Hard News: Reproduced Without Comment
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Pass the crisps: UK Election watch.
Thank you very much for that.
-
list MPs are despised
That's crap. The mainstream media *tells* us they're not elected properly as part of the whole background campaign against fair votes. In fact, to be a list MP, you need roughly 18,000 votes. Electorate MPs can get as few as 12,000 (Peter Dunne).
Of the nine or ten MPs I admire, all but one are on the list.
-
It should perhaps come with a slight warning though. They have been discussing Charlie Brooker, and things have got a little divergent from the UK election.
Now that everyone's had a turn at taking offence, we've been able to move on. The UKIP leader's election-day plane crash is the topic of the moment.
-
If you want to do something, submit it to your usual spam junking service, which might result in his mail being blocked for a lot of other people.
Even though I lament yet another address-harvesting right-winger sending out this sort of clumsy unsolicited email, and even though I think the letter is mendacious, I wouldn't be comfortable with that politically.
-
Now that everyone's had a turn at taking offence
Hey, I tried to ignore it. But agree that given it wasn't your words, the reaction was a little OTT. But that's what you get when quoting Twitter ;-)
-
anth,
I think his message came through much more clearly after I changed "MMP" to "democracy".
-
Even though I lament yet another address-harvesting right-winger sending out this sort of clumsy unsolicited email, and even though I think the letter is mendacious, I wouldn't be comfortable with that politically.
It's probably not necessary anyway. If he really is spamming this shit to a purchased or harvested list of addresses, it's going to end up in honeypots, and get blocked automatically, on account of flood-detection, and various other triggers in the message. The "reply with 'not interested'" triggers a lot of heuristics, as does the "Click here to sign". The link through gives a perfect signature for the message, so it will easily be found in future messages, which will in turn be rapidly marked as spammy, and the address ranges he's sending from, and his domain, will end up tarred. It's just how it is.
Basically it's a foolish way to spread the word. Most of the political spam I've had to deal with over the years has been neo-Nazi, which says a lot. I just wanted people to know that they can do something about things they consider to be spam. I don't care to have the argument whether something is technically spam - that's for people to decide for themselves.
-
This, from the Wikipedia page "Electoral system of New Zealand" is interesting. I have sent it to Mr Shirtcliffe.
Representation statistics
The Gallagher Index is a measurement of how closely the proportions of votes cast for each party is reflected in the number of parliamentary seats gained by that party. The resultant disproportionality figure is a percentage - the lower the index, the better the match. [2]
Election Disproportionality
1946-1993 FPP average 11.10%
1996 4.36%
1999 3.01%
2002 2.53%
2005 1.11%(source: Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts, The Baubles of Office: The New Zealand General Election of 2005 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2007), pp.33-4 (ISBN 978-0-86473-539-3)
The Gallagher index on the provisional election night figures for the 2008 election is 4.06
-
I wouldn't be comfortable with that politically
I would. It's the perfect response to anyone who thinks that being able to buy a louder voice translates online. Spam is spam.
From what Ben says, he'll get caught out without our help anyway..
-
I have sent it to Mr Shirtcliffe.
I imagine he will be in touch by email.
-
I imagine he will be in touch by email.
Astonishingly, he has not emailed yet ...
-
Off Topic
The Arts Centre Resource Consents to build a Music Skool has been declined.
Reason given was the bulk and scale (code for ugly). Although I think the two sets of books produced by the Arts Centre Trust, Rod Carrs misleading statement to the Commissioners that they Uni would Build at Ilam if declined consent here (but not for 8yrs as clarified after his evidence) & the little matter of Maurice Dale (CCC Planner) written plan saying the Arts Centre would fall down if building went ahead (he missed out the word NOT). Had a little to do with it too.
Now off to the Dux to celebrate Mothers Day.
-
These are my thoughts on the anti-MMP campaign's leader's viewpoint:
"Me and my friends have so much money that it is worth us sinking billions into ensuring our future political protection by bringing back FPP, allowing us to distort electorate boundaries to put our cronies in government. Then we can pay back sectors of business that support us unfettered by the weight of public opinion. I pine for the days of farm subsidies and think big!" -
Simon emailed me last night to explain that he just doesn't want to participate in this kind of thread,
You and your friend Simon could just sit this one out and let some of the other voices discuss it. As a host there's no need to dominate a conversation.
-
My friend Simon actually knows a hell of a lot about the subject, and has plenty to contribute. Unfortunately, he's been in one too many of these conversations.
In accusing me of "dominating the conversation" you seem to have missed the parts where certain individuals were repeatedly insisting I answer their questions, validate their conspiracy theories and so on. (And frankly, it's my blog and I'll comment on it as often as I want.)
But hey, you should feel free to take that chip on your shoulder and exercise it somewhere else.
-
shessshhhh, ok.... just saying you don't always have to have the last word in a public discussion. If your friend Simon's said his bit and he feels he's got nothing to add then let him be silent.
I'm just saying it doesn't do your argument any favors if you shut down the discussion when it doesn't go your way.
So Robbie raises issues you don't want to discuss,..... just leave it,..., your reading audience is intelligent, they can figure it out for themselves.
It just looks like you shut it down cos it was going in a direction you didn't want to hear and this time it seemed you were outnumbered by some well informed govt document quoting theorists.
Too bad too cos I was looking forward to reading some discussion on the board of directors. ie something real, unlike the mythical NZ on Air Mandate, or a 12 year old brief to a Minister from 2 previous govts ago.
-
If your friend Simon's said his bit and he feels he's got nothing to add then let him be silent.
Actually I had / have plenty to say, I just didn't feel like banging my head anymore or listening to the bashing of other heads (on a personal level) that weren't present in the thread. (And I'm not going to do it in this thread either).
All that thread was doing it seemed to me was wandering back down a path that was visited repeatedly a couple of years back and with the same result. I don't really do bagging people that I know deserve better very well.
It just looks like you shut it down cos it was going in a direction you didn't want to hear and this time it seemed you were outnumbered by some well informed govt document quoting theorists.
Reading through, I guess I missed that bit, amongst the morass of misstatements, the attacks on any artist we don't like and the rest.
-
shessshhhh, ok.... just saying you don't always have to have the last word in a public discussion. If your friend Simon's said his bit and he feels he's got nothing to add then let him be silent.
I'm just saying it doesn't do your argument any favors if you shut down the discussion when it doesn't go your way.
So Robbie raises issues you don't want to discuss,..... just leave it,..., your reading audience is intelligent, they can figure it out for themselves.
I'm not accountable to you, and to be honest, I wasn't happy about leaving the thread open so that you could concoct conspiracy theories about other people.
You didn't even have the decency to do so under your own name, and, frankly, it was becoming a re-run of previous threads on the topic, where one or two individuals have wrecked any chance of a constructive discussion.
It just looks like you shut it down cos it was going in a direction you didn't want to hear and this time it seemed you were outnumbered by some well informed govt document quoting theorists.
I wasn't so much "outnumbered" as the last one who could be bothered with it. And, frankly, using the copy-and-paste keys isn't quite the same thing as being well-informed.
Too bad too cos I was looking forward to reading some discussion on the board of directors. ie something real, unlike the mythical NZ on Air Mandate, or a 12 year old brief to a Minister from 2 previous govts ago.
I actually did tell you I mistyped the date. It was 2008, not 1998 and I've since corrected it. You might equally have known that Jonathan Coleman wasn't even an MP in 1998, let alone Minister of Broadcasting.
You clearly didn't know anything about the NZOA board members, but you were still happy to slag them off as individuals. It just gets numbing after a while.
But really, feel free to find somewhere else to carry on. Having started the discussion in good faith, hoping for a constructive discussion, I can't really be bothered any more.
-
DD actually appeared to have read and understood the Broadcasting act, and he appears to have felt he was banging his head against a wall with Russell and Sasha.
If you've said your bit and had nothing new to add without repeating the same stuff you've already said then it was fine that sat back and let some of the other chaps have a word or 2.
I personally thought DD, Chris and every second post from Robbie was interesting, focused and informed. Filtering is what you need to master.
Skip the bits you know bore you, let people vent and assume they have good reason to do so, none of those people seemed like arm chair experts. they all had personal experiences to relate which were different to yours or Russell's, and surely that's fine for them to see things differently.
-
as the last one who could be bothered with it
last one of who?
Can't chris, dd robbie etc chat amongst themselves without your guidance?I wasn't happy about leaving the thread open so that you could concoct conspiracy theories about other people.
oh, it was me, I thought you got in a huff about robbie since that was the last thing you said and shut it down, and reopened it to have one last word and shut it down again.
I can understand why robbie's so passionate about this, I just can't figure out why you are. -
you don't always have to have the last word in a public discussion
Like jumping across to this thread when the other was shut down, you mean? Pot, kettle, plonker
-
Like jumping across to this thread, you mean?
oh, the irony
-
the mythical NZ on Air Mandate
Oh, and if you're too stupid to understand the discussion, best stay out of it
-
Can't chris, dd robbie etc chat amongst themselves without your guidance?
Let me simplify for you. Yes, of course they can. Oddly, the internet is a very big place.
What you don't appear to understand is that Russell is under no obligation to provide a forum for people to make repeated shitty personal attacks. If people are compelled to do that, there are plenty of places to do it.
What he is obliged to do, from common sense, business and sheer not-being-an-arsehole points of view is to keep this a civil place that the majority of people feel comfortable in. You're telling him he should have let it keep on going ad nauseum, other people are telling him he should have shut it down sooner. The fact that all you can do now is make snide personal remarks about Russell isn't really doing your case a lot of good.
It just looks like you shut it down cos it was going in a direction you didn't want to hear and this time it seemed you were outnumbered by some well informed govt document quoting theorists.
Um, no it doesn't. After all,
your reading audience is intelligent, they can figure it out for themselves.
You've made your point, and we've assessed it. Perhaps you could let it go now?
-
Emma, that's far more polite than anything I would have said!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.