Posts by Tim Hannah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But I am rather interested that such a furore has been created over it
I think that some of the furore comes from the fact that all this was said a year ao, when the idea was initially presented. Most people said, "yeah, nah, not your best work". The airport said, "hmm. ok give us some suggestions, we'll have a think about it, come up with a best idea". They sat down, thought hard for a year, gave everyone the finger and said, "we're doing exactly what we said we'd do last year that y'all thought was a bit crap, what are ya gonna do about it, huh?".
Which is kind of annoying really, and may explain why there's more furore this time than there was last time.
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to BenWilson,
If the sign doesn’t signify to most people what it was intended to signify then that’s a failure of design and a reason to come up with a less easily misread signifier, surely?
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to BenWilson,
You might think it’s just about Miramar, but most of it’s supporters claim it’s about promoting Wellington as a tourist destination, most of it’s detractors think it’s reflecting on Wellington as a whole.
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to BenWilson,
How will people see that? People I think will naturally assume that it’s how Wellingtonians have decided to market their city.
By the same process as when you said:
People aren’t dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it’s in.
The hillside it's planned to be on isn't within any visible airport boundary, it's separated from the airport by a decent sized (by our standards) road and no one looking at it is going to be able to tell it's an airport sign.
People can tell the airport terminal from the city, they can tell the runways from the city, they may not be able to tell the bit of airport owned but unlabelled land in the middle distance from the city.
I suspect if I was a visitor, I'd assume it was a Wellington city sign. I'd rather visitors didn't think that.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to BenWilson,
I don’t know why they didn’t do it last time. ACT could have been history if only a few thousand Labour voters in Epsom could look past traditional tribal enmity to the big MMP picture.
If only all 5,112 Epsom voters who voted for Kate Sutton in 2008 had instead each cast just two or three votes for Richard Worth, then Rodney Hide would not have won.
-
HIDE, Rodney ACT 21,102
LOCKE, Keith GP 2,787
SUTTON, Kate LAB 5,112
WORTH, Richard NAT 8,220Still not seeing it. If every Worth and Locke voter backed Sutton, you’d still need to convince a couple of thousand Hide voters. Not likely.
ETA - at least in 2008.
-
Hard News: Limping Onwards, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
ACT got 2,389, National 24,030, Green 2,662, Labour 7,711.
Not saying you're wrong, but you'd be a better spitter than most.
ETA - That's Party votes in 2008 Epsom.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Ah yes, the old adage that it’s much easier to fight a war if the enemy is a proper noun.
The proper noun in this case being "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"?
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to Don Christie,
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
Gaddafi has regained control of Libyan cities and might be currently conducting house to house murders. I'm not seeing anyone arguing that the marine corps should have gone into Ajdabiya. So I'd suggest relatively quiescent.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to Neil Morrison,
No Neil, I don't, I’m not the straw man you’re looking for.