Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Great story- and thanks for the Aussie link, Joe.
I guess you can produce charcoal in vast quantities reasonably cleanly? (Not like the old charcoal works...)
It's interesting to speculate about charcoal, Banks Peninsula and the cocksfoot boom. After indescriminately burning off the bush, the forest soils- presumably somewhat charcoal-enriched- grew remarkable quantites of cockfoot for seed. But the soils were probably already fairly rich, and potash may have been the other factor. And soil depletion- in a fragile environment- started to reduce crops after 30-40 years. So possibly the charcoal was never worked it all. -
In context, "theatre" may be best described as neither noun nor verb but simply as an ejaculation.... "semantic broadening" is particularly choice, since it's such a specialised usage.
We also need to register (verb) to "palm oil"- attempt to palm off unwanted goods in an unctous manner; to have greasy hands; to shake anothers hand with greasy hands while perched on one's laptop quaffing a naughty, half-naked riesling... nope, you'll have to do it che. -
Same guy that gave the TVNZ and TV3 the exclusive right to chose what NZ on Air funds for television...
-
Wonder how much Katherine Rich had to do with swinging this? Not a fan of her public persona, but her mana went up when she was "fired" after Orewa II for disagreeing with Brash. And (for me) it's climbed again this season, as she held out for principle against what must've been some strong caucus pressure. The other bill supporters who caved- and now have to vote for it- must be feeling a little egg-on-face?
And what will we get from the MSM? "Tyres screech as National backs anti-smacking bill in Massive U-turn"? Or "Decent Parents saved from Lives of Crime by JK and co!" ? -
<echoing...> Great posts Finn and Deborah.
I'd just add that in my experience (referencing my not-so-inner geek) there's something or things about computers that bring out the obsessive-compulsive in men at least and I suspect people.
I'm almost convinced there's a simple behaviourist explanation :-)- click = instant satisfaction .... when click does not = satisfaction male speci-man with only a rudimentary knowledge of what he's doing pulls out pci cards, runs chkdsk, hunts on internet all night until- (sigh!) click = satisfaction... or (groan!) expensive computer is -quite irrevocably and he's not sure why- dead dead dead. -
Off topic perhaps, and noting Josh Marshall's caution...but in the US political scene this could be dynamite.
-
Chinese wind turbines are now so cheap ($800 to $1k) that they are becoming viable. The Australian ones (that I've seen) all cost a LOT more- which adds financial vulnerability whenever the winds get very strong (and they do in Canterbury!). You can get (I'm told) a new blade for the chinese turbines for $100.
I'm looking into this very seriously at present. There IS a considerable set-up cost. As well as towers, you have to run 12v copper (or 24 v- better for us I think) from the turbine to the batteries- and this is expensive, if, like us, you don't want a whirring whirling whizzing vibrating machine right on top of the house.
On the other hand, as mentioned in another thread: we pay approx 10 x (per unit- we use about 7 kva a day/ 50 a week, which would make us low users anyway) what you pay the power comapies. Wind might reduce this a bit. Cleverer use of batteries etc also might help. But we may soon have the opportunity to get mains power (with approx 3 poles) and will probably jump at it. It'll cost `$10- $12k- and we'd save that in about 4 years, depending on how we change our use. -
"trips you can do into the wild, wild country beyond Ponsonby"
Back in the (early) eighties, the "wild wild country was Ponsonby. One of my mates was badly beaten up in 1981 by the Ponsonby Youth Club! KC (King Cobra) graffitti was everywhere. When my parents bought a house there (1980), people told them it was a bad, bad move. Gentrification took hold in the mid-eighties, reached critical mass and accellerated in the 90s.
-
With regard to death threats- or any such direct threats against one's person: It'd creep me out completely. I'd report it, too. Lying awake at night listening for creaks and scuffles is a crap life. And for all that you can reassure yourself it's not likely anything will really happen, knowing someone out there there has thought these thoughts about you is creepy too.
There's a connection, we all know it- not direct or simple or linear, necessarily, but a connection- between thinking thoughts and doing deeds.
In that respect, it might be good if some of the fabled "anonymity" of the net were exploded. Most people probably know deep-down that pretty well anything you do on the net- any e-mail you send, comment you post- can, unless you're making efforts- be traced back to you. And they also know it won't be. A lot of the worst behaviour (and some of the fun!:-) would disappear overnight if the perps knew their real names would magically (techno-magically!) appear next to their comment/blog post next day. -
What a conference-worth of great ideas!
I wish I had some insight into the bad behaviour of men in cyberspace. I don't. I've certainly seen it, and I've mostly not called it- gutless perhaps. But it hasn't happened in places I wanted to be. The on-line communities worth being in have all maintained at least minimal levels of civility.
It's a diversion, but there are male NZ poets- Alistair Cambell and Bill Mahire spring to mind- who you could describe as tender- and soft too...
But it's hard to make "soft" seem like praise! Why? Isn't there something underlying the "muscular prose" idea that's gender-neutrally about our conception of good writing? (I'm just teasing this out and not sure how I feel about it. Male standards are so pervasive, it's possible this is just another case.)
Strunk and White prefer active over passive verbs etc etc- mostly (I think?) pretty good advice for any writer. I'd guess we all prefer writing that is direct and honest. We don't like vague and waffly. Forceful is usually good- though it can grate in the wrong context. As much as anything, that's about being sensitive, too. I'm hard-pressed to think of a great writer who's not, on some level, sensitive. I don't know what Curnow would say, but "strong and sensitive" seems like a good ideal- for writing and perhaps for life! (?) </rise of tone at end of sentence as if to question own statement in very (gender neutral?) kiwi way> Anyway, I am surrounded by women who write far better than I do- more forcefully for sure. That can't be simply about gender.