玩命碌齡 巨水樽撼巴士 炮台山長命斜頑童闖禍

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-14 22:50 發表


無人話過要有人受傷先叫有問題, 但而家問題係無足夠兼強而有力且客觀既證據證明學校係蓄意推跌水樽, 好似樓上板友咁講, 個學生唔小心推跌水樽呢個推論係logical, 而街外人所講既都未必係事實既全部, 要求學校相信 ...

咁不如簡單D講,
街外人好地地做乜要話佢地晌度玩,
你唔係一個,而係咁多個喎

而且,
你話唔小心,
一桶水話大唔大話細唔細,
仲要係唔止一桶既時候,
呢D話無心之失你自己諗下有幾大機會囉~

差佬唔夠證據而放佢走,
咁唔係差佬錯,
但係唔代表我地要信佢地係冇心囉~

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-14 22:55 發表


而家係報紙憑街外人既言論話學生係度玩, 事實上學生係真係玩, 定街外人以為學生係度玩, 根本無從得知, 你又唔係係現場, 點可以一口咬定個d 學生一定係玩? ...

唔通玩同慌忙執番個水樽你認為街外人會分辨唔到?

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 16:17 發表
咁不如簡單D講,
街外人好地地做乜要話佢地晌度玩,
你唔係一個,而係咁多個喎

而且,
你話唔小心,
一桶水話大唔大話細唔細,
仲要係唔止一桶既時候,
呢D話無心之失你自己諗下有幾大機會囉~

差佬唔夠證據而放佢走,
咁唔係差佬錯,
但係唔代表我地要信佢地係冇心囉~

Well, mistaking, you know. The witness is on the bus, then can you be sure they must see the whole picture? It is possible that they miss the origin of the incident. You can believe they make it intentionally, and frankly I have the same view as well. But the point is you have no evidence to prove that they make it intentionally, so in that case you cant blame the school not giving so called disciplinary action towards the students merely because you believe they have intention to do it and the school should believe they have intention too.

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 16:19 發表


唔通玩同慌忙執番個水樽你認為街外人會分辨唔到?

Again, did they see the whole picture from the early beginning? Did the witness tell the whole picture to the reporter? And even if the witness told the whole picture, did the reporter put down all what the witness said in the article? Maybe the witness merely said the kids pushed down the bottles and the reporter put down the terms ' played intentionally' in the article. You know this newspaper got a lot of past examples showing that they gamble interviewers' words and intepret it in the other way round. Thats why I suggested you guys from the early beginning not to doubtlessly believe what the newspaper write.

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 16:19 發表


唔通玩同慌忙執番個水樽你認為街外人會分辨唔到?

唔通玩同慌忙執番個水樽你認為新巴司機會分辨唔到?

原帖由 kiwai 於 2011-4-15 18:25 發表


唔通玩同慌忙執番個水樽你認為新巴司機會分辨唔到?

講真,
你班靚仔俾麻煩個巴士佬,
佢係咪都話你玩都仲可以,
但途人呢?

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-15 16:53 發表


Well, mistaking, you know. The witness is on the bus, then can you be sure they must see the whole picture? It is possible that they miss the origin of the incident. You can believe they make it int ...

難道車房東主又晌巴士上???

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 20:52 發表


難道車房東主又晌巴士上???

Ok fine, again, how can you guarantee what he said reflect the whole picture? Cant he miss something, or intentionally hide something? Dont argue on where the witness is and what position he is, this is not meaningful to my questions at all...

原帖由 teddybus 於 2011-4-15 20:56 發表


Ok fine, again, how can you guarantee what he said reflect the whole picture? Cant he miss something, or intentionally hide something? Dont argue on where the witness is and what position he is, thi ...

淨係想講,
報紙佬吹水都唔可以將人既說話調轉黎講,
尤其是網上有片訪問,
被訪者都係話佢地晌度玩緊,
咁樣,
我唔知你點樣解釋,
而且,
當時巴士係停左車,
咁樣人地有足夠時間認清學生當時神情狀態,
如果你堅持話報紙佬就一定全部都唔可信既,
咁你有權唔信,
但調番轉,
亦唔可以掩飾得到而家D學生真係做野亂黎既事實

原帖由 da93 於 2011-4-15 21:02 發表
淨係想講,
報紙佬吹水都唔可以將人既說話調轉黎講,
尤其是網上有片訪問,
被訪者都係話佢地晌度玩緊,
咁樣, 我唔知你點樣解釋,
而且, 當時巴士係停左車,
咁樣人地有足夠時間認清學生當時神情狀態,
如果你堅持話報紙佬就一定全部都唔可信既,
咁你有權唔信, 但調番轉,
亦唔可以掩飾得到而家D學生真係做野亂黎既事實

Well, what Im asking is whether if the witness see the whole picture. The witness claimed that he saw the kids were playing = they were really playing? Did he see them playing from the early beginning, or even, did he misintepret what they did as a kind of playing? I kept asking this time to time but no one answer me, instead, you guys kept asking me to explain explain and explain. What do you want me to explain? Explain why the witness said they were playing? You should ask the witness himself, not me!

I worked in school setting for a period of time, of course I know how bad the kids nowadays are, but it doesnt mean that the kids must be the one to take responsibility and deserved to be blamed no matter what incident they are involved.