Posts by Thomas Johnson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Getty Images? Who'd expect a fly-by-night outfit like that to now exactly when and where one of its photos was taken?
Seriously, I think that's going to go down as a Blog Epic Win
Sure is a nice catch and a credit to David! Not exactly obscure though, being the first Google Images result for Winston Peters Karaka 2006
-
One wonders how politically explosive anyone getting hold of photocopies of the originals of perfectly legal cheques paid to the Waitemata trust anytime in the last five-six years might be during an election campaign.
Probably about as explosive as knowing who really made these donations or the other 100s of 1000s anonymously to Labour, maybe, Tom?
Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client: 150,000
Simpson Grierson, Barristers & Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client : 50,000
Morrison Kent, Lawyers, on behalf of an undisclosed client: 30,000As for the Peters transcript, I wonder how the journalists resist the temptation to 'do a Mallard' at Winston as he leaves an event like that. Sheesh!
-
Well, if you only read comments from Redbaiter on KB, you might miss a few gems from the usual inhabitants at the 'We Hate John Key' blog, The Standard..........
family fist
fucking religious mofos
religious nutjob community
right-wing nutters
nasty rightwingers
nasty little insecure creeps
little pricks
fundy religious nutters
rich prick
slavering pack of hypocrites
attack dogsHow "vile" they can be.
I think it would be interesting to re-visit this topic after 9 years of a National government and re-assess the invective of the left at that point. You might see a re-poo-lution in the framing.
-
I'm with Helen - give it to people who really need it ...
Like the Labour Party?
-
That's a very reasonable, informed piece there David - my problem is it glides over the basic premise of the Sparc program: is a web site filled with computer games and interactive applications likely to be a good vehicle for getting kids to stop playing computer games and go outside and play?
Exactly. If you build it, will they come?
Perhaps there will need to be an addition $5.5million spent on promoting the website.
-
I'm cheesed off that Dr Cullen has emptied the larder but now there is no whey that he can now claim that he is cellaring his cheese for a mouldy day. I'm sure he will caerphilly try to string that mozarella though.
The Big Cheese Key will be emmental if he can't make holes in Cullen on this budget, edam it! Although it is starting to grate a bit that Key won't get up on this stilton and provolone that he can cut a bigger slice of the Bucheron though!
I'm feta up with politicians!
-
Oy vey... why don't we just shut down Parliament in election year since the poor petals have such difficulty multi-tasking? I don't think I find the junket half as offensive as the rationale.
That is pretty much what is happening anyway - only 61 sitting days scheduled by Labour.
Colin Espiner had a blog post on this too.
-
has there been a block placed on the topic?
I don't think so. Why not go edit it yourself? Wikipedia does have a policy on what should and should not be included on biography pages though - see Dave's link above.
Ultimately Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete guide to any politicians views or influences.
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
-
It's worth noting that a fairly dedicated group of people is constantly adding unflattering material to the Helen Clark article and others.
It usually gets worked out in the end, but much more politically motivated editing of MPs' articles seems to come from the right.
I guess it depends on where you look.
Helen Clark seems to get lots of edits about that picture.
John Key seems to get regular additions to the controversies, some of which look like a straight cut and paste from The Standard.
Regardless, it gives Gadfium plenty of work reverting the changes.
-
I'd rather see Parliamentary editors register and declare interests in their profiles. That would be much better.
Of course it would be better, but I doubt that it is going to happen. What I find distasteful is The Standards statement that it is the people involved (Peachey and English) who are making the edits. This is dishonest as there is no evidence of that at all.
In fact I'd suggest that since changes (not vandalism) were made to entries for Nandor Tanczos, Chris Carter, John Tamihere, Darien Fenton, Anita McNaught, Darren Hughes, Tim Selwyn, Charles Chauvel, and Keith Locke from the same IP that it is a stretch to link the changes to National at all.
WhaleOil had notes on this and other parliamentary IP address when the wikiscanner tool appeared last year.
I expect we can look forward to more manufactured 'scandals' like this from The Standard as the year goes on.