Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the reasons Aussies are exempt is more practical than anything…. They live amongst us with no papers, no residency permits/visas, and no real way to tell they are not kiwis unless you demand everyone produce a passport to purchase property (including kiwi's who dont have one?) and if they came here before 1982(?) may not even have one of those themselves?
-
Hard News: Kitchen Hacks, in reply to Amy Gale,
When are Cicer arietinum chic
They may or may-not be bourgeois at various times or situations, but they are always chic....
Apparently humans have been cultivating them for at least 7500 years!
-
Here’s a tip I learned at an evening middle-eastern cooking class at a local high school..
If you want to make your own hummus….
Traditional recipes call for chic peas, which need to be soaked for at least six hours, if not days, and to do it properly, you need to change the water a few times. (it gets manky from stuff soaking out of the peas).
Use (dried) yellow split peas instead. You can soak them for only half an hour, and they make a finer, less grainy paste in the blender, and taste just the same.
Unfortunately, it only works for hummus… they don’t work for making your own felafel, which does require chic peas.
-
OnPoint: Government Portfolios for Dummies, in reply to The Ruminator,
If people are sending out secrets with twink then they deserve to be revealed.
The secrets, or the people? :D
-
Does he actually have the powers he exercised?
He got the results he was looking for, so most evidently, he does...
It's the same line of logic that claims the new laws don't give GCSB new powers... it just "clarifies" what they are already doing.
If you do something thats currently illegal, and get away with it... does a law-change making it legal give you "new abilities"?
Apparently not according to our esteemed PM...
Next, raising the speed limit to 120 km/h doesnt change what you can do because every car sold for the last 40 years could already do that and more?
-
I have absolutely no reason to believe that watching nearly any televised sport you can dream of at www.sportslemon.com frequently in a multitude of languages could possibly be illegal… I mean you’re “paying” for it by ignoring all the sports-betting pop-ups, right?
Note: that website has lots of pop-up annoyances and messages to download stuff (frequently advising you don’t have the right playback codec) that may not be entirely healthy for your computer…. handle with extreme care.
I use it for Formula 1.
-
Up Front: An Open Letter to the Labour…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
If the Greens are running anyone, and have any sense, they’ll stand Mathers.
You know, I'm not in ch-ch, and who stands and who gets elected doesnt affect me much at all...
But I really dont like the practise of any party standing people who are already in parliament on their list, as candidates in a by-election.... because if/when they win... the person 'elected' doesnt get to enter parliament... someone else from the party list does.
If you want person X to get into parliament by winning that seat, then stand them in that seat.... and if they are relatively unknown... have all your "names" out there supporting them on the hustings.
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Euan Mason,
“Entirely professional” doesn’t even allow for some flirting.
Are you sure? If I and a prostitute have an "entirely professional" relationship... I expect some sweet-talking or flattery could well be exchanged in either direction, no? Just because it's not required doesn't mean it's ruled out entirely.
-
Aw man... just when you thought things were finally coming right for equality and ending of bigotry... turns out te haterz were right!
-
Up Front: It's Complicated, in reply to Emma Hart,
Also, I was under the impression that when you would have been 14, there was no “age of consent” for boys for heterosexual sex.
This is true. However, almost nobody knew this, so it wouldn’t have affected many people’s decision-making.
Really? When I was at high school (mid 80’s) it was common knowledge… the “16 year old” age applied to girls but not boys. Social Studies teachers confirmed it when questioned… I may also have read it in “The Little Red School Book” supplied by same teachers?
A lot of good it did me… didnt lose my virginity until well past 20…
Or maybe this is just further proof of "the nerds who understand the rules dont get to test them?"