Liable to suffer

Written By: - Date published: 10:08 am, October 10th, 2008 - 17 comments
Categories: crosby textor, spin - Tags:

When confronted by media, both Key and English immediately described the secret agenda recording as “Pathetic”, despite being doorstepped in different cities.

They, or Crosby|Textor, have obviously previously constructed a line. Just in case.

All very good but the origin of pathetic (and pathos) is not quite what a lot of people would think:

[Origin: 15901600; < LL pathéticus < Gk pathétikós sensitive equiv. to pathét(ós) made or liable to suffer (verbid of páschein to suffer + -ikos -ic]

It looked like the only ones suffering last night were English and Key.

17 comments on “Liable to suffer ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    10 October 2008 at 10:13 am

    I thought neither of them looked particularly comfortable, plausible or confident and both their refutations sounded like the subtext running in the back of their minds was “Shit! Shit! Shit!”

  2. Scribe 2
    10 October 2008 at 10:46 am

    IB,

    It’s possible they were using one of the 21st-century definitions — crazy, I know — of “uninteresting, worthless”.

  3. IrishBill 3
    10 October 2008 at 11:02 am

    Such short-term thinking and disregard of history, no wonder you favour National. 🙂

  4. Monty 4
    10 October 2008 at 12:57 pm

    ho hum – big yawn – so National wants to win the election – another King hit eh by a desperate and dying government. I suggest you go back to trawlling through John Keys rubbish.

  5. Matthew Pilott 5
    10 October 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Jeepers, Monty, that’s pretty despondent and sparse, even by your standards.

  6. ak 6
    10 October 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Having endured some of Monty’s “comments” over the past year or so (including the single most blatant lie I have ever seen in this forum), it is with the greatest pleasure that I now direct his pathetic, lying, venomous, arrogant, abusive and hypocritical arse to the latest Morgan poll. Have a nice day Mont.

  7. Robinsod 7
    10 October 2008 at 1:55 pm

    I suggest you go back to trawlling through John Keys rubbish.

    Hey monty – I did and guess what? I found all of your sycophantic emails to him under a whole lot of orange peel. I guess even Johnny don’t luv ya…

    And those pics? Eweugh!

  8. Phil 8
    10 October 2008 at 2:27 pm

    ak,

    Don’t blow your load early – the numbers do look very suspicious.

    Normally there is a strong negative correlation in the changes for National and Labour (ie; one goes up, the other goes down, usually by reasonably similar levels).

    This one is showing a six-point bleed away from the two main parties. A quick “back of the envelope” number crunch says it’s about 93% likely to be a rogue, and incorrect.

  9. randal 9
    10 October 2008 at 5:40 pm

    maybe but I’d love to see what the nats own polls are saying…um ah something like, errr ahhh…”pull up pull up pull up”…hahahah ahahahaahahahahahaha

  10. Dean 10
    10 October 2008 at 11:13 pm

    “I thought neither of them looked particularly comfortable, plausible or confident and both their refutations sounded like the subtext running in the back of their minds was “Shit! Shit! Shit!'”

    I imagine that’s almost the same thing as IB thought after the whole “Uncle Tom” fiasco.

    Yes, IB, I still have the screenshots.

    Sprout, what do you make of IB calling someone an “uncle tom”?

  12. r0b 12
    10 October 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Ignore Dean. He is on record as liking to spread the most vile rubbish just to stir up a reaction that amuses him. Best not to feed the troll.

  13. Dean 13
    11 October 2008 at 12:37 am

    “Ignore Dean. He is on record as liking to spread the most vile rubbish just to stir up a reaction that amuses him. Best not to feed the troll.”

    I’m not the one who’s the member of a party that thougt Brash’s affair was fair game, r0b.

    You know that saying about people in glass houses who also have stones? Yeah, you might want to read that one again.

  14. r0b 14
    11 October 2008 at 10:14 am

    I’m not the one who’s the member of a party that thougt Brash’s affair was fair game, r0b.

    I’m not at all happy that Labour went down that path Dean, though arguably Brash’s affair with a major political (financial?) backer was politically relevant.

    I’m not asking you to take responsibility for every dubious act of right wing politicians Dean. I’m not even asking you to take responsibility for your own vile behaviour (as I know that is an exercise in futility). I’m just suggesting that people not waste any time feeding your trolling behaviour.

  15. Pascal's bookie 15
    11 October 2008 at 2:16 pm

    “…though arguably Brash’s affair with a major political (financial?) backer was politically relevant.”

    And Brash saying Clark didn’t value marriage, and Brash using his second wife as a political prop, did you know she’s from Singapore?

  16. Dean 16
    11 October 2008 at 9:37 pm

    “I’m not at all happy that Labour went down that path Dean, though arguably Brash’s affair with a major political (financial?) backer was politically relevant.”

    Are you as unhappy with is as you are with Labour telling Nick Smith to “take his pills”?

    “I’m not asking you to take responsibility for every dubious act of right wing politicians Dean. I’m not even asking you to take responsibility for your own vile behaviour (as I know that is an exercise in futility). I’m just suggesting that people not waste any time feeding your trolling behaviour.”

    I see you’re dodging the point again. Tell you what – why don’t you let me know when you’re ready, willing and able to take your party blinkers off? Then we can have a nice chat about it.

    Until then, you acting offended is just blustering because you’ve been caught out throwing stoned through your glass house.

  17. RedLogix 17
    11 October 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Dean,

    Normally the private lives and families of politicians are firmly off-limits. But there are two general circumstances where this rule may not apply:

    1. When the matter or affair involves gross hypocrisy.

    2. The matter or affair has an obvious political dimension, or has the potential for policy compromise.

    Brash’s affair with the Deputy Chairperson of the BTR failed on both counts. It was deeply hypocritical given Brash’s sustained play on his strong “family values” and how he had used his marriage with Le Jan to defend charges of racism.

    Even then the affair would have likely remained under wraps; but the fact that the other party was so deeply connected to a major National Party backer/funder introduced a political dimension that could not be covered up forever. Eventually the press gallery was going to have to say publically what everyone in the Wellington Beltway already knew.

    Dr Brash’s several affairs where generally kept an open secret for some time. He was however largely the author of his own downfall. You must recall the context in which all this happened. He was scarcely a lily-white innocent in what was going on; he was engaged in an unprecedentedly hypocritical assault on Labour and there was a reason why Helen Clark called him a “corrosive and cancerous influence on NZ poltics”. She did not use that term loosely and normally reserves that kind of language for when she really means it.

    Even then it was only in the tumult of an especially heated Parliamentary session that Labour made an indirect reference to the affair. The problem was…everyone in the room KNEW exactly what was being talked about. It could no longer be covered up.

    Was it one of the greater moments in NZ political history? No. But in the end it only catalysed the inevitable. Brash was never going to survive; it was only a matter of time before Key rolled him. It simply happened sooner than planned.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.