While I would not so extreme as to label those who had seen some AV out of sheer curiosity
as amoral, I am rather surprised that there’s barely any comment on the sanity of:

1. The person who used B/T to populate thousands of AV on the Internet.

Anyone who tried downloading movies with B/T knows how time-consuming it is, even
with high-speed connection.
What kind of person would dedicate so much time to download thousands of AV?
According to what I learned from international news regarding such people in the
past few years, they usually have psychological problems, or are simply psychopaths
who are lurking in some neighbourhood, ready to strike anytime.

2. Those who are involved in insulting Ms. Chow overtly with various tactics (fake photos,
fake articles, attacking her physical appearance)

Do these people have a life? Apart from wasting their time and effort to pick on Ms. Chow,
whom they don’t even know personally, what purpose have they achieved?

By performing derogatory acts against someone whose opinion is different from
theirs, these people tell us they are exactly the ones who actually possess all the
characteristics that they used to brand Ms. Chow.

Perhaps they missed the chance to B/T all the AVs propagated by nike, as nike
disappeared into thin air right after being exposed. So they have to use Ms. Chow
as a scapegoat to let off their frustration.

Last but not least, I do have an advice to Ms. Chow and any female internet users.
Go take some courses on computer security to arm yourself with knowledge to
protect your computer accounts and data. You never know whether the bullies
would also be skilled imposters who are capable of faking your IP address and post
corrupting material in your name on your own blog.

我歡迎作有效討論的想法，但困難之處也正是討論形式的設計。如你可提出進一步具體建議，我可再詳細考慮。謝。

因為忙，更因為懶，我一向不太回應別處的言論，但既然你這樣努力四處散播「無神論者的巴別塔」那篇文章，我再三閱讀後也思考了不少，就借機會在此再談幾點：

1.「無神論者的巴別塔」那文章的出發點很好，特別大膽界定了欺凌的成分，也希望和平化解此事，但我不能接受自己或文章變成其作者 henryporter 筆下的「擁周派」或「擁周文」。我不認識周氏，不曾在《明報》工作，甚至沒因為《明報》刊出我策劃或撰寫的文章而曾經接觸其人。我從來沒支持周身氏的言論，文中亦沒有直接或間接替其副刊文章辯護。在策略上，我或許應該加上一句「我個人不同意那篇文章的責問，但不論那篇文章的指責是否恰當……」，一方面以避嫌隙，另一方面也吸納、緩和（大）部份先入為主對周氏言論憤怒的讀者情緒，讓大家更清醒分辨言論上的爭辯不等同於人身攻擊。但如果以「輕輕帶過」、不批評就是支持周氏副刊文章來作準則劃歸「擁周」界別，恐怕也是非常「監粗」的二元對分法，除了鞏固雙方對陣的想像，對討論事件看來沒太大幫助。

2. 「不對稱戰爭」的想法很新鮮，也是我沒法在篇章內詳細分析的範疇。如有「暴民」將周氏看作公共媒體權力象徵，苦無正式對話的平台（否則這裡也不會有那麼多留言），我可以理解，但正如 henryporter 所言，這不能正當某些網絡暴力。

美國霸權與恐怖份子的例子也有點拉遠了。除了媒體權力上的差異，還有政治、經濟、盟友、軍備等不同範疇上的分別，情況非常複雜，以此作喻，我覺得並不穩妥。我同意「暴民」很可能是因為沒法在主流媒體上平等對話而不得不用上網絡作反擊，但如果反擊的形式涉及一向習以為常的網絡起底報復行為，我只可以說是濫用了互聯網：互聯網不就是相對上平等的平台嗎？可不可以運用網絡集體資源力量，就像現在發表的公開信，再發起一人一信運動，或組成聯署聲名，尋求媒體關注，甚至登廣告直斥其非？就算是更草根、資源成本更低的做法，除了人身攻擊之外，也可以是對稱的「以牙還牙」，不是「以拳還牙」。

以網絡反擊並無不可，某些情況下甚至應該提倡，但網絡的顛覆能力可以有多種展示方式，那種集體鞭屍發洩，作為對當事人不理性的干涉，已經是破壞彼此「言論自由」的「言論自由」了。

3. 很可惜，到現時為止，這裡的討論始終都沒法清楚帶出這點：周氏有多重身份，既是報刊編輯，又是專欄作者，也是 blogger。這個是很特別的例子，也是辣手的例子，好像沒法將整個討論變得更切身－－作為一個沒權沒勢沒其他媒體瓜葛的個人博客（或單純在網上發表意見的個體），可以如何減低不知何人不滿自己什麼意見而發動匿名人身攻擊的風險，在既可愛又可怕的網絡無政府狀態下繼續享有不受（大或小）威嚇而公開發表的權利自由？畢竟，所謂「兩派人」，其實都可以是同一種人、搭埋同一條船。