Methinks it’s time for Messers Key and Goff to start hearing from some families (and registered electors) that Bob most definitely does not speak for
Read Bob McCoskrie in the Dompost yesterday. Made me want to get a divorce.
Bob, if you don't piss off my children might* be brought up by divorced parents. Bob, think of the children.
*Haven't actually run this past all interested parties, probably should first, though I'm sure she'd understand.
It won’t come down to legal arguments but to the airport company realising that this is poisoning the value of their expensively-crafted community goodwill – and then councillors and others having a quiet word with Infratil behind the scenes to find some face-saving alternative.
Thing is, that's what most people thought was happening last year. The whole "we'll consider your feedback and alternatives" was so obviously a face saving gesture. Except apparently it wasn't.
No one misses Skandal Lass or Miss Savage or Princess Slayer or Suffer Jet on the track, simply because of the way they play rather than what they wear (Jet notably has never been much of a costume wearer other than the stripe of “war paint” across her eyes). Whereas players like Tuff Bikkies and, to a lesser extent, Braxton Kicks are doing some great work with little recognition from the crowd, because they choose to be a little more anonymous.
No one misses Skandal Lass or Princess Slayer because they're both about 7 feet tall in skates (plus fine skaters, it's fair to say). They don't need costumes to stand out from the crowd because they do.
Suffer Jet has never done costumes? Have you already forgotten the 'Suffer' flash?, the shiny, shiny helmet?
Don't know that I disagree with your conclusion, but question some of your working.
PS. Tuff Bikkies get bags of recognition, don't let me hear you say otherwise.
Sure, but it if was pasted on a sign near my house I’d probably have to ask the writer.
Not that practical when the theory is that's it's for the benefit of tourists.They're unlikely to know who to ask.
But I am rather interested that such a furore has been created over it
I think that some of the furore comes from the fact that all this was said a year ao, when the idea was initially presented. Most people said, "yeah, nah, not your best work". The airport said, "hmm. ok give us some suggestions, we'll have a think about it, come up with a best idea". They sat down, thought hard for a year, gave everyone the finger and said, "we're doing exactly what we said we'd do last year that y'all thought was a bit crap, what are ya gonna do about it, huh?".
Which is kind of annoying really, and may explain why there's more furore this time than there was last time.
If the sign doesn’t signify to most people what it was intended to signify then that’s a failure of design and a reason to come up with a less easily misread signifier, surely?
You might think it’s just about Miramar, but most of it’s supporters claim it’s about promoting Wellington as a tourist destination, most of it’s detractors think it’s reflecting on Wellington as a whole.
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
How will people see that? People I think will naturally assume that it’s how Wellingtonians have decided to market their city.
By the same process as when you said:
People aren’t dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it’s in.
The hillside it's planned to be on isn't within any visible airport boundary, it's separated from the airport by a decent sized (by our standards) road and no one looking at it is going to be able to tell it's an airport sign.
People can tell the airport terminal from the city, they can tell the runways from the city, they may not be able to tell the bit of airport owned but unlabelled land in the middle distance from the city.
I suspect if I was a visitor, I'd assume it was a Wellington city sign. I'd rather visitors didn't think that.
I don’t know why they didn’t do it last time. ACT could have been history if only a few thousand Labour voters in Epsom could look past traditional tribal enmity to the big MMP picture.
If only all 5,112 Epsom voters who voted for Kate Sutton in 2008 had instead each cast just two or three votes for Richard Worth, then Rodney Hide would not have won.
HIDE, Rodney ACT 21,102
LOCKE, Keith GP 2,787
SUTTON, Kate LAB 5,112
WORTH, Richard NAT 8,220
Still not seeing it. If every Worth and Locke voter backed Sutton, you’d still need to convince a couple of thousand Hide voters. Not likely.
ETA - at least in 2008.