Open mike 20/09/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 20th, 2012 - 200 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step right up to the mike…

200 comments on “Open mike 20/09/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    20 September 2012 at 6:14 am

    I had to leave a rather long note about when and how we moderate on legal issues and public interest because Bob (at least) clearly doesn’t understand it.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19092012/#comment-523421

    You’d think that after all of these years since Lange vs Atkinson that people will have caught up with the arguments that the court of appeal and privy council ruled on.

  2. travellerev 2
    20 September 2012 at 7:48 am

    Try clapping your hands 110 times within 13 secs. That’s how fast the floors were pulverized. It went so fast, they couldn’t even hit eachother. The floors were pulverized to dust in mid-air.

    The Toronto hearings condensed for those of you interested to hear what scientists, Architects and engineers have to say about the events of 9/11

    • TheContrarian 2.1
      20 September 2012 at 10:08 am

      Fuck man, give it up. No one believes your stupid conspiracy theories.

      • thatguynz 2.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 10:17 am

        No.  All your comment means is that YOU don’t.

      • freedom 2.1.2
        20 September 2012 at 10:23 am

        So, Mary Mary quite contrary can you explain why 9/11 truth groups are showing ever increasing numbers of members ?

        • QoT 2.1.2.1
          20 September 2012 at 6:23 pm

          Without commenting on the merits of this particular instance, it seems fairly logical that the further away we get from an event, the more plausible different theories about it are. Fewer people have direct knowledge, primary sources start to fade … see also: Nazca Plateau, Jack the Ripper, the moon landings.

      • vto 2.1.3
        20 September 2012 at 10:24 am

        That’s a bit harsh contrarian.

        Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?

        • TheContrarian 2.1.3.1
          20 September 2012 at 10:50 am

          “can you explain why 9/11 truth groups are showing ever increasing numbers of members?” 

          Argumentum ad populum. It is irrelevant how many people believe it.

          “Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK?”

          Of course

        • Tiger Mountain 2.1.3.2
          20 September 2012 at 11:08 am

          I am healthily skeptical about 9/11 particularly building 7 and the Pentagon that do not appear to have been hit by planes and the suspicious lack of publicly available photos of wreckage from flight 93.

          This stuff should be pursued to the end, just as one Augusto Pinochet was, because it is about how “civilized” societies function. The WWII Polish Katyn forest executions by Soviet forces were known about by the allies from the start but they only ’fessed up this year! Do those in charge do horrible things to the people? I can sense a few nods from readers here… yes they bloody do, so why not sections of the US spook/corporate brigade.

          At one stage Lprent suggested if interest in this topic was going to continue then maybe a dedicated thread could be set up. This could be worth looking at, so the disinterested or general reader could avoid. But that is easy for me to say as I do not run the blog!

          • freedom 2.1.3.2.1
            20 September 2012 at 11:23 am

            Perhaps instead a simple links hub could be facilitated.

            Somewhere that links only are posted into either a Truther/Denier ‘twin tables’ set up that people can freely investigate without the judgement and the vitriol that usually accompanies them.
            Just a thought.

          • insider 2.1.3.2.2
            20 September 2012 at 5:42 pm

            try entering “flight 93 wreckage” in google. It’s not hard. You’ll be amazed – pictures of plane bits in a deep hole in a field!

      • Te Reo Putake 2.1.4
        20 September 2012 at 10:51 am

        Good on ya, TC. However, the best response is probably the rolling eyes or taking this ever useful advice: DNFTT. Still, you managed to get one fool to throw in a bizarro world link to the JFK shooting, so well done for that!
         
        ps. Freedom, I’m not saying the GFC and 9/11 fantasies are definitely linked, but the answer to your question might be found here.

        • travellerev 2.1.4.1
          20 September 2012 at 11:03 am

          TC, Fuck man should be Fuck woman.

        • freedom 2.1.4.2
          20 September 2012 at 11:08 am

          TRP, i am not going to get into a 911 debate here as face to face communication is the only successful method of helping someone break through the cognitive dissonance that is strangling the world. If you choose to continue ignoring the laws of physics and the mind-buggeringly huge amount of data that obliterates every aspect of the official story there is little that a hundred hours of online bickering will achieve.

          People either wake up or they don’t. I stopped wasting my time fighting it online last year. instead i take every opportunity that arises in the real world to engage, assist and educate anyone who shows the telltale signs of 911 ignorance. I can honestly say i have personally witnessed the ‘awakening’ of over a hundred people in that time and it is getting easier every single time.

          So either people have a growing awareness of the issue or i am just an incredibly persuasive individual who gets rational adults to believe in what you call fantasies.

          have a pleasant day

          • Te Reo Putake 2.1.4.2.1
            20 September 2012 at 11:40 am

            Cheers to you, too, freedom. I’m pretty much at the same level of frustration as yourself and most of the time I ignore the madness of the 9/11 truth deniers. But, this is a left wing site and occasionally I rise to the bait that the righties throw. I know I should really take my own advice and stop feeding the trolls, but occasionally its worthwhile anyway, just for conversations such as this.
             
            Ultimately, the best defence against the mis-named truthers is the truth. And the complete lack of any factual comfirmation of an alternative conspiracy to the successful AQ led attack on the WTC speaks volumes.
             
            11 years, 8 days. Still no evidence. Occam’s razor remains as sharp as ever.

            • TheContrarian 2.1.4.2.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 11:47 am

              I like to remind truthers that the Bush government was so freaking inept at everything else it tried but somehow has pulled of the most masterful of conspiracies without there ever being a whistle blower? 
               

              • framu …
                20 September 2012 at 12:45 pm

                which is a good point.

                Ok – normally i dont join in this argument, because it has no end – ever.

                however – im still of the opinion that…
                “there are many conspiracies about 9/11 – the US govt’s is one of them”. Theres just too much stuff that doesnt add up in ANY given explanation.

                I know that puts me in a bit of a stasis/fence sitting position – but i can live with that

              • weka …
                20 September 2012 at 1:03 pm

                I don’t have an opinion either way, but I do like to watch the argument sometimes and how illogic pops up on both sides. 

                For instance, the idea that the Bush administration is so inept they couldn’t have pulled this off, plus the argument that no-one has ever spoken out about the conspiracy, remind me of the commentary in the days following 11/9 where people couldn’t believe that Arabs were capable of planning and carrying out such an attack.

                 

                • BernyD …
                  20 September 2012 at 1:05 pm

                  Not Arabs, torture trained maniacs, they exist everywhere in case anyone was wondering

                  • Jokerman …
                    20 September 2012 at 1:19 pm

                    pointers for a better round of golf (or shall i find another course)?

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 1:20 pm

                      My heart is beating slow @ the mo, L8r maybe.
                      I need a golf club that can take it , not an easy ask.

                  • weka …
                    20 September 2012 at 1:21 pm

                    Sure Berny, but in the days after 11/9 that’s not what people were talking about. They struggled to get their head around how the lowly Arabs could pull that off against the mighty USians.

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 1:26 pm

                      true, fear mongering, Nut Jobs do it every day

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 September 2012 at 1:59 pm

                      “lowly Arabs could pull that off against the mighty USians”

                      Because it was an extremely simple plan that anyone could pull of?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 September 2012 at 2:00 pm

                      “lowly Arabs could pull that off against the mighty USians”

                      Because it was an extremely simple plan that anyone could pull off?

                    • weka …
                      20 September 2012 at 2:34 pm
                      Because it was an extremely simple plan that anyone could pull of?

                       
                      I wouldn’t have thought so. Probably looks easy in  hindsight.
                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 2:41 pm

                      So you’re a life supporter weka, we are not alone in this world.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 September 2012 at 3:02 pm

                      Easy in that ‘lowly Arabs’ are just as adept as anyone else

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 3:05 pm

                      Just another prohibitive culture trying to survive the modern day human condition.
                      = Every country on the planet.

                    • QoT …
                      20 September 2012 at 6:24 pm

                      They struggled to get their head around how the lowly Arabs could pull that off against the mighty USians.

                      Yes. That’s how propaganda works.

                    • weka …
                      20 September 2012 at 7:14 pm

                      They struggled to get their head around how the lowly Arabs could pull that off against the mighty USians.
                      “Yes. That’s how propaganda works.”

                      True, but I think it was also the US people just not being that aware of the rest of the world and having a retarded view of Middle Eastern countries.

                      Anyway, my original point, somewhere, such as it was, was that saying that there is no conspiracy because Bush is an idiot is akin to saying Al Qaeda weren’t smart enough to pull off the attacks.  Neither argument makes logical sense. (and yes, I know, logic in this debate, a vain hope).

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 September 2012 at 7:55 am

                      but the logic falls down because it’s a flse equivalence.

                      The controlled demolition theory calls for an extremely complicated plan that hasn’t been put forward. ie, we know that it must have been extremely complicated, and we have had no suggestion of how they might have carried it out. We also know that the alleged planners have a track record of fucking much simpler things up.

                      The terrorist attack theory is highly detailed; there are loads of very good analytical and investigative books, including interviews with the planners, timelines, historical threads, the whole gambit. It’s also a much simpler explanation of events, needing much less planning, and the alleged planners had the experience to do it.

                      So not really buying the equivalence angle.

                  • Jokerman …
                    20 September 2012 at 1:38 pm

                    you have captivating technique your self

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 1:46 pm

                      How many options do I have?
                      I’ve lived in pain my whole life, captivating?Engineered?UNPaidFor?
                      I should change my handle to BloodyOrphan, maybe that’d help

          • Murray Olsen 2.1.4.2.2
            21 September 2012 at 2:12 am

            Maybe they just pretend to agree so they can escape your explanations, freedom.
            I’ve got some doubts about what happened with building 7, but haven’t seen anything yet which comes close to making me think about why the other two towers collapsed. As for the wreckage in the forest – when planes hit vertically or near vertically, they tend to excavate deep holes for themselves. Bf 109s going into English soil sometimes managed to get surprisingly deep.
            As for the Pentagon – the plane flew over the top of a friend’s car just before it hit. His wife was driving and he is an American scientist, so we’re probably trying to suppress something. Yawn.

      • mike e 2.1.5
        20 September 2012 at 12:33 pm

        Trav yeah trav60,000 tons of material coming down 14ft gaining momentum then gathering in another 70 floors at 2,000 tons each I think your brains have been pulverized by blinkered thinking.
        As for your thermite theory its just a theory thermite could easily be made from the aluminium joinery and the aluminium lining of the gibboard (Dry wall )rubbing together under huge forces 500,000 tons with the momentum building gathering up as the building crashes down the amount of energy and destruction would be in the 100,s of millions of tons equivalent in energy dissipated which could quite easily produce pockets of nano thermite.

        • travellerev 2.1.5.1
          20 September 2012 at 1:26 pm

          For those of you wanting to learn more about what Mike E is talking about here is an excellent analysis of the collapse of the South tower and why there is no pile driver (Which would be against the laws of physics as the top of the building would find the path of least resistance) from Greame McQueen. called waiting for the Wham!
          And Mike E you might take your blinkers off for about an hour and watch the presentation too and the same goes for McFlock

        • freedom 2.1.5.2
          20 September 2012 at 2:08 pm

          i have to respond to that mike, and i will do so with a quick question

          Care to explain how a steel I-beam that was identified as coming from above the point of impact was found embedded in a building 400+ m away from where it was originally riveted and welded into place?

          The nonsensical statements that have no basis in science (or even bother with logic) such as that delivered from mike e above, are why i prefer to keep my 911 work on a face to face platform these days. People are far less willing to throw out bs when they have to sit there defending and or explaining their assertions that always end up contradicting or defeating their own statements.

      • mike e 2.1.6
        20 September 2012 at 2:00 pm

        Its funny these conspiracy theorists seem to believe aliens have already landed and just about everything is a conspiracy just about all the theorists I know are unemployed or in low wage jobs I suppose its a form of escapism.
        But these conspiracy theorists Don’t believe in Vaccinating their children either!
        Another one was that the swine flu vaccination was going to wipe out your immune system.
        My family has all got the swine flu jab and you couldn’t meet a healthier bunch of people.
        I see their kids ( the ones who haven’t immunised their children )and most of them are anaemic
        and physically small Always off school sick with something wrong!

        • travellerev 2.1.6.1
          20 September 2012 at 2:31 pm

          Funny, most people I know who are donating their intelligence and time in search for 911 truth are university professors,scientists, successful architects, Engineers, fire fighters, lawyers, military personnel and Pilots.

        • muzza 2.1.6.2
          21 September 2012 at 7:28 am

          Well Mike, I know some pretty high level business people, intelligent, educated and the like, and guess what, they ask questions too, because they are not stupid, and they don;t believe what is rolled out by TPTB , on all manor of subjects. Only a complete fool believes that corporations, war machines, intelligence industries, big oil, pharma, war on drugs, war on terror etc are there for your well being. Only a FOOL would not want to at least try to see if there is more going on, and a coward would deny it!

          Questioning the party line, and looking for understadings is a responsibility we all should take on, sure that does not mean we will all agree etc, which is fine, but hey the conversations become much more interesting than rugby, beer and other house extensions, or isn’t so and so a bitch, and other irrelevant topics. making up so called conversation in NZ.

          Which person makes the world a potentially worse place for everyone to live, now and in future, including for your kids, nieces, nephews or gandkids etc?

          1: The person who seeks understandings and answers, and questions events which shape this world?

          or

          2: The person who accepts what they are told and never questions the version of what they are told is happening around them?

          Simple question innit!

    • McFlock 2.2
      20 September 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Comparing a building collapse to clapping your hands is idiotic.
       

      • freedom 2.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 2:20 pm

        no mcFlock it is simply an instructive and basic visualization tool that forces your consciousness to realize that one hundred and ten floors of steel and concrete can not fail and collapse to the ground faster than you can clap one hundred and ten times. It is the niggling reality of the situation that you are fighting and which causes you to react so predictably.

        • Andrew Scobie 2.2.1.1
          20 September 2012 at 2:43 pm

          “one hundred and ten floors of steel and concrete can not fail and collapse to the ground faster than you can clap one hundred and ten times”

          really? link please. i believe it is you that doesn’t understand physics then.

          • McFlock 2.2.1.1.1
            20 September 2012 at 3:24 pm

            Fuckit, envelope physics time:

            At 3 metres / floor, 110 floors = 330 metres in 13 seconds.
            Average speed = 25 Metres per second. (about 90KpH).

            G = 9.8M/s/s
            After 13 seconds free-fall acceleration that = 147.4M/s (530KpH). It would have travelled 891.8 Metres. At 3M/floor that’s 297 times.
            Average speed 68.6M/s or 247KpH.

            Obviously this doesn’t include wind or concrete resistance, but in order to replicate the theoretical average frequency of floor destruction at freefall speeds, you would need to clap nearly 300 times in 13 seconds.
                    
            Obviously the law of gravity breaks the laws of physics. 

             

            • travellerev 2.2.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 4:02 pm

              Hahahah,
              Let’s calculate something and exclude one of the most prominent qualities: that of concrete resistance. 
              The law of gravity obeys the three laws of Physics. If the law of gravity had been obeyed as well as the laws of physics the top which you claim acted as a sledge hammer would have found the path of least resistance.

              You should really watch Greame McQueen’s presentation linked to above.

              • TheContrarian …
                20 September 2012 at 4:05 pm

                The laws of physics were obeyed.

                • travellerev …
                  20 September 2012 at 4:10 pm

                  There there C, calm down. Of course the laws of physics were obeyed. Nothing can break the laws of Physics. It is just that the official story can’t have happened unless 19 young Muslims could break them. In order to pulverise the buildings and allow them to come down into their own footprint someone had to have access to all three buildings and place explosives in them, s’all.
                  Only with a huge amount of extra energy could those buildings come down. Office fires and kerosene could not have done that.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    20 September 2012 at 4:36 pm

                    Jet fuel =/= kerosene.

                    You realise that the plane itself is made of many elements with different melting points (like aluminium and magnesium) which would melt and burn before steel, adding to the ferocity of the fire, and that steel is significantly weakened in high temperatures

                    Secondly you have never explained when and how the explosives got into a building with 24 hour surveillance and bomb sniffing dogs and without alerting security or anyone else that worked there.

                    You also failed to address the fact that the it wasn’t the top few floors vs the rest of the building but the top few floors vs. the floor immediately below.

              • Andrew Scobie …
                20 September 2012 at 4:10 pm

                I watched it this morning and personally believe it’s complete bollocks.
                Trav, read this next bit very slowly …. the top of the building DID follow the path of least resistance. All laws, including Newton’s, which you claim weren’t, were followed to the letter.

                • travellerev …
                  20 September 2012 at 4:14 pm

                  Either you are right in which case there was no resistance all the way to the ground where just seconds before there had been a huge solid and undamaged building indicating the destruction of the building by something other than the Sledgehammer Mike e is talking about or you’re wrong and the top bit rammed the bottom bit to smithereens breaking the laws of physics.
                  You can’t have it both ways. Your turn.
                   

                  • BernyD …
                    20 September 2012 at 4:21 pm

                    Well if what they say is true, then I’d be guessing building practices in the name of weight reduction for the primary cause then.

                  • Andrew Scobie …
                    20 September 2012 at 4:33 pm

                    no-one has ever said there was “no resistance”, or course there was. But just not as much as you think there was. Your use of the words: “just seconds before there had been a huge solid and undamaged building” are clearly incorrect. The top clearly fell through at least 1 floor with little to no resistance.

                    The floor trusses in those 2 buildings were clearly the weak point. With the top 12 floors tipping and leaning to one side, all of the resulting force was being transferred through a smaller footprint, clearly more than was able to be withheld, leading to the structural failure. The floors were made of only 4 inch thick “lightweight” concrete.

                    To quote wikipedia: “While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse”

                    and … “Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. Soon large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was the walls peeling off and separating away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered. Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for some seconds before they also collapsed themselves”

                    Anyway, you and i have had countless arguments about this topic and neither one of us is going to budge. I don’t even know why i bothered commenting on the topic again. The weight of evidence is on my side, not yours. so, as you most eloquently put it …. your turn.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      20 September 2012 at 4:52 pm

                      I’d love to see a truther account one tenth as detailed as the various and numerous accounts that are to be found of the mainstream theory.

                      For example, I’d like to know how much ‘nano thermite’ would have been needed and where it was placed. Then we’d need a discussion that takes account of the nature of thermite, that it burns rather than explodes, so it usually requires aditional explosives to shift the cut steel.

                      Factor that into the images we have of the collapse and explain how it all happened, and whether it makes sens to do it that way.

                      The plan would have had to take account of the fact that several floors were severely damaged by the plane crashes and fires. How was this built into the pla? How did the wiring plans for the thermite and explosives build redundancy in to deal with this?

                      Is the controlled demolition theory explaining what we see, or is the controlled demolition account trying to force itself on to what is being observed?

                      But we never get offered any detail. After a decade, there is still no explanation of their account.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 September 2012 at 5:07 pm

                      I want to know “How did the thermite get in there without anyone noticing”

                    • Andrew Scobie …
                      20 September 2012 at 5:14 pm

                      agree! i’m especially interested in how all the tons and tons of explosives and thermite were wired into the building with kilometers of demolition cord, under the noses of tens of thousands of employees ….. without ANYONE noticing.

                      All the while being placed in exactly the correct place for a plain to hit the buildings and not damage said explosives rig. Then requiring someone to press the button to initiate the collapse while knowing 300 odd innocent firefighters were still inside the building with no change of escape.

                      to quote the Tui adds, yea right.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 September 2012 at 5:19 pm

                      “e noses of tens of thousands of employees ….. without ANYONE noticing.”

                      and 24 hour surveillance, security guards…plus fucking bomb sniffing dogs  to boot.  

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      20 September 2012 at 5:30 pm

                      But don’t push the button right away, let it burn for while, having full confidence that when you push the button it will go. 🙄

                    • Kotahi Tāne Huna …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:09 pm

                      The thermite? It was all added by Buzz Aldrin at the time of construction – just don’t say it to his face…

                  • TheContrarian …
                    20 September 2012 at 4:40 pm

                    You are doing it again:

                    “where just seconds before there had been a huge solid and undamaged building ”

                    No,  it wasn’t the top few floors vs  a huge solid and undamaged building but the top few floors vs. the floor immediately below.

                    Why do you never address this?

                  • mike e …
                    20 September 2012 at 4:45 pm

                    Benny D is right but trav you are just repeating con job.
                    You don’t understand laws of physics tell me why it takes 1.2km to stop a1200tonne train going along tracks !
                    then tell me how you would stop 60,000 tonnes which is gaining momentum also fighting the effects of gravity stops .
                    The train isn’t gaining momentum and has only a mild gravitational drag!
                    Those buildings were built quickly cheaply using formally illegal methods until they conned NY City to go back to old methods using clip in prefabricated floor trusses !
                    Now you will find that the flooring systems in use today has to be bolted in with very expensive non sheer temp proof bolts!
                    They’ve learned from the mistakes!

              • McFlock …
                20 September 2012 at 4:21 pm

                I was pointing out that the speed of the towers was within the bounds highest possible speed with no resistance, i.e. freefall speed, and that therefore your “hands clapping” argument is batshit-stupid idiocy.
                     
                We might have some agreement, though – the towers fell at slower than freefall speed due to concrete being in the way. 

              • Murray Olsen …
                21 September 2012 at 3:10 am

                What exactly are the three laws of physics?

      • Te Reo Putake 2.2.2
        20 September 2012 at 3:13 pm

        Just for the record, this bloke can clap 12-13 times a second. So, clearly, it is possible to clap 110 times in 13 seconds, which probably negates whatever vague point Trav was trying to make. But no matter, it just makes the comparison entirely consistent with the rest of the truther claims, which are equally bogus.

      • TheContrarian 2.2.3
        20 September 2012 at 3:16 pm

        I threw a burning piece of metal in the shape of a plane at a piece of concrete once and NOTHING HAPPENED!

        9/11 WAS A LIE!

         

    • BernyD 2.3
      20 September 2012 at 12:23 pm

      The loss must be phenomonal, conspiracy theories rob u of the ground you stand on, they do not answer loss.

      • mike e 2.3.1
        20 September 2012 at 12:37 pm

        What isn’t a conspiracy theory is that it has been found that GW Bush has been found to have lied to the American public in saying he wasn’t warned of an impending attack he was warned but didn’t take it seriously as he thought that no one would dare attack the US!

      • BernyD 2.3.2
        20 September 2012 at 12:39 pm

        Those cats were talking about it in 99, problem was no one could fathom it.
        and I’m just a cat off the street.
        They created a lot of fear with that “engineered” approach.
        You can see it in Afghanistan and other places right now

      • travellerev 2.3.3
        20 September 2012 at 1:13 pm

        Bernie,

        The first speaker is a lady by the name of Laurie van Auken. She was one of the people who fought for an investigation into what happened. She lost her husband on 9/11. As long as people like her want to fight for a new and independent investigation I’m with her

        • BernyD 2.3.3.1
          20 September 2012 at 1:15 pm

          Fair enuf, in a civilised world that’s a good thing, power too them, but I think in this case the inuendo I speek of is all there is behind it, truely sorry for their loss, heartbreaking.
          It was street level info from NZ.

    • millsy 2.4
      20 September 2012 at 8:51 pm

      Regardless of whether you thought the WTC was deliberately demolished or not, you have to admit, that it is rather strange for the all 4 airliners’ black boxes to vanish.

      Given that black boxes have been recovered in dense jungles, shark infested oceans and icy rivers, it would be pretty straightforward for them to be recovered in the rubble of a destroyed building or in the Pennsylvania countryside.

      • kiwi_prometheus 2.4.1
        20 September 2012 at 9:11 pm

        “strange for the all 4 airliners’ black boxes to vanish.”

        They weren’t all destroyed.

        http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes ->

        “The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. The Flight 77 black boxes were also removed from the Pentagon, but one of them (the cockpit voice recorder) was too badly damaged to be used. The only boxes not to be recovered were from the World Trade Centre impacts ”

        The World Trade Centre ones were destroyed – is that surprising given the extreme forces involved there?

        Black boxes aren’t indestructible. They aren’t always recovered.

        And these crashes were not normal – crazies at the steering wheel with the accelerator to the floor.

        It’s like the old moon landing conspiracy nonsense:

        “There are no stars in the background!” – because the sun light fades them out, the sky is black because there is no atmosphere on the moon otherwise it is just like we don’t see stars in the blue daytime sky.

        And seriously, would someone go to all that trouble to fake a mooning landing and forget to paint the stars on the background? 🙄

        The moon is a completely alien environment, what is experienced on Earth and taken for granted is turned upside down.

        Stupid conspiracy nonsense.

      • Tiger Mountain 2.4.2
        20 September 2012 at 9:16 pm

        That type of issue is why I remain a 9/11 skeptic Millsy, not a ‘Truther’, follow the evidence.
        No plane appears to have hit the Pentagon or building seven so what did happen?

        A govt., or sections of it, would not harm it’s own people? C’mon Pol Pot, Indonesia, Chile, Syria.

        • Te Reo Putake 2.4.2.1
          20 September 2012 at 10:11 pm

          Building 7 was hit by a large chunk of one of the falling towers, TM. And while you’ll get no argument from me on America’s historical propensity to use its power extra-judicially, to do so against its own citizens on a mass scale has no modern precedent.
           
          The wikipedia site has pretty common sense descriptions of the main theories, including the video of the Pentagon crash. The guts of it is, for me, that there is no credible alternative to the established facts. And the complete absence of human corroboration of the inside job is the clincher. No whistleblower, no stray email, no oh so human cock up.
           
          It is what it is. A relatively simple plot, using a classic guerilla technique, modernised; multiple hits to maximise the chance of success. They succeeded because a highjacking with the intention of destroying the aircraft and all aboard was inconceivable. Security, till then, had been premised on the idea that political hijackers wanted publicity and a safe haven; that they intended to survive. 
           
          The USA was mugged, pure and simple.

          edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

          • insider 2.4.2.1.1
            21 September 2012 at 2:08 am

            There were a whole load of plane bits lying around the pentagon. Bits of engine, wheels, parts with the American airlines logo. It can only be deliberate ignorance that prevents you Doing the simplest of google searches to see them.

            • muzza 2.4.2.1.1.1
              21 September 2012 at 7:47 am

              There were a whole load of plane bits lying around the pentagon. Bits of engine, wheels, parts with the American airlines logo. It can only be deliberate ignorance that prevents you Doing the simplest of google searches to see them.,

              That comment I just had to laugh at, especially when you used the words ignorant, google search, bits of engine, wheels, parts , logos etc.

              Its like Voice saying that Wiki is a reliable source., and no prescedent etc…

              Ignorant indeed!

              • Te Reo Putake …
                21 September 2012 at 7:59 am

                Yeah, yeah, yeah … you moan, but you have no evidence to support your position, muzza. And that’s your fundamental problem. 11 years, two weeks, no evidence.
                 
                ps, I’ve come to the comclusion that there is a false flag aspect to 9/11. And you are part of it, my friend. Yep, CIA/Haliburton ‘truthers’ are running a false flag op to muddy the waters around a straightforward terrorist attack in order to keep the need for Homeland security at the forefront of the American people’s minds.
                 
                It’s probably the greatest conspiracy ever conceived in the history of the world, but I can’t say any more because there is a black helicopter over my house recording everything I do ….. aaaaaargh, noooooo, gravy for the mind …. tell the world my story, tell them muzzaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

                • muzza …
                  21 September 2012 at 9:56 am

                  Yeah, yeah, yeah … you moan, but you have no evidence to support your position, muzza. And that’s your fundamental problem. 11 years, two weeks, no evidence.

                  Its all BS on every angle, it so obvious, no need to spend time dwelling on it. No need to waste time on what stinks from top to bottom!

                  ps, I’ve come to the comclusion that there is a false flag aspect to 9/11. And you are part of it, my friend. Yep, CIA/Haliburton ‘truthers’ are running a false flag op to muddy the waters around a straightforward terrorist attack in order to keep the need for Homeland security at the forefront of the American people’s minds.

                  Now you’re catching on, slow, but better you got there….I don’t even mind that its you who finally caught on to my position on such matters around deliberate confusion on every angle. Next you just have to develop the inate ability to be able to tell the shite in the lies….You dont have it though, your words tell me that for sure. Worse you have no interest in even trying, which is why you will remain confused on so many issues!

                  It’s probably the greatest conspiracy ever conceived in the history of the world, but I can’t say any more because there is a black helicopter over my house recording everything I do ….. aaaaaargh, noooooo, gravy for the mind …. tell the world my story, tell them muzzaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

                  Idiocy beyond belief!

                  • insider …
                    21 September 2012 at 10:15 am

                    Your postion of deliberate confusion on almost every angle is entirely obvious to most observers. Although I’m prepared to drop the deliberate.

              • insider …
                21 September 2012 at 10:01 am

                I’m assuming it was the laugh of the insane

              • insider …
                21 September 2012 at 9:50 am

                Funny how she never once mentions the airliner debris on the lawn.

                You’d think amongst all the other things she’s assessed she’d have a damn good theory about how the parts were stored inside the building to be found after the event or conveniently dropped in full view in the moments before people arrived on the scene to lend help.

                Odd this is never addressed given that she has worked out everything else. Did she forget?

                • travellerev …
                  21 September 2012 at 10:17 am

                  It seems that the only crime in the universe where the people pointing out that there is a problem with the story of the people who have most to gain by the crime, namely the military industrial complex who had earned trillions with the wars started in the aftermath, have to prove their allegations before a police investigation is started is the crime of 911.
                  This compares to a case were bystanders, who after a bloody body has been found, have to prove the guy who inherited all the dosh is guilty, after they point out the story he is telling is scientifically impossible, before a proper police investigation is started.

                  If you find a bloody body and call the police they come and investigate. They interrogate, question and use science to prove or disprove who has done the deed.
                  It is not our job to find out every detail and every facet of the story. We have done our job in that we have pointed out that scientifically the official story is a load of BS.
                  Even the members of the 9/11 commission declared they were set up to fail and are denouncing their own results.

                  We want a new and independent investigation into what happened on that day and we are not alone in this.
                  End of story!

                  • insider …
                    21 September 2012 at 10:34 am

                    I want a new and independent inquiry into why she completely ignores the most telling pieces of evidence, something you just spent a lot of words dancing around but never actually addressed either. Alternatives are fine, but they lack credibility when they just pretend counters don’t exist.

          • travellerev 2.4.2.1.2
            21 September 2012 at 7:52 am

            Even NIST denies the damage was cause for the collapse. In fact after seven years they said that they could not explain the collapse of building 7. Could have something to do with the fact that they refused to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition perhaps?

        • mike e 2.4.2.2
          21 September 2012 at 8:25 am

          TM building seven how many tonnes of debris fell on building 7
          Do they have cameras pointing at the pentagon all the time maybe now but not then the black box was recovered innocent passengers were killed!
          The right wing will be laughing their heads of off over these conspiracy theorists !

          • travellerev 2.4.2.2.1
            21 September 2012 at 10:23 am

            At the time of the attack on the Pentagon some 83 camera’s were pointed at the Pentagon at all times. Every footage of those cameras has been confiscated. We know this because the FBI The FBI acknowledges Having 83 video’s in their possession which they refuse to release. Only 6 frames have been released to date which do not show clear footage.

            • insider 2.4.2.2.1.1
              21 September 2012 at 11:32 am

              Here’s one of the classic situations where something mundane gets built upon and reimagined until the ‘facts’ shift to give the veneer of something suspicious.

              “83 camera’s ..pointed at the Pentagon at all times” were nothing of the sort. There were 83 films taken by or given as evidence to the FBI. Most showed no images of the crash site (some were of the WTC events, some were from Florida and one from Wisconsin!) or were by people who attended the site after the event. Some were tourist videos, so pretty bored tourists if they have their cameras pointed at the Pentagon ‘all the time’

              Why were they not released? Because the FOIA request only asked for videos showing the impact. The one that showed it was released after the completion of the Massoui trial.

              Most, if not all, of the others have also been released since. http://penttbom.com/

              So Eve presents a whole lot of not even half truths she has muddled together into a half baked blob of nothing, then adds some fairy dust and hey presto it’s a scandal.

  3. vto 3
    20 September 2012 at 8:16 am

    .
    Christchurch, I have realised, is experiencing one of those good old cliches / sayings that your granny always used to say. One of them ones which ring true and you get to see in action from time to time…

    And that is “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

    This government, with no plan to do anything anywhere in the economy or elsewhere, sees in Christchurch an opportunity to show it does stuff. You know, “right, lets get on with it. No point is sitting around, just get stuck in”. But they are bozos blowing it with their bluster and big man bullshit.

    Two example. Firstly, the blueprint is such a massive undertaking that it is almost certainly going to struggle. Getting into the detail and action it becomes apparent that there are major issues not thought through sufficiently. The sorts of issues that cause things to stall, then re-think, then try again and by that time everyone has realised that the government actually had no idea in the first place.

    Secondly, the school closures. The people and protests on te news are 100% right. The schools have been a beacon of normality for people, especially children. So why the rush? Why not start the conversation now and tell the communities that some time in the next couple of years some schools are going to have to close? Then the communities would have time to adjust, discuss, etc. That would seem to be the obvious and caring way. But no…

    … fools rush in where angels fear to tread

  4. captain hook 4
    20 September 2012 at 8:21 am

    sounds good to me vto.
    and by that time a decent Labour government that understands the concept of fair play for all will be back in power and the job can be done properly instead of the Jerry built way they are doing things now.

  5. lprent 5
    20 September 2012 at 9:08 am

    Just been reviewing the slow queries log after seeing nasty slowdowns over the last few days. Added a few indexes into comments that hopefully will improve things. Apologies to anyone caught while the scripts were running.

    Oh well off to the paid employment and what looks like a bug deep deep inside of webkit.

    • BernyD 5.1
      20 September 2012 at 9:25 am

      Ffox 15.0.1 still acting up wickedly, cleared the cache, sits there going round in circles after reading one article.

      • Carol 5.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 9:30 am

        I’m using FF 15.01 and am not, nor have I recently been having, that problem.

        • BernyD 5.1.1.1
          20 September 2012 at 9:32 am

          I’ll try a re install then, thanks

        • BernyD 5.1.1.2
          20 September 2012 at 9:44 am

          Complete re install fixed it, thanks again

          • lprent 5.1.1.2.1
            20 September 2012 at 10:11 am

            Great. I have seen that a few times myself. FF has this script engine that runs a lot of the internals and sometimes it seems to get itself quite screwed up. I suspect plugins myself.

            I’m migrated pretty much to Chrome for normal use these days because it is on all my platforms :- linux, ios, android, virtual microsoft machines, microsoft server 2003 R2 (legacy systems), osx (to use xcode for ios grrr…), and even in the once a month boot of a dual partition vista (for bloody itunes grrr). It also seems to be pretty damn robust and quite fast for every platform I’ve used it on. Whereas firefox keeps feeling heavier and slower with each release

            • BernyD 5.1.1.2.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 10:17 am

              Yeah suspect it’s flash player myself, re installed it to no avail tho.
              (Had a strange error / crash after visiting the standard this time)
              Haven’t used chrome much, it’s installed but not used.

              • Jokerman …
                20 September 2012 at 10:43 am

                Transformational Leadership?
                ( google on another tab but slows this old pc)

                • BernyD …
                  20 September 2012 at 10:47 am

                  Revenge of the Fallen?
                  Faster memory

                  • Jokerman …
                    20 September 2012 at 10:54 am

                    The Standard ílluminati taught me how to be Helpful.
                    He teaches me how to care

                  • BernyD …
                    20 September 2012 at 10:57 am

                    Sounds like your walking on ice bud

                    • Jokerman …
                      20 September 2012 at 11:06 am

                      ‘skating away, skating away….on the Thin Ice of a New Day”

                      Well-grounded actually. (just have to manage the emotional cycles of the day)
                      We all have our crosses to bear, i imagine
                      i also imagine the Diversity of people who may read or reference The Standard

                      came across Cam Sl bleat about anonymity of TS post-ers. Clearly, anonymity is not universal

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 11:15 am

                      It’s a weak response to the context of the views expressed, not even worth reading, so i didn’t.
                      Context is everything on the Net.

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 11:25 am

                      It’s just a Blog M8!

                    • lprent …
                      20 September 2012 at 2:20 pm

                      came across Cam Sl bleat about anonymity of TS post-ers. Clearly, anonymity is not universal

                      He is a somewhat selective and always has been. For some strange reason he never seems to get the lesson that it makes very little difference if authors here are using their real names (like Ben Clark), or a psuedonym like myself when I’ve been using the same one for 30 years – it was my first login name, or where it is a psuedonym.

                      But you can’t get a sense of a person until you actually know them in person. Knowing someone on the net is an exercise in knowing one of their personas, the same as it is knowing them where they work, or whatever. It is a spurious argument that knowing who they are offers any particular value to their opinion unless they are an expert in their field like Mike is (which of course neither Whale or the other great whiners about real names – journos – never are).

                      However opinion is opinion and it makes bugger all difference who writes it – it is what it says that is important. You can always tell someone who writes something useful even if you disagree with it. It forces you to think

                      I suspect that what really gets him is the latter point. If you have nothing meaningful to say, then poor opinion like his invariably is gets treated as being crap regardless if it is a psuedo or “real name”. So he clings to the “outing” he was so irritated about 5 years ago just as he clings to his pseudonymous persona….

                    • BernyD …
                      20 September 2012 at 7:32 pm

                      Yeah, I scanned it when looking for a blog to read, but landed on the Standard.
                      It was the articles originally.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1.2
              20 September 2012 at 1:26 pm

              Whereas firefox keeps feeling heavier and slower with each release

              Could be at that. Just checked memory use and it’s using close to 300MB and I thought it was bad when it was using ~100MB. The reason why I didn’t keep using Chrome, even though I liked it, was because Google won’t allow it to block ads from Google (Using AdBlock) but is quite happy for it to block everyone else’s.

              • lprent …
                20 September 2012 at 2:23 pm

                *grin* Now that is a funny…

                I don’t block ads* apart from malware so that isn’t an issue.

                * Actually there are a few ad site that I block by IP – but that is because their ads irriate the hell out of me. I see that we picked one of those up this morning – the jiggling dialog style. I’ll have to tell scoop that the company making it is not to use our site again.

    • lprent 5.2
      20 September 2012 at 2:06 pm

      Evidently I still haven’t gotten whatever it is. It just happened again.

      Damn. I’ll turn on the full query logging so I can find out what it is doing when I next see the database going ape.

      • Carol 5.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 2:08 pm

        Something happened when I just posted my comment to Return to Planet Key – I got an error message . Eventually I refreshed and the comment was posted, but I couldn’t edit (minor capitalisation typo).

      • BernyD 5.2.2
        20 September 2012 at 2:11 pm

        Probably traffic surges, nothing to worry about, let it burp and continue

  6. KJT 6
    20 September 2012 at 10:05 am

    Anyone notice the slip of the tongue currently happening in statements from National MP’s.

    Apparently they are now our governors, not our representatives.

    Maybe an admission of the real situation?

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      20 September 2012 at 1:28 pm

      Probably more the way they actually think of themselves. They certainly act as if they’re our overlords rather than our representatives.

      • Anne 6.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 2:38 pm

        That’s because they think they are our overlords. They’re to damm dumb to know they’re not…

  7. gobsmacked 7
    20 September 2012 at 2:32 pm

    In Parliament, Grant Robertson has just asked the “Dotcom” questions to the Police Minister that were suggested on this very blog, on Tuesday and Wednesday.

    But she wasn’t there (Brownlee stood in) and nor was Key. They were there on Tuesday and Wednesday. Too late now.

    That’s Labour’s incompetence in a nutshell. If there’s nobody there who can think of this stuff for themselves, why don’t they just have somebody standing by at lunchtime, and we’ll tell them the questions to ask, before 2 pm. No charge for the first ones used – after that, 10% of the MPs’ salary. It’s not like they’re earning it.

  8. Chris 8
    20 September 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Hear ye!Hear ye! Apparently Commanderkey is announcing,possibly to the world, of his intention to send four SAS personnell to Afghanistan to obtain information on who is responsible for the recent attacks on NZ soldiers. What does SAS stand for? Will not someone see them coming now? Apparently, they will do nothing themselves,but share their info with somebody else. Who?Possibly an infiltrator in the Afghanistan Force. But, that’s alright,apparently this is not a revenge mission.Maybe he just wants an apology and then everything will be ok buddy.
    Hope said personnell are good at their jobs and can stay safe, or stupidkey could have some blood on his hands.
    ps key is an idiot!

    • Murray Olsen 8.1
      21 September 2012 at 3:35 am

      Key could get Whalespew and three other gungho volunteers from that vile blog to go and give the “ragheads” what they deserve. I’d contribute a month’s salary on successful completion of the mission.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    20 September 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Oh dear, poor NACt are having a hard time justifying this private prisons business.

    s construction of a new private prison began in south Auckland today, ONE News can reveal the scale of the Government’s controversial deal.

    The prison, located in the suburb of Wiri, had a sod-turning ceremony today but ONE News understands there are hundreds of prison beds lying empty in jails across New Zealand.

    And Serco, the overseas company which will manage the new 960-bed facility, has confirmed it will be paid for 100% occupancy of the prison even if beds remain empty.

    Oops, it seems that the government hiring the private sector just results in the private sector getting government guaranteed profits while not actually saving us money.

    • Carol 9.1
      20 September 2012 at 7:15 pm

      And it seems the London Stock exchange has been told more about the contract than the NZ public:

      http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/tolley-needs-come-clean-regarding-wiri-prison/5/135340

      “Anne Tolley must, by law, table the contract between Corrections and the Serco-led consortium that will build and operate Wiri. I challenge her to do so before the House rises next Thursday, rather than drop its details during a parliamentary recess, which I am sure is her plan”, Labour’s Justice spokesperson Charles Chauvel, said.

      “Serco told the London Stock Exchange earlier this month that it expected revenues of £15 million (NZ$29 million) per annum from the operation of the prison, and £2 million from the period before the prison even opens. The LSE has more information than the New Zealand public about what the taxpayer will pay under the arrangement.

  10. weka 10
    20 September 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Conspiracy theories…. do we have some good examples of ones that have been proven true after being written off?

    (we don’t need the WTC as an example thanks, see up thread). 

    • Bob 10.1
      20 September 2012 at 10:44 pm

      Yip, Hillsborough Disaster, 23 year cover-up just been exposed in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19543964 after 3 seperate enquiries finding the fans at fault, the truth has finally been exposed.

    • McFlock 10.2
      20 September 2012 at 11:03 pm

      Loads.
               
      Cover ups:
      Erebus
      Bloody Sunday Massacre
      Dreyfus Affair

      Other:
      Gunpowder Plot 
      Iran-Contra
      Anything ever done by an intelligence service.
      All the GWBush wars – e.g. yellowcake, “smoking gun”, yadda yadda
      Gulf of Tonkin.

       
       

       
       

    • Murray Olsen 10.3
      21 September 2012 at 3:47 am

      I think that, to be labelled a conspiracy, it has to be more than just a coverup after the event. I’d label Hillsborough, Erebus, and Bloody Sunday as coverups, for example.
      The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Burning of the Reichstag are more deserving of being called conspiracies, as they were both planned in advance. The destruction of the USS Maine in Havana was possibly a false flag operation, which maybe qualifies.
      I think the biggest conspiracy theory of all is the spreading of theories about Bilderberg, the Illuminati, Zionist one world government etc. All these have the effect of causing despair in people because if something is done behind the scenes by almost omnipotent forces, what can be done about it? On the other hand, anyone who analyses capitalism knows broadly what our ruling class will do and what needs to be done to stop it. Of course, this requires a lot more than watching youtube. You have to get off your ass and mobilise for a start. It’s not easy.

      • McFlock 10.3.1
        21 September 2012 at 6:31 pm

        Yeah, there is an instinctive distinction between a plain “coverup” and a full conspiracy. But then the coverup can be an extensive and systemic conspiracy, e.g. Dreyfus.
              
        The trouble is that a lot of the stuff that happens in the world isn’t anyone’s master plan, most of the time it’s an improvised response to a changing situation which folk then quietly work around. ISTR that the Nazis mounted a real “false flag” operation in 1939, staging an attack on their own border posts by pretend-Polish soldiers. 
           
        Watergate definitely counted as a conspiracy, but then it was another programme that evolved into illegal activities beyond par.
           
        As an aside, the most reasonable explanation I read for the USS Maine was that it was a coal bunker fire that had heat conducted through the metal structure to an ammunition bunker. But then it was certainly perverted and transformed into a casus belli. 

  11. BernyD 11
    20 September 2012 at 8:38 pm

    God bless the NZ SAS and their Friends in combat and those they are protecting.
    It’s possible, they are trying.
    In the name of peacefull coexistence and life I bless them.

    • kiwi_prometheus 11.1
      20 September 2012 at 8:52 pm

      Are you suppose to be a priest or something?

      • BernyD 11.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 8:58 pm

        Agnostic, and no.

        • kiwi_prometheus 11.1.1.1
          20 September 2012 at 9:15 pm

          Your “blessing” is worth about sweet FA then.

          • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1
            20 September 2012 at 9:21 pm

            lol
            Only if you’re an atheist. 

            • kiwi_prometheus 11.1.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 9:30 pm

              I was just having a go at him because of his unctuous drivel.

              Woody Allen put the dilemma well:

              You don’t believe in a god then the universe is an indifferent, cold, meaningless place.

              If you do believe in a god you got a BIG problem proving it – you just got to have “faith”.

              • BernyD …
                20 September 2012 at 9:35 pm

                God is thought, life tells us to grow and think
                evolved over billions of years.

                • kiwi_prometheus …
                  20 September 2012 at 9:42 pm

                  That’s an old idea.

                  It was super ceded by Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. The world and human civilization were the material expression of Spirit/Idea.

                  Then Marx came along and took the next logical step removing the Spirit/Idea part for an efficiency gain. All that there is, is material, and man is God.

              • McFlock …
                20 September 2012 at 9:37 pm

                Two points:
                If the universe is a cold meaningless place, then the warmth and meaning of people is much more important.
                     
                And asserting that anyone’s blessing is worth sweet FA is a much stronger religious assertion than a quick blessing by someone who’s not entirely sure it will have an effect.

                • kiwi_prometheus …
                  20 September 2012 at 9:46 pm

                  “the warmth and meaning of people”

                  The problem is they stop existing.

                  • McFlock …
                    20 September 2012 at 9:50 pm

                    So we find the warmth where we can, and we provide warmth for others.

                    • kiwi_prometheus …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:50 pm

                      Then you drop dead.

                      See? Absurd.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2012 at 11:07 pm

                      If a light is turned off, does that mean it never shone?
                      The act of extinguishing it requires that it have been bright in the first place. 
                         
                      Shit changes. The word turns. If we lived forever Hitler would still be farting and ranting.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                20 September 2012 at 9:40 pm

                You don’t believe in a god then the universe is an indifferent, cold, meaningless place.

                Er, nope. That doesn’t follow at all.

                That only makes sense if a god is the only thing that could prevent a universe being ‘indifferent, cold, and meaningless’; and I can’t think of any reason why that might be, or any reason why an atheist would believe it. It’s pants pretty much.

                • kiwi_prometheus …
                  20 September 2012 at 9:45 pm

                  So where is the meaning? Seems like countless philosophers, poets, artists have struggled with it.

                  So what makes you think you’ve bagged it?

                  Please share.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    20 September 2012 at 9:58 pm

                    A pretty silly demand to make k-p.

                    You are the one who has suggested that god is a necessary condition for ‘meaning’ (and so on), in the universe. I said that has not been shown to be the case. You haven’t established that.

                    How does it follow from from what I said, that I should have ‘bagged’ whatever it is you think that theologians have over philosphers?

                    Short answer, it doesn’t. Typical slippery question begging from the theologician camp.

                    Explain to me why god is necessary for the things you claim.

                    You’ll need to define those things first, (the opposites of ‘indifferent, cold, meaningless’) and as you do so, be careful that that what you are describing are not subjective experiences of the universe by sentient beings. Because if that’s the case, then what’s needed for those things to exist is sentient beings, not necessarily gods.

                    • kiwi_prometheus …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:57 pm

                      I dont believe in the existence of a God.

                      So my dilemma is finding meaning.

                      Whereas God believers are stuck with “faith” and questions like “If God is so freaking loving and all powerful why are there little children who have had their feet and hands blown off by mines disguised as children’s toys?”

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 September 2012 at 8:05 am

                      Meaning is a subjective thing k-p. In the western way of looking at it at least.

                      Sticking with that angle, meaning is what people find. It’s how they perceive, explain, experience.

                      You are not going to find it on the outside, it must be active, and provided by yourself. And it won’t be universal. One person’s experience of the universe will, of necessity, be different to everyone else’s, so it’s cray cray to expect their meanings to be the same, and that’s ok.

                      Or to take a more eastern angle, we are ourselves just ‘expressions of the universe’.

                      I’m the universe being me, just as my chair is the universe being a chair.
                      Why? To what end?
                      Ends in themselves, strip away the ego, and just let the universe be the things it is. Relish that and savour it. Be the universe observing itself.

                      Both those angles are saying the same thing by the way.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                20 September 2012 at 10:09 pm

                You don’t believe in a god then the universe is an indifferent, cold, meaningless place.

                Ah, no. It doesn’t require a god to make the universe a place of wonder and adventure.

  12. RedBaron 12
    20 September 2012 at 8:55 pm

    And talking about state capture of a process:
    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-confirms-earthquake-commission-review.

    Only selected stakeholders are getting a say in this while the general public will get a couple of weeks to comment at the end. The private insurers must be drooling in anticipation. Lean on your MP to open up the submissions?

  13. kiwi_prometheus 13
    20 September 2012 at 9:17 pm

    “Gay marriage” has taken a hammering over in Aussie. Voted down big time twice!

    Hopefully it falls on its face here too.

    • XTASY 13.1
      20 September 2012 at 9:26 pm

      On this one you have a point. NZ Labour and Greens focussed largely on it, but they neglecte other “issues”. Something to think aboout perhaps.

      • kiwi_prometheus 13.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 9:36 pm

        The right wingers took a big hit though. One of their top players had to quit after saying if gay marriage is permissible why not bestiality?

        I think he has got a good point – its the Slippery Slope argument. But he went down in a hail of bullets from the media and opponents, his argument dismissed as “ridiculous” or “homophobic” whatever the fuck that is suppose to mean. 🙄

        • McFlock 13.1.1.1
          20 September 2012 at 9:40 pm

          How does the concept “any two consenting adults can marry” slide into “people will marry their pets”? 
                 
          Marriage is between consenting parties. Animals (and for that matter children) cannot consent to anything. 

          • kiwi_prometheus 13.1.1.1.1
            20 September 2012 at 9:48 pm

            “Marriage is between consenting parties.”

            A father and his son?

            “How does the concept “any two consenting adults can marry” slide into “people will marry their pets”? ”

            It doesn’t but “Let me marry who I love!” does and that is the central argument given by pro gay marriage advocates.

            • McFlock 13.1.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 9:54 pm

              You mean where both are old enough to consent?
                     
              Wouldn’t that conflict with the familial relationship, though? I’ll give you that, then – make it “consenting parties who aren’t closely related”.

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                20 September 2012 at 10:07 pm

                See there you go – now YOU are deny rights to people.

                So obviously you dont think individual rights are absolute.

                And neither do I.

                Basically you’re pushing rational contract theory – the same one that is the foundation for neo classical economics actually – rational individual free agents entering contracts with each other. And look where that has got us, haha.

                So back to marriage. Consent is NECESSARY, but it is not SUFFICIENT. Is love necessary let alone sufficient? No, after all it can be faked.

                But it is necessary but not sufficient that the two agents be of the opposite sex, there are physical, psychological and functional elements unique to that arrangement that is and must be acknowledged in the idea of marriage.

                • McFlock …
                  20 September 2012 at 10:13 pm

                  No, you presented a counter example and I said okay, that would involve a conflict of interests, I’ll give you that one. But there is no conflict of interests between two unrelated men marrying, any mor that between an unrelated man and woman.
                         
                  Any union between two people involves  “physical, psychological and functional elements unique to that arrangement”. Why does gender need to be singled out?

                  • kiwi_prometheus …
                    20 September 2012 at 10:30 pm

                    “Why does gender need to be singled out?”

                    If your relationship does not have those unique elements of one based on consent, you don’t qualify for marriage.

                    If your relationship does not have those unique elements of a heterosexual one, you don’t qualify for marriage. Why? Because the differentiation of the sexes is such a significant central characteristic of the human species. That must be recognised, and that is what the institution of marriage does.

                    Pretending that “gender doesnt matter” will destroy the meaning of marriage.

                    Gays have got their civil unions. They were suppose to be happy with that, but of course once they got it, they then wanted more.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:37 pm

                      Wow! Have you ever considered ringing a talkback station?
                       
                      “Because the differentiation of the sexes is such a significant central characteristic of the human species. That must be  recognised, and that is what the institution of marriage does.”
                       
                      Why must it?

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:38 pm

                      If your relationship does not have those unique elements of a heterosexual one, you don’t qualify for marriage. Why? Because the differentiation of the sexes is such a significant central characteristic of the human species. That must be recognised, and that is what the institution of marriage does.

                      No. 
                      Marriage is a legal recognition of a relationship between people that, in many instances, is more intimate than most familial bonds. 
                           
                      Nothing about ‘nads in it at all.

                    • gobsmacked …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:42 pm

                      Gays have got their civil unions. They were suppose to be happy with that

                      Did you support that legislation, or oppose it?

                    • felix …
                      21 September 2012 at 10:14 am

                      lolz.

                      Poor little k_p still hasn’t figured out where babies come from.

            • XTASY 13.1.1.1.1.2
              20 September 2012 at 9:57 pm

              his is idiot stuff. let us focus on what is important!

            • McFlock 13.1.1.1.1.3
              20 September 2012 at 10:01 pm

              It doesn’t but “Let me marry who I love!” does and that is the central argument given by pro gay marriage advocates.

              Love is a mutual emotion. As far as I can see, nobody’s said “I want to be able to marry someone against their will”. That would be against the entire concept of marriage. Both parties at the ceremony say “I do”, not one party saying “I’ll take that one”. But genital allocation among the parties being intrinsic to the ceremony and concept? Not so much.
                     
               

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                20 September 2012 at 10:13 pm

                “Love is a mutual emotion.”

                No way! Come on, its the core of a million love stories, you know the quote “When the object of ones affection…”

                “But genital allocation among the parties being intrinsic to the ceremony and concept? Not so much.”

                Very much, see above ^.

                “nobody’s said “I want to be able to marry someone against their will”.”

                See above ^.

                • McFlock …
                  20 September 2012 at 10:17 pm

                  Dude, unrequited “love” is obsession, infatuation, affection, a crush… but not “love”.
                     
                  If you want soppy love quotes, love is when you’re prepared to share the deepest, darkest, worst thing about yourself to another person, and it doesn’t matter to them.

                  • kiwi_prometheus …
                    20 September 2012 at 10:34 pm

                    “Dude, unrequited “love” is obsession, infatuation, affection, a crush… but not “love”.”

                    Poets and novelists have been writing about love for thousands of years.

                    You really think you know what its all about? Then you should write the book, and make your fortune.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2012 at 10:45 pm

                      Some people find Twilight romantic.  Others see an abusive and emotionally controlling relationship. Meh.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                20 September 2012 at 10:16 pm

                That would be against the entire concept of marriage.

                Depends upon which culture you’re looking at. Several cultures had/have arranged marriages where people are married against their will.

            • Pascal's bookie 13.1.1.1.1.4
              20 September 2012 at 10:06 pm

              It doesn’t but “Let me marry who I love!” does and that is the central argument given by pro gay marriage advocates.

              I’ve never seen that expressed as anything other than ‘let us marry each other’, or ‘let me marry someone I am in love with’.

              But sure, if you have an example of anyone suggesting non-consensual gay marriage, I’ll be against that. But I bet you can’t.

              • kiwi_prometheus …
                20 September 2012 at 10:14 pm

                What do you mean? It was on a protester’s sign in a pic on a thread here.

                • fatty …
                  21 September 2012 at 12:33 am

                  Come on KP – you can’t be serious.
                  If that sign was at a gay marriage protest, then ‘who I love’ is referring to their partner…not their Grandma.
                  If a pub has a sign outside saying ‘smoking section’…that does not mean you can pull out a glass pipe and start smoking crack – it is referring to cigarettes/tobacco.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  21 September 2012 at 12:23 pm

                  Gosh. A sign at a protest you say. Certainly put me in my place.

    • millsy 13.2
      20 September 2012 at 10:54 pm

      Do you want homosexuality recriminalised?

    • Murray Olsen 13.3
      21 September 2012 at 3:55 am

      Kiwi_prometheus
      If you wish to have sex with animals, or even confine this to one animal, go for it. I really don’t care either way. I just hope it’s a carnivore with large teeth.
      The only essential difference I see among people is that some want a better world for themselves and others want a better world for society as a whole. This has nothing to do with gender.

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    20 September 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Crisis or Breakdown?

    Why has it failed? Because capitalism is a mode of production for profit; and profitability is in secular and terminal decline, in Graeber’s view. Graeber says there are three claims that capitalism makes to justify it as a progressive mode of social organisation: it fosters scientific and technological growth; second, it increases overall prosperity; and third, it creates a more secure and democratic world. But it increasingly fails to deliver on all three: “we can feel especially confident that none of this will happen within the framework of contemporary capitalism or any form of capitalism”.

    Emphasis mine:

    The drive for profit and accumulation must result in advancement in technology being curtailed as capitalism cannot afford to solve the climate crisis and other environmental nightmares. To prop up profit essential services are being cut.

    • kiwi_prometheus 14.1
      20 September 2012 at 10:40 pm

      Conflating capitalism and democracy is what right wingers do.

      Capitalism and democracy chaff. But capitalism moderated by democracy does allow everyones boat to lift with the rising tide of living standards = political stability of course because everyone feels they are getting a reasonable slice of the pie with future expectations of more!

      “capitalism cannot afford to solve the climate crisis and other environmental nightmares”

      Its not about Capitalism doing this. It’s democracy which can – re ozone depletion and solution.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1
        20 September 2012 at 11:46 pm

        But capitalism moderated by democracy does allow everyones boat to lift with the rising tide of living standards = political stability of course because everyone feels they are getting a reasonable slice of the pie with future expectations of more!

        Really? Did you not notice the increasing poverty over the last 30 years? The quarter of a million children in hardship? The majority of the people aren’t getting a good deal. In fact, they’re being shafted so as to prop up the 1% profits.

        Its not about Capitalism doing this.

        No, it’s about capitalism preventing it. That’s why NACT keep saying that we need to balance between the economy and the environment means.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.2
      21 September 2012 at 1:01 am

      As an addendum to that one have this one:
      Of Flying Cars

      Americans do not like to think of themselves as a nation of bureaucrats—quite the opposite—but the moment we stop imagining bureaucracy as a phenomenon limited to government offices, it becomes obvious that this is precisely what we have become.

      And that most definitely applies to NZ as well. Contrary to what most people seem to believe about the free-market the bureaucrats have taken over.

  15. kiwi_prometheus 15
    20 September 2012 at 10:59 pm

    There’s no reply link on the gay marriage strand!

    “Did you support that legislation, or oppose it?”

    I supported it.