Open mike 10/07/2012

170 comments on “Open mike 10/07/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. muzza 1

   10 July 2012 at 7:25 am

   Mystery of Obama’s ‘missing year’ at Columbia solved as monitor blames computer error

   “We basically had two records running simultaneously, and it just depended on how you input the name and the other information as to which records you got,’ Ms Greenwood told the site”

   I guess the administrators were not sure which of his names to use when searching the records.

   Love a good old fashioned computer error to explain away those pesky system bugs.
   • McFlock 1.1

     10 July 2012 at 11:20 am

     Happens to this day.
     That’s why student IDs are important.
              
     Or did your bold type imply sarcasm? 
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   10 July 2012 at 7:36 am

   Soo, guess who reckons being raped after drinking is somehow analogous to causing a car accident after drinking?

   Same person says they’d forgive a friend who did this, so that they could forgive themselves ( & we’re talking about forgiving the person who got raped here, not the person who caused a car accident).

   Same person says they would have words with a male friend from the situation too, telling them it would be wiser to keep it zipped.

   Hint: they get media play as social policy expert.

   Shitting you not.

   Not even a little bit.
   • felix 2.1

     10 July 2012 at 10:15 am

     Any more hints?
     • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:30 am

       Has commented here a few times.

       Pseudo academic stylings.

       Kinda creepy. (now confirmed creepy)
   • weka 2.2

     10 July 2012 at 10:21 am

     Who? Or can you give a few more clues?
   • Pascal's bookie 2.3

     10 July 2012 at 11:16 am

     Ok, Lindsay Mitchell in last week’s Truth, be online next week unless the Truth is too embarrassed by it.
     • McFlock 2.3.1

       10 July 2012 at 11:23 am

       funnily enough, I’m not actually all that surprised.
       • felix 2.3.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 3:32 pm

         Entirely consistent with the rest of her victim-blaming bullshit.
     • QoT 2.3.2

       10 July 2012 at 6:48 pm

       Ha, and suddenly my extreme outrage subsides into an eyerolled “Oh, fuck off, Lindsay.”

       ‘Tis basic rape culture, unfortunately. So basic it got turned into an ad for ALAC …
3. hellonearthis 3

   10 July 2012 at 7:59 am

   When I go to google +1 a story it fails and I also have problems when posting a link into google plus. Is there something blocking this?
   • TightyRighty 3.1

     10 July 2012 at 10:00 am

     The network has become self aware and can’t quite believe anyone actually used google plus.
4. Jenny 4

   10 July 2012 at 9:09 am

   Is a nuclear free Japan in the wings?

   In an election in a Japanese prefecture with a nuclear power plant which is due to be restarted. The anti nuclear candidate Mukohara came second to the winning incumbent Ito.

   http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120709a4.html

   > The election was the first in a prefecture hosting a nuclear plant since the July 1 restart of a reactor at the Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, the first reactivation since the last of Japan’s 50 commercial reactors was suspended in early May in the aftermath of the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
   >
   > Ito was backed by the local chapters of major parties, including the ruling Democratic Party of Japan and the main opposition Liberal Democratic Party, while Mukohara was supported by antinuclear activists and the Japanese Communist Party.

   Japanese Prefectures have no legal say in the restart of Nuclear power stations in their areas. This is all decided by central government. However in the restart of the Oi reactor the central government, due to the sensitivity of the issue, were forced to seek the approval of the local governor before they were able to let it be restarted.

   All nuclear power stations in Japan are privately owned and the decision to open them is usually done on the vote of the shareholders whose main considerations are commercial, and who are presently facing huge losses on their investments if the plants cannot be reopened. Most of these shareholders also do not live in the areas where the plants are sited and so do not share the concerns of the locals. In this way the democratic say by prefectures over nuclear power plants in their areas has been removed.

   However Central Government has a regulatory role and can approve or deny any attempt by the private owners for a restart.

   The winning pronuclear incumbent Ito, has promised that if any restart is attempted, he will demand that the government use their regulatory powers to hold the owners of the plant to the highest levels of safety.

   It is clear from this, that in the case of the central government not receiving a mandate from local prefecture leaders, or even outright opposition. That in practice, central government power to approve the restart of nuclear plants would be in serious doubt.

   Currently a nationwide petition calling for a referendum on the future of nuclear power generation has gathered well over 7 million names and is still going strong.

   Whatever the success they have in opening any more plants, the privatised Japanese nuclear industry has suffered a serious setback from which it is unlikely to ever recover, and is a seriously risky investment.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     10 July 2012 at 9:36 am

     But you don’t support the massive increases in coal and fuel oil that Japan has had to burn since shutting down their nuclear plants, right? They go with a permanent nuclear ban, and that increase in fossil fuel usage will stay.
     • Bored 4.1.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:21 am

       I think either way we are fekked…..the embedded use of carbon building and operating nuclear plants is immense (the fuel used to mine and refine uranium and iron ore, to melt the metal rods and make concrete etc etc. There are arguments that the EROEI for nuclear is marginal when all inputs are considered, and like all other fossil fuels nuclear depends upon a depleting uranium supply etc. These however are minor points but they do mitigate against nuclear being any less carbon friendly than fossil fuels, and makes nuclear more of a battery than a generator.

       The single biggest reason we should avoid conventional nuclear is simply waste management over time. The waste remains dangerously radioactive over 000s of years and requires active management. When the economic argument of cost of nuclear energy is made this cost is never considered. If this cost was added to the equation we would never contemplate nuclear as a viable option. As it is the nuclear industry is very similar to miner who leave ponds of toxic cyanide sludge and walks away…the hazard and cost truly externalised for short term gain.

       Given the above if we are going to do anything with the carbon fuel supplies remaining the emphasis should be upon building long term renewable infrastructure. Its a trade off with carbon emissions and requires a rational debate that is not market supply and demand centric.
     • weka 4.1.2

       10 July 2012 at 10:25 am

       We are better off with climate change then nuclear radiation. Burning coal and oil has a limited life now, whereas the problems of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste will be massive once we don’t have cheap oil. Better to shut down nuclear now while we still can relatively safely.
       • Lanthanide 4.1.2.1

         10 July 2012 at 11:43 am

         “We are better off with climate change then nuclear radiation. Burning coal and oil has a limited life now, whereas the problems of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste will be massive once we don’t have cheap oil. Better to shut down nuclear now while we still can relatively safely.”

         CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for up to 500 years. The radiation around Chernobyl is expected to be back down to safe levels after about 200 years. It is quite easy to choose not to live in the area around Chernobyl, however it is pretty much impossible to choose not to be affected by climate change in at least some capacity (as distribution chains and commodity prices are now global).

         Now, there are types of radiation that are much worse than those let loose at Chernobyl, but the situation is a bit different to how you portrayed it.
         • Bored 4.1.2.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 11:55 am

           Broken reactors like Chernobyl are not the issue, as you say the radiation released diminishes faster than carbon in the atmosphere. The issue is the retention and storage of spent fuel for 000s of years.

           As I pointed out above, nuclear gives us bugger all carbon savings because of the embedded fossil fuel use building and supporting nuclear…for a little more energy we put as much carbon in the air. We might as well burn the fossils directly.
         • weka 4.1.2.1.2

           10 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

           Lanth, what happens to those reactors, and the stored waste, in a post-peak oil world esp one where the economies collapse and tech support is lost? I understand the differences from a science pov. I was thinking that rising sea levels, and things like increases in major weather events are going to be easier to deal with than the effects of radiation poisoning on humans and our food sources. There is nothing inherently dangerous about the sea or weather, whereas radiation is damaging.
         • Vicky32 4.1.2.1.3

           10 July 2012 at 6:05 pm

           It is quite easy to choose not to live in the area around Chernobyl, however it is pretty much impossible to choose not to be affected by climate change in at least some capacity (as distribution chains and commodity prices are now global).

           Sorry, that’s completely idiotic! The whole of Europe was and is affected by radiation from Chernobyl. “Choose not to live there”, my oh my, how would you like my suggesting that you ‘choose not to live in Christchurch’ and stop complaining about the earthquake?
         • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1.2.1.4

           10 July 2012 at 7:07 pm

           “Up to 500 years” – closer to 500,000 years, although a 90% reduction from the initial “spike” will take about 5,000 years.
     • OneTrack 4.1.3

       10 July 2012 at 10:36 pm

       Far better that they burn millions of tons of coal than go back to that evil nuclear stuff that we marched against in the seventies.
     • Jenny 4.1.4

       11 July 2012 at 12:07 am

       I think CV that you should have more faith in people.

       The citizens of the most creative, industrious and technologically sophisticated society on earth, upon crushing a modern monolith like the nuclear industry, are unlikely to be content to settle with another Frankenstein’s monster.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.4.1

         11 July 2012 at 12:16 am

         I’m not talking about where faith comes from, I’m talking about where GJ come from.

         And if not nuclear, where? Actually, Japan has already answered that question loud and clear. Japanese NG imports surged 74% and coal imports surged 26%, year on year.

         http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17093255

         Do you approve or not?
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.4.2

         11 July 2012 at 12:31 am

         I should say, I subscribe to Greer’s idea that energy depletion presents an insoluble predicament for human civilisation. There is no solution to it apart from (hopefully, a controlled and socially considered) economic and technological decline.
         • Jenny 4.1.4.2.1

           11 July 2012 at 8:25 am

           He aha te mea nui o te ao?

           He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!

           CV you need to put more store in people’s intelligence, and creativity. Especially when that creative power is unleashed by political action.

           The citizens, of arguably, the most industrious, rich and technologically sophisticated society on earth, upon crushing a modern monolith like the nuclear industry, as I said before are unlikely to be content to settle for another Frankenstein’s monster.

           Japan is the first world society better positioned than any other to take advantage of the hi tech silicon revolution. Japan with it’s huge industrial capacity, could crank out solar power and wind generation on a truly monumental scale, if it chose to.

           All that is missing, as in the rest of the world, is the political will.

           For a grass roots movement empowered by a victory over Big Nuclear, the next logical target will be creating that political will.

           After all, a green revolution, would sit far better with Japan’s traditional cultural heritage than either coal or nuclear.
         • Jenny 4.1.4.2.2

           11 July 2012 at 10:23 pm

           “no solution”

           “insoluble”

           Colonial Viper

           Really CV? What an Apologist* you are.

           WIND – WATER – SOLAR

           WWS can power 100% of the world’s energy needs, eliminating all fossil fuels (and nuclear power).

           Here is the plan.

           http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=2

           Japan could become the engine room of the world in implementing it.

           *Apologists are worse than deniers. Intelligent enough to know that climate change is a real problem and a real danger to humanity. Yet continually make all sorts of excuses for doing nothing. The apologists are now more dangerous to humanity than the deniers who have retreated to the margins in the debate around climate change. The debate has moved on.

           To take action, or not has become the central challenge.

           Presently the apologists lead the charge to continue business as usual.
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.4.2.2.1

             11 July 2012 at 11:21 pm

             We have assumed that most fossil-fuel heating (as well as ovens and stoves) can be replaced by electric systems and that most fossil-fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles.

             Did you read these assumptions at the start of the article you quoted?

             Do you really believe that these assumptions will hold and are achievable over say a 15 year timeframe?

             Presently the apologists lead the charge to continue business as usual.

             You’re a fantasist.

             I’m not advocating for BAU. I’m merely stating that BAU is going to continue for the foreseeable future, just like the sun and the moon are going to keep rising and setting.

             Why?

             Because at 36MJ of energy completely safely stored inside a 1L container of diesel, no other energy system comes close in terms of:

             1) Energy density
             2) Cost
             3) Convenience and ease of transport and storage.
             4) Usage flexibility
             5) Existing infrastructure and technology

             Against these advantages, do you really believe that the majority of NZ freight and passenger transport is going electric and hydrogen fuel cell over the next 15 years?

             Time to wake up, Jenny. Time to put your energy into ways ahead which might actually be achievable.
5. mickysavage 5

   10 July 2012 at 9:11 am

   [Can someone close the bold tag left open? – done – r0b]

   How is this for financial stupidity all in the name of doctrinaire capitalism?

   There are two schools out west being built as PPPs. The cost is about $110 million and the savings identified by the PPPs is $1.9 million.

   BUT, and it is a big but, it cost the Government $3.5 million to prepare the business cases.

   Net effect a loss of $1.6 million. The Government claims the reports can be used for all PPPs but no doubt they will have to be reviewed continuously.

   What idiot authorised this?

   Information is at http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/western-leader/7246050/Saving-goes-out-the-window
   • Dv 5.1

     10 July 2012 at 9:20 am

     AND the ‘saving’ of 1.7% is over 25 years!!!

     Good to see they have implemented the very accurate forecast model.
     Obviously not using treasury models.

     Bizzare.
   • vto 5.2

     10 July 2012 at 10:12 am

     ha ha ha, that is very funny. $1.9million saving over 25 years on a $110million capital cost.

     And I betcha that $1.9million could be pulled apart and blown away int eh slightest breeze. Would love to see the detail – especially around any renting required to be done by the schools from the private entity.

     This lot are absolute fools.

     Just like it was suggested that the private sector could outperform ACC provided that premiums were raised to make room for private profit.

     ha ha ha ha ha ha – pretty soon now everyone will realise that the emperor has no clothes.

     The unfunny side of course is that all of this rorting leads directly to less $20 notes in people’s wallets at the end of each and every week.
     • Bored 5.2.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:34 am

       So true the peoples dollars diminish. And so do business dollars as a consequence. The whole thing is as Mickey points out doctrinaire rubbish BUT it hides another agenda. That is to allow private capital to take a stake in “property” and to take a rental return. Its good old fashioned “rentier” behavior against which Adam Smith himself objected vociferously as a form of parasitism.

       Just to explain, if we build a school that costs $10 dollars, pays $8 themselves and allows the private sector to invest $2 dollars the government will pay (via taxes) the interest on $8 for their share. They will also pay rent on the $2 to the private investor. Unsurprisingly the government gets better interest rates…but pays higher rent on the $2 than they would on $2 interest. The taxpayer pays the difference, either way it costs more.

       In my business I would describe this as total folly. And as National supporters support business the whole thing must be both doctrinaire and self seeking at the expense of the tax payer.
     • marsman 5.2.2

       10 July 2012 at 2:45 pm

       In England, where they have the same ilk of Shonkey scamming arseholes running the country, PPP’s are going to cost 12 times what the same asset would have cost if established with only Public Funds. Am betting the same will be true here.

       http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/07/06/gordon-campbell-on-private-sector-delivery-as-an-inter-generational-scam/
6. Pete George 6

   10 July 2012 at 9:40 am

   I see two major issues with the Waitangi Tribunal water rights claim.

   1. How can anyone claim ownership of something as globally fluid as water? In principle and as a practical exercise I don’t see how it can be claimed by any individual, group or country.

   2. The timing of this claim and some statements made about it can easily lead to the perception that this is an extorion attempt, to try and force Government into giving preferential treatment with the MOM share floats.

   Some parties may use it as a convenient anti asset sale weapon – if Labour do that they may end up regretting the monster it could create.

   Both the principle and the timing make me think that extorting water rights rort is wrong.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1

     10 July 2012 at 9:43 am

     When is the appropriate, hair-approved, time to do something to prevent asset sales, weasel?
   • ropata 6.2

     10 July 2012 at 9:47 am

     imaginary future monster = distraction from actual current rip off …
     • Pete George 6.2.1

       10 July 2012 at 9:49 am

       Long as I remember the rain been comin’ down
       Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground.
       Good men through the ages tryin’ to find the sun.
       And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.

       – John Fogerty
       • Logie97 6.2.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 10:00 am

         Hey Pete, are you saying that the water in every pond or lake bounded by a freehold farm fence is not the property of that farmer …? Good luck on that one.
         • felix 6.2.1.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 10:29 am

           I don’t think he’s even got that far into it. He’s probably still trying to find a way to support Peter Dunne’s promise to protect these water assets while simultaneously supporting National’s plan to sell them.
           • Pete George 6.2.1.1.1.1

             10 July 2012 at 11:33 am

             Lame felix, you are repeating, yet again, something that is incorrect.

             But thanks for the opening to link to proof, others may not have seen it:
             http://yournz.org/2012/06/23/is-peter-dunne-breaking-a-promise-on-water-assets/
             • McFlock …

               10 July 2012 at 11:48 am

               Pete, you’re on drugs.
                    
               For the last 8 months you’ve been pointing us to the pedantic minutae of what Dunne said in order to avoid a conflict between what he does and what the voters expected. Now, when it comes to water, he was suddenly speaking so loosely that only some lakes count as “water”, even though they’re all fed by the same rivers, springs and clouds. 
                            
               You know what? If private investors want to make a profit off the water flowing through the rivers, then they should pay the owners for the privilege. It’s that simple. As soon as you take “public” out of “public good”, it becomes a dog-eat-dog world of commerce and fuckwits all working to shaft each other. 
                        
               Both you and Dunne should have known that before you advocated for his selling out of the nation.
                     
               I expect National to be evil fuckwits. I actually gave Dunne’s desire for self-preservation a reasonable chance of overcoming his toadying nature. Shame I was wrong.

                      
                
             • felix …

               10 July 2012 at 3:12 pm

               Pete you’re hilarious.

               Your link presents – as evidence that Dunne hasn’t done a u-turn on water assets – a quote from (wait for it) Peter Dunne from after the coalition deal.

               You fucking idiot, you’re just reinforcing the criticism that his promises before the election don’t match his actions afterward.
               • Pete George …

                 10 July 2012 at 3:36 pm

                 felix you’re a lone futile voice on this, here’s another today from out there:

                 Peter Dunne – The Power of One
                 by Tim Watkin

                 Dunne, as leader of United Future, has copped a lot of flak recently for his support of the mixed ownership model.

                 He’s been entirely consistent in his views – partial sales ok, so long as they’re not TVNZ, RNZ, KiwiBank or water rights. There’s no suggestion of u-turns.

                 But what’s new is that his decisions are starting to count for a lot more.

                 http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/peter-dunne-%E2%80%93-the-power-of-one

                 I’m surprised you keep trying to dog whistle paddle against the tide.
                 • felix …

                   10 July 2012 at 4:02 pm

                   Before election – against selling water assets.

                   After election – in favour of selling water assets.

                   Carry on with your sophistry as long as you like, but that’s the nuts right there and I don’t see anything you’ve written that addresses it.
                   • Pete George …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:07 pm

                     You’re a lone voice on that, partly because you’re wrong. Others can see the reality, you can’t, or you keep pretending not to.

                     Carry on with your sophistry as long as you like, but I don’t think anyone out there is listening.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:14 pm

                     Will the hydrostations automatically have the right to use water?
                       
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:26 pm

                     “you’re wrong.”

                     Ah yes I remember it now. Those U.F. ads with Dunne saying “We will never support the sale of Kiwibank, Radio NZ, or our Water – except for the Waikato River water and most of the water in the South Island”.

                     Thanks for jogging my memory.
                   • Te Reo Putake …

                     10 July 2012 at 5:03 pm

                     “lone, futile voice”
                      
                     Now I see why Pete is so upset with felix; he thinks felix is breaching his copyright.
                   • QoT …

                     10 July 2012 at 6:51 pm

                     For the record, I completely agree with felix on Dunne being a slippery wanker who kept his “promises” very, very specific so that apologists like Petey G could try to excuse his desperate grab for power-baubles later on.

                     I just don’t harp on about it ’cause felix is doing such a tremendous job holding Mr Linkspam to account.
         • grumpy 6.2.1.1.2

           10 July 2012 at 1:53 pm

           …if I have a freehold farm and there is an aquifer underneath – then that water is mine?????
         • Populuxe1 6.2.1.1.3

           10 July 2012 at 5:12 pm

           http://www.walkingaccess.govt.nz/store/doc/NZWAC_Factsheet9Accessalongriverslakesandthecoast.pdf
           http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-02/11.htm
       • mike e 6.2.1.2

         10 July 2012 at 11:52 am

         Peters Groupie how can any one claim ownership of land because its just dust in the wind “Kansas’
         the God particle proves it.
         Funny Pontificating Guile Stephen Franks said last night on national radio that the National party opened the door by giving Maori rights under the treaty of Waitangi back in 1996.
         So Maori doe have rights to the water!
         He and his right wing mates are pissed off that their own party gave Maori their rights back.
     • Bored 6.2.2

       10 July 2012 at 11:07 am

       There is a taniwha!
       • McFlock 6.2.2.1

         10 July 2012 at 11:50 am

         It’s pronounced “Brownlee”
     • mike e 6.2.3

       10 July 2012 at 12:39 pm

       Peter’s Groupie .
       You have no creadance to use a song to propagandize your view on clear water.
       Maori had alot of justice denied over the last 170 years now they are sticking up for their rights given to them as british citizens.
       I smell the politics of envy.
   • mickysavage 6.3

     10 July 2012 at 9:53 am

     How can anyone claim ownership of something as globally fluid as water?

     Funny but I get water bills to pay all of the time. And when I go into a garage to get a bottle of water it costs moolah.

     perception that this is an extorion attempt, to try and force Government into giving preferential treatment with the MOM share floats

     Utter rubbish. Maori have been complaining about Treaty of Waitangi issues since the first breach. This current application is hot on the heels of the Supreme Court decision in Paki v Attorney General which was filed years ago. Unfortunate timing for the Government but definately not an extortion attempt.
     • TheContrarian 6.3.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:04 am

       Funny but I get water bills to pay all of the time
       You are paying for the maintence of having running water to your house – the water itself isn’t “owned”

        And when I go into a garage to get a bottle of water it costs moolah.
        You are paying for the bottling and the convenience

       I think what PG means is free running lake/river water not pumped to your house or bottled water
       • felix 6.3.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 10:11 am

         “You are paying for the maintence of having running water to your house – the water itself isn’t “owned”

         Cool, so I can just pay the portion for the maintenance and ignore the per litre charge. Excellent news. I’ll do the samewith my electricity bill and pay the lines co. portion while ignoring the per MWhr part. Thanks, Contrarian, you saved me a packet.

         “I think what PG means is free running lake/river water not pumped to your house or bottled water”

         Then presumably he means not pumped into a hydro-electric power generation network either.
         • TheContrarian 6.3.1.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 10:31 am

           Forgive me if I am wrong but I don’t think the council claims ownership of the water

           As per wikipedia (obviously not the most acedemic of sources.,but anyway)
           ‘Water and wastewater tariffs are not charged for water itself, but to recover the costs of water treatment, water storage, transporting it to customers, collecting and treating wastewater, as well as billing and collection.’

           This is what I meant water rates are for. Not because the Council owns the water
           • felix 6.3.1.1.1.1

             10 July 2012 at 3:15 pm

             Link please so we can see what it’s really referring to. Better be nz.
             • McFlock …

               10 July 2012 at 4:02 pm

               yeah, nah. Yet again seeking the definition that suits his purpose, rather than the one we live by here and were talking about.
               • felix …

                 10 July 2012 at 4:15 pm

                 Bit awkward how the link to the article on water pricing was in the same paragraph that he selected his quote from.

                 He must’ve seen it while copy/pasting, it was right there. Which is a a bit embarrassing as it almost looks as if he deliberately avoided linking so as to mislead the forum.
                 • McFlock …

                   10 July 2012 at 4:20 pm

                   yeah. He must have thought he was the only one on the interwebz that has heard of google.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:31 pm

                     So the council does claim ownership of the water?
                      
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:41 pm

                     At least one NZ council seems to think it might be an issue:

                     The council was proposing to start a process to revoke the 2001 Rural Water Supply Bylaw and replace it with a new bylaw covering technical issues, including theft of water.  

                      
                   • higherstandard …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:42 pm

                     http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspoliciespublications/theaucklandplan/aptdinfrastructurewater.pdf
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:45 pm

                     oh wow, here’s an actual criminal case for theft of water:

                     An Oamaru man who allegedly stole water from the Waitaki District Council by tampering with his water meter is being dealt with by diversion through the Oamaru District Court.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

                     You see, outside of your (McFlock) and Felix’s hilarious double act of snide and sneering scorn although hilarious, you are not actually helpful. I am trying to ascertain whether the council claims to own the water itself and thereby charge you for it as opposed to the maintenance, pipes and containment which is how it is generally understood.
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:54 pm

                     Nah, you were caught out selectively quoting part of an article in such a way as to demonstrate that councils don’t charge for water, when the article actually said nothing of the sort.

                     Bit late for the innocent act now pal.

                     Also, if you really believe the council isn’t charging you for water then stop paying them per litre and see if they keep delivering it.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:55 pm

                     Hmmmm. Did they write ” allegedly stole the maintenance, pipes and containment of water”?
                              
                     Nope. 
                   • higherstandard …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:55 pm

                     And

                     http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/property-rights-water-nov03/html/page4.html

                     ‘Property rights can arise through law, custom/tradition and use. However the State defined and enforced property rights represent a useful starting point for an analysis of rights in water. In legal terms [This section largely summarises the property rights aspects of the Milne and Mooar (2002) report. This report should be read for more detail of water allocation and property rights.] regional councils are empowered under the RMA to grant water permits which allow the holder to take, use, dam or divert water subject to availability. Consents are not required for water takes in some limited circumstances (e.g. domestic use, stock water, fire fighting), and consents cannot be granted for in stream use.

                     Water is not owned, but the rights to use the water in various ways are owned. Some of these rights the State alienates to individuals, and others it effectively retains in its ownership. In practice the retained rights to water represent those which various other stakeholders in society have an interest – such as the ecological values, the fishery, amenity values etc.

                     Property rights of Maori are less clear. As noted above they would appear to have aboriginal title to water under customary use, but how this translates in practice is not well established. Kaitiakitanga is protected as a section 7 matter, giving it equal status to a number of other matters including development.’
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 4:56 pm

                     Yeah Felix which is why I prefaced it with:
                     “Forgive me if I am wrong..”

                     i.e. I could be wrong.

                     But that’s alright Felix, I’ll ignore your seeping scum. 
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 6:52 pm

                     “Forgive me if I’m wrong”

                     =/=

                     “Forgive me if I make shit up, selectively quote, try to hide the fact by not linking, and then pretend it never happened when caught out”
                 • TheContrarian …

                   10 July 2012 at 5:06 pm

                   Why would I link to water pricing? 
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 6:47 pm

                     You wouldn’t, because you were pretending it didn’t exist. Duh.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:05 pm

                     We were talking about whether or not local councils charged you for the water (as product) or the system of delivery, maintenance and other devices used in supplying water.

                     Lets look at water pricing on wikipedia:
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing

                     How does this relate to whether or not councils charged you for water or the system of delivery, maintenance and other devices used in supplying water?

                     Subsection: Bottled Water
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing#Bottled_water
                     Not relevant to discussion

                     Subsection: Tanker Trucks
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing#Tanker_trucks
                     Not relevant to discussion

                     Subsection: Utility Trariffs
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing#Utility_tariffs
                     Very relevant to discussion, links back to the article:
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_tariff

                     Subsection: Irrigation
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing#Irrigation
                     Not relevant to discussion

                     Subsection: Direct abstraction
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pricing#Direct_abstraction
                     Relevant but not enough information

                     The only truly relevant section links back to article I originally quoted from.
                     So tell me again why I was ‘pretending it didn’t exist’?
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:12 pm

                     Water pricing is relevant because (drumroll) it’s about the price charged for water you fucking idiot.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:13 pm

                     I think you need to reread the above.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:21 pm

                     Oh, you mean the thread that started with PeteG asking “How can anyone claim ownership of something as globally fluid as water?”
                   • TheContrarian …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:26 pm

                     I think you need to reread my comments too McFlock. I have been speaking fairly specifically about council provided water supply for some time now
                   • felix …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:37 pm

                     “I think you need to reread the above”

                     Nah, you’re only going to make a smartarse remark about how the whole conversation is beneath you, how you don’t care whether water is charged for anyway (despite arguing for ages that it isn’t), and how you could totes “win” the argument if you really wanted to ‘cos you know all this other stuff but you just can’t be bothered explaining it ‘cos we’re all too stupid to get it, and then fuck off for the night to return tomorrow and pretend the whole conversation never happened.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 July 2012 at 7:42 pm

                     C – I think you need to learn to address the actual topic of discussion, rather than arguing about something else.
                         
                     You might find this place less frustrating if you learn to stick to the point.
               • TheContrarian …

                 10 July 2012 at 5:07 pm

                 rather than the one we live by here and were talking about.

                 Which one is that?

                 Ahhh fuck it, don’t even bother – I can do without yet another pointless discuss with McFlock. 
   • felix 6.4

     10 July 2012 at 10:01 am

     Just to be clear, you do want to sell these water assets as per National’s plan, right?
   • marty mars 6.5

     10 July 2012 at 10:03 am

     “that this is an extorion attempt” well you got that right just the wrong way round – tangata whenua are taking the claim and even though the PRIME MINISTER said he could disregard any findings anyway – how’s that for a smack in the face eh – most would wither at that step but tangata whenua are staying the course. They are doing it for themselves and for us. That is courage. That is integrity and that is honour. You know nothing pete george but i’m sure that won’t stop you turning it all around so you can talk about yourself.
     • OneTrack 6.5.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:46 pm

       They are doing it for themselves. You might not be so supportive when you start getting the bills or have to pay to swim in a river, etc?

       Rhetorical question – when is NZ going to get over this apartheid stuff and all start moving forward instead of always looking in the rear view mirror?
   • Pascal's bookie 6.6

     10 July 2012 at 10:03 am

     Pete.

     1. I don’t think it’s a very hard concept at all. We live in a world where ideas can be owned for goodness sake and electronic frequencies, and lord knows what all else.

     2. The timing is based on the fact that the government is seeking to sell. Should they wait untill after that is done?

     On extortion; isn’t that word usually used when someone threatens someone with unpleasent consequences unless they hand over something that is rightfully theirs?

     For example, if someone was to say hint that there might be terrible things unleashed if a group of people didn’t give up their claim to, for example, water rights. Would that create a ‘perception’ of extortion?

     Personally, I think you, and the PM, should be careful lest you create a situation where it is difficult not to percieve that you are a bunch of race baiting pricks prepared to unleash a racial shitfight, and deprive NZ citizens of their legal rights, in order to get their way politically.
     • Pete George 6.6.1

       10 July 2012 at 10:06 am

       And Labour needs to be very careful they don’t help unleash a racial shitfight, and deprive NZ citizens of their legal rights, in order to get their way politically.

       Siding with water rights action for perceived short term political gain on asset sales may make things very tricky for Labour – and for New Zealand – if the water rights get traction. They’re unlikely to be solved quickly, and quite possibly Labour will lead Government while it is being addressed.
       • freedom 6.6.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 10:21 am

         wow Pete, you are really losing the plot

         Since you are so sage and generous with your opinions, why are you so afraid of answering in an adult and direct manner the few simple questions that are regularly put to you ?

         Could it have something to do with you falling apart like a toddler whose broken their toy and wants to blame it on their younger sibling every time your sycophantic party-lines are shown up for the misanthropic toxins they are?
       • felix 6.6.1.2

         10 July 2012 at 10:22 am

         You’ve got your parties and motives entirely backwards.

         Keeping our assets isn’t a “short term political gain” – selling them is a short term fiscal one.

         And I’m not scared of racists, Pete. Do your worst.
         • Ed 6.6.1.2.1

           10 July 2012 at 12:03 pm

           I can’t see any short term fiscal gain. Can you explain?
           • felix 6.6.1.2.1.1

             10 July 2012 at 3:27 pm

             Sell assets, bank money. Gain.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.6.1.3

         10 July 2012 at 10:23 am

         nasty smear Pete.

         the fact is the claim is to be heard.

         the fact is it may have an impact on the sales process if the Government can’t work it out.

         There is no need for it to become a racial issue at all. But you and the PM, with your extortion comments, seem to be heading that way.

         What rights are NZers being deprived of by the case being brouight Pete, which you refer to in your comment?

         It appears that you can’t answer any point I made, so you just switched some owrds around in the hope that it might work both ways.

         So how does it?

         If iwi have rights to the water, then how does it ‘deprive other NZers of what was legally theirs’ if those rights are upheld?
         • mickysavage 6.6.1.3.1

           10 July 2012 at 10:28 am

           Good point PB

           Petey

           Do you:

           1. Accept the Treaty of Waitangi is an important constitutional document
           2. Accept that it preserved to Maori their Taonga?
           3. Accept that unless stolen or confiscated or sold thest Taonga remain in the ownership of Iwi?

           Just asking.

           And nasty smear. Labour has not declared a position. If you are looking for good old dog whistling red neck rascism look no further than the Government you support.
           • Pete George 6.6.1.3.1.1

             10 July 2012 at 11:30 am

             In general I accept all three points.

             But ownership of water, like air, can’t be pinned down. The water that was in New Zealand in 1840 could be anywhere now. The water that’s here today came from the Tasman Sea, the tropical Pacific, the southern ocean. That in turn came from elsewhere in an endless cycle.

             Do you accept that rain that falls doesn’t have accompanying deeds of ownership?
             • mickysavage …

               10 July 2012 at 11:38 am

               Straw man argument Petey.

               The claims are as much about the river beds as the water. Just like local Councils can charge for their pipes and the supply of water it seems to me that Maori have certainly a very arguable case that as they own the riverbeds they should be permitted to exercise some rights over the water that flows through those riverbeds.

               Limiting the discussion to water idiverts the argument away from what the application is actually about.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               10 July 2012 at 11:47 am

               That’s what the courts will be deciding Pete. For myself, I can’t see why it’s any more problematic that owning ideas, which are much more ephemeral things than water flows.

               Now hos about you adress this idea about extortion.

               How can iwi be extorting NZers if they are are asking the courts to rule on whether or not the crown extinguished their rights?

               If you can’t explain that, then would you agree that claiming they are extorting people is unhelpful to say the least?
               • Pete George …

                 10 July 2012 at 11:56 am

                 Maori Water Rights on Marae Investigates

                 The Co-leader of the Maori Council says he’s confident the Council’s water right claim will derail the Government’s plan for State asset sales.

                 The Co-leader of the Maori Council says he’s confident the Council’s water right claim will derail the Government’s plan for State asset sales.

                 Maanu Paul:“Once we get a decision from the Tribunal that says, yes Māori have proprietorial interests in water – Government go and negotiate with Māori, a cost will be incurred. Immediately overnight the shares will halve.”

                 http://community.scoop.co.nz/2012/07/maori-water-rights-on-marae-investigates/

                 That sounds like trying to play one issue off against another with a threat of financial loss.

                 Rawiri Taonui: At the moment the Crown is trying to keep the issue of SOE sales and Māori water rights separate but we’ve seen comments from Bill English and John Key about preferential shares or buy back shares that will go to Māori and that tell us that they understand the issues aren’t separate and it’s going to be very interesting to watch.

                 And financial gain by leveraging one issue against another.
                 • McFlock …

                   10 July 2012 at 12:01 pm

                   Jim wants to hit me.
                   I do not want to be hit.
                   I say “Jim, if you hit me I will hit you”.
                   Jim does not want to be hit.
                   Jim does not hit me.
                        
                   Horrible fucking me, pitting one issue against the other.
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   10 July 2012 at 12:04 pm

                   But how is that extortion.

                   They either have legal water rights or they do not. If they do, then they are entitled to have them respected. The issues are linked. the link isn’t fanciful, it’s real. If they have the water right, there are consequences. Pointing out those consequences is just pointing out what the right they hold, means.

                   That’s not extortion Pete.

                   You should probably just retract the allegation if you can’t provide any basis for it.

                   But you won’t, even though that gives rise to an impression that your claims are all about the politics of it.
                   • Pete George …

                     10 July 2012 at 12:16 pm

                     It’s full of politics – that’s the problem.

                     If water rights were dealt with by the Waiangi Tribunal separately on their own merits then they would stand a better chance of a fair and untainted hearing. But it has been included as a part of the asset circus. That may backfire.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     10 July 2012 at 12:31 pm

                     So your claim of ‘extortion’ is full of politics and that’s a problem but it’s all someone elses fault?

                     WTF?
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   10 July 2012 at 12:12 pm

                   Perhaps an analogy might help.

                   Imagine I’m trying to sell a house, and you are pretty sure that the house is actually yours.

                   Let me know how it goes from there, and let me know when you get to the part where you are extorting me.
             • Uturn …

               10 July 2012 at 11:48 am

               It’s related to whakapapa. Several levels of heaven, the earth, the air the sea. The original Mother and Father and their Children interacted with humans and created an element of the divine in maori/humans. Just like the Angel and Mary, just like Greek gods and demi-gods. As with a western or Greek god, it doesn’t matter if a particular water molecule changes state over time, the element of the divine is still present. A god can use any molecule of matter they like, outside of reference to time. The link to the people is never broken and gaurdianship remains intact.

               In modern pakeha thought processes, there is no equivalent for maori gaurdianship. So “ownership” has become the closest term for use. That there is no direct translation does not mean there is no connection that is just as strong, if not stronger than a “property” perspective, it just means we can’t name it in english concepts.
               • Bored …

                 10 July 2012 at 12:03 pm

                 Guardianship versus ownership (title) is one of the primary reasons the Bards in western Scotland were suppressed from the time of James 1, leading eventually to the ejection of the people from their land. The bards like the Maori kept an oral tradition that referred to lineage and tradition (as opposed to paper title and property). To get rid of the bards was to get rid of customary shared title in favour of codified individual property rights sanctioned by central authority.

                 Sounds a bit like the Maori challenge and why the Treaty causes so much consternation.
                 • Uturn …

                   10 July 2012 at 12:54 pm

                   Yep, as you illustrate, there is no excuse for not understanding the perspective via analogy, as Pete tries to do in his first question in post #6. To my eye there is no consternation necessary over “ownership” or “guardianship” terms, because these days it is a matter of power structures: One party wants to take something from the other party and would prefer not to have to feel like they don’t have total control. Simple as that. Too often pakeha don’t realise they are inter-related to maori and their world view whether they acknowledge it or not. Solution is obvious, but illuminating the solution in the minds of individuals is difficult.

                   By pushing back against pakeha imbalances, maori are actually saving pakeha from themselves. While pakeha fail to see this and disrespect their efforts, maori will lose whatever they do. That they make the efforts is an example of great humility and sacrifice, no matter how much money a few groups might make in the process. If they give up fighting before pakeha collectively wake up to reality, it will be the beginning of “unexpected” social troubles that we’ll blame on everything except our own doing.
                   • marty mars …

                     10 July 2012 at 1:28 pm

                     Good comment uturn. Yes the interrelatedness is underrated, which is strange considering we are all in the same waka.

                     Ani Mikaere, during her Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture said “For pakeha to gain legitimacy here, it is they who must place their trust in Māori, not the other way around.” I hope we are moving closer to that.
                   • vto …

                     10 July 2012 at 2:29 pm

                     Wouldn’t mind taking a few things up in them last few posts uturn and marty mars but alas no time at this time perhaps another time. In one short sentence though – it appears your comments elsewhere, pointing out that the point from which people point tends to be the most descriptive of their view, are perhaps the most applicable here.
                   • Descendant Of Smith …

                     10 July 2012 at 8:15 pm

                     Ani Mikaere, during her Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture said “For pakeha to gain legitimacy here, it is they who must place their trust in Māori, not the other way around.”

                     A link to the complete document is useful for it is useful reading.

                     http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iwi-am04.pdf

                     I posted here some years ago and haven’t changed my mind since that we should have an equal number of Maori and non-maori seats in this country – it’s called a partnership.
                   • marty mars …

                     10 July 2012 at 9:32 pm

                     Thanks for that DOS, yes the whole speech is essential reading.
                 • weka …

                   10 July 2012 at 8:28 pm

                   Interesting Bored. Anything further I can read about that?
               • Sam Hall …

                 10 July 2012 at 1:24 pm

                 Regretably, “the christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad”-one of my heroes.

                 following some of the issues raised by difference politics can sure drive you to madness though…
             • mike e …

               10 July 2012 at 2:09 pm

               Peters Groupie Land didn’t have ownership till man invented ownership.
     • deuto 6.6.2

       10 July 2012 at 10:46 am

       As usual PG posted the same post (6 above) on KB as here, but he omitted the last sentence that he included in the KB one which clarifies his position further:

       I think we need to stand up and speak up quickly on this, and not just moan and wait until it’s too late.

       Which is exactly what the Maori Council etc are seeking to do with the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing. The water rights issue is not a new one; it has been simmering away for years without resolution. The partial assets sale of energy assets using water for power generation has triggered the urgent action for resolution.

       And here is my version of PG’s post at 6.6.1

       And National and UF need to be very careful they don’t unleash a shitfight, and deprive NZ citizens of their legal rights, in order to get their way politically.

       Opposing water rights action for perceived short term political gain on asset sales may make things very tricky for National and UF as the water rights get traction. They’re unlikely to be solved quickly, and quite possibly Labour/Greens will lead Government while it is being addressed.
   • Uturn 6.7

     10 July 2012 at 10:07 am

     No no, Pete. Refusing to even attempt to understand another person’s culture and viewpoint, as far as an outsider can, and instead quickly falling back to judgement based only on your own ignorant views is wrong. It’s the gateway to racism at worst and common dictatorial politics at best.
   • Bored 6.8

     10 July 2012 at 10:42 am

     PG, you are thinking totally in your cultural context, pakeha with the associated history of property rights. It may surprise you that the Maori who signed the Treaty were thinking about how they perceived property and this was almost certainly a different concept to the pakeha.

     It may surprise you that the Maori may be thinking that extorting water rights is wrong under the cultural concepts that they had when they signed the Treaty. As to timing the Government made the call to force the issue by attempting to sell, the objection was already on the table. As to principle, the Government and by association your buddy Dunce appear to be moving in an unprincipled manner, especially with regard to Treaty obligations.

     As for Key, he benefited from Labours stance on the Foreshore and Sea Bed, if he wont see the link its not because he cant see it, it is entirely doctrinaire payback to his funders.
     • Logie97 6.8.1

       10 July 2012 at 11:45 am

       Time to remind PG of one of his leader’s public stances.

       …
       Protest calls for end to claims on foreshore
       NZ Herald Tuesday July 29, 2003
       More than 500 people took to the main street of Nelson yesterday in protest over the issue of Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed. Carrying placards saying “Whites have rights too”, “When do we stop giving?” and “One law for all New Zealanders”, the march left Wakatu Square shortly after noon. Protesters chanted “Foreshores for all” as they marched to the Church Steps, where they heard speeches from organisers United Future leader Peter Dunne and Nelson National MP Nick Smith.
       …

       There you go Petey Boy. I am sorry but the article no longer shows the grandstanding photograph of the Dunne Boy clambering into a sailing dinghy …
       • mike e 6.8.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 11:55 am

         No he was found clinging to a small bouy petey bouy
       • marty mars 6.8.1.2

         10 July 2012 at 12:19 pm

         Good stuff logie97 and when combined with deuto at 6.6.2 shows the real agenda of the pete – racial division and anger against others – and this is not the first time the pete has done this, nor the second – shame on you the pete.
7. Penny Bright 7

   10 July 2012 at 9:58 am

   CHECK THIS OUT FOLKS! THE INFORMED AND CONSIDERED OPINION OF PROF. PREM SIKKA ON ‘THE SCANDAL-RIDDEN UK BANKING SYSTEM’!

   “I have an article on the website of The Conversation. It comments on the banking scandals and argues that the UK political institutions are weak and therefore durable reforms are a long way off.

   The article is titled “Durable change a long way off for scandal-ridden UK banking system” and is available at

   https://theconversation.edu.au/durable-change-a-long-way-off-for-scandal-ridden-uk-banking-system-8129

   You are most welcome to add comments to stimulate the debate.

   As always, there is more on the AABA website ( http://www.aabaglobal.org/ )

   Regards

   Prem Sikka
   Professor of Accounting
   Centre for Global Accountability
   Essex Business School
   University of Essex
   Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK
   Office Tel: +44(0)1206 873773
   Office Fax: +44 (01206) 873429
   AABA Website: http://www.aabaglobal.org/
   • Bored 7.1

     10 July 2012 at 11:09 am

     No never, I read the MSM and it is a “conspiracy theory”!
     • freedom 7.1.1

       10 July 2012 at 12:41 pm

       the bosses must be scrambling left right and center
       selecting junior staffers to blame it on
       • travellerev 7.1.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 1:12 pm

         The first court case in the LIBOR (London interbank offered rate) crime wave was started in August 2011. One of the banks involved was the Bank of America where John Key has most of his paper wealth.
         Here is the court paper:
         Question: Why isn’t John Key fuming on behalf of us that we have been ripped of by his ex-bankster mates?
         Answer: Because he is complicit in ripping us off until this very day!
         • mike e 7.1.1.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 2:13 pm

           Trav I thought Gooseman and PG would be denigrating you for posting this.
           • travellerev 7.1.1.1.1.1

             10 July 2012 at 2:58 pm

             It must be getting to close to home. Better to ignore ad hope it goes away.
             • McFlock …

               10 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

               they get confused when their high regard for avaricious CEOs conflicts with their “tough on crime” mantra.
8. aerobubble 8

   10 July 2012 at 11:10 am

   Another assumption? The idea that the global isn’t warming because this would mean
   south island glaciers would grow not shrink, because glaciers would grow worldwide, doesn’t
   make any sense. Obviously changing patterns of rain fall, and or drought, will also means
   some glaciers will retreat and some grow. But I doubt regrowth of glaciers would take place
   until the greatest likely glacier of them all would have shrunk. That of the north polar sea and Greenland, which would irrevocable (for thousands of years) change the patterns of glacier growth.
   We would return to a iced over europe and north Asia continent, and return to the pattern
   of coastal warming that allowed the first Americians to cross from Asia into N.America.

   Being an island I suspect a warmer NZ in a couple of centuries.
   • Vicky32 8.1

     10 July 2012 at 6:30 pm

     Being an island I suspect a warmer NZ in a couple of centuries.
      

     I am very sorry I shan’t live to see it! Mosquitoes are a thing of the past here, (there’ve been none since 2007, flies also) and I am freezing cold for 3/4 of the year. *
     As Jared Diamond pointed out in Guns, Germs and Steel, most of New Zealand is too cold to be habitable without technology. As for global warming, bring it on I say! 
      
     * I anticipate screeching about ‘anecdotal evidence’, to which I can only say that if you’re not freezing your nuts off, you must be either very comfortably off and able to afford heating, or a passionate rugby fan, used from birth, to cold and regarding it as fun.
     • Carol 8.1.1

       10 July 2012 at 6:44 pm

       Out west in Auckland I still had mozzies in the summer – not as many as most years, but they’re still around – plenty of flies come cruising in around meal time in the summer – even now, if I’m cooking in the middle of the day and the sun is shining.
     • Te Reo Putake 8.1.2

       10 July 2012 at 6:52 pm

       “most of New Zealand is too cold to be habitable without technology”
        
       That’ll be news to the tangata whenua, V32.
       • Vicky32 8.1.2.1

         10 July 2012 at 7:14 pm

         That’ll be news to the tangata whenua, V32.

         Take it up with Jared Diamond then, not me! Carol, you’re jolly lucky! I’d trade flies for having to wear four layers inside, any day.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.2

         10 July 2012 at 8:58 pm

         Pretty sure you’ll find the nomads of Siberia/Alaska would be shocked about this as well.

         Of course, It all depends upon what is meant by technology. I’m pretty sure both the Maori of the South Island and the Eskimos actually did have the necessary technology to survive in such extreme conditions. The basic knowledge of how to build houses, wrap up warm and light fires. Without those then, yeah, it’s entirely possible that survival wouldn’t be possible in either location.

         The problem really is that when people think about technology they tend to think about computers and other modern devices and not the knowledge that’s been around for thousands of years such as striking a flint to light a fire.
         • Vicky32 8.1.2.2.1

           11 July 2012 at 2:43 pm

           Of course, It all depends upon what is meant by technology.I’m pretty sure both the Maori of the South Island and the Eskimos actually did have the necessary technology to survive in such extreme conditions. The basic knowledge of how to build houses, wrap up warm and light fires.

           Well, no shit Sherlock, that’s exactly what I (and Jared Diamond meant). So those people who got their knickers in a knot, or startingh  salivating excitedly, red-eyed and already with that little vein in their forehead throbbing – thinking they’d proved a charge of evil racism against me, can just STFU…
           • Vicky32 8.1.2.2.1.1

             11 July 2012 at 2:54 pm

             BTW, getting very fed up with being told I am exhibiting “harmful behavior” (sic) – and having to enter a capture and endure a lecture every time I want to post. Subtle censorship? (We hope you’ll lose patience and go away).
             Is anyone else experiencing this? Last time I asked I was ignored. Fed up with it.
             • QoT …

               11 July 2012 at 7:21 pm

               Yes, Vicky, it’s totally an evil plot against you. Lprent, you see, has deliberately included a captcha form on The Standard which detects boring self-righteousness. (Wait, that can’t be the answer, or Petey G would be complaining too.)

               It could be that you continually embed links in your post in a way which screams “sp4m!!!!!!” to a basic filter. But that would mean the world wasn’t out to get you.
               • Vicky32 …

                 12 July 2012 at 4:11 pm

                 It could be that you continually embed links in your post in a way which screams “sp4m!!!!!!” to a basic filter.

                 Sigh, you are such a silly bitch, aren’t you? That would make sense if I did embed links, but I almost never do, as you’d know if you read my posts. (Which you don’t actually do, despite your reflex attacks whenever you see my name.. Issues much?)
                 I was in an impatient mood yesterday, and very cross about the sheer number of times it kept happening, when for the most part, my comments were very bland. I apologise* for my attitude, as I was in a general frustrated mood… 
                  
                 *Don’t get all excited, QoT, it’s a general apology, not one specifically for you!
                 • QoT …

                   12 July 2012 at 5:31 pm

                   Sigh, you are such a silly bitch, aren’t you?

                   Vicky, I have seen you whinge about being sp4m-filtered twice. Both times were after you embedded links in your post. Right back at ya.

                   I make no apology for “reflex attacks” on you when you’re trying to imply that lprent is deliberately trying to silence your ~wonderful~ contributions to this blog. And believe me, I ignore a hell of a lot of the crap you write.
9. prism 9

   10 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

   Can this blog survive Peter George? It seems that he attracts so much response because people always react to him – can’t let him be. I’m jealous – I put thought into stuff that seems important to us all but does not suit a quick, smart alec rejoinder. It seems that personalities, blog celebrities in fact, draw input instead of valuable discussion about the matters of today which we dearly need to address.

   The blog is dominated by Peter George and why can’t people think of their own ideas and concerns and describe them to us rather than just input in reaction to what could just as well be a computer virus.
   • Carol 9.1

     10 July 2012 at 12:22 pm

     I agree with the DFTT idea, prism. I usually don’t read that stuff, and prefer to read your stuff, even though I don’t necessarily respond.
     • prism 9.1.1

       10 July 2012 at 7:16 pm

       Carol – Thanks, same applies to me.
       • TheContrarian 9.1.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

         DFTT never works in sufficiently large online communities. Someone always bites.
     • R 9.1.2

       10 July 2012 at 8:20 pm

       +1. I don’t get why people can’t seem to understand that engaging with (i.e. being seen to react to) poor behaviour simply encourages more poor behaviour. Clearly they’ve never been to school (there’s one in every schoolroom) or raised a domestic animal. It’s the replies which perpetuate/exacerbate trolling, not the troll: every time he gets a response or a mention he is encouraged to continue. It’s not rocket science!
   • Half Crown Millionare 9.2

     10 July 2012 at 4:11 pm

     Why do you people answer this clown? With a bit of luck if you ignored him he might go away. On this left leaning site, there has been many a right winger giving a valid intelligent discussion from their side of the political spectrum, but this clown talks shit. I have not seen an intelligent original discussion put up by him.
     Because of this I for one for a long time have completely ignored his posts. Like his leader Dung and to quote them both he’s a nonsense and has nothing of importance to say.
     • McFlock 9.2.1

       10 July 2012 at 4:18 pm

       A) being ignored doesn’t stop him. He just assumes it means he’s right.
       B) there’s always the possibility that someone on a bad day might think he has a point.
       C) it’s funny when he slowly gets painted into a corner, starts to try to flail distractions to all and sundry, and then flips around to something completely contradictory. Like with the water rights thing. 
       • Carol 9.2.1.1

         10 July 2012 at 5:30 pm

         But, but…. the advice from a psychologist says, they are attention-seeking and best ignored.

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/7245308/Internet-trolls-have-low-self-esteem

         Though I think this article also tends to make bullying an integral part of being a tr0ll. To me it’s anyone disrupting and diverting discussions – attention-getting is more apt, IMO.
         • QoT 9.2.1.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 10:51 pm

           That psychologist has clearly never been on the receiving end of some of the shit people get thrown at them by “trolls”. “Just ignore the bully” is the advice of people who don’t want to have to confront the issues which permit the bullying in the first place (and that’s as true of workplace/schoolyard/”real life” bullying as it is online.)
           • marty mars 9.2.1.1.1.1

             12 July 2012 at 4:34 pm

             I agree. I can mostly let what the troll says go, but when he starts pontificating about Māori I cannot leave his distortions and misrepresentations to just sit there. Sorry but I just cannot stand that shit and as much as I can, i’ll fight it.
     • Tiger Mountain 9.2.2

       10 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

       PFDs –no not some new Adobe software, but rather, “Pete Free Days” are a treasured experience for some.
       • prism 9.2.2.1

         10 July 2012 at 7:10 pm

         quote by Hughes Mearns:
         ‘Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there,
         He wasn’t there again today, Oh, how I wish he’d go away’

         The conundrum of the situation.
         • deuto 9.2.2.1.1

           10 July 2012 at 9:20 pm

           LOL – well said. And I totally agree with your comment at 9 above; just haven’t had the time to reply.
   • Bored 9.3

     12 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

     “Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”
10. Dave Kennedy 10

    10 July 2012 at 12:49 pm

    The loss of 220 KiwiRail jobs is significant, not only does this represent 220 families that will be losing incomes, but the risks to the safety of our rail infrastructure must surely be a concern. We have seen the damage done to the KiwiFruit industry through cuts in our biosecurity and when our rail systems haven’t returned to pre-privatisation standards the logic behind this decision escapes me.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/kiwirail-job-cuts-cause-unnecessary.html
    • Bored 10.1

      10 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

      I fear that making a profit from Kiwirail requires the loss of rail maintenance jobs, the capital “asset” becomes more run down and less safe. When the train crash occurs who will be blamed?
      • McFlock 10.1.1

        10 July 2012 at 4:33 pm

        The worker who dies.
    • Vicky32 10.2

      10 July 2012 at 6:33 pm

      The loss of 220 KiwiRail jobs is significant, not only does this represent 220 families that will be losing incomes, but the risks to the safety of our rail infrastructure must surely be a concern

      There was worrying talk on 3 News about selling Kiwirail. Key said something like ‘we have no such intention’, which may well mean the opposite. (First, we had to hear about TomCat though)
11. freedom 11

    10 July 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Where now is the militant urgency that saw heavily armed Police make his pregnant wife stand in the rain after they kicked in his doors and helicopters flew overhead ?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7252387/Dotcom-extradition-hearing-delayed

    + on a completely unrelated matter, anyone else wondering which Vinyard the “Elvin Wine’ came from for The Hobbit cast ?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7237319/Hobbit-Wrap-Party-A-Hot-Ticket
12. Sam Hall 12

    10 July 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Does this blog censor nihilists???
    Afraid like everybody else??
    • Tiger Mountain 12.1

      10 July 2012 at 4:24 pm

      nihilists? who cares man….
      • Bored 12.1.1

        10 July 2012 at 4:28 pm

        I don’t even believe in nihilism…its a bleak life, or is it?
    • Uturn 12.2

      10 July 2012 at 4:31 pm

      If your comments have not been immediately published, sometimes there is a delay for unknown e-reasons. If you’ve written a trigger word, you post will say it is under moderation.
    • Hayden 12.3

      10 July 2012 at 4:57 pm

      Just don’t tick the “I am a nihilist” box on the comment form and you’ll be fine.
      • McFlock 12.3.1

        10 July 2012 at 5:39 pm

        Can I tick the “I am not a nihilist” box?
        Or would I just be in denihil? 
    • Te Reo Putake 12.4

      10 July 2012 at 5:11 pm

      “Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”
13. mickysavage 13

    10 July 2012 at 5:35 pm

    The Maori Party is going postal about John Key’s statements about the Waitangi Tribunal.  It seems they do not like the idea that the tribunal set up to ensure justice for treaty settlements was rubbished by the PMONZ.
     
    My impression of the MP has improved.
     
    Interesting times …
    • McFlock 13.1

      10 July 2012 at 8:01 pm

      I liked Harawira comparing it to buying a car off someone who can’t produce the ownership papers.
           
      I sure as shit wouldn’t buy a used power station off Key. Would you?
      • Pete George 13.1.1

        10 July 2012 at 8:05 pm

        It’s more like trying to sell a car but someone tries to stop you filling the radiator unless they get part of the sale price.
        • Te Reo Putake 13.1.1.1

          10 July 2012 at 8:09 pm

          Perfect analogy, Pete. You’re quite a deep thinker, aren’t you?
        • felix 13.1.1.2

          10 July 2012 at 8:47 pm

          I guess that person who won’t let you fill the radiator would be the person with the water.

          Is that what you mean, Pete?
        • mickysavage 13.1.1.3

          10 July 2012 at 9:10 pm

          someone tries to stop you filling the radiator unless they get part of the sale price

          Maybe if that person owned the property that you were on trying to siphon water out of his garden hose and maybe if you had previously promised to let him keep his water …
    • fender 13.2

      10 July 2012 at 8:21 pm

      Funny how we get impressed by the MP when they behave like a Maori Party should.

      Guess we arn’t use to anyone but Mana doing that.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS