Posts by rodgerd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As well as the usual sci-fi and horror suspects - Sapphire & Steel, Blake's 7, Dr Who - I'd add the Tripods and the Triffids. The Muppets and the other Henson works (Sesame St, Fraggle Rock) were also huge parts of my childhood.
As, oddly enough, were a certain flavour of British romcom/sitcoms: Robin's Nest, the Penelope Keith repetoire (To the Manor Born, that "self-sufficiency in the burbs" show whose name eludes me...)
Although when I think back, the thing I actually loved most as a kid was actually radio. Dick Wier, Bad Jelly the Witch, Peter and the Wolf, Ernie (He drove the fastest milk cart in the west...), Captain Beaky and his band...
-
The fact Bill English detests McCully makes me all the more enthusiastic about the idea of him as National Party leader. I may not like National much, but they'll get into power sooner or later, and I'd rather it be alon English's axis that a "drown government in a bathtub" whackjob like McCully.
-
I was stunned when I saw the cover for this N&S, and assumed that it was one of those "lure them in with a shocking headline" jobs, not an actual bit of trash that would look well-placed in a National Front newsletter.
What, exactly, were they thinking?
-
Damn, I gotta make better use of Preview.
-
<quote> Well, I'd be curious to know why Satanists are inherintly more risible than other religious groups.
Perhaps it's the fact that Satanism is really a Christian heresy, and therefore contingent on that which it claims to abhor.
</quote>Well, you be dealing with Satanists that are harking back to a more Manichean view of the universe; and heresy is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.
Satanists are also just funny.
Yeah, but how are they just funnier than, say, Catholics. Or that whole "this is my bllod, this is my body" routine - if a bunch of Goths told you they eat the flesh and drink the blood of their Darj God, you'd piss yourself laughing. I'm not sure why a bunch of middle aged people who at least ought to be old enough to know better should be taken at face value when they do the same in the weekend.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(This is less a direct dig at you, I might add, and more an indirect dig at the people who get foam-at-the-mouth furious about "millitant athiests" who won't "respect peoples' beliefs" and then are quite happy mocking modern Pagans or Mormons and their magic underwear or whatever)
-
You're right Michael, there would be some debate on the social cohesion question.
Well, it's a case that could be made, and both the Romans and Greeks were very big one it (and Gibbon, of course, was scathing about the effects of Christianity on the Roman Empire in that regard); of course, watching men grab each others' bottoms while chasing an oval ball can fullfil the same function, too.
-
Oh, I should point out that there's one group: I think should be mercilessly mocked: Satanists.
They're hilarious.
Or am I being unfair?
Well, I'd be curious to know why Satanists are inherintly more risible than other religious groups.
-
Dawkins too closely resembles Ann Coulter for mine - glib, bitter, divisive, and arrogant.
Can we kindly quit with the comparison to Coulter every time we dislike someone, unless they have literally called for the wholesale extermination of anyone who won't submit to the forced conversion to a religion of the speaker's choice? It is both cheap and loathsome, and is little better than calling a police officer a Nazi because he gives you a speeding ticket.
Personally I find Dawkins to mostly be a refereshingly straight shooter for the most part. The fact some people feel that their imaginary friends should be given a "respect" and treated with a seriousness - even protected by law - ought not to be the problem of broader society.
And if you think Dawkins is bitter, I can only assume you haven't actually bothered reading most of his work. I finished The Ancestors Tale, and it is not merely fascinating and informative, but positively uplifting; that uplift is created by Dawkin's genuine love of his work and sense of wonder at the universe.
-
I was thinking of a particular Dom Post column last week whining about the potential cost and casting aspersions on Auckland. It seemed a bit rich.
Ah, so a national stadium funded by the whole nation shouldn't be commented upon by those south of the Bombays?
And the cost is huge. Three quarters of a billion dollars. I'm not going to drag out the "how many hip operations?" canard, but it doesn't take too much to imagine how many national or even Auckland issues (power grid, rail transport, what have you) could do with that injection of money.
I know you think we down south have a "massive entitlement complex", but really.
I am noticing that is mostly people from out of Auckland that are getting a bit shirty about the notion of having a healthy debate about a major public project.
I can understand your frustration bout the poor planning of Auckland, and wanting to see debate to ensure this isn't another episode, but equally, I think you'll find those people outside Auckland who are bewildered by the infighting are:
a) looking askance at people squabling over a three-quarter billion dollar windfall,
b) astonished that the ARC and councils can't get get it together, and
c) (for some) concerned that it'll end in another 2003 style hosting debacle, where we lose the cup because a bunch of pollies in Auckland can't get it together.
-
Aucklanders are right to be resistant to a major change on our waterfront foisted on us seemingly at the last minute by Wellington politicians who seem to have little regard for what Aucklanders actually think (or, at least, didn't bother to find out).
I'd love it if Aucklanders could grow up and lose the enourmous chip on their shoulders about Wellington; given the way it's infected Russell of late, I guess neither of us will be getting what we want.
I'll echo the comment that it would perhaps be best located in Christchurch, if we have to have a "National Stadium" at all; as a previous poster noted, Aucklanders seem almost singularly uninsterest in showing up to sporting events in their fair city when compared to other centres, and Christchurch certainly doesn't suffer from that problem.