Posts by Span .
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Who's called her a "brainless bimbo" - I haven't seen that around the traps.
I think we do need to be careful about not going over the top with the attacks though (and turning this fine site into a lefter version of Kiwiblog, shudder). The focus on her poor research is the key thing here, as well as questioning her motivations, methinks.
-
I am pretty over this whole thing too, I share Idiot/Savant's lack of care for the most part (although of course I managed to muster up enough feeling to blog about it).
It just goes to show the paucity of other news though. How many column inches has the Herald wasted now on its lists of Yes and No voters? I guess it's a lot cheaper to run than employing journalists to investigate and report on stories.
As for McCully's criticism of Mr Dobbyn's lyric about empire - I thought even the British recognised they don't have an empire anymore?
-
I'm not sure that Mr Cracker would appreciate us all referring to Ms Coddington as DC...
-
From Milton Friedman's death to gay kitty porn in just seven easy steps.
Gotta love that interwab.
Now hopefully jared (or jarrod, or whatever you are calling yourself these days, you false accuser you) stumbles across this thread, clicks on the link Deborah has so helpfully provided, and goes blind as a result. That'll learn him for accusing me of kitty porn!
-
Good call Robyn - I most recently suffered the label of PC for refusing to remain in the same room as someone who had just said "But I tell you who I really hate, and that's those Maoris".
I quite liked what Marcus Lush said about PC on a Radio Live TV ad that was up a while back - basically equating a lot of what is labelled unnecessarily PC as simply good manners, eg inclusive language.
But back on point - did anyone hear Coddington's defence this arvo? Sadly I missed it and the Nat Rad site is not up to it yet in the audio archive.
-
I echo James - are standards slipping or are we all just more onto it now (and pretentious about it)? I'm thinking about the number of Herald articles I see that have mistakes in them.
In particular an article in their The Business supplement a few months back when it was newly hatched which had a completely, totally, utterly incorrect definition of constructive dismissal, but was purporting to give bosses advice on how to sack without getting in trouble. There seemed to be no correction of this in future issues, except for a few letters to the editor (printed in the same section, not the main section) saying the original article was wrong. But no stepping up to the plate and saying, oops, our bad.
But then I can't even watch the telly news anymore because I end up yelling at the senseless screen about various inaccuracies, gloss-overs and vital questions left unasked.
Hmmm, maybe I need a holiday.
-
Any luck yet Simon?
Are they at least going to not charge you for the phone line that you can't use? -
So I'm kind of getting the impression here that this standard of journalism (Coddington's of course, not Keith's), applied to a specific individual or a specific organisation, would be seeing a rather large antidote in the next N&S to overcome this month's bane? Plus a compensatory payout of some description.
I could almost understand if Coddington were still an MP. She'd be looking for some column inches to push her profile up, and she wouldn't really have that much time for proper research etc. But that's no longer the case.
It would be very interesting indeed to know who wrote the comment on the cover. Perhaps the same person who put that notorious tag about Grammar on the front of Metro a few months back?
Good work Keith.
-
Yes nice animation.
SPOILERS!
But bit of a downer. I always want to know what happens afterwards. The thud didn't allow me to imagine a happy ending
:-( -
Many moons ago I had a very obscene phone message left on my Telecom voicemail (by someone who obviously knew me). I rang and reported it, to Telecom, as you do. However they were unable to trace it because at some point in the reporting process someone (not me) deleted it from the system. I really really really wanted to assume this was conspiracy, not cock-up as it usually is, but I suspect it was incompetence (pretty bloody fundamental incompetence, but anyway).
However Simon your case smells much more than mine. I just do not find it credible that Telecom could not be able to trace this number, after several days now. As someone else has pointed out - how do they bill us for all our calls if they can't work out which number we're calling from?
This is just absurd. Are Telecom even giving you any reason why they can't work it out?
Alternatively could you suggest that they give your phone free caller ID capacity for a while, give you a caller ID capable phone for free, and hopefully at some point your mystery caller would slip up and forget to put in whatever that magic code is?