Open mike 23/11/09

66 comments on “Open mike 23/11/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   23 November 2009 at 7:59 am

   Oil + Drugs = 911. Someone, please, tell me it ain’t so.
   • gitmo 1.1

     23 November 2009 at 8:27 am

     It aint so
   • Cascade 1.2

     23 November 2009 at 2:50 pm

     Oil and drugs would be the more menial bonuses.

     I’m sure the NWO can get their hands on these goods at anytime.

     It is more about ‘control’.

     First you install fear into the lives of humans, then (as a humanitarian ruse) beef up the security, while at the same time you ‘prison’ the world population.
     I doubt this is a ‘religious’ thing, even though Islamic extremists are involved, but then I can imagine so are the CIA.

     The NWO don’t care about religion, they just use it, to trick people (the innocents and also- the foolish that are involved, with the crime itself)
2. DeeDub 2

   23 November 2009 at 8:49 am

   I wonder what possible use Tony Ryall’s public release of DHB league tables could serve?

   It wouldn’t be to get us ready for some post 2011 PPP action in our hospitals, surely?

   How stupid do they think we are?
   • Tigger 2.1

     23 November 2009 at 9:15 am

     So are the people whose jobs entail putting all this information together in these pretty tables – are they ‘bureaucrats’ or a front line service?

     Is filling out the paperwork a ‘front line service’ or part of bureaucracy.

     Given that publishing the tables will create more of this type of work (more trying to comply = more reporting = more bureaucracy) how can Mr Ryall justify National’s ‘fewer bureaucrats’ billboard?
     • felix 2.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 10:58 am

       Oh if only National could string together a sentence like “Fewer bureaucrats”.
       • Tigger 2.1.1.1

         23 November 2009 at 12:19 pm

         I know, the pedant in me couldn’t resist fixing it, hence the quotes… Of course, Labour is to blame for the poor education that lead to National’s atrocious billboard grammar…
3. Gosman 3

   23 November 2009 at 9:15 am

   The issue around the 9/11 Conspiracy movement that people face is about consistency in using scientific evidence to back up your claims.

   If you are going to denounce climate change skeptics like Ian Wishart and Lord Monckton as misrepresenting the science and using dodgy studies to back up their claims you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you then use the same sort of tactics to support claims around the September the 11th attacks.

   Mainstream science is solidly behind the official version of how the three WTC buildings collapsed. You might dredge up some largely discredited studies which you might calim suggests otherwise ,however it does not mean the Science is still undecided on this issue.

   Given the Science is solidly behind the mainstream version then you should realise how repugnant and ridiculous the implications of the 9/11 Truthers actually are. A massive conspiracy by elements of the US administration which has been phenomenally successful at first pulling it off, and secong keeping it quiet as well as fooling, or controlling the mainstream scientific community.

   If you truly believe that then noone is going to take you seriously if you try and push a science based approach to anything ever again.
   • BLiP 3.1

     23 November 2009 at 9:22 am

     Like Copernicus, you mean?
     • Gosman 3.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 9:26 am

       Wow! Because Compernicus lived in a time where his writings were subjected to intense scientific peer review and then his ideas were discredited didn’t he?

       Oh no wait he didn’t. He lived in a time where the Church decided what made up the world view and his vies forceably supporessed. The scientific method wasn’t yet established and freedom of intellectual thought was not allowed.

       Are you implying that we live in a similar time to Compernicus then? If so how can we trust any Science such as what comes through the IPCC?
       • Mac 3.1.1.1

         2 December 2009 at 12:47 am

         Scientific method. Like climategate, you mean?
     • Gosman 3.1.2

       23 November 2009 at 9:31 am

       BTW BLiP I am still waiting for you to provide a single piece of evidence that I am a AGW denier.

       Are you going to retract this claim?
       • BLiP 3.1.2.1

         23 November 2009 at 9:50 am

         Hold your breath.
         • Gosman 3.1.2.1.1

           23 November 2009 at 9:53 am

           I take it that is a ‘No I can’t find any evidence that you are a AGW denier’?
   • lukas 3.2

     23 November 2009 at 11:02 am

     “Mainstream science is solidly behind the official version of how the three WTC buildings collapsed.”

     And the television footage of the planes hitting the building… but hey, why let the truth get in the way of tin foil hat wearing nutters?
4. quenchino 4

   23 November 2009 at 9:38 am

   You got me very confused Gosman. Are you saying that mainstream science can be trusted on 911 but not on global warming? And that the rest of us are being inconsistent?
   • Gosman 4.1

     23 November 2009 at 9:42 am

     No, I am stating that if you argue that the mainstream scientific consensus should be used to determine whether or not AGW is actually happening you make yourself a hypocrite and a laughing stock if you then ignore the same mainstream scientific consensus when it comes to something as controversial as the September the 11th attacks.

     Do you not agree with this position quenchino?
     • felix 4.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 11:16 am

       You haven’t even begun to demonstrate that “Mainstream science is solidly behind the official version of how the three WTC buildings collapsed.”

       If you could, you’d have a point.

       But if you could, you would have already done so.

       Yesterday RedLogix wasted a lot of time trying to discuss the scientific implications of your assumtions and you did nothing but attack him as a kook, a nutjob, a conspiracy theorist etc.

       As you’re not willing to have a science-based discussion it’s very hard to see any point engaging with you on any science-related matters at all.

       I’m sure you’ll continue to yell and scream all day today about how everyone who doubts anything you say is insane, a conspiracy theorist or whatever the currently fashionable insult is, but once people realise (and they do seem to have realised) that you’re not really up for a discussion anyway, why would anyone bother?

       The only thing of any interest to me is why do you do it? You seem to be starting these threads every day, here and elsewhere. Why would someone devote so much time and energy to what you’re doing, which is essentially the equivalent of standing on a street corner shouting “THERE ARE CRAZY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!!!”

       After a while most of us learn to walk past those people. We’ve seen the movie before. We know how it ends.
       • Geek 4.1.1.1

         23 November 2009 at 11:21 am

         Obviously he is part of Bush’s intricate world wide web of deceit designed to cover up what really happened during 9/11. They have been mounting a blog campaign using people who aren’t scientists to discredit other people who aren’t scientists. Its all part of a brilliant bottom up strategy that has kept truther’s on the fringe for the last 8 years.
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           23 November 2009 at 11:24 am

           Oh my god.

           (to be read in the voice of Stan Marsh)
           • Geek 4.1.1.1.1.1

             23 November 2009 at 11:28 am

             LOL

             Wait till you find out the rescission is actually Bush’s creation designed to discredit Obama thereby ensuring black presidents all over the world are ousted and replaced by Bush clones created in a secret lab that was UNDER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DUM DUM DUM
       • Gosman 4.1.1.2

         23 November 2009 at 11:32 am

         I believe I have provided a number of links and made references to Scientific critiques of the 9/11 Truthers claims as well as the actual NIST reports, ( which is the most comprehensive scientific evaluation of the structural failings of the three WTC buildings to date). If you have chosen not to read these articles then that is your problem.

         As for your claim I have started the debate take a look at how the debate developed here. It was Travellerev and RedLogix who broutght this topic up on yesterday’s Openmike, not myself. I in fact did not respond until well after the discussion had been going for quite a number of hours.

         If you don’t want people responding to controversial topics like this then perhaps you should ask people not to raise them.
         • felix 4.1.1.2.1

           23 November 2009 at 1:56 pm

           Oh come on Gosman, this “anti-troofer” stuff is your favourite little personal crusade at the moment. You’re all over the blogs doing the same thing.

           I just don’t know why you give a shit.
           • Gosman 4.1.1.2.1.1

             23 November 2009 at 2:13 pm

             I’m highlighting a huge double standard when it comes to the use of Scientific evidence to support one’s position.

             I find it morrally reprehensible that someone like Ms Fitzsimons of the Greens can claim to be promoting the Scientific mainstream view when it comes to AGW, (something I have no problem with BTW in case you join BLiP in trying to tar me with the Global Warming denier brush), but she and others completely jettison this sound and logical psoition when it comes to something as odious as the 9/11 Truther movement.

             This is a topic that goes beyond a mere Left versus Right argument. You are either supportive of the Scientific method or you are like the looney radicals of the Anti-AGW and 9/11 Truther movement and cheery pick bad science to support your viewpoint.

             I notice you have not disagreed recently with my asertion that the Science behind the claims made by Richard Gage and his ilk are seriously flawed. Does that now mean you can agree with me that supporting the aims of his movement and promoting it, as people like Travellerev do here, (without any prompting from me I might add), is deserving of a response?
           • felix 4.1.1.2.1.2

             23 November 2009 at 2:58 pm

             Recently? I don’t think I ever have.

             So what?
5. BLiP 5

   23 November 2009 at 9:52 am

   You mean like “stomach ulcers are caused by stress” or, perhaps, “smoking increases your lung capacity” ?
   • Geek 5.1

     23 November 2009 at 10:59 am

     This in no way changes his point. You have people on one hand claiming that the accepted scientific opinion is that Global warming is real (which I agree with) so the minority of scientists who claim it isn’t are crazy. Then on the other hand even though the majority of scientific opinion is that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists doesn’t mean that the few scientists who claim it wasn’t are crazy.

     To argue one then the other leaves you in a position where you seem to be someone who isn’t really interested in the science but someone who is interested in finding science that meets your needs.
     • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 11:34 am

       “Then on the other hand even though the majority of scientific opinion is that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists”

       I’m not convinced that this is a ‘scientific’ question in the same way that AGW is. Sure, science is involved but it’s not like there is a broadly accepted theory that when buildings collapse it’s because of terrorism and that truthers are denying the theory of terrorism.

       We are talking about one data point, unrelated to any controversial theory.
       • Gosman 5.1.1.1

         23 November 2009 at 11:45 am

         Quite incorrect.

         Both sides of the 9/11 debate claim they have the weight of scientific literature behind them.

         The Truthers largely rely on the some misrepresentations on the Physics of Structural engineering and how free standing builds collapse plus a couple of incredibly dodgy studies by some Conspiracy Theorists ‘Scientists’ which supposedly show that Active Thermite particles were found in the debris.

         The otherside of the debate relies on the very detail official scientific investigation by NIST, amongst others. This is generally accepted as the Mainstream view. On top of that there is the huge number of people out there that pull apart the 9/11 truthers so called Scientific studies.

         This is firstly a simple case of where you are either for the Mainstream scientific view or against it. Whether you believe the particular theory that supports this comes after that.
         • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1.1

           23 November 2009 at 12:15 pm

           “Both sides of the 9/11 debate claim they have the weight of scientific literature behind them.”

           Bully for both of them. They can claim what they like as far as I’m concerned.

           I’m just saying that it’s not even remotely like AGW, no matter how useful you find the comparison, rhetorically speaking.
     • BLiP 5.1.2

       23 November 2009 at 11:58 am

       I understand exactly what you are saying. However, it seems to me a bit of an apples/oranges fallacy. Unlike climate science, the 911 situation has only, about, half a dozen questions which need to be answered to reach a definitive conclusion.

       There are a plethora of other questions surrounding motive and means which I would also like answered, but the science itself can be solved easily.
       • Geek 5.1.2.1

         23 November 2009 at 12:11 pm

         That’s a fair argument to make. The way I see it is there are motives for both sides. I however think that the conspiracy option is far harder to swallow. Bush was dumb and ignorant, but it’s a big step to sign off on faking the greatest terrorist attack on US soil. However I have no doubt that there are terrorist organizations out there who would want to make an impact such as this.

         Just seems a bit far fetched to me.
         • Gosman 5.1.2.1.1

           23 November 2009 at 12:19 pm

           Here is a link to a detailed analysis of the Controlled demolition theory. It is apparently written from someone who is opposed to the UK and US foreign policy decisions in the wake of September the 11th. So it just goes to show that you can still be a good left winger and support the official position on this subject.

           http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445999
           • BLiP 5.1.2.1.1.1

             23 November 2009 at 12:25 pm

             apparently

             You love those modifiers. I note that the NIST report has been updated several times since the piece you link to was written.
           • Gosman 5.1.2.1.1.2

             23 November 2009 at 12:33 pm

             So does that mean the NIST report or this analysis is flawed in any way BLiP?

             Shall we take a look at the so called scientific studies that people like Richard Gage rely on to promote their odious conspiracy Theory?

             Take Steven Jones’ study which supposedly ‘proves’ that Active Thermite was present in the dust particles. This site takes apart his study http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Steven+Jones

             I especially like this bit about the Journal of 9/11 studies, where many of the studies supporting the Conspiracy Theories are published –

             “However, it has been quite obvious from the very beginning, that most of the so-called peer-reviewers are none other than other members of the same organization. In other words, they are peer-reviewing each others’ papers.”

             If this was an Anti-AGW organisation people would be all over this.

             Face facts – the Science behind the 9/11 Truther movement is seriously flawed not to mention the bizarre implications of what they claim.
           • BLiP 5.1.2.1.1.3

             23 November 2009 at 12:45 pm

             In that case, you can have no objection to the “truthers” being made to look like they fools they are at an open, independent investigation before the world’s media?

             .
           • Geek 5.1.2.1.1.4

             23 November 2009 at 12:50 pm

             That would be about as productive as David Bain’s retrial. A bunch of people with preconceived opinions deciding on a topic that was already judged by those who went into it with an open mind.
           • Gosman 5.1.2.1.1.5

             23 November 2009 at 12:55 pm

             There already has been an investigation into what happened on September 11th 2001. In fact there are three separate official investigations. Just because the Truthers don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean that they should be humoured.

             Also what new evidence is meant to be investigated? That Active Thermite was present in the debris? I have shown that the studies which suggest that are seriously flawed as well as being promoted by people with a particular agenda i.e. not independent Scientists. Perhaps it is that Controlled demolitions are the only way to explain how the three buildings fell? Didn’t the NIST report deal with this?

             What new scientific evidence that is credible is going to be investigated BLiP?
           • BLiP 5.1.2.1.1.6

             23 November 2009 at 1:03 pm

             That would be about as productive as David Bain’s retrial

             Yes it would be. There are significant parallels.
           • Gosman 5.1.2.1.1.7

             23 November 2009 at 1:06 pm

             Once again BLiP – What new credible scientific evidence is being presented that would justify a new investigation?

             Just because Richard Gage and his band of nutjob Conspiracy Theorists jump up and down and quote copious amounts of bad science to support their claims doesn’t mean they deserve a hearing.

             There are people out there who think the Moon landing was staged – Do they deserve an investigation as well?
           • Zorr 5.1.2.1.1.8

             23 November 2009 at 3:08 pm

             To be perfectly honest, what does it matter these days?

             The towers fell down and a whole bunch of war was made because of it. There is no way to take back that day or the years that have passed inbetween or the people killed in the fighting. It is wasted breath on both sides – be a 911 Truther and conspiracy theorist or just accept the official story, at the end of the day it just doesn’t matter at all.
           • Gosman 5.1.2.1.1.9

             23 November 2009 at 3:20 pm

             So you think the 9/11 Truthers are wasting their time trying to reopen the investigation then Zorr?
6. quenchino 6

   23 November 2009 at 11:47 am

   A look at the NIST website is interesting, but their investigation of 911 is hard to compare with the IPCC AGW science. The biggest difference is the much smaller number of scientists named and the fact that almost no-one got to see or study any of the original building wreckage.

   One report, even if it is a very thick one, from one group, that has not been subject to open review with all the source data is not the same as a consensus. 911 was a single event, and all the original evidence is now long gone, so it makes it very hard for anyone to prove anything that disagrees with NIST.

   It’s a bit like someone wanting to discuss or challenge the claims of pro-global warming scientists, but none the temperature records being available to look at because they were destroyed years ago. No-one would be very satisfied with that.
   • Geek 6.1

     23 November 2009 at 12:05 pm

     Two different things however. Climate change is constantly happening allowing for constant collection of data that is available to anyone who wishes to use it. The 9/11 attacks were a single incident. Data was collected and analyzed by experts who came up with the final NIST report. The data they used for that incident is available to those who claim it was a conspiracy. They choose to cherry pick it and supplement their evidence with poor quality video and unsubstantiated eyewitness evidence and ignore any data which is counter to the findings the want. Just like any good conspiracy.
   • Quoth the Raven 6.2

     23 November 2009 at 12:42 pm

     Here’s a page with a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal article on 9/11:

     9/11 demolition theory challenged

     An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
     The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

     One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”.

     The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

     As much as the truthers like Redlogix want to claim that science is on their side they are wrong.
7. Olwyn 7

   23 November 2009 at 12:06 pm

   I am not sure if this is the right way to go about things, but I want to ask a question of someone who has better knowledge of economics than I have: In the business pages of this morning’s Herald, there was a claim from treasury that we need to cut government spending if we are to “close the gap” with Australia. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10610950

   I am inclined to think that if it is true that the Australian Government spends a smaller portion of it GDP on welfare, etc, this is in part because Australian wages are not so far removed from what it costs to live. So they do not go so far in using welfare to bridge the gap between the fantasy of wealth and the reality of stagnation. Hence I am inclined to see treasury’s claim as getting things the wrong way round – that in reality Australia is not doing comparatively well because of less government spending, but rather their government needs to spend less because Australia is doing comparatively well. Am I wrong about this?
8. Tigger 8

   23 November 2009 at 12:17 pm

   Key to meet the Queen. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3089023/John-Key-to-meet-the-Queen

   It’s all about him of course…

   “I think I am the first leader seeing the Queen, and I am doing the toast for the Queen as well,” Mr Key said on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme this morning.

   “I must be teacher’s pet. I think it was something to do with bringing back the knighthoods.”

   Titular honours were abolished by the Labour-led government in 1999, but Mr Key reinstated them.

   A spokeswoman for Mr Key said he was invited to make the toast at the Friday dinner hosted by the Queen – it is an honour given to the most recently-elected country leader.”
   • Walter 8.1

     23 November 2009 at 1:32 pm

     Pussy Nat, pussy Nat, where have you been?

     I’ve been to London to visit the Queen

     Pussy Nat, pussy Nat, what did you there?

     I prostrated myself, in front of her chair

     Pussy Nat, pussy Nat, why did you bother?

     So I’d get the knighthood, instead of another!
     • BLiP 8.1.1

       23 November 2009 at 1:36 pm

       Gold!! 🙂
     • Olwyn 8.1.2

       23 November 2009 at 2:04 pm

       Well said!
   • Herodotus 8.2

     23 November 2009 at 3:16 pm

     I was under the illusion that NOT all titular honours were eliminated in 1999. Did not parliament still keep their own e.g Honerable etc?
9. The Voice of Reason 9

   23 November 2009 at 1:55 pm

   I’ll give it a go, Olwyn.

   First up, Treasury are a bunch of dry right fossils whose default position on any given subject is ‘reduce government spending’.

   Secondly, Australia has an extra level of government and taxation that we don’t; the states and territories. So I suspect they have more ‘government’ than we do. The country is significantly wealthier than NZ, both because of the raw materials boom and the scale factors between the two economies.

   Australia collects more PAYE than we do, because more of them are in jobs (on average) than us and those jobs are better paid than us (by 25-30% apparently), so there is more tax money to be distributed.

   All in all, I’d say the Treasury quote was the usual bollocks and your estimation of the situation is spot on.
   • Olwyn 9.1

     23 November 2009 at 2:02 pm

     Thanks for that, Voice of Reason.
   • prism 9.2

     23 November 2009 at 2:28 pm

     Thanks for that VTR – Treasury would have required six months research and a big budget to come up with that summation (which they wouldn’t of course).

     I wonder if we can pare Treasury’s costs down, sort of like politicians are now – they could pay for their own extravagant gear, furnishings etc. I think one of their executive ilk had his (her) desk imported from Italy in the free-market feeding frenzy around 1990.
10. prism 10

    23 November 2009 at 2:19 pm

    A practical way of ending the comments on this subject is to stop replying, the topic will decline like a pricked waterbed.
11. prism 11

    23 November 2009 at 2:21 pm

    I am referring to 9/11 debate.
    • Gosman 11.1

      23 November 2009 at 2:26 pm

      Your suggestion should really be towards those like Travellerev who continue to post her odious and repugnant Conspiracy Theories on this blog.

      [lprent: Provided people follow the rules, I really don’t care anymore than I do for what looks like similar opinions from a different angle from you. It can stay in the OpenMike, not spill into the other topics, not deteriorate into simple flames, and people will avoid or read as they prefer.

      Besides, right or wrong, some of the discussion has actually been interesting to me – but probably not in a way that either ‘side’ would find interesting.

      Ultimately the decision about ‘odious’ etc lies completely with the moderators, and we’re pretty jealous about it and do not respond well to people explicitly or implicitly telling us what we should do. So I’d suggest not going too far down this path or I might make a determination about what I find odious. People seldom enjoy that. ]
      • felix 11.1.1

        23 November 2009 at 2:58 pm

        Are you saying that if she stops commenting, you’ll go away?

        Is that blackmail?
12. gingercrush 12

    23 November 2009 at 3:06 pm

    So any thoughts towards Twyford likely to stand for Waitakere and Ardern standing for Auckland Central?
13. anonymouse 13

    23 November 2009 at 3:30 pm

    New right wing New Zealand capitalist blog involved in “comments for chocolate scandal” learn more at:
    http://www.democracymum.co.nz
14. the pinkpostman 14

    23 November 2009 at 3:34 pm

    Both would be excellent electorale MPs .
    Jacinda Ardern is a highly intelligent young lady ,with a most pleasing personality,.what is more she is the Chairperson of the Youth Branch of Socialist International meaning that her political education is of the highest standard. This, plus she has proved to be a most hard working list MP. making her an excellent choice for the people of Auckland Central. Having meet her on a number of occasions I can truthfully say she has impressd me with not only her intelllegence but her obvious commitment to caring Social Democratic ideals. If Jacinda Ardern is selected then I urge all Auckland Central Voters to get out and vote for an MP who would serve you well.
    Bye the way I have been a member of the NZLP for nearly 50 years and before that a member of the Labour Party UK. I have meet many MPs and would be MPs this young lady does impress me..
15. todd 15

    23 November 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Hi
    No one here has mentioned the big story of today.
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26386792-401,00.html

    [lprent: Why is that a big story? Oh because you think so, and what qualifications do you have to be able to understand anything that is in those e-mails? Nothing?
    Probably why there hasn’t been much here about this. But I can imagine that the illiterate CCD’s are jerking off to it elsewhere.
    Why don’t you do something useful – read RealClimate on the subject. ]
    • NickS 15.1

      23 November 2009 at 5:11 pm

      Mentioned in yesterdays open mike thread, of which to add to the mocking of Andrei, here’s a lovely deconstruction of CCD bs on the leaks from greenfyre:
      Climate change Deniers hoax themselves again.

      And yes, when one is vexed and annoyed by morons, it’s rather human to morbidly laugh at their demise, whether it be via death or banhammer.
16. todd 16

    23 November 2009 at 9:18 pm

    We will see i guess?.Soon I would think!
17. todd 17

    23 November 2009 at 9:24 pm

    While I love a good argument and have somewhat fixed views,I have never in my life wished someone dead,even though at times I tell them to FRO and leave me alone.They just have different views thats all.

Links to post

1. DriveTimeHappyHour: posted on 23 November 2009 at 4:50 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS