Metaphor

58 comments on “Metaphor”

• Comments are now closed

1. Darren Rickard 1

   27 August 2008 at 9:00 am

   If you Labour guys weren’t so dangerous Steve your comment would be funny. It isn’t. Get back to work and stop posting on taxpayer time.

   [lprent: Don’t make stupid comments. You have no idea where Steve works. On the same basis that you are using for assumptions I could tell you to stop sending in comments from the sewer, because that is obviously where you work. However I know you got that from a sewer – that technical idiot Whale – so I have more basis for my guess than you have for yours. ]
2. Strings 2

   27 August 2008 at 9:09 am

   I was all like ‘metaphor’.

   Is that meant to be English? I have no iudea what you mean!
3. Steve Pierson 3

   27 August 2008 at 9:13 am

   strings… unannounced sharp right turn by a national mp… real life metaphor for what we could expect from a nat govt.
4. Jeeves 4

   27 August 2008 at 9:17 am

   Whilst it is certainly not the worst mistake you’ve ever made, I think you’ll find that the “mini” is actually a VW Beetle. I thought you’d recognise the “people’s car”.
5. vto 5

   27 August 2008 at 9:19 am

   i was tootling thru the streets of a southern town when i saw a little red toyota with ruth dyson’s emblazonry on it. she was driving all over the road and not really appearing to know how to drive at all. it was very dangerous to the people that lived in that town. she in fact appeared to be perhaps drunk and in breach of the very laws she is responsible for. and i was like ‘metaphor’.
6. higherstandard 6

   27 August 2008 at 9:22 am

   Oh dear – it appears Owen Glenn has just dropped dear Winston in it !
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   27 August 2008 at 9:22 am

   Worst metaphor I can recall reading, vto. Perhaps you should just say what you think’s really going on instead of trying to dress it up.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   27 August 2008 at 9:23 am

   Darren. that’s not the best you can do is it?

   written on my own time and i’m never on taxpayer time. One could ask whose time you are writing on, but it’s noone’s business and you should behave the same way to others.
9. Steve Pierson 9

   27 August 2008 at 9:27 am

   hs. interesting.. nothing illegal or unusual in a politican seeking donations, of course, but i wonder what he said to parliament regarding the glenn donation – if he mislead parliament, that would be grounds for sacking.
10. vto 10

    27 August 2008 at 9:30 am

    mr pillot, it wasnt that bad was it? quite apt given the plenty breaches that go on with labour folk (surely I dont need to list them).
11. Mike Collins 11

    27 August 2008 at 9:32 am

    “if he mislead parliament, that would be grounds for sacking.”

    Well the Dalziel precedent is that if you mislead the public you can expect Clark to fire you. And rightly so. It is now untenable that Winston states he did not know about a donation when he in fact sought it.
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    27 August 2008 at 9:40 am

    Yeah vto, but a metaphor it wasn’t!
13. Daveski 13

    27 August 2008 at 9:42 am

    Helen Clark has refused to be drawn on an election date.[NZH]

    … and HC is stalled at the lights.

    Don’t bother answering either – this is perfectly acceptable, not required to, nothing in it.

    But put Key in the same position, it would be a scandal, there would be a secret agenda, etc etc.

    You could even get me to write the odd post now and then seeing how predictable some of the lines are becoming (notwithstanding the convention that this is the collective voice of individuals just in case I stir up the mod again).
14. mike 14

    27 August 2008 at 9:47 am

    “hs. interesting.. nothing illegal or unusual in a politican seeking donations”

    Still standing behind Winnie I see Steve.
    He has just been outed as lying not only in the house but to the NZ public.
    But hey he props the labour Govt so that’s OK cause its not illegal. Pathetic.
15. higherstandard 15

    27 August 2008 at 9:51 am

    Dave simple – election dates should be set in legislation – third Saturday of October in the appropriate year or something similar.

    SP

    So in your opinion Winston has been telling the truth but Owen Glenn is lying, Bob Jones is lying, Rodney Hide is lying etc etc – the man is bringing parliament into even more disrepute than it’s presently held.

    If he was a Labour minister he’d be gone – the only reason he’s still there is he’s needed for the ETS.

    Both Labour and National are gutless to still be courting this charlatan.
16. ak 16

    27 August 2008 at 10:00 am

    For months now, I’ve been looking at Ligherstandard’s comments and soliciting a clear or even mildly interesting point but have noooo idea if anyone’s ever found one…..and I’m like, metaphor, man….
17. Steve Pierson 17

    27 August 2008 at 10:01 am

    hs. i didn’t say that peters is telling the truth and the rest are lyin.. don’t put words in my mouth if you want to be welcome here.
18. lprent 18

    27 August 2008 at 10:01 am

    mike: SP didn’t support or not support Winston. What he said was that it was going to be a problem for Winston if he’d mislead parliament.

    Now a comment on your attitude. It is only in your lexicon that you have to attack without evidence (ie mad dog syndrome) on every occasion. In your warped thinking waiting for enough evidence to form a judgement is ‘support’. You are not just wrong, but I’d have to say that your attitude is bloody dangerous. It is the attitude of the fuckwits who lead lynch mobs.

    Peters has an explanation in Stuff, but this is starting to look more murky than prior information to me.
19. Edosan 19

    27 August 2008 at 10:05 am

    I hope he was watching out for pedestrians. I nearly got hit by a sharp turning car in Kelburn the other day.
20. higherstandard 20

    27 August 2008 at 10:05 am

    Ah Yes AK the person who extrapolates a survey of six health systems in which NZ comes third equal with Australia to NZ having the 2nd best health system in the world.

    I suppose you’ll be delighted that we have a Foreign Minister that has repeatedly misled both parliament and the public ?
21. Daveski 21

    27 August 2008 at 10:09 am

    Not trying to threadjack but to continue the Peters line, I’m involved in the racing industry and hopefully the industry leaders can separate themselves from what is becoming a huge political liability.

    What’s the car metaphor for that … caught speeding in stolen car without a WOF?
22. higherstandard 22

    27 August 2008 at 10:10 am

    SP

    If he misled parliament ……… are you trying to be funny ?

    Ban me if you want but this blog has been pretty much in isolation with it’s ongoing refusal to call Winston for what he is.

    [lprent: You mean that the posters here prefer to have some kind of evidence and are not prone to joining lynch mobs at the drop of a hat? In case you hadn’t noticed this is quite a distinct site. We use our brains more frequently than some other sites.

    I don’t know about the others, but I’ve seen Winston in action before. I need to see overwhelming evidence because the guy always has a hidden edge. In the meantime he keeps getting the publicity he needs. ]
23. John Stevens 23

    27 August 2008 at 10:13 am

    When is Helen calling the snap election. She is now a leader of a corrupt reigime. Did OG drop Labour in it as well saying it was thanks for supporting Labour in forming the govt?
    See the speaker is showing her communist ideals in suppressing Rodney Hide yesterday.

    [lprent: probable troll]
24. ak 24

    27 August 2008 at 10:19 am

    What was that HS?

    Are you reminding us yet again that our health system ranks third in the world (second last time) at a third of the cost per capita of the private US system (which ranked last) on a highly respected international survey which all those “NZ and its health system sucks” tory campaigners can find by googling Commonwealth Fund?

    You are?

    Good man.
25. Strings 25

    27 August 2008 at 10:36 am

    So I was like you know and he was like no really and I was like yeah and he was like really metaphoric and I well you know blah blah blah

    Steve
    This is the closest I can find to what you put up as a piece of English Prose. It’s from a spoof on Valley Speak in California, regarded generally as an example of how not to communicate!

    If what you actually meant was “I thought to my self ‘wow, is that a metaphor or not!’ ” then perhaps you would grace the English language with those words rather than slang from a foreign country.

    Or is that what the taught you in English classes in our advanced state education system? (Sarcasm, in case you took it seriously!)
26. Billy 26

    27 August 2008 at 10:41 am

    nothing illegal or unusual in a politican seeking donations

    Actually, under the old legislation, wouldn’t it have been illegal for Peters to have known the source of an “anonymous” donation? I suspect this is why Peters has specifically addressed the “who did the soliciting” question in his response.
27. Strings 27

    27 August 2008 at 10:42 am

    >
    >>But put Key in the same position, it would be a scandal, there would be a secret agenda, etc etc.

    Indeed, secret agenda does seem to be a common phrase in the Labour Party’s vocabulary. However, the interesting thing to me is that I cannot find a single policy in their platform for re-election so far. Perhaps that’s the real secret?
28. mike 28

    27 August 2008 at 10:49 am

    “In your warped thinking waiting for enough evidence to form a judgement is ‘support'”

    Imprent – do you not think there is enough evidence by now of Winston intentionally misleading everybody (including HC) on this matter

    Are you just a tad titchy because it looks as though OG has once again landed labour in a pile of shite this close to the election?
29. Steve Pierson 29

    27 August 2008 at 10:50 am

    strings. i assure you my choice of vocab in the post was intentional and purely for effect.
30. Billy 30

    27 August 2008 at 10:51 am

    Hey, Steve, what does the faded yellow Mini represent?
31. randal 31

    27 August 2008 at 10:52 am

    a pussy extension….

    [lprent: the point to that comment was ????]
32. higherstandard 32

    27 August 2008 at 10:54 am

    AK

    3rd equal out of six does not equate to 2nd best in the world you buffoon.

    Lynn

    Poppycock the posters here have convinced themselves of far worse things about the National party on far less evidence than there is of Winston Peters misleading the public and parliament.
33. Billy 33

    27 August 2008 at 10:55 am

    I am going for: the public’s (faded) faith in the political process.
34. Killinginthenameof 34

    27 August 2008 at 11:05 am

    Actually its a gold coloured paint, which tends to look horrible when you cover it in gold stickers. I wonder if he has got authorisation on it yet? he hadnt last time i saw it, a couple of months back.
35. lprent 35

    27 August 2008 at 11:07 am

    hs:

    Poppycock the posters here have convinced themselves of far worse things about the National party on far less evidence than there is of Winston Peters misleading the public and parliament.

    Not quite. If you read posts carefully (as I do), you’ll find that the posters seldom make absolutist statements.

    What they do is to define an interpretation or an opinion based on the available evidence. What they don’t do is state what *must* happen. I have no doubt that you could find a few cases where an absolutist position has been taken, but it isn’t often.

    The reason is because the posters here are aware of the primary dictum of politics – that you seldom know the whole story. Therefore everything is in a field of grey and the best you can do is to cautiously venture an opinion.

    However I’d have to say that the commentators do sometimes take absolutist positions on posts, often without fully reading them (IMO).
36. Phil 36

    27 August 2008 at 11:17 am

    Randal… WTF !?
37. lprent 37

    27 August 2008 at 11:19 am

    mike:

    do you not think there is enough evidence by now of Winston intentionally misleading everybody (including HC) on this matter

    No. The reasons are

    1. We do not know what Winston said to HC
    2. Winston hasn’t fully replied to what Owen has said. What he has said requires support.
    3. Winston has pulled things out of the hat far too often for me to make early judgements.
    4. Anyone with any sense reserves judgements. Look at the Brian Henry stuff last week for why.

    Are you just a tad titchy because it looks as though OG has once again landed labour in a pile of shite this close to the election?

    In my opinion, Owen Glenn has always acted with the utmost of integrity and always done things above board. That is in stark contrast with the legal (but IMO morally bankrupt devices) like the Waitemata Trust or the other anonymous trusts used so extensively by Act and the Nats.

    It has bugger all to do with my favourite party, except in the minds of the terminally conspiracy obsessed. What annoys me is people making premature judgements, and then attacking posters for not agreeing or trying to tell them what they should say.

    As you know – that always makes me tetchy and more than usually sarcastic.
38. Steve Pierson 38

    27 August 2008 at 11:26 am

    Billy. franks is a former ACT MP – their colour is bright yellow. Now he’s National… and he drives a faded yellow car, its like he’s taking the piss out of himself
39. Daveski 39

    27 August 2008 at 11:55 am

    In the absence of a specific thread about developments re Winson and Glenn, all we know is:
    1. what Winston said
    2. what Glenn said
    3. what Winston said is not what Glenn said

    By SP’s logic and many others on this (at least according to r0b) political authority one Nat saying something *perceived* to be different to a policy constituted a scandal.

    So given there is no perception of disagreement but absolute disagreement, surely this constitutes a scandal of Biblical proportions?

    [lprent: Maybe. Personally I’d wait for more developments before forming an opinion. But I’d suggest that you read the About and Policy – this site doesn’t claim to be a general political blog site. It is a left-leaning broad labour movement blog site that specialises in opinion and commentary – it isn’t a news site.

    What NZF gets up to isn’t really that interesting to a left-leaning political blog. That is why the posts about NZF are few and far between. A post will get written when someone can be bothered and there is enough info. ]
40. Scribe 40

    27 August 2008 at 12:04 pm

    lprent,

    You mean that the posters here prefer to have some kind of evidence and are not prone to joining lynch mobs at the drop of a hat?

    I’ll join HS in calling that nonsense — or poppycock in his words.

    [lprent: Well you can have your opinion….. I have mine.]
41. Disengaged 41

    27 August 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Frank’s car is a metallic gold VW Beetle are you sure that you actually saw his car and not just some random faded yellow mini?
42. Scribe 42

    27 August 2008 at 12:16 pm

    [lprent: Well you can have your opinion….. I have mine.]

    Yup. Aren’t blogs wonderful….
43. ak 43

    27 August 2008 at 12:34 pm

    and he drives a faded yellow car, its like he’s taking the piss out of himself

    Ah. That’ll be what randal meant then: a “pissy extraction” rather than a “pussy extension”. (pity – the latter sounded like a rather intriguing psycho-sociological observation on our regular tory commenters….do elaborate if I’ve misinterpreted, randal… I was thinking along the lines of blow-up dolls so inflated with hot air that they invert in a grotesque fashion….no?…ok then)
44. Daveski 44

    27 August 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Lyn

    I agree I was pushing the envelope and accept your comments as fair as well.

    My point – which I think is completely valid – is that by SP’s definition of a scandal, this is also a scandal. If this isn’t a scandal then you can see where I’m heading. In other words, the post wasn’t about NZF itself but the way in which other events involving the Nats have been spun as a scandal.

    Hence my post was not meant to derail discussion but to refocus attention on the scandal conspiracy which SP has been spinning for some time.

    I acknowledge the fact too you have not over-reacted to my post and have more than tolerated my views.

    Cheers
    D
45. vto 45

    27 August 2008 at 1:45 pm

    I’m with HS and Scribe..

    The hysteria on this site over tapercrap, Lockwoods “dead fish swallowing” (Greens ETS anyone?) meaning ‘secwet agenda’ etc all based on piss all evidence, compared to the idea that wrt Winston Bjeikle-Peterson you require some harder evidence than OG, Bob Jones and Rodney Hide all in diametric opposition, simply beggars belief.

    Does nobody here ever try to put objectivity glasses on? Or apply the same standards across the political spectrum.

    I think you ruin this site yourselves through being so extremely partisan. HS had it right when he said… “Poppycock the posters here have convinced themselves of far worse things about the National party on far less evidence than there is of Winston Peters misleading the public and parliament.”
46. lprent 46

    27 August 2008 at 1:57 pm

    vto: Read the About. This site makes no bones about being partisan or for that matter being “objective”. It is left-leaning and looks to the labour movement for inspiration.

    However it isn’t particularly partisan for a single party. Although
    some of its participants (like me) are. But I don’t write many posts either. Most of the posters don’t really express an affiliation.

    What they do have in common is to distrust the political right, just as the labour movement has had to do over the last century or so.

    The key problem is that HS said “convinced”. That is incorrect. What the posters do is present the unflattering (to the right) interpretation of events.

    The reason for that is historical. Over the last couple of centuries that has been the most effective way to deal with the right. If you are not charitable in your assumptions about the motivations and tactics of the right – then you are probably correct.

    It doesn’t mean that we’re convinced of its veracity, it is just a good working assumption based on past behaviour. Think 2005 and revelations in The Hollow Men – that is the norm. Obviously the public think so as well – those polls about if they trust the Nat’s are quite interesting.
47. vto 47

    27 August 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Iprent, we used to have a mate ‘Fred’ who exaggerated everything so much we joked that we always had to allow a Fred-factor in his tales.

    That is also, following your post, the case here and so we should all allow a Standard-factor for exaggeration and distance from reality and truth.

    And so instantly we should, with the most recent topic’s (Cullen on Nat apologies) reference to ‘staying on message’ meaning ‘not telling the truth’, deduct a Standard-factor for exaggeration and distance from reality and truth. I estimate Standard-factor here to be 100%.
48. randal 48

    27 August 2008 at 2:18 pm

    ak you are getting warm but not close enough. puss as in the stuff that exudes from scabrous sores and not a prurient psychosexual melodrama for pork pie wannabees!

    [lprent: Should I post a d4j warning on your comments?]
49. Steve Pierson 49

    27 August 2008 at 2:23 pm

    vto. you should consume any political material with a critical mind.
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    27 August 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Randal has truly hit d4j status.

    I’m curious as to what’s really got people’s ire up with winnie. truth be told I pay him little attention, other than thinking he’s been a good foreign minister as of late.

    So, what’s up? He’s said that he didn’t solicit a donation to Ms Clark and to Parliament, apparently (I can’t find any real info on that, anyone help?), and now Glenn has said that’s not true.

    Then there’s a question as to whether he knew about it, (as he must have to have thanked Glenn for it, the dates are in question) which probably calls into question whether this agreement with his lawyer was as confidential as he purports.

    So, without asking for a tirade – what is it? Is there something really wrong here? As I see it, if he knew about the donation, then the stuff about his lawyer can’t be true (i.e. that he didn’t know about paying the bills at all) unless he knew there was a donation to his lawyer, but didn’t know about the bill that the donation paid. If all that shoots through, then I gather he may have lied to a lot of people, but I can’t find the statements that would be in contradiction…

    Oh wait, there was a “NO” sign! If he thanked Glenn for a donation before he says he did (after his lawyer told him about it) then he’s definitely telling porkies. Hadn’t thought about that one…

    Excuse my typed train-of-thought. I’d think the main thing, then, is whether he thanked Glenn for a donation he’s said he knows nothing about…
51. randal 51

    27 August 2008 at 3:17 pm

    mp dont confuse straight talk with an unstructured rant. those who protest about being offended are either immature and cant handle the truth or seeking to distract and deflect any argument that they personally dont want to deal with. ok?
52. Matthew Pilott 52

    27 August 2008 at 3:39 pm

    It seems I have enough trouble following my own train of thought on occassion, let alone yours…
53. randal 53

    27 August 2008 at 3:47 pm

    well keep it to yourself then
54. Matthew Pilott 54

    27 August 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Nothing wrong with wanting to understand – some being more of a challenge than others.
55. vto 55

    27 August 2008 at 4:00 pm

    I agree with MP randal. Yesterday I had a snigger at some comment of d4j’s only to realise after that it was actually you. And re the post MP reffered to above I had a similar comment typed ready to ping out but deleted it. And now I see Iprent has joined the fray.

    But do not fear – your one sentence wonders amuse. You sure though that you and d4j are not one and the same?
56. randal 56

    27 August 2008 at 4:53 pm

    I dont care what you think because if this is all you can do it has nothing to do with ratiocination whatsoever
57. Savage 57

    27 August 2008 at 5:10 pm

    Hey didn’t I order a cheeseburger?
58. randal 58

    27 August 2008 at 5:39 pm

    how much cheese dude?

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: Metaphor (2): posted on 3 September 2008 at 10:37 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS