Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yeah Donna Yuzwalk was good.
I think Axy said something like "Donna, Yuz-walk outta here!" or some such. If I recall correctly (and this is really shaky memory territory) she nevertheless gave a positive review to the concert performance.
And funny, no one's mentioned Nick Bollinger.
Nick Bollinger.
When I was last paying much attention to music reviews, it was listening to his The Sampler on National Radio. I've bought a few things on his his recommendation. He still doing that programme?
-
I don't read a lot of music reviews anymore, but I admire anyone who can write intelligently about music. I find music one of the most difficult topics to write about. I dabbled in music review-type writing recently when I tried to explain why I liked certain albums I was recommending (by Bowie and Bat for Lashes) in a recent blog post. I failed miserably, resorting to the trite expressions hacks use when describing music.
As for Simon Sweetman, shooting fish in a barrel for sure, but the guy just cannot write, and his taste in music is largely bland.
The only Sweetman article I've read (as far as I can recall) is that one Tony linked to, but it wasn't so bad. Obviously I had low expectations after what people have said here. It was fairly prosaic, and he tried a bit hard, especially towards the end, but it wasn't bad writing. He seemed to have had a legitimate point to make and made it clearly. I quite liked his evocation of the "Emperor's new clothes" aspect he obviously feels applies to FFD in describing the audience more interested in their own conversation.
-
…pre-prepared food does not actually save time,
Surely it must do, to a degree? Preparation takes time, and so you save on some of that time.
Many people say sushi is hard
Bad example. Sushi is piss easy.
But it is purportedly quite tricky according to many, which is what he said. It was a good example and great satire.
Not religious though. I'm happy to admit I'm just being a (poor) mouth piece for all the Michael Pollan I'm currently reading.
You do seem a little “born again” about the whole thing.
And I'm not being prescriptive. Eat as you like. I won't stand in your way.
Well obviously. When people point to your position being prescriptive or your “must-make-by-hand conception of cooking” they don’t mean you are literally trying to control people’s actions; they are saying your views on food and cooking are prescriptive.
But I think what and how we choose to eat can be argued about.
Sure, but some of what you have been doing here is not really argument. It’s argument-like.
-
Which, er, begs the question, why is soy sauce a first material and other things not?
I guess it was in the Gospel according to Pollen?
-
Totally Off Topic:
There's a "Stop the Night Class Cuts" (cuts planed to ACE) march in Wellington today. From 2.15 at Wellington High School, getting to Parliament about 3 pm, if any of the capital readers are interested.
-
Where’s the fun in that? Sophistry is Mark’s bag.
Yeah, but does it matter if he gets there in the end.
<shrug> Seems to matter him, judging by his response to you. I’d just suggest he cut the robbery-like rhetorical style (not that he’s likely to want advice from me).
…So to me Nik's question seemed moot.
My comments were in response to what you actually wrote at the time, not to what you now claim to think or to have meant.
-
Feeling the love.
Ah the warm glow of love by state demand, that’s some quality caring and sharing!
Considering Matthew's first response was directly following;
this exchange. ...
Yeah, in which Nic provided a good reason for retaining the benefit, to which you responded with your glib “live with a relie” comment, and Matthew pointed out the problems with assuming that option will suffice. I’m not an advocate for Matthew, I just wondered if you could address those points. I guess not.
So... as per usual, you're starting with an inflammatory and ill-constructed point, and are back-engineering it into a very sensible point on the fly, to placate your opposition. It'd be great if you could start with the reasonable points & build on them instead.
Where’s the fun in that? Sophistry is Mark’s bag.
-
Of course not no. Sorry. Expecting a family member to be happy or even ok to take care of another family member? In New Zealand? What was I thinking?
Because of course it’s easy to just take on the care of another person’s teenager, who may live in another city and have a network of friends there. Seriously, go back and read Matthew's points again and respond if you can.
Anyway, we don’t live in an authoritarian state where someone can be obliged to take on care of a person just because they‘re related. It’s great if extended family can help out in these situations, but for various reasons it doesn’t always work that way - hence the need for the benefit.
He wasn't addressing the cause of the problem, which is the weakness with the benefit itself.
He was refuting a point you made earlier, and what he said is directly related to the issue of the need for the benefit.
-
…or indeed "why not?"
Sorry, not sure what you mean, Steve.
-
ww, that's certainly how it read to me. His position is consistent with an abolition of the welfare state, relying on familial charity to support those who are unable to support themselves.
Plus he seems to have made the assumption that the relie would be happy to take on this responsibility. Having said that, you're being generous to grant him a consistent position from his statements. Earlier, when asked "You cannot possibly think that it's better for a teen to stay in an abusive home than live by themselves" he responded "Of course not never implied it". I suspect he's lost track of what he started out saying on this matter.
...'fuck that shit' wouldn't have that much resonance in a serious debate around the issue.
Why focus on an offhand comment and ignore the substantive points Matthew made in the previous paragraph?