Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hansen, who is as phlegmatic as his successor
Eh? Who's next?
-
Hard News: A Stand for Quaxing, in reply to James Littlewood*,
Bertrand Russell extolled the bike’s simplicity
Which would make it Russelling!
(Except that sounds like nicking someone else’s bike.) -
Hard News: A better thing to believe in, in reply to Sacha,
<codependant>
JK = inspiration for Mastercard’s “Tim”
</code>
</pendant>
-
Hard News: Bringing an order Auckland…, in reply to Simon Bennett,
Centre Right' [...] tends to mean rabidly neoliberal
= Scent of Fright.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to ,
Why don’t you explain…
I know this topic evokes strong feelings, with good reason, but that phrasing is not helpful. To rephrase: it is counterproductive to keep piling on in disagreement to a statement that has already been clarified by the original poster. (Kind of like I'm doing now. Er.)
-
It's almost embarrassing how many of those tracks I already have in physical formats (mostly on old Jayrem compilation tapes).
I recall "Obscure Desire" was, a little unfairly, derided in RIU at the time as "Hairdressers make music".
"America", OK, but my pick for Shona Laing electronica would have been "Metropolitan Moon" (also off Genre; if ever an album needed a CD or digital rerelease...). -
Hard News: Friday Music: New Zealand's…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Try using Chrome instead of Safari; that worked for me.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Katharine Moody,
If you've got a world-leading research group in an area relevant to NZ exports, would you really defund or disband it in order to fund mental health research? Research funding in NZ shouldn't ever be cast as a competition for scarce resources, because that scarcity is artificial, driven by shortsighted government costcutting and industry neglect. There should be more funding of research, period. And industry should do its share of the funding.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Ross Francis,
There are different standards of evidence for determining
“do we have enough evidence of abuse that this child needs protection?” and
“do we have enough evidence to conclude this person is guilty of abuse?”
It’s a distinction that FGS deliberately blurs – which may give her “credibility” among (accused) offenders, but definitely not with victims. -
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
In all three scenarios, you’d need to factor in some recognition of the owner’s expectation of exclusive use – or at least rights of permission over use – of their property. Using a car without the owner’s permission is a crime, isn’t it?