Posts by Alex Coleman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And while we're working up wish lists: If John Key ever feels the need to issue an apology, could he avoid the 'I've very sorry you're offended' passive-agressive mode?
Oath.
That annoys the hell out of me, and so I have taken to demanding a second apology for annoyng the hell out of me.That is, I will if someone ever pulls that schtick in person.
People only dare be this weaselmouthed through intermediaries
-
Malcom,
Your first question can only really be answered by Hager but assuming for a moment that the Nats are telling the truth and that the racing industry claim is in fact false:(2) Hager only had the emails/documents he was given, perhaps he did not get these, or perhaps they don't exist.
(3) I'm not sure what you mean here. The leakers gave Hager emails and other documents, these are what the book is based on.
Are you suggesting that there was no leak and that Hager fabricated these documents? Alternately are you suggesting that Hager obtained these documents illegally? If he did so then I assume you would agree with me that he is very very naughty. The questions raised by the documents however remain a story in their own right.(4)You cannot get a copy untill tomorrow because Hager and the leftist media establishment slipped Don Brash some very potent drugs that they obtained from members of the former KGB. These drugs turned the Don into a zombie and whilst he was in this state, he instructed lawyers to take out an injunction against anyone that had his allegedly stolen emails. The drugs apparently wore off at around lunchtime on Friday, and the injunction was lifted. The books began to be distributed from their warehouse in Nelson, and you will be able to buy one tomorrow and foil Hager's darstardly plan to prevent you from reading his book.
-
Craig,
I'm no great fan of anonymous sourcing and for the same basic reasons that you state. I accept however that sometimes without them a story cannot be written. In such cases I have to make my own judgements about the veracity of the story based on the evidence, discounting for the unverified opinions of the unnamed sources.In this case however the story is not based on the opinions of the sources but the content of documents leaked by them. Unless you are suggesting that the the sources have doctored the documents I can't see what your objection is. It is not as if we are being asked to take a sources word for it as to what is in the documents. We have the documents. That is what the story is based on.
I certainly agree that there is a very interesting story about who the leakers are and what the motives were for leaking. I doubt we will get to hear it however, and I honestly can't see how that story could change the story that we do have.
I in no way think you are arguing in bad faith, but I am confused about what you think knowing the source would add to the story.
-
I think this is unlikely. I also doubt that the "six principled conservatives" -- who Mr Hagar claims collaborated with him -- have or had any seniority in the party. If senior Nats wanted to leak documents, they would do so to one of the gallery journalists with whom they work with every day and develop close relationships. Mr Hagar is an enemy of National and its ideology. His book is a disaster for the party.
I'm not too sure about this. Wouldn't one of the primary concerns of the leakers be that they don't get caught?
Gallery journo's have close relationships with MP's from all parties, and with other journo's. They will be protective of their source and of their scoop but publishing this stuff could well mean you no longer have access to senior Nat' figures for some time to come. Regaining that access would come at a price the leakers would not find career enhancing.
-
The EB obviously have the right not to vote. They also obviously have the right to donate money to whoever they want, and to campaign for whoever they wish. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
Many people do not vote for reasons of apathy, or not having a candidate they like, or they are anarchists or what have you. The EB's reason for not voting is that they profess to believe that governments are raised up by Gods hand and thus voting is to question Gods will. That is fine, like communists and facists or libertarians or anyone else, they are free to have whatever political philosophy they wish as long as they don't try to overthrow the system through force.
What worries me about them (not much but a little) is that, in trying to influence the election as they have, there has clearly been a change in Brethren policy.
The fact that they have done so all around the world means it is Brethen policy, not individual rebellions against the old policy. The fact that they still do not vote means that the policy has not been abandoned but somehow reinterpreted to allow background, secret lobbying and influence.
The thing that concerns me (and again to be clear I'm not losing any sleep over it) is that they may well be seeing themselves as acting on Gods behalf, as His instruments enacting His will. This type of thinking can easily and quickly lead to not seeing the instrument of Gods will as being limited to acting within the legal frameworks. After all, if God wishes for the framework to change, or if the framework can be blamed for stopping Gods will being implemented, then Gods instruments are obligated to act outside of that framework.
I would be much happier if, on their ads, they indicated that it was the Brethren speaking. Voters have a right to know who large expensive campaigns are being run by. For example all union ads clearly say that they are funded by the union, they don't say 'concerned citizen'. Obviously The Eb know that this would be counterproductive. They know that the 'world' does not like them, and so they must be stealthy to enact Gods will.
They are a cult, and when cults start playing these games, democracies should be aware. I do not mean to say that they should be demonised or prohibited in any way, but rather that they are not immune to the spotlight and that we are under no obligation to take them at face value. They may feel that they are under a religious compulsion to decieve, and we should remain aware of that.
Here endeth the ramble.
-
Guess who said that....
Michelle Boag?
-
"Anyone else who actually knows anything about this care to comment?"
I'm waiting for humphries to start questioning the kerning.
As for Michael, "I wrote the speech before I praised it", Basset
Is there even a term for that sort of contemptuous hackery? 'Inverse sock puppetry' perhaps?