香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "警方拖延拘捕行動懲罰示威者﹝1115更新﹞"

簡短回覆student

1. 我不反對將它變成『今日焦點』，反正可以避免一些關於『這篇文章是甚麼體裁』的無聊討論。不過這涉及更改系統內的東東，非我能控制，所以恐怕要稍等。

2. 我說力求客觀，唯恐意義與你所理解的不同，所以必須澄清。我說的客觀，不是要求文章內容和觀點客觀，而是鼓勵大家討論，透過討論而得出多角度的觀察和資料，使它更多元和準確。此為我所指的客觀。

Thanks! I didn't want to coninue with it, as the discussion had

By the way, the only funny thing is that it seems somebody is very keen to observe us, and tried to pretend to be hiding, not concerned, while (s)he is worried more than anybody else what's going on, so (s)he wouldn't miss the chance to give one extra kick, even if it wouldn't knock you down.

無聊的討論

Frostig,
如此無聊的討論不要繼續下去了.
一開始不談內容談形式,
到人認認真真的談形式時, 說人扮研究生扮高深.
對這裡的人一點都不了解, 以為大家的討論是為了護主,
扮作自己對這個平台愛護有加, 仍後轉過來說這裡ban人的傳聞不斷
月草, 不用擔心, 這裡不是國內, 不是每個地方都有某些領導指揮的. 此外, 若不是害意的破壞, 我們都不會ban的.

失望

為何只懂逃避﹖
把我字句中不相干的內容‘重新裝崁’﹐然後說我對他(/她)的‘重新理解’理解錯了。還要一副‘我怕了你’的口吻﹐教人如何痛心﹐如何對話﹖
‘尖刻’的語氣不是問題﹐如果尖刻得有意義的話。現在是﹕‘我有尖刻嗎﹖不好意思﹐沒留意。原來沒顧及你高高在上的弱小心靈。’雖然我不太喜歡陶某人﹐可用你比他﹐還是感到有點對他不敬。

你誤會了﹐誤解了﹐我不介意小心解釋﹐為何要收到如此嘲諷﹖
原來對於‘人身攻擊’﹐有人仍樂此不疲。我對文字批評﹐有人卻對我進攻。請問﹐你認識我嗎﹖這些猜測公平嗎﹖

還是﹐我對話的對象從頭就錯了﹖是否不該有寄望的﹐就不應感到失望﹖

真是又再又再一次不好意思

哎呀，Frostig兄不要太敏感，真的真的不要太敏感。

我真的只是單純對閣下的：「不是專家、很多方面不全面、甚至有偏見」→『騙人的』，
只是「字面上」很有認同，而非內容，我都說了對ALE和你的看法是有不同喇，
那唯有在此謝過高等教育生對現今教育的關注及慨嘆，
但為了不要又再一次扯開話題討論，也只好白費你一番苦心對HKALE的解釋，
以及對我的「理解能力」及「起碼到什麼程度」而作出其「有趣的」測度，
其實，這樣子是沒有任何一絲的意義喔，真的。
我真的不是壞人及挑釁，又何苦急著要抓出我的痛處呢～^^~我何嘗也不想被誤解誤讀？

當然，為了不阻礙你「趕 "Papars"」，忿開的話題我也認同不要再繼續囉。希望你順利完成～

Thanks, student!

From your last response: 'As for reports, the authors first of all do not need to give any opinion. Reports can be largely descriptive, but they are less personal than anecdotes. What do I mean by being personal? For instance, in anecdotes, I, the author, am allowed to make inferences based on my observations alone. Say, after observing Anson Chan's participation in 124 demonstration, I, the anecdote writer, can say "She is very politically ambitious." This is just my claim and I do not have to justify it in anecdotes. But in reports, I, the reporter, should just state that "Anson Chan took to the street." If I want to say that "Anson Chan is politically ambitious," I have to provide evidence to justify my claim.'

By the way, I don't agree that 'the authors first of all do not need to give any opinion' in reports. I don't know, maybe this is the point why I couldn't follow your assumptions earlier.
So, let's follow your definitions first. Frankly, in the above article, I saw all conclusions and expressions of feelings (nearly all, I should say, I know I should never use 'all' so easily) following a clear observation. In the stated example you above (your example), it was very clear, by stating the fact that 'Anson Chan took on the street' alone, one can logically lead to the conclusion above, 'She was politically ambitious', without the need of further proof or justifications. However, the readers can judge with their own information and stances. That is what I preceive.

PLUS, I don't think that it is a responsibility for all participants in a discussion here in In-media to follow the same thread. It is not a forum. Just say, I can totally justify why I pleaded the people to mind their English usages, simply because the difficulties in understanding what they mean to express have become obstacles in the basic communications.

I understand totally the importance of the others following YOUR thread, so you can see everything clearly, but at the same time, somebody may not want to discuss about what you concern most. Why can't we accept the others' wants to discuss about something else, even it is less important?

Finally, thanks again! I really mean it. At least I know now, the 'normal people's perceptions towards critiques and reports' are not that different from what I perceive. Maybe I am still normal then, but I can't justify it myself as I am typing this silly thing while I have three more papers to be handed in (two already dued and one dued tomorrow, not even one word is written, *SIGH*).

P.S. What if you say this article is a 'critique'? Does it fit?
Well, for me, it has reported what the writer has experienced, and has added in his own understandings towards such incidents, why is it not suitable to be called a 'report'? So, at the end of the day, do you just mean as long as a report has expressed a standpoint, then it should not be called a report? Or, have I missed out any main point from your definitions? Please advise, thanks!

Really, thanks to your explanation, the whole things seems to be much clearer now. But still, I have got soe questions. Perhaps I am too stupid? Yes, I think so. Anyway, thank you in advance for your further explanations!

Finally (really finally this time, still want to finish my papers *weep weep, flu attcked me, and still need to work, weep weep*), I still insist that NO ONE EVER, except you guys who complaint that this essay was not a good report, has defined this essay as a report. If is it too biased as a report, then call it a critique! Will it make everybody happy then??? I DO hope so.

Reply Frostig

The discussion was messy in the beginning, but became much clearer as we proceeded.

Although I am really tired of continuing this discussion, I would try to answer your question in a last-ditch effort.

But before I do that, I hope you can understand why I do not want to get into this definitional stuff. Yes, clarifying definitions helps facilitate the discussion. But clarifying definitions would often lead to exceeding fastidiousness, which I do not want (after all, I do not take this as an academic debate).

But since you keep pressing, I will respond and I hope I can take this opportunity to set an example to those who fail to (or avoid to?) follow up my previous challenges. I believe - and hope everyone does - that directly answering others' critiques is much better than picking up on others' minor details. It is just a matter of integrity as a discussant.

First, let's clarify some translation issues (so that I do not have to cut and paste the Chinese characters into the following English passage): 評論=critique, 報導= (journalistic) report, 遊記=anecdote (you do not have to agree with my translations. They are translated for logistical reason, rather than a conceptual one).

I am going to present the "ideal types" of what people commonly perceive. Again, the fact that these three things may overlap with each other may not necessarily impede people's ability to differentiate one from another.

I would say critiques are analytical, while anecdotes are descriptive. Critiques must have opinions (because you are critiquing something) and those opinions, to be analytical, requires logical, if not empirical as well, justifications. Logical justifications include the demonstration of the logical consistency of one's opinions. Empirical justifications include personal (or group?) observations, statistical evidence, etc. For anecdotes, you the author do not necessarily have any opinions on anything. Even if you do, you are not required to be analytical.

As for reports, the authors first of all do not need to give any opinion. Reports can be largely descriptive, but they are less personal than anecdotes. What do I mean by being personal? For instance, in anecdotes, I, the author, am allowed to make inferences based on my observations alone. Say, after observing Anson Chan's participation in 124 demonstration, I, the anecdote writer, can say "She is very politically ambitious." This is just my claim and I do not have to justify it in anecdotes. But in reports, I, the reporter, should just state that "Anson Chan took to the street." If I want to say that "Anson Chan is politically ambitious," I have to provide evidence to justify my claim.

Of course, as I said, I am just presenting the ideal types here. Many HK newspapers publish things more like anecdotes than reports. For me, I do not want inmediahk to be just like yet another Oriental Daily, so I - and hopefully you as well - hope reporters here observe a more rigorous reporting standard.

'世界的矛盾' in this context

(To Mr./Ms. ('/' means 'or', which doesn't mean that you can choose, but to include both, so you can be either of them) student)

'世界的矛盾' is simply 'doing something you think appropriate would attract challenges anddisagreements'. Maybe I am just a too simple person, but it is a 矛盾, mabe not FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, but existing IN THE WORLD.

You didn't say the contradictory things yourself, doesn't mean that it is not a 矛盾. It is possible that you don't agree with this, if so, that is another 矛盾, another conflict. What's the big deal? We all accept disagreements (at least I do, I can't say for everybody else), just we want to discuss sensibly. Isn't that understood?

Let's all be friendly!!!

Just out of curiosity, ask again: 『普通人對評論或報導的理解』是甚麼﹖

Frankly, nobody has stated anything which can answer this question.

As least I saw some people assuming something while it was not clear what they assumed. The problem is exactly here. I am not arguing whether a report is totally different from a critique or not, just, what is 「普通人對評論或報導的理解」? No one, I repeat, NO ONE HERE has ever explained that.

I mean, I still don't see any criteria, no wonder this discussion has been so messy. At least somebody list out some points, and so we can use the checklist to check if this article can be qualified as this or that.

So, here, I ask for an answer. My criteria are as followed:
(1) Points (or paragraphs are welcomed) listing how people (or ordinary people, as in original writing) perceive critiques and reports,
(2) Hence, differences between critiques & reports
(3) Certain explanations of the above (optional)

Then it is what I call an answer to this question. So, I haven't just assume everybody has the same perception towards the meaning of 'an answer', right? If we don't have a common guideline or an agreed definition (whether correct or not, at least we use it for a discussion, I think), how to discuss?

Maybe I am too stupid, I really couldn't see any clear definitions from the above comments.
Yes, somebody DID make some assumptions, but the problem is, even the assumptions themselves were not clearly listed, so I don't know what I have missed.

Student, this question is not only to you, but I know you are the most patient one, and the most logical one amongst the ones supporting amending the name of 'Today's Focus', so, if possible, I hope you can help me solve this quiry. Of course, I welcome anybody's reply! Thanks a lot!

月草 (Sorry﹐ 人太多﹐沒法不留名)

I guess you prefer Chinese, so...
英文你的誤會較多﹐只好‘死死地氣’打中文。
這次﹐你還是誤解了。

你所謂的‘引申’並沒有正確解讀我的文意。

反正﹐最重要的﹐我的前題是﹕HKALE 是騙人的。不只一兩個科目﹐而是整個系統。由考核的方法到教授的內容﹐到一切一切。

那些你能理解的部分﹐內容以偏概全等﹐只是例子。何況﹐在‘以偏概全’這方面﹐最大的問題是﹐課程內容蒙蔽了學生們﹐讓他們以為那些是唯一的解釋﹐唯一的可能性。這問題﹐上面這篇大家都不否認有主觀色彩的文章裡﹐可沒有吧﹖

真心的不想懷疑你的理解能力﹐畢竟起碼預科的水平﹐我還希望教育尚有一絲效果。

可是﹐坦白說﹐這次夠清楚直接的了﹐請別再誤會。

P.S. 因為你﹐我開始明白甚麼叫‘抽水’﹐謝﹗ 如果要引我的文字﹐請不要抽詞或重組我的文意﹐因我怕被誤讀。(中英或其它語言都一樣。)

有冇封橋?

My very late response to earlier post by DJJ:

朱凱迪said"這點很需要大家補充，到底是警察封鎖了前往馬師道天橋的去路，令示威者四散，還是示威者本身有計劃地不按預定遊行路線，希望繞道接近會展？"

DJJ’s response:"The truth is the latter, as you may read/ watch fr the news"

On that day a number of eye witnesses said the Marsh Rd bridge had been blocked by police, while all the news and even the 民間監察世貿聯盟 said on TV that the Koreans had 'changed the route'.

See阿藹’s WTO: 從頭到尾都是一場輿論戰http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=87472&group_id=31 : “第二天, 我們向菲林明道十字路口的店舖再次證實, 馬師道天橋於四時許就被警察封鎖了.”

“The news” may not be the only truth then. It would be as difficult for us as for them (news reporters) to find out. Who can claim to know the whole thing, given many things happened in various locations and the crowd was big! But all I can say is, if those witnesses have not lied, we can say that the bridge had at least been blocked for a period of time.

From where I stood, i saw the folks up on the bridge 唔上唔落. But that doesn't prove anything, of coz.

抱歉插一下咀

抱歉，在多次翻看大家的對話後，我又突然跑到這裡，
我並沒有繼續「撩交打」或挑釁之意，只是想對個別人說說遺漏了的感想，
希望不阻礙大家正常討論，某程度上可以忽視我～謝謝～（鞠躬）

Chem：
「過份的抒情，作出無理的控訴，自然是有問題」
→原來我發文回應時遺漏了以上一Part，
　只單單想說：「謝謝你簡而清的一句，我也正正就是那種意思」。

Frostig：
在參考閣下對ALE的看法後：「不是專家、很多方面不全面、甚至有偏見」→再引申成為『騙人的』，
看上去會很很很驚訝（又震驚），但又覺得似曾相識，又慢慢覺得似乎說得不錯，
原來我一開始對這篇「報導」的反應就正正是這種感覺，怪不得當初激動難捺～
(我並非完全讚同閣下對ALE的看法，但大家的觀點和所接受到的都不同，我當然無意在此再去發表些什麼喇。）

－完－

回覆各位

fred

我不知道你的立場是什麼，但我根據inmediahk的宗旨 — 以不同角度深化社會、政治及文化議題，促進社會關懷，開拓人文知識 — 推論出inmediahk的立場就是讓言論百花齊放。

如果inmediahk的編輯部已經努力將不同的意見放在「今日焦點評論/報導」（如Frostig所引用的例子)，那麼已經是做了我第二點的建議，是可喜的，希望能繼續（如前述，可能我在這裡日子尚淺，未有看罷所有「今日焦點評論/報導」，立了個以偏概全的惡例，所以說，看事情該力求掌握普遍趨勢，單看一、兩個例子很易導致偏頗的結論）。

我認為名稱是很重要的，如果是「今日影像」，（普通）讀者如我會期待看到相片一類的東西，如果你只登文字，沒有照片，我會很詫異，也可能產生被騙的感覺。

我贊同改名為「今日焦點」。

既然你贊同「力求客觀」，我不多言了。這就是我的意思。

Frostig

如果要說「『普通人對評論或報導的理解』是甚麼﹖」，恐怕討論又返回原點。你可以參考月草和眾人辯論的內容，他對評論、遊記的理解，我想是也普通人（不是大學教授或研究生）的理解（強調：遊記、評論不一定須要完全分割，一般人在多數情況下也有能力分辨的）。

如果我在之前「追問為何編輯（把）不讚同的文章能放在焦點」，那才是矛盾，但也只是我的矛盾，不一定是世界的矛盾。

Cham

無謂扯得太遠，你不喜歡「客觀」二字不打緊。即使除掉「客觀」二字，也無礙表達我的重點。我的重點很簡單（可參考前幾次的回應），就是希望大家「透過舉證、邏輯、例子去支持自己的論點、判斷」，目的是避免令討論流於謾罵。

舉個例，假設有人控告香港警察在韓農行動中濫用警權，然後法庭傳召朱先生作供，如果朱先生說「警察的目的根本不是要盡快疏散群眾，而是要懲罰群眾，吐他們口裏的烏氣。」我極相信一個好的（或客觀的）法官（或陪審員）會想了解朱先生憑什麼肯定警察的目的是這樣，而不會斷然根據朱先生這樣的一句，而肯定警察的目的確實是為了「吐他們口裏的烏氣」。我想這不是什麼「對於客觀性的祟拜」吧？即使是，我想這樣嚴謹的舉證態度，是對公義的伸張是有利的。

如果你贊同我以上所說的，大家便無謂般出哲學概念來拉扯下去了。

ALE 是騙人的

ALE 教你怎考試﹐沒教人做學問。
香港的考試制度﹐甚至差不多整個教育制度都是騙人的。
還有﹐這種辯論方法﹐叫做‘訴諸權威’﹐相信考試不用考。這次的謬誤在‘ALE 不是專家’﹐AL課程很多方面不全面﹐甚至有偏見。有大學老師如是說。其實只要拿一些科目的大學課程對比一下﹐問題便很明顯。沒有說AL要每個角度都教﹐可我希望不要以為AL教的是唯一角度。

回應student

請分開兩點。我從不認為報導應該客觀，但客觀與否與提出論證是沒有關係的，加入強烈情感的文章亦不代表不「客觀」，冷冰冰的文章亦不代表不「主觀」。

另外，持平的報導就是應該有強烈情感的，只因被報導的對像理應被批評。

換句哲學點的說法，這種對於客觀性的祟拜，是認為objective view point就係所謂最real的想法，而所謂的subjective view point就是unreal，殊不知subjective view point有些東西就是irreducible to objective viewpoint，而且也是equally real。妄將真實理解為最客觀，只會失卻很多資料。例如，最客觀的報導大概就是指出在一個「空間的坐標內有著多少粒子」了（對呢，當你嘗試individate一ｄ物體出來，就是有一定的立場或詮釋了）——這樣的「報導」好嗎？

當然了，這種發掘impartial view point的原初動力是重要的，這代表著有些東西是超越我們一個人的主觀想法，而是有著binding power的。完全放棄所謂客觀性就會流於極端的主觀主義，所以也不可取。總而言之，切忌太過就成了。