我拍了少許video，希望是以一位觀看街頭行為藝術的角度拍攝，不是以獵奇者的目光(如記者)般拍，所以拍了不太久。我盡快capture再compress放上youtube給你吧，但在辦公時間不能弄，唯有再等等，見諒。

我唔同意，我可以噓，但不用罵人，然後估量對方是民建聯....

我也拍了一些。起初不知道這故事，只是剛來到的時候jimmy喃喃的說了幾句，說我錯過了一些事情。原來如此。
我可以遲一些給你，我的朋友記錄了你的念書，聲音不是太好，但也是一種記錄。
若然你都想要，可以一起給你。

「犬儒」這個詞我學左超過十年，但要有深切體會的，係這個星期的事。

家下有Ｄ在場人士連自己的意識都無，瘋言瘋語，出言只求痛快，好似港台的周融咁，然後話保育人士唔民主，唔俾佢講，唔聽佢講。這些唔係對話，而係連自己意識都無，只係自我感覺良好就算，除左「犬儒」之外我找唔好其他適當的詞語去形容。

（另外，我真係無梁寶這樣的耐性與敏銳觸覺）

“我城”這本書那兒有網上版可以看﹖聽見梁寶介紹﹐應該是本很有趣的書。

真的十分十分佩服梁寶這種面對不同聲音也沉得著氣，温柔說話。

曾幾何時也收到朋友的email，說說反對聲音，雖然當時已夜深寂靜，但回信時雙手發抖，自己也感覺得到眼中快要噴出火來。

千字回覆，換來了「零」，沒有回覆，沒有回音。

想想看，這樣可能只是半夜自己躲在自己的房間悶生氣，對著電腦「滿腔熱血」，不如和別人好好談一談。

(不過要按下自己的情緒一點也不容易呀)

用不着佩服不佩服的，這話太見外。我也有憤怒和不耐煩的時侯(通常都是對着西哥的時侯)，但會自覺盡量不要把自己的憤怒影響別人。平心靜氣是每個人都可以做得到的事。

我城應該沒有網上版吧！這本香港文學經典，各小書店有售。小說原於七十年代發表，現在能買到的都是經改寫過的新版。圖書館也應該有藏：http://libcat.hkpl.gov.hk/webpac_cjk/wgbroker.exe?200708031231540906538+2+search+select+++2+0
很想可以買一本寄給這位粉紅恤衫的朋友。

其實還有好多事情沒有想通，想通了也沒有做到。真要找找一行師的書來讀讀。

另，大家如果有照片的話，請留個言，我會透過獨立媒體發訊息給你，看看可以怎樣交收。
感謝

Although I said I will give only spiritual support because I don't agree with the strategy of not making the core causes as our target I did come to the pier on 29th and 31st and, like Poshan, I felt a bit guilty for have not accompanied protesters to the end. So I give my salute to all protesters and particularly to those who stayed behind.
I think Poshan handled the anti-protester very well although I am still ambivalent. On the one hand I told the young man who sat by my side (He was among those taken away by the police the next day. My salute!) that I don't agree with the anti-protester but I did admire his courage and the peaceful way he adopted. I thought he sincerely believes in what he is doing but it is unethical to hijack our protest by stealing the limelight. Poshan in his article kind of answered that '. . . 選擇這個位置來下跪，其實也正跟我們選在皇后碼頭一樣，因為這正是權力和反抗的焦點，這當然是要死守喇') I think the two actions are different and this is not a good reason. If this is then by extension opposite camps should demonstrate at the same time and compete for the same place. We know it will often end up in violence or disaster. I think organizer(s) should interfere before it deteriorates (You can say there is no organizer and everyone can interfere or not interfere. Poshan interfered, I and other people interfered in their own ways and solve the problem. I think we are lucky that there are only one daredevil like him). On the other hand, I even found Poshan's murmuring by his ear intrusive and childish (the action is still intrusive even applied to an intruder. Poshan felt the same ". . . 「這算不算是疲勞轟炸，而我這算是什麼？他反感不反感？'). This was what I thought at the time and I think we should reason with him and if failed we should move him to the side. But I changed my mind when I knew Poshan is reading《我城》and that she thought of ’替他解圍(意思是，這人有我來應付，大家不用勞氣)’. It is just like reasoning with him and is much better than what Poshan said about 毓民 or one of us who pointed her camera just inches away from his face and said she will take down his "ugly" face (I cannot help but told her not to do that because she is in fact using the camera to threatening/insulting him).I hope she just got carried away.
When I got back to the young man that sat with me, I shared with him my thoughts. He said organizer(s) would not remove him probably because they believe that everybody has the right to express his/her views in a public space. To do that goes against what they are trying to achieve. I think if this is the case then they probably are taking our readings or theories to the extreme to overlook reality (This is a real danger for most of us who love reading). For example, parks are public spaces for everyone to use. What if when your family is having a gathering and someone barges in and stays on even you asked him/her to leave? Is he/she hijacking your gathering or occupying the public space you are using? Probably no law is breached but something is ethically wrong. Ethic helps us live more harmoniously. It forms and appeals to our conscience (e.g. believing in equality) whereas law is threatening us to abide and 'behave'. Of course, ethics could be used in helping oppression. But this is another issue. Ethically I think this anti-protester should not interrupt our action. He should either express his view in many of the forums or held his anti-protest by the side. It is ethically alright for the organizers to ask him to leave and it does not contradict ‘公共空間不是一言堂’.
I must admit that these two events have generated many discussions on the core causes and other important issues and it is encouraging to read 何韻詩’s blog and her fans. Seems it is not necessary to foreground the core issues. Yet try to talk to the general public and you will find a lot of people still do not know we are targeting the core causes. Most of them still don’t hear our argument that preservation is not necessarily the antithesis of progress not to question what progress means. They get their information from the mass media and our points were always lost in their report. We are mainly reinforcing a small group of people who are already sympathetic to our action. So the future does not look bright.
I have to make one amendment though. Formerly I think our energy will be drained out fighting one item after another. Now I think the government probably will be the first to drain out because each case will drag her on for months and will cost her dearly. The problem is: do we have the manpower to out do them? (I won’t doubt our will). Probably we do if each new case will have new stakeholders and protesters.
Jimmy Choi (I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respect to Poshan for what she did and what I have learned from her deed {It would be wonderful if she and the anti-protester could have a real conversation. She almost did it!} and to the young man sat beside me. Hope his family will understand and become proud of him)

我一直在旁協助梁宝，除了免他們倆受到無謂的騷擾外，也觀察他會否有異動。中間有些人上前挑引他，但有朋友在我耳边說他是青年民建聯，甚至市建局派來的。但我觀察了很久，始終覺得他來到這裡，只代表他自己發言，而我們太快把他歸類，是否太容易呢?皇后運動的朋友也曾被某報標籤為某政黨的棋子，但實情並是怎樣，我們當然很清楚。

依我的觀察，梁宝唸小說，顯然在這位年青人身上產生了效果，由只想著示威到用心聽[我城]，我覺得這裡有我們最期望的革命在醖釀﹕心的革命!

那天，在旁邊默默看著你努力，已經覺得很感動，覺得你很厲害，被你的堅持和另類的辦法深深感動。

你那次的工作，使我明白事情總有不同的解決方法和不同的approach...

其實，我當時遙遙看著你們，看到他終於有反應願意對你說話，我已經覺得很欣慰，感到你默默耕耘的成果。不過，正如你所講，沒法進一步溝通，確實有點可惜。
希望當晚的一切已經感動得到他，讓他生命有了一點點改變, make a difference 啦！

梁寶，謝謝你！ ;-)

皇后抗爭的最後幾天，跟不同的人聊天，其中羅永生提到的兩點，是值得思考的。

1.政府一直強調"發展與保育要平衡"，但阿生認為COUNTER-DISCOURSE應該是"發展與保育並存"，而不要跌進政府話語中所隐含的"發展VS保育"的二元對立。

2.阿生認為，從論述的角度，我們在周日的論壇上的演講相當豐富，而且有力;但從PR的角度，正正因為我們的論述如此豐富，便會讓人有一種訴求不清的感覺。所以阿生的建議是，在這個關頭，其實是應該把事件推至一個公開談判的地步。

// 整個傳媒的報道都是 "政府是理性的 , 講道理的, 說不能不拆一定有道理(極少去質疑政府這些空話背後是不是站得住腳)." 本土行動則是 "感性的, 說不拆是無道理, 但成員很熱情, 值得同情". 這種傳媒的 "定調" 是完全錯的. //

理性不是話自己有就有的。保育的價值觀本質就不是理性﹐不論你在上面建多少堂皇的文化理論﹐也只是建築在沙堆上的堡壘﹐沒有絲毫理性的基礎。

反清拆的朋友﹐你們是否是時候反省一下呢﹖莫非眾人皆醉你獨醒﹐全香港的主流傳媒都錯﹐淨係你們對﹖要考慮一下你們也有錯誤的可能性。

code:

YC﹕你好得閒咩?居然花時間應付"維园阿伯"!!(嗱!边個應呢個回應就認自己係"維园阿伯"...嘻嘻 :P)

Dear YC
' 本土行動及同志們是人民廣場 (誤稱為"皇后碼頭") 的守護者. 我們一再強調的是要保衛這個公共空間的"開放性" (openness) 及 "多元性" (diversity)! 只要你/妳不是一見人就破口大罵, 亂撕其它人的東西, 不同意見絕對被尊重.'-----I think you can tell from my posting that I understand this perfectly and I have no problem with that. The problem is --- he is not just expressing his view but using this act of expression to steal the limelight and, in a way, sabotaged our action. And this is unethical because, for me, a public space works only when all of us respect other people’s rights and when we are exercising our rights we should not sabotage other people’s action like barging into a family gathering in a park and won’t leave even when asked to. I think we are thinking on the same line when you said ‘破口大罵, 亂撕其它人的東西’ . Our difference probably lies in that I think he had crossed the base line by staging his action in an inappropriate spot ------ our center of action and if we allowed that 2.3.4. or more might follow resulting in: we move to other space or end up in violence. We have a lot of forums for him to express his views and that evening is not an appropriate occasion. I have no problem if he staged his anti-protest not at the centre of our action. I find many people tend to carry the ideas or theories they learned to the extreme making them petrified corpse. We must be careful not to carry this idea of public space to the extreme.

'他只是靜靜坐在那裡拿一個小小的Banner , 又不是用什麼巨大的banner 把我們的message 全蓋住' ---- It is obvious that he situated himself at the center of attention (note how I quoted Poshan) and stole the limelight. We were lucky that it was only him. If there were many of ‘him’ surrounding our protesters I believe the whole situation will deteriorate.

hevangel 兄，其實點解你要為「打破本土行動對“歷史價值”一詞妄下定義的霸權」而爭論 o者？呢喥又唔係法庭，洗乜咁執著要將人家每一個 point 每一個字逐一擊破 o者。

我地要討論唔係應該係人 o既思維,觀點同角度咩？而我地唔係應該對自我身處 o既環境同文化 o既改變作出批評咩？

為填海拆天星皇后，除 o左消滅香港活歷史，對環境會做成嚴重影嚮。政府成日都話要「為藍天打氣」，起條 P2 路就真係幫個藍天再打入更多廢氣，咁落去我地出街要帶住個藍色眼鏡先至可以呃自己睇到藍天喇。仲有填海區域要挖起海床受污染 o既淤泥，挖起 o既時候會有部份受污染 o既淤泥漂流到海中。雖然我地唔會 o係維港游水，但係污染 o既水會流到去其他區域，影嚮生態。

如果第時連維港都唔需要「歷史價值」，我地就可以由中環行過去尖沙嘴。

﹣﹣﹣﹣﹣

原來呢個填海計劃係有廿幾年歷史：
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E7%92%B0%E5%8F%8A%E7%81%A3%E4%BB%...

http://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/about/achievements/regional/regi_central.htm

Well, what can I say if you find it not unethical for someone who does not respect your use of public space but makes use of the idea to break into your family gathering in Victoria Park or squeeze you out of Queen's Pier and drown out your voice or banners with bigger loudspeakers and more banners PEACEFULLY.

Please note that I am not talking about that single young man. I think we are lucky that there was only him and Poshang handled it well. I am using it as an example to say that there should be some kind of manner or code of conduct in the use of public space such that we can minimize conflict while letting more people use it. And ‘openness’ should not be the only and absolute concern that makes it vulnerable to abuses (like absolute freedom). I discussed the phenomenon of carrying our ideas and theories to extreme with the young man sat by me. I am not interested in particular person practicing this. If you think I am implying you as a fundamentalist then you are just imagining things.

I am sorry, I think this discussion has taken up too much valuable spaces. It is not unimportant but at this moment we should concern more about the two young men facing charges and think about how to support them.

多謝jimmy與yc鍥而不捨的討論，這實在有助於我們深代公共空間的討論。而我覺得最難的不是理念之爭，而是當場的實踐，既看時機也看創意。也許我們應該想的是公共空間的倫理，是situated ethic。另外，我也重申，正是因為這是水銀燈聚焦，所以異見者才會過來嘛，他不來碼頭，難道在家裡跪麼？是否有影響到整個場地的空間意義？1. 碼頭的意義一直在變，我們每一個人都在營造它的意義，她四個月前，也不是抗爭基地呢！2.有趣的是，番開報紙，這位朋友的紙牌變成了示威的一部份。
如果要再討論公共空間的秩序，我想，我們只是來為碼頭做了個自治的小實驗，除非我們有一日真的可以徹底改變香港公共空間由政府和商人管治的制度性霸權，那時我們再談如何實踐各種細節也不遲。
可惜的是，《我城》現擱在櫃子裡，正等待碼頭重出生天。

讀一頁我城, 燒一頁我城, 很symbolic。

讀這篇很感動。

講開科學唔科學，讓我來打岔。

讀這本小說，是逐頁順序讀的。但神奇的是小說原來也會跟讀者對話的，例如有一位朋友是教書的，我讀給他的一頁內容像剛好是碰上課室的場景。又有一位，是正在求學的青年，那我讀到的內容又剛好是講青年人的學業與職業快擇。有聽者笑，亦有聽者哭了。當然不是百發百中，但我想這種因緣，聽者是會心領神會的。從一頁小說，為香港打開一片隔代的天空。
h君，真的也想讀讀給你聽，不知打開的書頁，會是什麼內容。這小說真的誠意推薦。