Update: Mars 29 Thank you everyone for your time and efforts to help me with the revision. The article has been resubmitted yesterday and accepted this morning. Without your help, I don't think I can do this. Except your suggestions for this revision, the more important thing I've learned from your comments is the altitude and methods of research， which points out the correct direction and helps me get rid of some misunderstand of research. Thank you everyone again. It's a excellent experience of discussing with you here and I expect more communications in the future.
I've received the editor's reponse for the second revision. He marked "minor revision" in the online system of submission. But his review is so confusing.
Reviewers/Editor comments: As the reviewer kindly points out the discussion is very speculative. In view of this, the outcome of this manuscript is still in doubt and a final decision will be taken upon submission of your revisions.
Reviewer #1: The authors have responded to my comments. The article has some value but its discussion is still somewhat heavy on speculation and somewhat light on hard analysis. Leading the authors further toward a stronger analysis falls beyond the scope of the review and so it falls to the editor to decide whether that value is sufficient to warrant publication in [journal].
In fact, if I revise the manuscript according to their demand to eliminate the "speculations", I have to delete and simply a lot of the discussions. This is a real "major revisions" indeed. So now I am so confused for this so-called "minor revisions". I'd like to ask your help and advice, thank you!