Posts by Kyle Matthews

  • Field Theory: Ruth Aitken is the new…,

    Kyle, there is a call for this, the intentional, or unsportsmanlike, foul, with exactly the penalty you described. (Except you get the ball at half court.)

    In which case, it makes no sense for the game not to enforce it to be called. It makes it a dreadfully dreary end to a game, in which, instead of taking risks to try and steal the ball off someone or intercept the pass and open up your defences, you just foul them and know the referees won't make the call. Drags it out and leads to half the game being played from the foul line, rather than in the court of play, which is three times as interesting.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Field Theory: Ruth Aitken is the new…,

    By the time we got to the awful drawn out final two minutes of the game (easily the worst thing about basketball) the game was already decided and the Australian's fouls were only adding to the points differential.

    I assume fans and the people who run basketball like this, because it makes no sense to me. Crying out for some further penalty to be applied for a 'deliberate foul' like there is in rugby.

    I'd suggest free throws, plus the fouled team gets the ball back at the opponent's baseline afterwards.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Southerly: They don't make 'em like they…,

    Another PAS public service!

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance,

    On that note - I just discovered that Roger encouraged his facebook fans to read my "excellent piece on VSM".

    The person who commented on his link, saying that he couldn't agree because Graeme supported taxes. He's the person who I was arguing with last week about whether or not taxes breached his basic human rights as they were me applying force to him.

    It was like I was 20 again, arguing with a libertarian in the pub over a beer.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Up Front: Does My Mortgage Look Like a…,

    Who advertises for grunge? For petticoats worn over regular clothes? For black leggings and three layers of old knitted jumpers? Do you think it's all a conspiracy from Big Op Shop?

    While some fashions don't start in big corporate, often they're picked up. Not everyone who dressed like Eddie Vedder got their clothes from op shops. Often they shelled out hundreds to upmarket stores to look like a $2 fill-a-bag.

    And while indeed there are some fashion trends that are entirely unrelated to advertising and making money, a whole heap are, and they do influence a lot of the population. The whole seasonal/yearly nature of the fashion industry, where something is "so last year" seems designed to encourage consumers to throw away prefectly good clothes and buy slightly different ones.

    (With a head nod to advertising influence being interactive and not entirely one way as people have noted above).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance,

    On the Human Rights issue, one of the Exec in 1999 was pro-VSM until Amnesty International published a letter in Canta saying they didn't believe it was a Human Rights issue.

    An Amnesty International letter writing campaign to free poor widdle right-wingers from being forced to be members of radical left-wing student collective associations. My big wet dream.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Hard News: Smack to the Future,

    This does make me wonder why there was no public education campaign to go along with the law change. Is it because it was a private member's bill drawn out of the lottery?

    I believe it was part of Sue Bradford's proposal that a public education programme would go along with the law change.

    Once it became the government bill of death and got passed, the government I think didn't want to know anything more about it because it would keep reminding the public about it with an election coming up, so that it just was a law with no accompanying programme.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Hard News: Smack to the Future,

    Still think this is a great way to make laws?

    The simplest answer to any change to the law would have been that originally proposed by Sue Bradford (before Labour and National got together and amended it), which was just to remove section 59 from the law.

    Children then could have gotten the same protection from members of their family as any other person - a basic right not to be assaulted, sensibly applied by police and courts.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Hard News: Smack to the Future,

    OK, but harm is clearly not defined only how you feel about something at the time. There's a scientific element to harm which isn't hard to see.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Hard News: Smack to the Future,

    (My last post shouldn't be read as equating anal sex with mutilation. I was just looking for a more contrasting example)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

Older posts→