policy in this matter. OR is the silent approval an ‘Intelligent Design’?
Anonymous #133
This is a travesty.
I never thought public education in Hong Kong would sink to the level of public education in Texas or North Dakota.
Bennett Stanley
I find the idea of promoting thinly-veiled religious propaganda dressed up as ‘alternatives’ to actual science morally repugnant and intellectually dishonest.
Even in a field of study which is entirely based on observable evidence, HK bureaucrats once again turn a blind eye to facts and reality in favor of well-spun lies and misinformation. It demonstrates a casual disregard for truth, quality education and academic integrity by the HKEB, in favor of someone important’s personal views.
Norman Voss
Religious Theories belong into religious education not into the regular school education. Ignoring this need means reversing centuries of enlightenment.
Michael Lamb
Creationism and Intelligent design are not based in scientific thought (peer review and adherence to the facts) ergo they do not deserve to be taught as “science”. These ideas are the byproduct of an overly fanatical christian evangelical sect and are more akin to propaganda than rational thought.
The only appropriate place for a course dealing with this subject is as a religious study, not as science.
Creationism and Intelligent design need to stay as religious subjects, and not science.
Narelle Johnston
In Science students are taught how to appreciate evidence supporting theories. If alternative theory models are offered then it can only be in the context of the validity of evidence offered.
Euler
Christianity stay off science education, HKSAR is already stupid enough to erect a Creationist Park, when are we going to teach the Earth is only 6000 yrs old?
Tsang Chin Kwan
This is not a right way for teaching logical & critical thinking and creativity.
This propose enhanced irrational and breaking the development of students’ logical thinking.
Please never forget the purpose of science education in secondary level.
Virginia Yue
If HK is to become an education hub, our policy planners for education has to stand firm on principles of science and reflect what is the current scientific community consensus: only evolution is the explanation – others should be outside of science class.
Wai Chuen Thomas TSOI
Science is the the reason why we are living in the modern era, not the dark ages. And the goal of science education is to enlighten our students by teaching them how to think rationally. This is something we cannot forgo.
Fu Yun FONG
有甚麼理論是現時科學界公認的，甚麼是已被科學界拋棄的，必須講清楚。如果有些人/老師/學校故意混淆的話，政府有責任在課程指明。
今日可以有人說生物非演化，明天可以說地球只有六千年，後天可以說太陽繞著地球轉，大後天可以說大地是平的(「地平理論」至今仍有人相信)。這樣亂滲雜質毒素的科學教育，有還差過沒有。
Lau Kelvin
請勿歪曲科學。
創造論不是科學,
故不應加入生物科。
這只會令下一代更摸不著頭腦、
增加科學的模糊性。
一切「未知的」也可歸為一所謂「神」所創造的便了事,這豈不是很不負責?
Nelson Lau
The Hong Kong Government never truely respect and support the development of Science in HKSAR. I am extremely disappointed and angre with this.
Adrian Mok
Being open-minded is not to accept any personal prejudices, it’s about possibly changing minds when exposed to evidence.
Science is where critical thinking and open-mindedness co-exist in harmony.
Creationism/Intelligent Design are science-killers, by invoking a higher intelligence it stops you from thinking any further.
====================================
Sign the petition here:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/28149.html
Further petition comments: 更多簽名者的評語
Jun 7 – 18
Dr. Evan HAZARD (Bemidji, US)
If creationism [intelligent design is merely creationism in disguise] succeeds, all science will ultimately die.
Dr Richard EDWARDS (UK)
As a lecturer in a Biological Sciences department of a leading University, I cannot stress strongly enough the damage that would be done to the credibility of an education system that permitted Intelligent Design (a.k.a. Creationism etc.) to be taught as science. Such views belong in a religious education class and have no place in a science class, except as examples of what is *not* science and what erroneous conclusions you can draw if you abandon the Scientific Method.
Assoc. Professor Lars Jermiin (Sydney)
Creationism and Intelligent Design (CID) rest on faith while Biology and Evolution (BE) rest on scientific discovery and hypothesis testing. Therefore, although BE and CID sometimes deal with the same question (e.g., where do we come from?), they have entirely different foundations and employs different means of answering these questions. Hence, they must be taught separately.
Prof. Jan KOZLOWSKI (Krakow, Poland)
I am sorry for Hong Kong People that pseudoscience has reached this region. Neglecting Darwinian evolution is for biology the same as neglecting thermodynamics in physics.
Dr. Ying guang Frank CHAN (Palo Alto, US)
Teaching of “intelligent design” or “creationism” is not a sign of being with the times. It’s an inability to understand Science and the nature of this endeavour. Adopting the teaching of erroneous ideas just as people in the US realise their deficiencies is tantamount to adopting discarded policies of yesterday from abroad.
MR Gregory PEARCE
“Debating the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is akin to debating the ‘theory’ of gravity.”
— quote from the international press
Mr Evans Lam
i respect christianity as a means of rewarding people with reassurance and clear goals in life, but Darwin’s Evolution theory has already proved its use in many areas.
insisting without proof that human beings were “created” by creationism is irrational and illogical.
for the sake of our next generation, don’t poison them with illogical theories.
Dr. Yiu-Kwok CHAN
In the formative years of the young student, it is essential that objectivity and rationality are emphasized in science education that facts are distinguished from fiction or personal belief, which is not verifiable as it is in the metaphysical realm. Religion, however, can be treated as part of education in philosophy.
Mr Glen Bann (Australia)
In this day and age, with the conclusive evidence for evolution, and zero evidence for creationism or ID, or any other inane unproven religious (and/or cult like) ideas, I find it unbelievable that a so-called advanced country is teaching students such stupidity and lies. It is a great diservice to the students and tp the country in general. Wake up HK!!
Dr Jason Richard ALI
ID/Creationsim are not properly constructed scientific theories. Therefore, this is no logical argument that can be made for including one or both of them in classes which are expressly science-focused.
My 6-yr-old daughter truly believes in Santa Claus, but that doesn’t mean that I would allow “Father Christmas” theory to be taught in a course dealing with transport and logisitics (there would, however, be scope for including it in course on marketing).
Hong Ki Lam
When I first heard about the new guideline on Biology, my reaction is, “is it a joke?” Sadly, it isn’t. And now we must prevent Hong Kong from becoming an international laughing stock!
Mr Sean Joel CHAN
Knowledge is not democratic, and thus cannot emcompass syllogisms that are deemed inherently or deducibly fallacious. This is the same in the case of the origins of life. ESTABLISHED theories are the ones that should be taught in class, not fanciful ideas.
Prof. Robert Austin
This is the same problem that the US is having, and it could lead to the same disastrous consequences to Hong Kong education as it has in the US.
Chi Keung WONG
Religion interference in Hong Kong’s civic life has become intolerable. Christian fundamentalists seem determined to impose their superstition and ignorance on Hong Kong society at large.
This worrying trend must be stopped.
Hong Kong will certainly become an international laughing stock if its educational authority allows religion inspired pseudoscience to be taught as ‘alternatives’ to the theory of evolution. Is that what the SAR government want?
FUNG PUI LAM
教育必須實事求是，並以訓練學生獨立思考作為目標。我們
MRChung Yin LI
Please feel respect to our science and scienists. Shame on those faking Christians who are telling lies to the public. Shame on those faking Christians pollute the children’s future due to their nasty selfish vision.
Mr Johnny Cheung
I afraid that Hong Kong would be as anti-intellectual as that of bible belt, that’s just a shame!
Mr Ho Ho Cheung
我們要求科學化的教育
反對無知荼毒人類的心靈
Mr Yi Zheng Lu
Science and unproven religious belief should never be mixed to gather. The reason why we have people science is to have people critical, vigilant mind.
Mr Pak Kan Lau
I am a current students who is studying overseas. I have spent more than 7 years in learning science. As the people who are in charges of education in Hong Kong, I think you should know what the consequences are for instilling misleading information to thousands of innocent students. Science is a subject emphasises on rationalism and strictly logical thinking. I sincerely hope that you can re-examine your policy on science education in order not to harm the furure of Hong Kong.
Mr. Hon Chow
Science should be based on evidence, not just imagination
Mr Hou Tin WONG
This is something ridiculous, 1000 years ago everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everyone knew the earth was flat. (Men in Black) Why going back to the age of myth?
Mr TANG WANG KIT
Education Bureau try to mislead our new generation with that stupid believe. It must be stopped.
Mr. Wong Kwong Yin Gary
如果說要教導創造論，那應該教甚麼國家的創造論？
以中國的國情而言，我只能贊成教「盤古開天」，「女媧造人」。
Mr Sammy WONG
我希望我係bio堂學到既係bio
唔係d怪力亂神既野
亦希望香港有更好既科學教育,而唔係更差既。
Mr Chung Wai Wong
我真的希望香港的下一代能夠真正學習到正確的學術知識(如:演化論),而不是偽科學(如:創造論或智慧設計論)!!!!!
Mr Siu Ki Wong
讓科學歸科學, 宗教歸宗教.
把一些信仰帶入科學中, 香港的教育冇得救了!
Mr Tze Bun NG
It is a shame that some of these people empower others to teach pseudo science, hiding behind their position in office.
Mr Zhihua Chen
反对宗教狂热人士对演化／进化论的攻击。
让我们诚实面对事实，面对自然。
Mr Albert Hui
Allowing science curriculum to be poisoned by any faith-based notion goes 180-degree against the spirit of critical thinking. Curbing the religious right-wing agenda is a crucial cornerstone in the realization of education reform that the Education Bureau set itself the task of implementing.
Anonymous #205
We have enough freedom granted to religious lessons. So please do not pollute the science lessons.
Merissa ORWIG
Teaching one or the other (religious pseudo-sciences or tested and fact-based sciences) exclusively may of course call for a criticism of narrow or close-mindedness. However, if you wish to teach both, then please separate them from each other. Creationism and I.D. do not belong in the science classroom, just as Darwin’s theories of evolution don’t belong in the religious classroom. I am personally an atheist, but I support the right to think freely and choose one’s beliefs for oneself.
Mr Gaven Cheong
This sets a dangerous precedent for taking a backwards step towards the dark ages. HK is meant to be a world city. Have we not already embarrassed ourselves enough with the “ark” amusement park? Are we next to brainwash our children into believing in a 6000 year old earth, a flat world, and the existence of an invisble guy with a list of 10 things he doesn’t want us to do? Pls put ideas like ID where they belong – with the teaching of myths and fantasy, and out of our science classes
Philip Ma
Intelligent Design has little to no evidences to support it’s claims, and teaching it will also teach children not to use the proper methods of inquiry to seek out truth and knowledge. Learning evolution will not only know the best method to explain our species, it’ll also teach people how to test and verify theories with evidence, the best way to understand our world.
Mr Edward Hardisty
Science Education is a place for teaching about accepted theories of the Science community as a whole. Intelligent Design and Creationism have no place in Science as they are untestable as a theory.
=============================
http://www.gopetition.com/online/28149.html
Thousand thanks to the petition signers
SCMP(06/26/09): 達爾文的勝利
香港教育署最近公開聲明神創論及智慧設計論不會成為中學生物科課程的一部份，香港科學教育關注組當然歡迎此一決定並視為一重大勝利，四位有份在二月的香港 大學教授都曾發信要求香港中學生物科課程都要反映全球科學界否定神創論及智慧設計論的主流思想，包括科學系系主任國辛都異口同聲指責香港教育署九月生效的 新課程指引其實是默許在中學生物科教授神創論及智慧設計論;但是香港科學教育關注組同時亦擔心在校本管理政策主導下單一份教育署聲明未必有太大的作用，因 為部份公開承認在生物科教授神創論及智慧設計論的基督右派中學，如中華基督教會屬下的學校，可能會陽奉陰違。
這件事的緣起在香港教育署於九月生效的新課程中的生物科指引有一句如此的話: 除達爾文理論外，教育署豉勵學生進一步發掘及探索對生命起源的另類解釋及理論; 立法會在收到香港科學教育關注組的投訴後便召開了相關的會議，等待收到香港教育署的相關報告後才繼續辯論，然後便有64位人仕為在香港教育署於九月生效的 新課程中的生物科指引包容了神創論及智慧設計論去信辯護。後來，立法會收到香港教育署的報告辯稱於九月生效的新課程「是為了加強學生對生物科科學的研究如 何和當時的科技、社會及(政治?)環境掛勾」;該報告又聲稱在生物科中達爾文進化論中，教授的重點是達爾文進化論為目前科學界中最廣泛被接受的理論﹐我們 期望學生能夠用達爾文進化論中的各慨念去解釋生物演化的方法及過程;學生應該明白達爾文進化論是由觀察及收集客觀數據、細心分析、提出可用驗證的假設和最 後用實驗去決定假設的真偽，但是在同時生物科的理論及知識不是一成不變的，永恆為真的。所以除了達爾文進化論外，學生也可以去理解一下如 Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 及 Alfred Russel Wallace的演化理論，這些另類理論都是自然科學理論的研究範圍，當然不包括非自然科學的理論。
國辛教授對此回應，以為是香港教育署終於承認達爾文進化論為目前科學界中最廣泛被接受的理論，而神創論及智慧設計論根本不屬於現代生物科學的範疇。對生物 科學生來說是有所得箸，因為這表明香港的生物科教育仍然保持和全球生物學的同一水平，是故最好香港教育署這份聲明要廣傳到每一位生物科教師中。
香港科學教育關注組創立人 Virginia(貓姐)表示香港教育署這份聲明其實仍有美中不足的地方，她說: 香港教育署這份聲明是向正確的方向走前關鍵的一步，因它不單詳述了科學方法的內涵及定義，而且還清浙指出神創論及智慧設計論根本不屬於現代生物科學的範 疇，卻還未走到把神創論及智慧設計論這些國際公認的偽科學踢出自然科學的涵意外。所以香港科學教育關注組會繼續努力完成此目標: 令香港教育署接受神創論及智慧設計論等均屬偽科學。
同時，這64位為在容許生物科中教授神創論及智慧設計論而去信教育署指稱科學並無絕對的定義，共中40位是學者及7位為教師;但是它的發言人香港大學生物 系教授Stephen Tsui Kwok-wing卻竟然這樣回應教育署一再聲明它拒絕把神創論及智慧設計論列入生物科教程: 他以為他們這封聯署信不是在提倡在生物科中教授神創論及智慧設計論，而他們也會理解和尊重香港教育署這份拒絕把神創論及智慧設計論列入生物科教程的聲明。 而在64組當中的香港大學物理系副教授Chris Beling則這樣回應: 香港教育署的聲明對的地方不少，只不過當香港教育署居然可以完全接受千瘡百孔的達爾文進化論為生物科科學的最佳解釋則令他很費解。他以為用聖經作藍本的神 創論當然是不可以在中學生物堂時教授，但不明白何以香港教育署一竹竿打潟一船人，把神創論及智慧設計論歸作同一類東西，因為他以為智慧設計論其實具備成為 自然科學的一門的條件。既然香港是自由社會，所以指引歸指引，實行歸實行。
一位香港教育署女發言人如此回應﹐這拒絕把神創論及智慧設計論列入生物科教程的聲明並不是互相排斥，因此學校看指引要看「全套」: 聲明只是短短的一段﹐但九月生效的新高中課程指引卻共有138頁之多。
香港立法會教育委員會的何秀蘭主席以為香港教育署已恰如其份在後來的聲明的第五段公開聲明: 香港教育署完全拒絕把神創論及智慧設計論列入生物科教程。她希望這一件事到此暫告一段落，她不以為立法會教育委員會應該挑起一次神學界和科學界的大辯論。
Victory for Darwin – Creationism rejected in new guidelines on the biology curriculum
南華早報 | 2009-06-26
EDU1| EDU| By Liz Heron
The Education Bureau has announced that creationism and intelligent design will form no part of the senior secondary biology curriculum.
The move has been hailed as a victory by leading scientists at the University of Hong Kong, who in February called for curriculum guidance on evolution to be upgraded to reflect current scientific thinking.
The four scientists, who include dean of science Sun Kwok and science faculty board chairman David Dudgeon, accused the bureau of encouraging schools to promote creationism in biology lessons through the guidelines.
The Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education, which is lobbying for changes to the guidelines, has also welcomed the paper but says it does not go far enough.
The calls were prompted by a clause in the biology guide, which comes into force in September, that states: “In addition to Darwin’s theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life.”
The bureau’s paper was drawn up for the Legislative Council’s education panel, after the Concern Group called for a panel debate on the issue. The panel demanded a report from the bureau and postponed a decision on the debate. Last month, the row intensified when the “group of 64” mounted a counter-offensive calling for the clause to be retained.
The bureau’s paper points out that the curriculum aims to strengthen students’ understanding of scientific inquiry in biology and its links with technology, society and the environment.
“In the topic ‘Evolution’, the emphasis is put on Darwin’s Theory, as it is currently the most widely accepted scientific theory on evolution,” it states. “Students are expected to understand the process and mechanism of evolution based on Darwin’s Theory. Students should recognise that biological knowledge and theories are developed through observations, hypotheses, experimentations and analyses and [be] aware of the dynamic nature of biological knowledge.”
The paper also states: “In the biology curriculum framework, creationism or intelligent design, which was mentioned in the recent submissions to the Legislative Council panel on education concerning the biology curriculum, is not included. In addition to Darwin’s Theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations on evolution such as that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Sir Alfred Russel Wallace.” It stresses that non-scientific explanations are not included.
Professor Dudgeon said: “Th bureau has recognised that the Darwinian theory of evolution constitutes the core of modern biology and that intelligent design and creationism have no place in the modern science curriculum.
“It is a victory for the students and it will help to ensure that our science teaching remains world class. Clearly this guidance needs to be circulated to all secondary schools before the next semester.”
Concern Group founder Virginia Yue Wai-sin, said the paper only partially met demands in its petition for action by the bureau. “It is moving in the right direction,” she said. “They have excluded creationism and intelligent design from the curriculum and they also emphasise scientific methods in greater detail. Yet they have just failed to take the critical step of saying that intelligent design and creationism are not science. We will continue to pursue answers to these questions with the bureau.”
The “group of 64”, which includes 40 academics and seven teachers, argued that there was no universally accepted definition of science. But spokesman Stephen Tsui Kwok-wing, a molecular biologist at Chinese University, said yesterday: “We accept and respect the clarification of the biology curriculum guidelines from the Education Bureau. We reiterate that the purpose of our letter was not to promote the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in secondary schools.”
However, “group of 64” member Chris Beling, an associate professor in HKU’s physics department, said: “The EDB’s response has many good points but its tacit approval of Darwin’s theory, which has so many blatant errors, is not commendable.
“Understandably, Bible-based creationism is not to be taught as science, but it is regrettable that intelligent design is lumped in the same basket, seeing it has all the characteristics of good science. Fortunately, these are only guidelines and we live in a free society.”
An Education Bureau spokeswoman said the paper was based on the 138-page biology curriculum and assessment guide for the new senior secondary curriculum and its interpretation demanded a “holistic” understanding of the guide.
Cyd Ho Sau-lan, chairwoman of Legco’s education panel, said: “I find paragraph five enough to tell the stance of the administration. It says very clearly that intelligent design or creationism is not included.”
She hoped the debate was now over. “I don’t think the panel is in a position to engage itself in a debate between theologians and scientists. It could be an endless one,” she said.
轉載:人為何而活？
(轉載自:http://plastichk.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_28.html)
(星 島日報報道)援交歪風持續，網上討論區有少女公然臚列「賣身」收費詳情，更有少女因援交而沉淪毒海。有機構上月以問卷形式訪問近三千名中學生，了解他們對 援交看法。調查發現，有近百分之五的受訪學生表示自己有可能參與援交活動，當中有近半為來自名校的第一組別（Band 1）學生，半數受訪學生亦更認為援交很平常，是一種「互相利用、各取所需的社交生活」。負責調查的機構指結果反映年輕人的價值觀出現扭曲，名校生成績佳不 等於道德水平高。
香港性教育、研究及治療專業協會為了解中學生對援交的看法，於今年五月，以問卷形式訪問二千九百多名中一至中六的學 生，當中五成三屬女學生。調查發現百分之四點六受訪中學生認為「自己有可能參加援交」，當中以Band 1名校生佔最多，達百分之二、Band2學生佔零點九個百分點，其餘百分之一點九為成績較差的Band 3學生。
調查亦問及受訪中學生有意參加援交的原因，有八成七受訪中學生表示，參加援交的目的是為了賺錢消費，如購買名牌手袋，亦有近半數人表示喜歡收受對方送贈的名貴禮物，四成多認為援交可以讓他們尋回被寵愛的感覺。
前篇：
經 過中共、土共長年累月不停造假之後，首先對呢 d 調查一定抱有最大的疑心，第一，呢個會係乜水？睇佢網頁乜都冇講，我地亦唔知，亦唔方便做評論；第二，就算個調查係真，個方法有冇出錯？定係 Band 1 學生覺得你個問卷好膠，於是就亂填？四點六的中學生認為「有可能參加援交」－－係男仔可能，定係女仔可能？有冇性別的數據？可能的意思係有男同學認為「有 女學生肯同你援交我就上」，定係有女同學認為：「咦？我的外表都有人想同我援交？好呀，貼錢我都願呀」。
質疑完，然後就要指出援交一點都 唔出奇；點解？問下人為乜而活？問下曾蔭權，佢答你國家的經濟發展好繁榮，所以佢代表香港人，所以大家應該忘記六四；問下由上而下的一眾官員、自稱「愛 國」的議員，佢地為左名利、權位、經濟利益，可以出賣良心良知（如果仲有的話），所以問人為乜而活，仲有一個跟進的問題，就係出賣靈魂可恥點，定係出賣肉 體可恥點？定係兩者都出賣可恥一點？
相比起呢班土共出賣良知，出賣香港人，援交的錯誰者為重，誰者為輕？係囉，問下點解全香港九成九的傳媒呀、中立人士呀，一講到援交呢類問題，就立即大聲責難，但對果班高堂之上呃神騙鬼，更加埋沒良知、良心，更加「反人類」的一眾人渣，卻都輕輕放過呢？
如果為左錢去出賣良心良知加肉體冇問題，咁點解只係出賣肉體就有問題？
如果一個人真心覺得出賣肉體冇所謂，點解大家要質疑佢覺得有所謂？
因為嫁個有錢人，呃自己良心話自己鍾意佢，就高尚些？一個人為左錢而「愛上一個人」，行為就值得全港傳媒報導？
後篇：
人究竟為何而活？當呢 d 傳媒大大聲質問援交人士的時候，有冇問問自己呢？你地又為左乜而活？記者你為左份人工，為左你自己的生活，寫埋哂 d 違背良心的報導，自己又會唔會慚愧？
如果你唔會慚愧，點解又要援交的人覺得慚愧？
最 過癮的，有班「反對自由市場」的人士，把「為乜而活」的問題，大大聲挑出來質問黎智英、楊懷康、施永青以及獅子山學會！最奇怪的，就係兩大老闆黎智英、施 永青，永別係蘋果同 AM 730 的老闆，兩人都偏偏大茶飯唔食，卻走去被喻為累人「傾家盪產」的辦報，而佢地的報紙仲肯撐下言論自由，為乜而活，你唔係去問土共，卻走去問佢地？
如果話包容援交、包括市場主導係可恥，咁包容慌言，包容出賣良心良知靈魂的，係乜？
兩者最唔同的，就係前者赤裸裸承認人性的「市場主導自由」，而後者就係中國人最愛講一套、做一套的偽君子。
人究竟為何而活？好偉大呀－－只要付出的不是你，就最好了！
人之所以係人，就係首先把自己視為「高人一等」，或者「高禽獸一等」，用一大堆大話，去包裝自己與眾不同。
科 學證明，孟子所講的「人禽之辨」，由頭到尾都係發開口夢；人就係動物，咩人有惻隱之心，動物都有，兩者本質絕無不同，只係智力上的分別。中國的聖人就係科 學盲，於是走上了歪路，以為人係與眾不同的，以為人性係善良，可以戰勝邪惡，以為靠人為干預人性，可以做得比起大自然的市場力量好。
最大的邪惡就係人的本身；大自然遠比起人類善良，靠會腐化的人性去更正大自然，結果只會係更腐化、更邪惡。只有承認人性本惡，只有承認人係自私的，只有善用市場自私自利的法則，制度才可能長治久安；凡違反呢個定律的，絕不能持久。
靠聖人？靠明君？靠一片好心？靠得住咩？只有靠市場的力量！唔相信自由市場，又點解相信民主？民主制度就係最大的自由市場，亦係行之最有效的自由市場！
大家講慣左「民主、自由」，經常當係兩件事－－係，在形容「民主制度」與「言論自由」的時候，的確係兩件事，但民主制度的本質，就係用自由市場的法則，去讓人民、讓群眾自行選擇。
當 然市場有時會癡 Q 線，正如民主制度下一樣有時會癡 Q 線一樣，因為人本身就係癡 Q 線的動物，把人視為「超人」，視為永遠理性，當然係最癡 Q 線的假設。當人有病，當然要食藥，食藥就係人為干預；但當人冇事的時候，下下干預似乜？食咁多維他命，吸收到呀？日日食藥，有冇病呀？冇病都當有病咁食？ 呢d 就真係癡 Q 線啦。
民主制度最可貴，又或者自由市場最可貴的係乜？就係透過可行的制度，去自行調節。下下干預，搞軍事政變？搞革命？冇病呀？
有，就係有人有病，所以佢地選擇用革命去推翻「暴政」，結果得出來的結果，係十倍、百倍、千倍的暴政，上世紀全世界有一半就係癡 Q 左，走去相信理想，走去迷戀人為干預的共產社會主義、希特拉的國家社會主義，結果….
…………………..
當大家提到西歐、北歐的例子之前，又問下自己，佢地歷史係點樣發展的？係先有自由民主，再有社會主義，定係先有社會主義，再有自由民主？
在未有自由民主之前，想搞社會主義？又或者認為社會主義，比起自由民主更加重要？這種倒轉先後因果的做法，就好似大陸想唔改政制，只改經濟一樣，只能一時，絕不能長久。
沒有民主，就沒有民生，明冇？陳方安生呢一句說話，就係智慧的代表作。
可惜，知音人實在太少，包括泛民中人……
當 政制扭曲至此，一個不健全的假民主制度，就係滋生民粹的制度；點樣先可以和平理性？相信自由市場，相信人民的選擇，當一切先決條件如常，民主就係最好的制 度－－因為只有選票，才可以制衡大財團，同樣亦可以制衡過度的福利主義－－因此，要搞社會主義，要學北歐、法蘭西，先決條件就係把香港建設成為民主的社 會。
土共最愛問：「港英時代點解冇民主卻有民生？」－－因為英國政府有民主，而中共卻沒有民主，香港又唔係國家，乜土共支持港獨咩？
人為乜而生存？追求真善美？對，大家都同意「應該」係追求真善美。
問題係，當人性醜陋到極無謂、極無聊的時候，當有 99% 的人都係無聊人的時候，我地應該點？強制佢地追求真善美？送哂唔合資格的人去集中營？
「把人還畀人」？就係把人性的醜陋還畀人－－市場係死物，人性才是真理，市場就是人性的真理，順人性而為之，先可以順勢而行；視市場為死敵，抽離人性逆天行事，就必然失敗告終。
先玩6四,再玩七1,玩殘金盾，再玩綠壩?
我寫了三篇「如何繞過中共的防火牆」及三篇「如何玩殘中共國的網官人員」，其實都不是具體的 技術而是方法和思路，針對的其實是任何用關鍵詞用作過濾「不良及敏感內容」的原理來使它失去欄截訊息的功效。讀者要再思考如何把我提出的方法應用在實際 上，我看到中共金盾工程一巨大弱點就是以小量的伺服器來檢查大量的訊息及內容(於是中共及香港基督右派輔以揭發不良內容有獎制度)，於是思路便是如何加重 審查系統的負擔，令小小的審查變成漫長無休止的智力對抗，最終被迫屈服。要是有黑客能寫出動態網頁軟件，針對被審查的內容及方式，每次都提供不同的資料給 審查伺服器，則金盾工程將形同虛設。因此中共針對此弱點開發出綠壩，把審查所用的大量運算成本用法例強行轉移到用家身上，如果審查的成本為原來的一千部， 但用家都不能投訴國家的金盾工程，因為軟件是商業開發的，所有問題都是軟件商「出錯」而已，和國家沒有關係;另外，審查的打擊面由整個中國變成個別網民， 於是它甚至可以在金盾工程對個別商業機構及政府部門網開一面，一方面可以繼續用互聯網來發財，一方面可以在個別用戶層面控制他/她在電腦上的一舉一動。既 然是在個別用戶層面實施審查，則審查的針對性可以大得多，甚至可以在特殊用戶依國家要求審查不同的內容，如用家是農民就更重視車輪功，如果用家是大學生就 更重視民主、自由;而軟件還可以有學習的功能，例如透過收集各用家用不同的搜索方法找到被查禁的內容作統計分析、甚至提出一些策略(如知道中共可以用中A 共,中B共,中C共來代表)，然後再在互聯網上互通訊息比較成效，再隨機修改審查策略拿用家來做實驗。如此就成了中共國版的天網，一個有部份人工智能去針 對不單是被審查的內容，而是用家在互聯網或者在自己電腦上的反動行為的怪物。同時，中共國可以把收集到用家行為資料價高者得來支持綠壩的開發及研究工作， 而商家可以用審查的內容來要脅中共，對付競爭對手及任何它不喜歡的人，於是中共官方成了商業勢力的附生物。錄壩成了一個不斷衍生的生命體。
對付它的手段很簡單,第一不用微軟的瀏覽器,第二甚至不用不用微軟的作業系統,第三全球網頁合作，拒絕綠壩的連線，原理很簡單，在網頁中加入一個程 式，故意傳一些明知會被審查的內容，然後再由此程式用MD5/SHASUM或自創的方法去檢查內容是不是完整，一但內容和傳送的「敏感內容」不一樣就拒絕 連線並列入黑名單(或者自動把資料送給黑客，黑客可用此來癱瘓綠壩總公司甚至中共國國防部)。當然也可以專針對被查禁的內容用程式動態產生網頁，因為綠壩 目前版本只能針對固定不變的網頁來學習，一但網頁內容可變，它目前的分析系統就失效。
七月一日以後，我提出的六四可以表達的方式將會在數月內失效:
63+1, 62+2… 1+63 或者
六三+1,六二+1….一+63;
六三加1,六二加2….一加63;
六三加一,六二加二….一加六三;
陸拾3+1,陸拾2+2…..壹+63;
陸拾3加1,陸拾2加2…..壹加63;
陸拾3加一,陸拾2加二…..壹加陸拾3;
六3加1,六2加2….1加六3;
陸3加1,陸2加2….1加陸3;
陸拾3+1,陸拾2+2…..壹+63;
陸拾3+一,陸拾2=+二…..壹+陸拾3;
六3+1,六2+2….1+六3;
陸3+1,陸2+2….1+陸3;
(未算簡體及簡繁並用,亦未算運用減法的話)
還有8*8,8乘8,八乘8,八乘八,八*八;
及7*9+1, 七*9+1, 7*九+1, 七*9加1, 七*九加1,七乘九加一,七*九加一,七乘九加1
及2*31+2, 二*31+2, 2*三一+2, 二*31+二, 2*三一+二, 2乘31+2, 二乘31+2, 2乘三一+2, 二乘31+二, 2乘三一+二, 2*31加2, 二*31加2, 2*三一加2, 二*31加二, 2*三一加二, 2乘31加2, 二乘31加2, 2乘三一加2, 二乘31加二, 2乘三一加二, 2*三1+2, 二*三1+2, 二*三一+2, 二*三1+二, 二乘三一+二, 2乘三1+2, 二乘三1+2, 二乘三一+2, 二乘三1+二, 二乘三一+二, 二乘三一加二, 2乘三1加2, 二乘三1加2, 二乘三一加2, 二乘三1加二, 二乘三一加二…
之後是60,58,57,56的各表達式,太多寫不完(未算簡體及簡繁並用,及再運用減法的話)。
我寫的時侯也曾經想過，要是我的文章被中共看了又會如何呢?我絕對不以為它會立時大徹大悟，痛改前非，中共就是中共，六十年不變，因此情況只會更壞而不是更好，只待一天火山爆發，就算不在今天也不會遠!
轉載: 2009匿名網民宣言
(寧可站箸死，不可跪箸活;
生存本來沒有什麼,
死亡於我有何懼?)
你好，中國政府網絡審查部門。我們是匿名網民。長久以來，我們目視了你對互聯網的所作所為。你對互聯網言論自由的無端封鎖，你對互聯網先進技術的敵 視，你勾結宣傳喉舌對事實真相的扭曲，你運用網絡評論員對網絡輿論的的毒化，這些都深深地刻印在我們的記憶中。隨著最近你綠壩強制安裝的通知和對谷歌的惡 毒誹謗的出爐，你全面控制全面審查互聯網的險惡用心已經明白無誤地展現在人們面前。我們匿名網民於此決定，我們將從2009年 7月1日開始在全球範圍內對你所控制的網絡審查體系發起全面襲擊。
為了保衛互聯網的自由，為了推動人類網絡化的前進，同時也為了我們自己的網絡權利，我們將對你的網絡審查體系進行系統性破壞並展現你所謂網絡審查體 系在真正網絡力量之前的渺小。我們將你視為網絡頭號公敵。我們對你發起的將是持久戰。無論你如何利用宣傳喉舌愚弄輿論，你終將湮沒在人民戰爭的汪洋大海之 中。你古板的宣傳手段，你文革般陳舊口號式的叫囂，你對互聯網的無知，你“為了下一代”之類的虛偽說辭，這些都為你的徹底失敗敲響了喪鐘。你無處可逃，因 為我們無處不在。國家暴力機器不能拯救你，因為我們每一個成員的倒下，都意味著另外十名新成員的加入。我們清楚地意識到你會運用你慣常的階級鬥爭伎倆，在 你的蠱惑宣傳中賦予我們“不明真相群眾”的標簽在我們與普通民眾之間劃出界線，然後賦予我們“少數不法分子”的標簽在我們內部劃出界線，最終各個擊破。對 我們來說，這是可以接受的。事實上，這是我們所鼓勵的。原因很簡單，你越這樣看待你的人民，你皇帝新裝的美麗就越不言自喻。
隨著人類網絡文明的發展，處於優勢地位的統治階級敵視網絡化的陳舊意識形態逐漸成為歷史發展進步的阻礙。舊意識形態勢力對新興網絡勢力的誣蔑和壓 迫，對網絡世界的敵視和封鎖，這些都表明了他們對於歷史潮流的恐懼，都將成為他們在退出歷史舞台之前的最後掙扎。那些妄圖在歷史車輪面前螳臂擋車的，都將 最終被掃進歷史的垃圾堆。即使你的血液正在得到數字移民的緩慢補充，你在可見的未來將仍然無法理解網絡。我們會欣賞你對於異己幾十年不變的陰謀論觀點和文 革口號文風，因為我們也會有懷舊的心情；我們也將笑談你試圖在互聯網上劃出國界的舉動，因為愚蠢行為從來都是史書中的笑點。不過我們可以真誠地告訴你：
沒有人想要更迭你的政權，我們對你陳舊的政權概念和意識形態爛腌菜毫不感興趣。你無法理解在人類網絡化的歷史潮流之前宏大敘事為何而消解，你也無法 理解國家和民族概念為何將分崩離析，你無法改變你對互聯網的無知。你的政權無法成為我們真正的敵人。我們不是任何國家和組織的朋友，我們也不是任何國家和 組織的敵人。只有你是你自己最大的敵人，你正在為你自己掘下腐爛和異化的墳墓。我們對即將進入歷史垃圾堆的事物沒有興趣。網絡化是你無法阻擋的歷史潮流， 是人類社會發展的未來方向。事實上，我們並不反對你通過切斷太平洋海底光纜而獲得對信息的絕對控制；你對歷史前進越阻礙、你造成的矛盾越深化、社會運動就 越劇烈，倒退只能加速你被異化、被取代的歷史進程。明日的太陽不會照耀那些恐懼明天的人。
我們是匿名網民。我們是全球網民的總和。我們行為一體。我們是主宰網絡。我們不可計數。我們每個成員的倒下都意味著十名新成員的加入。我們無處不 在。我們無所不能。我們不可阻擋。我們沒有弱點。我們利用一切弱點。我們是隱藏在每一張面具之下的人性。我們是人性的鏡子。我們生而平等。我們天然自由。 我們是軍團。我們不饒恕。我們不忘記。
自由引導網絡。
我們即將到來。
A call to arms for all Chinese Netizens
(Rather shot for standing up, never knee for survival!)
(Onward, global Netizens, it is your turn to change the course of human history and return dignity to every mankind!)
Hello，the Internet censorship/Thought Police division of Chinese Communist Party. We are a group of anonymous Netizens.We have been watching you on what you did to the China domain of Internet which is originally intended for free exchange of information: You block website and IP out of your temper and to your pleasure, you use advance technology to monitor the transaction of every bits and bytes, you use all medias for the sake of propaganda , you distort the perception of public opinion by employing so called ‘Public Opinion Guidance’. All these is sealed in our mind. As your defamation against Google and force the installation of Greendam censorship software on all newly brought computer offer us irrefutable evidence of your intention to fully control every bits and bytes flowing in every computers of China. We therefore unanimously decided to launch a full scale attack on the State machinery responsible for limiting the freedom of Internet within China.
The is for protecting the feeble, despicable freedom left on the China domain of Internet, that is for the sake of guarding the progress of integration of human civilization with the Internet. We need to protect our inalienable right of information in the Internet，we are going to systematically ruining every electronic and organic component of the censorship appliance, just to demonstrate how feeble are you in front of the power of millions of infuriated Netizens , you are only no. 1 enemy of freedom. We would wage an ongoing warfare until you have exhaust every lies and means of deception. Mao’s People warfare shall be adapted and will overwhelming the running dogs of Chinese communist Party. Your so-called slogan and old-fashion propaganda should no longer works on us. You are clueless toward the Internet and what it implies so you pretend that is for the sake of (your) future. The is the ringing of Death bell to you. You can’t hide since we are everywhere, state-sanctioned violence can’t rescue you. Whatever one of us is fallen, ten of other will join us; failure only make us grew stronger and resilient toward the Disease which is the State itself. We are all familiar with your common tactic against Chinese citizen: You would draw a line to separate us as the minority of minority from the general public, then label us criminally-insane just like how you treat dissidents of all kind. You isolate and attack one by one of us. That is an acceptable lose in face of total war against the People of China, we encourage you to react as fierce as you can. Since your cruel and irrational action speak volume compare to your voice. It only amounts to drop your pant before you rape everyone of us again and again while you can never achieve an orgasm.
As the human civilization continue to the develop in the rein with Internet，the fear of so-called ruling elite toward Internet streaming from an obsolete ideology toward the rising power of Netizen，your monitoring and blocking of China domain of Internet，all that only demonstrate your fear of the historical trend, and shall become the last fruitless struggle before you bury under the progressive force of Psychohistory. Those who want to turn the Earth backward in its orbit is destinate to be in the Trash can of history. Despite your suffocating vein is still replace by new supplement, the Internet is what beyond your capability of understanding. We may admire your never-changing fabrication of conspiracy theories against those who aware of the truth of China in Cultural Revolution style out of nostalgia ，we will joke at your attempt to make domain out of the boundless Internet since history would laugh at all stupidities. That is what we shall inform you in full honesty:
We have no interest in taking the failing political power of you，we are not interest in your fruitcake ideology nor power structure. You simply can’t understand how humanity become an inseparable part of the Internet and how the history of old world just melt away. You simply can’t understand how nationalism and racism dissolve in the era of Internet. You can’t change your ignorance of the Internet, you regime can never compare to us, we are not friends nor enemies of any nations, the biggest enemy your face will be within every part of you. Your corruption and alienation have pave the way to grave for you. We are not interested to what shall be pass in the history as trash. You can’t reverse the change implies by advent of Internet, which is what whole humanity is heading. Actually, we don’t even mind that you pull the plug of the cable connecting China to world in the bottom of Pacific Ocean; The more you attempt to reverse the course of history, you merely create more contradictions within and outside yourself, you merely fan the fire of rebellions against your dictatorship everywhere, all your effort will only sum to the total alienation and annihilation . The sun shall rise and shine only those who are not afraid of tomorrow.
We are anonymous Netizen, we are the sum total of global Netizen, we are one but many. We shall dominate the Internet, we do not negotiate, we are uncountable, the failure of one of us merely implies many other become part of us. We are everywhere, we can do the impossible, we are irresistible, we don’t have weakness but shall exploit every weakness of the State machinery. We are the humanity which beneath the mask of every Netizen, we are the mirror which entail humanity. We all born free and equal, we are legions, we don’t forgive nor forget.
Let freedom rule the Internet!
Expect us, We shall be there.
轉載:父母官
(父母官因為阿爺有命要看管嚴一點，不淮亂說亂動!)
一場豬流感，歐美完全不當一回事，只有特區政府，為了「眾所周知」的政治計算；「不可告人」的目的，學校大停課。
停課就停課，特區政府的 衞生高官發出許多中國式「父母官」的「溫馨提示」：「如果有病，七一就不要遊行。」並表示「純粹健康理由，沒有其他」，以示一片好心。
還有迪士尼趁機推出停課優惠套票，「父母官」也看不慣，竟然申斥「美帝」：「放假不是讓學生玩樂的。」
中國人說的「父母官」，就是永遠把統治的草民當小孩，「有效管治」，重點在一個「管」字，思想、語言、行為，把全民衣着管成一種毛裝的藍色。
父母官把中國人的行為管得越微小，蟻民越有快感──你看，連親生的父母，由於天生智障，也可能疏忽了性命攸關的這一條：傷風感冒，千萬不要去遊行呀，以免傳染了疾病呀──你看，父母都沒想到的，中國的父母官給你貼心想到了，這就是中國成語「爹親娘親不如×主席親」的由來。
父母官勸諭子民：停課期間不要去迪士尼，應該留在家裏，學習特首施政報告和財政預算案。「勤有功，戲無益」，天下無不是的父母，香港人，有那麼體貼的父母官，難怪一位姓孫的社會學家說：這是一個未斷奶的民族。
爸 爸為你好，媽媽替你想，所以「隧道單管行車，請與前車保持距離」；「酒後不要駕駛」、「本節目內容有危險，觀眾請勿仿效」，從小聽父母官的溫馨提示，包括 沒收你初中時看的金庸小說，板起一張面孔，說「武俠小說教壞細路」，你會發現，你處身的這個民族，集體智商確實嚴重殘障。
英文有個字，叫做 patronizing。表面是溫馨的善意，英國人說：小心，他其實以過份誇張的關懷，曲線在侮辱你，譬如，明明你四肢健全，走過馬路，他滿面堆笑地要攙 扶你一把，這不是好心，他假設你老朽和虛弱，你不蠢，他把你當白癡，他才狡獪，這就是 patronizing。
所以學好英語，有抗毒的效用，會 防止你越來越蠢。英文沒有「父母官」，做官自稱 servant，既是僕人，就不會管這管那。你去燭光會，出門前，你家的菲傭會硬要替你量體溫嗎？所以，中國的父母官，或病危，或雙規，「老百姓」都在心 裏放鞭炮──這般德性，如此基因，可憐天下父母心，鳴鳴鳴，這伙苦孩子呀…… 
Atheistdemo's Weblog 