奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:7 N0 K5 Q2 L( Y$ G

( k  }7 j+ k/ B$ O5 e3 ]+ W% t9 Nagree,
, A+ n) ?0 N; o( C2 J4 p' q6 C我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,4 Y1 [" J6 ^9 T6 \. l9 o- v- ~
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
: U9 r0 y. ^" P* p( l8 `1 c期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

5 u+ r2 p' G) B$ E9 `- ?4 ihttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html8 w* Z/ h* R- b, g' p0 o
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. l6 a5 j! e0 n# Y6 X( E
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.
5 x# E7 L% r# p  uJust some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:# W# u  n6 k, p/ T" J5 L- E
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ , {5 n7 [6 g/ R$ N
: L  D# n/ G5 w% [( z2 o
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???' V! _  |% y' Y1 w* O' v; R

9 a( y  a0 }7 ^) V- M! e- H8 F為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

5 e* Y) o8 Q+ S1 @. r6 U
4 K- c# W  ^5 L3 r' i絕對支持啦5 }: v. A! L: |. E

( G: t# ]( O  Y% D  W( r有錯就認,打就企定
1 _3 A/ r2 f$ T4 z( [" }; h* h
$ Q  D. x$ @8 K  J$ a' M% R無錯當然要撐到底7 ~: j( u5 W' j: L3 J" }' @0 C$ U

0 u- \9 y& v- |/ r: u但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
& m7 o7 b% t) w, L3 [5 C( f
6 P4 t6 a4 d, t( J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! A5 k7 x9 d2 q3 Y, p4 q' v; p
% `. m4 \$ w4 h4 x" F
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
( T% |5 I) O# u. a  \
( N: c$ C. n5 d! U$ o我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
! L$ ~; h% j) F, h3 v$ d" @/ [( O- `4 g$ Z1 V" G! n
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
" R/ s  i! u" _
: W( R( `' F& [) ?我唔認為lor
" N1 ^7 ~* s' w: X; k- r. `/ \6 L2 C' l' o
唔係話要整死佢地" w4 @' h) p! v$ P- U
* z* p  o# M1 S9 r
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
9 i* B  H, j7 r8 ]
# X  u- D! [/ A我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大, K; n' A0 v& a; P9 w9 N/ G
; R8 ~2 `6 W* x, h: e! r& L
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的0 P8 f: d1 R6 N# y6 g
! |7 B9 K0 K; S" Q& c5 D) v4 e4 G
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
# w! l1 f$ t% Z( P1 R% e# k/ e! w/ G0 q; _& r
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: m9 A7 z, l9 y( z/ f& }4 ]
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
. z. U5 D) {/ _6 ~4 E) Y
, w1 Y, q% `7 ^/ M" a# L8 {( x我們的大學生6 H0 q: j. l1 g0 W: B
8 ^, y, B$ v1 P; i& L) q# }
. R' q( T0 K0 O+ K2 J
! b& b. O; S0 l& z, y; B
8 {5 T/ X2 ]2 A! k9 R9 F

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:/ H3 r) x5 q. d6 Y" h

. U5 o1 e5 U! M& \  ?9 f/ i6 ~+ H3 V/ e# D+ p5 K
有見地 !!!
1 [$ S& d. w0 Q6 U) `1 d6 S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
- P+ }( L! o* D# J+ W% q" D
" R3 J$ ]7 x* f. Y$ u) _/ vI think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. 1 b1 F8 i; ^. @7 S5 l+ O, k
I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
6 v7 z. i* ^5 u" h3 F2 m1 MI pretty sad that about the University official.; l0 i0 O& r- l! n
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 la8 f0 Y# L. _, w9 [2 V$ V% m! [. J
# A' Q" x, c% H7 }" S- P! q
[ 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:
3 M4 G: Y& O# b8 K1 E) D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/ d5 y- e4 H. c, d- U: p

* A. \! H6 F8 W5 P( l2 e% B: s5 ?[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

2 p6 H7 _4 t. I2 [! I1 K% b% q: G6 c6 j3 f
兩者有何分別?
3 h- l  z- \  `% T9 `; u( V$ {中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?