Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Don Christie,
Not to do so would be stupid, but longer than the 7 years deemed reasonable for publishers 300 years ago? Come on.
To fix it seven years on the basis of what was done 300 years ago seems as meaninglessly arbitrary than fixing it at 120 years, or death plus 70 or whatever. I'd be happy for copyright holders to claim an income for longer than 7 years, so long as fair use was expanded beyond the current draconian standard. (I also have no beef with Disney holding on to Mickey Mouse to be honest. It's not as if it's a life-saving drug or anything.)
-
Up Front: Life on Mars, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,
I’m going to have to manufacture an excuse to come up to Wellington and be drunk and disreputable again sometime soon, aren’t I?
Yes.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
That's my reading of it too.
-
Kathryn Ryan discussing right now. (With one Dr. Haywood.)
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
which isn’t on anyone wearing a bustier tomorrow
I think it's a long bow to suggest that she was blaming the skimpily dressed. And I think there is some truth in the fact that thinking that you can usefully redirect the prurience of the media is misguided. (See under: people who go starkers for a cause never actually draw attention to the cause itself.) But it just so happens in this case then going out dressed however the hell you want, revealing whatever the hell you want, makes the correct kind of statement, and how this will be reported on is somewhat irrelevant.
-
If there is any accuracy at all in that poll that had them close two weeks ago (and that's a big if, the margin of error was something like 4.5%) then I'd say that Hone is toast.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to webweaver,
When I sarcastically asked if they would pay out for the full cost of replacement once the house had been bulldozed, she went away to ask an expert and came back with the same answer. No.
This I don’t get. If the government bulldozes your house, that’s got nothing to do with the fact that the land is not insured, surely – at the end of the day disaster still befell the house. Which was insured.
Getting a public official and a couple of lawyers to comment on this would seem the first order of business for a journalist interested in this story.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Do hope she’ll leave that waggling “false consciousness, bitches” finger at home. Sorry, I know I checked out a while back but it needed to be said.
I thought the point about how the media will always pick up on the prurient angle was reasonably well made. The more general thrust – that making rape about sex is wrong because it’s really about violence – seems to me to be missing the whole point of the victim blaming that these marches are reacting to, which is in fact about dress codes and sexuality, and the wider implications thereof.
-
Tracey Barnett in the Herald. She's going, dressed as a radish.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Mark Lincoln,
I wonder how other insurance company’s attitudes will compare to Tower’s?
Yes, it would be good to document the behaviour of State and the rest, since I don't imagine that David and Jen's will be the only claim of its kind.
And of course my heart goes out to you and your family, David - except insofar as I'm confident it won't end like this. We have your back, as has been said.
(Also, Tower can look forward to losing our business - house, car, contents - as soon as each contract comes up for renewal.)