Finally given in

November 19th, 2007 at 7:30 am by David Farrar

I’ve finally given into the temptation.

Day after day as Family First has complained about Californication, I’ve resisted the urge to watch it, as I don’t have time to watch another TV show.

As they knocked off sponsors one by one and reported daily progress, I’ve resisted the urge.

But this weekend it got too much for me as I read this press release from Family First:

The latest episode featured explicit sex scenes, constant explicit sexual talk and innuendo, was littered with foul language including 19 uses of the ‘F’ word, the young daughter calling her father an a**hole and boasting about having a shirt that says “Jesus is a C Word”, drug use, and an underage girl sexually touching the lead character.

They actually counted up the number of times the “F” word was used! :-)

I give in.  My self control is not strong enough.  Just as I became hooked on Southpark after reading how Christian Heritage deplored the movie for having a homosexual sex scene between Saddam Hussein and Satan, I have now watched one episode of Californication and am grabbing a copy of the episode already shown.

My biggest fear is that one day Family First will condemn Coronation Street, and I’ll feel obliged to start watching that also!

Tags: , , ,

100 Responses to “Finally given in”

  1. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Whatever happened to choice? These Family First people sound as though they can’t stop themselves from watching it.

    I saw the first episode, accidentally so it happens. What do you do when you switch channels and there you have quite a bit of jiggling going on which you don’t normally see on TV? So I watched. I will have to say there is nothing glamorous or gratuitous about the sex on this programme. I certainly felt no desire to see it again, and I haven’t. If it wasn’t for all the controversy over it, it would just die a natural death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. yesom (4 comments) says:

    Dont knock Coro .Its a great programme

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I’m boycotting the products and services of advertisers where possible. If some here feel it is within their rights to have no standard other than ‘viewer beware’ then i’d suggest they apply the same principle by repealing consumer guarentees act, food labeling, driver licencing etc. let all of those areas of life become ‘participator beware’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    TV3 is pushing the boundaries.
    Should there be no limit?
    How long until that “cupchicks thing” is allowed on TV? (For those who don’t know, it involves defecation).
    Do you understand how a gradual decline in standards conditions us to accept even lower standards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    What I find rather ironic about Family First is that they’ve forgotten Toddler Management 101: The worse thing you can do with attention-seeking ‘acting out’ is to reward it with attention. And in the end, that’s what I find really offensive about Californication — that when you get past the juvenile provocation, it’s so utterly banal.

    Oddly enough, nobody seems to have noticed that Three pulled after Saving Grace after two episodes because of poor ratings. I guess the sight of of Holly Hunter playing a barely functional alcoholic who spends a lot of time having triple-X throw downs with a married co-wroker wasn’t much of an incentive to keep tuning in. And what replaced it? Repeats of Bones, where the raunchiest thing going on is the occasional bout of G-rated, mildly flirtatious banter between the leads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    BTW, someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Family First rather keen to have the R rating on Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ (with lengthy and explicit scenes of sadistic torture) LOWERED?

    I don’t mean this as a compliment, but Gibson’s medieval snuff film literally made me puke.

    And just as FYI for Ross: Any sexual activity involving urine or faeces is automatically objectionable under New Zealand censorship laws, and a clear breech of the Broadcasting Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    The Church and family first were right to act. Of course all of the groups seeking tolerance for religion did nothing, but imagine the outcry if in the first episode the main character was yelling the f word at a statue of Allah. Christianity has become cannon fodder for the media, whose standards are declining more rapidly then ever. A show like Californication would never have aired 10 years ago, so imagine what will be airing in ten years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    And just as FYI for Ross: Any sexual activity involving urine or faeces is automatically objectionable under New Zealand censorship laws, and a clear breech of the Broadcasting Act.

    Is that why the bastards took my German porn away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Is californication really much more explicit than Sex in the City?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    a) I wish bob would take his stance on Freedom of Speech on Saturday seriously when it comes to TV Shows. Its the same principle…

    b) How come its alright for Family first to watch said show, and count the amount of times anything offends them, yet its not ok for the rest of us to watch it and make our own minds up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    I watched the second episode of Californication — to see what it was about before writing an opinion on it. It is pretty torrid stuff — lots of sex and swearing and antisocial attitudes. Oh — and copious vomiting! It definitely pushes the boundaries.

    So I don’t think it contributes to the social good. It really is a new benchmark in the lowering of standards as the quality of our television viewing relentlessly declines. Television appears to be getting smuttier and unless groups such as Family First speak out against it things will get worse and worse. So I agree with Family First.

    I completely disagree with those who say — you should do nothing because you draw attention to it. While that is quite true, it is also true that by doing nothing broadcasting standards will continue to get worse and worse.

    Nor do I think we should idly stand by and let the United States continue to send us their most smutty and anti-social television programmes. Surely our culture is better than that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Nick C. wrote:

    The Church and family first were right to act. Of course all of the groups seeking tolerance for religion did nothing, but imagine the outcry if in the first episode the main character was yelling the f word at a statue of Allah.

    I know you’re trying to bait a hypocrisy trap here, but I’m not biting: First, I think many, perhaps even most, Muslims would be offended by any figurative representation of Allah, as rank idolatry. So perhaps you should try knowing what the hell your talking about?

    Second, there are many aspects of Muslim belief and culture I find hideously offensive, even blasphemous. The difference is that I don’t think my religious and aesthetic sensibilities are deserving of any kind of special protection by the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Craig, you may or may not know this but in the first episode of californication the main character was yelling/swearing at statue of the virgin mary. We are in agreement that most muslims would be offended if this were changed to a statue of Allah, but the question is would other groups be offended? So far there has been a defening silence from the advocates of religious tolerance about this show. But would there be so much silence from these same groups if muslims were being targeted in the show? I think not.

    Secondly i do feel that Christianity should recieve more protection for the Broadcasting standards authority, not because it is my religion but because it is New Zealands religion. Yes, i know NZ has no official religion but our nation was founded on Christian principals and it is the majority religion in New Zealand. Lets not bash ourselfs to death here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Nor do I think we should idly stand by and let the United States continue to send us their most smutty and anti-social television programmes. Surely our culture is better than that!

    You might be getting your wish. All the writers of US shows are striking right now because they want a cut from the sale of their shows on DVD.
    It is possible that if the strike is not soon resolved that these US shows will dry up :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Mike S (229 comments) says:

    Family First speaks for a tiny minority of people, yet takes it upon itself to act like Nanny-State even with no pretense of a mandate.

    Californication is not the best piece of TV I’ve seen, but it’s not hat bad, and I don’t think it’s any more raunchy than other shows at that hour. Duchovny is not the greatest actor, let’s face it.

    What I find amazing is the way a company like BurgerKing which runs ads with semi-naked girls can give in to the thugs who run Family First.

    Hypocrisy writ large I’d say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    Who appointed the Christian First mob, I mean Family First mob to be the moral watchdog for New Zealand?

    If they really have an issue then complain to the Broadcast Standards Authority, better still just don’t watch ‘Californication’ and leave the rest of us to decide for ourselves.

    There is lots of talk on this website about ‘freedom’ and yet here is a tiny group of people trying to impose their moral values on the rest of us by dictating what we can and can’t watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    I think FF has every right to complain about the show and even urge a boycott of advertisers. It’s called freedom of speech.

    I also think it tends to be counter-productive as it always results in more publicity for the show, and I’ve never known one to be taken off air due to said protests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    So David, it is OK to use freedom of speech to restrict other people’s freedoms?

    And let’s assume they did manage to get ‘Californication’ banned or taken off air, what next? Should we have a morals committee headed by Family First that approves everything that gets shown on TV?

    [FF have no power to get it banned or taken off the air. It can only be banned if it breaches NZ laws as passed by parliament. It will be taken off air if Canwest can not make enough money from showing it. There are many shows overseas that do not get shown here. One can always torrent them anyway if they are never shown here]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Family First speaks for a tiny minority of people

    I’m not so sure they speak for a tiny majority. Can’t find the link.. but looking for it – there was a survey recently about the top 10 things men looked for in a relationship… and the corresponding top 10 for women. while there were plenty of differences the number 1 for both was faithfulness. Canifornication promotes sexual values that are at the nil end of the faithfulness spectrum.

    Could it be that NZes do really want faithfulness and are happy to claim as much in a private survey … but are sufficiently afraid of being labelled conservative or prudish that they declare the opposite in public?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    What the fuck is Family First doing up at 9.30pm anyway?!

    I think they might be forgetting old Psalm 127:2 –
    It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Yes but David if FF sit back and do nothing then standards of morality will continue to decline. By acting they can put pressure on companies not to advertise during the show and on TV3 to not run such shows in the future. Whether it will work or not has yet to be seen, but there is evidence of other things (i.e. advertising) being taken off the air

    While many people may call Californication freedom of speech it represtents a decline in standards of morality that is beyond doubt bad for our society. It is behind ever increasing rates of divorce, it is making children sexually active at a much younger age and having many other harmful effects. Look at other societies that have abandoned god and morality; the USSR, Pol Pots Cambodia, North Korea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Nick:

    I’m perfectly well aware of the contents of the first episode of Californication, as – unlike Bob Croskie and Lindsay Freer by the own admission – I have the cranky habit of forming my opinions at first hand. My main regret is that I wasted an hour of my life I’ll never get back on a piece of puerile tosh, and won’t be repeating the experience.

    But, hey, would you like me to burn my copy of the Collected Plays of William Shakespeare because it contains plays that offends many women (The Taming of the Shrew), blacks (Othello) and Jews (The Merchant of Venice)? Perhaps we should purge them from the stage and school curricula?

    And again, Nick, I do wish you’d make your arguments from some kind of factual basis. If you look at the most recent census data – or any factually accurate reading of history – Catholicism is not now, and never has been, “New Zealand’s religion”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. MrHappy (70 comments) says:

    I’m with DPF. Family First are absolutely within their rights to bang their drum about this, and a protest was obvious ever since the show was announced here (I saw the series some time ago – very fine I thought).

    The whole issue revolves around the question of state protection of religious values. Should Christianity be afforded special status under NZ law as suggested by Nick C? I don’t reckon so.

    And Craig Ranapia raised the excellent point that Family First went the other way on Mel Gibson’s gorefest ‘Passion Of The Christ,’ lobbying to achieve one of New Zealand’s only R15 movies. Makes you think – are they really concerned about ‘family values’ – or in fact with the promotion/protection of a Christian agenda?

    Either way, it’s exercise of their freedom of speech, so no harm done, except possibly to any lily-livered advertisers who quaver and pull their spots. I intend to exercise my freedom to skip re-watching the series but I urge anyone interested to check it out – it is quite clever in places.

    MrHappy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. infused (656 comments) says:

    If you guys don’t like it, don’t watch it. How hard is that to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    “The latest episode featured explicit sex scenes, constant explicit sexual talk and innuendo, was littered with foul language including 19 uses of the ‘F’ word, the young daughter calling her father an a**hole and boasting about having a shirt that says “Jesus is a C Word”, drug use, and an underage girl sexually touching the lead character.”

    Do you really think people should be watching this Craig? Children are staying up later and later these days so its easily possible that 12 yr olds are watching this. I get your point about freedom of speech, but where do we draw the line? Would you be happy for hardcore pornography to be shown at 7:00 on tv3 instead of Cambell Live? Because i imagine that would get very good ratings. Now i know that this is not hardcore pornography, but we need to draw a line and stick to it somewhere otherwise in 50 years time its very possible that pornography will be shown on free tv. If we dont draw a line then our standards of acceptablilty will continue to decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    Children are staying up later and later these days so its easily possible that 12 yr olds are watching this.

    Children are also having sex earlier apparently…

    Nick maybe if you sent your children to bed a little earlier (and alone) they wouldn’t be watching filth or having sex.

    Would you be happy for hardcore pornography to be shown at 7:00 on tv3 instead of Cambell Live? Because i imagine that would get very good ratings.

    I would if they rated in R18 and warned people about it before hand.
    But I think it would get way lower ratings then they currently get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dave (988 comments) says:

    whats this got to do with Christianity? All FF is doing is expressing its views just like Bob McC was doing on Saturday at the EFB rally. Its called Freedom of speech. And if that draws more peopleto watch the programme, thats the price paid for higlighting what most people tend to find as not promoting the social good to avoid lowering of broadcasting standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    So are all the people complaining about this the same people who were tolerant of DB-P and his ‘southern kinks’ lifestyle simply because it was his choice ?

    There are bigger things to worry about than some naff TV show – surely ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Do you really think people should be watching this Craig? Children are staying up later and later these days so its easily possible that 12 yr olds are watching this.

    Well, that’s kind of the problem with this country…. If parents would exercise some control over their children, rather than relying on nanny state to dictate what they can and can’t do, then maybe we’d all be better off.

    Morals are relative, and I think that the family should be setting them, not relying on the state to do it.

    FYI, I watched californication, and thought it was OK – mindless enough, but watchable. I don’t let my 13 yr old stepdaughter watch it however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    “What’s this got to do with Christianity”

    What’s it got to do with the family?? And for that matter what has the EFB got to do with the family, unless Family First is really a political group…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    rickyjj, most NZ parents have better things to do then control what their children are watching, as soon as someone learns how to use a tv remote it becomes very hard to do so.

    Clearly you have no problem with declining morality and would be happy to live in a world where anyone at any age can view anything. The thing is children are very impressionable and the behavior that they see on tv can easily impact what they think is a social norm. So tv of this quality can be very harmful to children and parents cant always control every aspect of a childs life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    rocketboy said “And for that matter what has the EFB got to do with the family, unless Family First is really a political group…”

    RB – FF is an organisation which has oipinions on a range of issues – whether or not you agree with those opinions, FF is entitled to hold them and to publicise them – until 31/12/2007 that is. Maybe THAT is why FF representatives marched against against the EFB on Saturday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrew Bannister (213 comments) says:

    Wasn’t Family First one of the groups behind the march in Saturday?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Which is doing more damage – CALIFORNICATION, or SHORTLAND STREET, where everyone has screwed everyone else in almost all the permutations that the range of characters can offer, and wash away all the resulting troubles with booze, which in many of the permutations caused the troubles in the first place. Instead of counting the number of times they say Fuck in CALIFORNICATION, they should count the number of times alcohol is misused in SHORTLAND STREET, which is watched by a considerable number of primary school children, who must be ‘soaking up’ the sub-message. So why the fuss about the much later show? Adults can turn it off, if it doesn’t turn them on.

    [Another thing: notice how the initial burst of publicity against CALIFORNICATION - before it's first screening - suddenly went quiet when the Catholic Maori Boys School principal was arrested - drama couldn't hold a match to the reality show? The present fuss seems to be advertisers who realise they can make more out of not advertising, and publicising the fact, than quietly telling TV3 they are terminating scheduled spots.
    Now TV3 may dig in their toes, as some sort of free speech deal, and so it will go on]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dave (988 comments) says:

    Rocket Boy
    Im a member of a family. Thats what the EFB has to do with Family. Families should be able to speak out in an election year, and FF is going to be impacted by the EFB in doing its job

    now, go back under your rock and take your pill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I think FF has every right to complain about the show and even urge a boycott of advertisers. It’s called freedom of speech.”

    Perfectly correct Mr. Farrar. ..and liberals of course couldn’t object to these methods without being exposed as utter and complete hypocrites could they?

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QL52780&show_article=1

    Liberals on Kiwiblog make the point that complaining about the show only encourages people to watch it. Perhaps that’s so, but they’re missing something.

    As you said about the march on Saturday, its not so much the 2000+ who attended, its the million who saw it on the TV news. Without targeting these shows, those who oppose it would remain an unrecognised group. By making this protest about Californication, Family First have brought themselves into the public eye, raised their political profile and also advertised themselves to those who might support them but had previously not known they existed.

    Final point is this. I’m pleased that groups are starting to find the courage to speak out against low community standards, and confront the so called tolerant liberals who scream indignantly about changing the channel. The same liberals who work assiduously behind the scenes to introduce legislation to control what people think and say, (and none more so than the homosexual lobby).

    I’m all for groups attempting to protect moral standards in society. I have nothing but contempt for the so called “artists” who write and film and act in shows like Californication.

    I hold them in contempt for reasons that are multitudinous. The main one of course is that they are almost always vehicles for left liberal political propaganda. They are almost always Trojan horses for the left’s attempts to gradually deconstruct western society. They almost always attack principles that confront socialism, and glorify ideas that support it.

    I withdraw my support though for the protesters the instant they commit to legislation to bring about the changes they desire. Not the way to do it. Criticise and condemn it by all means, but do not use the law. Once this boundary is crossed, you have opened a Pandora’s box of issues. (the most recent example being the EFB).

    Television in NZ is dying a natural death anyway. An empty chasm of mediocrity and brainless left liberal hype and cliché. A megaphone for every socially destructive liberal bullshit idea out there. A propaganda device for big government and totalitarian socialism. Its dead on its feet. Put it out of its misery. Just turn it off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    Personally, if I don’t like it, I don’t watch it. But sit and watch the Criminal Investigation network, (Sky 71) for a few hours, you’ll realise there are a lot worse things to be worried about than David Duchovney saying “fuck!”

    (And South Park, is pure anarchic brutality – but I love it, am I wrong?)

    (Oh don’t get me started on Faily Guy either, every time I watch that programme I laugh so hard I nearly puke up a lung!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    ‘Rocket Boy; Im a member of a family. Thats what the EFB has to do with Family. Families should be able to speak out in an election year, and FF is going to be impacted by the EFB in doing its job’

    And it may surprise you to know that I am also a member of a family, I am married with a baby daughter. But my family concerns are about good health care, quality education, affordable child care options etc not how many times f&*k was said on a TV programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dave (988 comments) says:

    Rocket Boy, I asked the question in conjunction with the EFB, not californication. Didn`t I.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    rickyjj, most NZ parents have better things to do then control what their children are watching

    Which is the problem with NZ…

    as soon as someone learns how to use a tv remote it becomes very hard to do so.

    Do your kids have their own tvs in their locked rooms or what?
    I mean it hasn’t seemed that hard to me…

    Clearly you have no problem with declining morality and would be happy to live in a world where anyone at any age can view anything.

    Yep I would. But I’d still stop my own children from viewing certain things until they got to a certain age.

    Maybe you need to go to some parenting classes to learn how to control your kids? I’m surprised they’re not out there pimping and killing every night!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    Yes Dave and you also told me to ‘go back under my rock and take a pill’.

    Like I said what has the EFB got to do with Families? Remember it is Family FIRST not second, third or tenth. Or is it Right Wing Christian morals first with a soft sell family friendly cover to make it ‘acceptable’ to the voting public?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. infused (656 comments) says:

    “Nick C Says:
    rickyjj, most NZ parents have better things to do then control what their children are watching, as soon as someone learns how to use a tv remote it becomes very hard to do so.”

    Haha. How about you pay attention to your kids? This is the problem with New Zealand. Oh were too busy, pass the responsibility on to someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    yeah ditto infused and rickyjj
    i certainly dont have any problems with what my children are allowed to watch… after all I am the parent. What is so important that you have better things to do than being a parent to your children?
    You should also supervise childrens time on computer also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Judging by watching the court case of ‘lady Cchattely’s lover’ last night I think history is almost repeating itself.

    I remember during the nineties Americans were kicking up against the Simpsons and N Y P D Blues. I don’t think the Americans said anything about the ‘L Word’ or ‘Californication.’ I know US sponsors also thought they were taking a huge risk on ‘Married with Children.’

    As for a ‘minor’ the girl was at least 16, which is legal here. Are we going by US standards here now. The US is the only western country that enforces 18 as the age of consent. Everywhere else is around 14-16.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Infused/ricky: People should supervise what their children watch on tv, i agree with you on that. The thing is that they dont. People have things called jobs, which are require to pay for the cost of living. And even if a parent isnt working they cant supervise their kids 24/7.

    So the point still stands, children do end up watching these sorts of programs. Morality is the glue that has held western society togeather for hundreds of years, history shows that civilisations that lose their morality ulitmatly fail. If we let our children watch this sort of stuff with the justification of free speech then we will be letting our own society decay into a twisted and warped left-wing version that has nothing to value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    I can’t believe how pathetic NZers are to be watching this show (apparently ratings were 40,000 more than when it wasn’t on) – just goes to show that sex sells, no matter how crap. If a hag like Deborah Coddington went on TV half naked NZers would be watching it. The only reason I wanted to watch Californication was ‘cos Duchovney was in it, but after watching a few 30 second clips on youtube I realised it was absolute shite and wasn’t gonna waste my time.

    I do find your endorsement of this show hypocritical David, considering you had a problem with me posting a link to the Cup Chicks. How is that any different than endorsing this show, which apparently has vomiting in it too (for those who don’t know, the Cup Chicks link involves two lesbians giving rim jobs with shit and vomit)?

    The only sensible comment in this thread so far was the person saying we should allow 12 year old kids to have sex. The sooner society accepts pedophilia and sexual liberalisation the earlier we don’t have to fuck around with crap shows like Californication and just simply be watching decent, hardcore pornography on TV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    stan says:

    The sooner society accepts pedophilia and sexual liberalisation the earlier we don’t have to fuck around with crap shows like Californication and just simply be watching decent, hardcore pornography on TV

    Get help man!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    People should supervise what their children watch on tv, i agree with you on that. The thing is that they dont.

    So we should ban stuff?
    Shouldn’t we ban swimming pools if some parents aren’t supervising their kids around them? I mean I’m sure some kids are drowning…

    People have things called jobs, which are require to pay for the cost of living.

    I’d venture there are very few families where
    a) both parents are working at 9.30pm
    and b) the kids are not left with another family member who looks after them.

    And even if a parent isnt working they cant supervise their kids 24/7.

    They’re usually asleep for a good portion of that.
    And then there’s school.
    Lot’s of kids also do some form of organised activities.
    And when they hang out with friends only one of the parents needs to be keeping an eye on them.
    So it’s not really 24/7…

    So the point still stands, children do end up watching these sorts of programs.

    Children end up playing with guns Nick, should we ban them?
    What about matches?
    Or kitchen knives?

    Seems like all of those would do far more direct damage then a tv programme…

    Morality is the glue that has held western society togeather for hundreds of years, history shows that civilisations that lose their morality ulitmatly fail.

    Do you have any evidence for this at all?

    I mean there’s lots of societies which seem to have done ok without western/Christian morals.

    If we let our children watch this sort of stuff with the justification of free speech then we will be letting our own society decay into a twisted and warped left-wing version that has nothing to value.

    Why left-wing? Banning stuff is very left-wing!

    Couldn’t this warped society value freedom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dave (988 comments) says:

    Another advertiser has just withdrawn advertising from Californication – BOnd and Bond – thats the seventh or eighth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    ricky, your swimming pool analogy actually proves my point, because when a kid drowns in a swimming pool its considered (legally) the pools fault, not the parents. Your point about jobs is also undermined by the fact that you said it would be perfectly ok for hardcore porn to be shown at 7:00pm, but of course why 7pm? Why not 4pm? With your logic this is easily possible.

    Your point about kitchen knifes and matches fails for two reasons (we do actually have gun control laws so no need to discuss that); Children are taught safety with matches and knifes at a young age, making potential damage much less likey. Secondly while it is true that the damage done by these objects is more direct to children, the damage done by these immoral TV programs will last the rest of these childrens lives, and impact the way they behave and potentially bring up their own children.

    I know what i said about western society may sound a bit hysterical, but lets take a closer look at the society you are proposing: Anyone can watch anything at any age. If you value nothing but freedom then i guess this would be the ultimate society, but it would be very different to our lives today and bear no resemblance to New Zealand, or any country in existence. I would say however that it would be the end of the conventional family as we see it today, there would be no incentive not to cheat on your spouse or to even have children. The family is the unit which FF is trying to protect by protesting against the first step towards this ‘utopian’ society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    ricky, your swimming pool analogy actually proves my point, because when a kid drowns in a swimming pool its considered (legally) the pools fault, not the parents.

    So you do think we should ban swimming pools?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    I see no need, pools know that they are liable if a child dies in them, so they have good measures to stop that happening, such as lifeguards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    I see no need, pools know that they are liable if a child dies in them, so they have good measures to stop that happening, such as lifeguards.

    OK sorry I was talking about the swimming pools people have in their private homes – the ones which don’t have lifeguards…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    but parents do have a role in this too (pools)
    eg – pools have a policy that states children under age of 12 must be accompanied etc.
    Mount hot pools have a policy saying that young children must be ACTIVELY supervised (you have to be right there with them – less than 1 metre) even though there are many lifeguards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Sorry, should have realised that. A law has recently been passed to make all private pools fenced, which is an appropriate saftey precaution. This along with more public pool saftey campaigns are certainly good measures.

    However i think one key difference between pools and TV is that a parent who lets a child drown in a pool is criminally liable for their negligence which serves both as a deterant and a punishment for bad parents. Letting children watch californication is not illegal, so parents will get away with letting children watch it, and thereby altering their perception of life. Of course any measure to do so would be draconien, invading on peoples privacy, so therefore we should ban the show or at least have it on an r18 channel that is locked like playboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Max, this is just the pools policy and under the law if someone broke the pools policy and a child drowned the pool would probably still be liable. This policy is enforced by the pool in question only, in order to avoid a situation where a child may drown (in which case it would be liable).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Is the programme Californication about Californian girls ,oops I mean , airport toilet cubicles ? Just wondering, as I don’t watch TV inside my cave .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. MrHappy (70 comments) says:

    No Dad4Justice, it’s about a failed-ish, lame writer trying to get his life back on track and maintain custody of his sprog.

    Airport toilet cubicles? What are you driving at?

    MrHappy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Bloody hell, I never knew that you had so many cult members posting here David.

    Hmm, funny how many of those cult members
    believe we should be understanding when a
    cult leader is caught fiddling with kids.

    Almost as funny as a conservative with a
    wide stance.
    Definition of a religious conservative, one
    who has not come out of the closet as yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “No Dad4Justice, it’s about a failed-ish, lame writer trying to get his life back on track and maintain custody of his sprog.”

    Thank you Mr Happy , please tell him to give me call or email as I help hundreds involved in custody battles , in fact 3 court cases today , who needs law school , as Hollywood’s the best place to learn law .

    Cheers .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. sean (397 comments) says:

    Interesting to see that the reason DPF chooses to watch a program is because someone he doesn’t like, doesn’t like it!! i.e. watching it out of spite. Somewhat childish I would have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “The sooner society accepts pedophilia and sexual liberalisation the earlier we don’t have to fuck around with crap shows like Californication.”

    In real terms, this is a very impt issue and not to be dismissed or denegrated when some one has a conviction about this. The White House is using morality as a tool to further press their thumb down on not only their own society but in the internet age on foreign sovereign soils as well.
    Japanese are shocked how much white house influence is involved in their country. The US is the international bully using their own warped hypocritical cultureless failed religious /morality crusades to enforce its will upon the world. And its not to ensure a safer secure world.

    Within the next decade if the EFB is passed you can expect it to be used to legalise child prostitution and pornography to net more revenue on the income tax. If you are wondering if I am contradicting myself I am beleiveing we are actually moving away from the US to China and communism. A totalotarian state that will have control over Families, children and separating communication between adults and children.

    We’re already seeing the start of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. MrHappy (70 comments) says:

    “Thank you Mr Happy , please tell him to give me call or email as I help hundreds involved in custody battles , in fact 3 court cases today , who needs law school , as Hollywood’s the best place to learn law .”

    You see, D4J, I would, and I’m sure you’d do the fictional character a great service, but it’s fiction. As in, ‘not real life’.

    MrHappy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Oh no , however in a country where government integrity is absent and a fictional Monty Burns is Prime Minister with a fantasy justice system then it could be argued that TVNZ should look at screening a show titled kiwifornication guide to the utopian galaxy.

    Off course, it will be directed by Miss UnHappy Wooden teeth Queen of lies and spies .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    I have Californification and TV3 to thank. Both the show and the TV station has finally given me that push that I needed to cancel my Sky TV subscription, which I needed to get free-to-air TV as well. No more TV programmes, as they will continue to get worse and I don’t need them in my home anyway.

    David, if your TV causes you to give into temptation, why not get rid of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. checkthefacts (29 comments) says:

    I find Krazykiwi aptly self-named. His/her logic borders on bizarre. Most people want their partner to be faithful (how many want the same for themselves is undoubtedly smaller). Therefore they don’t want to a television show where people are not portrayed as monogamous. That sort of logic is rather naive. People don’t want to be killed by an evil wizard Dark Lord but they still watch Harry Potter.

    Then to make it better he/she concocts a second, even more absurd argument. Since people don’t want to appear to be prudes, like himself/herself, they are lying about it. So these moral people are mostly liars.

    Nick C ask Craig “do you really think people should be watching this”? Whether he does or doesn’t is not the issue. It is whether the people who tune in think they should be watching it. I don’t think people should watch TV evangelists but that doesn’t mean they should be banned.

    I also noted the main argument of these people is that parents may not be parenting their own children. So, on the basis that some parents may not be doing their jobs then the State should replace the parental decision making and ban the show. Weren’t these the same people who were whinging profusely about the anti-smacking bill saying it interfered with the rights of adults to parent their own children? In other words Family First is saying that that the Great Leader was right. Parents shouldn’t be left to make such decisions. The State should decide for them to prevent parents from making the wrong decision.

    I assure you that the harm done by a parent beating a child too hard, in the name of Biblical mandates, does far more lasting harm than seeing a TV show. Given the arguments of the Family First fundamentalist crowd we therefore ought to ban smacking, junk food, cars that go too fast, dogs, bicycles, roller skates, etc. All because a parent might not do the right thing.

    In fact why not have a popular vote and ban detrimental religious sects? We have to protect kids from cults. So lets have the central authorities decide which churches will be allowed and which wouldn’t. That ought to finally shut up the Nanny State Religious Kooks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Lucyna – have your eyes ever caused you to lust? If so then I expect you to be true to your literal convictions and pluck them out. Jesus never said get rid of your TV subscription, He said cut off your member. Considering your views on homosexuality, it can’t be anymore black and white than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Stan nice to see Tim and Ramon got married . Will they be staying in NZ or fucking off back to pomyland ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    D4J – I see that you’re still a bigoted cunt. When are you going to fuck off in general?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    Stanley, I didn’t realise you were blind!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “D4J – I see that you’re still a bigoted cunt. When are you going to fuck off in general?”

    Great to see moderation is working , but who cares eh , shall I unload on Stan the man , oh yes I can expect demerits a plenty ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Grant McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    Californication, is utterly banal as Craig Ranapia said, but what frustrates me as a Christian [admittedly, an Anglican] is that the Family First approach mitigates against sex education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Actually Lucyna I’m not because I don’t take the Bible literally like you do. But since you claim you do in your views against homosexuality, where’s your consistency? Or is it hypocrisy like Graham Capill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Do you not read your own posts D4J? So basically I’m not allowed to tell you to fuck off but it’s fine for you to say that to Civilly United couples? Idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    To all of those who are dismayed at the content of programming these days, there is a little known feature that you will find on all tv sets in New Zealand.

    It will make sure that if you feel that you might be offended by a particular show due to it’s content, you can avoid such offence.

    It’s called an off switch. I find it comes in handy when there is a reality show on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Idiot Stan , well really that is so hip and hurting , boo hoo, blubber blubber, yawn , yawn , tell you what stan from C Block remand wing, how many hours do you spend watching cup chick videos ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    Checkthefacts has of course grossly over simplfied 60 odd quotes of argument. And now we have Stanley, who is even more extremely anti-morals then the rest of them and even advocates legalising peodophilia.

    As i said earlier the liberals on this blog want to turn weastern society, which was originally founded on Christian values into a moral wasteland, which bears no resembalance to the society we live in today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The entire series of Californication has played on free-to-air TV in Australia with barely a murmer from anyone. But the nany state climate in NZ seems to have infected the populace, with people believing that anyone who watches a TV drama will somehow succumb to depravity and thus we can add it to the list of things from which Nanny needs to protect us.

    I enjoyed it… if you look beyond the drinking and sex to the decline of the lead character (Duchovny) and his eventual redemption in the last episode it’s simply a modern take on a morality tale that could just as easily have been written by Shakespeare (well okay, Chaucer).

    The scenes between Duchovny and his daughter (a very talented young actress who manages to convincingly portray maturity beyond her years) are particularly good.

    Not the best drama I’ve ever sat through, but far from the worst.

    The moral fibre of Australia seems as intact as ever, even after an entire series, so those gnawing their cuticles at the imminent outbreaks of depravity in NZ can hopefully breathe easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    Stanley, I don’t take the Bible literally. Some things are hidden in symbolism and need to be interpreted. Some are plain. It takes discernment and reliance on Tradition to understand which is which.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    D4J you are a dumbass who thinks he’s the shit. How many hours do you spend masturbating over photos of your children? How do you like the taste of your own medicine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    “However there has been a backlash from conservative groups who oppose the explicit nature of the program. Californication has been criticized by conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in the Australian newspaper the Herald Sun, specifically the first episode’s opening dream scene in which a nun performs oral sex on Hank Moody. The Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director Jim Wallace also called for a boycott, not only of Network Ten, but all advertisers who advertise during the show”-Wikipedia

    No reaction Rex???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Just watched the first episode ‘cos I was bored… Rex – ever seen the X-files? A billion times better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “How many hours do you spend masturbating over photos of your children?”

    Thats it fuckwit – I come and see you right now !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Fuck kiwiblog and comments like that .!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Stanley Climbfall (108 comments) says:

    Bring it on meathead – you were too pussy to show up at the Cathedral Square last time, fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “It takes discernment and reliance on Tradition to understand which is which.”

    This is it folks! This is what its all about.

    wearing down traditional values by introducing more and more values changing criteria marked as entertainment until there is a compl;ete turnaround in what the world see s as moral.

    By changing traditions you change mindsets and the earlier generation is seen as antiquated by what they know is true and right.
    This is only one programme. But one of many. The standards of this programme will be totally irrelevant in around five yrs. If we want to be part of the future we need to be aware of its already planned desecration.

    There will be no absolutes about right and wrong. There are no absolutes in the justice system. Court results are entirely fickle. there will be a time when childrens programming will be bizzare compared to what we know. It’s laughable some experts criticised Sesame Street.

    family first are onto something we don’t seem to be aware of…
    simply put, we are too desensitised to understand their concerns.

    And that folks, is the real problem.

    Cacofinix seems a lil upset tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “you were too pussy to show up at the Cathedral Square last time, fool.”

    Oh goody, history rears its ugly head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Nick, by “no reaction” I meant from advertisers, or viewers for that matter. I don’t recall a single letter to the editor or talkback call. Which is not to say there weren’t any but the whole thing just didn’t vex Australians like it seems to be vexing Kiwis.

    As for Andrew Bolt, well while I agree with some of his perspectives he’s falling into the trap of “curmudgeon in residence”, a bit like many talkback hosts seem to think they need to.

    Stanley… early X Files yes. Later X Files, no. It degenerated into one long grassy knoll episode and disappeared up its own conspiracy theories. Nothing could beat the episode where they investigated the carnival freaks – it’s a wonder that didn’t give the “we know what’s good for you” brigade apoplexy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    hinamanu says:

    It’s laughable some experts criticised Sesame Street.

    I’d have thought so too till I read “The Tipping Point”. There’s a section in there which analyses the whole Sesame Street phenomenon and lo and behold the creators themselves admit that what they thought kids wanted from a TV show was, in many cases, exactly the opposite.

    Turns out they wanted repetition that’d drive an adult insane (“Blues Clues” took the research, created a show based on it, drove parents nuts, and did better at educating its young viewers, apparently), and were confused by some of the things SS did. An example I can remember (I read the book years ago) is an episode where Big Bird decided he wanted to change his name because whereas everyone else had a “proper” name like Ernie or Burt, his only described what he was.

    But evidently kids of SS-watching age can’t grasp that things can have two names, and got totally confused and upset watching it.

    So there you go… I wouldn’t have thought it either, but evidently it’s true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    yeah stan ” Oh goody, history rears its ugly head, ” yes it does especially when the purple head is chocka blocka up a hinomoo cow .. stan , you know where I live , come around matey . Hinomooville Climbfool Rd .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Turns out they wanted repetition.”

    Now this I can understand. Even as an adult I need repetition to grasp new concepts and technologies. repitition is the greatest way to learn.

    you can listen and listen and listen and not grasp something until you use your hands to do it. Or watch it over and over again. This of course is the problem, so time consuming.

    BTW,,

    As a kid, all I got from Burt and Ernie was that the brown guy could always outwit the white guy. Cause the white guy sympathises for the brown guy and treats him like a kid and gets repaid for his condescension.
    Of course that part I learnt when I got older.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Does Cacofinix really know where Stan stays ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Hinamoo, please go back to trade me opinion, as you are silly .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    you’re starting to sound like you’d miss me.

    But,,

    I now know nothing whatsoever is too much for you.

    If some one said something like that about me I’d never return to this blog again,,,,, ever.

    A squirrle said something about people like you once

    “Who would do that?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    hinamanu ; is spuirrle the way trade me opinion bloggers spell squirrel ?
    haha , try again tomorrow Astrix .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    See, you understood, I knew you would.

    Child like spelling is so familiar to your limited and marginalised vocabulary and toleration levels.

    oops, sounding far too adult.

    BTW,,

    There’s a grown up man looking for you, and your retarded capacity will not save you, because its exactly whats giving you the coming thumping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Goodnight hinamanu and I feel so sorry for such a wimpish and timid character of little substance and a fixation with trying too trip me up .

    Bad luck sunshine , must go , get a life mate .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    I guess you’re right, I’ve tripped you up so many times already.

    I should move on.

    But I know you so well

    you’re a sucker for punishment.

    Stan,, I ‘ll leave it to you big boy.

    Could you do me a favour Stan?

    when you avenge your good name on Cacofinix, could you say this one’s for Hinamanu.

    On ya mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “Stan,, I ‘ll leave it to you big boy. Could you do me a favour Stan?”

    As I said, weirdo’s lurk everywhere and the lads from the river got their money on a proven brawler that can more than cope with kicking both your butts ( sorry about the pun dears ). Hinamanu, the only thing stan will get from me is an upper cut, as for you , cowards don’t fight eh ? I mean , your type usually get washed up on beaches , jellyfish’s aren’t that smart . You stab people in the back and run . Your type always do .
    Do me a favour and put your thumb back in your mouth and suck jelly you spineless creep !! I really think you are not well, but then again a million kiwi’s are on the loop pills , so you fit in real well .

    Silly himamoo has stan in the pooh , but cowards just run baby run to the cup chicks . Boy oh boy , talk about pull thru’s of the highest order .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote