Posts by NSA
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Intercepted.
The Secret Life of Kim Dotcom: Spies, Lies and the War for the Internet can be purchased here.
-
When the smile opts to run.
-
An informative background on Mahuta at E-Tangata, for an inkling as to what she may be bringing to the table beyond policy.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Ron Davis,
You don’t need no grammar lessons.
Well I don't know if I'd go that far, but y'know =). Modal verb usage enjoys a degree of deviation. In my work I'm often torn between my descriptivist upbringing and the pressure to ignore issues with/relay/affirm unkempt neologisms from around the world. If a student were to come out with something like "I could go a curry right about now" I'd be impressed, in no doubt as to the intended meaning and quite possibly salivating at the evocation. With 1.5 billion English speakers worldwide, adult native speakers who are compelled to correct one another for shit written on the internet are a delight. In a world where people are 'my badding' or claiming they 'could tap that' pedantry issues of the type Ian has exhibited quite often seem to go deeper than mere language usage. This may quite possibly be a reaction and a resistance to the state of flux, as you quite appropriately touched upon here:
More likely his critics are altering their views by the minute
In the case of Ian's correction, what struck me is that he imposed an agenda by posing a slightly different question. Taking for example:
"If you were fighting on the front lines would you kill someone?"
Compared to:
"If you were fighting on the front lines could you kill someone?"
For me the distinction is important enough, the first emphasising a sense of volition (would you be prepared to...), the second confers a greater reluctance, someone more resigned to the necessity (could you bring yourself to...). In both cases there is possibility, in both cases there is a choice to be made. When posing such a question with regards to our current PM, on a left leaning site like this, I'd presume in many instances that the action would be carried out with a degree of grudge, if someone could even go there.
But this thing, this focus on superfluities at the expense of bigger concerns, it's almost a defining feature of our age, there's been a fair few wallops of the technicality ass on this thread. A few pages back I had to rope in the help to physically restrain me from posing something similarly inane with regards to Andrew Geddis linking to his superlative piece 'Worst Result Ever'. For reasons I won't go into this piqued my curiosity to know what Mr Geddis' 'second worst result ever' would be. Then Russell replied to Andrew with
'I agree with everything you've written.'
Which sparked in me the same burning question for Russell (again restrained), if for no other reason than to ascertain if and where the consensus of opinion diverges. Fortunately I didn't. This kind of nit picking approach starkly contrasts with the kind of no bullshit attitude Andrew Little brings to the table (as Leopold was insinuating), and that's an approach we can hopefully acclimatise ourselves to in good time.
Thanks for that recommendation Ron, I'll put it on my list.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Ian Pattison,
Lisa Owen? Nah Matey, I’m not. Prescriptivists…Give us another grammar lesson bud.
-
The Guardian have published this beaut Albini piece on the surprisingly sturdy state of the music industry. Possibly a little too earthy for those on the funding gravy train or with a bee in the bonnet about radio play quotas, prizes etc but it's a pretty decent rundown.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Ian Pattison,
..have a beer with the PM, Little or Robertson? Do go on...who's buying? How many are you having? Where are you having it? What are you drinking? Would there be chatter? Anything in particular you'd like to discuss? Anything off limits? Why beer? Details please Ian!
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Leopold,
Indeed Leopold. It’s such a ripe odd cliche:
"s/he’s a PM I could have a beer with"
What are the circumstances?
Does ‘could’ here denote my preference to do this or simply the likelihood of such an event occurring? Is ‘a beer’ a shared cup? Our own vessels? A keg? A colloquialism denoting a sequence of beers until we’re both three sheets to the wind? To me it feels like a vessel of beer each in which case who’s buying? Will I feel or be made to feel inadequate about my choice of beers? What’s the correct exit strategy once we’ve each finished our beers? What’s the etiquette for taking leave of the PM after a single or unfinished beer?
Will I need to be holding on out of concern that the PM might take a swig of my beer while I’m in the Gents? Does the PM have any communicable diseases that I should be watching out for? If the bar staff refuse to serve a sloshed PM should I similarly refuse my beer in a show of solidarity?
Then there’s this ‘with’; Are we at a pub? Do I invite the PM in mid-doorknocking? Perhaps we’re at the beach? Are we alone or in a group? How ‘with’ the PM do I need to be to claim I had a beer with? I could probably handle a beer with the PM at a noisy bar or the TAB where the focus was on something else, a karaoke joint might also work, but in a quiet high country pub with that guy and his verbal diarrhea I’d rather drown.
Although this may seem the obvious inference I also have to ask; will there be conversation accompanying the beer, or could we be Speights mates? What’s more crucial, the beer or the conversation? Must I finish my beer? Couldn’t I just sidle up to the PM and get Gary to take pic so it looks like I had a beer with? If I say ‘hi PM’ will the claim be more valid? What proximity qualifies?
What is the tone of the conversation? Must it be convivial or is jibing on the cards? Can I spend the beer tearing the PM a new flag hole? Can it end in a bit of biffo? If it ends in biffo should I accompany the PM to the ER or should I bolt? If the PM floors me should I nark? How much should I divulge? Should I just make a statement to the police or can I also talk to the media? Is it ethical to profit from this story in Woman’s Day? Should I ensure the PM doesn’t drink and drive? Can I take Key’s keys? Should I give the PM heads up that he appears to have spilt something on his crotch? If the PM asks for a dance, could I agree? Can I put Home Brew on the jukebox? If I can’t take his smarmy bullshit and ditch him mid pint does it still count?
If the chinwag rather that the beer is the emphasis, must my beer contain alcohol? Could the drink be substituted? Could I smoke a race horse/ blast a couple of rails/ drop acid/ shoot horse with the PM? Again who’s buying and who’s going to take the rap? Should we agree to terms in advance? Should I plant evidence on his person? I’m always amazed how many people can parse the subtext and answer the question:
"Is s/he someone you could have a beer with?"
with an unconditional and unqualified ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
As if it actually means something.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Grant McDougall,
The British Labour Party were hampered by the same leadership voting process in the ’80s to mid-’90s and they too suffered having a donkey imposed upon them by the unions, contrary to the wishes of caucus.
It wasn’t until that changed to a caucus-only vote that they gained a strong, popular leader and thus government. It beggars belief that the NZ Labour Party haven’t learnt from the mistakes of their British cousins.
You are aware that Labour’s opinion poll lead was shown to be as high as 23% in early May 1994 before John Smith’s death? Sure he replaced the trade union block vote with “One member, one vote”, but as Andrew Marr characterised him; he was “a placid, secure, self certain Scottish lawyer with a very boring name” – who incidentally was bound to win the 1997 election.
As opposed to say:
The second is that Grant really can drink beer. And when I say he really can drink beer, I mean he really can drink beer. I won’t tarnish the reputation of the University of Otago by revealing the basis for my knowledge on this subject, but let’s just say that in an inter-flat keg race he provided roughly the equivalent team advantage to Jonah Lomu at the ’95 World Cup.
Yeah, whoopee that guy.
If it hadn't been a "shellacking" I'd happily concede to some of the premature dismissals, and be more partial to the pundits' expertise but as things are this result is nothing if not a renewal of sorts. As Sofie said:
I’m not into personality politics so refuse to believe they have lost the plot before they started. I’m happy to let him make his way and see what becomes of Labour here on in. I don’t give a shit whether he’s conservative or flamboyant but I would never have either of that as a prerequisite to do the job. sheesh.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Who knows, nothing surprises any longer. It’s not entirely in keeping with the expectations one would have of a minister who has gone to lengths to stress a desire to protect New Zealanders’ cyber security at all costs.
There are threats our Government needs to protect New Zealanders from. Those threats are real and ever-present and we under-estimate them at our peril.
New Zealanders are entitled to expect that their security is something that the Government takes seriously. And we do. We take it very seriously.
But we can’t say we take it seriously, and then not make the tools available to allow our security services to do their job.
That is the opposite of taking security seriously.
And that is something I will never do.
No paucity of balls is required to simultaneously occupy both these positions.
