Posts by Bart Janssen

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Up Front: Oh, Cock!,

    When my brothers were 7 and 8 they were playing doctors and nurses with a couple of neighbourhood girls in a tent in our back yard. My parents discovered them in the act and thought "this is silly".

    They promptly joined a nudist club (did I mention that some of my parents logical connections were - er unusual). As a result from age 3 I have seen a large number of penises and boobs and bums. Of all ages and sizes.

    The thing that strikes me is just how variable they are. Yes there was Fred the horse, but the average was probably something under 10 cm. But beyond simple length there is a huge variety of bends and girths. Basically if you were a boy and had a penis it was normal whatever it looked like.

    I never saw them as anything other than normal bits of the body as a child. And as a teenager it was a comfort to know I was "normal".

    But I do have to disagree with Emma. In the end there is something inherently silly about penises in a way that isn't silly about breasts, especially when playing sports in the nude.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Did you know we're in a recession?,

    But English isn't flat out lying - he's bullshitting. Inflation IS low. Real after tax wages ARE higher.

    Danyl please read the OP again.

    What you have missed is that English stated wages are higher. What a journalist should have done was note that English has used average wages which are distorted and the better measure is median wages. When both numbers are shown it is obvious that average wages are only higher because low wage earners have lost their jobs.

    It should not require a blogger/columnist/opinionist to point this out. ANY journalist should understand the data. It is a simple and clear fact that a journalist should consider part of their job to identify and report. Instead what you seem to support and what we have now is people who forward on the PR e-mails to the public.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Joining the conversation,

    She has great taste

    Someone is angling for special cuddles

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Did you know we're in a recession?,

    is it such a bad thing if we're slowly (and painfully) getting off the debt-fuelled consumption crack?

    Agreed. The issue though is has the patient stopped using because of a conscious life-style choice for the better

    OR

    did they simply die?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech,

    And if I stood up in front of a Great Blend crowd and was an offensive twatcock -- or even just pissed people off by being rubbish and boring -- I wouldn't see Orcon coming back with its sponsor's chequebook next time.

    To extend that analogy,
    if you had no idea that what you said was offensive
    and if your sponsor had no idea that what you said was offensive,
    then feedback to both the speaker and the sponsor is relevant and part of the free speech process.

    And as always the sponsor is free to assess the validity and relevance of the feedback. That is essentially what folks did by complaining to PHs employers and the advertisers and the BSA.

    And for what it's worth I haven't heard Russell be either a twatcock or boring. I wonder which is worse...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech,

    If we really start holding advertisers to account for the content of programmes or channels on which their ads appear, then they will be more circumspect about placing ads, and some voices may be lost.
    ... it will be bad for free speech.

    Um I think I have trouble with this. Ultimately the advertisers pay Paul Henry's salary. A little indirectly true but certainly the argument has been used by TVNZ that the have to have certain programs to get ratings in order to get advertising dollars.

    If you provide the money that pays the salary of someone who speaks publicly, using your money to get a broadcast audience, then I believe you have some responsibility for the content of what is said. You may not have control but you have responsibility.

    So yes if Paul Henry is deeply offensive then it is appropriate to communicate that to both his employers TVNZ and to the advertisers who provide the money to employ him.

    You seem to be arguing that the advertisers should be immune from responsibility for what gets done with the money. If you provide money to allow someone to speak freely you still have responsibility for what they say. Or at least that's what I believe.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech,

    Deal with the text, Bart, and please don't put anything in my mouth without asking. (I will also require a nice dinner and dancing afterwards. Foreplay, I can do without.)

    mmmkay but I just don't dance.

    Fair cop, you didn't say you weren't offended by the racism and it's pretty clear you are.

    What I was saying is that lying on TV is standard operating procedure. And for me there just isn't enough time in my day (what with dinner dates and all) to bother being offended each time some talking head on TV speaks - er I mean lies (forgive me it's so hard to tell sometimes).

    But I do have the time and interest to be offended when one of those talking heads promotes (by example) racism.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech,

    You know what should really offend people about Henry's snide bitch about Satyanand not being a "real New Zealander"? By any sane measure, it was a flat out lie.

    Really? I should be offended by a lie on TV and not be offended by promotion of racsim? Cause like if I was offended every time someone lied on TV ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech,

    Personally I think freedom of speech is a privilege, one that is protected by some laws but nonetheless a privilege and not a right. The point of the distinction is that it is a privilege we only retain if we protect it from abuse.

    Paul Henry does have the legal privilege of making racist and mostly stupidly childish comments on TV. What he doesn't have is any legal protection or any social privilege to remain uncensured by society, or his employers, or those advertisers that ultimately pay his salary.

    His actions were stupid as evidenced by the fact he became unemployable. I also feel his were the actions of a bully, targeting people who had no ability to respond. The character he portrays on TV may not be his real persona but I personally feel his character on TV is a twatcock. I can't say I have any reason to believe that his character in real life is any different.

    But there is another much less pleasant layer to Paul Henry's attacks and that is they legitimised racism. If you use free speech to do harm to others then you have abused that privilege. At some point you have start questioning the harm that people are doing with their "free speech".

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Staying Civil,

    there's a key component yet to be added to the picture

    Why are you worried about details, just get a good planner and they'll sort the details out.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3414 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 242 243 244 245 246 342 Older→ First