Open mike 10/06/2010

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

17 comments on “Open mike 10/06/2010”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 2.1

      From yesterday quoting Gingercrush (ouch)!

      “Unfortunately with both the Labour government of 1999-2008 and this government a clear precedent has been set where one can abuse the use of taxpayers money and it simply gets paid back’ .

      GC does us all a favour with this statement. I dont care who does it, left or right, its just not on. It deserves opprobrium from everyone. Well said

  1. 3

    Shane Jones…Just heard you and Sean P. I thought you were going to be the one. Porn…on the company credit card! Politically naive…You feckin eedjit!

    Not as bad as a freshly shaved Rodney Hide trying to get his old girlfriend to join him in Paris for a 3-some…but at least that’s kind of a BIT romantic…well not really.

  2. 4

    Talking about abuse of taxpayer’s money I’m surprised by the silence surrounding Nick Smith’s adoption of $200,000 or so of it towards the costs of his defending his careless attack on Osmose.

  3. 5

    Just came on a funny quote from book by M Mitchell Waldrop which I’m looking at Complexity – the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos p49 “Theoretical economists use their mathematical prowess the way the great stags of the forest use their antlers: to do battle with one another and to establish dominance.” (Brian Arthur).

    There are similar incisive comments in NZ Paul Bieleski’s book on economists (as one in that field he knows well wot he writes).

  4. 6

    So guys is today all going to be spin spin spin are are you going with attack and straw man deflect. The honourable thing would be to take the high ground and denounce the Labour troughers who chronically and knowingly used taxpayers money inappropriately.

      1. 6.1.1

        and Tigs – your thoughts on Jonesys movie bill? Or Ririnui’s new set of golf clubs?

        So much for doing the honorable thing – just proves that Labour’s shit doesn’t smell any sweeter than National’s

  5. 9

    Wonder why Sea Shepherd dumped Pirate Pete like a hot potato?

    From this in March 2010: We at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are deeply moved by the outpouring of support for Captain Pete Bethune, and we know you want to assist him in any way possible.

    To this in June : Anti-whaling activist Peter Bethune – on trial in Japan – has been expelled from Sea Shepherd, the conservation group he campaigned with.

    The same guys who brought us butyric acid bombs, can openers, ramming manoeuvres, blowing up trawlers with limpet mines, shooting at the Faroese police, &c., now consider Pirate Pete to be too violent for their organisation??? Oh puh-leese …

  6. 11

    This is a must read 😀

    The Adams Complexity Threshold is the point at which something is so complicated it no longer works.

    I’m sure that our civilisation is getting to that point.

  7. 12

    John Tamahere’s sewer mouth is running again today.
    Apparently West Auckland schools have failed his kin. Just for starters, I’ll bet former Henderson High School pupils Michael Jones and Mark Mayerhoffler would wonder at his comments. I expect he will be wary of showing his face in Waitemata, Massey and Te Atatu sporting-club rooms for the next few weeks.

  8. 13

    A log, but interesting, speech by Peter Gluckman.

    While the motives of those who reject the science are variable, the responses within climate change, evolution, HIV, smoking, ozone holes, immunisation and so forth have been remarkably stereotypic, so much so that they been the subject of study the field has been given the general name of denialism. It is not a term I like very much as it conflates people with a variety of motivations but I will use it through the rest of this talk. In general, denialism involves vocal rejection of the consensus reached and to do so some denialists actively confuse or convince the public and the media that the consensus is not based on sound science.

    Emphasis mine.

Comments are closed.