奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
4 y# F9 U5 [$ \4 N  D8 d7 a( e: J* c+ y4 h1 X# d7 u
agree,
8 N+ X& z$ U# x2 v  P2 k我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,& y0 i$ v1 @( ~: D2 F( A
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,$ i  h6 V' M9 h( C9 ~& H
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

$ r9 Z* f, u* b$ F& a  j2 }0 w
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html; K5 \+ a8 S- E/ Z1 M/ l/ _
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( y) }8 `! L9 A
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.3 f; n( e/ ~( {) Y4 }# i5 h" t
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:% r7 t# r) P& [% a0 h7 `0 \1 j6 b
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ ( n" x3 @. t3 I3 y. X
' V6 Y; d: P) U; K  |
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???. u0 p# i( X# d' q8 Y2 \) U: {

" ~2 }& z8 G1 i( I9 C, c為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

2 d5 @+ X1 q1 L7 r. t
. f9 ^" z  [$ c" g( b8 b9 G絕對支持啦) W; n3 D0 _% V. J* ^) U

# a& p% o0 k3 q( m. g有錯就認,打就企定
" r7 e2 z8 D7 k( g; k
1 `) j% G: S1 E8 J+ u* r無錯當然要撐到底
+ e, \+ w( _8 A0 \3 Y$ ^
8 M4 ~4 }% w+ l但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
/ ^, {9 d: k" o6 D# Q, a) W3 T2 n$ p* R! k# l
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
/ n; C$ I2 z" @9 \% F  G9 |+ ?  Q9 h4 Y1 U! [5 |* s! ^
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
+ }, X' ^% \  r) v' w& c2 i7 n. G9 d0 t* j
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生, T$ L" [( o+ D9 M3 i1 j

5 q- w5 o/ Z3 J" c  U唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?) h6 Y  o* d. m# e
# y& j* f# W- m1 m; e
我唔認為lor
1 _# D4 N( V, F5 ~8 @  B
+ I9 ?( f2 p6 S唔係話要整死佢地
5 o  q+ _  N# |/ b  t* q( P0 ]- R3 q1 k7 }' z; @& L
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
4 ^. |6 G) u4 ?0 r9 K
( [4 D, R2 n& T我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大$ U% W& }( G& s
+ C& J- H( W& s* q0 p& \7 V9 d* p
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的' c! v. o; h0 N9 n; \% A' c% V' ^

! Y4 V9 x3 a1 W; {唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由- J0 F+ }$ K$ c  M% T

7 _" W+ s' R7 L8 t/ O: V4 Y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
8 [) M: N3 X: i+ A0 D4 ^: N"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"; d. u: S+ e/ ~7 ?

* l8 D9 |4 a5 y5 R. v我們的大學生4 P+ K4 q4 ^8 |) D; a% n
  F: l4 _% I& V: |6 `. b- r( ^

4 \$ b+ O. {$ p1 [& g
- m1 b& F& j. z2 V' T) ?3 e; J; X- N
0 L9 G, n! }% {( x1 n: }3 k( M- S

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
* y. J8 d2 o$ N' n3 m, j9 x
- k! h" M7 r( N8 D7 A0 Q8 w6 J% _/ j, d. T% j$ |5 s1 X- v
有見地 !!!
8 ^7 U! P6 U' m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
; y+ _5 p) A& w  U
  O. U6 d4 }+ UI think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
* L) [. W3 [! M2 k6 r/ [3 J" NI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind. / P; w. ^) h3 ]) z4 z- b
I pretty sad that about the University official.
4 M2 j, \4 n) B/ D+ q& {% DIt'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 la3 L: [$ H9 P$ \5 ^
# v8 C& N- @0 \4 |2 S4 x
[ 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:# Y6 i& ]2 a0 @0 _
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 la4 v0 S. X. ^" k7 s3 W% f( J' c

* D; Z4 d! \+ P8 J/ M4 Z[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

  h; u  z3 O* U* L" u8 q; I- v( Q7 H% g. c3 p
兩者有何分別?$ o- d8 E8 t4 d/ r$ V0 v) C, i
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?