同志團體9月活動重點爭平權
另有關注組發起「反對美同性『婚姻』」聯署
........
美國的同性婚姻合法化令本港支持同志平權的團體感到興奮，但同時亦令香港反對同性婚姻的組織擔心，「性傾向條例家校關注組」發起「反對美國同性『婚姻』」聯署行動，認為由法庭決定一個對人權公義有嚴重影響的法例，在程序上是不恰當和不公義，應該根據立法程序進行，而不是由法庭裁決。
關注組批法庭決定人權公義不當
關注組亦質疑同性「婚姻」制度違反人權，因為確立同性「婚姻」是變相認同同性戀，是侵害了不認同同性戀的家長，對其子女的教育自由。關注組呼籲美國有關人士通過現行機制上訴，推翻是次判決。
.......
另有關注組發起「反對美同性『婚姻』」聯署
........
美國的同性婚姻合法化令本港支持同志平權的團體感到興奮，但同時亦令香港反對同性婚姻的組織擔心，「性傾向條例家校關注組」發起「反對美國同性『婚姻』」聯署行動，認為由法庭決定一個對人權公義有嚴重影響的法例，在程序上是不恰當和不公義，應該根據立法程序進行，而不是由法庭裁決。
關注組批法庭決定人權公義不當
關注組亦質疑同性「婚姻」制度違反人權，因為確立同性「婚姻」是變相認同同性戀，是侵害了不認同同性戀的家長，對其子女的教育自由。關注組呼籲美國有關人士通過現行機制上訴，推翻是次判決。
.......
(29/6/2015明報節錄)
對於這則新聞，我看了不禁失笑。除非明報誤解人意，報導失實，否則這「性傾向條例家校關注組」的講法，既矛盾又不知所謂。對於個人的性取向，我一向都不會置喙，不關乎現代思潮的開放，也不關乎美國最高法院最近的裁決，而是關乎個人選擇的權利。我不打算牽涉入同性戀或同性婚姻應否合法的討論，我只想指出這聯署在法律思維的謬誤。
這幫人可謂毫無法律常識，法例的訂定是立法機構的功能，無論程序上怎樣恰當，最終當然是由法庭去裁決，甚麽叫「應該根據立法程序進行，而不是由法庭裁決」？隨口胡謅，完全不懂法庭的功能。很顯淺地講，如果個人對法律的見解不同而產生爭拗，不是由法庭去裁決，由誰去？
假設這幫人的信念堅定，講法經過深思熟慮，真的認為這事情不應由法庭裁決，那麽又怎去呼籲美國有關人士通過現行機制作上訴？法庭裁決的上訴機制，即是由再高一級有權審理上訴的法院去處理，如果是終極的裁決，就沒有其他上訴機制了。這幫人自打嘴巴，思想混亂，說法荒謬。為了反對同性行為，就胡亂以頭上光環普照四方，連同性婚姻會違反人權也講得出口。甚麽是人權？有爭論時還不是找法庭去裁決嗎？
對於這則新聞，我看了不禁失笑。除非明報誤解人意，報導失實，否則這「性傾向條例家校關注組」的講法，既矛盾又不知所謂。對於個人的性取向，我一向都不會置喙，不關乎現代思潮的開放，也不關乎美國最高法院最近的裁決，而是關乎個人選擇的權利。我不打算牽涉入同性戀或同性婚姻應否合法的討論，我只想指出這聯署在法律思維的謬誤。
這幫人可謂毫無法律常識，法例的訂定是立法機構的功能，無論程序上怎樣恰當，最終當然是由法庭去裁決，甚麽叫「應該根據立法程序進行，而不是由法庭裁決」？隨口胡謅，完全不懂法庭的功能。很顯淺地講，如果個人對法律的見解不同而產生爭拗，不是由法庭去裁決，由誰去？
假設這幫人的信念堅定，講法經過深思熟慮，真的認為這事情不應由法庭裁決，那麽又怎去呼籲美國有關人士通過現行機制作上訴？法庭裁決的上訴機制，即是由再高一級有權審理上訴的法院去處理，如果是終極的裁決，就沒有其他上訴機制了。這幫人自打嘴巴，思想混亂，說法荒謬。為了反對同性行為，就胡亂以頭上光環普照四方，連同性婚姻會違反人權也講得出口。甚麽是人權？有爭論時還不是找法庭去裁決嗎？
美國最高法院4位持反對意見的法官寫的少數派意見很有煽情。但其實美國最高法院的歷史上的判決大多是act of will,legislating from the bench,engaging in policymaking free of Constitutional foundation.只不過這次是其他法官的act of will獲勝
回覆刪除Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
FROM PAGE 49 OF THE DOCUMENT
The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
Justice Scalia wrote:
FROM PAGE 73 OF THE DOCUMENT
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Justice Thomas wrote:
FROM PAGE 94 OF THE DOCUMENT
Our Constitution — like the Declaration of Independence before it — was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from — not provided by — the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.
Justice Alito wrote:
FROM PAGE 101 OF THE DOCUMENT
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
When read in context, they are trying to argue against the use of judicial review as a method to 'implement' the legalisation of 'gay marriage' based on current law's potential incompatibility with the Bill of Rights and relevant ICCPR provisions. Such views against the use of judicial reviews is relatively more popular in western democracy due to a well functioning legislature. In my opinion, the fact that federal Judges in the US are nominated in a highly political manner represent meant in most cases, their political views can be seen in their judgements, especially politically flavoured judicial reviews. While Hong Kong's judiciary has been relatively politically independent, an increasing number of judicial reviews are aimed at stalling government policy such as those raised on the Environmental Impact Study of the Hong Kong - Zhu Hai - Macau bridge. Other judicial review raised by High Profile Legislative Council Members such as Leung Kwok Hung and others have placed the Court in a position to decide on issues such as political reform. Such judicial reviews raises concerns over the ability and the appropriateness for the Judiciary to decide on potentially radical changes given the principle of separation of power. On the other hand, to deprive the court of its power to interpret the law as given to it under the Basic Law would leave us with no safeguard against laws that are unjust. It is clear, from cases like Ng Ka Ling that the court should decide cases based on the letter of the law, and not its potential implication or ‘legislative intent’ as the NPCSC puts it. In my opinion, the concerns (on judicial powers rather than homosexuality itself) raised by the interest group, albeit expressed using confusing language, isn't all that invalid.
回覆刪除Thanks for the concise summation. I do have some reservation as to why the court does not have the duty to safeguard the possible impact on the society of certain interpretation of the law. I would have thought from time to time interpretation of the law alongside with social issues is a norm.
刪除這段也很有意思
回覆刪除Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
FROM PAGE 26 OF THE DOCUMENT
When decisions are reached through democratic means,ome people will inevitably be disappointed with the reults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up o raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnoteomitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of changewere freshening at their backs.
Thanks. I have not read the judgment.
刪除MARO来概括一下， 你们这班无知的港豬支那豚
回覆刪除USSS 分俩派， 保守派， 就着宪法的original TEXT来INTERPRET上诉案子是否违宪； LIBERAL 派， 认为宪法应该随着时代的变迁而加入全新的闡釋。
而JUSTICE KENNEDY 一直是SWING VOTE。
MARO
公平點說，由在高等法院法庭上的榷是對法庭本身的權力範圍有點爭議。雖然Justice Scalia也是出名胡謅(連“要我寫這種自大判詞我寧願把頭埋在袋中”都說出口），但起碼＂應該根據立法程序進行，而不是由法庭裁決＂這説法並非由什麽香港「性傾向條例家校關注組」發明，而是四名SupremeCourt法官的共同意見。首席法官John Roberts更好像暗示"同性婚姻是好事，但應從民主程序確立"。(雖然我非常不理解弱勢社群權益怎能輕易以公投決定)
回覆刪除我反而覺得性傾向條例家校關注組最荒謬的是以下兩句：
＂認為由法庭決定一個對人權公義有嚴重影響的法例＂
＂關注組亦質疑同性「婚姻」制度違反人權＂
違反人權那句就不用提了。但我非常討厭他們用“嚴重影響”這詞來概括同性婚姻裁決。爲什麽他們不會講清楚這裁決是“對人權公義有嚴重正面影響”，而只說"嚴重影響”呢？在這次裁決之前根本是同性社群的人權被反同法案"影響"，公義被"影響"而不得彰顯。現在這關注組竟然把這情況描述成"同性婚姻影響人權"。這種故意顛倒是非的卑鄙行為還稱得上是有道德嗎？
美國人口裡的： "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."輾轉傳到香港反同性戀宗教團體口裡就變成＂認為由法庭決定一個對人權公義有嚴重影響的法例＂＂關注組亦質疑同性「婚姻」制度違反人權＂當然也有可能明報記者誤解宗教反同性戀團體的觀點
刪除四位反對派法官的理由寫得冠冕堂皇頭頭是道，實則都是藉口。正如棟篤笑主持人Jon Stewart嘲笑的法官Scalia，"the judges should never overturn the will of voters.it's a core Scalia principle, unless the voters' will was for Obamacare,which (Scalia) was glad to try to destroy the daybefore. of if the voters wanted to limit campaign-finance spending, then he had no problem telling the people to f-off at that time"美國建國國父設計違憲審查，就是要用法官的智慧去補救選票政治的缺陷，長期以來最高院法官名義上是interpretation of constitution,實則更多是用自己的“智慧”去考慮社會的發展方向。法官的智慧保護民權，也可能損害民權，美國最高院曾經推翻過保護工人權益的法律，當然整體來說最高院的法官還是捉對方向的，要不美國選民早就投票限制法官權力。保護少數族群利益？如果美國民意對同性戀婚姻的態度還跟十幾年前差不多，法官們絕不敢冒天下之大不韙，作出認可同性戀婚姻的判決。只會按法律條文而不顧社會影像去作出判決的法庭是幼稚的，但是以陳振聰爭取的財產可能不足一百萬元而拒絕其上訴，這樣正義感太強的法庭也令人不寒而栗
刪除interpretation of the law對行使違憲審查權的美國法官來說向來是件皇帝的新衣。少數派法官寫的意見冠冕堂皇頭頭是道，其實都是藉口。正如棟篤笑主持人Jon Stewart嘲笑法官Scalia ：“"Unelected judges should never overturn the will of the voters, it's a core Scalia principle. Unless the voters will was for Obamacare, which he was glad to try to destroy the day before . Or if the voters wanted to limit campaign finance spending, then he had no problem telling people to f*** off at that time. ”美國國父們設計違憲審查，是為了用法官的智慧來彌補立法缺陷和選票政治不理智，雖然美國最高院也做過推動民權發展的判決，也作過損壞民權發展的判決，但總體來說還是捉對方向，否則美國人早就投票限制法官權力。維護少數族群利益？如果大多數美國人對同性戀的看法還是跟十幾年前一樣，法官再同情同性戀也不敢冒天下之大不韙，判決憲法支持同性婚姻。只按照憲法條文而不考慮社會衝擊作判決的法庭是幼稚的，而以陳振聰爭取的財產數額可能不夠一百萬元為由拒絕上訴，這樣正義感過強的法庭則讓人不寒而栗。
刪除同意你的見解, 拒絕陳振聰爭產的民事上訴確實不公平, 法庭一下子表現像普通民眾, 對陳帶偏見, 未能展示應有的客觀公正。 龔如心的上訴亦然, 在事實的分析方面強詞奪理。有識之士對法庭的判決, 應該不時作批判性的評論。
刪除「而以陳振聰爭取的財產數額可能不夠一百萬元為由拒絕上訴，這樣正義感過強的法庭則讓人不寒而栗。」〈你應該好鍾意食栗子〉
刪除不知你是否法律界人士，你的看法才使我「不寒而慄」。見終審法院判案書第 34 段：「34. The fact that the Judge, having found the 2006 Will to be a forgery, was not required to resolve Issue 9 does not mean that it was not a genuine issue or that it could be ignored. If the Applicant had succeeded or were to succeed on appeal, a remitter of Issue 9 to the Judge for determination would be necessary, demonstrating that the financial consequences of a ruling in favour of the validity of the 2006 Will are, pending such determination, unquantifiable.」。
是你不懂英文，使你「不寒而慄」嗎。你當然可以不同意終審法院的決定，但可否短短指出不同意的論點。
「法庭一下子表現像普通民眾, 對陳帶偏見, 未能展示應有的客觀公正。」
判你的偶像輸，就是「偏見」，要判佢贏，才是「客觀公正」？建議用小小買餸時間，細讀終審法院判案書，指教下網友，Ribeiro 如何「偏見」，如何「未能展示客觀公正」。你可能是叻過 Ribeiro 的「有識之士」，但批評時加上一兩個論點〈如有的話〉，會好些少，你話係咪。
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=78809&QS=%28%7Bchan+chun+chuen%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU
謝謝唯一法律界人士的教誨。
刪除我唔知道将这段判词理解为“法庭认为陈振聪争取的财产可能不足一百万而拒绝上诉许可”有咩野问题。
刪除By the way,当年有个自称为Tom的居港人士极其关心争产案，仲亲身到法庭聽審，最后向標少倾诉：
“我對香港的公平法律手則已心碎了。究竟出現了什麼問題呢？莫非本港的法治精神值不過千億？還是為了一個陳先生，就要犧牲香港百年來的法律基業，改變法律的基本公平原則：發現義務？如這項改變是真的話，陳先生這位人兄真有本領！如改變是屬實，本人真的感到很悲哀，甚至想死，因為香港的“法治之根”已被此案活生生地拔起了！縱使再有多大的“慈善大計”也彌補不上這個驚人的法律大錯。“
有興趣可以看看這個thread，順便安慰一下Tom兄
http://billsiu.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_05.html
博主不喜以事論事，小弟怎麼忽然成為「唯一法律界人士」。
刪除經匿名 上午2:16介紹，有幸閱讀博主2011年11月5日鴻文。博主回答 Tom 的留言，就 China Field Ltd 一案終審法院的判案書，說：「終院不喜歡成為 "as of right" 這法例的橡皮圖章，所以用凌駕於法律之上的闡釋看法。...... 法庭怎樣不喜歡有關條文，或者該條文怎樣不合時宜，法庭都要遵守，那才叫法治。」
真不明白博主如何得出終院沒有遵守「as of right」條文的看法。只要看看判案書第 19-25 段〈又係 Ribeiro〉，便知終院有應用「as of right」條文，並詳述條文並不適用的理據。
雖則寫網文可自由發揮，網友又唔使比錢，也可以唔睇，但作為受過高等教育的成年人，亂寫言論也應有個譜吧。
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=64132&QS=%28%7Bchina+field%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU
何必勉強自己, 不看不是乾脆嗎?
刪除http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20150630/-32-3866513/1.html
回覆刪除大律師黃錦娟7年前於一宗中原地產經紀向買家非法回佣案中，代表其中一名女經紀被告，涉當時沒傳召對經紀有利的證人出庭，去年被大律師紀律審裁組裁定嚴重失職，停牌一個月。黃早前透過於許仕仁貪案任主控的英國御用大律師David Perry代表申請上訴，要求推翻裁決，獲判上訴得直。上訴庭今頒下判詞解釋原因。
上訴庭法官在判詞指，黃當時有就傳召該名證人的好處及風險，向其當事人解釋，而她的專業決定是認為傳召該名證人對辯方沒有幫助。大律師紀律審裁組亦同意黃有向其當事人解釋的，而法庭亦認為黃的決定在法律上沒有犯錯，所以判她上訴得直。
法官又提到大律師身為專業人士，會比其當事人本身更加注意他們的權利。惟公眾對於法律的意識不斷改變及發展，公眾除了期望法官和法庭就其裁決充分解釋外，亦會期望代表自己的大律師向他們給予意見時得以解釋。雖然向當事人解釋涉及到大律師的自主權及酌情權的問題及界線，但大律師應「迎難而上」，緊貼時代變化。
事件源於黃於08年在區域法院，代表被控串謀詐騙的中原地產前女經紀劉秀瑜。劉被控於05年，串謀其他中原職員，向購入愛琴灣60個單位，以及花園街98號地下和閣樓的華福創建董事王慶新，支付兩筆佣金共逾56萬。劉經審訊後被裁定罪成，入獄10個月，11年上訴得直。
上訴庭當時指，委託王交易的華福董事羅家寶向廉署錄口供時，提及准許黃收取回佣。而中原最高負責人施永青在原審時供稱若買家公司僱主批准下屬收回佣，他亦不會反對支付，上訴庭認為控辯雙方沒傳召羅出庭，令施從未聽過羅的說法，令案中被告無法獲得公平審訊。黃去年因沒傳召羅被裁定失職。
法庭記者：廖卓怡
_________________________________________________
What do you think of this judgment allowing the appeal of lawyer Catherine Wong? Should the question about calling defence witnesses be decided by the defendant himself, or by his lawyers?
When I read the judgment, I had the impression that it was inconsistent with the precedent on the discussion of flagrant incompetence of lawyer as a ground of appeal. What can I say?
刪除If the Court of Appeal now says Barrister Catherine Wong did a competent job; does that mean it was wrong for the same court to have said the criminal appeal should be allowed because Barrister Catherine Wong was flagrantly incompetent? I am confused. Both are Court of Appeal judgments. So was Barrister Catherine Wong competent or flagrantly incompetent? Or was that something which changes every day?
刪除https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A%E7%A5%9E%E6%8E%A2-%E7%9B%A7%E8%A6%BA%E5%BC%B7%E5%8F%88%E5%8A%A9%E4%BA%BA%E8%84%AB%E7%BD%AA-222038648.html
回覆刪除我借用其中一段留言來請教標少
Joe:
"單看那小朋友的傷勢，直覺告訴我20-30公里的車速是不能做成的。警察的搜證出現明顯疏忽。二個問題足以證明：為什麼被告找來專家證人後，律政司同意取消檢控？為什麼警察最初不找專家證人去評估事發時車速？"
太多不清楚的因素難作評論，譬如當時有沒留下煞車痕，有的話也可以計算可能的車速。我不懂盧先生的計算方法，表面上看也不易計到63至65公里的車速，因為也要視乎當時男童用甚麽速度過馬路，司機的反應時間等。盧先生的計算方法是否經得起别的專家的考驗，還要拭目以待。
刪除另一方面，我也不知交通意外調查科怎樣評估及計算車速，一般是憑證人的證供(包括被告)及煞車痕等來判斷，撤銷控罪未必表示沒有證據，考慮到傷者受傷的嚴重程度、年歲及向控方要求以守行的方法來處理，不作檢控也很合理。以警方角度，並非涉及民事索償，未必需要深入調查和進行複雜的測試。打過比喻，有人發燒去急症室看病，醫生可能只會看下喉嚨，聽下肺清不清，開止痛退熱藥，而不會做一連串測試，這是會不會浪費資源的問題。
當然, 以標少一般答法就總能找到看似合理的解釋. (我並無惡意)
刪除除了被告被撞外, 更"捱車撞反惹官非".
不是double injustice 嗎?
如果没有盧覺強幫助, 被告的後果會如何?
這個criminal justice system 是那裡出了問題?
你可能有司機撞到人一定是司機錯的想法, 在現實生活裏, 事實上有過馬路的人罔顧安全胡亂過馬路的情況, 一定要告司機才有公義嗎? 我都處理過撞死人判司機無罪的案。捱撞而彼檢控我也處理過, 有些人真的視死如歸, 錯不在司機。
刪除當然不一定是撞到人就是司機錯. 而且我也没有這樣說, 請問我的留言那裡有這想法?
刪除有些人視死如歸, 也有些人不顧他人安危, 這包括司機司. 但這不是廢話嗎?
其實你並没有回答我的問題.
寫一篇廢話來答你。
刪除容許我解釋盧先生的計算方法，基本原理是2個桌球碰撞後，原本靜止一個會被彈開，物理原理是transfer of momentum。由靜止桌球被彈開的距離可以算出它由另一桌球吸收多少momentum。
回覆刪除momentum是物體碰撞一刻的速度乘物體質量，雙方質量是已知事實，所以由吸收到的momentum可以算出另一桌球碰撞一刻的速度。
碰撞前是否有減速不影響計算，只代表減速前速度比碰撞時高。
傷者行走方向跟行車方向／學生被撞飛方向成直角，所以也不影響計算。
無需專家，O-level 物理己經足夠。
對於若干因佔中被控人士埋怨要庭上自行舉證方能脫罪，bill siu 你有何見解？
回覆刪除被告當然沒有舉證責任，但很多時被告提出自己的講法或證據給法庭考慮，可以是脫罪的理由，也不限於佔中案件。有些情況是警員作供質素差而脫罪，也有情況被告作供兼播片也被定罪，所以別太受是否佔中案影響看法。我只能講佔中引伸的案件，控方證人整體的準備不理想。
刪除明白，那麽對於有人批評律政署檢控政治掛帥，你又有何看法？法理上是否站得住腳？律政署又如何能有效安撫公眾呢？
刪除要指責政治檢控，講就容易，實質證據很難見到，這種講法煽情居多，不能把一源於政治活動的控罪都叫政治檢控。另一方面，也有人指責因政治而不檢控。無需安撫公眾，只需作符合檢控政策及公眾利益的決定，而且要用同一尺度，一致而行。用「安撫」就涉政治考慮了。
刪除標標 還記得之前你稍為跟他們交過手嗎?
回覆刪除(https://chinesehumanist.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/%E5%A4%A7%E5%A4%9A%E6%95%B8%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%84%8F%E9%A1%98%E5%B0%B1%E6%98%AF%E5%B0%8D-2/)
這種層次的人 我已經學會盡量不浪費時間在他們身上
劍文弟