Posts by Mark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Carter's my local MP and he is a very approachable person and works hard for his electorate. Swearing at a cop and ringing up a radio station 13 years ago pretending to be a Maori does not constitute "ample evidence" of being a dickhead. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate Graham ...
-
"The joint at a weekend party is detectable for weeks afterwards -- the weekend P binge will be cleared in 48 hours." A hair follicle test can detect the presence of methamphetamine up to a year after P was used. The general rule of thumb is 1 centimetre of hair detects up to 1 month previous. It is, of course, extremely expensive but I am just pointing out that your sentence is incorrect (unless you are referring to urine tests, in which case you are correct)
-
Well. congratulations I guess. But let's consider this. A blog is not hard to create. Generally, it consists of trite comments with links to more in-depth and better researched sites. It's more about someone's opinion about something which may or may not be important - generally not. It's usually ridiculously biased ideologically (Public Address clearly embarrassingly Labour-skewed), such that it attracts comments from like minded individuals who post their full agreement with the original poster in an obsequious manner as part of the well known "echo chamber" effect. Those commentators and the original poster then quietly congratulate themselves on how clever they have been whilst all the while 99.99% of the general public have no idea that the original post was ever created and if they did know they wouldn't care anyway. Utterly pointless, with the backside licking from the pundits quite nauseating.
-
There seems to be a few comments about Howard's appearance ('rodent", "small"). Does that mean that Public Address is now willing to accept comments about Clark's appearance? It's just that I've got a few choice ones and I need to know.
-
Totally off-topic Russell, but is quoting Wikipedia for authority a very good idea when you can generally find more reliable primary sources? It seems to be what everyone does these days when I suggest that it is pretty unreliable (I also refer to your recent Listener column re wikiscanner in this regard).
-
"Tamihere's support coming, as you might expect, from angry conservatives." I read through all the comments and couldn't see any support from "angry conservatives".
-
Is this the same Chris Trotter who excused any wrong doing by Labour re electoral funds back in 2005 because it kept those evil Nats who don't think like us away from government? I'm sure he said something about "good corruption". Does anyone have a link for that opinion piece he wrote?
-
Still, I've never sen footage of Falwell interviewing a wee kiddie quite like this one:
-
Shit, you're right. Sorry. I keep forgetting forgetting how fair you were to National during your Hard News broadcasts of the 90s. From what I can see, Kiwiblog is the new HN equivalent in that both were/are solely there for the purpose of shitting on the government of the day.
-
"As a campaigner for Section 59, she makes a compelling argument against it."
Yes, a nutty violent cow is against the repeal of section 59, therefore section 59 should be repealed. Brilliant argument - point out the most extreme elements and use that as your argument in support of your view. On a similar vein we should not repeal section 59 because there are some hysterical voices in support, e.g. "oi thunk ut's a good idea to stop poiple thrashing an beating their kuds" (H. Clark 2007).