|
¤U±¤Þ¥Î¥Ñµæµæ¤l¦b 2005/03/01 12:03pm µoªíªº¤º®e¡G4.( ½Ð°Ý¦³¤°»ò°ÝÃD¡H ¬O¦]¬°ÃD¥Ø¬ð¥X¡H ¦ý¼ÐÃD¬Ý¤£¥X¦³°ÝÃD....*jq ÁÙ¬O³N¼Æ¤£¯à»¡¤Î©Ê¡HD"7c% ©Ê¤H¤H¤]¦³¡A¦A¥±`¤£¹L¡A¬°¦ón着«¦r²´¡HU900%t ¦pªG³N¼Æ¯àª¾¥¼±B¤Ò¥t¦³©ÊÂ}¦n¡A§Ú¥i¿ï¾Ü¤£©M¥LÎc±B¡A¦Ó¤£¥Î±B«á¤~ª¾¹D¡A¨º¡@...0[x=
|
|
',L ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ *@Y~DG 1. keungyee said "³o½ÒÃDªº½T¥O¤HÃhºÃ¤Î¤Ï·P". At least one pal also thinks in this way -- this article is ¥O¤H¤Ï·P.re ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ # 2. of course ³N¼Æ¯à»¡¤Î©Ê"}7^Ag ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ PvMH 3. a. "¬°¦ón着«¦r²´" ? well, in the real world, *many* ppl concerns about the wordings they are using. It represents what they really want to express, and what they want you to know inside, to order to communicate, or persuade you.xeU b. related to previous point. if ppl is using foul languages to aid their expressions, what do u think? Those are only auxilliary words, they will defend in that way!e ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ 2H 4. "¦pªG³N¼Æ¯à ... " -- *IF*. See the point below.hs ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ F{2 5. in the article: " ... ³Ìȱo¤@´£ªº¬O¡A®Ú¾Ú¸gÅç¡A¤Z¬O¦³¤Ñ¦P¡B¥¨ªù¡BÀº¦Ï³o¤TÁû¬P¦b¯e¤Ì®cªº¤H¡A·¥¤j¦h¼Æ³£¦³«Ü¯S®íªº©ÊÂ}¦n¡A´£¨Ñµ¹¤j®a§@°Ñ¦Ò¡C "EW"ngZ You think it's true??? The point mentioned is *highly* credible so that you are convinced it's talking about the truth?jn ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ nlvB' 6. a. Everyone has their moral standard (no matter what standard it is)d]t b. Everyone should have their social responsibility. ]G It just happens that mine is different from you, which is pretty obvious.gaG; ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ xIPoC- 7. How about we leave this to ½t¥Í to judge. This is his website anyway. He definitely has the right to have what kind of image he wants his website processes.z ©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ C) 8. I know ½t¥Í is an expert in µµ·L¤æ¼Æ. How about we ask him to judge the correctness of the controversal article here?Gte{
| | |
|
|
|