Umm, no I didn't.
Apoplogies if I misquoted you.
Some people even told me that it sometimes might create problems if they would show their faith publicly.
Well I suppose a deathly silence followed by polite "Oh really's",
and conversation becoming just ever so slightly stilted could be construed as a problem.
Unless you are now going to tell an anecdote about someone losing a job. Are You?
I think we are in agreement.
Wow Tiger has done a football team, heading for a rugby team, then 18 holes.
Who would coordinate it?
I nominate Michael Jones.
Kyle suggested rather than sending money people would rather send themselves. A natural response if your friends/family have been thru not only a disaster, almost any tragedy.
I would hope that these people are guided by those co ordinating the relief effort as to what is the best way in which they could help.
Ah, so sarcasm is out. Will remember that when taking on other topics.
Clearly I have touched a nerve. Sorry for that. You live and learn, with a bit of luck.
No, not out, its just not a good opening gambit.
I'm just saying from my experience. Just trying to help out.
No nerves were harmed by your post.
As for having a prejudiced view of those of non-belief, that would mean I'm anti myself.
So why the attitude? Its a public campaign just like any other ignore it if you want. But extrapolating the atheists are a bunch of whiney babies when you consider yourself one.....Well I'll leave that in your hands.
Isn't it wonderful how we are all so much more enlightened than our god fearing, religiously indoctrinated forebears.
Oh you really shouldn't kick straight in with the sarcasm, it show's you don't have a grasp of a whole range of issue's. Which will put a lot of people off.
if we must respect these attention seeking people for their active non-belief,
The idea is to promote discussion on our beliefs as Russell pointed out in the original blog. Which is perhaps now more than ever a matter of urgency. If you think it's just attention seeking for the sake of it, please abstain from taking part in the conversation.
Otherwise we are just being bigoted.
Well you seem to have prejudiced view of those of non belief. So perhaps you should examine your own beliefs.
Banks just seem to be looking to screw over the islands.
Is this just your opinion, or do you have information that's backs this up.
I would suggest that people who have relatives in New Zealand, possibly working, are probably going to be the ones better off back in the islands, and best able to cope with a disaster.
And two, there's a heap of people on the islands who don't have family in New Zealand. Are we ignoring them?
Well how about a scheme to help fly those who want to and are able to help in times of emergency back to do just that.
For those who dont have family in NZ? From my visits to the islands in just about every village, there were friends or family overseas working somewhere. But for those who dont the services "on the ground" are there to help these people.
To "Identify the most need, and give the most support."
Geez, you guys, can you stop splitting hairs.
I thought in the game of politics hair splitting was the best bit.
These people on the other hand are turning themselves into the thing they are trying to argue against.
My other main point is that our Pacific community is all around us and we tend to overlook its reach into the Pacific Islands. Obviously money already flows back in the form of remittances; my point is that we need to look more closely at how NZ might be able to work with organisations, such as churches, women’s groups, educational institutions
You made your second point redundant with your first, if I may be so bold, Mr Shearer.
You know money "flows" to the islands in the form of "remittances". Why then isnt it possible to make money available to relatives here to send via remittances directly to the people. Im sure banks would
co-operate. Any organisation will take a cut, even churches, its a matter of finding the best option.
Note to the defenders of Mr Shearer Apart from the swiss cheese crack all my criticisms have been on the content of his post.
In person I'm sure he's a lovely man and well qualified, that is not in question.
I don't discuss religion at dinner parties is that it almost invariable ends up in the intense desire to stab some condescending arse in the eye with a cheese knife.
Did you say fish fork before?
I thought condescending conversation would have been fitting at dinner parties that provide a fish fork.
I suppose its makes a point of difference from an idiot who thinks he's a savant. Who last time it was mentioned (atheist bus campaign) came out with the gem, if I may paraphrase:
Cant be arsed, I'll just wait for the god botherers to drop dead, cause they are all geriatric's anyway.