奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:! u4 e, u% s4 @& N# U( |$ l
. I+ d% }, @8 ?6 ~2 _$ S
agree,! u8 r* u$ T1 U* R; l2 m
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
# j" \0 F3 e& e6 o% h但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,8 ]! g( x: N9 k  |! X# i
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

7 ~6 {0 T' f8 `3 ihttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
$ Q4 s; p+ p; {( u+ A* I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 q: k1 y& }* W  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.1 {# u5 A% t# _- e. ^
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:$ Z0 X+ K; S3 b, f( I
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！   Q  V) O" U/ w( |$ f
; g8 |0 U$ K# q! K7 r
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???; A+ k( D% R9 k3 w

8 x3 r  F) ?: [4 e為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

0 s) M) W' q" ]; g+ D# E. G# ?5 B2 [/ y. w( \: ?' R
絕對支持啦
8 g8 Y4 F7 P+ K7 D( U; P: I4 t2 |$ h6 N" u. K2 i/ m2 M, u
有錯就認,打就企定
0 w& S$ e) {: \$ Y5 n0 q5 n8 T" \3 y$ r8 ~
無錯當然要撐到底* d0 P: Z0 B' c$ M

0 m) g9 E: ^% c但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
/ H* M1 m: A. c% ]& C6 X- R7 P! X
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" v& u2 {9 a" w9 d5 C' E

; `$ u8 F4 g" l一份公眾讀物係好有影響力, @0 b% r( H' Q3 O* b' M# }

, h( z1 G+ n4 O3 J( S: z1 r  L我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
. E9 q8 U, X0 f' ^7 ~) @: f4 {- a9 v0 q3 r! E  p* G! z
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?' @; h& i* g9 `7 g

" c7 D6 [9 ?8 Y9 I: S/ \我唔認為lor
+ u7 n* L. w# o! w! A3 e7 g4 J" A9 N
唔係話要整死佢地
- Y! ~+ o( x  \1 M: t0 H
9 a9 I( k1 G7 G2 O而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用& t; P$ u" X, P
4 J) U* N% {5 s8 z2 u- ], J3 u; t
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
- W# ~/ @' w; l2 P9 L! i
$ C, n! V; o8 R有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
" J5 ]2 T7 Q8 j2 R1 Q) k1 y  ~/ v  m2 w0 f9 z
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由" z% x  u2 N$ Y- `$ p& Y
. Y. O! }$ N4 G6 n& b9 b2 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4 O8 t. _$ ^- ]1 R+ H
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
8 Z# h2 l9 `  Q1 ^8 D& F7 p
9 y, o+ n2 ^4 z" j9 @* E我們的大學生7 F! F( b% r6 `/ {3 \

5 R" n$ t5 L+ N3 l$ E( \* v1 O$ H/ B
0 _4 P1 o. b: c0 ]' E! a4 |9 [
8 ?1 T, P/ u2 d* v% F0 D. b' z

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
+ X0 Q' v" A2 t& t# B# l3 X6 h, G& z& K0 ^
8 i5 B- ^! v, X' l
有見地 !!!# g; ?' v" G9 C/ x0 b1 G6 f
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
8 z: d, B6 |5 h$ I& D- ?1 H  k" m/ {6 w$ R
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. 7 y6 ^' ^/ R9 G4 g- @
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 l, H: f, I% J  B/ n/ iI pretty sad that about the University official.! `+ J+ ~4 D# {4 l/ j! r
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
) I$ @7 B! e" K
4 d& t$ e. F1 L  Y3 f1 T[ 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:! G1 s1 S# ]  q" w
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$ v) R. P1 q) X" M3 l$ L& e

( V8 [% M: A2 k' I[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

* j# G! Z1 T5 ]
$ K& {7 j# H  E' I
兩者有何分別?
4 D! c! y4 H0 a0 ?" z7 p中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?