@ springfield .... if you read the topic from page 1 , we AGREED on the DECISON na na dismiss ang kaso because it has no substantial basis for the COUPLE to be CHARGED , not that I say its OK na mag *** sulod sa sakyanan ... people or kids ... gamita pod ang huna huna panagsa .
Hello springfield... i think it's you who needs to read the topic from page 1. But if you don't have that luxury of time let me just bring your attention on the previous thread. No disputing when it comes to the dismissal of the *** case. what that i don't agree with your line of argument is when you wanted the security guard to be liable for according to you invasion of privacy...the hell no!!! i would like to bring your attention on this... yes, you did not said categorically that it is OK na magasex sulod sa sakyanan... but how will you interpret your previous arguments:
Quote from: talsik on September 23, 2006, 09:51:12 AM
get a room oi!!! ug mag *** man gani pahiluna that is something not to be done in a car for God sake! that's preposterous...
@ springfield... I just want to know who said that *** cant be done and not to be done inside the car .
________________________________________
Quote from: talsik on September 23, 2006, 01:21:18 PM
I did'nt say anything that *** can't be done inside a car..did I? question, is it proper?
@springfield... Thats what I am trying to point out . Who sets the standards if its proper or not ? Socially or scandalous ?
are you not implying here that it's ok to have *** inside the car? or you have quickly change your stand on this issue and swallow your words without even churning it?
pasabta daw ko bhe....



      
					
					
					
						
  Reply With Quote
						

						