Posts by chris mcnair
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It is conceivable that some people will think John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate because she is a woman. I know you find this shocking, but I swear I have heard it mentioned.
-
Call me low-brow but I think it is the pregnancy issue that will sink her. Having made a meal of John Edwards 'love child' surely fair and balanced FOX News will dig out the truth on this one too?
Hahaha... Oh that is a good one!
-
The resemblance is uncanny
-
My favourite pic of Palin so farso far
-
Well it seems obvious she hasn't even been vetted properly.
Huff Post article
McCain only talked to her once prior to selection... wow.
And then there is the hypocrisy of McCain attacking Obama on his lack of experience despite putting someone who was 18 months ago mayor of a town of 6500 people one geriatrics heart attack away from the presidency.
And now God is mad with the GOP and showing it with Gustav... -
Michelle Obama is incredibly eloquent and empowering. She really does give Barry a run for his money.
Unfortunately, I can see the right wing smears coming. I just hope that things don't devolve too much as the race heats up. -
I just have a hard time attributing any of these rumours to one 'side' or another.
Most of what has been said, and then repeated in the media is no more than speculation and assumption.
I think that by saying something comes from the 'Dunne-Powell side' we are inferring that she somehow has involvement and therefore are as at fault as any of the media organisations.
There is no public good in this, just dubious public interest and that can be attributed to the general ambulance chasing nature of so many of us. -
You would think that a blanket suppression order would be the only way to enforce this, but I take the 'experiment' point. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
-
One thing that can safely be said is that he's not doing it out of ignorance.
David Harvey is the author of a textbook on NZ cyberlaw, and he probably knows more about the internet on a technical level than any other judge in the country.
Readers may also recall him as the judge who made the suppression order in the notorious case of Peter Lewis, the pot-smoking billionaire.
Point taken, however, he could hardly think that there is any real restriction he could put in place that will prevent someone from "Googling someone's name and being able to access it later"... Will not the 'Digital replica' of the Herald be accessible online? Or does that get censored?
In addition, what is to stop someone from going to the local library and looking up the Herald article containing the names?
Is the assumption that web content is more easily accessible and therefore in need of more stringent restriction? I am a little confused as to the desired outcome here... -
That is about the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time.
Time to take an IT refresher course me thinks your honor.