奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
  B1 a! e$ t0 g( v3 m, V/ I' H, k3 Y0 e$ G* y
agree,) k- G) L1 _' `+ ?- |
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,; j% X& D, i$ G7 d
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
3 N: Z  O& `( v! H& m期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

$ L( _1 }) p. p/ b0 J
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html+ y. F1 ?7 b# m1 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$ w5 r8 z. I" }" A9 b8 X9 ?
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./ d6 h! t- {: B5 N- I) H, ?- P4 E$ r
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
3 O  V" j- G2 M8 w: S* f9 Q有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
4 p3 c* m( O& N, J7 H- k+ E
! F3 q5 {/ p1 o/ V) v, m係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
1 f$ }( F  H9 s4 n$ l9 `, w% N: [$ `8 r1 {4 i  h
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

, p# p& B$ [2 m$ R" J. F# U; A2 p3 P7 Z
; T4 x! [1 K- m8 X
絕對支持啦
& x/ P" ]/ _+ ]" o+ W7 ~
& w7 |" f9 O2 E& M" d3 D有錯就認,打就企定* n& N( V7 i" o+ q- G* ?, u  W( G
& }7 ~2 l0 K$ t& E
無錯當然要撐到底6 X, r* X8 X9 l% a) K' ^  c) h; Z& f

4 |1 }( ^3 Q. L% m但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
$ c; g( x5 {6 V' j) Q; ~) r
6 A7 d. @" r7 b0 A( p% Q% i# E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
1 a$ k2 U4 [% q( [' C3 D2 n/ E+ R3 H' _
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
  I* i# d6 u" S2 X! I3 [# u# Q
, ]9 w6 `5 W4 o2 w$ |4 u我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
! S) x8 }% A/ X( w0 x# t
) o1 f- z+ L' q2 @唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?1 j3 o2 r$ ~# j& j! ^; a
) a# c; [2 |, O/ m
我唔認為lor
4 s( `- u+ a/ \  T! r5 d" `2 D5 Y# e
唔係話要整死佢地9 A1 p  F  w# a0 h! _7 G
* j4 ^2 ~; d5 P2 a; {4 y
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
( O% @8 H9 a5 L- q( g7 A
0 H/ K( v  N2 ?! W( H9 k我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大2 j, H1 G' ^( t3 @/ C+ R

$ R: j' E2 O3 J5 ?6 V有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的& Y% i& ?5 {. p8 R! S- K
( _$ r$ N" r$ [; X! d2 U
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
$ M% `& D- M; y# e4 y5 e9 y: K
! c9 E8 e: s4 v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
) ~: d) u9 r7 S& S, j, T; V: {"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"# f% |5 r* E$ q

- f9 N0 Q" r, l4 a( \我們的大學生
4 |" R) I4 i# @% v
4 y/ K% q/ W% Y  u! Z, ^9 q- T: u7 M+ S, j# ]

' O0 R) u( {  I6 }' \# I1 F4 s# L1 y5 ^5 D8 ~2 J& i

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
2 s. B1 J  {' A/ d* B9 V7 D9 ^
- P$ O$ G* r& s. z# h0 W& [+ c9 ~. T$ i* E& r
有見地 !!!
) n: E0 V1 x! G  U* r9 |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
: e  l/ Q8 U' U6 ~3 E- P: [4 b& e* I, U) Y! {! T4 U8 P
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. ) B# V4 N/ u. [
I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
" w1 u& k$ Q& R! X4 s6 I" ]; DI pretty sad that about the University official.6 B6 n. _5 `1 k: e* h
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
1 w) h% k3 n4 ?
& B2 w. q& |7 }; v: L( P, j' l, E2 f6 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:
& o5 h  n# a' x+ t4 Y8 {( 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
0 R/ |; A  D, P5 t0 n- w2 `# {0 S1 ~/ o8 t  O
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

, {- |4 V7 ^- f: K: Q* E6 {2 A

9 |0 {# n6 [9 m6 C7 x0 z3 t+ k2 }8 K* k兩者有何分別?
2 X3 k& w; n+ q* A0 v+ ~, k2 ?4 m中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?