first palang ko kita ana nga ad wa jud ko nka uyon... ky sayop btaw jud. mka confused sa mga bata.
ba paman mo ingun na nuon ang bata ug "PEPSI" nga dai to ang gpa spell sa ky Coke![]()
Yes, makabogo jud ni.
No, wala kaayo ni epekto.
Maybe
first palang ko kita ana nga ad wa jud ko nka uyon... ky sayop btaw jud. mka confused sa mga bata.
ba paman mo ingun na nuon ang bata ug "PEPSI" nga dai to ang gpa spell sa ky Coke![]()
@Junmar
wa ko ka G hehehe. care to rephrase that?
my point is dili sayop mo ingon og "Remittance spells LBC." Pareho ra nag mo ingon og "A day in Istorya spells fun."

I'm boycotting all products with commercials like these. Just how dumb does those companies this of us?!!
^^^mao jud bro, tagbaw tag pasabot sa atong anak ani, ngano na ingon ana daw, faet..hehehe
I was talking about your earlier post where you want teacher to be creative in order to contradict what ever misconception learned on tv shows/commercials.
But, you also said that the government and educators are more concern on error-filled textbooks.
So, how can a teacher (a common one - means limited to government-issued references) contradict or correct a certain misconception when he, himself, has limited references.
Issues like these are deeply-rooted.
^nope, you didn't quite get my posts.
1. I don't see anything wrong with the LBC commercial. Teachers can use that commercial to teach the children a different way of using the word spell. Ex. "A day in istorya spells fun."
Remittance spells LBC --> acceptable
2. Educators and the government ought to focus more on the more important issue of textbook content inaccuracies. kani na hinuong harmless commercial ilang gi tirada.
Kataw-anan ang commercial. Pero what if no kung ang nagtan-aw sa commercial kay bata nga wala pa nag-eskwela who is just learning to spell words. Maglibog kaha siya?![]()
Similar Threads |
|