Open mike 19/10/09

20 comments on “Open mike 19/10/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   19 October 2009 at 8:30 am

   I have this nagging thought about the RWC coverage fiasco.

   I presume that the Maori TV bid’s business case relied on there being a certain number of viewers. If the game is being shown on three networks at once I would be most surprised if this level could be reached, and therefore Te Mangai Paho’s conditions would not be reached.

   Having said this I am fully supportive of Te Reo being used for the commentary.
   • Jim McDonald 1.1

     19 October 2009 at 9:13 am

     No worries, mate. Cabinet will be hitting the Fast Rewind button to take them to what should have been done, now that some of the Ministers have woken up to the shambles.
   • The Voice of Reason 1.2

     19 October 2009 at 12:56 pm

     “Having said this I am fully supportive of Te Reo being used for the commentary.”

     Me, too. And after they’ve trained Murray Mexted how to speak Maori, maybe they could teach him how to speak English.
2. Sam 2

   19 October 2009 at 9:37 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2976529/Student-union-blindsided

   ACT – the party with principles.
   • felix 2.1

     19 October 2009 at 2:01 pm

     It gets worse – ACT on campus are promoting their little coup with a series of youtube videos made by the gimp Peter McCaffrey and promoted by ACT chimps like Clint Heine among others.

     The videos make heavy and repeated use of a song by Muse. Who do you think paid for the rights to use it – Peter McCaffery or ACT on Campus?

     Nah, didn’t think so.

     Support private property rights, eh ACT?

     Hope no-one from APRA or RIANZ reads this.
     • Sam 2.1.1

       19 October 2009 at 2:17 pm

       Golly, wouldn’t that just be such a shame.
     • Jagilby 2.1.2

       19 October 2009 at 2:23 pm

       Ad hominem anyone?

       Gotta love VUWSA’s interpretation of democracy…
       “But he’s a fuckwit… VOID!”
       • ak 2.1.2.1

         19 October 2009 at 4:07 pm

         Gotta love Jagil’s interpretation of democracy….
         cheering for a party that won less votes than Winnie to determine the country’s policy…
         • Jagilby 2.1.2.1.1

           19 October 2009 at 4:36 pm

           Funny how MMP is beyond question until it doesn’t work in your favour…. kinda similar to the VUWSA constitution.

           “cheering for a party that won less votes than Winnie to determine the country’s policy”

           Also quite funny that ACT, with 1.7%, probably has just as much of a mandate to govern NZ as VUWSA has to represent its entire student body.
   • Jagilby 2.2

     19 October 2009 at 2:16 pm

     “ACT the party with principles.”

     I second that motion.

     Quorum count?
     • felix 2.2.1

       19 October 2009 at 3:24 pm

       What do you think about “the party with principles” violating the private property rights of the owners of that Muse recording, Jagilby?

       Private property rights are the central principle of the ACT party, the principle on which all their other principles are supposedly based.

       Do you think it’s ok for them to be breaching property rights so brazenly?
       • Jagilby 2.2.1.1

         19 October 2009 at 4:52 pm

         No I don’t support the use of private property in this case, and I’ll freely admit that, but that is beside the point as I highlighted above.

         Why can’t you stick to debating the topic in question?

         Now answer me this – Do you think that the behaviour of VUWSA was acceptable???

         In my view it was an absolute disgrace and just highlights how utterly ridiculous student politics has has always been. Student associations are deplorable insular tin-pot dictatorships. I can’t believe that they are an acceptable attachment to any centre of higher learning.

         I left VUW after one year because I found the student association suffocatingly unrepresentative. I finished my degree in Otago but will attest that OUSA wasn’t any better. For me, paying my student association fees felt like paying a compulsory donation to the defense of North Korea’s foreign policy – How can you actively defend CSM??? Opting out is not, and never has been, a realistic option.
         • felix 2.2.1.1.1

           19 October 2009 at 5:31 pm

           Why can’t you stick to debating the topic in question?

           It’s an open mic thread Jagilby. And anyhoo, you were replying to my comment, not the other way around.

           I don’t know or care much about student politics so I’ll leave that to those who do – but the second issue I raised was in response to your absurd contention about ACT and principles.

           Do you realise how silly it looks to say:

           “ACT the party with principles.’

           ….and then freely admit that they don’t actually adhere to those principles?

           Also, what did you mean by “Ad hominem anyone?” in your first reply to me?
           • jagilby 2.2.1.1.1.1

             19 October 2009 at 7:29 pm

             “what did you mean by “Ad hominem anyone?’ in your first reply to me?”

             Ad hominem… reducing the argument to playing the man rather than the ball. i.e. “gimp Peter McCaffrey”, “chimps like Clint Heine”. This despite there being students from across the spectrum voting for the motion.

             Throw in the fact that you just didn’t want to address the main issue – that of VSM.

             “freely admit that they don’t actually adhere to those principles?”
             Fair cop.
             I guess you could compare that indiscretion to how I routinely see Jeanette Fitzsimmons commuting on Air New Zealand between Auckland and Wellington rather than using the Overlander… that almightily popular train service that we should all be made to travel on. How many tonnes of emissions did Jeanette contribute with the CHOICE she made to fly???
             I guess the only difference between that and ACT on Campus is that Jeanette would contend that those emissions will ultimately cost lives.
             How many lives will be lost by not paying royalties on a youtube clip viewed less than 1,000 times?
           • felix 2.2.1.1.1.2

             19 October 2009 at 9:01 pm

             Ad hominem reducing the argument to playing the man rather than the ball. i.e. “gimp Peter McCaffrey’, “chimps like Clint Heine’.

             Yep, those were nasty viscous personal attacks. Awful of me, I know.

             This despite there being students from across the spectrum voting for the motion.

             Don’t recall passing any comment on the meeting, the motion, or anything of the sort.

             Throw in the fact that you just didn’t want to address the main issue that of VSM.

             Again, it’s an open mic thread. There’s no “main issue”. I think I’ll just stick to what I’m interested in, thanks.

             I guess you could compare that indiscretion to how I routinely see Jeanette Fitzsimmons commuting on Air New Zealand between Auckland and Wellington rather than using the Overlander.

             If flying were illegal then, yes, you could. But it’s not.

             I guess the only difference between that and ACT on Campus is that Jeanette would contend that those emissions will ultimately cost lives.

             Um, no. As above.

             How many lives will be lost by not paying royalties on a youtube clip viewed less than 1,000 times?

             I can’t believe I’m bothering, but how many lives will be lost by pulling wheelies on someones lawn? Knocking over their letterbox? Tagging their fence? Stealing their car? Breaking their legs? Pissing in their pool? Emptying their bank account?

             Are you serial?
     • BLiP 2.2.2

       19 October 2009 at 4:00 pm

       Here’s the ACT Party of Principles in operation.
3. scotty 3

   19 October 2009 at 2:54 pm

   Good to hear Shon Keys’ bumbling response to James Colemans’ questions regarding RWC this morning on Radio Live, providing the public with another glimpse, of how a currency trader just dosen’t cut it as Prime Minister.
   • BLiP 3.1

     19 October 2009 at 4:06 pm

     What time was he on, Scotty?
     • scotty 3.1.1

       19 October 2009 at 4:44 pm

       blip
       between 7 and 8 am I think
       • HitchensFan 3.1.1.1

         19 October 2009 at 4:54 pm

         he refused to appear on national radio according to geoff robinson

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS