Excellent! Eleanor Catton’s Dad takes on Sean Plunkett You can listen to it on Radio Live, but if (like me) you cannot bear listening to Plunkett then there’s quite a good report here:
I would like to ask for some opinions on repeat posts of links. This might be unpopular to discuss as some people could feel they are being hassled, but I really am not pointing fingers at anyone. Most of us here have done it at one time or another. I know I have.
It really does happen an awful lot and I would hazard a guess many are unaware quite how regularly it occurs because it occurs so regularly it has become a sort of white noise . Which is why I feel it needs to be addressed. Maybe it’s just me and this sort of stuff doesn’t bother others but how can a stronger community form, and comments grow to become meaningful discussions, if actions are regularly taken by that community without paying attention to activities within its own environment?
I appreciate that it can be an oversight sometimes, but often it just looks like there is no thought applied before posting a link. Is it the desire to be first? Is that all people want? To be seen to have their finger on the pulse, which is kind of ludicrous when discussing links to MSM articles.
Is it not wanting to put comments under certain handles that will create some illusion of hierarchy because that person got their post up first?
If you look at today’s open Mike, posts 20, 21 + 24, there are three posts of the same link, almost in succession. Do people just not bother checking? It intrigues me is all, so thought I would ask.
I’ve found that sometimes reading the link, then checking to see if someone’s already linked, then figuring out what I want to put around the link, etc, leaves a lag where others see the same link and post it in the meantime.
Particularly if grazing on the web -reading other threads, and then some oik disturbs me at work and I have to earn my crust And then I look like a dick because someone posted it 25 minutes ago (longer if it was in moderation :)). And then I delete, but someone’s replied and it kills the comment numbering. Might as well leave it up, lol.
All in all, I’m pretty cool with just leaving the multiple links up – in today’s case, I generally overlook one of the commenters who linked, so I’m actually more likely to read the link because someone I have a bit more respect for actually linked to it, as well. And if something’s important to me, I try not to care by which avenue other people read it
All that notwithstanding, come folks link better than others – the 1,000 word one-sentence rant is just as overlooked by me as the pretentious link-whore question that in no way describes the content of the link (e.g. “who do people feel about this – should they face further action, or have they…” yadda yadda. It’s impossible to tell whether it’s a political issue, a rugby team, or some oik talking about an obscure case in the levant).
“And then I delete, but someone’s replied ” That is the very behaviour I was probing when I mentioned how who posts the linkseems to matter and how multiple reposts of links harm the dialogue.
The fault there, if there is any, is with the person who did not comment on the first posting of the link but instead chose to comment on a later posting of the same link. This ‘skip over’ is most likely due to whomever posted the link being out of favour with the person making a comment. At times this has lead to multiple streams of similar discussions and we all know how quickly that can cause confusion, ill feelings and ultimately derail a topic.
There are no big solutions here, apart from the obvious ones Don’t do it! Think before posting ! They have as much right as you do to post it! All I am saying is awareness of an issue is a positive step in resolution of that issue. And I think I am not alone in thinking it is an issue, albeit a minor one.
It’s not quite so simple – if someone’s replied to me, were the previous linkers in moderation? Did I make an insightful or (outrageously foolish) point that the responder wishes to discuss, and the first linker did not focus on that aspect? Were the links adjacent, or was one link buried in a completely different sub-thread and missed?
I reckon it’s just in the “shit happens – roll with it” category, rather than being a big-ass problem.
“shit happens – roll with it” ummm that’s how the world got in this mess (your moderation example is imho a rare event in context of the discussion)
and i’m not saying it’s a big-ass problem, i was pretty clear about that
I said it contributes to some of the negative influences in this community is all. Without details, big pictures do not exist. I pay attention to details, you know that. which is usually why when I stuff up, it is on the obvious stuff
lol they didn’t say anything about planting, just that one would be a “native reserve”. I think they’re just saying they won’t un-plant it.
Also I wonder if “reserve” means a reserve that’s available to the public? And if not, I wonder if it means they definitely absolutely promise not to “develop” the reserve island for their own commercial use. Maybe a teeny tiny little bar on the “reserve” island, perhaps?
For the past 80 years Pararekau, the second largest island in the harbour, has been used to graze stock, degrading the ecological value of the island.
The developers say farming Pararekau is no longer financially or environmentally viable and they plan to subdivide the island into 11 lifestyle blocks with a shared recreation area, wetlands and extensive coastal planting.
A causeway created in the 1960s would link the private community to the mainland. With a gate at either end of the causeway, vehicle access would be limited to residents, their guests and emergency services.
Pedestrians and cyclists would be able to use the road to access a walkway around the island’s coastline.
Local iwi Ngati Te Ata initially opposed the plans, saying Pararekau is wahi tapu – a site of sacred significance.
But the preservation of archaeological sites in the developer’s structural plan, and the continued public access to the island’s coast that will allow iwi to undertake their kaitiaki (guardianship) role, convinced them to agree to the development.
The court acknowledged the significant ecological gains the proposal would provide including the restoration of the island’s vegetation which would help the recovery of indigenous birds and lizards.
A final Environment Court decision on the plan change is still to come.
Gated communities offend this kiwi’s sensibility, but I have to say that there is some good ecological work being done in NZ by very rich people, esp from overseas. We can complain about lack of access and foreign ownership (and I do), but these people are just getting on with doing the right thing by the land while NZ still thinks it’s acceptable to clear native ecosystems and pour cow shit into the water.
I agree it’s good to be cautious. In the case of the island, it’s unfortunate that the reporter didn’t check this out, but it was on the business pages I think, so who gives a shit, right? I suppose I know more examples of rich people doing the right thing, but then I move in pretty green circles, and am less exposed to the ones just planting a few trees.
I hope the greenys you you circle with aren’t the type that build castles then slap a few solar panels on and a Prius in the garage and pat them selves on the back.
When sexual offenders are asked what they’re in prison for, it is common for them to answer “assault.” Technically they’re right, I suppose. Assault could be anything from hitting a cop’s face with your fist to sexual assault on a minor. The truth usually comes out.
Well, now you’ve raised it, I am indeed wondering whether anybody else is thinking what you are thinking. But then I’m not you, so the answer is yes somebody else is thinking what you are thinking, so I’m no longer wondering, so the answer is unknown. I wonder what it could be- geettoutofmybraaaaiiinn!
Millsy, if I am thinking what you’re thinking (and I think I am) why is it so? Is name suppression usual in a case like the one we’re thinking about? I can think of needing to protect the identity of the victim as one reason. But it can’t be that serious if the accused is remanded at large. And how far can we speculate on an open forum (serious question – I really don’t know) before the water-boarders step in?
The legal advice I’ve had is that you can speculate as much as you like, but if you have actual knowledge of the case, you cannot say that you know who it is. Lprent may have had different legal advice.
I have seen people remanded on bail for some very serious charges, but at large is a bit unusual. I can imagine it could be used if the judge were convinced that the prominence of the accused would make it difficult for them to leave the country. For example, the accused could have prominent tribal tattoos on their right arm, or could have been pictured in newspapers and television recently.
The pedophile Phil Smith managed to escape because nobody knew what he looked like. I assume the prominent accuse may be so well known that it would be difficult for them to get through airport security. Although that would only work if people knew the person was the subject of serious charges. This is indeed strange.
Pretty much. Speculation isn’t an issue so long as it is vague enough to be essentially meaningless – ie reading the tea leaves style.
But we will leap on people who state that they know – even if we know that they are likely to be bullshitting. Or even if they start speculating confidently so that they look like they know the facts of the case.
Simply put, if we don’t know what the suppression was on, then we can’t know what needs suppressing. So we act as if all such pointed speculation is someone trying to put us in the dock.
Court suppression orders are nothing to fool with. We don’t know what evidence was placed in front of a judge to cause them to issue the suppression order, so we don’t speculate.
I have a pretty basic rule. It says that if I see anything that might make a judge look at me and think that I may have deliberately allowed the name suppression to be violated, or that causes us problems with our privacy rules (ie having to give up some persons details) – then it is a problem.
Then I will act against the person involved immediately and rather ruthlessly to make sure that they never want to do that to us again.. Other moderators may be kinder and simply cut out the offending passages.
Therefore it is a possibly good or possibly bad thing that MS has been getting to comments before me today eh? Depends how much you like draconian preemptive bans.
What are you thinking? Tell us! Then may be I can confirm or deny directly (and not through my orifice, whoops, I mean office) if I was thinking that too.
“It’s actually a story of reducing Government spending, casualising our workforce, taking no steps to cool the property market, selling off our natural assets, ignoring inequality, ignoring high levels of personal debt, ignoring environmental change and privatising essential services. It is the story of the short-term benefits of trickle-down economics” : Chris Hedges–an American journalist, activist, author, Presbyterian minister and humanitarian.
Whoops! Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I made a big error. I copied the wrong quote! The one I quoted above is indeed from the excellent Dita da Boni.
The one I wanted to quote (Which somehow my copy/paste did not capture and I didn’t notice) was this from Chris Hedges:
“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” – Chris Hedges – (1956- ) American journalist, author, and war correspondent —————————- NOTE TO ANY KIND TS MODERATOR:
I would be grateful if a moderator would be kind enough to either delete my comment #29 or edit the author for that quote and enter the author as Dita da Boni. Thanks.
In future interviews with foreign media, I will of course discuss the inflammatory, vicious, and patronising things that have been broadcast and published in New Zealand this week. I will of course discuss the frightening swiftness with which the powerful Right move to discredit and silence those who question them, and the culture of fear and hysteria that prevails. But I will hope for better, and demand it.
Good on her. Our current crop of journalists remind me of school prefects, trying their best to catch the naughty boys and girls and curry favour with the teachers. I always thought prefects were scum. I got voted in as one in an experiment in democracy once, but the headmaster vetoed me I wouldn’t have done it anyway.
What particularly struck me in her blog was her statement “I love these moments of connection and the conversation they bring.” I think we all know what she means by that and that it is these that make a community of people, real or virtual, or a cohesive society: a place or platform were people can express themselves freely and open up, without fear, but in a reciprocal environment. At times, TS is such an environment, which is why I decided to join in ‘the conversation’. This is also the reason why I tend to lean left because the right, at present, appears to stand for individualism bordering on selfishness rather than connection and unity.
Went to my sister’s for a BBQ tonight. Got to Henderson and some arsehole turned left over me. No, that isn’t an exaggeration he actually drove over my bike and me (No serious damage done to me thankfully but the front wheel was totaled). And then he didn’t stop.
But that’s not what pissed me of most.
I called the police immediately. A car didn’t turn up as there wasn’t one available so I got called back and asked to go to the police station and file a formal report. When I got there the receptionist, IMO, tried very hard to get me to not fill in a report because ‘there was nothing that could be done’.
Well, there would certainly be nothing done if I didn’t.
Eleanor Catton’s Dad takes on Sean Plunkett You can listen to it on Radio Live, but if (like me) you cannot bear listening to Plunkett then there’s quite a good report here:
John McCain: “Get out of here, you lowlife scum!”
Baby steps and all that
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/new-york-times-editor-dean-baquet-we-failed-to-do-our-job-after-911/comments/#disqus
And then I look like a dick because someone posted it 25 minutes ago (longer if it was in moderation :)). And then I delete, but someone’s replied and it kills the comment numbering. Might as well leave it up, lol.
That is the very behaviour I was probing when I mentioned how who posts the linkseems to matter and how multiple reposts of links harm the dialogue.
Don’t do it!
Think before posting !
They have as much right as you do to post it!
All I am saying is awareness of an issue is a positive step in resolution of that issue. And I think I am not alone in thinking it is an issue, albeit a minor one.
(your moderation example is imho a rare event in context of the discussion)
Without details, big pictures do not exist. I pay attention to details, you know that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11394223
http://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges
The one I quoted above is indeed from the excellent Dita da Boni.
—————————-
NOTE TO ANY KIND TS MODERATOR:
‘The UK sacrificed pay for jobs.’