Hard News: Some actual politics
59 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Simply brilliant writing Craig
-
WH,
One of the interesting similarities between Tariana Turia and d4j is that each speaks for an particularly unattractive and embittered part of public opinion. I hope you both find the comparison offensive.
-
Any compliments from D4J would automatically make me feel like I needed a wash. In veeery hot water.
-
So how about this s59 amendment (the amendment! it does nothing!) - we can keep strictly on topic if it's in terms of the inter-party situation, right?
Key looks statemanlike but throws out the chance to belabour labour for a year? (and then starts using Clark and Bradford's justifications on the radio...)
-
it's running on this PA thread at the moment.
-
merc,
Mnemonics get me hot. I remember reading of a theory that pottery may someday be able to be "played" like a vinyl record, because the fingers of the potter may have "recorded" nearby noise in the clay as they turned the pots, wha?
Also I would add, when was the last time England had Poet-Kings? -
merc,
Colleen Urlich's pots are amazing, the ubiquitous chevron. I didn't get Ralph Hoterie's painting though, can you help? As for Poet-Kings, it was silly of me, I have read Maori poetry, an old book that I sold (doh!) and I really liked it, very like old Chinese poetry in style, construction and theme (elegiac), I loved it, as I love Maori oratory, though that is a different theme.
-
merc,
I love people like that and the people who appreciate them.
-
Deborah:
I don't really want to re-start a thread where my own contribution quite honestly didn't live up to my own standards, but I take allegations of malicious 'belittlement', harassment and intimidation of women in any forum incredibly seriously.
I also react very strongly - and not always temperately - to attacks I think are based on an unreasonable misreading of what I've written. I have no problem with being disagreed with - who knows, I may even be wrong. :) I don't always express myself as clearly as possible.
But I've too often seen opinions attached to my name that aren't only inaccurate, but profoundly offensive. (According to one nutcase on Kiwiblog, I apparently support " the sexual exploitation of children". Who would have thought - and no, I'm not providing a link to that particular sewer. Contact me privately if you really want to know.)
I thought it was perfectly clear from the context that I don't believe the Prime Minister -- or any other woman in public life -- should be subject to the same conventions of address in 2007 as they would have been in 1907 or 1857. Apparently that didn't come across - but the world has changed a lot and much of it for the better.
Now, Deborah, I'm not going to insult your intelligence or mine with one of those not-very-apologetic 'so sorry you've got the problem' no n-apologies. I stand my the substance of my original comment -- that there are really much more important issues in the media than playing honorific cop on anyone, and 'Bishop' Brian Tamiki's an arse no matter what title he plonks in front of his name.
However, I would appreciate it if you'd accept that the above comment is a sincere and honest statement of my opinion, and consider the matter closed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.