美国着名宗教研究组织巴拿研究组指出，除非民主党总统候选人奥巴马在大选前出现「政治自杀」行为，否则他将在十一月轻易击败共和党候选人麦凯恩，入主白宫。
按巴拿研究组一调查，就算福音派群体努力支持共和党，也无法扭转劣势。因为奥巴马有六项优势：
一、在很可能会投票的人中，奥巴马的支持率以50%比35%领先。
二、未决定会投票给谁的登记选民不多，只有15%。如果麦凯恩要胜出，他要全取这些游离票。
三、支持奥巴马的选民中，有73%说「绝对会投他一票」，但支持麦凯恩的选民中，只有59%有同样的表示。
四、支持奥巴马的选民中，有53%说有信心奥巴马会胜出，但麦凯恩那边只有31%。过去数据显示，选民信心是谁人胜选的一个指标。
五、民主党员比共和党员更热切期待这大选，两者愿意投票的比例分别是48%和30%。
六、有很多年轻人会首次投票，他们大都倾向支持奥巴马。
故巴拿研究组认为，麦凯恩若要胜出，便需要寄望奇迹出现。
（取材巴拿研究组网页）
（www.christiantimes.org.hk，时代论坛每日快拍，2008.6.12）
To Mr. John Doe
Maybe it is helpful for you to note that some people here have a history to attack certain people. They would rather beat the bush, deny a lot of things, change the subject, tease and show contempt, call names and say that others are calling names in order to make the attack look more powerful.Last comment from John Doe
This calling of net mob is not appreciated.
I thought Cheung's translation was well done. Timely too.
I may even find myself agreeing with what it said. But, the fact remains: CT did unevenly covered the US Election. I believe A Doctor's post was addressed to CT, NOT Cheung!!!
To the Anonymous below...
"Net mob?" You said???
So far, only A Doctor, John Doe and one Anonymous (I shall call them The Three) appeared to support each other. And you labeled them “net mob”!!!
For the sake of argument, let's assume I am naive and dumb, OR that I don’t quite understand what you really meant by net-mobbing, allow me to ask you:
(statements in quotes are yours):
a) In what ways have The Three “ …cornered particular people, thinking that those people are bad guys and deserve attack or even elimination..."??
b) Since The Three said Yes to each other, ok, ok, tell us in what ways did they detray “…weakness of the view that they support"??? And what were they “…nit-picking" about???
If I am not courteous, I may also call you “nit-picking”, even name-calling, since you called The Three “net mob” for no good reason.
And if I am not gracious, I may openly think you and Cheung belong to the same "net mob"!!! Or are you one and the same entity?
Come one, say something useful. Do not just call people names.
net mob
As I observe the net mob here, they likes cornering particular people, thinking that those people are bad guys and deserve attack or even elimination. In Chinese, 狙擊. But the assumption whether those people are bad is ungrounded, just subjective emotion. Net mob likes saying yes to each other in order to make a loud voice, regardless of the weakness of the view that they support. Net mob likes nit-picking. Minute or not, to them, the sheer number of criticism counts.Disagree!
It was plain dialog - back and forth exchange. Not "net mob".
What is "net mob" by the way.
really net mob!
see titleNo need for this
--- > 現在的回應立場不存在利益關係。
No suspicion implied!
thanks for speaking up, John
sameCheung misunderstood "A Doctor"
This response from Cheung did not surprise me!
A Doctor merely mentioned the fact that CT had lop-sidedly covered Obama. A Doctor DID NOT say Cheung's piece WAS SELECTIVE coverage. The entire coverage of CT so far on US election did give people the impression of selective coverage!!
Since when did Cheung need to feel he was CT's spokesman?
The answer to Cheung is straight forward: A non-selective coverage of US election should cover all three lead candidates, and NOT just Obama.
Will we expect another post from Cheung on McCain?
怎樣才不是 "selective"?
A Doctor 指這報導是 selective coverage ，這是 "coverage of Senator Obama" 。但這個定性本身就很有問題。巴拿研究組只是把民調資料的分析寫出來，因何會成為有 "an unusual interest in Obama"？如果資料分析說麥凱恩會選出，題目自會寫成「美國宗教研究組織指麥凱恩將當選總統」。那會否就變成 selective coverage of Senator McCain？恐怕 A Doctor 只是不喜歡有消息指 McCain 會輸，而不是報導本身有偏袒。把自己不喜歡的消息強說成報導有偏袒，這才是在誤導讀者。Selective press coverage
To the best of my recollection, this is CT's 5th press coverage of Senator Obama since the end of last year.
CT has expressed an unusual interest in Obama, to the negligence of both Senators Clinton and McCain. Our HK readers deserve to see a more balanced treatment of "your favorite" Obama!
When will CT say anything about McCain? As to Clinton, I know it is too late.
