Explaining Blogging!
I’m tempted to try and show this cartoon on TV later today, but I suspect the Broadcasting Standards Authority won’t like it!
Hat Tip: Boing Boing
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: HumourExplaining Blogging!
105 Responses to “Explaining Blogging!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 am
http://cyfswatchnz.wordpress.com/
CYFSWATCH
PS: Love the cartoon.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 am
China and New Zealand have something in common,goooogle will roll over for those in power,Welcome back CYFSWATCH.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Irony central there. CYFSWatch loves the cartoon…
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Sheryl Savill and Larry Baldock have a petition underway against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation. It can be downloaded in PDF or Word format at Focus on the Family:
http://www.focus.org.nz
and sent to either:
Gordon Copeland
Parliament
Wellington
gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
or
Garth McVicar
Sensible Sentencing Trust
P O Box 701
Napier
email: garth@sst.org.nz
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
I’m not so sure the fuckwads are that normal at the start!
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
That cartoon pretty much went over cyfswatch head.
At about 30,000′.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Who doesn’t roll over for people in power?
Meanwhile us “underclass” pays no hopers to have babies while we tell our kids to wait a or not have kids because its too expensive.
Thats why we have CYFS and sensiible sentence trust to (try to) pick up the pieces.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Good old Penny Arcade…
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
I’m the exception to the rule.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
“I’m the exception to the rule”
And there was me thinking it was Redbaiter.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
“I’m the exception to the rule”
You were not a normal person to begin with?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Blogger who criticised Islam jailed in Egypt
Telegraph.co.uk – 1 hour ago
By Hugh Miles in Cairo. An Egyptian whose outspoken views on Islam and politics in his internet diary enraged the government was jailed today amid an international outcry.
Egypt bloggers fear state curbs BBC News
Blogger’s jailing ‘is real censorship’ Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News – Washington Post – Seattle Post Intelligencer – Ynetnews
all 198 news articles »
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Maybe they’ll jail the authors of CYFSWatch as well – especially since they are making it plain they haven’t been intimidated one bit. 20 out of 10 for balls.
They will be publishing ALL of the addresses they have been provided for Sue Bradford BEFORE the 3rd reading of the bill.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
“Maybe they’ll jail the authors of CYFSWatch as well”
The Egyptian government is going to jail some New Zealand bloggers?
How odd.
“They will be publishing ALL of the addresses they have been provided for Sue Bradford”
It seems some people have never heard of the wise advice, when you are in a hole stop digging.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Irony central there. CYFSWatch loves the cartoon…
Yes, but it is pretty clear that irony is not something CYFSwatch is is familiar with.
In my case the formula is the wrong way round, I am a complete “fuckwad”, but with anonymity and an audience I become a most delightful fellow. Booze has a similar effect. I am the worlds greatest drunk.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
“They” refers to the ‘powers that be here’ obviously.
As for stopping digging – why should they when they keep striking media exposure Gold?
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
Madga,
Is this petition at focus.org going to be the most effective way of sending a message to the dickheads in Wgtn ? They are flying very close to the wind on this issue and it might even lead to their undoing. There seems to be very strong feeling out there amongst the great unwashed. TIA.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Media exposure gold?
Yes the media speculating on what sort of these unbalanced idiots make death threats against an MP and wondering if CYFS was right to be concerned about their kids.
I notice that Clint Rickards is on the front pages again today, do you regard that as “media exposure gold” as well?
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sonic, Clint Rickards may or may not be guilty -his case is still before the courts and any evidence is therefore sub judice. Whatever your feelings, have respect for his right to a fair trial and the offices of the court.
Casual Watcher, no i do not have any delusions about petitions in this country. They will use it for dunny paper in Wellington.
However, it wil giuve the good folk of NZ an idea just how little their opinions mean and put the focus squarely where it belongs on how much we pay not to have a say.
Did you mean CYFSWatch or the pollies are sailing close to the wind?
If you mean CYFSWatch then you are right. They have certainly put their money where their mouths are and don’t scare easily.
If you mean the pollies? They’re laughing at us.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Magda I was making no comments on Mr Rickards guilt or innocene, just pointing out that the idea that all media coverage is good is laughable.
Here is CYFS watch today
“It appears that CYFSWATCH have been erroneously painted by the media as an organisation that is “blackmailing” Sue Bradford, by stating that we intend to publish the address details we have of Sue Bradford, unless she withdraws the anti-smacking bill.
What the media label “blackmail” we call the manifestation of the logical consequence of an intended and undemocratic aggressive action against New Zealand parents and their children.”
Nasty, nasty stuff.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Magda,
I refer to the anti smacking bill – it has considerably more resonance beyond the political belt than any other issue to date.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Arguably, you are right Casual Watcher, although MMP (which allows the entry of people like Sue Bradford into parliament) may be considered a more far-reaching and deleterious consequence for us.
However, the anti-smacking bill is most definitely a biggy. Hence, I guess, CYFSWatch’s readiness to use it to it’s fullest extent to further their ends.
You can’t blame them when you look ahead into a future manipulated and molded by such a bill and the politicians responsible for it – and the sort of agencies who will enforce it,those agencies being the reason for CYFSWatch’ existence in the first place.
It’s all downhill from here.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
And what if Rickard was to write a book after all this drama?
he is certainly well known enough now because of the publciity.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Ask any politician – all publicity is good publicity.
Certainly seems to be true if the number of people in the house who should instead be in jail is anything to judge the maxim by.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Lets be clear here if someone attacks Sue Bradford this
“we call the manifestation of the logical consequence of an intended and undemocratic aggressive action against New Zealand parents and their children.”
Would be the justification.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“And what if Rickard was to write a book after all this drama?”
“If I did it, this is what kind of bottle I’d use”?
As for CYFSWatch, they’re doing an excellent job of making Sue Bradford’s political opponents look like extremist nutters who are actively excited by the idea of hitting their children. Not good politics if they’re actually opposed to what she’s putting forward, they’re just generating personal sympathy for Bradford and political sympathy for her position.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
err – indeed. A massive own goal.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Sonic knock off the holier than thou act will you. Anyone who studies history knows that when it comes to violence and aggression, there’s no equal to the left. Check out the Protest Warriors some time and see the violence, oppression of free speech (including hacker attacks on their web site) and direct physical assaults they have to endure for publicly voicing opinions that challenge the left’s dominance of political discourse.
http://hq.protestwarrior.com/
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
You beat me to it, Redbaiter.
It amazes me how well we, the taxpayers and voters, are expected to behave irrespective of the antagonism from ‘above’.
Sonic would have us believe there is no justification for violence yet history is littered with examples of ‘people power’, where violence was a last resort and only necessary because those in power don’t have ears – just egos.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
It seems that Sue Bradford may have unlocked at least two objections to the way we are governed.
One the level of interference in the daily lives of Kiwis by politicans whilst being singularly unsuccessful in stopping unacceptable actions by truly bad people.The straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Two the concept that politicans who were never voted into power directly by the citizens can command power over the citizens and appear to take no accountg of the opinions of those citizens.
This may prove to be a tipping point when the citizenry decide enough is a enough and that decmocracy is of the people for the people and by the people.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
magda. You are the personification of the voice of reason and sensibilty. The majority of NZ’s would agree with you.
BTW people (re CYF’sWatch)…Get over yourselves! They were NOT death threats and stop being so emotive about it. It was a cleverly worded statement. The real story of course is…Just WHO did post it??? I’ll also say again, that the emotive synonyms that Bradford uses (it is almost impossible for her to say the word ‘smack’, when she is discussing the Bill), is just inciting the masses to move against her and her supporters, further.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Oh look what the cat dragged in.
I’m amazed that you try and justify threats against a New Zealand member of parliament by referring to someone in the USA getting a sign torn up.
“As for CYFSWatch, they’re doing an excellent job of making Sue Bradford’s political opponents look like extremist nutters”
That must be annoying our chum Mr Baiter as that is his role normally!
Magda, lets get this clear. If an individual, inspired by your rhetoric, physically attacks Sue Bradford, would you think that was justified?
Same question to you gd.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
magda,
I was listening on the radio yesterday and it was mentioned that a policeman or ex-policeman had either rung in previously or emailed to described how Sue Bradford had spat in his face on two occasions whilst protesting about something or other.
Does anyone know how many times she has been charged with resisting arest and assault? It is just that news items figuring clips of Bradford being hauled kicking, struggling & screaming into the back of a police van were a pretty common thing.
This person is someone who will resort to violence and intimidation herself if she sees fit.
I have seen no evidence of recanting from any of these actions. In fact it would probably be fair to say that she owes her position in parliament to he history of protest.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
So you would be happy to see her attacked as well Peter?
I must admit even I am surprised by the number of people who are willing to excuse violence and intimidation here today.
You should all go take a deep breath and think about this.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sonic. Would you care to define what your interpretation of what ‘war’ means? It is where gummints try to assert their will over other gummints, usually by killing people. So if you believed in the cause, I presume you would consider that killing people under these circumstances, is ‘justified’?
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Paul, that is so out of left field to be hardly comprehensible.
Are you saying that you are at war with Sue Bradford? or since Governments sometimes engage in violence then it is fine to shoot Sue Bradford?
Why not just answer the question I posed.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sonic,
You have a gift of mis-reading things into what people say that is truly astounding.
Actually I do not condone threats of violence. I am happy to condemn them.
The point is that it is a little precious of this woman who has assaulted others to go bleating to the press if she ends up on the wrong end of a similar threat.
It is also hypocritical that someone with no repentance of their own history of violent behaviour should be trying to legislate nonviolent behaviour in others. This is especially true since she is apparently unable see any difference between an open handed smack on the bottom of a child and beating the snot out of one.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Dear Sonic As soon as I first heard about the threats to Sue Bradfors I condemned them even writing a letter to the Editor of Granny Herald. Although I dont know if they were a diversionary tactic history shows that when some are losing the debate they will go to extraordinary lengths. IMHO the smacking issue is and has always been a smoke screen. The real agenda is to push for more control over the lives of good Kiwis.I am a believer in minimal State interference but acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary. The supreme irony for me is that over the past 30 years all governments have failed to get involved in the lives of those they should have whilst poking their noses into mine and others. Bradford and her chums have enough other problems to solve before they make criminals out of good parents. And you just wait for divorced and separated parents to start using this as a weapon in custody battles.Another arrow in their quiver. The Police will be run off their feet with complainants.This is going to be the Family lawyers feast proving or disproving that Mum or Dad smacked little Johnny or Sarah And the little shits will quickly cotton onto this as a weapon to punish out of favour parents. I just cant wait to say Told you so.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Thanks Peter, that is all I was asking.
Same gd, although how you can imagine that the owners of CYFSwatch are closet lefties still surprises me.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I don’t condone violence of any kind, other than as an absolute, last resort. However, it would appear that the entire nation is moblising against Bradford and her supporters or, haven’t you been ‘listening’ Sonic? The Govt is on sacred ground here, comming between a parent and their children. Not only that, it is about to create the potential to make criminals of them. The long term, social consequences of this bill (as it is), does not bare thinking about.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Sonic,
It is not the owners of CYFSwatch that are accused of being closet lefties, it is whoever made the threatening posts.
How many times have some of the more extreme posters on this blog been accused of people of the opposite political persuasion masquerading as extremists to make one side or the other look ridiculous? I know I have seen a number of comments to that effect.
It is a tactic that has been used in the past in many forms. Letters to the editor used to be a common one.
It is likely that the threats were made by someone who is upset with Bradford. However it is a distinct possibility that the threats were also false, and a deliberate attempt to discredit Bradford’s detractors.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I think we have to give up on Sonic. He is obviously Sue Bradford’s son.
Sue Bradford certainly spent many years as a professional protestor and beneficiary. It beggars belief that she can do the about-face that this bill represents, from people power to political clout! Nothing like a bit of megalomania to reform your thoughts, I guess.
Worse, she genuinely believes that the parents of this country will be happy with a bill that will see them visited by our already resource-poor constabulary to ensure that the handmark lasted no longer than a few minutes, or whatever the social worker’s handbook will say.
I suppose it won’t be too awful as long as you don’t make the mistake of slapping a raging tantrum on tape at the supermarket which happens to land on the bruise your kid got throwing themselves to floor beforehand when you wouldn’t buy them chocolate.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“it would appear that the entire nation is moblising against Bradford and her supporters or, haven’t you been ‘listening’
I think you may be overestimating the influence of a few right-wing blogs feeding disinformation about this bill Peter.
Remember the “uprising” over Civil Unions?
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I see Magda has not taken the opportunity (despite being directly asked) to distance herself from those threatening violence at a member of our parliament.
Indeed she seems to be going out of her way to justfify it.
As I said before Magda, I’d take a deep breath and think about that.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Sonic,
You have a gift of mis-reading things into what people say that is truly astounding.
Actually in this case it appears to be inventing “statements” completely.
I just checked everything I have contributed to this thread, and no I did not type what you have attributed to me.
Keep smoking the weed. If Bradford’s bill goes through the police really will be unable to enforce the nations existing drug laws.
Though if the argument is right that cannabis laws are too hard to enforce, and that it is not a good thing for harmless users to end up with a conviction against their name, I just wonder where the resources to police smacking laws will come from, and why it is a good idea to make (from opinion polls) what appears to be 80% of the nations parents liable for criminal convictions.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Sorry Peter I got mixed up between you and Paul. Easy mistake to make.
Even Jesus did it from time to time!
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Remember the “uprising” over Civil Unions?
Posted by sonic | February 23, 2007 2:16 PM
Sonic. I am a single bloke, never married, never had kids. Yet, I clearly understand that there is no greater love than that of a parent for his or her, own child. Even so, I am clearly insensed by this Bill so I can easily imagine how good parents (ie. 99%), must ‘really’ be feeling about it!!. I say again, the Govt is on sacred ground her, way different from any other ‘uprising” it has ever experienced.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Well we shall see Paul, I don’t see this huge awakening of opposition outside a few blogs and in the letters pages of the newspapers.
Who knows though.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Apology accepted, Sonic.
I’ll just give you a history lesson though. Paul’s only meeting with Jesus was on the Damascus road, and it was Paul that had to ask who Jesus was.
Still, the reference to Paul makes me think that people who give up on you are being a bit hasty.
History suggests Paul started out as a Greens supporter. It is recorded that he was there and approved of Stephen being stoned!
But he did the right thing and changed sides in the end.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The point is that it is a little precious of this woman who has assaulted others to go bleating to the press if she ends up on the wrong end of a similar threat.
someone with no repentance of their own history of violent behaviour
Peter S, I would be very careful about what you say. Are you suggesting that Bradford has a history of assault convictions and that she has threatened violence against politicians or even threatened to assassinate them? If that is not what you are saying I would suggest you ask DPF to withdraw your comment quick-smart, because it does sound like it.
By the way, as I have posted elsewhere, when people protest, it is very easy to get charged with assault.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Oh Sonic, dear oh dear….
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
You never know Peter, I may one day have that Road to Damascus moment as the voice of David Farrar rings out
“Sonic, Sonic, why persecutest thou me?”
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Call me Mr Cynical Paul but I still recall many on this site predicting violent revolution over the pledge card issue.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
By the way, as I have posted elsewhere, when people protest, it is very easy to get charged with assault.
Posted by Andrew Bannister | February 23, 2007 2:35 PM
Well Andrew, would you know whether off the top your head, she has ever been charged with assault? And does she have convictions (of any kind), against her?
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Andrew,
I am not saying that Bradford has threatened politicians. And to read that into what I said is going way beyond what I said.
Similar threat was be an equation of spitting in the face of someone (something Bradford is accused of having done, and that accusation has been aired in the public arena) to hitting them in the face (something someone not quite threatened to do to Bradford).
I did not even say Bradford had a history of convictions. If you reread my comment I made reference to being charged with assault.
I did make reference to an item on Newstalk ZB where a someone who was either a policeman or a former policeman had accused Bradford of spitting in his face on 2 occasions.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Bradford’s appalling public behaviour aside (great example to set, me thinks), the fact she was an ardent supporter and advocator for the rights of the unemployed, really sums up the mindset of this woman and her distorted perception of reality.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
So only people with jobs have “rights” Paul?
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Lazy, able-bodied, unemployed individuals, have no rights.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
O.K., maybe I have been a little hasty in giving up on Sonic.
Sonic, how did you construe anything I have said as leaving me liable should any harm befall Sue Bradford. Sue Bradford is the author of her own misfortunes.
This is starting to feel like question time in the house where those with an agenda will pick you up on every word and twist it for all it’s worth…”POINT OF ORDER MR FARRAR!”
But I can see from the posts above that such persistent misconstruction is something Sonic does with such monotonous regularity that I have to give up on him…again.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
…O.K., maybe I have been a little hasty in giving up on Sonic.
magda. He’s worse than an irritating skin-louse. But at least with skin-louse, after scratching your-self stupid, you finally get to neutralize the little bastards!
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Magda, I asked you a simple question, do you condemn threats of violence against Sue Bradford.
The nearest you have come to answering it is
“Sue Bradford is the author of her own misfortunes”
Which, I’m afraid, to any sensible person, sounds like an endorsement of the threats being made.
As for Paul the whole idea of fundemental human rights seems to have passed him by. Go read the US consititution mate.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Peter S, so far you have said:
this woman who has assaulted others
someone with no repentance of their own history of violent behaviour
This person is someone who will resort to violence and intimidation herself
she ends up on the wrong end of a similar threats
Please explain to me how I am misreading this.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
We’d rather read the New Zealand Constitution…Mate.
As to any threats against Sue Bradford, I find them understandable What I don’t understand is how our politicians have got clean away with the outrages perpetrated against the New Zealand public to date.
But for those with the mental age of three, let me simplify. This is NOT inciting violence against any individual wherever or whoever they may be. In the same way I would say that I don’t understand how the dog down the street that the kids are throwing rocks at every day after school doesn’t rush out and bite them.
I would not, however, no matter how sympathetic to the dog’s plight, deliberately let him off so that he can bite them.
Can Sue’s friends and the media follow that? Or should I prepare for a visit from the Thought Police?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The “thought police”
No need to play the drama queen. This is a blog and I’m disagreeing with you, I’m not any sort of policeman.
Lets all hope Sue Bradford stays safe, at least we can agree on that? No matter how much you disagree with her politics?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Paul, I think Andrew and Sonic work in the same office.
Judging by their preoccupation with minutiae and utter refusal to see the bigger picture I think I’d prefer a full infestation of lice.
I’d say “bring on the Asuntol” but you know how THAT would get twisted!
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“utter refusal to see the bigger picture”
Is that the big picture that threats and intimidation are just fine and dandy as long as the person being threatened is a smelly leftist?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Sonic, a question I recall asking you a few days agoa and cannot find your answer to, (if there was one):
“What is your position on Bradford’s bill and do you not see it having unfortunate consequences for many New Zealanders?”
From reading this thread I cannot help but notice your deep and abiding concern for Bradford’s wellbeing, which is touching to be sure, but if you would just enlighten me on your stance to the legislation, I would then have a better basis to form an opinion on whether you genuinely support it, or you are just here taking the piss.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“Peter S, I would be very careful about what you say. Are you suggesting that Bradford has a history of assault convictions and that she has threatened violence against politicians or even threatened to assassinate them? If that is not what you are saying I would suggest you ask DPF to withdraw your comment quick-smart, because it does sound like it”.
Andrew Bannister.
“Magda, lets get this clear. If an individual, inspired by your rhetoric, physically attacks Sue Bradford, would you think that was justified?”
Sonic.
These guys sound like wannabes looking for trouble and an excuse to demonise anyone with a mind of their own.
They are the ‘Militant Conformists’, just as those who stand up to them are labled ‘Militant Non-Conformists.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hey Sonic, can you pass me the stapler.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
magda. The legal fraternity have a ‘vested’, commercial interest in ensuring the Bill goes through as is.
And as for Sonic. Can you provide an example of how you contribute towards making NZ a better society??? For example, over the last 25 odd years I have employed scores of umemployed and ex convicts in my various businesses. I do this not to be a martyr, but because I believe in giving people opportunities and hope. Probably 90% of the time they let me down (and in all sorts of sick ways), but the remaining 10% turn out to be real gems that make taking the risk, worthwhile. I suggest to you, that I do have some understanding of the ‘rights’ of the able-bodied unemployed. I say again…they have none.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sonic- “Is that the big picture that threats and intimidation are just fine and dandy as long as the person being threatened is a smelly leftist?”
Sonic- “I’m amazed that you try and justify threats against a New Zealand member of parliament by referring to someone in the USA getting a sign torn up.”
Sigh…
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Good for you Paul, but you do know that no good deed goes unpunished? Employ those with the motivation to get themselves out of bed and applying for the job without a carrot or a prod.
After all, the indolent free-loaders who think the world owes them a living have spent so long sitting on their useless backsides arrogantly making demands, being shirkers parasitising off the workers, they probably haven’t the strength to use a stapler anyway. (-;
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Oh man, the staples don’t want to go through the paper.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
After all, the indolent free-loaders who think the world owes them a living have spent so long sitting on their useless backsides arrogantly making demands, being shirkers parasitising off the workers, they probably haven’t the strength to use a stapler anyway. (-;
Posted by Magda | February 23, 2007 5:39 PM
This is exactly what they are…. The kind that Bradford advocated so strongly for. And now she’s trying to tell parents how to discipline their own children? Oh the irony of it all! If it wasn’t so sick, it would be funny.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
oh, come on Andrew, give it some welly. I’m only singing from a single song sheet.
You can do it…try standing up, you’ll get better purchase!
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Boy theres a lot of bloggers who fantise about Sue bradford , hay 5 kids(shes had sex 5 times) good sex, forget about the looks, and the plastic hair,she could be a good pole dancer, (in your dreams)_likes a good whipping
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Andrew is asking Sonic for instructions on how to use it, but he cant understand what he is saying.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
try standing up, you’ll get better purchase!
Brilliant, thanks Madge. Sonic and I took turns jumping from the desk onto the stapler and we slowly forced it through. Man, you should become an office consultant.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Ooops, sorry, I meant Magda. Can’t read either.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Careful chaps..there’s bound to be a clause in the US Constitution regarding breaching the rights of staplers.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
…especially ones that aren’t working.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Or worse! Staplers that the incompetent and unwilling are expected to use without support. Support provided by those they are trying to staple of course.
Just call me a taxpayer.
But we digress, isn’t this thread about bloggers who, with anonymity, become monsters deserving of annihilation?
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
my my Paul, what wit.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I’m rather interested by the idea of employing the unemployed. Surely that is, by definition, impossible?
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
In a fair number of instances err, you are correct.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I wouldn’t need to be an office consultant to tell your boss I’m glad I didn’t fund the stapler you’re abusing Andrew.
There’s no helping some people.
But back to Explaining Blogging.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
‘Office Consultant’??? Only a bureaucrat could ever use that term! Cheeses, they’ve probably already spent a cool $1M (our money), on the manual alone!
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Only $1m? $U.S. or $NZ?
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I really can not understand why anyone would make an issue about “threats” being made to someone who has been a parasitic, protesting fucktard most of thier lives. But then again, the parasitic fucktards seem to have more rights than those who are forced to support them. Thank you MMP, thank you Labour government.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Good lord this thread has bought out the god bothering flakes.
As a good parent I support this bill and I notice many respectable organisations such as Barnardos do as well.
I betcha two out of three amongst Magda, paul and peter are religous.
Others like murray who blame the gummint seem to fit the “Authoritarian followers” mould.
…………….. lets have a mob
………….. a lynchin mob
February 24th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Funny how the airbrains use expletives.
Which brings me to the cartoon at the beginning of this thread – aside from the actual cartoon character it’s like something straight out of a primary schoolyard.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:17 am
nznative -
“…………….. lets have a mob
………….. a lynchin mob”
You may be closer to the truth than you realise. From the groundswell I hear in my part of the country our good friend Sue has got this very,very wrong.
I am not religious in any way. I am however a parent. I have never disiplined my children through smacking but I reserve the right to do so.
This law has failed in Sweden,something which Ms Bradford seems unwilling to admit.
Interesting in this thread that Sonic has revealed not only his/her tactics but a partial glimpse at his/her strategy for derailing every important thread on this site, and more than likely others, that aren’t aimed towards his/her conformist thinking.
Here is our friend Sonic commenting on another site
“Some people you see do not make threats, they just act. No posting warnings on the internet or anything, just a tap on the shoulder late at night and a “hello kid””
You can read almost any comment he/she has made on this thread to get a taste of the hypocrisy involved and how little Sonic actually believes in anything.
Sonic time for your persona to disappear. Your Masters must realise your time is running out. Are they grooming your new persona as I speak?
Could they think of a better name this time please. TIA
CL
February 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
My Masters?
As for you chicken, nice bit of taking out of context, put the whole link up.
I must admit though watching the same people who defend death threats against MPs try and claim the moral high ground is rather amusing.
I have attracted the attention of the good people at CYFSwatch have I magda.
Lucky that they don’t have my address eh?
February 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Is it short person’s disorder? Or maybe a serious mental illness.
Anyone posting publicly, demanding that others declare their identity to prove their credibility whilst posting anonymously themselves…well, who’d want their address anyway?
And on the subject of anonymity on the CYFSWatch blog plenty of posters have in fact identified themselves along with their persecutors, or at least left email contact (me for example) so that those in a position to investigate the veracity of our claims can do so.
No takers so far.
But here’s another post in the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do vein:
“chris:
This is statutory social work, social workers do not make decisions. They do what the statutes say they should do. If pieces of shit cannot look after their kids the state steps in.
BTW, could we have a site which names and shames the likes of . Hows about it , will you post the contents of the CYFs files regarding yourself and the decisions made or will you hide behind POI act?”.
Nota Bene: expletives, derision, identity exposure!
A case of the pot calling the kettle black methinks.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
For some reason my entire post didn’t appear.
Chris actually used the poster’s pseudonym in his challenge followed by the poster’s real name.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Sonic – speaking of amusing -
“I must admit though watching the same people who defend death threats against MPs try and claim the moral high ground is rather amusing.”
Please provide a link to the article/site/PR that outlines these ‘death threats’. I imagine the police will be prosecuting the person making these ‘death threats’ hmm??
or
maybe they’re not death threats?
xxx
CL
February 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Still waiting Sonic………………………
February 24th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Be patient – Sonic will report for duty on Monday morning, after chewing down the cornflakes and receiving further instructions from the Beehive.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
What’s happening with this blog? I added a comment to a comment I made about airbrains using expletives, and then added a post saying I didn’t include Murray M in that comment since he is plainly ‘onto it’, and that post has vanished.
I thought David was in Bali? Is someone else editing this site?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Sonic – still haven’t reported for duty?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Funny how the airbrains use expletives.
I added a comment to a comment I made about airbrains using expletives, and then added a post saying I didn’t include Murray M in that comment…
Maybe there’s a built-in hypocrisy filter?
Although, given the tenor of most of the ‘discussions’ on this site, I’d say it was more likely just a technical hiccup.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Sorry guys but I quit this thread, far too nasty and personal to bother with.
xxx
S
June 12th, 2007 at 7:13 am
jtrl qfagn xyrihm fane cfyjtoxlw wgndby lwgfpjq
June 12th, 2007 at 7:14 am
jtrl qfagn xyrihm fane cfyjtoxlw wgndby lwgfpjq
June 12th, 2007 at 7:15 am
jtrl qfagn xyrihm fane cfyjtoxlw wgndby lwgfpjq