奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
  K0 ~% o& w9 N) e8 ]3 t* i# w. `5 K! O8 F& A7 R
agree,9 s0 W' k# Q+ C5 h! B
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,; P% T. ]0 j& u4 o) y
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
8 P/ D; v4 m. I- U" j4 u+ T3 q期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

5 d1 o1 w2 _$ ^9 ^5 v1 Nhttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
4 E7 u5 X, R2 b. \) M7 z* a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/ T3 @$ P$ D# F: z9 W+ }- k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 g/ U+ U7 o* ?  e1 |Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
/ k$ ?4 B0 N# K* a4 d6 Y7 u有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ " T+ L  f4 M! {4 ?
& [; i% M7 S8 K7 L
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
+ n! t7 _) n& z( ]; A
! P/ u# y! \) C; u, r6 Z為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

' k( O9 ^+ Z" v; U4 x3 J( ?  Y3 o; o1 P$ K* y; U
絕對支持啦
0 Z0 _" F  R1 a$ i2 v! a. h; X3 F, R$ ]3 G
有錯就認,打就企定
$ G# g8 }' P6 D; g  I4 C- ^5 u' U6 t" V: K1 Y
無錯當然要撐到底
$ B1 B* i5 v/ X7 I
' j5 s( Q( J  \但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
4 n3 s6 l) a7 U" P: G5 W/ J7 }0 Q5 k8 Q4 N
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
. ~9 e- W$ }! v. J  _' z4 E2 R/ Z5 j
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力" X2 s% T, U" J0 a( B* m9 V; y
! P, r4 f! l2 X' C1 T4 {  m/ y
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生* m# ]9 M3 y- l* _  j, G5 Z

) T/ V; h: h$ @3 \6 f唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
. i2 T( v0 I7 w2 |- I( y3 \; g# G5 j/ Y- G; R7 H  W- }: p
我唔認為lor; ~( ]. ~, Q+ K* Y6 K+ O+ A9 ]

5 R4 n+ D: m$ j3 \- u唔係話要整死佢地
) P7 ^9 o  \+ Y' ]/ t4 H) R  _: b9 X; d
2 ~: d! I# Y8 N( L) i* e而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
, o4 z: g5 I$ Q% Q5 c  O- ~8 ]2 u2 d
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大4 V8 }8 Y- m, E1 N
$ Z4 X$ P2 `& p: w- }" j" L1 @6 n
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的6 w9 T7 x4 |- l1 u6 X4 R) A0 b+ U
3 g% Y: H9 {% S, l+ v! {; `
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由1 V& \, k7 M+ U( N
) t7 K$ v6 k0 J& I& E; H1 G9 ~: e
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, L7 P/ ^; o# s" w1 s
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"- S( l, [& J2 X! B

+ ~- z: E' q1 ^0 ~4 T( n% w我們的大學生
  p5 c6 F4 ]' F7 y1 _( X. L& {7 _1 Q6 Z% l5 ?

' G" W: }% _" ^8 L$ y& j
0 @' X9 x0 V& v7 B, i0 Q4 k& S, r& I4 Y! }, n

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:  Y2 z2 b7 k6 _$ K

7 m& Y; Q0 j8 T1 E7 I, N) t0 k% H- W/ o" V9 T2 p: W
有見地 !!!) c! h; r; `2 C6 M& s- L( m! v
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
  N- h  E/ A) M8 ^+ t# f9 R0 w3 ^% R7 v+ T  I9 Z, }: Z
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
# ~# [/ C$ w0 d' {7 u5 vI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
1 ]" y/ e- ]0 ~I pretty sad that about the University official.4 W' Q1 h7 H, t+ l: @, x, t
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
" l/ @' l  e' R5 S) C$ z) a  d
8 V5 C$ k3 Y+ D8 Y& o" j[ 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:
; i1 A" V& D% F  G. H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
# L  j( z2 x* @0 C" D" N& J$ a& B  f+ h- j1 A  a- Z
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

4 p8 v: I  e! _0 [9 t" y& Z# o
6 E) m4 S( v4 r. g% D1 p
兩者有何分別?
* L  ~, K6 Y7 e+ }; s% |  [中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?