Posts by Greg Dawson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... and the $10- (or whatever) day passes on the trains would be much more marketable as a door. Of course, you'd also need to remove the carriage-end doors from those carriages. Ticket-bouncers! And now we know where the fat controller got his beer gut...
-
Wellington could do better if the trains were upgraded. And traffic on game day is terrible on the northern side of the stadium. Oh and it could do with one or two more access points to the city.
And add diner carriages, except with a more fluid approach to dining. That'd rock out for getting the muppets from their cars into the trains.
-
I think that we can take this as further evidence that the fabric of new zealand society is being torn asunder by liberal elements. honoes!
-
Would it eliminate the morons?
Well, if you consider that the morons will probably get hold of the louder, bigger, flashier, better etc etc fireworks, it might just do the trick after all...
The film cannister trick was a big one for us; that and destroying whatever remnant toys were still around from younger, less flammable days. One particular police car would get blown up every year, for at least 6 in succession. The damn thing just wouldn't die, where the cars it was 'chasing' almost always ended up in pieces after just a couple of mats of double happies.
Oh, and regarding the time of year dealio. You're neglecting the fact that for the dedicated pyro, all sorts of lovely burning things are available 365 days (Note: use cheap water pistols. Turps melts the sealants.)
The split drinking age is pretty common overseas, and is one of the few things on the 'anti-pc' agenda that I can happily agree is a good idea.
Vaguely on topic token mumble:
Although everyone will disagree over most of what is proposed to be banned, regardless of what we're talking about; I suspect there are some proposals that are fairly sensible: for example, nobody seems to mind the idea of moving guy fawkes to winter to try and minimise the fire risk.What i'm wondering about the approach being made: is there an element of redefining acceptable risks, rather than simply removing all risks outright?
Are we offering any reasonable (and enticing) alternatives to what we don't want 'the kids' doing anymore?
(sorry, i'm not much good on the original ideas; you'll probably just see a series of questions)