Spot the odd one out

39 comments on “Spot the odd one out ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Travellerev 1

   27 February 2009 at 4:00 pm

   Or he is doing what liars do when what is being said is close to the truth: Not looking the bankster victims in the eye. He does it twice in the segment.

   The thirty trillion lost by the way is mostly the over the top gambling profit the banksters had on their balance sheets. the real economy has been lost for a very long time but credit cards and the housing bubble and the extended mortgages on those highly inflated values kept it going. No production Jobs left in the US, China’s production jobs going down the tube and jobs being outsourced left right and centre is what is tanking the real word economy.
2. @ work 2

   27 February 2009 at 4:00 pm

   Is that muldoon on the top right? 😉
3. Idiot/Savant 3

   27 February 2009 at 4:02 pm

   I think there’s another one in the right frame; you can just see her hair in the second row, between the heads of the front-rowers who are craning their necks.
4. dave 4

   27 February 2009 at 4:04 pm

   Actually the odd one out is the person without a jacket on. Much more ” odd one outish” and easier to spot. That’s because there are at least two women in the photo, possibly three – and one of them has earrings. You didnt spot that, did you. Heh. Or are they lefty males that looks like women. And the one of the extreme right has a lot of hair…just cant see her face, that’s all.

   So I did spot the odd one out. Pity you didn’t.
5. Idiot/Savant 5

   27 February 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Stolen.

   (Captcha: “3:00 waved”. Sounds like a twitter post)
6. Graeme 6

   27 February 2009 at 4:11 pm

   Odd one out … first thought was the guy top left who’d taken his jacket off 🙂
7. BLiP 7

   27 February 2009 at 4:11 pm

   They’re all odd if you ask me.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   27 February 2009 at 4:12 pm

   Idiot/Servant “another one” 😉 I forgive you

   Dave. yes, there is another woman in the pic. I think that’s the trap Eddie left for youse – ‘ah ah, there’s more than one women in that crowd there’s TWO!’. As if that somehow makes it better
9. all_your_base 9

   27 February 2009 at 4:17 pm

   Tracy Watkins noticed it too:

   http://stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/blogs/tracywatkins/2009/02/27/what-will-this-summit-achieve/
10. vto 10

    27 February 2009 at 4:17 pm

    who cares about people’s gender? Only sexists it seems. Like the greens sexist leadership requirements.
    • lprent 10.1

      27 February 2009 at 4:48 pm

      I suspect that it has something to do with the wage levels of females vs males even before they have children. In your ‘ideal’ world that shouldn’t exist. Since it does – then how do you explain it?

      I personally attribute it to sexist attitudes by employers. So does every woman I know. I suggest that to wipe out sexism, that we should identify all employers who shows a significant variation in the gender pay rates, and shoot them. Then we can enter your ideal world. Besides, it’d also help with the glass ceiling if we removed some of the deadwood.
    • QoT 10.2

      28 February 2009 at 2:35 pm

      Absolutely, vto. And being inspired that an African-American can be president of the US means I’m racist. Gender means absolutely nothing in our Brave New World, and these photos are incontrovertible proof of that. *headdesk*
11. Idiot/Savant 11

    27 February 2009 at 4:26 pm

    vto: because obviously, it is “sexist” to expect that a supposedly representative body is actually representative, and “non-sexist” to ensure that it is not.

    Orwell would be proud.
12. @ work 12

    27 February 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Thats right vto, if every one just blocks there ears and covers there eyes all the sexism will go away!
13. vto 13

    27 February 2009 at 4:39 pm

    easy bait.

    But it is surely meant to be representative of what is required for jobs, not representative of the entire community? Otherwise where are the babies and grandmas and cats and dogs?

    You may well find it is in fact fairly representative of those who do the employing. Perhaps less so the employed. What proportion of employers are women? Was that question considered before this silly thread was posted?
    • lprent 13.1

      27 February 2009 at 4:54 pm

      It is a valid question to look at the representation. As I said yesterday, the likelihood of any useful outcomes is low. They are asking the wrong people because their ‘selected’ audience probably has bugger all idea of what happens in their own organizations, let alone how to ‘create’ jobs. If you want new and innovative ideas you find them a lot lower in the hierarchy than the top managers.

      This is a PR exercise and not much else.
    • Steve Pierson 13.2

      27 February 2009 at 5:01 pm

      Why would you only have employers at the conference? There goes your whole what % of employers are women angle’.

      We have at least one grandma there, she’s Paula Bennett.
    • Matthew Pilott 13.3

      27 February 2009 at 5:01 pm

      You’re an idiot. Or does your baby, grandmother, cat and dog have a job? 🙂
      • vto 13.3.1

        27 February 2009 at 8:10 pm

        that’s exactly my point mr pilott. you just helped me to highlight the vacuousity of this thread.
14. @ work 14

    27 February 2009 at 4:48 pm

    What proportion of kiwiblog threads looked for evidence before firing off a cheap shot at the govt while Labour was in power?
15. vto 15

    27 February 2009 at 4:56 pm

    ok ok. Just had a bad day and felt like winding up…

    On a more serious note – when do you think the day will come that men won’t all have to wear the same suit? I’ve always found it really quite incredibly dreary.
    • @ work 15.1

      27 February 2009 at 5:00 pm

      …Rodney tried and look what happened!
    • lprent 15.2

      27 February 2009 at 5:08 pm

      It gets worse than that. Look up the history of the tie at some stage… In fact here at wikipedia. It is the strangest garment that I have ever had to wear because there is not (and appears never to have been) a purpose to the garment.
      • Felix 15.2.1

        27 February 2009 at 10:32 pm

        How strange.

        Until now I had always assumed there must have been some long-forgotten practical purpose to them – something to do with concealing the buttons on a shirt or such.
16. Rex Widerstrom 16

    27 February 2009 at 5:01 pm

    It’s all very well to lament the lack of representation of women, folks, but let’s not forget that women can be as brutal and self-serving as men, as I’ve been reminded today by news that Bond’s CEO Sue Morphet gave herself a payrise from $685,775 to $1,860,649 while planning to slash 1850 jobs. Some executives got rises of 170% approved by her.

    And it wasn’t even in the name of improving returns for shareholders, which fell by 45 percent during the same period.

    The Daily Telegraph is running the apt headline “Corporate Bastardry”, and in this case the bastard is female.

    So while I agree women should be better represented at this talkfest in proportion to their involvement in the economy, let’s not assume we’d have kinder, gentler outcomes as a result.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    27 February 2009 at 5:04 pm

    let’s not assume we’d have kinder, gentler outcomes as a result.

    Who did that? Non-issue rex. Representation, bastard or otherwise!
18. Julie 18

    27 February 2009 at 5:06 pm

    I don’t think anyone is assuming any such thing Rex. We just have to look at some of the women in politics to see that – Margaret Thatcher, Jenny Shipley, Ruth Richardson.

    Thanks for the great pic, we’ve been talking about this at The Hand Mirror too, for a couple of days, first here on the actual breakdown of participants, and then over here in regard to the statements from the Greens, Labour and the Minister of Women’s Affairs (Pansy Wong) who said it was all ok cos she would be there representing women. Thank goodness for that, all my worries have just vanished. /sarcasm
19. Ianmac 19

    27 February 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Historically the innovative ideas usually come from the frontline staff where-as management seems to be intent on the Status Quo. Unless the org has a flat management style where everyone’s ideas are valued and anyone can attend the decision-making meeting. Sop in this case how many seniors would be willing to break ranks?
20. Julie 20

    27 February 2009 at 5:17 pm

    I’m sure these pics are far from exhaustive, but I’ve only spotted one person I know is a union person – Helen Kelly who is head of the CTU and on the main stage behind the speaker. I wonder if they did a big pic of everyone at any point, or would that make it too much like a PR event?
21. Tigger 21

    27 February 2009 at 5:17 pm

    These men really should be taking off their jackets before sitting down because they’ll only end up crinkling them badly and requiring more drycleaning. Though perhaps there was an official edict to keep them on to create jobs for drycleaners.

    And why the speeches anyway – everyone knows that things are bad for god’s sake – less talk and more action is this government’s motto – so why a bunch of speeches first?
22. Steve Pierson 22

    27 February 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Julie. In the Herald’s rolling coverage Harre was saying there were too few from the unions and they were struggling to get around all the work shops calming down the crazier stuff coming from business.

    i hear one of the work groups seriously suggested the suspension of clean air and water standards during the wrapping up session.
23. Tigger 23

    27 February 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Someone’s got to tell Key to stop crossing his legs like that. He looks like he’s busting to go to the loo but can’t leave the stage…

    Captcha is ‘plenty busing’ – maybe an idea for the Summit?
24. Rex Widerstrom 24

    27 February 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Oh, I know all about female politicians… even Pauline Hanson is making a comeback, announced today. So all the outrage at the lack of women participants is purely on principle?

    Principles are all very well, but rather than demanding to see more women as a matter of principle, I’m more concerned about the need to have fewer bastards of either sex as a matter of practicality.

    There undoubtedly needs to be more union representation. But they also need to hear from people who know what it’s like to join a dole queue and then face ridiculous penalties if you try to do anything other than move immediately to full time work. And a short lesson in how to make rice and mince interesting six nights a week wouldn’t go amiss, either. Maybe a workshop on just how easy it is to find employment – even in a boom – if you have a criminal record. That sort of thing.

    And frankly I don’t give a fig whether those lessons come from someone in a frock (or pantsuit) or a suit, or a pair of overalls.

    By focusing so much complaint on the gender issue I think you’re providing the proponents of this gabfest with a less relevant basis on which to debate just how representative (and thus valid) it all is: gender balance vs the homogenity of the life experiences, attitudes, incomes and current lifestyles of the attendees.
25. Felix 25

    27 February 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Oh and Lynn,

    I saw this great bit of tie-foolery today – it’s weird how no-one mentions it until he notices it himself on the monitor around 1:20
26. Julie 26

    28 February 2009 at 9:53 am

    Rex said:
    “By focusing so much complaint on the gender issue I think you’re providing the proponents of this gabfest with a less relevant basis on which to debate just how representative (and thus valid) it all is: gender balance vs the homogenity of the life experiences, attitudes, incomes and current lifestyles of the attendees.”

    You present this as a mutually exclusive dichotomy (sp?) when in fact the latter is exactly why the former is of such concern.
27. dave 27

    28 February 2009 at 11:30 am

    In the third pic more than a quarter of the people seated are women. So Brash is the odd one out because he is standing up? Or is it that nice unionist person because she belongs to a union.What are you playing at here?
28. Steve Pierson 28

    28 February 2009 at 10:03 pm

    dave. Fuck me! There are two of them! Guess it wasn’t a total white-male do after all.
29. James 29

    1 March 2009 at 2:34 am

    Since when did the validity of ideas and conclusions drawn from objective fact rest on wheather the person/s concerned had a penis or a vigina?

    This silly hysteria over gender makes the hysterics look more than a joke…
30. Rochelle 30

    2 March 2009 at 12:21 am

    Wow those photos give an interesting picture don’t they? Especially when you consider that it will be women most effected by a rise in unemployment.

    Out of curiosity though (and while not putting the jobs summit and the standard in at all the same boat when it comes to the need for gender representation), what percentage of the authors on the standard are female?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS