Posts by Sam F
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to simon g,
Does he endorse, or is that the kiss of death?
Andrew Little. Let's see where this goes...
-
The Dairy Board was also NZ distributor for the Lada vehicles they’d traded for agricultural produce.
Was this still the case in the late 80s or early 90s, when TV's Country Calendar was officially brought to you "by the Lada Niva, Cossack and Tigre"? I would have been pretty young then and I still wonder if I somehow hallucinated it.
-
Hard News: Five further thoughts, in reply to Farmer Green,
Quickly piping in: I am working in China right now in a related area, and can try to ask colleagues after National Holiday when back in the office.
-
Anonymous, admiring Herald editorial. Roughan?
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to krothville,
It's here - a quote from Greenwald rather than the Grauniad's own description.
It's strange attempting to follow the election via the Herald app plus PAS, but the quiet on here tells its own story, I guess.
-
(Deleted post due to over hueg image I can't edit via iPhone)
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
As I"ve repeated. I did dissect my praise for Key on Page 4 of the 2014 Methane Election topic which I suspect may have answered many of Ian’s musings.
Please refer and get back to me.Ian's post is actually a response to that page 4 post you're referring to above, so referring me back to it doesn't constitute a response to Ian's post - we are going in circles. (Also I've just reread that post of yours, and all of the subsequent ones, and you didn't elaborate any further on those points or make further arguments in support of them, beyond claiming that Key has the "X factor".)
I see numerous people upthread calling time on this whole discussion, and I need to bow out shortly for work reasons myself anyway, but I would be interested in whether you can simply respond, in order for convenience's sake, to Ian's points which he raised in response to your own. They're not really that hard to understand if you take the time and work through them, and it would go a long way to showing you're prepared to make the effort to argue points in good faith (which is what makes PAS at its best so unique).
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Given Ian has admitted to a grip on the Village Idiot role, it’s not insulting to say I simply don’t understand Village Idiot-speak. Otherwise, I’d reply.
What a pity. Most of it is in a few short comments under your own original quotes. Most of us bears of little brain seem to have managed – are you’re sure you’re not putting it in the too hard basket, because it suits you better to be perpetually offended (and even more offensive in return), rather than engaging on substance and potentially getting shot down?
I note no real attempts to classify Cunliffe’s strengths as a potential Prime Minister as yet. Surely, that’s not a big ask.
There are responses upthread to the effect that this is not solely a matter of Key versus Cunliffe on personal likeability or credibility. But anyway, as shown above you don’t seem either able or interested to properly defend the claims you make about Key on those points, so why should everyone acquiesce to your desired diversion and rush to talk about Cunliffe instead?
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to John Farrell,
Are you going to answer the points he made?
+1. Jake, aside from Ian’s inimitable way of posting (which others appreciate though you may not) he’s taken a good shot at fisking your “statement of position” post from the other thread. Will you respond to the substance, or simply cry foul at the style, again?
-
Very happily cast my special vote on a beautiful Monday afternoon in Beijing. A pleasure, a privilege (certainly in context), and hopefully a teeny tiny push on the tiller in the correct direction...