Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
he’s shown that he’s got no idea of what women might find offensive, or why.
That depends more on the time of day rather than time of the month in my experience.
Oops...
</coat> -
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Paul Campbell,
did Jones just dismiss Curran’s tweet on the grounds that “it must be that time of the month”?
I don't think so, what he said was "Either the moon in Dunedin was in the wrong phase or she's casting around for a new job," , a thinly veiled suggestion that, in his opinion, Curran was being a loony and may prefer to belong somewhere else. This could actually counter the Nats insistence that all on the left are loonies, in their inimitable forth form stylings.
You of all people Paul, a man so skilled in programming and hardware should know that "If/Then" statements are reliant on absolutes as opposed to biased guesswork.So, in light of that could I be so bold as to suggest a Internet/Computer Column where we could swap knowledge about things we know about as a welcome break from gossip and innuendo on topics that are purely subjective?
Please. o-)
note Leela Turanga smiley. -
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to Hebe,
As long-time friends and former contract strategists for Garry Moore we don’t see and – have never seen since his first mayoral bid in 1998 – the nespotism and bent dealings you allege.
Is it too early to nominate Word Of The Year?
I would like to nominate "Nespotism",
It has a wonderful symmetry
Nepotism/ Despotism
Subtle difference between getting a contract from an Uncle as opposed to "Long Term Friends" -
Steve, trolling like this isn’t funny and it isn’t clever. Please stop.,
Not “Trolling” Not intending to be funny. Not trying to be clever.
Not sure what’s going on here, but I’m sure it’s not called for.
I’d have to agree with Lilith Steve. This is not helping.
If you are not sure then why take “sides”?
Dude, I’m not trying to make you laugh. I’m trying to shut you up.
With all due respect, what gives you the right to “Shut me up”? I was merely illustrating the implausibility of your suggestion, albeit in an absurd construction and the ad hominem attack was, in my obviously unwanted opinion, unwarranted
Sigh.
And this was a fun thought experiment.
And it still can be.
I thought David’s Grandfathers idea was quite well thought out and very interesting but it was a head meet desk moment as soon as (insert some interest group here) started saying they should have a jury too because…
That takes away from the whole premise of the suggestion and back into bickering about how life is so bad for X group and they are more important than the majority.
Then there are the personal attacks. uncalled for, unhelpful and downright hurtful.Just because you misunderstand doesn’t make me the enemy.
-
Hard News: In the red zone, in reply to Lilith __,
As jokes go, this one is really not funny. I wish you’d show some respect for the rest of us here.
I was not joking and I fail to see where you get the idea that I have little or no respect for "the rest of us" as you put it.
What you consider as some lame joke at the expense of others was nothing more than reductio ad absurdum following Tristan's earlier post regarding the filmic qualities of the Christchurch landscape. I was not joking when I suggested a reality show, more people watch "Reality TV" than Parliament or even the News, it would be a great way of letting the people of New Zealand know what is going on in Christchurch and have them cheering for the underdog rather than the couple who made a nice bathroom overnight or whatever, however absurd it may seem.
If Ian took offence to my imagining what Gerry Brownlee might say in such a scenario then I would expect him to be the one to complain, not some self appointed expert on humour who fails to see that attacking the messenger is not in the slightest bit helpful at best and hurtful at worst.
If you don't understand what my meaning is you could ask instead of jumping to ill informed conclusions and posting nasty little accusations. -
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Danielle,
Perhaps you could go on some sort of course for that?
But not the one you went to though... eh.
-
Hard News: In the red zone, in reply to Tristan,
wow an urban photographers dream and if it could be made safe a wonderful movie set!
Or the background for a TV series "Life in the Red Zone" or "Big Brother - Christchurch Red Zone" (what a neat way of getting all those stories out in the open without letting Campbell get all the kudos)
It even has a "Sci Fi" feel to the name and just think of the local tumble-weed industry and we already have the Martin Jetpack for those scenes where Big Brother Gerry chases out the "Undesirable/non-Developer" types back into their bunkers and shells them indiscriminately whilst blaming it all on "Nine years of misrule by Labour and the Greens"
And then we hear him cry "Oh Noes, its Lianne the Red and her hideously deformed cousin Ian' as he retreats to the pleasure complex in the central no flies on me zone. -
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to Danielle,
I could not disagree more thoroughly with your post. In fact, I would like to encourage your post to bite me.
Well be careful because it has sharp little teeth and may be “Infekshuss” as JK would say.
Also there is clear supporting evidencec that hormones play an important part in behaviour modification.
Also…And, um, can I just point out that “somebody think of the children” clauses think of the CHILDREN, rather than their parents, who being adults are also worthy of some form of representation.
The somebodies that should be thinking of the children in the first instance would be the Mothers, as Nature intended. As for being adults, have you heard how Mothers of young children talk? its all Like goo goo gah gah diddums and “Who’s mommies big girl” an stuff. Can you imagine the chaos? “Its a bad bill but it is so young and cute, who could resist it?”
As for representation should I propose several more upper houses? 1-5 year olds, 6-10 year olds all the way up to Octogenarian + and not restrict the numbers as some would be under represented, like bank robbers and sheep abusers so the only answer is an upper house of 4.1 ish million people minus the number of MPs, who would then claim to be under represented.:-D (for those that are so surrounded by silliness that they can’t tell the difference, like National MPs)
-
OnPoint: BTW, the NZ Police can use…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
. it’s going to be a very sparse matrix
That's Stoatally amazing, was it weasely implimented?.
(he asked, on his Lenovo) -
Southerly: A Blog on Behalf of an…, in reply to linger,
Only if you think that concern trolling = representation.
AS does this current bunch of fiscal felons. "We need constant surveillance of the populace because... al-Qaeda... terrorists.... blah... mums and dads... business confidence ...bl;ah blah blah. revenue stream ... loony Left ... blah...