Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Not to over complicate the issue. All things considered as of right now.
What if we’d had the “do you want to change?” referendum already and decided on change, and then the panel had presented these same four alternatives to choose from?
I don’t see anyone proposing we also include the cost of building a time machine.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I’ve been trying to coherently explain this issue to my wife;
John Key will include Red Peak in the first referendum if all the parties agree, sorry, if all the parties except New Zealand First agree…[…] and John Key is saying that if Red Peak doesn’t get on the ballot paper, the sole person responsible is Andrew Little…
I’m not having much luck in either language.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to simon g,
With these kinds of numbers I don't think it's unreasonable that Little is prepared to lose a battle to win the war.
-
Hard News: A cog in the Mediaworks machine, in reply to Russell Brown,
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Ross Mason,
Opportune timing for that faux faux pas is on the same day as you’ve made headlines for telling a group of students that those suffering from mental illness should “harden up”. Nestled somewhere amongst all that hilarity.
READ MORE: ‘Harden up’ comment stuns students
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Deborah,
He’s forced the PM into engagement on it, and the news headlines this evening were all about the PM equivocating.
Labour is looking fairly well positioned on this:
Labour leader Andrew Little said on Monday the caucus would support Red Peak being included, either as a replacement or an extra option, as long as there was a yes/no vote in the first referendum.
But he said Key was just playing politics with the suggestion that Red Peak could be included, only if Labour played ball.
As someone who is as guilty as sin of being overly critical of Labour and its membership/ policies in the past it took me a while to realise (with a helpful nudge from Sophie and Steve) just how unhelpful this is in the bigger picture, so I’ve been attempting to rein that in.
Until quite recently I’ve been hot and cold on Andrew Little. When he was playing up the beer drinking side of his character I found it a tad hollow. I felt perhaps that that he was trying too hard and that he needn’t, perhaps that’s just my bias.
One of the things I do admire about him is that despite the widespread concerns previously aired regarding his union affiliations/ obligations, he strikes me as his own going concern, not a manufactured puppet by any stretch. I do feel that the more he is allowed to project this natural confidence and individuality through the medial portal, the more realisable a 2017 Labour win will become. I’ve been liking what I’ve been hearing in his recent speeches.
Thank you kindly for your understanding Deborah.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to ,
I assume it is the Oxford comma (that Deborah just mentioned) that you’re querying, for future reference the general rule as I understand it is:
in a series of three or more terms
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Sacha,
Cumulatively, fairly difficult.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to ,
random question: is it ok to use the coma before the and? Anyone?
As a linguist it depends on your predilection for either oral style usage in which people tend to put comma anywhere they’d pause when speaking (this is not a standard but on the net people seem happy to let it slide) or whether you are anal retentive about following grammar prescriptions which require no comma in that position.
-
.
