Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I dont beleive at all that it was a put up job or that political influence was exerted or any of that crap.
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that it was. That doesn't mean that it's not innappropiiate and shouldn't be pulled.
-
Labour voted for it too
Spineless pricks.
I just feel like a lot, perhaps most of middle NZ has bought into this crap, and we need someone who will shake them out of it.
Unfortunately, this can only happen in an informed society, which we no longer have. (And don't call me condescending; I barely have a clue what's going on anymore, myself.)
-
How exactly? Serious question.
In this case, I doubt it.
-
Ding, Ding, Ding!
A thousand comments! (more like three or four thousand but whatever.) Now, where's my PAS platinum card?
-
If you're going to use a pun it's much better if it's a current pun.
Mmmm. Lightly toasted, with a dollop of butter. Delicious!
-
What context did I miss? I know it seems to be a rather reactionary notion nowadays, but I'd really appreciate it if the likes of Messers Garner STFU with the editorialising nudges about what the plebs should think and feel and leave us with some sober fact-based reportage so I can do it for myself.
I agree with you. Perhaps I was unclear. The phrase "which really are deserving of offence" implied offence taken by the viewer, not the reporter.
-
One thing: who decided that it was museum staff who required the apology?
I can just imagine the back-room dealing; "Well... they've got to apologise to someone."
-
Nope. I'd rather our news organisations stick to clear, factual reporting, and leave me to do my own editorialising.
And the award for taking half a sentence out of context goes to...
-
So, I'm defending Nick Smith and Craig's bagging him. What next? People wearing shoes on their heads? Hamburgers eating people?
-
I really don't get this one. "Standing up and calling bullshit" is pretty much what Finlay MacDonald is doing. Not on people who may be offended, but on the TV "news"-media who exploit it.
The 6 O'clock newses will happily give something like the ACC or Education changes - which really are deserving of offence - the once-over-lightly, cherry-picking the most sensational aspect to the exclusion of all else, obviously, but hang on the Grammar nazis for days on end. Their tired and simplistic kneejerk attitude - "Nazis: Bad! That's something we can all agree on!" - deserves a bit of condemnation.
McDonald's gratitude that "Facebook and phone cameras weren't around when I was an unevolved collection of pimples and hormones in a Grammar uniform" is not him pining for an imagined past of free speech, but an acknowledgement that all of us who were once teenage boys have said and done things at that age that are equally reprehensible, making this story much less remarkable than some would like to believe.
Likewise, as much as Nick Smith disgusts me on so many levels, the gleeful savaging of him, by certain media, over his recent ill-advised comment really matched him for thoughtlessness. As someone whose life has been touched by both terminal illness and suicide, I feel qualified to consider that those who took more than slight offence at Smith over this are just being obtuse. Sure, what he said was blunt and coarse, but he had a point to make and in good faith did the best he could at the time. To consider that he was actually advocating suicide for terminally ill people is, I'm sorry, just stupid. God forbid Duncan Garner should actually examine the validity of the argument Smith was making!
I, like FM, say save the outrage for times that really warrant it. When the Government is making major changes to pubilc policy and "local" banks are stealing billions from our economy, it's an indictment that Idiot/Savant (presumably a single person) can be counted on to have more info on many of the most important stories than either of the country's multi-million-dollar news-rooms, who seem overly occupied with turning "the news" into a game show ("What's my social transgression?")
Okay, that's enough. Bring on the corrections and clarifications. :)
PS.
Finlay should have ignored the Australian and English examles; they do a lot more for his wordcount than his argument. Not particularly smart, those remarks, but hardly dumber than the average Paul Holmes column.