Discussion:
The Anguish Of Don Brash
(too old to reply)
David Herkt
2003-10-28 06:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.

D.
Ronie
2003-10-28 06:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Who gives a shit lets get rid of the Epson MP now



"David Herkt" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:bnl1g9$ln1$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...
: Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was
an
: anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
: choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
: didn't work.
:
: D.
:
:
Brian Harmer
2003-10-28 07:04:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:31:20 +1300, "Ronie"
Post by Ronie
Who gives a shit lets get rid of the Epson MP now
We have a member for printers?
BackToNormal
2003-10-28 06:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability.
That's an interesting word David.
Post by David Herkt
If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it.
I winced.
Shock!!!
Post by David Herkt
I was embarrassed.
Horror!!!!
Post by David Herkt
It didn't work.
Not for you.

Well now, he WAS on Holmes.

Does that give you a clue?

Thought not.

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine
Jason M
2003-10-28 06:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
I thought he did OK, and two thirds of Holmes watchers stupid enough
to pay a dollar to vote (i.e. right wingers) , seem to approve of the
change.
His wife was not marvellous as a speaker but then neither was Thea.
Cheeky Darkkie
2003-10-28 08:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason M
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
I thought he did OK, and two thirds of Holmes watchers stupid enough
to pay a dollar to vote (i.e. right wingers) , seem to approve of the
change.
His wife was not marvellous as a speaker but then neither was Thea.
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
Jason M
2003-10-28 08:25:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:02:19 +1300, Cheeky Darkkie
Post by Cheeky Darkkie
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
Campbell certainly asked some tough questions, and I thought Brash
handled them well. He sounded convincing in a way that English,
Shipley and Bolger never did.
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
John Cawston
2003-10-28 09:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason M
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:02:19 +1300, Cheeky Darkkie
Post by Cheeky Darkkie
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
Campbell certainly asked some tough questions, and I thought Brash
handled them well. He sounded convincing in a way that English,
Shipley and Bolger never did.
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
But, as he said, under MMP there wont be a single party in Govt. any
longer and it makes sense to tidy up stuff with your potential allies.
Thats much how National got started decades ago.. a coalition of parties
with similar objectives.

JC
steve
2003-10-28 09:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by Jason M
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
But, as he said, under MMP there wont be a single party in Govt. any
longer and it makes sense to tidy up stuff with your potential allies.
Thats much how National got started decades ago.. a coalition of parties
with similar objectives.
JC
The questions is:

How many centre voters will vote for a National lead by Brash, backed up by
ACT?

Um....24% + 6% = 30%?

Labour/PC/Greens/UF are safe for now.....though I recognise Peter Dunne's UF
is anyone's. I wonder how Dunne and Prebble would get on?

They were in the same neo-Liberal Labour cabinet from 1987-90, so they
probably would. What UF really stands for is anyone's guess.
--
defenestrate: The act of throwing Windows out the window and replacing it on
your PC with some other operating system.
John Cawston
2003-10-28 09:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve
Post by John Cawston
Post by Jason M
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
But, as he said, under MMP there wont be a single party in Govt. any
longer and it makes sense to tidy up stuff with your potential allies.
Thats much how National got started decades ago.. a coalition of parties
with similar objectives.
JC
How many centre voters will vote for a National lead by Brash, backed up by
ACT?
Um....24% + 6% = 30%?
Labour/PC/Greens/UF are safe for now.....though I recognise Peter Dunne's UF
is anyone's. I wonder how Dunne and Prebble would get on?
They were in the same neo-Liberal Labour cabinet from 1987-90, so they
probably would. What UF really stands for is anyone's guess.
Brash's job really isnt the winning of the next election but to cut out a slice
of territory that is identifiably Nation's and which parties like Act can accept
and work within if it has to. That territory need not appeal to the centre at
all, just so long as it knows where National is coming from. Its important that
everyone knows where the territory is.

Once established there, a National party can do what political parties have
always done.. raid into the centre with specific policies.

English tried to stand in the centre and push out in all directions.. a formless
and unbranded undertaking that left him looking weak.

JC
steve
2003-10-28 10:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Brash's job really isnt the winning of the next election but to cut out a
slice of territory that is identifiably Nation's and which parties like
Act can accept and work within if it has to. That territory need not
appeal to the centre at all, just so long as it knows where National is
coming from. Its important that everyone knows where the territory is.
Once established there, a National party can do what political parties
have always done.. raid into the centre with specific policies.
But if they do this, then the certainty you describe above can't apply.
Post by John Cawston
English tried to stand in the centre and push out in all directions.. a
formless and unbranded undertaking that left him looking weak.
English got not support from those who wanted to maintain the neo-liberal
policy stance. Every time he tried to do it, he was white-anted by the Nat
right and their allies in the media (DomPost, NBR and others).

He was left to make statements that had not been backed by caucus....and
then back-peddle. His own party would not support him against the enemies
in his caucus.

The moderate, centre National folk are now in the minority and they should
seek another political home.....many have already gone to Labour or NZF or
even UF - as voters if not active party members.

Those who remain in National may not realise it yet, but the National Party
no longer speaks for them.

Brash might see a small jump in the polls......or he may see a slump. It
depends on whether those polled judge the man or the policies he has
espoused.

To soon to tell. If I *had* to guess....I'd say brief upward blip followed
by sdteady on 24% (ish) in support over the next year....becoming variable
as the election approaches in 2005.

That assumes the Nats won't move to the centre......and will stay with their
neo-liberal policies. If they do move to the centre.....then my assessment
changes significantly.
--
defenestrate: The act of throwing Windows out the window and replacing it on
your PC with some other operating system.
Sue Bilstein
2003-10-29 09:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve
Post by John Cawston
English tried to stand in the centre and push out in all directions.. a
formless and unbranded undertaking that left him looking weak.
English got not support from those who wanted to maintain the neo-liberal
policy stance. Every time he tried to do it, he was white-anted by the Nat
right and their allies in the media (DomPost, NBR and others).
He was left to make statements that had not been backed by caucus....and
then back-peddle. His own party would not support him against the enemies
in his caucus.
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-29 09:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.

--Peter Metcalfe
Sue Bilstein
2003-10-29 10:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Not really. A hard-line Catholic; if Catholics clap & holy-roll, Bill &
Mary are into it.
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-29 10:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Not really. A hard-line Catholic; if Catholics clap & holy-roll, Bill &
Mary are into it.
On the contrary, Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the
bible. Catholics however have many doctrines which are not
derived from the bible but from the living traditions of the
Church. It is impossible for a Catholic to be a Fundamentalist.

Likewise "clap & holy-roll" is not Fundamentalism but Pentacostalism.
While it is possible for a Catholic to practice the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, it is nigh difficult to do so within the context of
a Catholic liturgy and it is not part of Catholic doctrine.

--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Harmer
2003-10-29 19:19:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:38:36 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Not really. A hard-line Catholic; if Catholics clap & holy-roll, Bill &
Mary are into it.
On the contrary, Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the
bible. Catholics however have many doctrines which are not
derived from the bible but from the living traditions of the
Church. It is impossible for a Catholic to be a Fundamentalist.
I don't imagine you think fundamentalist Muslims believe in the
inerrancy of the Christian Bible? (Notwithstanding that they recognise
the NT as a holy book). I regard "fundamentalist" in this context as
an adjective that qualifies whatever belief system it is applied to. I
know people whom I regard as Fundamentalist Catholics. I would include
in that members of the group known as CUFF (Catholics United for the
Faith), Opus Dei, and those who persist in pre-vatican enclaves. I
think fundamentalism is a relative word that has been captured.
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Likewise "clap & holy-roll" is not Fundamentalism but Pentacostalism.
While it is possible for a Catholic to practice the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, it is nigh difficult to do so within the context of
a Catholic liturgy and it is not part of Catholic doctrine.
Pentecostalism in the Catholic church is also practiced in small
enclaves (I nearly said "in pockets", but realised the possibilities).
Living life as a pentecostal is not something that is necessarily that
can only be done during the liturgy. Even in the liturgy, if the
celebrant is also a pentecostal (and there are a few) it is amazing
how "pentecostal" they can be. Those who others refer to as
"pentecostals" we refer to as "charismatics". I am not of that
leaning.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying about gifts of the
Spirit and Catholic doctrine.

A web site that accords with my understanding of what the church
teaches about this is
http://www.churchofthesacredheart.org/faith_CATHOLIC_FAITH_The_Holy_Spirit.html
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-29 21:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Harmer
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:38:36 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
On the contrary, Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the
bible. Catholics however have many doctrines which are not
derived from the bible but from the living traditions of the
Church. It is impossible for a Catholic to be a Fundamentalist.
I don't imagine you think fundamentalist Muslims believe in the
inerrancy of the Christian Bible?
I don't which is why I don't use the term.
Post by Brian Harmer
(Notwithstanding that they recognise the NT as a holy book).
They don't. They recognize its heritage but regard it as corrupt
in the act of transmission.
Post by Brian Harmer
I am not sure I understand what you are saying about gifts of the
Spirit and Catholic doctrine.
I meant to put quotes around "gifts" meaning such practices as
glossophilia.

--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Harmer
2003-10-29 21:38:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:03:29 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:38:36 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
I don't imagine you think fundamentalist Muslims believe in the
inerrancy of the Christian Bible?
I don't which is why I don't use the term.
OED: Fundamentalism:

a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918,
based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal
inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith;
the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.

b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to
ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern
developments in thought or customs.

So fundamentalist, an adherent of fundamentalism; also, an
economic or political doctrinaire. Also attrib. or as adj., and
transf.

(end of OED quote)

Thus, in terms of the second meaning there are indeed fundamentalist
Catholics and Muslims
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
(Notwithstanding that they recognise the NT as a holy book).
They don't. They recognize its heritage but regard it as corrupt
in the act of transmission.
Post by Brian Harmer
I am not sure I understand what you are saying about gifts of the
Spirit and Catholic doctrine.
I meant to put quotes around "gifts" meaning such practices as
glossophilia.
"Glossolalia"?
Even so, the charismatics, even the Catholic ones, do lay claim to
those "gifts", and it does me some indirect spiritual good since they
scare the hell out of me :-)
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-29 22:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:03:29 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:38:36 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
I don't imagine you think fundamentalist Muslims believe in the
inerrancy of the Christian Bible?
I don't which is why I don't use the term.
a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918,
based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal
inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith;
the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.
b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to
ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern
developments in thought or customs.
So fundamentalist, an adherent of fundamentalism; also, an
economic or political doctrinaire. Also attrib. or as adj., and
transf.
(end of OED quote)
Thus, in terms of the second meaning there are indeed fundamentalist
Catholics and Muslims
Wrong. The first definition is for Christians, while the second
definition speaks about "other religions". So a Catholic is not
a fundamentalist and I prefer Ultramontane (even if the precise
definition isn't exact). As for Muslims (and to a lesser extent,
Jews), my reservations about the term is that it gives a
misleading impression about the nature of their belief.
Post by Brian Harmer
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
I am not sure I understand what you are saying about gifts of the
Spirit and Catholic doctrine.
I meant to put quotes around "gifts" meaning such practices as
glossophilia.
"Glossolalia"?
That's the one.
Post by Brian Harmer
Even so, the charismatics, even the Catholic ones, do lay claim to
those "gifts", and it does me some indirect spiritual good since they
scare the hell out of me :-)
I never argued that Catholics couldn't be pentecostals, I said
it was possible but difficult to do so within the liturgy when
explaining the difference between them and fundamentalists.

--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Harmer
2003-10-29 22:44:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:25:46 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918,
based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal
inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith;
the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.
b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to
ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern
developments in thought or customs.
So fundamentalist, an adherent of fundamentalism; also, an
economic or political doctrinaire. Also attrib. or as adj., and
transf.
(end of OED quote)
Thus, in terms of the second meaning there are indeed fundamentalist
Catholics and Muslims
Wrong. The first definition is for Christians,
No. The first definition is about the beliefs held by Protestant
bodies about Christianity.
Post by Peter Metcalfe
while the second
definition speaks about "other religions". So a Catholic is not
a fundamentalist
Disagree for the reason above.
Post by Peter Metcalfe
and I prefer Ultramontane (even if the precise
definition isn't exact). As for Muslims (and to a lesser extent,
Jews), my reservations about the term is that it gives a
misleading impression about the nature of their belief.
We shall disagree on that too.

(Snip)
Post by Peter Metcalfe
I never argued that Catholics couldn't be pentecostals, I said
it was possible but difficult to do so within the liturgy when
explaining the difference between them and fundamentalists.
Yes but why confine the state of being pentecostal to what happens
during a liturgy? As I understand it, pentecostalism is a way of life.
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-30 02:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:25:46 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918,
based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal
inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith;
the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.
b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to
ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern
developments in thought or customs.
So fundamentalist, an adherent of fundamentalism; also, an
economic or political doctrinaire. Also attrib. or as adj., and
transf.
(end of OED quote)
Thus, in terms of the second meaning there are indeed fundamentalist
Catholics and Muslims
Wrong. The first definition is for Christians,
No. The first definition is about the beliefs held by Protestant
bodies about Christianity.
So you think that Catholicism is a different religion from
Protestant Christianity?
Post by Brian Harmer
Post by Peter Metcalfe
I never argued that Catholics couldn't be pentecostals, I said
it was possible but difficult to do so within the liturgy when
explaining the difference between them and fundamentalists.
Yes but why confine the state of being pentecostal to what happens
during a liturgy?
I didn't. I was why it was difficult to be both a pentecostal and
an ultramontane.

--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Harmer
2003-10-30 02:54:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:31:33 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
So you think that Catholicism is a different religion from
Protestant Christianity?
Yes

Protestant
2. a. A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies
which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed
from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century,
and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them;
hence in general language applied to any Western Christian or member
of a Christian church outside the Roman communion. Opposed to Papist,
Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted sense.
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-30 03:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:31:33 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
So you think that Catholicism is a different religion from
Protestant Christianity?
Yes
Protestant
2. a. A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies
which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed
from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century,
and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them;
hence in general language applied to any Western Christian or member
of a Christian church outside the Roman communion. Opposed to Papist,
Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted sense.
It does not follow that Protestant Christianity is a different religion
from Catholicism. The various Protestant branches (Calvinism, Baptism
etc) have doctrinal differences with each other that can be larger than
their differences with Catholicism or even the differences between
Catholicism and various Orthodoxies.

--Peter Metcalfe
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
2003-10-30 03:29:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:31:33 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
So you think that Catholicism is a different religion from
Protestant Christianity?
Of course it is. Catholics break the 1st commandment:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

...by praying to the virgin mary & the saints. They also break the
second:

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth.'

...in many beautiful ways. Which is why fundi protestants have tended
towards iconoclasm.
Brian Harmer
2003-10-30 04:13:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:29:01 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:31:33 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
So you think that Catholicism is a different religion from
Protestant Christianity?
Of course it is. Catholics ...
... barbecue little children, wipe their noses on their sleeves, and
all sorts of other nasty things, but this is not the forum for that
discussion, and indeed the ping pong between Peter and I has gone on
too long in this place as well.
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
2003-10-30 07:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:13:55 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
... barbecue little children, wipe their noses on their sleeves, and
all sorts of other nasty things, but this is not the forum for that
discussion, and indeed the ping pong between Peter and I has gone on
too long in this place as well.
Thanks for letting me know, I thought this was nz.general.

Did someone die and leave you moderator?
E. Scrooge
2003-10-30 07:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:13:55 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
... barbecue little children, wipe their noses on their sleeves, and
all sorts of other nasty things, but this is not the forum for that
discussion, and indeed the ping pong between Peter and I has gone on
too long in this place as well.
Thanks for letting me know, I thought this was nz.general.
Did someone die and leave you moderator?
LOL
Good to see that some people have a sense of humor.

E. Scrooge
Brian Harmer
2003-10-30 08:29:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:33 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:13:55 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
... barbecue little children, wipe their noses on their sleeves, and
all sorts of other nasty things, but this is not the forum for that
discussion, and indeed the ping pong between Peter and I has gone on
too long in this place as well.
Thanks for letting me know, I thought this was nz.general.
Did someone die and leave you moderator?
I can only give the facts, not the wit with which to grasp them. You
are halfway there. You are right, this is nz.general. Strain just a
little harder and you'll find nz.soc.religion. It was set up precisely
so that people could discuss things like this.
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
2003-10-30 10:25:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:29:33 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:03:33 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:13:55 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
... barbecue little children, wipe their noses on their sleeves, and
all sorts of other nasty things, but this is not the forum for that
discussion, and indeed the ping pong between Peter and I has gone on
too long in this place as well.
Thanks for letting me know, I thought this was nz.general.
Did someone die and leave you moderator?
I can only give the facts, not the wit with which to grasp them. You
are halfway there. You are right, this is nz.general. Strain just a
little harder and you'll find nz.soc.religion. It was set up precisely
so that people could discuss things like this.
Right, so politics is OK to discuss here (even if there's a
nz.politics), but religion is taboo. Gotcha. I guess all your talk
about fundamentalism has left you guilt-ridden, hence becoming a "born
again" moderator.

That's fine. Please post your response to:

nz.general.meta-discussion.nature-of

Thanks
Brian Harmer
2003-10-30 17:55:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:25:48 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Right, so politics is OK to discuss here (even if there's a
nz.politics), but religion is taboo.
Who told you politics was OK?
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
2003-10-30 21:24:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:55:04 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:25:48 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Right, so politics is OK to discuss here (even if there's a
nz.politics), but religion is taboo.
Who told you politics was OK?
Common law tradition of "What is not forbidden is permitted" in a
thread about the new leader of the national party.
Brian Harmer
2003-10-30 22:01:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:24:50 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:55:04 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:25:48 GMT, "J.R. \"Bob\" Dobbs"
Post by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Right, so politics is OK to discuss here (even if there's a
nz.politics), but religion is taboo.
Who told you politics was OK?
Common law tradition of "What is not forbidden is permitted" in a
thread about the new leader of the national party.
:-)
Brian Dooley
2003-11-01 03:47:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:25:46 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
<***@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:

snip---
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Brian Harmer
"Glossolalia"?
That's the one.
That had me worried trying to imagine what a lover of marginal
notes looked like.

Possibly a bit like P Metcalfe.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
DPF
2003-10-29 18:14:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:08:05 +1300, "Sue Bilstein"
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Not really. A hard-line Catholic; if Catholics clap & holy-roll, Bill &
Mary are into it.
You assume Bill and Mary have identical beliefs?

DPF
--
Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
E-mail: ***@farrar.com
ICQ: 29964527
MSN: ***@hotmail.com
Sue Bilstein
2003-10-30 09:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by DPF
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:08:05 +1300, "Sue Bilstein"
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Not really. A hard-line Catholic; if Catholics clap & holy-roll, Bill &
Mary are into it.
You assume Bill and Mary have identical beliefs?
I'm going on what has been reported about Bill, Mary and their beliefs.
Brian Dooley
2003-10-30 21:00:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:43:20 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Sue Bilstein
English seemed like a decent guy. Unfortunately he was also a Catholic
fundie.
Catholic fundie is a contradiction in terms.
Depends what you mean by it.

His Present Popeness and his off-sider Cardinal Ratzinger seem to
want to get down to fundamentals - in their own particular way.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
jfwilson
2003-10-28 23:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by steve
They were in the same neo-Liberal Labour cabinet from 1987-90, so they
probably would. What UF really stands for is anyone's guess.
Brash's job really isnt the winning of the next election but to cut out a slice
of territory that is identifiably Nation's and which parties like Act can accept
and work within if it has to. That territory need not appeal to the centre at
all, just so long as it knows where National is coming from. Its important that
everyone knows where the territory is.
Once established there, a National party can do what political parties have
always done.. raid into the centre with specific policies.
English tried to stand in the centre and push out in all directions.. a formless
and unbranded undertaking that left him looking weak.
JC
Dos'nt matter what Brash says or does he's got ACT tattooed
on his forehead. I will never forget voting labour primarily
to oust national and watching douglas and his henchmen push
through ACT policies. His selection is just another plus
for Winston Peters.
Enkidu
2003-10-30 10:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason M
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:02:19 +1300, Cheeky Darkkie
Post by Cheeky Darkkie
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
Campbell certainly asked some tough questions, and I thought Brash
handled them well. He sounded convincing in a way that English,
Shipley and Bolger never did.
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
But, as he said, under MMP there wont be a single party in Govt....
So how come we appear to have a single party in Government (with
couple ineffectual hangers-on)??

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
John Cawston
2003-10-30 10:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Jason M
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:02:19 +1300, Cheeky Darkkie
Post by Cheeky Darkkie
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
Campbell certainly asked some tough questions, and I thought Brash
handled them well. He sounded convincing in a way that English,
Shipley and Bolger never did.
But of course I don't like Brash's policies, and I am puzzled by his
readiness to speak at ACT conferences.
But, as he said, under MMP there wont be a single party in Govt....
So how come we appear to have a single party in Government (with
couple ineffectual hangers-on)??
Shh. You'll only upset the Greens and UFO.

JC
John Cawston
2003-10-28 08:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheeky Darkkie
Post by Jason M
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
I thought he did OK, and two thirds of Holmes watchers stupid enough
to pay a dollar to vote (i.e. right wingers) , seem to approve of the
change.
His wife was not marvellous as a speaker but then neither was Thea.
John Campbell on 3 news dealt to Brash real good.
In what way?

I thought Brash came through quite well.

JC
Jamez
2003-10-28 20:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason M
I thought he did OK, and two thirds of Holmes watchers stupid enough
to pay a dollar to vote (i.e. right wingers) , seem to approve of the
change.
His wife was not marvellous as a speaker but then neither was Thea.
Brash certainly seemed more assured than Billy Boy. His wife though,
reminded me of one of those dolls with the string you pull to make
them talk. Or maybe it was just nerves.

Muldoon must be spinning in his grave.
LeftAintRight
2003-10-28 08:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
His :D wife :D was :D perfect :D :D :D.
k***@now.org
2003-10-28 09:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
Rubbish.

Otherwise blame Holmes's silly touchy-feely questions first, please.
E. Scrooge
2003-10-28 09:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
It's great news that Brash had that affect on you, by making you feel like
the sick bugger that you are.

E. Scrooge
Morrissey Breen
2003-10-28 17:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
Was this writer the only one to think that Dr Brash and his wife
looked like Thunderbirds marionettes?

"Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina, beautiful Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina...."
Jamez
2003-10-29 20:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morrissey Breen
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
Was this writer the only one to think that Dr Brash and his wife
looked like Thunderbirds marionettes?
"Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina, beautiful Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina...."
There certainly was an element of early Supermarionation with the
painted smile and the slow head turning (to gaze lovingly at hubby).
Brash resembled a later era though. Sort of an old Joe 90.
Kay Neich
2003-10-29 21:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Jamez wrote in message ...
Post by Jamez
Post by Morrissey Breen
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
Was this writer the only one to think that Dr Brash and his wife
looked like Thunderbirds marionettes?
"Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina, beautiful Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina...."
There certainly was an element of early Supermarionation with the
painted smile and the slow head turning (to gaze lovingly at hubby).
Brash resembled a later era though. Sort of an old Joe 90.
thank god i missed it. probably too busy feeding my face. i think holmes is
usually still on our telly in the background. but jesus, i no longer notice.
k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
http://www.geocities.com/kneich
http://www.geocities.com/kaurispandrel
"I do not believe that success proves anything" - Karl Popper (1966:32)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Jamez
2003-10-30 22:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Neich
Jamez wrote in message ...
Post by Jamez
Post by Morrissey Breen
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It
was an
Post by Jamez
Post by Morrissey Breen
Post by David Herkt
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National
not
Post by Jamez
Post by Morrissey Breen
Post by David Herkt
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
D.
Was this writer the only one to think that Dr Brash and his wife
looked like Thunderbirds marionettes?
"Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina, beautiful Mari-i-i-i-i-i-ina...."
There certainly was an element of early Supermarionation with the
painted smile and the slow head turning (to gaze lovingly at hubby).
Brash resembled a later era though. Sort of an old Joe 90.
thank god i missed it. probably too busy feeding my face. i think holmes is
usually still on our telly in the background. but jesus, i no longer notice.
k
I don't make a habit of watching Holmes but it was the first
opportunity to see Brash post-rolling and I was interested to see what
he would say. It was all pretty predictable, wasn't expecting him to
roll out the wife though.

I also saw him the following day on another prog and heard him
interviewed on bFM as well. He is very consistent (or well programmed
depending on your point of view), trotting out identical answers to
each interviewer.
Post by Kay Neich
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
http://www.geocities.com/kneich
http://www.geocities.com/kaurispandrel
"I do not believe that success proves anything" - Karl Popper (1966:32)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Bruce Sinclair
2003-10-29 00:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
At least one obvious error here (watching holmes :) )
National can choose whoever they like. Personally, I think labour
might now get some opposition.


Bruce


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyoneŽs fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, IŽm one of Us. I must be.
IŽve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. WeŽre always one of Us. ItŽs Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Mouse Anony
2003-10-29 05:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
Actually there is one thing if been wondering about the Brash move or
whateve the dumb headline writers came up with. I was under the
impression list MPs cannot become the prime minister. Anyone know if
this is true (electoral commision website doesn't seem to say)? If so,
what seat is Brash gonna take next election. I assume it would be a
safe one.

I personally doubt (and hope) that National will come even close to
taking the next election but imagine if they did put poor old Brashy
wasn't qualified to be the PM.
Peter Metcalfe
2003-10-29 06:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mouse Anony
I was under the
impression list MPs cannot become the prime minister.
You are wrong.

--Peter Metcalfe
Brian Harmer
2003-10-29 06:16:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:03:00 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
Post by Peter Metcalfe
Post by Mouse Anony
I was under the
impression list MPs cannot become the prime minister.
You are wrong.
Stop saying things I agree with Peter, it confuses me.

Constitution Act
Section 6

Ministers of Crown to be members of Parliament—

(1)A person may be appointed and may hold office as a member of the
Executive Council or as a Minister of the Crown only if that person is
a member of Parliament.

List MPs are members of parliament.
DPF
2003-10-29 10:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mouse Anony
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
Actually there is one thing if been wondering about the Brash move or
whateve the dumb headline writers came up with. I was under the
impression list MPs cannot become the prime minister. Anyone know if
this is true (electoral commision website doesn't seem to say)? If so,
what seat is Brash gonna take next election. I assume it would be a
safe one.
Any MP can become PM.

DPF
--
Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
E-mail: ***@farrar.com
ICQ: 29964527
MSN: ***@hotmail.com
Brian Dooley
2003-11-01 03:47:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:14:18 +1300, DPF <***@farrar.com> wrote:

snip---
Post by DPF
Any MP can become PM.
You've got the makings of a song there, David.

Again.

How do you do it?
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Brian Harmer
2003-11-01 03:19:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:47:57 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
snip---
Post by DPF
Any MP can become PM.
You've got the makings of a song there, David.
Again.
How do you do it?
On the list! On the list!
Brian Dooley
2003-11-03 08:31:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:19:35 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:47:57 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
snip---
Post by DPF
Any MP can become PM.
You've got the makings of a song there, David.
Again.
How do you do it?
On the list! On the list!
I thought that had been set to music already'
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Newsman
2003-11-03 10:14:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:31:49 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:19:35 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:47:57 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
snip---
Post by DPF
Any MP can become PM.
You've got the makings of a song there, David.
Again.
How do you do it?
On the list! On the list!
I thought that had been set to music already'
"I've got my little list,
They'll none of them be missed".

Gilbert and Sullivan

Is this what you had in mind, Brian?
Brian Dooley
2003-11-05 03:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:31:49 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:19:35 +1300, Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Harmer
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:47:57 +1200, Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Dooley
snip---
Post by DPF
Any MP can become PM.
You've got the makings of a song there, David.
Again.
How do you do it?
On the list! On the list!
I thought that had been set to music already'
"I've got my little list,
They'll none of them be missed".
Gilbert and Sullivan
Mikado.
Post by Newsman
Is this what you had in mind, Brian?
No, but it's very appropriate.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Nicolaas Hawkins
2003-11-05 06:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Dooley
Post by Newsman
Post by Brian Dooley
Post by Brian Harmer
Post by Brian Dooley
You've got the makings of a song there, David.
Again.
How do you do it?
On the list! On the list!
I thought that had been set to music already'
"I've got my little list,
They'll none of them be missed".
Gilbert and Sullivan
Mikado.
Post by Newsman
Is this what you had in mind, Brian?
No, but it's very appropriate.
DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM!!!!!!!!!
--
Nicolaas.


- "Madness ... takes its toll ..." -Count Frank N.Furter
Enkidu
2003-11-01 09:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DPF
Post by Mouse Anony
Post by David Herkt
Oh god, watching Don Brash and his wife on Holmes was truly awful. It was an
anguish of uncomfortability. If there was ever any reason for National not
choosing him as a leader, this was it. I winced. I was embarrassed. It
didn't work.
Actually there is one thing if been wondering about the Brash move or
whateve the dumb headline writers came up with. I was under the
impression list MPs cannot become the prime minister. Anyone know if
this is true (electoral commision website doesn't seem to say)? If so,
what seat is Brash gonna take next election. I assume it would be a
safe one.
Any MP can become PM.
Is that a NZ thing? Because I think that in the UK *anyone* can be
made Prime Minister. I have vague and maybe incorrect recollections
from history lessons that this actually occurred.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...