Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
While Bob-the-baby slumbers on my shoulder, a quick reply to some comments...
Idiot Savant wrote:
Actually, all it legally requires is... saying "I call on the people present here to witness that I, A B, take you, C D, to be my legal wife (or husband)" or words to similar effect.
Fair point. Yes, admittedly, to a non-wedding-phobic person that would be no big deal. But you're not dealing with the rational part of my brain here...
amc 32 wrote:
if Rev Scott had ambled over to the cupboard and opened it, then Burt's hide 'n' go seek abilities would have been established.
Ha! A great philosophical and theological opportunity was missed. On a related note, you may be interested to know that when a mutual friend unexpectedly became a born-again Christian, Rev Scott broke the news to Jen by saying: "Janine found Burt Reynolds in her closet."
giovanni tiso wrote:
[Quoting David Haywood:] "The drawback, however, is that a mutual detestation of weddings does not make the nuptial process very easy."
I would have thought the opposite. Surely you could have simply opted not to get married?
That sentence has to be read in conjunction with the preceding one, i.e. "And that was when I knew that Jennifer was the woman I would marry. The drawback, however, is that a mutual detestation of weddings does not make the nuptial process very easy."
We wanted to get married but not have the wedding. I'm with Jackie Clark in that I'm very pleased to be married (along with Bob-the-baby the best thing I ever did), but found the prospect of a wedding to be an unadulterated nightmare.
Newsprint wrote:
As a wedding-phobic who is somewhat mystified by marriage (but have no problem with love and commitment) I'd love to know why you chose to marry. Too nosy?
No, not too nosy -- a fair question! I'm just not sure I can answer it.
I can say that I never really expected to get married or have children before I met Jennifer. Not in a visceral sense, anyway. And then with Jennifer I suddenly did, and I just somehow wanted to formally declare: "I think you're the one for me, and by the way, I'll be sticking around you until I'm dead." (Mind you, it sounds a little creepy and stalker-ish when you put it that way).
That's a pretty crap explanation I know. Maybe it's all those Jane Austen novels. But personally, I would've felt pretty miserable if I couldn't have married Jennifer -- which gives me a lot of sympathy for gay couples (although Civil Unions are certainly a good alternative). But if marriage isn't your bag, then that's fair enough too. I certainly don't think you have to get married to be legitimately committed.
Tom Semmens wrote:
The key to surviving - enjoying even - a wedding is to recognise you are involved in an anthropological event of the ages that is far, far bigger than you are, so just go with the flow.
An intriguing suggestion -- I shall attempt this at the next wedding I'm invited to. Mind you, there might not be any after this blog.
Danielle wrote:
I never got all girly about weddings... Oh, and I wore black.
That is so awe-inspiring...
-
pkiwi wrote:
Birth is a risky process and there is an intense fragility about it that some are unaware of.
Thank you for talking about this, pkiwi. What an awful and tragic turn of events. I can only imagine what you must have gone through -- a truly terrible situation.
David.
-
Ah... profound...
And hope your own contribution to the PA population explosion goes super well!
-
Thanks everybody for the birthday wishes! They have been passed onto Bob-the-baby.
And congratulations to all the new parents who have come out of the woodwork. It's a veritable PA population explosion...
Che Tibby wrote:
... may you always be the curious chap we saw making a dash for the ladies at katipo.
I can inform you that Bob's not only heading for the ladies now, but also flirting outrageously with them. The other day he managed to attach himself to gaggle of Japanese school-girls and ended up posing with them in numerous holiday snaps.
By the way, very nice to meet you and Keith the other day at Katipo. Weirdly, Keith was exactly like I had imagined; and you were nothing like I had imagined. I don't know what (if any) conclusions should be drawn from this.
Russell Brown wrote:
So do I get to meet His Bobness next week?
You may even get to babysit him if I have to visit the lavatory...
dc_red wrote:
Hearing of your antics over the last year has been amazing, Bob, yet strangely did not put me off having a little guy of my own!
Delighted to hear that Bob had no discernible contraceptive effect. And I'm guessing the Pope will be pleased too (in fact, this may even count as a miracle).
Julie Fairey wrote:
It strikes me that the way we treat fathers around birth is kind of weird. We have so much focus these days on encouraging men to be engaged in the lives of their children, and yet when they first arrive there is such a focus on the mother's experience that dads feel forgotten, and often superfluous.
Well, given the meagre contribution of the father to the birth process (an hour or so of work at conception; if it can even be described under the category of 'work'), I wouldn't want to claim too much.
But certainly the father can offer significant support to the mother (if he's allowed to be there), thereby somewhat mitigating the enormity of her workload. And of course, as you point out, I imagine that most fathers want to be there, regardless.
Isabel Hitchings wrote:
I hated the Chch Women's kick-out-the-Dads policy so much. I think I cried solidly every one of the five nights Jamie had to leave me there for. That was a huge factor in my having my next baby at home.
Yeah, I must admit that I've always thought home birth was a crazy idea (I'm a big fan of modern medicine). But after the hospital experience I can see exactly where they're coming from.
-
dc_red wrote:
Our hospital and midwife experience (3 weeks ago this morning) in Waitakere was very different ... a high degree of competence and professionalism, and no separation thanks to the lifts, or rule-mad receptionists.
... maybe try Waitakere Hospital next time? I can almost guarantee there won't be any snow...
I should perhaps mention that there was lots of competence and professionalism in hospital before Jennifer went into labour -- and lots and lots in the intensive care unit. It was just the in-between bits that were a bit hairy.
And many congrats on the new baby, dc_red! My mum would be pleased if we'd chosen Waitakere -- it's not too far from where she lives.
Emma Hart wrote:
Happy birthday snuzzles for Bob from me.
Bob has just now come toddling out of the bedroom having decided that sleep has no more to offer him tonight. I took the opportunity to pass on your birthday regards before he was swept back into bed by his mother.
Jackie Clark wrote:
May you grow up to be as clever and brave, and may your love of country music diminish as time passes.
Thank you, Jackie! Alas the country music thing has shown no signs of remission. In fact, quite the reverse. When he was feeling peevish today I played him the 'Down from the Mountain' DVD recommended by a PA reader. Worked a treat.
-
Astute readers might note that Bob-the-baby was actually born a little over a year ago today.
That's because this piece was written a few weeks back, but then shelved because it didn't seem to be quite right. I had intended to run another piece last Friday (about taking my niece on an outing), but a certain Damian Christie somehow scooped me on that subject (how did he do it, I wonder?).
As a result, my earlier piece was dusted off, and hammered into more presentable shape.
[**Addendum**: This message was meant to be first on the discuss thread but dc_red, Emma Hart, Jackie Clark and their lightning fingers have beaten me to it. I am in awe of youse's typing prowess, dudes!]
-
My God, we'll miss you while you're away, Keith!
And I know exactly what you mean about having to work three days to make one day's pay. The joys of trying to be a quality journalist, and not just making up shit.
And those spirals of self-doubt, too. But you, of all people, have less to doubt about your talents, I believe.
Oh, and not to be insensitive or anything, but does this mean that HoS will be looking to fill some column space. Possibly with another PA writer, in nearly new condition, and only slightly shop-worn?
-
Emma Hart wrote:
Ha, I believe we have Arts papers in common, Haywood.
The difference is that you actually passed your Arts papers. I withdrew from my Arts papers, and took my socially retarded personality over to Mechanical Engineering (and then I huddled over equations and didn't speak to anyone for a couple of years).
Don Christie wrote:
Oh Yeah. Mr. "as I wrote to Russell". Who, Bertram? QED. You Pol Sci freak.
Oops... perhaps my comment came out wrong. I was referring to Craig's post, which I assumed was a reference to the first few words of Russell's blog. No name-dropping intended, I swear!
Good to see that you're doing your part to raise the per capita beer consumption of Zambians, Don. The other two Zambians I've known were both teetotallers, which rather made me fear for the state of the place. Or, at least, for my chances of getting a drink if I should happen to be passing through on my way, say, from Malawi to Angola.
Alex Coleman wrote:
It looks like the point is to sit around laughing at how stupid every other philosophy is, because A, like totally equals A', an' shit, therefore Kant's just a poo and Rawls is even dumber than his very stupid son. heh. snigger.
An intriguing hypothesis...
-
Craig Ranapia wrote:
I've got to thank David Hayward for firming up my conviction that any university that offers 'political science' should be done for fraud.
I assume you're referring to me? Curse you, Ranapia -- Haywood! Haywood! Haywood! Will no-one ever spell my name correctly?
As I wrote to Russell yesterday, I'm not a great fan of discourse analysis (although, yes, I do realize that I'm being a stereotypical engineer in saying that), but I certainly found the data from the dissertation quite interesting. I think it will be a valuable historical record of the political vocabulary of the times.
Peter Cresswell wrote:
Russell, your 'analysis' is... lame...
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, Peter. I thought Russell gave a good summary of the dissertation, and made some excellent points about the style and vocabulary of Perigo and some of his followers (obviously I don't have any means of judging the accuracy of Russell's comments about Perigo's reasons for leaving Radio Pacific).
Look, here's the thing. I'm an admirer of John Stuart Mill, and so a number of the principles of libertarianism strike a chord with me.
I'd be very interested to read a NZ website that gives an analysis of current events and politics from a libertarian perspective. I enjoy reading 'Not PC' (although I wish you'd lay off the whole PC thing, which became thoroughly meaningless in about 1997). But Perigo's writing is so embarrassing that I simply can't bear to look at it.
Russell was dead-on when he compared it to a Soviet-era tract. Perigo's prose is duck-speak, plain and simple. The same meaningless phrases over-and-over: "political correctness", "nanny state", etc. with almost no attempt at analysis or reference to fact. His writing is as daft as Marxist extremists, or Islamic extremists, or any other bunch of nutcases that you care to name.
And I'm not the only one to have this opinion. Here's a second opinion from a Randian on Objectivist Living (I'm sure you're familiar with the site):
Mr. Perigo has misused the strongest forms of moral condemnation so often that he seems no longer capable of making relevant distinctions.
If your fellow Randians are coming out with observations like this then you should probably be re-thinking your style.
Isn't it Perigo's (and his libertarian friends) intention to convert others to their point of view? I suggest that the voting numbers for Libertarianz (probably no more than a couple of hundred once you subtract the votes from the candidates and their friends and family) would indicate that you need a less off-putting approach.
-
martin w wrote:
For those not aware, the state government recently legislated that it would be an offence to 'annoy' pilgrims... to the cost of $5500!
It always astonishes (and alarms) me that Australia has no protection for freedom of expression.
And it makes me think that New Zealand should be much more grateful to Geoffrey Palmer for our Bill of Rights...