Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Justthefacts
We're only being told half the story here. These "calculations" are merely speculation - done by Einstein using computer modelling and are now being used by the Look at the Swiss and French and Germans, suckered into spending billions into "Large Hadron" research.
A Wild Goose chase, while the inconvenient truth is buried. See truefactsaboutrelativity.blogspot.co.za E=mc^2 is a localised phenomenom, most pronounced in the middle ages and does not affect New Zealand.
And what has relativity ever done for us?
-
Oh, I should say that the above is a direct quote - the first search result for "Heleban". It happened to fit perfectly, so I saw no need to alter it.
-
Better late than never, I suppose.
Approximately 70% of the stuff dished on the Heleban by Ian Wishart still remains non-mentioned by the MSM anyway. This is just a sickening disgrace. Not only were the MSM rolling over and going to sleep on their watch, under the Heleban, but they literally participated in the cover-up when the country’s only real investigative journalist dug anything up.
-
Y'know, Capital coast health presently has just one clinical psychologist available to out patients, for the entire city of Porirua. That means only twenty people receive cognitive behavioral therapy, without needing to come up with around $120.00 minimum per session to go private, or meet the criteria for ACC assistance.
Mental health services in NZ are pretty poor.
the only ads concerned with drinking were either violent, deeply emotional scarring illustratons of worst case scenarios, or liquor ads featuring buff larrikans or rugged hard men with not a chick in sight. Is it still all scare tactics? or have they subsequently offered some positive scenarios as guides?
I remember a 90s ad that had people giving lines; "I don't because I'm pregnant", "I don't because I'm training", "I don't because I don't want to", etc. And at the end Temuera Morrison came on and said "when someone says they don't want to drink, they have their reasons. Respect that, that's what a friend would do."
It seemed like a good ad. But their current focus is on binge drinkers, and that's a fair call, from where they stand (minimising alcohol related harm).
-
The cost ????????? How about another 1000 police peeps?????
That's more than $40 million, ongoing, in wages. That would buy a lot of television advertising.
-
The ads were since suspended by the Labor Government, on account of their evaluating their 'effectiveness'.
I should say that this wasn't a specific slight against violence prevention - they've taken to cutting back dramatically on every type of spending.
-
The only really useful thing that has been said about advertising is "Advertising works 50% of the time but nobody knows which 50%"
When consumption of your product (reporting of domestic violence) goes up by 29% in one year, you've got some evidence your advertising has worked.
-
And to refresh our memory, here is the central advertisement in question. Remarkably non-gender specific, and addressing all areas of society. I was amazed when I saw it for the first time this summer - it was quite something.
If Ralston really wanted something to complain about, he should move to Australia, where the Government ran a series specifically on violence against women. The ads make an interesting comparison.
This was part of a Coalition Government initiative. The ads were since suspended by the Labor Government, on account of their evaluating their 'effectiveness'.
-
With the establishment’s blessing and encouragement, Boot’s ideas, no matter how insane, enter the mainstream debate, crowding out by the laws of scarcity other ideas and other thinkers who might actually help us and the world.
There are people who know things about domestic violence, people with credible writing and reasoned opinions. And Ralston gets given 800 words and an audience of hundreds of thousands?
Yeah, I get that he can write well, about many subjects. But the whole media model has to change. It relies on a limited number of opinion generating correspondents to wax about whatever is topical, in a way that blurs into talking authoritatively, through citation of whatever hot 'fact' or theory they've stumbled across lately. It's not something that I mind in itself terribly, but when there aren't many balancing op pieces by experts in their fields (who are very often eager to engage with the public), it creates more heat than light.
Don's right about talkback too. It is a cauldron of ill-formed opinions, stirred by hosts that shut down those that don't fit within the narrow parameters of their 'debate'.
-
Hi A S. I've read the bill, and despite its short nature, it raises very serious concerns for me. I felt they deserved a blog post, so I've replied in full over at g. blog.