Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ah! The Future Cheaters -- one of Tim Flannery's lesser-known works.
-
Lower Hutt, and Wanganui, across roughly the same time period: wagging! (I was aware of the term "bunking", but only from British books; we never actually used it.)
Emma -- Laurie & Winifred Bauer's schoolyard vocabulary survey reached a similar conclusion about Christchurch & Wellington (both are within their "Central" dialect area).
-
Neither do I, but when there are people who don't know whether they're going to have jobs in a year
Oh come on Craig, what part of National's so-urgent legislation makes it any more likely that people will have jobs in a year?
-
small holes in the middle of nowhere (Waiouru, Linton, Birmingham)
It's a simple mistake anyone could make, really:
I/S, Birmingham's a big hole. -
(And you know something's very wrong with the world when Coddington's making valid points.)
-
Ah, something the jets could be used for!
-
I have a greater than average number of legs
And by the same token, most of us reading have a greater than average number of eyes ...
I bet you're a very popular fella.
... and the readership as a whole has a greater average number of male sexual organs than the general population.
-
Are you implying that I'm constantly drunk
-->All over the world, people are drinking Jack Danielles.
-
losing a race by a thousandth of a second is still a loss.
Nah, it's a statistical dead heat, 'cos the timekeeping for most races isn't that accurate.
I basically agree with tussock that recounts should be automatic if
(i) there is reason not to trust the result (and if we accept that there is some possibility of error, and the margin is smaller than the possible error, then that is sufficient reason),
but for voters, especially in NZ where we tend to value function over form, there is another potentially important condition:
(ii) a difference in result would have some practical effect.
...And it's there that I think there might be a voter backlash in this case, as (obviously) Labour still loses, and the party balance of parliament is not materially changed, regardless of the result. -
Besides which, it's just too depressingly easy to turn Mad's own words against her.
The combined use of such dogwhistle phrases as
hysteria [...] sacred cow of gay rights [...] ridiculous smear campaign
is, of course
simply evidence of [...] not being able to reason
Note: to successfully present an argument, you really should present the bloody argument, rather than assuming (and mindbogglingly worse, stating) from the outset that your intended audience is too stupid to follow it.
(Though Californians, at least, might be reassured to know that gay rights are a sacred cow.)