Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Home, straight

117 Responses

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

  • Danielle,

    And you all wonder how it came to pass we got a government built on resentment of being patronised.

    It's quite difficult to type with my eyes rolling this much.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Tom: Oh, nuts. I can "cope" with other, and fundamentally disagreeable, points of view -- otherwise I'd have flounced out of PAS about five minutes after it went live. :)

    You're cope-tastic! Er, no ... Cope-ious?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    It's quite difficult to type with my eyes rolling this much.

    You're on the drugs already?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Cope-able?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    You're on the drugs already?

    Heh. I forgot which thread this was. Way to bring it back around, Russell!

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Savidge,

    Cope-acetic?

    Somewhere near Wellington… • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    You're cope-tastic! Er, no ... Cope-ious?

    A sucker for punishment. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Large bushy shrubs growing up and around the wires have also been suggested - a whole bunch of small branches would act as 'springs' to absorb any impact. Advantageous from a green perspective, but would require a wider central strip, and would make maintenance difficult.

    Or even dual carriageway, like most highways in rural Australia. The biggest danger with such lovely designs is that the feeling of safety leads people to fall asleep at the wheel, sober or not. Also, smashing into a eucalyptus or flying off into a billabong are both quite fatal.

    I tend to agree that it's easier to fix the roads than it is to fix human foolishness.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    You're cope-tastic! Er, no ... Cope-ious?

    I can't cope with puns. When it comes to puns, I'm copeless.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    I can't cope with puns. When it comes to puns, I'm copeless.

    Then welcome to the Coper Cabana, Steve.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Sorry, no time to read to go back and read everything. Can I just point out that the title of Russell's other thread "Home, Straight" would have been perfect for the Edwards rant?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • davesparks,

    Thanks for the choons, perfect Friday arvo music. Just saying.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Can I just point out that the title of Russell's other thread

    This thread. Duh. I'm obviously the misguided product of an unbroken home.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    It's Friday, so I can post what I like, right?

    Have a look at this latest trailer for a low profile, small budget indie film that, word on the street is, might be the sleeper hit of 2009.

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/teasermedium.html

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    The concerning thing most immediately obvious is if you used cannabis a few days back - it will presumably still be in your blood stream, but clearly not affecting your driving at the relevant time - (although for some reason you did fail the 'roadside impairment test) you go down.

    The police still have to prove impairment.

    I think.

    To be honest, it's not all that clear.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3205 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    thanks for the BIGGIE link, Russell - I like a good head nodder.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    They're probably suggesting that you shouldn't try crossing the road while high ;)

    I bet he died happy, but seriously why didn't he just tell his partner he had just taken a giant toke and couldn't drive right now.Communication, the answer to all problems .

    and Brian Edwards is way off the mark fretting about gender balance.

    Kids need devotion and love from an adult who has

    1) an understanding of the extensive and vunerable wiring that is taking place in the heads of our kids.

    2) and wants to support that childs growth and maturity unconditionally.

    That's the focus for me. A new generation of balanced adults.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Graham,

    Have a look at this latest trailer for a low profile, small budget indie film that, word on the street is, might be the sleeper hit of 2009.

    Those blue things are clearly all on drugs.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 118 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    I can see exactly where Brian Edward's is coming from. His position is a personal one based on his life experience and as such it is one he has a perfect right to hold.

    I agree he has a “perfect right to hold” his view. I don’t see how it matters much that that view is based on “life experience”. Many people hold various views based to some degree or another on life experience. Not all those views are good views.

    Whether or not it is useful to extrapolate from his particular to the wider general debate on gay adoption is another question entirely.

    No, it is not another question entirely; it is the very question he raised. He wasn’t saying he wouldn’t oppose a law change, but he nevertheless had personal reservations. He was saying he actually opposed a law change.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    Those blue things are clearly all on drugs.

    Yes folks, I linked to the new Smurfs movie trailer!!

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Isabel Hitchings,

    If Brian Edwards has gone for 70 years without any male role-models he can't have been looking very hard.

    Christchurch • Since Jul 2007 • 719 posts Report Reply

  • 81stcolumn,

    I can only wonder at what he chose to imitate instead.

    Suggestions ?

    Nawthshaw • Since Nov 2006 • 790 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I'm still wondering what part of "non-binding Larry Baldock doesn't understand?

    Both the Prime Minister and Opposition leader have previously said the law is working and the referendum result will not encourage them to change it.

    [... Baldock] says the Prime Minister's comments are "pretty offensive" to 87% of New Zealanders who voted no and want the anti-smacking law changed.

    "We elected our House of Representatives to represent us and our views. I'm hoping the Prime Minister will reconsider," Baldock told TVNZ News at 8.

    Personally, I'm pretty offended by such a concentrated burst of innumeracy, functional illiteracy and plain making shit up. Different strokes for different folks...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Lewis-Evans,

    The police still have to prove impairment.

    I think.

    To be honest, it's not all that clear.

    Hi all, I was employed by the MoT as a scientist during some of the time this drug driving legislation was being worked out (I have moved on since then). I did the reading the of research papers, etc, etc.

    Anyway, unless something has changed the police will have to prove impairment yeah. So should will go something like

    - Cop pulls you over, suspects you are driving under the influence of drugs (mostly likely after giving you an alcohol test which you pass)

    - You then have to exit the vehicle and do a road side impairment test, this is kind of like what some US states still use for Alcohol. This means that according to the research it is quite conservative, in that it will more often give a false negative (fail to detect impairment by drugs) and a false positive.

    - Assuming you have failed this, you are now considered impaired and will be required to give a blood test. I think also you might be stopped from driving for a bit - 24 hours maybe, like with current fails of alcohol - because well you are impaired.

    - The blood test will then be sent away to be analysed and if drugs are found you will be prosecuted, if not, then nothing happens.

    At least that is the outline of what would go down, if my memory serves me. Pretty reasonable really, all things considered.

    Russell is right though about the ads, I remember discussing it with the advertising folks, a tricky issue for sure in terms of how to say its illegal to take drugs and drive (if you are impaired) when technically speaking the person you are giving the message to has already broken the law by taking the drugs. Fun stuff.

    Oh, and yeah the research for the effectivenss of lowering BAC is pretty clear. Plus come on, with our current BAC an average male can drink something like 4 or 5 standard drinks in an hour and still be allowed to drive... yikes (note - its about 2 standard drinks in a hour if the limit was lowered to 0.05)

    The Netherlands • Since Aug 2009 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    I'm sort of a po-faced proponent of the "If you've had a drink, don't drive at all" lobby, and I guess that extends to drugs too.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

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

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.