奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
+ `" ]5 N' q6 X. m5 s# V' u
+ ?  G8 ^, L1 U- Magree,
, U/ l2 J2 @, K' S0 `我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,' p4 T& w, R; Q6 Y5 J' U
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
: s# R0 q; N. U  F3 q4 z' g期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

7 ~* t* q; |1 y2 E, n; q% K
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
9 x$ ~1 B: E. m已經睇左幾期,性質傾向於性教育,同某報既果d嫖妓指南,差天共地
8 ~& [, _* ?. a, W搞成咁,都係兩個原因,第一係香港人係性方面真係好保守,探討下都唔得,第二係欺善怕惡,見係學生就恰你

chicken

Read the student post and find that it's not as evil as described by the media.
, y, d+ p  f# W' W8 h9 lJust some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
* s% s* ~. s0 p; ?  v' y有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ 1 w- {5 y" |0 w) b7 |
2 A4 C) e% @+ A9 @! ?. j  r
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???% }% A4 S5 b& e8 u
5 S5 n" ?# q# l: R3 e
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

) L# }5 B) F+ }* L) H9 j
$ q- g) v+ E5 R- s9 f2 `絕對支持啦& R- i$ _3 Y  x: e
3 v/ T  S! {- S
有錯就認,打就企定% u8 u* ?+ @1 `( _3 t' m
$ ]$ t  U. E; @' C3 G4 t
無錯當然要撐到底# U9 `$ N+ ~: d# ]5 P, R2 O+ m

; ^: {$ c( o) v$ ^9 s4 ?+ t但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩; q% Y* a) {8 `9 C- p
2 ^+ N8 `% d# [1 Q, o2 @4 y8 z) `
在發佈一份公眾讀物時,內容應該注意下,唔同私人交談,你講咩都得
" I7 f$ c" U1 O4 t1 R/ c
" X8 z/ d6 b5 A/ ?7 I  j9 _: d: }一份公眾讀物係好有影響力5 x8 H; o( b5 T9 V' a( M3 O
' P6 g: A* P7 |% |, T: I7 w9 q
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
6 w0 _" p) @6 s3 b  W
) D# V& F( x0 }7 R( K! |1 t唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
+ V9 y5 q. g5 F
3 c) ?( y' Z% d/ X+ N- G. b" K我唔認為lor
2 u$ ?/ L9 X) w) V! |) R- g0 b  l8 v$ @. K2 \  z
唔係話要整死佢地% z2 K3 y) v* ?3 }
2 E  C6 J7 `1 C' X) {' W
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
$ n2 E2 H; {+ ]4 A! ^8 B
, ]! F+ n. ~2 U6 H/ G我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大) y- P. V2 E1 q* |
3 U! r( ^; G/ @' C' f- L
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
- G+ i0 d3 S8 l, V# V5 K% R, z5 k2 z
' I4 J5 m) I6 A: h" h8 Q+ ?唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
/ G# S' c$ s% \2 l
/ U6 E) B9 ?* w7 o大家都知偷錢搶錢係唔唔法,唔通咁又話政府防礙你搵錢?

浪子

睇完, 真係冇野好講, 咁所有中小學性教育書籍都可以列做不雅

hackenli

一日一金句
' |# B; ?3 }- \/ Q& \# ~# [8 B"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
2 L; G9 @: |. P% n  \5 ^" S0 q" J! }# h2 `. H0 Y# D) O
我們的大學生. A/ K' G! p9 l1 m* N
8 B4 r9 [) a. Z  d7 I

0 P2 B% n0 i* T! j. K9 f
& a- {9 ]$ N8 m% x5 Y9 a" G" \" ~! O; ?" h0 t5 l, ?2 A0 ~

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:8 Y* q' Q. l; r' e1 r
% h# y$ v0 |4 T2 Y; g

3 t+ y  e: \: F, S6 F有見地 !!!
2 W2 Q$ Q2 @9 v2 P0 t現今大學生部份以為...

vv1668vv

反映大學生對法律認知不足。自以為是

支持者

http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html+ O/ R. y1 l$ l0 C! m4 n! o
! q3 }0 |4 W: o2 @2 H9 {0 M/ R- r
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. . T2 q, W4 ^" Q6 p% j
I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
( p2 ]; `0 @2 cI pretty sad that about the University official.% H* D& G8 V- \# e
It's them making the stuff worse.

bigfish

我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la
5 e: w3 {- L6 j6 ~  n- J9 U/ H
, f$ q- D% B* S7 ]$ D6 j' H6 C# G[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

mailcool7

有錯就認,打就企定

155220

Originally posted by bigfish at 2007-5-15 17:24:
/ ~5 l3 [4 L1 o: @5 h. M我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la% n$ H6 |6 T- m! X  \( ]

: A' B! W: c# R( J6 t[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

0 }. X: k$ F. K' S5 ]9 _6 e% c" e4 U9 R, E( R+ Z
兩者有何分別?
0 s* g9 [: Y5 C- \9 z& r3 A, r1 |中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?