Posts by Rachel Prosser
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The guy has seemingly worked on every party's election campaign at some point then had a 'falling out'
I don't know Mr Ansell myself, can't comment on him (other than the discussion on Poneke seems extraordinary vitriolic).
However, in the psychology books, "Families and How to Survive them" and "Life and How to Survive It" written by John Cleese and Robin Skinner, there's something explaining why people at the political extremes are prone to projecting their fears on others, and to splintering into ever greater fragments, each one purer in ideology than the last.
One question: can someone explain to me what exactly Judith Tizard ddi or didn't do that causes so many people to deride her so much?
Is she just a convenient target? Or did someone (e.g. John Banks) mount a sustained campaign against her reputation? There's shades of the Hilary hating there, and I can't quite work out what she did to deserve to be painted as less competent than George W Bush.
-
Also, Scotland, WTF? When the opposition's kicker is lining up you do not sit quietly and respectfully while he tries to slot it. You do everything in your power (as the 16th man) to disrupt him. And usually that means some kinds of shouting or general disturbance. Poor showing Scottish crowd, remember, they play to win the game, you shout to win the game.Hadyn for shame!
Hadyn for shame!
Get thee to the Tui stand, there to booze with the drunken hoons who put everyone else off going to the rugby.
I hold to the noble ideals, inculcated in the Brownies, that winning isn't everything, that ends don't justify means, and that a win through dirty tricks is not worth it. Also, you respect your opponent.
-
That was Winston's shining moment of this election
I watched Winston and thought of Pym's observation of Charles II:
"Nothing in his [political] life, it may with perfect truth be said, became him like the leaving it"
-
Wellington's lovely, ...They play, well, it's exciting rugby isn't it. Lately with a new ruthlessness, and viciousness on defence. Mostly... you make your mind up young and stick with the team I reckons.
I agree, Wellington is lovely, but the brand of Wellington rugby is not (caveat - I haven't watched much this season).
I love Wellington, lived there 6 years as an adult, and 6 as a child. I was a Wellington supporter when I was 11 and grieved when Wellington lost the shield to Canterbury. It took at least 10 years of having a home base in Ash-Vegas to come round to supporting Canterbury via the Crusaders. It took longer to forgive Wayne Smith for scoring the winning try.
I find it hard to support Wellington now. If I wanted to see "ruthlessness and viciousness on defence" then I'd go to a boxing match. Or league (which I find reeeeally boring).
I dread the Wellington-Canterbury games, they become so "physical" that the game is much less enjoyable to watch, unless brutality is your thing. Canterbury is engaging to watch because of all the lovely back play. The kick-passes, from Brett or Slade out to the wing where Paul Williams or Isaac Ross awaits to score are a joy to behold (and you don't really see them on telly so well -it's only at the ground itself do you enjoy the full view of a backline's positional play.)
BTW: in a season of going to Canterbury and Crusaders matches - I really haven't seen evidence of a feral crowd. Honestly, I think it gets blown waaaay out of proportion, and it's probably a few drunks in the Tui stand, full of sponsor's product, who feed the stereotype. What you look for you'll find. At the moment hardly anyone goes anyway! The main stand is dominated by baby-boomers in members' scarves (they're who can afford a season ticket). And adults with kids on the "take a kid to footy packs" which are $23 for an adult and child. Tickets are far far too expensive - if they charged the average receipt of around $9 per seat (given most of them are empty) they'd have more fans and a full stadium and more chip, pie and falafel takings.
-
I coped with turning 30 by being in Thailand on the beginnings of my OE 9 months before.
The astrologers in a temple looked at my chart, and said "oh, you are 30" So having been told I was already 30 meant that I'd somehow passed the mark with a minimum of angst.
The actual day was spent with friends in a rented cottage in Norfolk, walking along the seafront, buying dressed Cromer crab, and eating High Tea of Crab, Asparagus and lobster soup, and cucumber sandwiches on a folding tea tray. I'd been in the UK for about 6 months, and we all enjoyed a frightfully English experience.
-
If you have a listen to the Dropkicks commentary (and I recommend you do!) you here us bitch about New World's decision to paint the court red and white, give red and white inflatable bangy things to the crowd and generally fill the stadium with the colours of the opposing team!
Hmmm. This means that those who don't attend games feel more positive towards sponsors than those who do. Sponsors, there be a lesson in this to you!
That's because the rules of the game are to stop whenever you get the friggin ball and only run around in a little area of the court. Shesh, no wonder they have the energy left over for more games.
Hey Don, you try stopping at speed (and see how much energy it takes to absorb the pressure). Quickly you will find why netball knee injuries abound here and in Oz.
I'd love to see a pedometer (or the satellite equivalent) on Laura Langman vs Doug Howlett or Richie McCaw.
-
When did women start reading the sports section in large numbers? ;)
About 1981. Or that's when I did anyway. I cut out the All Whites paper thing and had their photos on the inside of my wardrobe door. (Do I get points off for soccer, aka "football" as it now officially is?)
Although I agree with Hadyn, and played netball for, like, 12 or 13 years, to be frank, I'd still be more likely to read the coverage of the team-who-must-not-be-named first. And watch it too.
But that's because I'd rather play netball than watch it, and much much much rather watch rugby than play it. I do care about netball, support the players, can name 90% of the team and even feel mildly positive towards the sponsors (aren't you nice people Milo, National Bank and New World!), even if I don't watch the games. Whereas the rugby sponsors by their ubiquity and diversity become mildly to moderately irritating. (I'm talking about you, you rotating billboard things which distract from the games. But not you Weetbix, your general wheaty goodness for growing kids makes you OK)
-
I don't recall English Scholarship (46 was the score.. and I think Bleak House featured)
But I do recall the mock-School Cert English exam when I answered the movie question referencing the Goonies*. We had watched some show about young guys cycling (don't remember what it was called, but it definitely wasn't dark).
My teacher's exasperated written comment "Do a film we have studied!"
My response, then as now "Why?"
Surely the point of learning English is so that we can apply it to other texts, beyond those set. How do the examiners know that students have studied them in class, rather than taking their learning to the wider world?
*That said, to this day I have not seen Goonies, and answered the question based on the incomplete set of bubblegum cards my sister had been given by someone.
-
As a lover of Coldplay in times past (Parachutes and X and Y were the soundtrack to my life in London, and they even filmed the speed of sound video near one of my favourite spots), I think you've got United Future way wrong there.
Surely there's some Christian country rock band that some people are devoted to but most don't care about that would fit the bill?
That said, I haven't bought the latest album - yet! Have been meaning to, but mostly prefer silence to music (when I can get it).
I also prefer leaving my hearing unmolested by earphones and my Ipod at home, so just don't buy much these days. -
Canterbury lost to Manuwatu
But then they did win every other game. Albeit winning ugly, not getting bonus points and not being as good as Wellington who deservedly finished higher on the table.
Two points about the Manawatu Canterbury match:
It was close (as was Colin Slade's final kick - the Hadlee stand thought it went over, as did Colin Slade).
And Auckland may have lost 16 players, but the team for Manawatu was, more or less, Canterbury B - average age about 22, off the top of my head they were missing McDonald, Maitland, Laulala, Mauger, Carter, Brett, Ellis, Leo'o, Thorne, McCaw, Ross, Michael Paterson, Corey Flynn and Greg Somerville due to exits or injury.
It was a fun game though, and nice to see Manawatu win - disappointing they didn't kick on. The crowd was pretty cheeful (Canterbury had at least 4 Manawatu players itself).
Btw - the reason that the "within 7" is a bonus point is that you get 7 points for a converted try.