Posts by insider outsider
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well Ben if you include each subject in a variant of the other that is at least 16 stories a week to fill the paper (or is it 4 factorial?)
crooked cops in vice girls and gang p shocker
P blamed for vice girls getting crooked cops involved in gang
vice girl's p from gangs pays off crooked cops etc etc -
Who the hell cares where Howlett's from, as long as he scores tries and has a good hairstyle.
-
we did not fight the fire
we are not fighting the fire
Yup, they say exactly the same thing if it wasn;t for those pesky tenses. I'd blame the Greeks if I thought I could get away with it.
-
Russell
OF course that was what he meant - anyone with half a brain knew that was what he meant. Hence my amazemnet at the beat up on this and the devclaration that it makes Key not fit to be PM, yet Helen Clark can effectively say the exact same thing on the same day and yet there be not a peep.
RNZ, bless their poor unbias hearts, just went over the top this morning with their interview of some poor woman whose son had died. Just bizarre. But it is the school holidays so a mini silly season.
-
Ben
They weren;t civilians. THey were soldiers. But I think you mean they were working on civilian projects.
But the distinction was made clear at the time - we didn;t send military to fight the war but did so to clean up afterwards.
-
Russell
Helen Clark said in her Oxford Union speech this week
"Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and we did not participate in the war there."
So Helen Clark only two days ago obviously believed the "war" was over just like John Key
She then says "We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003."
So we sent troops after the 'war' was over...
-
Hmm who do I believe, Keith "pol pot" Locke or Helen "the Yanks are buggin my phone" Clark? This is a really hard one...
-
SO if the war is going on and NZ at HC's insistence did not support the war and so did not send troops, why did she send troops to the war , in defiance of her own commitment not to be invovled in the war.....?
-
Radiohead - Pink Floyd of the 2000's maybe? I wonder if the website approach is a rethink of the singles market, hence the ? about price. If they get anything, great, but it is a vehicle to drive full album sales - 40 quid is not cheap.
Prince has always been a big live act and a good seller in the UK and I can understand how the stunt would have been effective there in boosting profile on low sales of his previous album.
But it comes back to the point. He gave it away because it was worth more to him than selling it.
-
Simon Grigg
Doesn't giving it away signify that you couldn't actually sell many copies? It may be a smart move but only for someone that no longer has the market power they once had. Is everyone really talking about Radiohead's giveaway - yes I know I am but only about the concept rather than as a fan 'gee whiz this is great'.
I'm listening to Prince as I type, but even I accept that he is past his peak as a power in music (as if that matters! He's still royalty). But I'm sure if he could have sold his latest he would have (though I did read he got money for each one given away as they counted as sales).