其實"成副身家"即是甚麼?
我一路賭緊, 唔知算唔算賭晒成副身家, 不過無論身家係咩, 我甘心我先會咁做.
可以話你知既, 在賭的過程中, 我已經有所收獲, 並非死左先開.
買定離手後你仲可以隨時走tim, 唔係點有呢個網站. 咦, 唔好話我知你地其實未真正落過注喎......
焗賭? 唔明. 你去澳門知道有賭場, 唔入咪唔輸囉. 只有入左賭場既人先有輸既機會.

抽刀斷水

是否基督徒，作壞還是好的見證，已再不重要了，對麼？因此，許多了解這個宗教的人都說：基督徒不代表甚麼，一樣有好人壞人，非基督徒也是一樣。

「排他性是很多宗教的特性」，我倒想看看這方面的理據，至少中國的儒釋道三家，在我看來並不排他。

我認為具包容性的多元思想，而非一元思想，才能改善世上的許多紛爭，有心人（追求利益者）往往利用一元思想去散播仇恨，獲得更大利益。

套用beyond其中一句歌詞：「繽紛色彩閃出的美麗，只因它沒有分開每種色彩」

因此，這裡歡迎各種宗教背景的人來討論，小妹你要註冊當然沒有問題啦，亦不代表你是離教者（見這裡）。

沙文

「成副身家」係盡心盡性盡力盡意，賭場守則有講咖，您冇睇嘅咩？如果冇，佢未必受您注，當您冇落注論。
離咗場又可以再落過注嘛，唔係您都唔會在此貼文啦，所以，又要明眼人出場了：未開時有喲泥碼派俾您加注，輸就連同泥碼一鍋熟。
由於要盡乜盡物先算真正落注，所以我只好話您知我其實未真正落過注

過大海嘅賭場就真係咁，唔一定要入，可以去打令浴室冲個靚凉都得。但係您個場就唔准人去打令浴室，一旦您賣過廣告就當人輸：「Jhn 15:22 我沒有開賭場，他們倒沒得賭，但如今他們的賭 無可推諉了」

weakest

"沒錯呀~ 反之亦然. 基督徒作壞見證, 就未必是因為信仰的問題. 我也同意很多非基督徒也能無私奉獻的. "
1. Yes. The argument would be ok as long as sufficient cases are considered.

"只是就個人經歷, 及認識的基督徒親身經歷, 信仰確能使人有勇氣及力量去改變, 去面對困難."
2. Maybe. But many terrorists are also brave in their attack, because of their religious belief, and some people are not brave enough, even if they have religious belief (e.g. those Christians from Korea...). For me, 對得住良心就ok lu...

"只是為何跌得咁應都仍然有人願意堅持, 你當然可以說他們傻, 但我更認為是因為他們覺得值得. 沒有經歷過與神同行那種喜悅的人, 要放棄信仰當然容易之極. "
3. Not necessary. Certain religions are attractive in after-life reward. Even if "沒有經歷過與神同行那種喜悅", they could still have incentive to hold their belief. I don't think it is "容易之極" for them to give up.
  Also, there could be many other reasons for a person to give up a certain religious belief. For example, when people know more, they would find some doctrines of a certain religion silly, and thus 離教.

"我覺得, 信仰是要摸索的. 即使信了多年, 這個階段仍然是進行式. 沒有經過摸索階段,沒有真正尋求過的, 擺在你面前的事物, 也不是你真正想要的. 就是因為要摸索, 就總有摸不到的時候. 有些人會放棄了, 但也有些人仍然繼續尋找. 只因他們覺得值得.  "
4. I think exactly the opposite.
a. I believe in something since you have already get some idea about it. For people to get some ideas, they have finished the "摸索" process they need. I don't think most people believe in Christianity read though the whole bible before they believe. But they have already gone though the "摸索" process they need to believe. At least, they would get a basic idea of "Jesus"... People may "摸索" for some more after they believe, but this extra "摸索" process is for another set of beliefs then... Of course, the things you believe may be actually false, but this is another matter.
b. There are so many things that I don't want. But I don't need to 摸索 all of them before I know that I don't like them. I don't like being sick, but I don't think I need to get sick before I can know that I don't like them. By the way, do you like the photos of the sexual behaviors of the artist? If you don't like them, and didn't watch them, do you think you need to "摸索" them before you know that you don't like them?
c. "摸不到" something could be the result of that thing doesn't exist at all. Some people "放棄" could also be the result of 摸索到something is bad...

"曾經聽過, 個人也覺得說得不錯的一個譬喻: 信仰其實是一個賭博. (大前題是: 我們"證明"不了神的存在, 也"證明"不了神的不存在). 付出了一生去信, 就算輸了, 最多損失了幾十年時間, 可能也有一些感情(但如沒有神, 這些時間感情原也浪費掉居多).  但如果真是有神, 但又沒有去信. 這個損失可大了.
(註: 我並非希望有人因這功利說法而去信. 這不是全部.)"
5. This gambling argument, for me, suggests that believing in Christianity is a silly choice. For two reasons:
a. If we are to gamble, why don't choose those Gods in religions that allows many other Gods to be worshipped? It is silly for us to choose those religions that holds 一神論. If we are to gamble, the probability of winning is surely higher if we bet on more choices. Think of a game of throwing a fair die. If I bet on "1", "2", and "3"; and you bet on "4" only. Who are more likely to win? In here, I am basically assuming that all religions are equally likely to be true. Of course, a good choice would depend also on other evidences.
b. It is logically impossible for a 全能God to exist. Therefore, it is not possible for the Christian God to exist (for Christian, God is 全能). As such, it is silly to bet on the "God" that won't exist. If you know that a die is not fair, and the die will never get "4", will you still bet on "4"?

"排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教)"
6. "無神論" could not be 宗教, since there is no "God" to believe in. See http://exchristian.hk/forum/view ... &extra=page%3D2

"排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教), 但這不代表排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶. 更多的是人的仇恨, 利益衝突等."
7. "排他性是很多宗教的特性(包括"無神論"教)" is NOT the premise for the conclusion that "排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶". The conclusion that "排他性的思想就是在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂的元凶" comes from many cases of tragedy caused by "排他性的思想". What you were doing is simply attacking a straw man ("稻草人謬誤" in http://www.atypical-christianity ... s.htm#observational ). By the way, "排他性的思想" could lead to "仇恨" of people...

"解決紛爭, 並非全世界都成了無神論者就可解決."
8. God (hopefully, not Christian God) knows. Can't verify till now...

weakest

"焗賭? 唔明. 你去澳門知道有賭場, 唔入咪唔輸囉. 只有入左賭場既人先有輸既機會."
No. This is a "焗賭"'s gambling. Everyone could only have 2 choice (basically, if only consider only Christianity) in this "gamble": To believe, or not to believe.

See "The Wager" of Pascal.

"買定離手後你仲可以隨時走tim"
"可以隨時走"就唔係"買定離手" la...

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-2-16 00:15 編輯 ]

哦...沙文兄, 你講盡心盡性盡意盡力, 我以為你講身家性命財產.
如果o個樣野是值得的, 盡心盡性盡意盡力, 又如何.

weakest:
2. 任何事都有兩面睇. 這裡已經寫了很多信仰的不好之處, 我寫一些正面一點的只是想平衡一下, 並不是想否定你說的這些. 多角度交流, 全面一點豈不是更好? 現下我們都知道有些人信了(並非單指基督教)變好, 也有些人信了變壞, 背後原因是甚麼呢? 這可以是另一條thread. 總之這不能斷定信仰本身是正是邪(不計極端例子).
you've given a great example in supplementing my reasoning on why people stay in a religion. If this after-life reward can provide them with strength and hope to live this life, this is the pleasant part in a religion that i've been talking about. But, if they can find some doctrine which is silly enuf to scare them away, then this religion is probably a not so superb one.

4. I think you've got what i mean about the 模索thing. In fact to believe is not a one and all process, you need to build up a personal relationship with God through repeated exploration. And in the process you're bound to have some bad outcomes. But again this doesn't rule out the possibility of having a good outcome, especially when one has already experienced once, which is not outweighted by the disappointment from getting a bad outcome. this is the case for most Christians. On the other hand, if the bad results do outweight the good ones, it's reasonale for one to quit. Afterall, only the ones who have truely and honestly appreciated and suffered from both the goods and bads, have the position to comment on the religion.
And, are you sure you know what u want without actually experiencing it? i mean, will you choose your wife without dating her for some time? Of course we know what we want and don't want for some trivial things. Most, if not all of us, want to be healthy. we don't want to be sick. we don't want to be unhappy. who doesn't know?

5. for the gambling part, i just want to say, no one knows the truth. We just believe. and there are opportunity costs as well as rewards, like everything else.
Religions are not comparable to games afterall. Don't be so serious.

6.Though  無神論is not a "religion", but it is a belief.  Is this a game of vocabulary?

7. Ah...I quoated this sentenced from 抽刀兄"這種排他性的思想，都在社會以至世界上造成紛爭及戰亂"...sorry didn't figure out the problem at first (cuz i didn't see any)

抽刀兄, 我的牧者介紹這網站, 是想讓我們知道原來自己做得多麼不好. 他確實叫我們定要來看看.
所以我就來看看囉~

沙文

原帖由 Guest from 137.189.235.x 於 2008-2-15 10:16 發表
哦...沙文兄, 你講盡心盡性盡意盡力, 我以為你講身家性命財產.
如果o個樣野是值得的, 盡心盡性盡意盡力, 又如何.

冇乜如何茄，您用賭錢做例子，想必精於此道，係繼賭聖葉漢之後最猛料嘅職業賭徒。而我，賭幾手只係玩下，賭錢唔係我過大海嘅主要目的。
不如試下叫何特首立條咁嘅例，凡到本特區耍樂者規定要一鋪賭哂成副身家，唔准去Las Vegas落注，澳門特區定然更為興旺。

至於身家性命財產如何處理，請參考Mak 10:21

沙文

咁就係啦。若然要做得好，可全面改寫聖經，包您果效好。
或者，參考下女牧師嘅意見：
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1456&extra=page%3D1

weakest

I think you have studied economics (in point 4, it is much like a cost-benefit analysis...). Am I making a correct guess? I studied economics also, and I know some economics students believing Christianity.

2. "But, if they can find some doctrine which is silly enuf to scare them away, then this religion is probably a not so superb one."
--> Not necessary "superb" or not. For me, it is just if the religion "fits" with the people or not.

4. Yes. It is possible for people to have a good outcome in new exploration (and may be bad outcome also), God (not Christian God...) knows... However, based on the bad outcome, people's expectation about future outcome would adjust, they would expect that they are more likely to get the bad outcome in future also.
Also, I don't mean that I can know that I don't like ALL of  things I don't want without the need to experience it. I just mean that I can know that I don't like SOME of the things that I don't want without experiencing it. What would be the negation to my view? It is: You have to experience ALL things you don't want, before you know that you don't like these things. So, even if I have to date her (or him...) before I marry her (or him), it doesn't mean that I am wrong.
By the way, I have some conservation about your view that "Afterall, only the ones who have truely and honestly appreciated and suffered from both the goods and bads, have the position to comment on the religion.". This view is similiar from the view that "those 一知半解are not qualified to give comment". Well, I do agree that people are better to learn more before making comments. However, is it too harsh to require people to know all stuffs about something before we can make comments? Only by getting all people's opinion on these things would be too costly to do so. Is it necessary for all Christians and non-Christians to read though the whole bible, and other related pieces, ...., etc, to make some comments? I don't think so. If all people have to "一知一解" to make any comments, there would be no comments at all, in all topics...

5. If noone knows the truth, noone should force others to accept their beliefs. But some Christians did...

6. It is always better to make words clear. "無神論"教 could be a mis-leading term to make people think that "無神論" is a religion...

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-2-16 03:15 編輯 ]

Gamble.  In order to gamble we need to know the following

a) Probability of winning, losing, tie.  (related to the games rule)
b) The reward/punishment for winning/losing. (again, related to the rule of the game)

For risk management, we will also need to know how much you have left in your pocket, and you mental state.

---------------
We do not know a) (the probability of having 1 of the zillion possible God, or none)  The Bible has a record of lying from Creation up to David, just because we are not sure, does not mean the pobabilities are all equal.  

We sort of know b).  We KNOW we will pay for the church instead of feeding the poor when we bet on certain God.  We KNOW there will be less education, more war, etc when we bet on certain God (from history, scientific studies on the intelligence of the religious)

We are not certain about the reward on betting on the right God.  Other than "it is all good", do anyone have a detail description of heaven?  Other than "it is all bad", what kind of description do we have for hell?

----------------
For risk managment, we know this life we are having now.  We are not sure if there is eternity life behind it.

Are you brave enough to gamble the one and only life you have today away?

----------

Dye,
From the freezing True North.

prussianz

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-2-16 00:00 發表
"沒錯呀~ 反之亦然. 基督徒作壞見證, 就未必是因為信仰的問題. 我也同意很多非基督徒也能無私奉獻的. "
1. Yes. The argument would be ok as long as sufficient cases are considered.

"只是就個人經歷, 及認識的 ...

"只是就個人經歷, 及認識的基督徒親身經歷, 信仰確能使人有勇氣及力量去改變, 去面對困難."
2. Maybe. But many terrorists are also brave in their attack, because of their religious belief,

bravo !!

"曾經聽過, 個人也覺得說得不錯的一個譬喻: 信仰其實是一個賭博. (大前題是: 我們"證明"不了神的存在, 也"證明"不了神的不存在). 付出了一生去信, 就算輸了, 最多損失了幾十年時間, 可能也有一些感情(但如沒有神, 這些時間感情原也浪費掉居多).  但如果真是有神, 但又沒有去信. 這個損失可大了.
(註: 我並非希望有人因這功利說法而去信. 這不是全部.)"
5. This gambling argument, for me, suggests that believing in Christianity is a silly choice. For two reasons:
a.
If we are to gamble, why don't choose those Gods in religions that allows many other Gods to be worshipped? It is silly for us to choose those religions that holds 一神論. If we are to gamble, the probability of winning is surely higher if we bet on more choices. Think of a game of throwing a fair die. If I bet on "1", "2", and "3"; and you bet on "4" only. Who are more likely to win? In here, I am basically assuming that all religions are equally likely to be true. Of course, a good choice would depend also on other evidences.
b.
It is logically impossible for a 全能God to exist. Therefore, it is not possible for the Christian God to exist (for Christian, God is 全能). As such, it is silly to bet on the "God" that won't exist. If you know that a die is not fair, and the die will never get "4", will you still bet on "4"?

how could ye bring up 'the pinpointing dice theory ??!!

2 the contrary , i could not

even i could ,
but ,
i could not do it so 深入浅出 as u

ThANKs 4 outspeaking 'the ideas which i could bring forth as well as those which i couldnt

marvel

[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-2-16 06:21 編輯 ]

沙文

嘩，點解貴會牧者唔似梁燕城博士咁瀟洒，對本網嗤之以鼻，哈哈哈仰天大笑三聲話「我唔信佛教都唔會整個離佛教網」咁呢？

prussianz

原帖由 Guest from 99.244.91.x 於 2008-2-16 05:57 發表
Gamble.  In order to gamble we need to know the following

a) Probability of winning, losing, tie.  (related to the games rule)
b) The reward/punishment for winning/losing. (again, related to the rule ...

Dye,
From the freezing True North.

hi , My Dear Dye ,

long time no c , welcome back ,

恭发财
恭鼠发财
恭喜法才 ,;--^))


[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-2-16 06:44 編輯 ]

prussianz

原帖由 Guest from 137.189.252.x 於 2008-2-15 22:46 發表
"關於基督徒作壞見證，與有人因信仰作無私的奉獻及有良好效果，假如您把前者當成不是受信仰影響，而反而後者是受信仰影響的話，在邏輯上是屬於監視下的選擇謬誤。"

沒錯呀~ 反之亦然. 基督徒作壞見證, 就未必是因為信仰的問 ...

嘻, 我平時很少上forum的, 多謝你容許我在這裡發言. 期待更多交流吧.

p.s. 恕我冒昧, 小妹並非離教者, 但這裡會否歡迎我註冊呢?

基督徒小妹上

hi greeting good morning 基督徒小妹 ,
----------------------------------------------------------------
  first sorry cannot type in Chinese , shame on me ,
----------------------------------------------------------------
  hi happy new year , me seems some Christians may not like to say 恭喜发财
----------------------------------------------------------------
  although ..... most of your arguments do not come to my smatch , sorry again
but ....
i do welcome u ,
so nice2meetyou ,
----------------------------------------------------------------
  i'd like2suggest u to run through exChristian.hk e.t.c. to comprehend
why we say so many ``things'' about Christiannity
----------------------------------------------------------------
  i hope u could have something to convince me back2church ,
----------------------------------------------------------------
  多謝你在這裡發言. 期待更多交流吧.
----------------------------------------------------------------
         pendragon 上
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-2-16 07:16 編輯 ]

抽刀斷水

原帖由 Guest from 137.189.235.x 於 2008-2-16 02:20 發表
抽刀兄, 我的牧者介紹這網站, 是想讓我們知道原來自己做得多麼不好. 他確實叫我們定要來看看.
所以我就來看看囉~

當時我還和基督徒拍拖時，有傳道人對我傷心的女友說：其實你男友也是在做關懷事工。

我反覆想了想，說的也是。只是目標者範疇的分別，我是在關懷離教者或其他受到基督教（徒）傷害的人，這本應可說是基督教（徒）種下的禍根。而事實上，假如出自基督徒自己的「關懷」，往往會變成再次傳教，勸離教者復回，教義上的辯論、罵戰等。

謝謝您的牧者，比起詛咒本網、指本網是魔鬼背後操控、有邪靈等的牧者，明顯地他就較開明。

抽刀斷水

抽：收到一位自稱「旁觀者」的電郵，似乎不太熟悉論壇操作，故希望我傳達其內容給基督徒小妹。（註：文中意見與本人無關）

基督徒小妹：

醒醒吧！醒醒吧！莫要再稱自己是基督徒了。

在「上帝」眼裏，異族（包括閣下）賤過泥，他不准收異族做「靚」，是要交給以色列人打殺的：
「上帝將他們（異族）交給你（以色列人）擊殺，那時你要把他們滅盡，不可與他們立約，也不可憐恤他們。不可與他們結親，……。」《申命記》7：2

閣下硬要磕頭，不是太監人賴後了嗎？
教主耶穌也視異族為狗，不想有便宜給他們：
「有一個迦南婦人，從那地方出來，喊著說，主啊，大衛的子孫，可憐我。我女兒被鬼附得甚苦。
耶穌一言不答。門徒進前來，求他說，這婦人在我們後頭喊叫。請打發他走罷。
耶穌說，我奉差遣，不過是到以色列家迷失的羊那裏去。
那婦人來拜他，說，主啊，説明我。
他回答說，不好拿兒女的餅，丟給狗吃。
婦人說，主啊，不錯。但是狗也吃它主人桌子上掉下來的碎渣兒。」（馬太15：22）
做人得有骨氣，勿作「吃碎渣兒的狗」！

旁觀者

weakest

Would it be better to set up a post to teach people how to use the functions of this forum? Start from registration, to making posts, etc...?

Jom

原帖由 Guest from 137.189.250.x 於 2008-2-15 17:17 發表
我是一名基督徒. 教會牧者曾介紹過貴網站, 於是好奇之下到此一遊.

雖然未有時間閱畢你們的討論, 但已覺得你們對"基督教"甚或關於"宗教"的討論見識廣博, 引經據典, 又自創小說, 真讓我大開眼界.

小妹在此對於大家對教會或教會的人及他們所做的事的意見, 倒有一些回應.

有一個事實, 是無可否認的: 教會並不完美.
因為教會也只是由一群不完美的人所組成, 所建立的.
教會歷史也告訴我們, 教會曾經犯錯.(雖然今天可能仍有人不承認)
擁有傳統權威的羅馬天主教教會也正面對很多的改革問題.
成熟的教徒, 都不會誇口說教會就是天堂. 是社會的模範.
而我想告訴你, 實在有很多人, 為了改善教會以致能祝福更多的人, 作了很多努力.

至於基督徒, 我會說, 基督徒都是人, 而人是有很多種的. 信的深淺會有不同, 成熟程度也有不同.
有基督徒作壞見證(包括沒有做好見證), 原是無可避免, 我會覺得很可惜. 但若因此就抹煞了他們信仰的內容, 我更覺得可惜.
想告訴你, 兩千年來, 有多少人因著信仰的原故, 獻上自己的一生, 甚至犧牲了自己的生命, 服事這個社會和社會上的人. 看看德蘭修女, 看看謝婉雯醫生. 沒有這般偉大的, 也有很多人因信仰經歷了心靈的醫治, 得以與家人和好, 和自己和好, 重新得生.(雖然在這裡絕少會有這些討論.)

而且, 信與不信, 原是個人選擇. 著重的是你是否願意與神恢復父如子的關係, 是否願意acknowledge神是主宰. 因此信是一個選擇. 不信也是你作的一個選擇. 沒有人可以逼你. 只是真正信的人自相信這是一個有永恆價值的選擇.
只要是抱持開放的心去認識, 也坦誠面對了你自己心靈的需要, 無論是作了任何一個選擇, 旁人也不應批評.


至於"一船人皆該打", 除非是有意批評, 或只是戲言一句, 明眼之人,  都知實逃不掉以偏蓋全之論.

教會本身有問題經已是眾所皆知,而答案卻永遠只有一個:這是人的問題,並不是神的問題.我可不明白這中間的關係,一方面又要將所有事情交到貴派的神手裡去,一方面又要將責任由人自己來負.那到底誰有問題?是定這些規則的人,還是造這個天地的神呢?

另外,貴派分支甚多,小的不說,就是天主和新教兩派各自對耶經的闡述及教義亦有迴異.但幾乎每個敎會在這方面總充耳不聞,而且繼續招收信徒;請問你們真的明白自己在信些什麼嗎?真的明白當中的道理?有時看到各教會無所不施其極的去招人入教,那就等如消防局裡發生火警,但消防員卻置之不理,先跑出去到別處火災現場教火一樣.這樣的教義,這樣的教會,可令人信服嗎?那教會的價值在哪裡?是信徒聚腳的一個點,還是一個以"信"作前提,利用群眾壓力去將團體道德輸出到個人去的地方?不錯,在教會裡還有著許許多多的人努力地進行各種事工,但自己都未弄清楚主旨便去將信念傳播,這不知是不是算好心做壞事了.

教徒當然是人,人總有人的弱點及能力不達之處.但每個人的成長歷程中,總會有學會"要孝順父母","要愛身邊的人","要光明正大的行事處世".耶教總愛向世人展示人性中美好的一面均由它去傳播;但只要明眼一點,你會發現這些事和理在長成中有著不少的機會學到.當然,知道是一回事,會實行又是另一回事,這就只好看人自己是否接受了.跟信教與否看來是沒什麼直接的關連.敬拜與否或者信與不信當然只是自己的一廂情願,但無數教會為何要挨家挨戶的去傳教?利用教友的生活圈子去擴大教眾數目?利用教條,去迫教眾著令身邊的人去認識一個本來可有可無的所謂"神",這些事,早些兒不是每天都在各教會不停發生嗎?教會學校收取新生時,不是有信教的會大機會一點嗎?各耶基企業,曾幾何時不是"非耶不請"嗎?身邊的伴侶,家人如有不信者,不也是會負上一個"死後不能同往天堂"的罪名嗎?如果是純粹的排他性,我是可以理解的.但耶教實行的是誅連九族,所有有關人等都要信方可齊上天庭.朋友不信便把他從好友列中刪除,伴侶不是教會的便是有所或缺,孩子更在未有分辦是非能力前即被每星期送往洗腦.這算是人道嗎?在這種情況下,請問人是否真的有權去選擇信或是不信?還是先設定每個人生來就build-in要信,不信的就要另付三年努力去卻這宗教?沒開放的,看來是教會及大部份耶徒而不是其他人.

作為基督徒/天主教徒有一個貴教定下的模樣,但這些年來,做得到/稍為做得像樣的我實在是一個也沒碰過.最齷齪的手法,最傷人心的批評/犯罪,反而在教會中我耳聞目聽過不少.我常說,先將貴教的各分支整合起來,才再出來說貴教如何如何吧.

沙兄是一竹篙打一船人,但請問小妹貴教船上又有哪一位是無辜被打的呢?

抽刀斷水

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-2-18 01:31 發表
Would it be better to set up a post to teach people how to use the functions of this forum? Start from registration, to making posts, etc...?

論壇功能其實都十分明顯，而且我選用了目前最流行的論壇軟件，右上角亦有「幫助」可按，我想問題應該不大。