Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm expecting Pocahontas with action scenes
I'm expecting 'Dances with Aliens'.
True Lies is his one real dud
Well, I'd prefer Ah-nold over Celine Dion any day.
-
If we're going to have a National Van, how about we borrow this one?
After all, those A-Team boys were pretty ingenious with whatever was lying around, and that fits in well with the No.8 wire mentality.
And with global warming kicking in, maybe 'I ain't getting on no plane!' should be a national catchphrase?
-
Up to a point, Rich. But I understand that later this week I'll be attending a function with a certain Philip Goff, who is richly deserving of a proper bitch slapping until he bleeds likes a haemophiliac garden sprinkler. Someone else will have to have the pleasure, though, because I don't roll like a thug. And I'm the kind of naive old whoopsie who still thinks it's really cool that I've got an on-line American acquaintance who walked up to Helen Clark on Lambton Quay, shook her hand and didn't get shot for his troubles. :)
Well, I still really can't bring myself to feel even the smallest iota of sympathy or guilt. I don't roll like a thug, either, so i'm not going to go out and cut his brake cables. But if he died in a car crash, I wouldn't be losing any sleep.
And part of that is because we do live in a society where the only thing preventing you from giving Goff a (metaphorical) ear-bashing is good manners, and where Helen Clark can be acosted by strangers on Lambton Quay. If either of them had got away with half the stuff Berlo has, then I'd rather hope for their sakes that the DP guys were on their toes.
-
WRT Berlo the bully:
Surely there's a difference between on the one hand actively plotting someone physical harm, and on the other, enjoying a strong double shot of schadenfreude when someone cops a well-deserved smack in the chops, when that smack has nothing to do with you?
-
We're leaving out the parts that my officials and advisors have told me are stupid and ill-advised
But is that a bad thing? Or is it that the whole thing is thought to be A Bad Thing by those in the know (i.e. teachers at the sharp end)?
Edit: I think Gio answered the question before I asked it. Must be nice being An Omniscent Creator.
-
To be fair* to Tolley, what she has actually said is:
What we are doing here in New Zealand is very different from what is done in the UK and the USA, where a national test is used and where the system is underpinned by high-stakes testing and assessment for accountability. We are doing neither of those things. We made a conscious decision to move away from this and to favour a policy where schools can make choices about the assessment activities, tools, and processes that they use. It is a very different one from the one that is used in the UK and the USA. Therefore, I say to the member that he needs to be very careful that he is actually comparing apples with apples.
So. Do we actually know details of what is proposed for NZ yet? If so, has anyone who knows what they are talking about analysed it in enough detail to say whether it is different? Or is her statement that it is 'different' just window-dressing?
.
.
.
*Yes, this is choking me, thanks for asking. -
His most memorable trophy was a big rat, which he spent some time catching and releasing in the back yard. I wasn't going near that.
One time, our cat decided that 'under the bed' was an appropriate place to play 'catch and release' with a rather large half dead rat.
I was napping on top of the bed at the time. Oddly enough, catching 40 winks is quite difficult when you're on the receiving end of a death shriek at a distance of around one foot from your ear.
The worst part was that it wasn't quite dead. Which made disposing of it...interesting. Turns out you can feel and hear small bones crunching quite clearly even through several layers of old newspaper.
Edit: I see from Bart's post that I'm not the only one...
-
Jeez, PAS is a Darwinian struggle now? I thought I was just banging on about nothing in particular...
...and to respond to that a bit more intelligently: yes, as I mentioned, there seems to be a niche for those who just want to provide a side commentary (humourous or otherwise) on or to events within the community. But you yourself have been reasonably quick to elegantly rip someone's arguments to ribbons if you've thought they deserved it. On feminism and reproductive issues, for example. Which I would suggest supports my point.
-
If other people feel the same way, then there might be less diversity of viewpoint in some threads because only a few commenters have the logical chops, the information, and the fortitude to put a sound case.
Well, I remember agonising for some time about taking the plunge with my first couple of posts, and spending quite some time drafting and redrafting them once I actually decided I wanted to respond. My biggest concern was not looking like a dick.
But that happens in real life, too. Start a new job, or meet a new group of people (new partners family and friends, for example), and you're going to be on your best behaviour, and your spider-senses are going to be going full-bore while you try to work out the unstated web of relationships and undercurrents of various tensions in the group dynamic.
And that does deter people from entering, I know. People can feel a bit intimidated by it.
Well, as has been pointed out recently, there's a lot of lurkers, and I suspect that that is at least part of the reason. But it's a double-edged sword: It's possibly one reason that the level of debate doesn't descend into the sewer.
Jeez, PAS is a Darwinian struggle now?
No, it's more Intelligently Designed than that! Ba-doom tish! Coat, getting, etc.
-
If you pick the opposing view of the 'Opinion Leaders', be prepared for them to shout you down, or de-construct your post at a semantic level. And god help you if you attempt impartiality. Oh yeah, he doesn't exist, so you're on your own. Since we get little impartiality from mainstream media these days, bit hopeful to expect it in a blog. That's my naivety I suppose.
There are a lot of clever and well-informed people on this site, and those people do tend to be the 'opinion leaders'. So if a person wants to run with a counter-argument, then they had better bring their A-game. A well-crafted counter-argument based on carefully weaving together a few facts, which actually addresses the arguments in the original post, will get you a lot further than semi-mindless regurgitation of a few tired slogans and talking points which are generally easily knocked over, or were already dismissed in the original post. Mr Ranapia's posts would be a good example of well-crafted, fact-based counter-arguing.
I can't personally recall much 'shouting down', but there does tend to be a bit of short-tempered exasperation with, for example, people who turn up and regurgitate the aforesaid bunch of talking points without bothering to address the original points, or without adding anything new in the way of facts or argument. And there isn't a lot of patience with those who ramble incoherently, either.
Despite what 'The Right' might think, Political Correctness is far from alive and well on this forum - it's actually quite Darwinist. One person's opinion isn't as valid as anothers - it's only as valid as the strength of your argument. If you know how to debate, you survive. Otherwise, you get short shrift. And debating isn't just 'you're wrong', 'no, you are'. It's bringing facts to the table, and presenting them well.
Otherwise, pithy one-liners and jokes seem to be generally well-recieved.
PS - all of this is general comment - not aimed at you personally