Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's the thing Rich, I'm fine being told my current phone/PC/etc can't handle the latest software. I'm used to that after 25 years or so of computing. I don't try and put Windows 7 on my old PC. Certainly a lot happier being told that than being told it works fine when in fact it ruins my weekend...
-
Actually the missus has just reminded me that we know two more P heads. Who are also really into their conspiracies. So now the Venn diagram of conspiracy theorists I know who are also P heads is a big circle with 9 people in it, and a smaller circle inside that with eight of those people.
-
@Sofie
Damian, hope you debate with them vigourously, they may learn something.but labelling doesn't get one anywhere
My point is this Sofie, that if you have done a lot of reading and that has led you to believe say, that vaccinations are a plot by the pharmaceutical industry, or whatever, that's one thing. But then you also decide that the Queen is a shapeshifter. And then you also decide that JFK's alien progeny live among us and the FBI is covering it up and the federal reserve is actually torturing eskimoes because they have the secret about the vapour trails etc etc.
If you sing one folk song, that's one thing. If you sing heaps, I'm going to call you a folk singer.
And as I say, it's just a coincidence that the people with the biggest P habits I've known are also the ones who choose to believe the biggest number of what are commonly known as "conspiracy theories". Maybe their brains are simply far more open because of their prolonged exposure to methamphetamine. Or maybe they've friend their bullshit meter. I know which one I'm going with.
-
@Kyle. You're right, no warrant required. They only have to cite s18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act based on reasonable grounds (most common is saying they can smell it) to be allowed to search you, or your house or vehicle. The reasonableness of said grounds can be challenged at the time (without resisting the search) and later in court, and if it's not reasonable, any evidence found can be ruled inadmissable.
A guy I know was pulled over and had his car searched, years ago now, and they found quite a few Es. Like imprisonable quantities. But they had no reasonable grounds to search - the car was dirty seemed to be about as good as they could do (and he was a Maori, but they'd never claim that to be reasonable...) so the whole case was chucked out.
-
@Sofie. There's a difference between questioning the accepted version of events, and automatically chosing to accept the conspiracy version. These conspiracy theorists I know, that's what they do. They read one article -not even a whole book- which states the moon landing never happened or JFK was a shapeshifter or whatever, and that's it, that's the truth for them. It's a lot quicker and easier to believe the conspiracy than actually doing your own research, or perhaps understand geopolitical history, or whatever the relevant underlying causes of the event are.
The biggest and loudest conspiracy theorists at the moment of course are the climate deniers. Huge, massive weight of scientific evidence against them, but listen to Leighton for 5 minutes, or read some nutty uttering by Owen McShane or Lindsay Perigo, and bang, that's it.
Other conspiracy theorists include the likes of holocaust denier David Irving. They're just not as acceptable when they're coming from the Right, no?
You listen to the conspiracy theorists you're talking about. Are they asking questions? No. They're stating the alternative as fact, just with far less evidence.
-
the P use or that Rachel Glucina felt the need to write a column about it linking his consumption to his belief in JFK conspiracies...
Far be it from me to defend that waste of space Glaucoma, but I have to say that of the six people I know who are heavily into their conpsiracy theories, five have a history of heavy P use. The other just smokes heaps of pot.
Of course it could also be that those people all just hang around together (and some of them hang around with Prast), and what else is there to talk about when you've been up for 3 days? The others might have some really strong opinions about the direction of the Auckland Theatre Company and where AK03 went wrong thanks to prolonged exposure to Mr Prast.
Or their brains could be fried.
-
To use a recent example, Phil Goff's daughter didn't have Es tucked in her bra
Hey, could become known as the "Booster" bra. :)
@Sofie - well apparently it was only her first time trying E, so it should probably be known as a training bra...
-
@Ben
I'm just uncomfortable with condemning someone as unfit for public office for crimes committed by people like them. I basically hold a 'presumption of innocence' line about things like that.
I take your point, perhaps I'm just reading more into what he's said of it (and also knowing some of the people who he smoked P with probably helps). The 'presumption of innocence' line works well in the sense that I don't think he should in any way be disqualified from standing, but remember he's the one campaigning, trying to convince us he deserves our vote, so really the onus to prove his character should be reversed, no?
Having said that, it now seems like it's not going to be an issue. Based on what I've read above, there seem to be any number of good reasons not to vote for him.
-
I was thinking while I was out for a ride earlier how the whole debate would change if there were suddenly no secrets about this.
Indeed Russell. Without detailing everything I've ever done, I like to give sufficient clues every so often so that if I ever got caught snorting something off a hooker, people would say "well, didn't you ever read his blog?"
-
Damian, that's a lot of assumptions to swallow on no evidence pertaining to the actual individual.
Yeah, of course. Likewise I believe you were suggesting that all seemed to be shipshape (or at least "hadn't manifested itself in any known problems"). My point is that neither of us know Mr Prast, and what he was like during that time. He's the one who said he had problems with it, I'd suggest it's more likely those problems were the ones reasonably associated with P use - i.e. trouble with work, finances, personal relationships etc, than "erectile dysfunction".
I'd also say there's a bit of a difference when it comes generalising about people with P addictions, and Maori. It seems like it's a convenient way to suggest my argument has all the logic of a racist's. :)
Anyway, as you point out, you won't be voting for him because someone you know says he's an arrogant wanker, I won't be voting for him because I think people who become P-heads don't have what it takes to run the Super City. Either way, he ain't gonna win!