Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, I guess I do have a puritanical streak
I should point out that when I said "puritanical bullshit" I was referring at the media coverage, not you or Deborah - much as I thought your respective choice of words was worth remarking.
-
Ah, Fifa's own coverage... interesting. Thank you Peter.
-
Can somebody help me with something: whose feed are we getting in NZ? Is it BSkyB? It intrigues me that there's only one commentator and there are no sideline reporters, as it if was meant as a second-grade export.
-
Still think one house should be enough though. :)
Two houses are fine surely. Making it appear like a house you own isn't yours so you can get money paid to you for living in it, less so.
-
They equate JK going to to a strip club before he entered politics with Shane Jones and his mid night habbits and of course not understanding that when you sign for a card that says "not to be used for private consumption" that is what it means
However one could make the point that the actual reason why Jones has been single out is the fact that the films were X-rated. As I've been trying to say, I doubt that any old rented movie would have landed him into this much trouble - the puritanical bullshit has been hard to separate from the legitimate criticism in his particular case.
(In saying that, I won't even bother to read The Standard's spin - fifty times bitten, fifty-one times shy, and all that.)
-
Is it any good?
Actually, I was cheating, I haven't seen it yet although it's supposed to be quite good. Couldn't be worse than the Spielberg film anyhow.
Coincidentally, I'm in the process of trying to track down an old porno, for actual research purposes (heh!), and I've had to email people about it, which gave me reason to reflect on how it's good not be an MP sometimes.
-
No. Renting a movie is personal. Buying a book or a magazine to read is personal. Going out to a movie theatre is personal.
Yet I suspect you wouldn't have used the term "habit" to describe the renting any other kind of movie. Would I be correct in that assumption?
I also suspect that Cecelia wouldn't have speculated that Jones' life might be out of control if he had rented Saving Private Ryan, which incidentally is a far more stupid film than its porno version (Shaving Ryan's Privates).
-
It's very, very hard to stretch this sentiment far enough to cover porn. Surely no one would ever think that it's okay for the taxpayer to cover her or his porn habit.
What about if he had rented a movie of another genre (he's a "film buff", remember?). Is it okay for the taxpayer to fund my Chevy Chase habit?
-
It's data. There was a discussion here a while back about how more data was a good thing. What we choose to do with the data is up to us.
Sure. Under the headline "snouts in troughs" we are free to make up our mind with a dispassionate examination of the data.
FFS.
-
Makes two of us.