Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: How Media Made me a Bad Person., in reply to Danielle,
But… it IS sort of an awful paper in many respects. I mean, I’m not trying to be a dick.
If it's all the same with you (and everyone else here), there are plenty of places, blogs, other PAS threads where you can discuss what you don't like about the NZ media. To do so on this thread is kinda missing the point.
-
Cracker: How Media Made me a Bad Person., in reply to giovanni tiso,
I just think it's generally pretty bad.
Sing it, sister.
Keeping in theme with this post, I'd like to point out there are some really excellent reporters at the NZ Herald who work incredibly hard and do fantastic work in their field. David Fisher is the first who springs to mind.
-
Cracker: How Media Made me a Bad Person., in reply to David Hood,
The quality of every training session I deliver gets assessed, so at least once a day.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant by "held up against the competition" was publicly so.
-
Cracker: How Media Made me a Bad Person., in reply to Simon Wilson,
Though, if it's okay to have a go at Michael Laws, isn't it also okay to have a go at media professionals who can be, you know, quite a lot like Michael Laws?
Yeah that's a tricky one, and of course by even mentioning Michael Laws arguably I undo part of what I'm trying to achieve, but, well...
I think what starts as people genuinely trying to point out what they perceive as people in the media behaving badly or inaccurately, soon evolves into more pointed versions of "I just don't like that person particularly much" or "I would've done that differently therefore that person is bad". I'm not saying there's not a place for criticism or review, and by calling for change on both sides, I'd hope there'd be less to be critical of.
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to bluebook,
...if your mark on the world is leaving snide comments on subjects you apparently have no interest in, then I think you win.
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to JonathanM,
Hey Jonathan - thanks - it was interesting to research/write. I don't have a link I'm sorry but there might be something on the ICADTS site that can help find that study if you're really keen.
Honestly, and perhaps embarrassingly, I didn't realise that's how odds worked. If you'd asked I would've probably said you add them together, but of course I can see why that makes no sense now.
I would say a couple of things - first that the risk of crashing with both pot and alcohol is higher, but even with lower levels of alcohol than would be considered impairing if consumed on its own. But I don't know if the 40x risk is reflective of that or not.
Second, these figures vary from study to study, although they tend to stay in the same order (pot, alcohol, pot+alcohol). The 'true' numbers might not multiply quite so tidily.
Related to that, it was really interesting to see the risk in Norway studies, compared to most other studies. They found risk of 200x or thereabouts, but an American research explained it to me thus: In Norway drink/driving and drug/driving are very socially unacceptable, and so those who do it tend to be 'outlaws on the edge of society', so they're crashing for other reasons, not just booze/pot.
-
Jeez, talk about thread-jacked Trev.
I've heard people talk about those signs that tell you your speed, I've only seen the ones that say "Slow Down". :/
-
Cracker: Stoned in Charge, in reply to Russell Brown,
Gah. What he's really saying is "Sure, it doesn't work as a meaningful test of impairment, but it might put people off smoking cannabis altogether."
No, I think what he's really saying is that having roadside testing might discourage stoned driving, not getting stoned. Random roadside testing for alcohol has definitely had an impact on drink driving - not so much on drinking per se.
-
Interesting to read the Reed obits both good and bad. I decided to unfriend a certain grumpy old music reviewer (oh okay, Gary Steel) because he couldn't help but write a snarky "never liked him/he had a lot of shit albums you know" update. He did the same thing when Amy Winehouse died, and you know, literally in some cases, life's too short.
-
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Don Christie,
…legally.
And that word is a pretty massive caveat on the word "innocent". In normal speak, you're guilty if you did it, innocent if you didn't. "Not guilty" is a verdict, not a statement of fact.