Planet Rugby Forum

Mr Mike wrote:Was it based on a Danish study?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/110 ... wel-cancer

Danish and others, IIRC.

No, not that one. It was more general than just discussing Ecan's actions, though they were mentioned.

deadduck wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Has Grant Robertson thought this statement through? In defending the Prime Minister against Simon Bridges’ remarks on her trip to Tokelau he’s insulting our closest neighbour. Wouldn’t just labelling it dirty politics, if that was the way he felt, be enough?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -robertson

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

The people of Tokelau are not "every-day New Zealanders"


If they are, as Robertson claimed, it would be a grave injustice and affront to democracy to exclude them from the NZ parliament. Perhaps Robertson could vacate his seat so that they can vote in our elections and have some representation to vote on NZ legislation and actually get to vote for this Prime Minister he's so sure represents them.

Damned fine idea.

Though it would be difficult to imagine how someone could fit where a waste of space has been positioned.

Ted. wrote:

BillW wrote:

eugenius wrote:https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/10931 ... king-water

Another lovely National legacy stacking ECAN with stooges for the farming industry.

Did you even read that article before posting the link Eug?

What it says essentially is that the maximum allowable level of nitrate in NewZealand drinking water is 11.3mg/litre.
Ecan is proposing a maximum level of 3.8mg/litre.

Yes!!! That’s right!!! One third of the current maximum!!
So wtf are you on about?

The only thing that some people are moaning about is that the new proposed level is way higher than the current levels of Christchurch drinking water.

Educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQBe7iaW-Jg

https://safewater.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ ... r-nitrate-

I read an article recently about nitrate levels, which essentially said that NZ's allowable nitrate levels are excessively high for human health. Frustratingly, I can't find it, but the following links are somewhat similar is a little vaguer on the science.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/news/canterb ... -concerns/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... king-water

The New Zealand levels are the same as the World Health Organisation levels. 11.3mg/litre.
The American Environmental Protection Agency's allowable level is 10mg/litre.
The proposed Ecan limit is 3.8mg/litre
All this information is in those two links I posted if anybody bothered to read them.

There is some concern in light of a couple of recent studies that suggest that these levels are too high which is why Ecan is calling for more research.
Meanwhile Christchurch drinking water is well under the new proposed limits.

Do the Tokelau Islanders vote in NZ elections? Do they pay taxes to our treasury? They're not even real kiwis. It's a bloody joke.

Kahu wrote:Do the Tokelau Islanders vote in NZ elections? Do they pay taxes to our treasury? They're not even real kiwis. It's a bloody joke.

Tough. We have made a commitment. (Or shall we tear up that other agreement from 1840 as well?)

Dark wrote:Soymun would have been better off pointing out what a coincidence it is that Ardern happens to go to Tokelau on her birthday for a long weekend and her dad runs the place on a tax payer funded "relations" trip and dragged the navy out to get her there.

I don’t think they have a runway, so it has to be by sea doesn’t it?

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Has Grant Robertson thought this statement through? In defending the Prime Minister against Simon Bridges’ remarks on her trip to Tokelau he’s insulting our closest neighbour. Wouldn’t just labelling it dirty politics, if that was the way he felt, be enough?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -robertson

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

The people of Tokelau are not "every-day New Zealanders"

Tell that to the community in the Hutt Valley. To me, it seems a really odd thing to get fired up about. The people of Tokelau are New Zealand citizens. To call the PM 'part time' when she's visiting an isolated NZ population seems off to me.

You're talking about resident NZers of Tokelaun heritage. Tokelaun residents are NZ citizens yet they don't have any voting rights. They have to live in NZ for one year before they're allowed to vote, which is the same rights as Australians. Clearly not exactly the same as "every-day" NZers compared to people living in the Chatham Islands for example who actually are represented by the Rongotai electorate.

deadduck wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Has Grant Robertson thought this statement through? In defending the Prime Minister against Simon Bridges’ remarks on her trip to Tokelau he’s insulting our closest neighbour. Wouldn’t just labelling it dirty politics, if that was the way he felt, be enough?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -robertson

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

The people of Tokelau are not "every-day New Zealanders"

Tell that to the community in the Hutt Valley. To me, it seems a really odd thing to get fired up about. The people of Tokelau are New Zealand citizens. To call the PM 'part time' when she's visiting an isolated NZ population seems off to me.

You're talking about resident NZers of Tokelaun heritage. Tokelaun residents are NZ citizens yet they don't have any voting rights. They have to live in NZ for one year before they're allowed to vote, which is the same rights as Australians. Clearly not exactly the same as "every-day" NZers compared to people living in the Chatham Islands for example who actually are represented by the Rongotai electorate.

I know that, but they are still Citizens. It's not quite the same as going off galavanting is my point. They don't get to vote in NZ as they have their own Parliament that covers public services and the judiciary. Whether you think their voting rights are fair or not isn't the same debate as whether the PM is a part timer by visiting isolated NZ Citizens.

It is a key constitutional question, not all that important but if Robertson is going to make up bullshit then he should be called out on it.
In the Realm of NZ, the Head of State is the Queen of NZ, and her representation in the Realm is via the GG, not the PM.

It's questionable whether the Prime Minister has any formal constitutional responsibilities over the likes of Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands, given two of the three are formally self-governing and Tokelau is administered under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by an appointed official. Really, if anyone should be going in a formal capacity of "visiting constituents" , it should be Winnie.

Jacinda is really only the Prime Minister of those people represented in the NZ parliament via the allocation of electorates.

BillW wrote:

Ted. wrote:

BillW wrote:

eugenius wrote:https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/10931 ... king-water

Another lovely National legacy stacking ECAN with stooges for the farming industry.

Did you even read that article before posting the link Eug?

What it says essentially is that the maximum allowable level of nitrate in NewZealand drinking water is 11.3mg/litre.
Ecan is proposing a maximum level of 3.8mg/litre.

Yes!!! That’s right!!! One third of the current maximum!!
So wtf are you on about?

The only thing that some people are moaning about is that the new proposed level is way higher than the current levels of Christchurch drinking water.

Educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQBe7iaW-Jg

https://safewater.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ ... r-nitrate-

I read an article recently about nitrate levels, which essentially said that NZ's allowable nitrate levels are excessively high for human health. Frustratingly, I can't find it, but the following links are somewhat similar is a little vaguer on the science.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/news/canterb ... -concerns/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... king-water

The New Zealand levels are the same as the World Health Organisation levels. 11.3mg/litre.
The American Environmental Protection Agency's allowable level is 10mg/litre.
The proposed Ecan limit is 3.8mg/litre
All this information is in those two links I posted if anybody bothered to read them.

There is some concern in light of a couple of recent studies that suggest that these levels are too high which is why Ecan is calling for more research.
Meanwhile Christchurch drinking water is well under the new proposed limits.

I realise all that, Bill and am not refuting nor agreeing particularity with what Eug posted. What I am saying is that there is a growing disquiet amongst the medical and scientific communities that the WHO levels are far too high and that even at the greatly reduced levels that Ecan are supporting, there could still be significant harm. It's more an observation on something I read than any knowledge or opinion I have on the subject.

deadduck wrote:It is a key constitutional question, not all that important but if Robertson is going to make up bullshit then he should be called out on it.
In the Realm of NZ, the Head of State is the Queen of NZ, and her representation in the Realm is via the GG, not the PM.

It's questionable whether the Prime Minister has any formal constitutional responsibilities over the likes of Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands, given two of the three are formally self-governing and Tokelau is administered under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by an appointed official. Really, if anyone should be going in a formal capacity of "visiting constituents" , it should be Winnie.

Jacinda is really only the Prime Minister of those people represented in the NZ parliament via the allocation of electorates.

You seem to be mountaining this out of a molehill like Soimon.

The Minister and Ministry of Foreign Affairs operate on behalf of the NZ Govt (which she is the head of) - there's no special operation outside of the govt just because Tokelauans don't get to vote. Therefore there should be no issue with her going in a formal capacity other than you personally don't like it/feel it's worthwhile?

Robertson could have just laughed and said "Yeah, but she's the Prime Minister.."

Would have saved everyone the frantic handwringing.

sonic_attack wrote:Robertson could have just laughed and said "Yeah, but she's the Prime Minister.."

Would have saved everyone the frantic handwringing.

Or , she's in Tokelau visiting her dad , not in Hawaii playing golf with the CIA.

I took Dame Cath to Tokelaus in 90 91 ish on HMNZS Monowai .. don’t think anyone minded .

Sad to see the Labour NZF Greens coalition vote against an amendment to
A private members bill to allow parents of foster children to open a kiwi saver account for them ... a caring government.... not so much , would it have killed you to help out 6000 foster kids cvnts

Tizzard? I liked her. I remember her turning up on stage at a Herbs concert at Aotea Square, and others, quite drunk, very proper but quite a real person, very down to earth.

deadduck wrote:It is a key constitutional question, not all that important but if Robertson is going to make up bullshit then he should be called out on it.
In the Realm of NZ, the Head of State is the Queen of NZ, and her representation in the Realm is via the GG, not the PM.

It's questionable whether the Prime Minister has any formal constitutional responsibilities over the likes of Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands, given two of the three are formally self-governing and Tokelau is administered under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by an appointed official. Really, if anyone should be going in a formal capacity of "visiting constituents" , it should be Winnie.

Jacinda is really only the Prime Minister of those people represented in the NZ parliament via the allocation of electorates.

Don't know why you are so worked up about it. This trip would've been organised months ago; long before this Ihumatao business. The PM of NZ (and really she is also the PM of Tokelau as well no matter what constitutional excuses you come up with) should visit there every now and then - every 15 years is about right. They cannot say boo without the NZ government giving the okay. The local council bought a helicopter a few years ago and because it wasn't approved by Wellington, they were told in no uncertain terms to get rid of it.

In short, Simon can shoveituphisarse.

Perhaps he'd have a reasonable case except the very next thing Robertson did is play both the gender and race card

Overseas at the moment and have been scanning nzh, stuff, newshub and rnz sites for current news and views. Found this article on rnz.....are the media outlets lining up for a stoush?


Climate scepticism boosted by broadcasters.

Forty years ago this week a milestone meeting of scientists led to the first comprehensive report on climate change science. Four decades later, media outlets around the world - including Stuff - have hooked up to boost coverage of the issue globally. But here, some broadcasters are still fuelling scepticism instead.

"Stuff's aim is to make the realities of climate change feel urgent, tangible and unignorable for New Zealanders," said Stuff editor-in-chief Patrick Crewdson.

In his New Zealand Herald column seven days earlier, senior writer Simon Wilson was aiming for something similar when he claimed “the biggest climate change problem in this country is the National Party”.

He reckoned the opposition was obstructing policies to reduce emissions here and he wound up reflecting on California’s epic wildfires last year.

“Bigger, fiercer fires, caused by summers that are 1.8C warmer. It might not sound like much, but heat has an exponential effect on fire,” Wilson said.

“We've already seen the same thing in Christchurch's Port Hills and near Nelson. We'll keep seeing it,” he warned.

Plenty of articles overseas have also cited climate change as a reason California’s fires were far bigger than usual but that didn't impress his NZME namesake (but no relation) Tim Wilson.

“Over decades in news I’ve developed a nose for fake news,” he told listeners of his Newstalk ZB on Monday while making sniffing noises into the mic.

He then read aloud from a recent opinion piece from business publication Forbes in which author Chuck Devore said the fires were decades in the making because the combustible 'fuel load' in the forests had soared because of objections to timber harvesting and forest managers no longer clearing brush and thinning trees.

"So greenie policies and sustainability . . . have contributed to California's massive wildfire season," Tim Wilson told his listeners.

This echoed President Trump’s repeated rebuttals of claims the warming climate fuelled the deadly fires.

But that could’ve done with a sniff test from Tim Wilson.

A quick online search reveals not only that the ‘forest management’ explanation is hotly-contested by other experts, but also that Chuck Devore works for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Its donors include oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil and companies owned by the billionaire Koch brothers.

It runs a project called “Fueling Freedom” which promotes what it calls “the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels”.

“This project will redefine the public conversation around fossil fuels, and especially their positive role in society,” says the website.

Chuck Devore would be delighted he’s been talked about on New Zealand’s top talk radio station this week.

The Fueling Freedom campaign was run by Kathleen Hartnett White who has argued that increased carbon dioxide levels are good for life on Earth, that renewable energy is “green folly” - and even that fossil fuels helped end slavery.

Tim WilsomTim Wilson Photo: Supplied
But California wasn't the only climate story sniff-tested by Tim Wilson on Newstalk ZB last Monday.

“Some of this stuff is real but a lot of it is fake. Remember David Attenborough’s walruses flinging themselves off cliffs in the Netflix series Our Planet?" he asked.

In fact, those walruses slid and tumbled to their deaths at a place in Russia where they previously migrated to sea ice that's no longer there.

The programme also showed beaches clogged with hundreds of dead walruses.

“It's the sad reality of climate change,” Netflix natural history producer Sophie Lanfear said in a special behind-the-scenes video.


But climate change was nothing to do with it according to Tim Wilson, again citing a single expert in a single article.

“Walruses have shown similar behaviour on the US coastline when space and ice were not an issue, and the reason is unknown,” Lori Polasek, assistant professor in marine mammal research at the University of Alaska told The Atlantic.

Dozens of male walruses dies this way in southwestern Alaska between 1994 and 1996, she said.

This has since been widely quoted in other articles claiming Our Planet’s walrus scenes were a red herring.

But in the same story in The Atlantic, another walrus expert from the very same university - Prof Nicole Misarti - also said it’s clear that climate change is affecting the walruses.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service said the scenario is “most likely” connected to global warming.

But these comments were not widely re-reported elsewhere - or mentioned by Tim Wilson on Newstalk ZB.

On the same station that morning, Mike Hosking castigated "left-leaning idiots" in charge of the city of Berkeley in California.

"They've banned natural gas. Can you believe it? Name me a restaurant anywhere in the world that doesn't use gas," he said.

“It's the cheapest gas by a considerable margin but everyone's out now buying electric heaters and stoves because the idiots that run Berkeley want to save the planet."

But Berkeley’s “fossil free new buildings” rule only means newly-built homes or small apartment buildings can’t have a natural gas supply for cooking, heating or hot water.

The measure allow officials to grant exemptions in the public interest and existing homes and restaurants can carry on cooking with gas.

While the US energy lobby has targeted Berkeley over the politics of this using similar language, the city is getting ahead of the curve.

The entire state of California is likely to ban new natural gas hook-ups in the push towards carbon neutrality by 2045. The Los Angeles Times reported 50 other urban authorities in California are planning the same move.

Interestingly, much of the electricity they’ll be using more of in the years to come will actually come from gas-fired power plants emitting greenhouse gas. These have been replacing huge coal-fired ones hundreds of miles away in other states supplying California.

Natural gas is effectively a 'bridge fuel’ in the transition, but that's not a part of the story Newstalk ZB was interested in.


Meanwhile ZB’s sister station Radio Sport had already created some hot air about climate change policy earlier that morning.

On the early edition of rural show The Country, host Jamie McKay complained bitterly to primary industries minister Damien O’Connor about an educational display at Te Papa pointing out that fewer cows in this country would mean less greenhouse gas.

“We talk about water quality but I worry about polluting young minds here,” said host Jamie McKay who called it a display teaching kids "to dislike farmers”.

Later he spoke of a “political crusade against farming led by the Greens” which chimed with one of the show’s regulars - North Otago farmer Jane Smith - who said the display should have “a button to push to wipe more than 300 billion dollars" off the national economy.

She also claimed government policy contradicted the bit in article two of the Paris Climate Accords that says food production should not be threatened by the transition away from greenhouse gas.

But it doesn't say anything about dairy cows.

Newstalk ZB’s godfather of climate change scepticism is Leighton Smith. He’s no longer on the air but still writes a column for the Herald and a weekly podcast for Newstalk ZB.

He wrapped up last week's podcast by referring his listeners to one of his favourite sceptics: Edwin Berry

According to Scientific American, Berry not only says says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change, he also calls Islam "a death cult" on his Twitter account and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters.

His Twitter feed currently carries conspiracy theory stuff about Hillary Clinton and George Soros, a Muslim brotherhood plot to destroy America and plenty more besides.

On rival talk station Magic Talk, Drive host Ryan Bridge dumped the facts altogether last Monday and declared climate change to be a religion - just an article of faith, and not something science could prove.

On the same station, morning host Peter Williams set out his sceptical stall in a piece online last week under a heading stating the science isn’t settled.

“I am so over the nonsense that is being propagated by politicians and policymakers about this thing that is now just referred to as climate change,” he complained.

Peter Williams said he found plenty of stuff online arguing that was the case, and referred readers to stuff he found convincing. Others pointed out he’d embraced an ‘expert’ disowned by his own employers at the Smithsonian Institute.

“Why is it that not just Stuff, but it seems all media in this country refuse to allow even a skerrick of evidence that CO2 may not be the cause of the earth's warming?” Peter Williams complained last week.

Stuff's position is that "the experts have debunked denialism so now we'll move on."

Talk radio broadcasters are still happy to put hosts on the air who airily admit they don't understand the science of climate change.

Climate change is a fanatical religion now. Its funny to watch.

The science being settled is not mutually exclusive with climate change sensationalism existing in the media.

Pointing out the sensationalism does not make one a denier or skeptic.


The article this morning for example suggesting NZ reduce their emissions by removing all private cars from the road - what will that achieve on a global scale other than f*cking up our country. It's as much a sensible solution as culling one-third of the population

deadduck wrote:The science being settled is not mutually exclusive with climate change sensationalism existing in the media.

Pointing out the sensationalism does not make one a denier or skeptic.


The article this morning for example suggesting NZ reduce their emissions by removing all private cars from the road - what will that achieve on a global scale other than f*cking up our country. It's as much a sensible solution as culling one-third of the population

Stone the heretic, stone him with rocks not quarried or milled, then return the rocks to their natural resting place for consumption by the cycle of millennial erosion by sweet waters and winds untouched nor marred by fossil fuels or our dinosaur ancestors.

deadduck wrote:The science being settled is not mutually exclusive with climate change sensationalism existing in the media.

Pointing out the sensationalism does not make one a denier or skeptic.


The article this morning for example suggesting NZ reduce their emissions by removing all private cars from the road - what will that achieve on a global scale other than f*cking up our country. It's as much a sensible solution as culling one-third of the population

This is a wee bit wrong-headed. Ok removing private cars from the road is totally unrealistic, but no action taken by NZ will never achieve much on a global scale. That doesn't alter its obligation to do whatever it can at its own scale.

You've picked out the key point there just fine.

We do have an obligation to do what we can, at a scale we can realistically achieve.


If solutions are going to work the public has to buy-in. You'll have a hard time getting people to give up their cars.

I have no qualms about Jacinda not being in the country but I am absolutely miffed why we don't just give Tokelau a vote and fully annex them

Can i just quietly say ...Hipkins you are a shit cvnt of the highest order , you gutless little sponge , a f**king useless cretin , a fuckstain . A pathetic gormless money waster .... fvck you ,carry on your Stalinist crusade you f**king imbecile .
Oh and have a nice day ...... cvnt

sonic_attack wrote:Tizzard? I liked her. I remember her turning up on stage at a Herbs concert at Aotea Square, and others, quite drunk, very proper but quite a real person, very down to earth.

She was fantastic , best GG ever .Presented her with a particularly fine looking sailor wearing not much and a collar and leash for her last night ....not so pc now . She invited us down to Government house for a few bevvys .... great lady .

Kahu wrote:I have no qualms about Jacinda not being in the country but I am absolutely miffed why we don't just give Tokelau a vote and fully annex them

Ain't going to happen

Her dad would lose his job running it and she couldn't get the navy to take her there for birthday parties

I see Jacinda has put us on the list of places she is visiting tomorrow.

Little old NZ

Anyone else excited?

Dark wrote:I see Jacinda has put us on the list of places she is visiting tomorrow.

Little old NZ

Anyone else excited?

No one cares bro.

Hareaway wrote:Can i just quietly say ...Hipkins you are a shit cvnt of the highest order , you gutless little sponge , a f**king useless cretin , a fuckstain . A pathetic gormless money waster .... fvck you ,carry on your Stalinist crusade you f**king imbecile .
Oh and have a nice day ...... cvnt

Is this post in relation to the merging of all the polytechnics in the country?

This is awesome.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... -developer

All that effort with macrons and italics and they add a plural s in the title.

Some amusing sections.

Further talks with government ministers are planned, a move activists applaud as “heartening”. But there is only one name on the lips of the protesters each day; one smiling face they want to see squelching through the mud: Jacinda.

“Will we get Jacinda, is Jacinda coming?’ asks an old Māori man, his skin etched with blue tribal tattoos.

“Not yet,” the organiser replies. “But we remain hopeful.”

The literally sainted Jacinda. I imagine that she will be as good at fixing this as she has been at fixing other stuff.

Then there's this kind of thinking that gets to the heart of things and the problem of choosing culture over, well, life.

“Maori has lost a lot of their land already, so getting more taken off us, it feels like it’s tearing Māori apart, and breaking our culture down,” says Popata, neatly dressed in her school uniform, her hair braided, her eyes moist with emotion.

“To us, this land has a deeper meaning. When people build on top of our land, you feel that disrespect. It just doesn’t feel right.”

Here's the problem with some of these ways of thinking: if you sacralise the land too much then you can't do anything with it. I've seen it time and time again. Be practical with the culture. Let that that can't be used for anything else be sacred. There is a time and a place for that. Use the good stuff for the good stuff.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas. This quote from an article on Pania Newton had me wondering though:

SOUL rejects the path of compromise taken by Te Warena Taua and the iwi body, arguing that any development will destroy the land's special character, and its tapu status. This was the first area of human settlement in Aotearoa — the place where Polynesians became Māori, says Pania.

Two statements in bold. Really? Is there a source for this?

Yeah I had great thatbone a few days ago. I don't know the provenance. I've never heard the claim before.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas.

It's called ambition bro. Leave them to it. They're not taking anything away from you.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas.

It's called ambition bro. Leave them to it. They're not taking anything away from you.

You say some really dumb things at times.

EDIT: You know what, I will rescind that comment. It was unnecessary. However I do find it frustrating that a go-to response from some of you guys is often along the lines of 'nothing really matters, and it's really uncool to think anything does.' It's hard to think of anything that has more of an impact on the lives of ordinary people than misplaced soaring ambition. That's one thing history tells us.

Really? Interesting. Please tell us more?

booji boy wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas.

It's called ambition bro. Leave them to it. They're not taking anything away from you.

You say some really dumb things at times.

EDIT: You know what, I will rescind that comment. It was unnecessary. However I do find it frustrating that a go-to response from some of you guys is often along the lines of 'nothing really matters, and it's really uncool to think anything does.' It's hard to think of anything that has more of an impact on the lives of ordinary people than misplaced soaring ambition. That's one thing history tells us.

Really? Interesting. Please tell us more?

Hitler, Stalin?, now possibly trump

Labour shit themselves, after the Nat's cancer announcement and actually do something, how ever not what they promised.

Pretty funny

One of those things that really annoy me, cancer policy. If there was one thing you would think should be bi-partisan and just get together and formulate an agreed plan rather than playing politics, you would think cancer would be sitting at the toppish.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12255486

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas.

lay off the Vietnamese Sativa g

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Hareaway wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Tizzard? I liked her. I remember her turning up on stage at a Herbs concert at Aotea Square, and others, quite drunk, very proper but quite a real person, very down to earth.

She was fantastic , best GG ever .Presented her with a particularly fine looking sailor wearing not much and a collar and leash for her last night ....not so pc now . She invited us down to Government house for a few bevvys .... great lady .

She was the worst one we've had.

Too much ambition and too many grandiose ideas, I assume?

brat wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Young women all over the world are infected with Jacindamania at the moment, and there are Joan of Arc LARPers popping up faster than the media can cover them. This trend has a fair way to run yet, as the various waves of post-modern feminism continue to flow through western education systems, and young girls are pumped full of grandiose ideas.

It's called ambition bro. Leave them to it. They're not taking anything away from you.

You say some really dumb things at times.

EDIT: You know what, I will rescind that comment. It was unnecessary. However I do find it frustrating that a go-to response from some of you guys is often along the lines of 'nothing really matters, and it's really uncool to think anything does.' It's hard to think of anything that has more of an impact on the lives of ordinary people than misplaced soaring ambition. That's one thing history tells us.

Really? Interesting. Please tell us more?

Hitler, Stalin?, now possibly trump

WTF? By 'misplaced soaring ambition' I assumed Seneca was talking about people that get filled with grandiose ideas and delusions of grandeur that they will never be able to fulfill and you come up with two of the 20th century's most powerful dictators and a billionaire businessman who's also president of the United States. WTAF has that got to do with Jacindamania?