我倒奇怪，為甚麼政府會委任一個說自己：「研究國際，保育一竅不通」，和會向天下承諾「Roundtable 日後不主動關注保育」的人進入個委員會。係沈生有問題定係政府有問題？

要鬧要非議簡直講到生喉癌都未講完，但有一個問題呢，我看倒要小心想：究竟何志平委個咁既「o騎呢」人入諮詢委員會，係真係佢計錯數，還是佢有心丟舊怪胎出黎，等我地自己泥漿摔角一番，消耗我們已經不多的人腳呢？換另一個問法，我們如何才可將我們對這篇文、這個人、這個團體（他說他不代表任何人，點知呢篇文係咪代表佢的想法。學之前有篇文的留言話齋，要問，唔好打比沈生了，親自打比篇文問吧。）的批評，變得有生產性？

香港的諮詢制度有幾有用大家心知肚明，政府挑釁矛盾亦唔係奇事。所以鬧就梗係絕對要鬧，只係看來我們都要諗多一步，點樣可以在這個情況下去返個主動的位置，而唔係政府推個炮灰出黎，我地就湧晒過去。

沈先生這次進入咨詢架構,
如果能夠令政府既管治思維同民間智慧有實質既交流
達致[互相依賴]總算好事

而[次諮詢]的做法,讓民間的聲音真確地進入政府

未嘗唔係好事

"行政吸納由下而上的後現代再造"，幾好玩丫！玩下先：

紅字一段"Roundtable 日後不主動關注保育，不嘗試代表他人。這是集體創作，不是個人演出，主角從不是我。在會議內外，我的責任是宏調實驗，此外沒有一句自己話、不以這身分接受任何訪問以免騎劫實驗、不臨急抱佛腳出現公眾論壇以免實驗被騎劫（如前述，不同友好將盡量出席不同論壇），未能議員地三秒辨是非或官員地誠懇，除非談塔里班滅佛。"

若改換成 "政府日後不主動關注普選，不嘗試代表市民。這是集體創作，不是個人演出，主角從不是我(曾蔭權)。在(見中央領導人的)會議內外，我(曾蔭權)的責任是宏調(@#$%%$#??後殖民??公民社會??$%^#$)實驗，此外沒有一句自己話、不以這身分接受任何訪問以免騎劫實驗、不臨急抱佛腳出現公眾論壇以免實驗被騎劫（如前述，不同友好(政府官員)將盡量出席不同論壇），未能議員地三秒辨是非或溫總理地誠懇，除非談塔里班滅佛。"

算不算已經解構完畢呢，請問？

沈的文章的副題，是後現代古物諮詢「實驗與電影」......

我想他不只不懂得保育的問題，也不太認識實驗電影。

「爛」的實驗電影，只是胡亂的作聲畫拼貼，虛偽的說開放任觀衆自己／自由閱讀，說「沒有預設結局」，彷彿就可以不需要嚴謹的考慮作品的方法、結構，和這些方法結構與觀衆的關係似的！咪heir喇！觀衆，都不是傻仔／女。

「正」的實驗電影，實在要花上月上年的時間，實驗作品結構的效果 -- 說效果，不只是說作品的影音呈現本身，而是於觀衆的關係，jonas mekas的diary film如是，maya deren 的performative film 如是，stan brakhage的hand-painted film如是，guy debord的political film如是，james benning 的landscape art film 如是......
一方面當然是反轉故片的直接閱讀（消費浪漫想像），另一面卻是回應整個電影發展的歷史/路徑。

所以，「正」的實驗電影，不是postmodern和 com
乜七ism，而是有歷史觀的（這一個歷史觀與國族不一定必然有關)，同時因為那個回顧前瞻的歷史軌跡，才可以對應當下（此時此地）藝術家最私人、也可以是最社會／政治的反應。

而這些反應，都是公開在公衆領域的，實驗電影藝術家，也要面對公衆的意見和觀點，而回應那些意見和觀點，一方面是分享（藝術是情感／理念的分享，這是立場，也是底線，至於是否文化批判要有什麼什麼效果，都是後話；有時，還需要很長的時間才真的可以疏理一丁點意義，因為藝術的力量，可以留在我們心內很久很久，不一定是即時性的)，另一方面手也幫助藝術家反思自己可能並不太清楚或需要不斷refine的意念、立足點、方向和方法。

這些都是energry exchange，是人與人之間美好的關係。

如果，沈真的是做實驗電影 ﹣﹣ 「正」果隻，那倒是不錯。

晨
麥海珊

roundtable眾會員，將如何回應以下表述，如何理解過往自己在roundtable名義下做過的事，及來日自處︰

//對Roundtable而言，我們是否人才、是否關心社會並不重要，愛從政的並非沒有，但相熟會員多是逃避社會的第歐根尼式隱士，唯一目標是建構多元平台這虛擬社區：通過從政府轉移部分社區責任予公民社會，累積社會資本，那時他們才可安全地參與，Roundtable 永遠只是third sector 的incubator。其實港人社會意識不差，不介意多參與，但討厭政客、不習慣舊式運動、恐懼媒體，才找Roundtable 這平台容身，誰叫曝光非奸即盜。基於同一道理，我們什麼人都找，鼓勵更年青一代利用這平台建構他們自己的momentum，甚至與美國領事館合辦講座、請內地政府協助與文化產業交流，前提是一毛不能拔，縮減左中右、老中青、中產基層、精英反精英之間的鴻溝。//

一個不必然關心社會、要求一毛不拔式的絕對安全，但又可累積社會資本的"社會活動"位置，是眾會員早有的共識？是恍然大悟？還是日後去向的指路牌？

若然答案仍是在本文中尋︰喔，太認真了，認真對待pastiche有違後現代精神云云。

那也好，大家也就看得更清楚了。

聽聞Roundtable會培訓時事評論員，若由沈生教，可能先教起題要夠吸引力，咁就會有解構索馬里的一公升眼淚，後設閱讀伊拉克的死亡筆記或六方會談是後現代志雲飯局之類0既標題出現嘞。

觀其言，聽其行，沈生到底是為了日後一官半職或累積資本，而甘於被收編；又或是本著「誰不入地獄，我入地獄」而甘心瞓身無間地獄的「無間道」（不過，演技要有一定功力才可瞞天過海），日後自有分曉。騙得了一時，騙不了一世。諸君何不視處所言為真的，一於當他不懂保育，不斷軟硬兼施獻計，再看他反應才定奪。如果他真的是是「無間道」，說不定如晨所言，在我們共同努力下，會有機會炮製出一齣「正」的實驗電影。

我的另一個想法是，當下，他有他做，民間有民間，而民間的更為重要，因那才是真正的由下而上。若沈生不離譜，不要浪費太多時間在他身上，以免中了政府的分化，（打死我也不信政府沒有這居心！）浪費彈藥。不過，他這篇文章「懶有型」得來真的混亂，讓人嚇一跳，認真抵鬧！

1. Community 和Society的確有別，但說前者是「天然整體」，卻令人莫名其妙。什麼叫「天然整體」？完全沒有人為的，自自然然而生的一個群體？但Community不是指由一群人組成,具有共同價值信念,又或分享同一種文化/語言的群體的意思麼？和天然不天然有什麼關係？Community便不需要制度？

I believe that here Mr. Shen, author of the Article, has made too much of a verbal distinction. In the discursive circles wherein he (and probably you and I as well) dwells, not a small distinction is routinely urged upon the words "community" and "society"; Toennies' book "Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft" still enjoys a good mention after these many years.

I do not doubt that for certain ways of thinking, the distinction is both necessary and useful. But, as you would agree, it is not clear that when Mr. Shen baptized Roundtable as "Community" rather than "Society" he thought indeed so much of the said distinction. Roundtable could have been called "Roundtable Society," and pursued the same objectives. Renaming "The Royal Society," say, as "The Royal Community" would not add any more bit of communitarianism to that distinguished body, as renaming "Roundtable Community" as "Roundtable Society" would add artificiality to this young enterprise. Closer at hand, we should not, I submit, make too much of the fact that the 30s Group, for instance, calls itself a "Group": neither a "Community" nor a "Society." Mr. Shen would not be so rash as to argue, philologically, that "the 30s Group is called a group and not a community nor a society, because etc. etc." So much for a name.

2. Communitarianism似乎譯為「社群主義」較為恰當。沈先生說Communitarianism堅持「中立和多元」卻有點令人啼笑皆非。沈先生只要隨便找一本介紹社群主義的書看看，便會發覺不同的的社群主義者共同反對的，正正是自由主義堅持的「中立」（neutrality）和「多元」（pluralism），而主張「共善」（Common Good)和「德性」（virtues)。

I think this observation is apt. The English word "community" admits of different Chinese translations in different contexts. If 社區 puts more emphasis on the spatial character of a community, then 社群 points more to the individuals composing it. Communitarianism concerns, I believe, more the latter than the former; and in this light, I agree that 社群主義 should be the better translation.

Your remark about neutrality is certainly pertinent and true. The image of community, which Mr. Shen purported to paint, is very different from that painted by such people as M. Walzer, A. McIntyre, M. Sandel, or even C. Taylor. For them, community signifies, in a fundamental sense (which sense we may find even more dearly held by such ancient writers as Aristotle and Cicero), an holistic take on the human condition: the priority of the good comes to represent that the whole (the collective, the good, the values handed down from, and to be lived through, tradition) is to take precedence before the part (the individual, the right, the choices made by detached, self-made and self-sufficient beings). Community, at Mr. Shen's hand, becomes, however, a contingent bunch of individuals, fragmented, contradictory, non-committed, 快閃, but at the same time aspiring in their myriad different ways. Such a community is no longer that which the aforementioned writers tried to resuscitate, as an answer both to the rising priority of the right, and (precisely!) to the post-modern tendency to fragment and to uproot. In this manner, we see that what Mr. Shen meant by community resembles rather a virtual community on the web, than a community even of Putnam's or Bellah's sort.

Mr. Shen embraces post-modernism to boot. But post-modernism is hardly a piece of good news to all those writers writing for what has come to be known as communitarianism. How Mr. Shen is to reconcile the two takes on the human condition--the post-modern and the communitarian--we can only surmise. But shot through his writing, at least in the present piece, is unsurprisingly the routine juxtaposition of irreconcilables. It is singularly post-modern; but this sort of post-modernism also allows a writer to mix sense and non-sense conveniently. Add to it a whole language rather befitting advertisements and wuxia novels, and you have pretty much one mode in which Mr. Shen loves to write. That said, Mr. Shen does write much more seriously when he concerns himself with international politics, rather than cultural musings or theoretical disputations. What think you?

The Article by 沈旭暉 leaves much to be desired, as 101/102's response made clear. But at the end, what has antagonized a number of commentators here, including 阿藹, tsw, and 熊一豆, is, I think, not Mr. Shen's post-modern gestures, nor his academic jargons, but the simple fact that he has so far NOT committed himself to the position championed by all these commentators, or, I should say, pretty much by the whole Inmedia community.

So far, even including the present Article, Mr. Shen has written not a single word proclaiming publicly that he supports the sort of radicalism to which Inmedia is used. He kept a low profile throughout the Star Ferry Incident, neither supporting nor not supporting it, nor even commenting on it in any great detail. But this, I submit, is fully in line with Mr. Shen's self-positioning in HK's public sphere: He is always "at a distance" from many events, and, as much before the recent appointment as after it, he never refused to allow, and betimes even encouraged, in his enterprise, voices from within the Establishment. THIS is what, I believe, distinguishes him, and his approach, from Inmedia and its way of public participation. Inmedia has already transformed itself from a place for many voices into essentially an activist's platform; and it does not like those who do not style themselves as activists, or as committed fighters (committed, of course, to the Inmedia position, and not otherwise. Recall tsw's comment: "不能算是誠意吧。掏空主體內涵的人無責任，故無誠意可言。" We may only surmise how tsw would judge a person who does have "主體內涵," but only because he is committed to a position opposite to Inmedia's. Would she also deem him full of "主體內涵"?).

Mr. Shen wrote: "其實港人社會意識不差，不介意多參與，但討厭政客、不習慣舊式運動、恐懼媒體，才找Roundtable 這平台容身，誰叫曝光非奸即盜。" This last phrase "誰叫曝光非奸即盜" is very worth the pondering. 阿藹 asked: "說不出席論壇了, 找了職員(亦為十二人小組之一)代為出席. 作為諮詢委員, 開會的是他, 為什麼卻要找人代為出席, 代為面向群眾? 我理論膚淺, 看不明白." Suppose that Mr. Shen attended the Forum, and were forced to declare his position. Suppose that he insisted that he would bring no position of his own to his present office, and therefore declined to answer questions of position. Given the radical practice of Inmedia - we need only recall Maggie Leung's performance, reported at: http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=179065&group_id=11, what might happen then? And what might appear on the pages of Inmedia after the event? Perhaps a report in Maggie Leung's style, no less praised by 葉蔭聰 and celebrated by many other commentators, etc. etc.) A clever Mr. Shen - and here I must admire his wisdom - would certainly not allow himself to take this sort of risk. If he would not attend even a function organized by some less radical entities, he must have every reason not to associate himself too intimately with Inmedia. And indeed, so far as we can see, he has very much succeeded.

熊一豆 later brought a charge against Mr. Shen which resonates perfectly with tsw's. It reads: "一個不必然關心社會、要求一毛不拔式的絕對安全，但又可累積社會資本的"社會活動"位置，是眾會員早有的共識？是恍然大悟？還是日後去向的指路牌？" Many people in Inmedia, I believe, are ready to say the same thing against Mr. Shen. But here we may inquire a little further: What does "關心社會" refer to? Aster, on another occasion (some of her earlier comments having been reproduced by ashun, under "持不同意見的文章和回應": http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=178185&group_id=252), as well as a few other people commenting on the ensuing exchanges, e.g. 汽車碼頭 (see the same thread, supra), who have been following the Star Ferry Incident quite closely, have again and again underscored that people may work towards the same goal in many different ways. Some prefer taking to the streets; some, working behind the scenes; some, working within the Establishment, some without; and some even try to bring officials closer to the public, by first building between them a mutual confidence that is threatened no less by unreasonable governmental reactions than by a well-entrenched radical opposition. (To see what the last item might mean, we may invite 阿藹, tsw, or 熊一豆 to assume positions of responsibility within the government for half a year, and insist that Maggie Leung report on them during their tenure.)

Mr. Shen will certainly, and again wisely, not respond to all the comments collected under his Article. But we may take the comments by 阿藹, tsw and 熊一豆 as quite representative of the sort of response one might expect from Inmedia, to someone who is very well aware of the risk "曝光非奸即盜." Mr. Shen, we may presume, is going to contribute in his way; but that way is not a way that Inmedia would appreciate. For it goes against almost to boot what Inmedia takes itself to represent. Mr. Shen did not join the protest; nor did he take the risk of being prosecuted. He did not support the protest publicly; nor did he say anything that is clearly in line with Inmedia's position. He did not fight, nor did he condemn. He did not disparage those who supported the government, let alone those who simply tried to work within the Establishment. He did not write like Mr. Leung did (cf. his writing with, e.g., the latter's "吸納不了的激進": http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=179553&group_id=104. Mr. Shen, I believe, would say that what Mr. Leung did say in that article is an obvious truth; but whereas Mr. Shen would accept that it is simply a fact that the government could never "吸納" every bit of radicalim, old or new, Mr. Leung would not be happy even if that be true, but the government try to "吸納" a bit more. We know, as 阿藹 was eager to have us know, that Mr. Leung was indeed unhappy with Mr. Shen's appointment.) And all these things Mr. Shen did or not did - taken as a whole - make him very disgusting to the Inmedia commentators. He, despite his apparent interest in, and support of, civic engagement, is, alas, "l'autre" through and through. For he is not "engagé."

If we look at the matter this way, the many reactions to Mr. Shen's Article registered then not only a widespread anger on the part of the commentators, but also a self-image of this community (roughly speaking). Contrast Mr. Shen, on the one hand, and 阿藹, tsw and 熊一豆 - and for that matter even Mr. Leung - on the other hand, we see that post-modernism is the last thing that we need to invoke to understand the gulf between the two groupings. For the Inmedia people, Mr. Shen has not paid the proper initiation fee (sweat, tears, and perhaps even blood), for being admitted as a bedfellow. 安徒 and 小西 would, I think, argue that under the notion of agonistic democracy, Mr. Shen need indeed be agonistically admitted as a bedfellow: after all he is "no foe of ours." (See 小西's thread "有爭議才有民主": http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=152968&group_id=23 ; and my not entirely satisfying engagement with 安徒 therein.) But Mr. Shen is just safe, all too safe. If, moreover, in that safety, he could indeed achieve something, alas, it would be even more unacceptable to Inmedia.

That, says all.

是奇怪為甚麼不選我入諮詢機制 (:P)，反正無需表態、無需出席……不用……，那和一個郵筒有甚麼分別？分別只在於郵筒不會呼來人群，而活人卻會行會走會選擇性地做事？有點不解。

難得有個咁學究的人(雖然佢將反對政治妖魔化).
佢對沈提出的理論質疑, 雖然對唔準後現代的詭辯, 但係有現代主義的認真, 要受到歷史/文化/集體記憶/的保育.

我又來學究一番:

knights 騎士於前現代是擁著 King Authur 的, 有 unity 的, 但沈生話佢啲 knights 來去自如, 不用有理念, 比較似 free riders, 即有著數就攞, 責任少少的自由騎士.

這班自由騎士聚在一齊做咩呢, 唔使一定有理念, 係為咗社會資本 social capital. 亦即係拉關係, 搞 club, 搞 clan.

變成一條公式: free riders + 拉關係 = roundtable = 後現代圓桌武士. 勁!

deleted

有一些評論人總是不甘寂寞，惟恐天下不亂。沈文具名發表，無論同意不同意，作者已負文責。但有一些人遠在彼岸，卻以筆名指東劃西。其用意就不能不防。

沈文為自己一人的諮詢理念解說，無端端把Roundtable和800會員都拉下水。這是沈先生和Roundtable社群之間的問題。

這裡的留言者，可能也是Roundtable 的社群成員，借此發言不為過，但其他評論者，實不宜下下 “800騎士” 稱之，以免陷入彼此將對方本質化的圈套。

In-Media 長期讀者人數不少，人人意見不一。要辯論，每個人得為自己言論負責。但有一些評論人，卻喜好一棍打死的挑撥策略，三番四次以串燒作者名字方式，將In-Media打成一幫。在別的議題上，可能是嘩眾取寵，搏人回應。但在具體政治角力當前，這種扣他人帽子，劃幫劃派的手法，除了挑起更多誤解，制造更多混亂之外，有何居心？

如果真有基本原則分歧，光明正大來一場真辯論可也。但記著，每個人都是獨立自主的個體，要辯的，是每個議題，每條道理。不要讓一些自己也沒有表明自己甚麼身份的人，四處扣帽，制造800 vs 500之類的虛擬對立，浪費精力。

文革式的挑動群眾鬥群眾的行為，只會讓一些以隔岸潑火為樂的人高興，對任何社會運動都只會有害無益。

我講明，我都係Roundtable的Knight，幫過佢地寫文章添。我同沈生，都份屬舊同事，以及朋友。

以我的理解，Roundtable係一個鬆散得很，連阿爾蓋達都不是的組織。阿爾蓋達尚有統一理念，獨立媒體的作者和編輯都政見雷同，但Roundtable是可以是大纜都扯唔埋都係Roundtable成員。所以我一直看法是，那個地方是一個platform。

當然，沈旭暉話唔主動諮詢或做保育呢樣野，都係要批評。因為做得公職，除非你唔接受份公職，否則有責任出聲。近年，以及在可見將來，我都係得閒死唔得閒病（我依家病緊），所以我無將自己的資料交俾民政事務局果個「等委任資料庫」。

但如果有心測試一下政府誠意，不妨將自己的個人資料填好，然後俾何志平，睇佢日後點。

謝謝林輝君的回應，但請恕本人不能同意。

林君說：「沈的文字，確實很有獨特風格（我自己有時也看不明白），不過細微細眼的地方，不必浪費時間仔細斟酌。」

我但願這不是對本人的回應，因為我並不質疑沈先生的文字風格，而我並不覺得我的問題，是「細微細眼」，因為沈先生的文章的題目是「Rountable社區主義」，並以西方的Communitarianism作為Roundtable的定位，由此可見沈先生及Roundtable核心成員，一定對此有過深入的學理探究。但如果在我所引的關鍵的四句中，每一句都犯了最基本的學理上的錯誤的話，那恐怕便不是文字風格的問題，而是整篇文章的立論恐怕都站不住腳，亦多少反映了作者的學養。

其實沈先生和Roundtable很多朋友都是學術界的，亦自許要做嚴肅的學術性的政策研究，那麼我提出的問題，恐怕不是一句「細微細眼，不必浪費時間」便打發得了吧。討論是否導致精力內耗，很視乎討論的水平去到什麼高度。當我們認真地提出了問題，連回應都未有便叫提問者不必浪費時間，那倒真有點令人氣餒。

咁依家沈所講的不出來諮詢交代的實驗, 係咩即係 roundtable 的立場先, 代唔代表其他騎士?

事忙，恕我簡單回覆，希望你不介意。

rt 不是一個政治組織，沒有統一的政治、經濟甚至道德立場，亦以成員於各光譜的不同位置組成的多元共處為組織基楚。rt 是 platform，成為rt 成員亦基本沒有門檻、沒有約束力可言，這和沈所說的並無二致，閣下有興趣的亦歡迎加入指教。

但沒有政經立場不代表沒有組織沒有行政。rt 有行政架構，有決策架構，有exco有職員，會決定舉辦何種活動、出甚麼樣的書、實行甚麼的計劃，但這些都依循一定原則。沈是rt 的最高決策人，他事前曾徵詢過將參與事件的各人同意，然後才刊出文章。我看不到當中有甚麼不妥。

至於我自己，認為文章的重點根本不在甚麼社群主義，而是在建議的新機制，和它對整個運動可能出現的影響。每個人都有自己的考慮重點，除非你認為這十幾人都是沒有獨立思考且可以任人擺弄的人，否則知甚麼、幹甚麼、負甚麼責任，恐怕都與其他人無干。

inmedia 的討論是一件事，社會運動是另一件事；inmedia 的討論不會內耗，但社會運動會。我不知你是否參與本土行動、保衛天星的一分子，內耗與否可能根本與你無關，但我不願見到本應放在運動的時間精神，錯置在一些無關痛癢的討論和對象上。

Where can I find it? Any link???
Thanks in advance!`

呂大樂篇文獨立媒體有轉載：
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=184550&group_id=53

呂大樂篇文擺明叫各方不要再留戀諮詢式政治，也不要寄望諮詢式政治再有甚麼改善的可能。但今日讀報，民主黨卻仍想通過推薦年青黨員進入各種諮詢式架構，來回應他們的年青黨員的「上位」訴求。民建聯這樣想這樣做不出奇，民主派不將重點放在打倒這種諮詢式民主，而汲汲於在其中謀一席位，實在可嘆！有關報導見http://hk.news.yahoo.com/070118/12/2089h.html

如果有學生期末交來像沈旭輝教授鴻文的功課，我是鐵定不會給c+以上的分數。一己之見，然而相信學術界同仁應有共鳴。

我同意林輝說這些術語根本不是文章重點——什麼社區主義、後現代解構主義的機動、諮詢行為藝術，它們全都是一些空洞的花招而已。問題在於，沈文本身就是以這些名詞作倚仗的，這些都是沈文本身當作行動具體內涵來向大眾進行說服的。不是我們要聚焦到這些術語上，是沈文本身要我分散焦點到這些術語上。

另有勞請教：「在評論界推出新馬（嶽）蔡（子強）福音是徒勞的，前輩已是頂峰，似乎也不需太多滿口真誠為港持股人的複製政壇新人。」這話是什麼意思，什麼叫前輩已經是頂峰，陡然舉兩個名字出來，是不是馬嶽和蔡子強背後持這篇文？

定義含糊、徵引不清，還提什麼歷史學位、研究國際？

我個人很高興讀到更多對於沈先生文本的具體提問。既然這是一篇代表Roundtable公開發表，同時關涉到重大公共利益的文章，沈先生和Roundtable的核心成員，是有責任作出公開回應的，只要大家抱著認真理性的心態討論，我想對於整件事會有益而無害。行動固然重要，但對於行動本身的深化討論，甚至讓分歧浮出水面，不一定便是內耗。

對於林輝君對我的回應，坦白點說，林君似乎既沒讀懂沈先生的文章，也似乎沒有讀懂我的回應。但我不想糾纏於此，我反而從林君的回應中，再讀出一些有趣的觀察。

在沈先生及林君的文章中，均多次反覆強調Roundtable是一個「中立、開放、多元、沒有統一的既定立場」的一個平台（platform）。但林君的回應，卻清楚告訴我們：
「rt 有行政架構，有決策架構，有exco有職員，會決定舉辦何種活動、出甚麼樣的書、實行甚麼的計劃，但這些都依循一定原則。」
這樣一個嚴密的，層級分明的，同時擁有相當資源的組織，只是一個「中立的」平台？那麼林君所說的「依循一定原則」，是什麼原則？這些原則，難道不正是Roundtable的立場和取態－－雖然它不代表所有成員？

林君或會說，這些只是行政原則，因為「沒有政經立場不代表沒有組織沒有行政。」那是很牽強的說法。Roundtable選擇出什麼書搞什麼活動向什麼人籌款又或什麼人願意捐款，以及沈先生這篇宣言式的文章，都不是行政原則，而是有著自己的一些或明或暗的政治定位吧。

其實，一個組織之所以為一個組織，自然會有自己的政治立場和取態，這是不言自明的事。也只有這樣，才能吸引志同道合者加入。有趣的，卻是Roundtable的朋友，一再否認自己有立場，一再強調自己是個中立的組織。

為什麼會有這種明顯的不一致呢？一個可能的解釋：「中立多元鬆散沒有約束力自由來自由去」這樣的取態，可以令許多騎士或希望加入的朋友有這樣的想像：「我雖然加入一個組織，但沒有人會代表我，我不需要放棄自己的任何立場，也對此組織沒有任何強制性的義務，更不需要有任何承擔，但我卻或多或少可以享受到此組織帶給我的好處（沒貶義）。」

這在香港社會對參與政治有著莫名恐懼，同時不願作出太大承擔的年青人來說，這是相當有吸引力的號召，這或許部份地解釋，為什麼可以那麼快地吸納八百騎士。因此，Roundtable的核心成員，才會一而再，再而三地強調這一點。

大部份的騎士，可能沒有意識到，這個世界根本沒有中立的政治組織（這裡政治取廣義，即參與公共事務，並謀求利用其影響力影響政治決策或社會輿論）。如果連林君這樣的核心成員都如此相信，我只能說，這多少反映了香港新一代對政治的理解，是如何的粗淺表面。

沈先生的文章，以Roundtable之名，發表其個人的但卻代表Roundtable這個八百人社群的一種社會分析和政治宣言，事前交給核心的十多位「獨立思考」的成員閱讀通過，但林君卻說沈先生的整篇文章的理論基礎是「九成九人也看不明白的學術字詞」（姑勿論其錯漏百出），事後被人質疑卻依然強調「每個人都有自己的考慮重點，除非你認為這十幾人都是沒有獨立思考且可以任人擺弄的人，否則知甚麼、幹甚麼、負甚麼責任，恐怕都與其他人無干。」

如果這不是強辯，那便多少有點政治不成熟了。無論是政府或其他非Roundtable的人，恐怕都不會相信，沈先生的文章只代表他個人的政治立場，又或委任沈先生入委員會只是因為他個人非常有個性的政治評論。如果騎士們真的這樣看，那不是十分天真嗎？Roundtable的八百成員，無論你們如何自我感覺自由自主，認清這點政治現實還是必要的。至於你們是否認同沈先生及其核心成員的政治立場，則當然是每個人的政治選擇。

話說得白了點，也直了點，希望林君及其他朋友見諒。但說多一次，我對於Roundtable沒有任何惡意，本人也不屬於任何組織，我依然是就文本作一些粗淺的分析和和推論。而從香港的社會發展來看，我個人是希望Roundtable能更清楚的明示自己的立場和理念－－無論那是怎樣的一種立場－－並能更積極的參與和介入香港的社會改革。

林輝君說要我們給他們多一些時間空間，那麼要我們等多久呢？做現實驗前的Hypothesis是什麼呢？實驗失敗後又會否辭職呢？實驗的時限是多久呢？

相信這些都是公眾最想知道的問題罷！

還是要我們當沈生是陳永仁般混入政府做無間道，一切不可發揚不可以問，最後給劉健明一槍射死，來個反高潮結局吧？

利益申報，我是十數人的其中一個。

上面提出的很多質疑，我在答應幫忙之前都知道。而且在提過的問題之外，我還有另外一大堆不同意的地方。我是個左派，從來都不信後現代ＸＹＺ，追求的是有組織的對抗。但我還是願意幫忙，理由很簡單：給一個機會。

事實上，如果不是為了給一個機會，大抵我連天星和皇后都不會來了。

說組織、行動綱領、理念、理論基礎，以至實行能力等等，天星和皇后的抗爭所含的問題不會比沈的少。說到對政治和對媒體的影響能力，從而推算出對民眾的理應問責程度，天星和皇后的抗爭卻又該遠遠比沈的要多。然而我們卻搶着要沈「負責」，對天星和皇后的抗爭卻又不見得有等同嚴謹的反思，這是否雙重標準？

我看到兩者的分別，不在其嚴謹程度，因為兩者坦白說都不過如此。我看到的僅有分別，只是沈被所謂地「吸納」了，而其他人卻沒有。如果僅僅以此作為標準來決定是否批評一個個人或一次行動，這個批評者又是否比被批評的更為嚴謹呢？

共勉之。

(1) I should like to make a few observations on the recent exchanges on Mr. Shen's Article, respecting in particular the posts of the four writers mentioned in the subject line. I take it, that both 林輝 and 汽車碼頭, as members of the Twelve, would like to see that the public be more positive, as much to Mr. Shen's appointment and Article, as to the proposed new consultation mechanism; at least so much as to give the last mentioned a chance to test itself out. I surmise that neither 101/102 nor chan charles would dispute this demand.

(2) I take it, too, that what bothers 101/102 and chan charles, and to some extent myself as well, is the way Mr. Shen articulates his conception of the new mechanism, or what he calls the experiment. That Mr. Shen is a learned person, we need not deny; in conveying his vision to the public, he could have written more clearly and more meticulously, not as he would an academic paper, but at least as he did his international politics essays in Mingpao. 阿藹 was right, I think, in pointing out that this Article was meant for the general public's consumption; unlike a column written chiefly for other Knights, or people indulgent in post-modern roaming, this Article should have been more serious and more formal.

(3) The Article has hence given rise to two queries: 1. Why did Mr. Shen write that way? and 2. What exactly did Mr. Shen mean by the terms he used? 101/102 and chan charles, I take it, wanted further explication from the author, or from those who might explicate for him. Yet a demand for EXPLICATION, probably more intellectually done, need not go with a REJECTION of the experiment tout court. If the vision be unclear, some people would naturally want to withhold from it their support; but that is not because they deny that any good might come from a vision of that sort, but because they believe that the visionary could have articulated it a little more solemnly.

(4) 汽車碼頭 also mentioned that "我們卻搶着要沈「負責」，對天星和皇后的抗爭卻又不見得有等同嚴謹的反思，這是否雙重標準？" I should like to imagine that whereas we have cause to demand further explication from Mr. Shen, or at least that he write more clearly in the future; we ought not (and here I am with 汽車碼頭) to press the demand for accountability, only because "沈被所謂地「吸納」了." I argued this much in my earlier rejoinder. If we distinguish these two kinds of response to Mr. Shen's appointment and Article--one motivated by the murkiness of the Article, the other by the fact that Shen has been taken in--we need not believe that the positions taken by all four writers mentioned in my subject line must be incompatible.

(5) I propose that we mark the intellectual objections more decidedly off from the political conjectures. This way, we may perhaps even clarify, with the help of the members of the Twelve, certain key lines of thought pertaining to the said vision. If "communitarianism" and "social capital" be not the best terms to articulate it, it should not hurt to pick other terms. Still, endorsing the experiment, I hope that it might be a little better expressed.

回 101/102 :

前文所述的，主要着眼於對沈在政治立場和策略上的質疑。至於學理上的質疑，你說得對，文章在學理上是有問題的，很多概念都說得不確定，也不易被讀者解讀。

不過話說回頭，從學理上我們也可以質疑天星和皇后運動。就以獨媒編輯部發過的立場書為例，當中學理上的問題不會比沈的少，每個字眼都可以斟酌，我卻看不到許多相關的討論。不要說核心人物，就算是一眾傍觀者也同樣地雙重標準。如果你有對獨媒提出過類似的質疑而我遺漏了，現先致歉。

但我卻沒有在報章寫文章批評獨媒在學理上的不嚴謹，因為我知道他們很大程度上有必要如此的不嚴謹。

我對沈文和你有一樣甚至更多的不認同，卻仍然為文章背書，理由也如出一轍。我不是想借獨媒的問題來為沈開脫，我只是想說明無論獨媒或沈都有必要這樣做。

我確實有什麼不滿，私下說無妨，這兒就不好了。畢竟，這到底不單是學術，也是政治。

水至清則無魚，我們走着瞧吧。

再次謝謝YT君對本人文章相當細緻而清楚的閱讀和引申。由第一篇留言開始，我已再三表明，我只是就沈先生的文本提出了一些學理上的困惑（puzzles），例如什麼是社群主義（communitarianism），社群主義如何支持所謂的「後現代的解構主義的中立的快閃的馬伕式的」創新實驗。沈先生的文章，充滿了這些難解的含混的唬人的言辭。我覺得，任何有意義的討論，都有必要先弄清這些東西是什麼意思，及其是否對確，才能進一步討論。嚴格來說，直到目前為止，我只是要求澄清解釋，而不是批判指責，更談不上要沈先生負什麼責任。

這不算過份要求吧。沈先生是耶魯牛津的畢業生，又在大學任教，加上這篇文章是公開發表而不只代表他個人，無論是從學術倫理還是參與公共討論的角度來看，這都是很基本的要求。而且我多次說過，Roundtable一直自許是一個重視學術研究的community，那更應對自己有更嚴謹的學術要求，不應隨意將不同學術概念拼湊挪用混淆扭曲。沈先生如此做，自有其理由，但這對提高香港公共討論的水平，是有害而無益的。就此而言，許寶強、呂大樂、陳健民等老師在報刊的文章，便更值得我輩學習。

讓我們繼續等候。

本來都覺得 Y.T 英文好, 幾學究, 但竟然話唔比 H 君啲文上 focus 就唔獨立, 大佬, 獨立唔等於垃圾埇呀, 唔該你再讀下 H 君啲文先. 唔係立場問題, 而係佢根本亂讀書, 散播各種歪理. 你唔好自我貶值啦...

你成日插獨媒, 我覺得無問題, 我都覺得你某啲文可以上下 focus. 但有啲野唔可以強求, 你啲英文咁高深, 唔係個個睇得掂...但你依家竟然為咗插獨媒而捧 H 君, 呢下點都幫你唔落. 我由李天命嗰邊睇佢睇到呢邊, 都好少搵到啲人咁廢, 獨媒比佢係度繼續, 算係咁.

返返汽車碼頭的回應, 從文章睇, 獨媒有啲人係盲動, 又或者無講清楚行動背後的理念, 但睇嚟睇去, 佢地啲 concept, 一個係本土, 一個係集體回憶, 後者佢地自己都插, 前者最多比人話港獨, 但係好明顯佢地唔係, 陳雲篇文講到啲野.

咁你覺得天星啲人有問題, 你可以出嚟插, 好似 y.t 咁, 成日插, 亦無人走出嚟叫 y.t 比個機會. 嗱, 講明我唔係獨媒的, 101又唔係, 大家都好有耐性咁等佢回應, 比緊機會佢澄清.

林輝和汽車碼頭這樣前仆後繼，看起來讓人很是不忍。到底也是一起吹過風淋過雨的，何至於如此劃界。這裡的指問對象是沈氏及其文，聲音太多無法則止，兩位不要攫其鋒芒了。

至於泥彩，作為獨媒讀者我請求你，千萬不要和Y.T.長篇筆戰。千萬不要！！

還是讓101/102的等待永存吧。

好心咪咁鬼肉麻啦，講左你個point咪ok囉，無啦啦又要係d公共場合企出黎講：「我是一個左派」，希望你唔好嬲，我No offense的，但真係好鬼肉麻，以後可以留意下丫。

另外，我都無咩興趣同沈先生做friend，所以無所謂一個「信」字，咁你依家做左代表收集意見，唔該做番你既責任，我對佢無咩得好討論，態度係公事公辦，一切從客觀標準去判斷他，大佬個個諮詢委員都行出黎寫篇文話：唔該你信我啦﹗ 我咪好唔得掂？依家同你有親咩，現代政治講咩信字o者，咁鬼封建，未開工就寫篇文講自己唔會做呢樣果樣，大佬呀，比d heart好唔好。仲有呀，抽晒d terms出黎，篇文又咪咁寫法。

// 不過話說回頭，從學理上我們也可以質疑天星和皇后運動。就以獨媒編輯部發過的立場書為例，當中學理上的問題不會比沈的少，每個字眼都可以斟酌，我卻看不到許多相關的討論。不要說核心人物，就算是一眾傍觀者也同樣地雙重標準。//

有點兒像聖經裡面那個向婦人擲石的事件？

如果說別人必需先要曾對某 d 某 d 事件/現象曾經評論過然之後才可以對沈文發表意見，否則便是雙重標準......云云，這不單是轉移視線，亦與 101/102 的提問不相干。

汽車碼頭君認為自己有合理理由容忍某些事不嚴謹，不代表別人無權提出疑問。

不在獨媒發表意見不代表沒有意見，亦不見得回應者必須事事都要有意見和在獨媒公開。

沈先生公開發表文章，讀者提出疑問要求先知道、了解清楚才繼續討論，這有什麼問題？ 至於沈先生會不會回應、怎樣回應、回應內容......，讀者自然能夠從中再作判斷。

// 我不是想借獨媒的問題來為沈開脫，我只是想說明無論獨媒或沈都有必要這樣做。//

如汽車碼頭君認為有需要繼續尋問，這當然可以。選擇與否最好都是自負責任，無必要強求人人一樣。

你放心，中國歷代的酸腐文人有個共通點，一天到晚都只是希望與人家比拼他們的駢四儷六，要與他們糾纏，對所有有理智地想思考閱讀的人都是災難。要和他們打長篇筆戰？留給這網上的另一些學者詩人罷了。只是想不到廿一世紀香港，還是能隨手發現這種遺老遺少之風，可真是老、中、青各年代的國粹派相交混種，誠一景也。難道這些都真的有文化遺傳基因？怕且又是香港heritage list 的一個必要申遺項目，只是這種bastard絕非瀕危。

至於我拋出的題目，問大家甚麼是包容？甚麼是activism？則不只是朝某君而發。我樂見將來有人真的勇於接受智性挑戰 (無論立場是親那一方)，好好來辯一下這些議題，沈文爭發的這場爭議才有意思。In-Media作為一個media才真有意思---這是作為一名讀者的真切期望。

梁文道有一篇文章，好像叫 “不能吸納的激進” 吧。我記得他引用Richard Day一本新書名叫 “Gramsci is Dead”。這個書名真有意思，的確，這個年頭真的是葛蘭西已死----不但是葛蘭西所講的organic intellectuals買少見少，更重要的，是葛蘭西給予思想工作、智性工作的重視，在社運或新社運圈子，把新名辭拋來弄去的多，認真以理念服人者寡。以理念豐富和完善achchoii (另文)所講的信念者就更少。信念還得理念支撐，才會免人人混水摸魚，(這也算是我對achchoii的回應)。

葛蘭西不以理念為信仰，但信奉理念的力量。葛蘭西之死，則所有理念就如抹腳布、敲門磚，用過就扔。

魯迅於《在現代中國的孔夫子》一文中，對敲門磚有一段精闢的詮釋：「凡有企圖獲得權勢的人，都是讀《四書》和《五經》，做『八股文』，別一 些人就將這些書籍和文章，統名之為『敲門磚』。這就是說，文官考試一及第，這些東西也就隨之忘卻，恰如敲門時用的磚頭一樣，門一開，這磚頭也就被拋棄 了。」

能祭出理念的人，對理念負責，就這麼簡單。這也是孔子 “必也正名乎” 的 “正名” 思想。(少給我們這一代來八股文這一套吧。)只不過是現代中國的孔夫子們，一口儒雅，一口包容，卻連自己用過的名詞也不能負責吧了。

泥彩自知發言過多，會戒網一段時間，祝君安好。

嗯，麥當勞大哥：上次泥彩甚麼時候說過你是深綠分子，跟這個網是否activist platform及是否a place of many voices有甚麼關係？

說你是深綠分子時泥彩有沒有舉理由？你有沒有反駁？你的反駁有沒有被刪除？獨媒的activism跟 '深綠' 批評有甚麼關係？還是你以為a place of many voices就不會有人批評你？

泥彩跟In-Media編輯毫無關係，亦不管他們是搞activist platform還是a place of many voices。若我曾經贊成過某些你也許知道是編輯人員的發言，也不代表我的發言跟編輯部的方針有何關係。

我的發言從來是獨立思考而來。若果說過你是深綠與否，就可以用來作例證明編輯部是如何如何，你究竟有沒有尊重過留言者是會獨立思想的個體？我若有不同意你的發言，也是基於我的獨立意見。

若果你眼中凡是和你意見相左的，都是說明獨媒有政策對你如何如何，這說明的只是你根本沒有擺脫派性的假設。我一向以來尊重你的很多見解，雖然不盡同意，但想不到你也是戴上派性有色眼鏡的一員。令人遺憾。

我一向以為參加獨媒的人，是有基本的自由主義心智，無論如何在語言和意見上交鋒，都互相尊重每個是獨立思考的人。可是，一次又一次，讓我失望的是，派性的有色眼鏡蒙蔽了一切。

中國人搞民主，過不了獨立思考這一關，多講亦沒有用。我愈來愈明白中國的極權政治是從甚麼地方而來的，中國人為甚麼總愛抽黑手，搞誅連九族，這些其實都是群性、幫性、派性所產生的。

一個一向給我印象是勇於發言，比起很多人都很講理的寫手，也是如此。或者也是時候，泥彩真要考慮從此戒網。

今天, 是本土行動大動員的日子, 所有編輯或天星的 activists 都呼朋引伴地出動了, 中午過後還會在這裡留言的, 一是不在香港, 一是我們不大認識的人. 這是明顯不過的了, 大家無謂猜測, 說誰在挻誰的言論, 其實都是一些黨派思維, 指責別人的, 其實也在反射自己了.

至於泥彩提的 activism, 其實是很難談的問題, 香港有很強的 ngo 傳統, 但 activist 卻很弱, 其中涉及香港的個人主義思維, 導向功利主義的思維, 而缺乏公義的面向. 當然這公義不是客觀存在, 而是一個 claiming, 追尋的過程. 此外, 這邊的個人主義是一種以集體作為 background 的心理, 而缺乏個體與個體之間的配搭, 難以形成有機的集體力量.

這次天星皇后, 感覺參與的朋友, 慢慢地 jam 出一點東西來, 但需時發酵整理.

我對理念行先的方法有保留, 很多東西都要一邊做, 一邊試和總結, 過程中可以肩併肩, 可以鬧交, 不配合, 但大家會互相對應, 看著對方的節拍, 有時附和, 有時引領, 今天的人民集擊行動, 有很深體會, 另文再述.

泥彩兄, 有機會在現實裡碰面吧 :)

不要動氣。我也覺得魯迅hard fact的話是說得過了頭。魯迅有時愈說愈瘋瘋癲癲的。

泥彩說尊敬你的話我想不是謊言。上次董啟章文章你的回應，重燃了我的溝通信心。我本來打了千幾字的回應給你，但兩次都無故關機，實在支持不住再打第三次。在我而言你曾經讓我重新領受耐性；現在算是我一廂情願回報於你。不要動氣啦。

（另不相干事：子華！見字應我一聲。）

// 本來都覺得 Y.T 英文好, 幾學究, 但竟然話唔比 H 君啲文上 focus 就唔獨立, 大佬, 獨立唔等於垃圾埇呀, 唔該你再讀下 H 君啲文先. 唔係立場問題, 而係佢根本亂讀書, 散播各種歪理. 你唔好自我貶值啦... //

LTM﹐你程度底睇唔明唔怪你。可是你連思辯的能力也沒有﹐分析批判我的文章也談不上﹐只懂當個人芸亦芸的應聲蟲。獨媒這兒的那些所謂的本土價值﹐何嘗又不是垃圾歪理﹖

// 你成日插獨媒, 我覺得無問題, 我都覺得你某啲文可以上下 focus. 但有啲野唔可以強求, 你啲英文咁高深, 唔係個個睇得掂...但你依家竟然為咗插獨媒而捧 H 君, 呢下點都幫你唔落. 我由李天命嗰邊睇佢睇到呢邊, 都好少搵到啲人咁廢, 獨媒比佢係度繼續, 算係咁. //

看來閣下認錯人了﹐李天命那邊我一向少去﹐而我來獨媒的時間比去李天命版還早。

不過李天命那邊的人至少有一樣好﹐就算不認同對方立論。但是反對歸反對﹐大家都是客觀理性的討論﹐至少會懂邏輯懂思考。不像獨媒的人那樣﹐對異見者只懂漫罵妖魔化﹐以感情代替思考。與特區政府的高官相比﹐只是五十步笑百步﹐甚至更差。高官們至少說有文有路﹐獨媒的人則只懂為反對而反對﹐連為什麼要反對﹐做與政府相反的事有什麼價值也說不出來。這此人只懂躲在文化的包裝紙後面﹐遮住底下內裏空無一物的虛無本質。像古老鬼片中那些飄飄下床單扮的幽靈﹐獨媒明乎其實是本土霸權主樣的文化幽靈。

不過這隻狗, 竟然在自己窩裡拉屎, 如戀屎癖的蛆蟲般的狗, 實難養也.

說我垃圾也不如, 也證明不了你不是垃圾, 垃圾就是垃圾, 無辦法, 回收唔到.

I intend to speak on the question of identity and of the force of argument. But before coming to these two, I should like to comment on 泥彩's frequent allusion to "派性." Hence a two-part rejoinder.

(A)
阿藹 urged us not to "猜測泥彩的身份及其他." She would be right, and I with her, if by this statement she meant to argue that an open online discussion should be based, not on the identity of writers, but on the arguments they put forward. But immediately following the urge, she intimated: "中午過後還會在這裡留言的, 一是不在香港, 一是我們不大認識的人. 這是明顯不過的了, 大家無謂猜測, 說誰在挻誰的言論, 其實都是一些黨派思維, 指責別人的, 其實也在反射自己了." Patently, the question of identity returned through the backdoor. That phrase, "明顯不過," cannot help reminding us 泥彩's "其用意就不能不防。" A strange thread seems to go directly from 泥彩's lovely use of "派性" to 阿藹's majestic invocation of "黨派思維." But what thread is it after all?

The whole controversy seems to originate from 泥彩's reading of my Considerations on Mr. Shen's Article. For him, I was guilty of trying to connect isolated views, as evinced in various responses, to give a survey of one sort of reaction (namely, conspiratorial) to Mr. Shen's appointment and Article. I was further guilty, in the eye of that cheer-leader, of trying to clarify 101/102's and chan charles's later challenge to the Article, distinguishing it from the challenge formerly launched by tsw and 熊一豆. For 泥彩, this is all "派性"; or to follow 阿藹, "黨派思維."

Now, when a writer -- 阿藹, tsw, 熊一豆, 101/102, chan charles, 林輝, 汽車碼頭 or, for that matter, YT, 泥彩, and indeed anyone -- writes anything in an online forum, he willingly exposes himself to the critical examination of others, and his position exists not in a vacuum, but is situated in a dense discursive context (or else, what means it to call the undertaking an engagement?), wherein different positions echo each other in various ways. Some reflect a common stand on a certain issue; some attack the same from a totally different perspective, with perhaps a totally different concern; some register the writer's own interest; some attest to nothing but the writer's grudge.

I do not think it very fruitful to lump all these things together and simply blast. In the present controversy, and to instance just this, I see that the positions I examined fall naturally into three groups:

(1) tsw and 熊一豆: suspicious of Mr. Shen's political motive;

(2) 101/102's and chan charles's: critical of Mr. Shen's presentation of his new experiment in the Article;

(3) 林輝, 汽車碼頭: desirous of a sympathetic reading by the public of the appointment, the Article, and, above all, the new experiment.

In what way, we may ask our cheer-leader, does this classification evidence 派性 or 黨派思維? If the classification succeeds in pointing out the key differences in presumption, concern, and perhaps even interest among the named writers, such differences, I plead, come not from my fancy, but from the very statements the writers themselves elected to make.

Our cheer-leader might retort that I ought only to say what I support and what I reject, but never to juxtapose others' statements, or do any survey of the discussion. I know not on what basis he might ground such a demand; but there are two reasons that I do not find it anywise conducive to a proper discussion:

1. Many misunderstandings and misfirings, especially in online discussions, originate precisely from a failure, if not unwillingness, to attend to the differences between various challenges; which failure causing the rejoinder therefore to react categorically: "Either you support me, or you oppose me, say which!" Some writers, and here I think I should liberally include our cheer-leader, do believe that this is the way to go: to act, means a Kierkegaardian either-or, and to write, means a Schmittean friend-and-foe.

2. When a writer writes something in an online forum, he must be presumed to stand by what he said. He must, furthermore, be ready to let his interlocutors quote his statements, for the sake of engaging his position more closely. If A, B and C happen to share a similar view on a certain issue, the writer making such a claim may show it by citing their various statements. The result, I grant, may be that A, B and C come out as a group, compared and contrasted with other groups likewise discerned. In an open online forum, A, B, or C can readily dispute the grouping, arguing that the writer has mis-interpreted their statements. But none of them, I believe, shall cry that the writer is wrong simply because he quoted them, or because he made of them a group. If A, B and C do stand by their statements, and the writer has not mis-interpreted them, then readers have the right to demand that A, B and C accept the writer's grouping as well, it being a natural inference from the positions they are holding.

Our cheer-leader paid no heed to any of this. He has little interest, I dare say, in attending closely to a discourse; but only in blasting. Hence something of this sort: "但你竟然只有興趣觀察誰跟誰是有關係，誰曾經附和過誰。坦白說，泥彩對你完全、徹底的失望。你這樣的表現，只合做秘密警察，做情報人員，做告密者，打小報告，完全不配作知識份子。" Let me add that according to our cheer-leader's criterion, ALL serious discussions involving the comparing and contrasting of positions must prove that the participants "只合做秘密警察，做情報人員，做告密者，打小報告，完全不配作知識份子." I think I have cause to worry--though 阿藹 seemed not--that "天下讀書之人之於泥彩，又得自慚天穢，而告罪於英明耳。"

(B)
I take it that both 1. and 2. are reasonable guiding thoughts for a constructive online discussion. What, then, are their relationship to the question of identity and of the force of argument?

If a writer ought to stand by what he said, he also, I grant, has the right to demand that his interlocutors restrict the engagement to his public statements. If a writer's arguments--expressly stated in his statements, or inferred thence by his interlocutors--have force, then, whether he be in Hong Kong or not, whether he be an Inmedia activist or not, whether he be a founding member or a recent recruit: none of these should cast a favorable or unfavorable light on the arguments themselves. The writer's online identity would then be constituted chiefly by his arguments, past and present; all online discussions are in this sense necessarily limited.

I have little desire to know who our cheer-leader is. I would not have been curious to put him that question, which triggered him to write at much length, had he not himself made so much of my identity ("其用意就不能不防"). 阿藹, and for that matter all other Editors as well, should, I believe, have been concerned when a writer declared generally that posting by pseudonym (including initials, in my case) ought to be suspected. For what would an online forum become, if posting by pseudonym be made a basis for suspicion? The strategic language "不能不防" puts everybody immediately under a hyperbolic doubt; and what is this if not, I say, an attempt to "文革其事"?

泥彩 has some talent in availing himself of liberal slogans: "我一向以為參加獨媒的人，是有基本的自由主義心智，無論如何在語言和意見上交鋒，都互相尊重每個是獨立思考的人。可是，一次又一次，讓我失望的是，派性的有色眼鏡蒙蔽了一切。" It is clear, however, that by forbidding, as he purposed to, other writers from attending to a discourse more closely, from, i.e., discerning the different positions and different lines of arguments present in a discussion, our cheer-leader's high hope "無論如何在語言和意見上交鋒，都互相尊重每個是獨立思考的人" is but chimera: "Please write and fight as fiercely as you would," he effectively says, "but make no comparisons nor contrasts: Say generalities, do not look at the matter too closely." In retrospect, he has indeed written very little on any substantive issue, but only so many hilarious defenses of Inmedia, and cultural-revolution-style provocations as his talent allows him to.

Let me in closing make two further observations. Writers on this forum, unhappy with certain of my positions, have not hesitated to put me in the same bin as hevangel and celeron. I believed, as I still do, that I ought not to dispute their attempt to classify, but only the crassness of their classification. In the present controversy, likewise, 阿藹 might dispute my initial attempt to associate her with the politically conspiratorial perspective of tsw and 熊一豆; if she made it clear that she did not look at the matter that way, I should be glad to revise my survey of the discourse, and, thus revising, declare my agreement with her. It is proper to dispute other writers' view; but not, I say, to dispute their very act of viewing.

Last of all, I should assure 阿藹 that I hold no grudge against her as a person. Nothing prevents me from agreeing with her--so much I did, respecting her remark that Mr. Shen's Article was meant for public consumption. If I be allowed to recommend just one thought to her--and to tsw and 熊一豆 as well (whom I have criticized in the present controversy)--it would be this: In putting up an essay online, one presents it not only to one's comrades, but also to one's critics and opponents. It is no doubt more delightful to hear supportive remarks from comrades, than to endure sympathetic, or even unsympathetic, criticisms from other parties. The art is, how to take the latter. If one resorts too quickly to insinuations, conjectures on political motives, and suchlike, one effectively demonstrates, to follow 泥彩's formulation, "派性的有色眼鏡蒙蔽了一切." I do not say that this is a predominant practice; on many occasions you all write very good essays and rejoinders. But if, as writers or as Editors, you believe that the cheer-leader's way is indeed the way to go, embracing it as readily as you would disregard his language and the implications of his insinuations, I think I must be permitted to maintain, what I put forth formerly in these many words:

"...抄書引句...文革其事...雖不能駁人之議，庶幾可舒主之心，主人愛之，愛其足資洩恨也。而泥彩亦深知小臣之道，韜略以陳，終未嘗一言迕主；褒其所褒，貶其所貶，主人所不能言者，泥彩言之，言之不足，則鼓之動之，主人尤賞之也."

I have not described in detail what I take to be the proper mode of critical engagement. But I hope, that the remarks I sketched so far may further that effort at least in some way.

恕沒有時間與你多談。你將我的第一個留言解讀為「suspicious of Mr. Shen's political motive」；如果在這裡，原發言者即本人的意願還可以受到少少重視，我會說，我的第一個留言不過一百來字，但你接近完全搞錯了我的留言重點。大概是因為你與運動本身及社運這個題目只能遠觀所致。我無力無暇一一辯難。

這已經不是第一次。上次你在長長的文題裡引用我的「有錯要認，打就企定」，已經是一次純粹聯想而毫無脈絡聯繫的引用。我認為「合理引用」和「合理解讀」的門檻應該是很低的，誠意尊重你的自由；不過，如果你以後不再引用或解讀我的話，我會很感激你。這樣可以減少溝通上的誤會，節省彼此的時間。

你的文言文很淺白易懂，以後寫文言文吧。謝謝。然而你自引那段中，「主人」、「小臣」什麼的二元對立，完全是不適合的。泥彩在這裡有支持者，以我自己來說，有時真的佩服他說話擲地有聲，在理論脈絡間他抓得住關鍵重點。泥彩在很多篇文章裡亦提出了反對意見，包括我的「惡死能登會」紀錄，阿丙的中大語言政策文。大家上網，身份不明，地位比現實中平等很多，支持反對都是一時一地而非永恒的，這種「主臣」的想像酸得令人不適。希望你在堅持古語的同時，尋找能夠表達今日新現象（例如網絡社群中人的關係）的新語言，而非只沿用舊有的比喻系統。

可以得到 y.t 回應, 太好了. 真希望有人將我同 y.t 君你歸埋一類嚟回應呢...

從文筆方面睇, H 係兩篇天星文的確可以, 但係兩篇都係裝假狗的 "報導", 又無訪問, 又無參與, 無咩獨特觀點, 講真揭開報紙, 呢度抄一句, 嗰度抄一句就抄出來了 (H抄人野的本領, 大家都見識過了), 點及得 y.t 君你, 字字原裝正版呢?

至於立場問題, 獨媒的立場明顯偏頗, 佢地都無否認過, 不過李金鳳嗰篇都擺左上焦點啦. 如果鳳姐嗰篇唔上 focus, 就好抵鬧了.

(1) Could you, or anyone else, reproduce on this Forum the second article by Mr. Shen, so that we may have a fuller view of his aspirations? Thank you.

(2) I find in point 2. of your remarks this large claim: "最可能的解釋，是沈先生認為社群主義和多元文化主義，根本是同一套理論，只是叫法不同而已。" Which I am indeed slightly inclined to support. To me, much confusion in Mr. Shen's representation of his ideas and ideals originates from this one central question: what he takes the word "community" to mean and to imply.

There is much talk of neutrality and plurality (or pluralism), participation and respect. One hears the footsteps of many writers writing on these hot topics, and I am quite sure that you can find in each of them something to support Mr. Shen's statements (as well as something to rebut them). But before we engage Mr. Shen along such lines - neutrality and plurality, etc. - we should do well first to invite him to clarify his notion of community.

I mentioned last time - I mean many posts before - that for most communitarians (in the sense given the word by current intellectual usage), community points to a rather holistic (contra individualistic) conception of the human condition; there is, to paraphrase a well-known slogan, indeed such thing as the collective - and that thing, importantly, can take precedence before the individual, giving him values, meanings, and a sense of connectedness.

It is this dimension - the holistic dimension - of community which I believe is, knowingly or not, avoided by Mr. Shen in his writing. But if this dimension be abandoned, then quite a lot that is dear to the communitarians must also go. What is left, it seems, is but an image of the contingent grouping - pluralistic, post-modern, and (occasionally) playful (Mr. Shen should have cited M. Lyotard's Au Juste and Le Differend?). To this new PPP then adds Mr. Shen a fourth P, participatory; and a fifth (in a light way), political. The difficulty is: how to fit the ethos of these five P's into some current intellectual language?

A pluralistic post-modern playful participatory politics is not quite communitarianism; instead of fitting his new wine into that old bottle, Mr. Shen might do well to jettison the communitarian language, and articulate his aspirations more directly.

Thank you for reproducing the article here. After reading it in full, I am even more convinced that Mr. Shen ought to jettison his former communtarian language. What he has discerned to be a deep problem in HK today, is not the same problem which communiarianism was first formulated to address; but is, to put it plainly, the increasing polarization in face of various social issues, which is both cause and effect of the failure to maintain a necessary degree of mutual confidence among interested parties. Thus we read:

"今天政府不斷擴大吸納版圖， 「代表」民間的委員會愈來愈多，社會卻愈加分化，媒體民眾對參與的犬儒與日俱增，能衡量「諮詢」如何「反映民意」的科學機制從不存在，連反映專家意見部分的公信力也被泛政治化拖得愈來愈低。

"在吸納政治外，權力絕緣體缺乏渠道和政府互動，有時訴諸外間眼中的身體政治，主要根源也是諮詢制度為雙方帶來的負誠信。熱血嘉年華無疑創意與智慧並重，但一時一刻聚焦過後，社會和媒體始終無意、無法、無暇理解背後理念，港式示威與示弱有時在媒體眼中是一線之差，忽然深入的探討又會被揶揄為「過分解讀」。官辦諮詢固然形式主義主導，公眾相信另類聲音是宏觀調控下的花瓶，感覺委員會再「開明」也是一切黑箱，再透明也難予以信任；民辦論壇無法逼政府開誠布公，唯有不時滲入「向人民交代」表態元素，又反過來成為政府對民間邊緣化的理據，連背後的理念也被邊緣化處理。如此循環，對政客和媒體以外毫無建設性；如此「溝通」，是結構性的失衡。

"我們認為單純的行政吸納、基進運動、透過第四權引導輿論，只是燃燒已所剩無幾的青春。目前的諮詢和溝通機制與意識，令政府與民間只能通過削弱對方才得到自身合理性，順道毁掉可作為中介的橋樑，強迫有點誠意付出又希望每事保持獨立思考的人部落儀式化地布殊主義式歸邊。碰上政府是官僚，碰上運動是暴民，聲稱獨立思考的都是偽君子騎牆，還不是源自同一溝通失衡？"

Reading such notions as "泛政治化"; "負誠信"; "如此「溝通」，是結構性的失衡"; "令政府與民間只能通過削弱對方才得到自身合理性，順道毁掉可作為中介的橋樑": I think that Mr. Shen is really re-articulating what many commentators have in the past put this way: HK is becoming increasingly unharmonious. It has little, if at all, to do with community or communitarianism. I shall have more to say on this matter; but for the moment, let me prorogue.