I've been to a few funerals now. And talking about someones flaws is not forbidden but it has to be done with delicacy and care for those present who cared for and even loved him. I talked about my father's weaknesses but in context and with love. Had someone taken the opportunity to soapbox at my father's funeral I might not have dealt well with it.
Steve Jobs shaped much of my working life with products that I don't believe would have existed without his personal drive. Sure something would have existed, but somehow in Apple, Steve Jobs gathered and guided so many really talented people that the products from Apple have been special. So for me this week I'll honour Steve Jobs and his contribution and I'm sad to see him die.
As I said I understand the issues and I believe they are important.
But on the day he died and in a thread intended to remember his contributions, it was out of place. Consider it the way you might consider the funeral of a member of your own family and then act appropriately. No-one imagines him to be perfect but we set aside those issues for a while and remember, and focus on, the good.
And as Sasha says even in a mere 56 years the quality of his contribution is amazing.
iSad does seem very apt.
My wife and I have side by side iMacs at home, we heard the news and went to the apple site. The simple heartfelt message there brought tears to our eyes. 56 seems far too young.
I understand the issue Chris but I find it crass and inappropriate at this time and in this thread.
we’re back to discussing some dumb thing Clare Curran said
That wasn't my intent. For me it seems everything Labour says seems to express an idea that they should lead and not collaborate with other representatives in parliament. Curran just said it more crudely, but Goff and others have made the same point. Goff in particular when he refused to share the stage with "minor parties" ... wake up dude you are a minor party!
Curran's throwaway line was trivial yes but it was also a symptom of what has pissed me off more and more about Labour. It exemplified a view that the only worthwhile result of the election for Labour is being able to form a government where they are the dominant group. Anything else is a failure.
But MMP, when done right, is all about having multiple parties representing multiple viewpoints coming together and finding compromises. It should be about forming coalitions that can genuinely represent the multiplicity of opinions that exist in the population.
Instead Labour still pretend that if they get to form a government they can then ram through whatever their policy dictates - even if they only have 30% of the vote. National of course play the same card from a stronger position.
But either way you end up with a dictatorship by the majority, where minority voices get steamrolled.
What I desperately wanted to see from Labour was an open understanding that they will have to co-operate with other parties who represent other viewpoints in order to lead this country. That would be a policy of co-operation and compromise to get the most representative government and not yet another simple elected dictatorship.
If they were smart they would campaign side by side with The Greens. And say we don't agree on everything but between us we represent more of the public than John Key.
Ahhhh, all better now. that's a weight off my mind ;)
Didn't get it all first time?
I have no idea what you just said. I guess you had to be there.
Emma will explain teabagging, and yes it totally fits with this thread - just be warned don't search for u-tube videos.
Well call me a shallow reader and a PAS dilettante, but I for one still have no idea who you are :-)
You can join me in "obliviouses anonymous"