Posts by Zippy Gonzales
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The term inappropriate covers a wider range of self-censorship than sexual proclivities. Perhaps the sign could be a more generic No hawkers or solicitors.
That said, I was a bit of a gym bunny at Les Mills Wellington in the early nineties. Never went back after some kind of proposition in the shower one time. Might be different now, but gyms by definition are narcissist magnets.
And I tend to keep away from any menu item featuring the chef's special sauce.
-
Isn't Lone Star a restaurant?
-
But I heard it became a (really bad, apparently) brothel.
Bad brothels are a dime a dozen. Anyone can run a bad brothel. We need to celebrate good brothels more. What is/was the best little whorehouse in NZ?
-
And another excellent Media 7:
-
Batman was always brooding around on top of tall buildings, after all.
Yeah, Batman took it pretty hard when they banned Bat Rohypnol.
-
The Three Strikes Bill reminds me of the Degrees of Murder Bill, which Act supported, back in the '90s. Although initially supportive, I ended up agreeing with the reasons for the DoM to be dumped. Similar lessons of over-proscription to be learned here.
In fairness to the disastrous Californian 3 Strikes regime, at least it removed the moral hazard in picking and choosing the offences which would apply. For example, why are no white collar crimes included in the Bill? Is less societal harm caused by a repeat fraudster who wrecks the lives (and savings) of thousands, than by an aggravated assaulter?
There's also the threat of future amendment. There is nothing stopping a future government from loosening the criteria for Three Strikes to kick in. Pardon the thin wedge cliche, but it's true.
-
Whoops. Wrong thread. Stupid tabbed windows...
-
The Three Strikes Bill reminds me of the Degrees of Murder Bill, which Act supported, back in the '90s. Although initially supportive, I ended up agreeing with the reasons for the DoM to be dumped. Similar lessons of over-proscription to be learned here.
In fairness to the disastrous Californian 3 Strikes regime, at least it removed the moral hazard in picking and choosing the offences which would apply. For example, why are no white collar crimes included in the Bill? Is less societal harm caused by a repeat fraudster who wrecks the lives (and savings) of thousands, than by an aggravated assaulter?
There's also the threat of future amendment. There is nothing stopping a future government from loosening the criteria for Three Strikes to kick in. Pardon the thin wedge cliche, but it's true.
-
What really creeps me is how the US entertainment lawyers are going to interpret the law. From what DPF has mentioned, no ground is being given to interpretation. They're playing hardball.
-
Testing... testing...
What would black jesus do?