奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:. ?% Y$ A  D; ]9 K# D

; F+ d. u  H: T4 Vagree,! q/ U5 i1 u/ j
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,9 C' [2 S9 N0 ^7 b6 r  }! d8 t
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
7 G  u" m+ u& k% {期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

: c4 l2 W* ^0 k0 [1 ?- A( u4 s
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
% k# ~% v0 V7 L3 L: J$ ]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3 l( c8 {* z* k% z. Q
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.( H9 t' x: T! T
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:% O7 W: W# G1 y* }' }% y; s
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
8 b4 M2 B/ s, Z1 y4 [3 C2 `& K' R$ U, S
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
4 a  d5 W8 ]$ n. p
9 z6 e# X- O8 ?. n( J' D8 N4 J為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

- w7 z& D/ g9 D: z; W$ Q1 G0 t( G
' P1 c5 h3 B/ O. ]7 n+ t( T; c' j
絕對支持啦' L6 u6 ~& H) O! O$ p
1 o7 J' ^" d4 B6 W$ r3 j
有錯就認,打就企定& F# u* Q2 T9 o9 @

3 o0 @9 {1 `9 H: v% [1 E" l無錯當然要撐到底
( R$ s7 X& a# ~
4 v' @! Z7 d5 m3 [* [4 A2 I但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩; B$ R6 `3 A& B9 v
4 a6 s& r: I4 h. ^( O
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
4 r/ Y2 a: B7 z" W! m5 R0 O, Q& Q' W9 r4 n2 W$ b4 c* i: N, I. v/ S$ w
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
: C- _4 c  |. P1 A9 V6 Z  Z4 g! Y0 e8 V
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生" M: b2 [3 r: g& m* v
( j; Z5 J3 b" w3 p" S! `) V3 H
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?) S& g# B' j9 w5 h% w7 z
& N& m: @* M6 Z+ y0 N
我唔認為lor
7 _% A  [& |$ ?# X  U# {( U
" p2 R% K8 Y; A8 v9 X唔係話要整死佢地
- P, I2 C5 x$ J9 A8 w2 |6 D3 B5 i- h+ G% c& |3 `
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用+ ?+ i# J7 z+ u7 M0 j6 p
/ D, U& k* ?# k8 u
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大, f. l/ ^6 o7 X0 R' ?8 n

+ P, Z5 ?0 U& w有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的  e: w7 u* x: c6 w* o7 ?/ t+ L
0 Q6 l! @8 J1 p
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由# {- T+ B, `4 n# p& v  t1 Y
9 g: |5 @, K' j# l4 ^2 s
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- F0 z3 D5 C! H5 z7 [8 b4 Q
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
1 h+ o/ H9 u- L; k, V$ T% Z1 L
. a  C) `& R3 z  A6 p, S我們的大學生% ?* I8 H2 \" P: s4 n

3 z8 I+ D! i1 S2 I/ k7 ^. d- p) f% [" n( h
! z& d- f6 X) B! W1 g) R' h2 |! U
" N; [) G0 f" c8 ^: x

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
6 d* M; ~6 _' B3 r) ?: u9 I; o4 l/ l$ {! R) R
" z8 H2 E7 q, J% f
有見地 !!!' m3 p# X$ o: C3 z+ Y" D
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.html8 s$ W1 {5 G% t: \- j7 I1 O5 P

" N, ?5 C1 x- gI think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
/ x2 Y2 V- @0 ?% |. p! B5 [. [I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind. % Q; c) i4 A& u
I pretty sad that about the University official.
/ k$ |# K) T1 zIt'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. p$ k3 y9 u0 ^5 E! A/ u3 j3 G

4 S' g, x  I6 h# w' e7 o& [[ 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:
! T% Q2 p8 @+ d; C/ k! 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
+ {) h* w8 X; J( z; \- J) A
' K0 }, g3 j# L) C7 v[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

0 x, S7 }: g9 ]. K  [. \& ]) W
- r2 j- g+ ]0 N  {2 P
兩者有何分別?# z( W$ R9 E) h3 @/ {3 \
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?