What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one more toAbsolutely Tony!. ITs 18 now with Nick Willis getting a bronze - a
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian >rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one moreto
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one moreto
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:more to
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one
more to come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
On Monday, 22 August 2016 00:27:56 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian >>> rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Trust one of the lefty misery-guts to piss on anything good.
victor wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one
more to come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
I have a warm dry home for my people. What do you mean by "our" people and >why do you assume everyone shares a responsibility to provide for them?
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:39:55 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>> more to come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
I have a warm dry home for my people. What do you mean by "our" people and >>why do you assume everyone shares a responsibility to provide for them?
Without 'our' help many ofhose athletes wouldnt have been able to
undertake teh dedicated trainingthat was necessary - if you do not
begrudge that expense,
why begrudge effort to adequately house, feed
and employ our people
to eradicate infectious diseases, to provide
education and hospital care. At its simplest it is called sharing,
Allistar - is that an abhorrent concept to you?
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:to
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one more
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian >> rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
On 8/22/2016 8:48 AM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 00:27:56 UTC+12, victor wrote:And they started by building those cold damp uninsulated houses back in
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe
one more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Trust one of the lefty misery-guts to piss on anything good.
the 30's that seem to be plaguing them now...
And the 'we' is silly. My house is warm and dry
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:39:55 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>>> more to come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
I have a warm dry home for my people. What do you mean by "our" people and >>>why do you assume everyone shares a responsibility to provide for them?
Without 'our' help many ofhose athletes wouldnt have been able to
undertake teh dedicated trainingthat was necessary - if you do not
begrudge that expense,
I do. Forcing hard working New Zealanders to pay for sportspeople to compete >in competitions is immoral. Hobbies should be paid for by entirely voluntary >means.
It's a tragedy that the Olympics was held in a city with so much poverty.
All of that money taken from taxpayers in Brazil to fund the Olympics when
it would have been more ethical to help the people. (It would have been even >more ethical to not take the money from those taxpayers in the first place).
Yes - is that abhorrent to you? Many refer to 'our' Olymmpicwhy begrudge effort to adequately house, feed
and employ our people
There is that word "our" again.
We voluntarily votefor political parties that commit themselves toto eradicate infectious diseases, to provide
education and hospital care. At its simplest it is called sharing,
Allistar - is that an abhorrent concept to you?
Sharing is awesome. Forcibly helping your self to someone else's property is >not "sharing", it's typically called "theft".
Sharing is voluntary and compassionate. You're advocating something that is >not voluntary, and hence by definition can not be considered to beRubbish - see above.
"sharing".
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:to
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one more
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian >> rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:55:37 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:39:55 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe >>>>>> one more to come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
I have a warm dry home for my people. What do you mean by "our" people >>>>and why do you assume everyone shares a responsibility to provide for >>>>them?
Without 'our' help many ofhose athletes wouldnt have been able to
undertake teh dedicated trainingthat was necessary - if you do not
begrudge that expense,
I do. Forcing hard working New Zealanders to pay for sportspeople to >>compete in competitions is immoral. Hobbies should be paid for by entirely >>voluntary means.
It's a tragedy that the Olympics was held in a city with so much poverty. >>All of that money taken from taxpayers in Brazil to fund the Olympics when >>it would have been more ethical to help the people. (It would have been >>even more ethical to not take the money from those taxpayers in the first >>place).
I'm glad that you think international aid would have been ethical -
although from your next comment I suspect you are glad that our
current government has taken care to restrict that aid.
why begrudge effort to adequately house, feed
and employ our people
There is that word "our" again.
Yes - is that abhorrent to you? Many refer to 'our' Olymmpic
competitors - is that wrong?
to eradicate infectious diseases, to provide
education and hospital care. At its simplest it is called sharing,
Allistar - is that an abhorrent concept to you?
Sharing is awesome. Forcibly helping your self to someone else's property >>is not "sharing", it's typically called "theft".
We voluntarily votefor political parties that commit themselves to
provide such aid. Sometimes one of those governments does not meet
their commitments - they tend to be voted out. Voting is of course
voluntary - are you surprised that so many vote to share our welth
through selcting a party that will raise taxes to provide services?
That is really a charitable impulse - or do you codemn chairity as
well?
Sharing is voluntary and compassionate. You're advocating something that
is not voluntary, and hence by definition can not be considered to be >>"sharing".
Rubbish - see above.
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the government
when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really consider that to be "sharing".
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the government
when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe them under a
threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really consider that to be
"sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian >>> rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
On 22/08/2016 10:08 a.m., george152 wrote:
On 8/22/2016 8:48 AM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 00:27:56 UTC+12, victor wrote:And they started by building those cold damp uninsulated houses back in
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe
one more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the
Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Trust one of the lefty misery-guts to piss on anything good.
the 30's that seem to be plaguing them now...
And the 'we' is silly. My house is warm and dry
LOL its all "we" when you are basking in the reflected achievement of >sportspeople you have only just heard of playing sports you have never >supported.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe
them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really consider >>>> that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >>"sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the government >>> when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe them under a
threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really consider that to be
"sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >"sharing".
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe
them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really consider >>>>> that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >>>"sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly taking >property off people using a threat of force?
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
All to easily brainwashed by NZ's coarse-grained media, how easily
some forget that it's no less "we" when The Guardian tells its global readership of New Zealand's shameful third-world childhood poverty
diseases!
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe >>>>>>> them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really
consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >>>>>"sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your
own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about
you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your
favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is far >more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and violence.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity
drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest
answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe >>>>>>> them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really
consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >>>>>"sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your
own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about
you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your
favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is far >more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and violence.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity
drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest
answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals? You could >easily find this out via Google. I am not your research assistant.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe >>>>>> them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really
consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any way >>>>"sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your
own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about
you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity
drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest
answer to my question exactly as put.
On 8/23/2016 11:57 AM, Newsman wrote:
All to easily brainwashed by NZ's coarse-grained media, how easily
some forget that it's no less "we" when The Guardian tells its global
readership of New Zealand's shameful third-world childhood poverty
diseases!
Again.
The Guardian is a cross between the Peoples Voice and the Sun..
And those 'shameful third world childhood poverty diseases' are also
present in Britain.
Yet that fact seems to elude the 'reporter'
And its his one published opinion piece
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:29:59 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the
government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe >>>>>>>> them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really >>>>>>>> consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any >>>>>>way "sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your
own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about
you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your
favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is far >>more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and violence.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity
drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest
answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Just one more time:
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
On 8/23/2016 11:57 AM, Newsman wrote:
All to easily brainwashed by NZ's coarse-grained media, how easily
some forget that it's no less "we" when The Guardian tells its global
readership of New Zealand's shameful third-world childhood poverty
diseases!
Again.
The Guardian is a cross between the Peoples Voice and the Sun..
And those 'shameful third world childhood poverty diseases' are also
present in Britain.
Yet that fact seems to elude the 'reporter'
And its his one published opinion piece
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local and national elected government.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>>more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens,
not the pissing contests of elite sports.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local and >national elected government.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>>>more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens,
not the pissing contests of elite sports.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >>charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local and >>national elected government.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>>>>more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens,
not the pissing contests of elite sports.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n
to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there
are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and
whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less
elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your
reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be
pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a
good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider
government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend
could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself
could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall
reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is
a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of
"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn
more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in
relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any
improvement in those statistics.
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.most
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which is much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand Olympic endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly >> short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was >> making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >> observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when >> you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:54:45 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I cannot understand why people make gross and erroneous assumptions about other people's motives and then become abusive when they are ciught out in that assumption.
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which >>>is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>> observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
You really are a paranoid little twat.
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:Yes you certainly are.
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly >> short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was >> making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >> observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when >> you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net(sorry posted in error while still typing)
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >>>>charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local and
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>>not the pissing contests of elite sports.
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n
to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there
are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend
could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall
reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is
a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of
"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn
more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in >>>relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any >>>improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which is >>much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly >>short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was >>making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand Olympic >>endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when >>you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and
have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia
has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance
funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it
will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends
on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the
correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance
you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >>>charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local and >>>national elected government.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe one >>>>>>>more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call
ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>not the pissing contests of elite sports.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n
to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there
are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a
good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend
could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself
could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall
reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is
a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of
"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn
more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in
relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any
improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which is >much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly >short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was >making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand Olympic >endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because most >of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when >you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:54:45 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I cannot understand why people make gross and erroneous assumptions about other
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which >>>>is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>>> observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
You really are a paranoid little twat.
people's motives and then become abusive when they are ciught out in that >assumption.
I am also struggling to understand why people like Victor and Rich see just >about everything in political terms; it is usually the last thing I consider >preferring to actually contribute to life instead of wasting energy on >philosophies that (in the case of New Zealand at least) are so damn near the >same.
And they will lie in an attempt to demonstrate their imaginary
intellectual superiority. Pathetic.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>I did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net(sorry posted in error while still typing)
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >>>>>charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local >>>>>and
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe >>>>>>>>>one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>>>not the pissing contests of elite sports.
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >>>>to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there
are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>>>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend >>>>could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall >>>>reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is
a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of >>>>"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn
more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in >>>>relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any >>>>improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which >>>is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly >>>short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was >>>making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>>observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when >>>you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and
have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia
has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance
funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it
will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends
on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the
correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance
you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices
regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were
effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the >government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking,
Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has
been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:29:59 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the >>>>>>>>> government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I owe >>>>>>>>> them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you really >>>>>>>>> consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any >>>>>>>way "sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your
own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about
you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your
favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is far >>>more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and violence.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays? >>>>>Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity >>>> drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest
answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Just one more time:
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Yes.
Compassionate acts are more ethical than acts of intimidation and violence.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:55:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNon sequitur as far as I am concerned and I do not wish to debate that. Suffice it to say that I am inclined to call out people who lie or are happy to deceive by omission. In that way I am contributing but it would be a mistake to assume that it is more than of passing interest or takes more than a moment or two of thought.
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:54:45 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I cannot understand why people make gross and erroneous assumptions about >>other
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance >>>>>which
is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I >>>>>was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent
observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
You really are a paranoid little twat.
people's motives and then become abusive when they are ciught out in that >>assumption.
Normal behaviour in politics. If it can be politicised, it will be.
In fact, politics-of-abuse is John Key's standard modus operandi, he
being both prime exemplar and role model for his pinhead dupes.
I am also struggling to understand why people like Victor and Rich see just >>about everything in political terms; it is usually the last thing I consider >>preferring to actually contribute to life instead of wasting energy on >>philosophies that (in the case of New Zealand at least) are so damn near the >>same.
Nevertheless, you take the bait in the full knowledge that those you >criticise are incorrigibly entrenched even if only to argue for the
sake of it.
And they will lie in an attempt to demonstrate their imaginary
intellectual superiority. Pathetic.
Pathetic, you say, yet you validate their behaviour merely by
responding to it. As Thatcher once put it, you feed them they crave
most: the oxygen of publicity.
Is this really how you can best expend your energies 'contributing to
life?'
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:19:41 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:29:59 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is >>>>>far more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and >>>>>violence.
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the >>>>>>>>>>> government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I >>>>>>>>>>> owe them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you >>>>>>>>>>> really consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any >>>>>>>>>way "sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity
implicit in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is
morally and ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>>>>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your >>>>>> own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about >>>>>> you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your >>>>>> favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it. >>>>>
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays? >>>>>>>Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity >>>>>> drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction". >>>>>>Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest >>>>>> answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Just one more time:
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Yes.
Compassionate acts are more ethical than acts of intimidation and >>>violence.
So is feudalism a better deal than what we have now?
No. To suggest that feudalism can be considered equivalent to a
compassionate system is to show ignorance of both feudalism and compassion.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:19:41 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:29:59 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the >>>>>>>>>> government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I >>>>>>>>>> owe them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you >>>>>>>>>> really consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in any >>>>>>>>way "sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity
implicit in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is
morally and ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than forcibly >>>>>>taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your >>>>> own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about >>>>> you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your
favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it.
Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is >>>>far more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and >>>>violence.
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction nowadays? >>>>>>Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his charity >>>>> drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and
deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction".
Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an honest >>>>> answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Just one more time:
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit
in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Yes.
Compassionate acts are more ethical than acts of intimidation and
violence.
So is feudalism a better deal than what we have now?
slaybot@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:55:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNon sequitur as far as I am concerned and I do not wish to debate that.
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:54:45 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:I cannot understand why people make gross and erroneous assumptions about >>>other
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding. >>>>>> I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance >>>>>>which
is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >>>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I >>>>>>was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent
observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because
most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >>>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
You really are a paranoid little twat.
people's motives and then become abusive when they are ciught out in that >>>assumption.
Normal behaviour in politics. If it can be politicised, it will be.
In fact, politics-of-abuse is John Key's standard modus operandi, he
being both prime exemplar and role model for his pinhead dupes.
I am also struggling to understand why people like Victor and Rich see just >>>about everything in political terms; it is usually the last thing I consider >>>preferring to actually contribute to life instead of wasting energy on >>>philosophies that (in the case of New Zealand at least) are so damn near the >>>same.
Nevertheless, you take the bait in the full knowledge that those you >>criticise are incorrigibly entrenched even if only to argue for the
sake of it.
And they will lie in an attempt to demonstrate their imaginary >>>intellectual superiority. Pathetic.
Pathetic, you say, yet you validate their behaviour merely by
responding to it. As Thatcher once put it, you feed them they crave
most: the oxygen of publicity.
Is this really how you can best expend your energies 'contributing to >>life?'
Suffice
it to say that I am inclined to call out people who lie or are happy to deceive
by omission. In that way I am contributing but it would be a mistake to assume >that it is more than of passing interest or takes more than a moment or two of >thought.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:47:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:19:41 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:29:59 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:52:25 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Yes, I think that assisting people via voluntary compassionate acts is >>>>>>far more ethical than assisting people using threats of force and >>>>>>violence.
Newsman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:12:03 +1200, Allistar
<me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
victor wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:08 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Do you think that I am voluntary "sharing" my money with the >>>>>>>>>>>> government when the IRD insists I pay them what they consider I >>>>>>>>>>>> owe them under a threat of imprisonment if I do not? Do you >>>>>>>>>>>> really consider that to be "sharing".
Its taxation
It has a category of its own.
You will have to deal with it instead of moaning.
I know exactly what it is. It's pretty obvious that it is not in >>>>>>>>>>any way "sharing".
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity >>>>>>>>> implicit in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is >>>>>>>>> morally and ethically superior to taxation?
Do I think that helping people via compassion is better than >>>>>>>>forcibly taking property off people using a threat of force?
Just answer my question exactly as put and not some sidestep of your >>>>>>> own twisted invention. If you really know what you're talking about >>>>>>> you'll have no trouble providing an honest answer to an honest
straightforward question. To help you, I've even included all your >>>>>>> favourites: compassion; charity; morals; ethics. So get on with it. >>>>>>
If you do, then where is it operating to your satisfaction
nowadays?
Where is charity working to satisfaction?
You tell me. After all you're the lordly expert who bangs his
charity drum as the universal panacea for the world's every need and >>>>>>> deprivation.
That depends on the yardstick you use to determine "satisfaction". >>>>>>>Your yardstick, your satisfaction. Go right ahead, and give an
honest answer to my question exactly as put.
Are you after a list of charitable organisations and individuals?
Just one more time:
Do you think that the noble concept of compassion and charity implicit >>>>> in the feudal system of sharing (noblesse oblige) is morally and
ethically superior to taxation?
Yes.
Compassionate acts are more ethical than acts of intimidation and >>>>violence.
So is feudalism a better deal than what we have now?
No. To suggest that feudalism can be considered equivalent to a >>compassionate system is to show ignorance of both feudalism and
compassion.
The only person to suggest an equivalence is you.
However, since you consistently espouse 'a compassionate system,' you
could now usefully define its parameters and how it would be put into practice to repolace what we have now.
You obviously know what would be involved and the benefits conferred, otherwise you wouldn't endlessly bang on about it, would you?--
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:28:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
slaybot@hotmail.com (Newsman) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:55:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNon sequitur as far as I am concerned and I do not wish to debate that.
dot nz> wrote:
Liberty <liberty48@live.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:54:45 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>I cannot understand why people make gross and erroneous assumptions about >>>>other
On 23/08/2016 7:01 p.m., Tony wrote:
You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding. >>>>>>> I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance >>>>>>>which
is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >>>>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that >>>>>>>I
was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any >>>>>>>intelligent
observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess >>>>>>>because
most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >>>>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
bullshit
You really are a paranoid little twat.
people's motives and then become abusive when they are ciught out in that >>>>assumption.
Normal behaviour in politics. If it can be politicised, it will be.
In fact, politics-of-abuse is John Key's standard modus operandi, he >>>being both prime exemplar and role model for his pinhead dupes.
I am also struggling to understand why people like Victor and Rich see just >>>>about everything in political terms; it is usually the last thing I >>>>consider
preferring to actually contribute to life instead of wasting energy on >>>>philosophies that (in the case of New Zealand at least) are so damn near >>>>the
same.
Nevertheless, you take the bait in the full knowledge that those you >>>criticise are incorrigibly entrenched even if only to argue for the
sake of it.
And they will lie in an attempt to demonstrate their imaginary >>>>intellectual superiority. Pathetic.
Pathetic, you say, yet you validate their behaviour merely by
responding to it. As Thatcher once put it, you feed them they crave >>>most: the oxygen of publicity.
Is this really how you can best expend your energies 'contributing to >>>life?'
But my point is wholly relevant albeit inconvenient to some.
I have not criticised your motivations but clearly you cannot relate to mine - who is to blame for that?Suffice
it to say that I am inclined to call out people who lie or are happy to >>deceive
by omission. In that way I am contributing but it would be a mistake to >>assume
that it is more than of passing interest or takes more than a moment or two >>of
thought.
Yet, like it nor not, some might well have a different perception of
your contribution, that perception suggested by your consistent ardour
and intensity in repeatedly attempting to combat and straighten out a >determined few who you know will never come round to your way of
thinking.
Worthy, of course, but futile, yet allowing you a return in terms of
your own wish to air your frustrations.
The irony is that your opponents are doing you a favour by giving you
the oxygen of publicity they also enjoy through your efforts. And >vice-versa.
No matter who's in the right, ever considered that perhaps you actully >deserve each other?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>I did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net(sorry posted in error while still typing)
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club, >>>>>>charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local >>>>>>and
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe >>>>>>>>>>one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>>>>not the pissing contests of elite sports.
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >>>>>to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there >>>>>are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and >>>>>questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>>>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are >>>>>creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>>>>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend >>>>>could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall >>>>>reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is >>>>>a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous >>>>>assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of >>>>>"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn >>>>>more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in >>>>>relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any >>>>>improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which >>>>is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>>>observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and
have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia >>>has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance >>>funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it
will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends
on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the
correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance >>>you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices >>regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were
effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the >>government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking,
Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has
been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
You are without a doubt one of the most stupid people I have ever bothered to >correspond with. You and Victor deliberately took a political point of view >about a non-political post in a newsgrooup that is labelled "general" ie not >specifically political. You are both pathetic in your fixation on wasting your >lives attacking with rancour good people just because they disagree with you or
happen to have different political views. I serioucly believe that you are a >troll, I am not sure what Victor is but he shares your lack of intellect. >Tony
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:23:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI am not right wing any more than you are a moderate person.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:(sorry posted in error while still typing)
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, >>>>>>>club,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe >>>>>>>>>>>one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>>>>>not the pissing contests of elite sports.
charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local >>>>>>>and
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >>>>>>to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there >>>>>>are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and >>>>>>questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>>>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>>>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>>>>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>>>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>>>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>>>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are >>>>>>creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>>>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>>>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>>>>>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend >>>>>>could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>>>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall >>>>>>reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is >>>>>>a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous >>>>>>assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of >>>>>>"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn >>>>>>more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in >>>>>>relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>>>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any >>>>>>improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which >>>>>is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I >>>>>was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent >>>>>observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>>>most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and >>>>have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia >>>>has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance >>>>funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it >>>>will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends >>>>on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the >>>>correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance >>>>you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices >>>regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were
effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the >>>government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking, >>>Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has >>>been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
You are without a doubt one of the most stupid people I have ever bothered to >>correspond with. You and Victor deliberately took a political point of view >>about a non-political post in a newsgrooup that is labelled "general" ie not >>specifically political. You are both pathetic in your fixation on wasting >>your
lives attacking with rancour good people just because they disagree with you >>or
happen to have different political views. I serioucly believe that you are a >>troll, I am not sure what Victor is but he shares your lack of intellect. >>Tony
typical right wing reaction - when losing, lie, deny, make a peronal
attack and run away!
If you look back, you will see tht you, Tony, said:Governance of the sport you illiterate idiot, as I have pointed out there is governance in most enterprises. The difference between management and governance is profound, something you clearly do not understand.
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
That s a statementthat is, in tis context, and given the substantial >government funding invovled, a political statement, although in crony >capitalist regime you just see it as the basic right of anyone thatBullshit. I am not right wing - and if I was then why would I deny it? As I said, you have insufficient intellect for this sort of simple debate. If you were even of average intelligence you would understand that by your logic everything that is said is political - patently absurd.
can provide photo-ops and distractions , , ,
I don't know why you are so scared of debate - why do you botherWhat an idiotic thing to say.
posting?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:23:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
maybe
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with
localone
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens,
not the pissing contests of elite sports.Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, >>>>>>>club,
charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as
whichYou and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding. >>>>>I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governanceand
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >>>>>>to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there >>>>>>are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and >>>>>>questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>>>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>>>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation. >>>>>>
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>>>>reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>>>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>>>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>>>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are >>>>>>creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>>>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>>>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider >>>>>>government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend >>>>>>could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>>>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall >>>>>>reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is >>>>>>a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous >>>>>>assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of >>>>>>"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn >>>>>>more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in >>>>>>relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>>>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any >>>>>>improvement in those statistics.
intelligentis
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I
was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any
becauseobserver would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess
toI did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?(sorry posted in error while still typing)most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and >>>>have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia >>>>has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance >>>>funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities. >>>>What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it >>>>will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends >>>>on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the >>>>correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance >>>>you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from >>>>taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and >>>>your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices >>>regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were >>>effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the >>>government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking, >>>Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has >>>been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
You are without a doubt one of the most stupid people I have ever bothered
notcorrespond with. You and Victor deliberately took a political point of view
about a non-political post in a newsgrooup that is labelled "general" ie
youspecifically political. You are both pathetic in your fixation on wasting >>your
lives attacking with rancour good people just because they disagree with
aor
happen to have different political views. I serioucly believe that you are
troll, I am not sure what Victor is but he shares your lack of intellect. >>Tony
typical right wing reaction - when losing, lie, deny, make a peronalI am not right wing any more than you are a moderate person.
attack and run away!
If you look back, you will see tht you, Tony, said:Governance of the sport you illiterate idiot, as I have pointed out there is governance in most enterprises. The difference between management and governance is profound, something you clearly do not understand.
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
That s a statementthat is, in tis context, and given the substantial >government funding invovled, a political statement, although in crony >capitalist regime you just see it as the basic right of anyone thatBullshit. I am not right wing - and if I was then why would I deny it? As I said, you have insufficient intellect for this sort of simple debate. If you were even of average intelligence you would understand that by your logic everything that is said is political - patently absurd.
can provide photo-ops and distractions , , ,
I don't know why you are so scared of debate - why do you botherWhat an idiotic thing to say.
posting?
Tony
I don't know if it is one or more persons but failing to comprehend is either a medical condition or lack or intellect. Much worse is the lying, accusing elected representatives of condoning a homicide with zero evidence or adopting the old belief of cretins that "if you are not for us then you are against us" or accusing others of being personally offensive while using sarcasm himself which is extremely offensive or being patronising by complaining about how he is treated by others here. He, it, or they are simply incompetent and their collective intellect is abysmal. If he answers my post, and I doubt he has the courage to do so, he will probably bleat about being misunderstood or unfairly accused but the reality is that he is a troll and someone who does not give a fat rat's ass about his fellow man. Victor is just dumb but Rich is much worse than that, he most probably has a psychosis (a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality).Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:23:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI am not right wing any more than you are a moderate person.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>I did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net(sorry posted in error while still typing)
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, >> >>>>>>>club,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
wrote:
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with
maybe
one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >> >>>>>>>>>>>Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >> >>>>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of
citizens,
not the pissing contests of elite sports.
charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as
local
and
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >> >>>>>>to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there
are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >> >>>>>>whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >> >>>>>>elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your
reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >> >>>>>>government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >> >>>>>>pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >> >>>>>>whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >> >>>>>>Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >> >>>>>>good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider
government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend
could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >> >>>>>>could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall
reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is >> >>>>>>a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of
"good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn
more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in
relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >> >>>>>>Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any
improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance
which
is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using >> >>>>>fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that >> >>>>>I
was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any
intelligent
observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >> >>>>>Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess
because
most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs >> >>>>>when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and
have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia >> >>>>has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance
funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it
will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends
on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the
correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance >> >>>>you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices
regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were
effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the
government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking,
Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has
been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
You are without a doubt one of the most stupid people I have ever bothered >> >>to
correspond with. You and Victor deliberately took a political point of
view
about a non-political post in a newsgrooup that is labelled "general" ie >> >>not
specifically political. You are both pathetic in your fixation on wasting >> >>your
lives attacking with rancour good people just because they disagree with >> >>you
or
happen to have different political views. I serioucly believe that you are >> >>a
troll, I am not sure what Victor is but he shares your lack of intellect. >> >>Tony
typical right wing reaction - when losing, lie, deny, make a peronal
attack and run away!
If you look back, you will see tht you, Tony, said:Governance of the sport you illiterate idiot, as I have pointed out there is >> governance in most enterprises. The difference between management and
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
governance is profound, something you clearly do not understand.
Bullshit. I am not right wing - and if I was then why would I deny it? As I >> said, you have insufficient intellect for this sort of simple debate. If you >> were even of average intelligence you would understand that by your logic
That s a statementthat is, in tis context, and given the substantial
government funding invovled, a political statement, although in crony
capitalist regime you just see it as the basic right of anyone that
can provide photo-ops and distractions , , ,
everything that is said is political - patently absurd.
What an idiotic thing to say.
I don't know why you are so scared of debate - why do you bother
posting?
Tony
It's like arguing with child, isn't it, Tony?
And the thing is, this "Rich" poster is either suffering from a severe bipolar >or multiple personality order, or is an account operated by multiple persons. >Either seems quite possible, but the latter suggests some sort of North Korean >style propaganda mill.
But regardless of which, I think that you are correct in that the poster has a >childlike grasp of many concepts that intelligent grown-ups would consider >rather obvious.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:23:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netor
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:06:32 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>I did nothing of the sort - why are you lying?
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 02:01:53 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net(sorry posted in error while still typing)
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>> dot nz> wrote:You and Victor share at least one serious failure in understanding.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 22/08/2016 9:07 p.m., Crash wrote:Good governance is an absolute requirement of every single company, club,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:27:54 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 21/08/2016 6:55 p.m., Tony wrote:
What a great Olympic result for little old NZ. 17 medals with maybe >>>>>>>>>>> one
more to
come.
Again punching well above our weight. And a massive win over the >>>>>>>>>>> Australian
rugby team!
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
Tony
If only we had enough warm dry homes for our people we could call >>>>>>>>>> ourselves civilized.
Victor how is this connected to Tony's thread?
--
Crash McBash
His claim that it represents good governance.
Good governance is better represented by the well-being of citizens, >>>>>>>> not the pissing contests of elite sports.
charity, sporting organisation or government department as well as local
and
national elected government.
So did you see my comment as something else?
Tony
Such a sweeping comment suggests a little discrimination in relatio n >>>>>> to your definition of good governance then Tony. In Australia there >>>>>> are reports of disappointment regarding their medal tally and
questions as to whether the funding mechanisms were too elitist, and >>>>>> whether better 'value formoney' could have been obtained from a less >>>>>> elitist system and more development of entry level participation.
For New Zealand, the bulk of money comes from government, and your >>>>>> reference to the medal tally resulting from good governance was seeing >>>>>> government priorities in a very narrow focus. Certainly we can all be >>>>>> pleased at the results, but some from the left and right will question >>>>>> whether other government priorities should have had more money.
With an increasing level of children living in poverty, we are
creating an elitist system, and a more limited pool from which future >>>>>> Olympians will be drawn, Certainly rheumatic fever is unlikely to be a >>>>>> good indicator of future Olympic success, and so we turn to wider
government priorities than whether the amount they decided to spend >>>>>> could have been spent more effectively, to whether the amount itself >>>>>> could have been spent more effectively to provide better overall
reslts, and better overall governance by our government.
We are unlikely to agree on government spending priorities, but it is >>>>>> a legitimate question to raise inresponse to your gratuitous
assumption that the medal results indicate an unspecified level of >>>>>> "good governance" from some unspecified body or bodies.
Certainly while I welcome the Olympic results, I would welcome evn >>>>>> more a reduction in the unemployed, a reduction in tose living in
relative poverty, a reduction in childhood diseasesof poverty such as >>>>>> Rheumatic fever etc. It is a long time since there has been any
improvement in those statistics.
I was not referring to the government. I was referring to governance which
is
much broader than the elected government (as I tried to explain using fairly
short words). So you and Victor both reverted to type and assumed that I was
making a political statement which I was not.
The assumption by both of you is plainly stupid. I was, as any intelligent
observer would understand, referring to governance of the New Zealand >>>>> Olympic
endeavours which were obviously successful.
Why do you have to assume political motivation in others? I guess because >>>>> most
of us see in others the worst of ourselves. What a sad state of affairs when
you cannot see a compliment for what it is!
Tony
It is disappointing that you are unable to either read or think, and
have such a narrow view of governance.
My statement about priorities for spending money on sport in Australia >>>> has parallels in New Zealand, where many sports have had to balance
funding for "elites" against funding for "grass-roots" activities.
What level goes in what direction has no right or wrong answers - it
will depend on where the sport fids itself.
Similarly, the amount government (at local and National level) spends
on elite vs grass-roots sports is a governance issue - again the
correct level will depend on the current situation.
You raised the issue of governance,but did not specify what governance >>>> you were talking about. In relation to funding for sports from
taxation or local government funds, decisions _are_ political, and
your attempt to run away from your own statem,ent is pathetic.
The reality is that our current
government (and yes National Party-led), has made political choices
regarding funding elites rather than 'grass-roots." You were
effectively saying you approve of governance choices, victor and I
were not decrying the medal tally,but saying tyhatit is a shame the
government does not pay a bit mre attetion to other legitimate goals
of good governance.
Discussion on a subject you raised may not always be to your liking,
Tony, but you did raise the subject in a non-specific way, and it has
been suitably responded to.Try pulling your head in and thinking
before you leap to disparaging remarks about other posters
You are without a doubt one of the most stupid people I have ever bothered to
correspond with. You and Victor deliberately took a political point of view >> about a non-political post in a newsgrooup that is labelled "general" ie not >> specifically political. You are both pathetic in your fixation on wasting your
lives attacking with rancour good people just because they disagree with you
happen to have different political views. I serioucly believe that you are a >> troll, I am not sure what Victor is but he shares your lack of intellect.
Tony
typical right wing reaction - when losing, lie, deny, make a peronal
attack and run away!
If you look back, you will see tht you, Tony, said:
I can only assume it is a result of good governance!
That s a statementthat is, in tis context, and given the substantial government funding invovled, a political statement, although in crony capitalist regime you just see it as the basic right of anyone that
can provide photo-ops and distractions , , ,
I don't know why you are so scared of debate - why do you bother
posting?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:23:00 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |