(光明會太仁慈了,我要來過五馬分屍,依中國道德,失勢、犯錯的人是可以被五馬分屍的!)
1.
A.如果有人看完聖經就去殺人,關唔關本聖經事(是真實有的是事例,又名 Black collar crime)?
B.如果有人看完明光社網頁覺得反胃,四處罵明光社.並凡類似明光社的人就打,關唔關明光社網頁
事?
C.看完我網頁的人反而去落力為明光社賣旗,關唔關我事?
從平常心來說, 為什麼有人可以無論如何覺得聖經一定是和讀者讀後的行為一定無關係;但騷擾明光社賣旗的行為一定是由反對明光社的網頁引發?其中的邏緝,是不是和聖經一定不關罪惡事,是不是投訴明光社網頁含不雅內容不被接受的原因? 這等思維及邏緝,就正正是我們說明光社騎劫了社會道德的表現。
2. 明光社進身成為知識產權惡棍,和Microsoft用財雄勢大對付Linux 的Lindows一樣,和South China Morning Post取諦批評SCMP的網站的手法一樣,正正是示範如何濫用版權法用有錢來迫小網站屈服。依照明光社自己混淆版權及欺咋的邏緝,它的行為和某人鑽空子,申請輪(wheel)的專利;又或者某些職業專利家用知識產權作工具向IBM, Microsoft勒索本質一樣,明光社無異於用版權法來勒索小的網站,要點不是保護版權,正如Hello Kitty控告本地劇團一樣,是使人無法用諷刺的形式來表達意見。按此邏緝發展下去,明光社可不可以向全港報紙收取版權費用,贊成明光社的收1毫子,壹傳媒收100萬?
我們可不以因truthbible已註冊就要向名字有Bible的網站收版權費?蔡志森會不會濫用了OMG的名號?天知道明光社同路人濫用、侵犯了幾多了反對明光社網站的版權? (在香港,任何已發表的言論均有版權)這算不算用版權法打壓表達自由?看來明光社和打壓網路自由的特區政府(日夜以保護IP為名,監視P2P網絡)、惡名昭箸的RIAA的同路人!用中共的話來說,該社的邪惡本質,決定了它一定要走霸權主義路線。
3. 論誹謗中傷,明光社對同志用了多少歪曲的事實、或者斷章取義,以及在其澄清中混淆了多少概念呢?是否令他們的形象受損呢?閣下是人,但有些比其他人更平等,用明光社常提及的中國傳統,誹謗人的人有權罵人誹謗中傷?
4. 我認為,以常識來看為什麼叫誹謗呢?
A.稱光明會是偽網站是故意中傷,魚目混珠,前者的通義為以欺騙人財物為宗的網站,通常要人輸入個人資料;乜你IP算係個人資料(私穩專員話明唔係)? 故意用同一個中文字來混淆侵犯版權及以網站行騙的概念。不要說你不懂得分什麼是偽網站,什麼是侵犯版權?
B.稱所有反對明光社都用粗言穢語是中傷了哪些沒有粗言穢語的反對明光社網站(如本站),再者,秋天的童話因粗口被禁(明光社支持),會不會有一天有人以粗言穢語為由,要淫審處列所有含粗言穢語的反明光社網站為3級,進而查封網上的反明光社網站?明光社是不是打算以粗言穢語為由,和影視處合作,清洗網上反對明光社的聲音?
5. 誰要為明光社的義工受滋擾負責?
明光社做事不合常理,用超過35萬來賣廣告,請問35萬要籌款員籌多久呢? 再者,是明光社請他們去幫手賣旗,而明光社不是不知道社會人仕對該社的負面觀感,明光社不在之前提醒他們所面對的可能危險,反而不理死活推他們上前線做炮灰, 是不是等如在明知不歡迎基督教傳教的回教國家傳基督教? 明光社為了保障他們安全,為什麼不提醒他們可以用手機拍下報警? 明光社歷年損款都可以在網上快捷、安全、不被爭議地進行,為什麼偏偏要在明知有敵意的環境(同志之前不是在之前幾屆明光社籌款贈興)?為什麼蔡志森總幹事不身先士卒,在前線豉勵義工,只懂在事後在冷氣室藷葛?
我認為一個合理的結論是: 明光社利用義工被滋擾的事來做宣傳,來證明自己是如何如何被迫害,但在逼害鏡頭後,為什麼並沒有即時公佈網上損款和街頭損款的數目?我假設是因為如果損款數目比以前還多,這場被迫害的戲就穿崩了!如果損款數目比以前少,是不是代表自己玩大咗,不得人心?
6. 誰是最大的受害者?
常理! The first causality in war is often truth. 明光社是向常理開戰的機構,不在乎混淆及歪曲,只在乎達到目的。
7. 我們不敢以真面目示人.
中國常理,君子無須隱藏,但「害人之心不可有、防人之心不可無」,基督右派在美國在網上以使人類主義者聲譽破產為樂(Humanism),不可不防。再者為什麼重私穩的人為什麼一定是歪種?六四天安門母親是目標光明正大的行動,為什麼他們不把名單公開呢?民主黨為什麼不肯把成員及贊助者名單公開?香港人連線認為香港獨立是合情、合理及合法,為什麼不肯把成員及贊助者名單公開?上次反對政改者登報紙純是行使表達意見之自由,為什麼不肯把成員及贊助者名單公開?
倒轉來說,既然明光社自認是光明正大,為什麼不把所有支持、贊助、參與每次以投訴表達意見以及所有明光社的會員名單公開(包括賣旗籌款之人仕、損助者名稱及機構、款項)? 以致白白食死貓?是因為該等人仕無面見人?抑或是方便明光社繼續扮演被屈、被迫害的角色?又或者是如美國基督右派策略一樣,隱藏身份以便行不見得光之事?所以也不想淫審制度變成公開、透明?
*8. 明光社自認犯法?
「被騷擾當中有小童....」我想問香港法例是不是不許低於14歲人仕參與籌款的?在這句句子的意思看來,是指身為籌款員中有小童,不是說用小童籌款是犯法的嗎?如果小童不是籌款員,又何來小童籌款員被騷擾之說?用小童及老人在烈日下當市民發洩明光社不義行為的對象,於心何忍?至後甚至歪曲籌款員行善的一片苦心,想用來打意氣官司?明光社不是不仁是什麼?
(May I remind STL that in 'Traditional Chinese ethic' which STL 'upheld', those who made mistake or those side with the minority could be stoned to death without mercy.)
1. If someone kill after reading the Bible, is that the Bible is to blame? If someone disgusted with the content of STL website, go and disturb its fundraising; is that the fault of STL website? If someone read this website and decided to support STL fundraising, is that my fault?
My point is why somebody would completely deny the Bible of any responsibility of any crime and immoral behavior? And use similar logic to deny STL website contain any indecent content? Then twist the logic back so that Anti-STL website must be fully responsible for the happening of fundraiser? This behavior is precisely what we call hijacking of public moral.
2. The way STL handling this using copyright as a weapon mark its entrance to the
Hall of Copyright abuser like Microsoft(vs Lindows) and SCMP (vs a site mocking
SCMP), RIAA,MPAA. It again demonstrate it is waging war against civil liberty using
copyright as means to shut down rivalry website. Apparently it has no regard on its
implication of undermining freedom of expression in Internet, and the only freedom
STL concern is its own.
3. To about slandering, how much slandering has done by STL in its all out effort
against legislation of 'Discrimination base on sexual preference'? How much STL
has done to the damage the image and reputation of sexual minority? Is that because 'Every animal is equal, but some animal is more equal than other'? Every man is equal, but some man is less equal than other? Or STL doesn't see sexual minority as equal?
4. What is consider as slandering in the press release?
A. Accusation Light-Truth.org as a Fake website is a slanderous comment. Since a
Fake website often understood by public as a website aim to cheat money or personal
information from the visitor. Unless IP address is considered as a personal
property, there is nothing cheated by that website. It appears to me that STL is
intentionally confuse the ideas of Fake website as commonly understood, and the
allege copyright violation of the term 明光 together. Does anyone think people has
the level of education like head of STL can not distinguish between two different
items?
B. Calling all Anti-STL website containing coarse and indecent language is
slandering against these website doesn't have any of that(like this website). Also
notice that since coarse language is an acceptable reason for OAT/TELA to classify a
n object as indecent, is it plausible that one day STL can collaborate with TELA/OAT
to cleanse the web of any Anti-STL website using that as an excuse?
5. Who is responsible for harnessing the STL fundraiser at 7/25?
The short answer, those who did harness them. The longer answer: Society of Truth
and Light itself. The whole 'Harassment' is a show for STL to earn public sympathy
by portray itself as a victim. (To be victimize also mean more donations.)
A. Which fundraiser would be so stupid to spend $350k to raise awareness of the
fundraising(Given Internet is already a convenient, undisturbed, quick and safe
means)? How long and hard does it took for fundraiser to raise $350k that it spend in
a day?
B. Since it is not the first time STL encountered hostility in fundraising, why
doesn't it forewarned the fundraiser in prior? Stupid, mistake or on purpose? Or it
simply doesn't care about fundraiser?
C. As a means against harassment, STL could took precaution like urging the
fundraiser to work as a team, and videotaping any harassment as a deterrent. But
does STL do any of this? The Anti-STL site has been discussing the strategy to
minimize the fund raised by STL, don't say STL isn't aware of that?
D. Internet and wiring transfer is a safe ,fast, secure and a means undisturbed by
any demonstrator. Why doesn't STL took the simpler and easy path that is considerate
of the possible pitfall of street fundraising ?
E. How's amount the money raised via Internet compares to the street fundraising?
If the amount of those raised from the Internet is greater than street fundraising,
it is a telling sign that STL are staging a Reality Show without the consent of
fundraiser.
7. Why don't those who are anti-STL doesn't use real name?
Why doesn't Pro-Democratic Parties open its membership list to the public? Why
doesn't those who are against Political Reform last year use their real name in
advertisement?
Conversely, why don't STL open up the list of all its member, associate, planner,
fund-er participate in every complain campaign attacking civil liberty?
6. Who is the biggest victim?
Truth and common-sense. STL care not about common sense, it constantly wage war
against common sense and rationality.
8. Is STL admit it has broken the law?
In its press release, it has a statement: 'victim of Harnessing including ....children and elderly.' Does STL admit is has violated the law which prohibiting anyone employ 15 years old below for street-fundraising activities? For this claim to be invalid, it requires that either those 15 years old who are not fundraiser, therefore STL can NOT complain about 'children fundraiser is being harnessed'.
From common sense, in such a hot day. Why STL is so kind to push children and adult into street-fundraising, knowing that public altitude toward this organization is less than welcoming? Doesn't that STL is twisting the good-will of fundraiser to act 'victimized'? Moreover, with its intention to spend a huge sum to wage legal battle against dissident website(s), doesn't that abuse the good-will of donator and fundraiser? Do they intend the fund raised to be use in such a way?