Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Because of exactly what you’re doing here, Mark. I don’t think anyone here is in any doubt of your contempt for Hide
Six days ago I was commending Hide, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were some doubt as to my feelings about Rodney Hide right now. Which is by the by.
My respect for Rodney is such that I’m not stating what I think he should do, and my respect for his wife is such that I do question why Rodney would not be more forthcoming in addressing allegations of a conspiracy to damage their relationship.
Can we just agree to disagree about this Craig?
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I probably wouldn’t want to give it any more oxygen
Yeah, what justifiable reason would anyone have to want to expose blackmail attempts made with empty “menaces”?
-
Hard News: The Hager saga continues, in reply to Russell Brown,
That is quite odd, isn’t it? Surely the natural response would be to be angry at the people talking about blackmailing you and wrecking your marriage.
Unless of course Hide knows that Slater has the goods on him, which can in its way totally be read to tally with Hide’s reaction from the outset. The cost of admission is high.
-
Legal Beagle: Terrorism is already illegal, in reply to BenWilson,
Which officials, I wonder. He is, after all, an official.
Oh you know the ones; those “officials” whose regular advice is so embarrassingly flawed that to publicly name them would bring ridicule to their families for generations. They are very odd and slightly real.
-
Key’s war imperitive experiences a shift in adverb intensity from:
"It would be very odd…"
to
"the slightly odd thing…"
If that’s not a mandate worth putting your life on the line for then what is? To me it sounds more like an observation one would make about the Cuntly’s refusing a dinner invitation.
Key is very clear that New Zealand’s foreign policy should be independent:
I think the second point is, and this is really the advice from the officials, If you, if you don’t stand up to a known terrorist group, that is dangerous and growing at a frightning rate, if the reason you don’t do that is because you feel intimidated by them then by definition they are starting to control your foreign policy. And in the end it’s not your foreign policy decided by New Zealanders, it’s saying that a terrorist group, based in Syria and Iraq is going to call the independent foreign policy shots of New Zealand, and I don’t think that’s right."
Which is profound in its ommisions. Suggested revisions:
I think the second point is, and this is really the advice from mark taslov, there is a known terrorist group that is dangerous and growing at a frightning rate, if the reason you do or don’t stand up to one is because you feel intimidated by them, then by definition they are starting to control your foreign and domestic policy. And in the end it’s not your foreign and domestic policy decided by New Zealanders, it’s saying that a terrorist group, based in Syria and Iraq is going to call the independent foreign and domestic policy shots of New Zealand, and I don’t think that’s right, except for the bit about domestic policy which I’m absolutely going to allow that terrorist group to milk hard and fast."
Now ladies and gentleman without further ado, that troll we’ve all been waiting for. From the whakakaupapa hole, it is our proud privilege to present the mighty observations and arguments; Put your hands to together for the one and only wondrously amazing Natman!:
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Or do we take the sensible approach and look at imporoving healthcare and support services?
Now if only you’d been hosting that Nation interview…
Key was very efficient at extrapolating threats but his argument for joining the offensive ultimately seems to boil down to “it would be very odd not to…”, which is a bit odd.
There is also a reasonable likelihood that Key is only talking this up right now to influence the UNSC bid.
-
Hard News: What to make of the spray, in reply to mark taslov,
Tussock, just to further clarify this in case it was a bit vague:
Based on the Ombudsman’s analysis of Ms Sally Lewis’s testimony, I don’t find any reason to discount the relevance of that sample:
My consideration here is not specifically related to chloramphenicol itself, which occurs in very low concentrations in Foray 48b. My emphasis is on the lack of available data related to exposure, it’s an unknown. One study found toxicity from foliage collected up to 3 km from the spray zone. Another study showed that outdoor exposures were highest two to three hours after spraying and that drift was up to 4 km outside the spray zone. On a windy day even higher Btk concentrations were found outside the spray zone than inside. Along with the dearth in studies of long term effects, it’s under-explored territory. Other ingredients make up 87.35% of the insecticide, and as Muriel Watts stated:
there is no known safe level of exposure by inhalation; the failure to identify the chemical ingredients in the formulated product so that the assessment can itself be assessed; failure to determine the effects of the mixture of chemicals that constitutes Foray 48B, allowing for synergistic or additive effects, as opposed to assessing each chemical as if it were the only chemical to which people would be exposed, when it is known that mixtures can be significantly more toxic
Which is very convenient for ACC when discrediting allegations of causality to one chemical:
"were most unlikely to be attributable to chloramphenicol exposure”.
Setting a clear precedent for future cases:
ACC however went ahead and forwarded the claim to the panel, which did not find a link between Philpott’s health condition and his alleged exposure to the spray.
Which is not to say that I don’t understand where you’re coming from as much as that with this little data, it’s habitual for me to question dismissals of attributability, and especially so now knowing who has the most to gain .
-
Hard News: Terror panics and the war imperative, in reply to mark taslov,
(disclaimer – The opinions expressed here are not the views of the author but may reflect the views and opinions of any persons who still confer John Key a degree of credibility.)
-
A “domestic beheading” inspired by foreign fanatics is one of several threats New Zealand potentially faces from the so-called Islamic State, John Key said this morning.
Which is exactly why instead of cancelling imperatives like project SPEARGUN Mr Key should be taking New Zealand’s domestic security seriously.
Prime Minister John Key admits mass surveillance of New Zealanders and collecting their electronic metadata was considered but rejected
Key’s previous statements on the issue strongly indicate that any data collection being carried out by New Zealand intelligence agencies is scattered, lacking, and or failing to meet the international standards set by our allies. We need security from these very real and very dangerous domestic threats Mr Key and sending our armed forces around the world doesn’t even begin to fully address them.
If as Key has stated, the US offered the ‘gold standard’ to help protect ordinary New Zealanders, then why has Key repeatedly refused to take the US up on these offers? Employing this technology to protect citizens from beheadings is what New Zealanders deserve.
Mr Key said “it would be very odd for New Zealand” to do nothing when its allies and international partners were involved in fighting back against the IS.
It would be very odd to send our armed forces without first ensuring the safety of citizens at home.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Rob Stowell,