@mariner4life said in Christmas Gifts:

SHIT! I haven't got my parents anything.

And you know what, i don't even know what they might need or want. I am so far removed from their lives i have no fucking idea. We talk on the phone maybe once a month. Maybe. And i haven't seen them in 14 months. I am a terrible son. I haven't spent christmas with my family in probably 4 years, but it might actually be 5.

I stopped buying for my sisters a couple of decades ago.

I always get my younger brother a decent present. He’s a tradIe who, as he has 5 kids, 3 of whom he’s put through uni with the last 2 due in the next couple of years, never has anything left for himself. He’s a great Dad and never expects much. A couple of Christmases ago I convinced Mrs JC to let me buy him the car he always wanted. It was worth it just to see the look on his face when he drives it. In return I expect him to research and buy me the best bottle of wine he can find for under 30 bucks.

@Frank said in US Politics:

@JC Unfortunately, a lot of people do listen to them. Sad.

Stop then. Nobody is making you wind yourself up with this drivel.

Honestly, the degeneration of this thread gives me the shits. I'm very interested in policy and especially economics in the US, but the nonsense on here about personalities, cucks, and the alt-right, the endless pathetic memes and the posting of links to fringe sites populated by feeble minds has made it pretty much unreadable.

@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.

@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):

Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?

Tackle?

Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.

He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.

Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question

I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.

Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?

The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.

I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.

Or are you saying that defenders have an obligation to let a player attempt to place the ball and score a try? Because I missed that law change and so has everybody else who tries to hold up the ball and prevent a score, like in every game ever.

As you’ll have gathered, I’m not accepting it’s obvious and uncontroversial just because you say so.

Of course I could be wrong but you’ll need to cite your source.

@Rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

My hunch is 28 days short sharp pain will do less damage to the economy than a drawn out half arsed approach.

28 days which includes school holidays, plus 2 stat holidays. 18 working/trading days for many.

Let a hairdresser or dentist stay open but with desultory turnover but still all the costs? Or shut stuff down , reduce all costs, subsidise wages, defer mortgages. Shift the pain to the commercial landlords who shift it to the banks.

Wont work for all, for some time is money. Can't save everyone, let the 'creative destruction' begin as the textbooks say.

Can’t agree. “Creative destruction” is pretty offensive really. The majority of businesses that go to the wall represent the sweat, dreams and livelihoods of individuals and families all over the country. They will not recover. Many will have guaranteed their debts with their personal assets and they will lose their homes, in many cases their families, and in some cases their lives. They will not be able to borrow any more money to start again. They will fail to pay their debts, often to other small businesses, leading to more of the same. Recession, too, is a virus. What most small and medium sized businesses want is to be in control of their own destiny, not have failure forced on them by someone who has no idea of what is needed to keep a business afloat in good times and bad, or empathy with the sense of helplessness when you see the hurt felt by your family, your employees and their families, and the community who depends on you to deliver your services and pay your debts. And it doesn’t matter how smart you are or how honourable your intentions are, you can’t do anything about it. Because you have been ordered not to.

BTW, shifting the pain to the banks? Like that actually ever happens... The banks will do fine. And if they don’t, the squeeze will go onto their customers, and there’s nothing the government can do to stop them.

If she wants to talk about stolen childhoods maybe she should spare a thought for the fact that many in the generations that so outrage her grew up with missing fathers because they died fighting the Third Reich whilst her country was “neutral”. Or as neutral as you can be when you’re shipping 10 million tonnes of iron ore a year to Nazis.

As for western industrialisation, it put end to the famines that ravaged Sweden for hundreds of years and lifted the peasant class out of starvation poverty.

Greta, our generations didn’t steal your childhood, they gave you one. Maybe ask your parents what revisionism means.

@Hooroo No

Now, I know what you’re thinking and it’s very unfair.

@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Hooroo TL;DR = Too Long, Didn’t Read

I’m not suggesting the entire economy will tank. Major exporters will probably weather the storm, with the caveat that if NZ appears to be doing better than our trading partners the NZD is likely to strengthen and repatriated income will be lower.

But the internal SME sector is likely to be decimated. As well as the impacts I related above, that will have the additional negative effect of the companies and their employees paying lower or no tax

I guess that is what I am trying to understand from the likes of you (In terms of your thought process around this)

I'm talking about the economy as a whole. If out biggest components of it are still going well and will likely see an increase in revenue in the short term given where our FX rate is and the primary commodities are increasing in price currently. Won't the impact on the economy as a whole be OK overall? There will just be subsections of pain?

Just on GDP most commentators think that’s going to take a hit of at least 10% year on year. That’s pretty optimistic I think:

i. There are stories of primary producers that have containers on the water now who are being told the recipients can’t pay.

ii. Others can’t get hold of containers and we are actually bringing in shiploads of empty containers.

iii. Small businesses (1-19 employees) recorded sales of $153bn in FY2018, So just based on sales alone you’d expect that taking most of them offline for a month will take 8% or $12bn out of the GDP for a start.

iv. Some supposedly essential businesses aren’t able to generate much turnover as they have no customers. Gas stations, chemists, GPs, builders, banks and FIs are a good example of this.

v. Consumer discretionary spending is probably as low as it’s ever been.

vi. FIs aren’t lending. They’ve tightened up their lending policies for personal loans for two reasons: they don’t want to lose money and they don’t want to get accused of predatory lending behaviour. Mortgage lending is, understandably, at a standstill. They are also preparing for large increases in loan impairments, so once we are out of the lockdown it will likely be some time before lending comes back to normal.

It could go on for a while. The biggest hurdle to recovery is consumer and business confidence. You can’t convince people who are worried about losing their jobs to spend, or companies who worry about their survival to invest. Normally though there is some offset because people sit on their savings and earn interest, which is a direct GDP contributor, but right now savings rates are close to zero. And that money is going to be idle on banks’ balance sheets, because it’s not going to be lent.

There’s also a big unknown. We don’t yet have any data on how the shortfall in personal earnings correlates to people who have no savings or disposable income. It’s all well and good to contribute 85% of wages, but who is absorbing the rest? Families that regularly burn through all their weekly income - and more - will struggle with 15% less. Businesses? A company with 20 staff has to keep paying 3 people’s wages with no revenue. At minimum wage that’s 9 grand in 4weeks. You tell me what kind of turnover the average company has to generate at normal margins to be able to recoup that $9k?

@Crucial said in All Blacks vs. B&I Lions test #1:

Edit: credit where it is due to a good article by Stuart Barnes. If anyone has cut and paste abilities for the Times others here may wish to read it

Barnes's column:
"The Lions are on the horns of a dilemma. If they play with as much attacking fluency as they did for much of yesterday’s match they open the way for New Zealand to cut them to pieces. If they strip back their game and attempt to take all tempo out of the match they will be criticised on all sides, unless they win. And the chances of that are pretty remote. Remote but not out of the question.

For all the brave talk in defeat, for all the majesty of what was one of the great Test match tries, the Lions are doomed if they see that score as the template for how to win in Wellington. That try was exceptional. British and Irish rugby is not. It may well be that last night was as good as it gets in attack.

There is constant talk of chances being created, not finished. It echoes through the press conferences of this tour. The failure is so repetitive because it takes a higher quality player to turn most chances into tries. Lions make breaks but, most of the time, the support isn’t close enough, the final pass isn’t good enough.

When the Lions get turned over my eyes immediately scan the New Zealanders ready to counterattack. It makes a match into a magnificent spectacle as much of yesterday’s game was. It is also a style of rugby with only one possible ­outcome.

The Lions say they can fix the fault lines from Auckland. The tries not being finished is not easy to fix. Otherwise the squad would have fixed them three weeks ago. Another awful problem that keeps popping up is the lack of discipline and the number of errors. “Discipline wasn’t where it was at,” said Peter O’Mahony. “Discipline and errors cost us,” said Jonathan Davies. The Lions talk about these issues. They do not resolve them. When they play at a pace to which they are accustomed, the penalty count drops to acceptably low levels. However, when the game spins out of control, as it did against the Blues, Highlanders and again yesterday, the penalty count rises into the teens. They haven’t worked out (or maybe acknowledged) that the quicker the tempo of the game, the more mistakes — penalties and errors alike — are made. Things are happening at a level outside their comfort zone. This is when the fixable (yet still unfixed) penalties and errors are made.

The breakdown has been an area of strength, especially against the Crusaders and Maori, where the Lions pack dictated the pace of the game. Not last night, not against the All Blacks. Suddenly the players were puffing, oxygen levels low as they struggled to think straight at the point of contact. New Zealanders, playing at a more familiar lick, bossed the breakdown.

If you lose the breakdown against the All Blacks you lose the match. So it transpired. The stark reality is that no matter how much the Lions finishing, discipline, error count and breakdown improves, only a quantum leap will see them beat a home team happy with a fast game. New Zealand too will improve.

The more committed the attacking intent, the greater the opportunities available for each side. There was something noble about the Lions performance, something truly admirable, but a winning formula it was not. I can envisage a scenario where the Lions play even faster and better and score, say, four tries instead of two. If that happens the All Blacks will probably double their own tally and score six. 60-30 to New Zealand.

The greater the ambition the more the outcome is settled by players and not strategy. Look through the two squads and it is hard not to notice the marked superiority of the Kiwis. Man for man they are more skilled; which is why they tend to take their chances and we Europeans do not. The inability not to link missed opportunities with skill deficits is truly mind-boggling but we are intent on pretending New Zealand are not that much better than the rest of us when the results scream otherwise, year after year.

Play the same game and go down in flames. Play a game with more box kicking, as we saw in the first 30 minutes in Auckland, more kick, more chase — all done well of course — and they might box the Blacks in, in the right parts of the field. Close enough to the line to turn last night’s many excellent line breaks into tries.

An ugly plan will win no friends outside the UK and Ireland. Maybe a few within would prefer their rugby as wondrous as the one try to which we were treated at Eden Park. Such a game will lead to penalties and errors, which ends in defeat. It has happened three times already this tour. Bet your last Kiwi dollar that New Zealand will be praising the Lions attacking game and luring them towards the rocks."

@Siam said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@taniwharugby as a New Zealander, that's embarrassing.
No doubt a vociferous reaction coming to all those not social distancing. If that isn't acted on by the government then one wonders what the authoritarian approach to the COVID situation was all about.
What's it to be Cindy, go hard or capitulate to social warriors in an irrelevant protest?

@Siam said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@taniwharugby as a New Zealander, that's embarrassing.
No doubt a vociferous reaction coming to all those not social distancing. If that isn't acted on by the government then one wonders what the authoritarian approach to the COVID situation was all about.
What's it to be Cindy, go hard or capitulate to social warriors in an irrelevant protest?

She dodged a series of specific questions on that on Hosking’s show about half an hour ago. Honest and transparent.

@Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:

@voodoo mate at Huntington beach was off out to the pub on a bike in the weekend so must be relaxing.

Yeah that does sound relaxing.

@kiwiinmelb It never changes for me. Paint It Black. Followed by Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker).

@Hooroo said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@JC said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@Crucial said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@Nepia said in What are you listening to, right now................:

You guys are old, I was in nappies and at kindy at that time.

The first "concert" I can remember going to when I was 4 or 5 was Herbs at Napier Municipal Theatre, by going to I mean sitting out in the car park with my Aunty and cousins listening to the music. I think I only remember it because I'd been given an astronomical amount of money to buy lollies (probably $1) and so just pigged out the whole time.

Don't forget that in those days being uunderage wasn't such a big deal. As long as you kept your head down and didn't act like a dick it was pretty much self policing. I was only 14 in '79 but my mates were 15 and had licences and cars. Sneaking into Auckland from Manurewa was the go on a Saturday night. By 16 I was hanging out with bands and being taken to gigs with them. By 17 I was doing sound/lights and roadie-ing on occasions.
@JC is probably old though

Yeah old alright, I turned 18 in 79, in my second year at Uni. My first year I looked like a child (well let's face it, I was) so there was no drinking that year. The moment I got some bumfluff going on my top lip though I was unstoppable at the pubs. The Globe, The Kiwi, Occidental, one up the top of Symonds Street that I can't remember the name of was great because you could stop off at Tik's Tok's for a feed on the way back to the halls. I got caught in a raid with a couple of dozen other underagers in the Kiwi one afternoon so we had to relocate to the other pubs for a while until the bar staff stopped being pissed off at us. The guy in the Globe used to give us a heads-up if there was a raid due.

On of the guys in the hostel was a boot boy, I seem to remember he ended up going to jail for his involvement in a fairly brutal beating of a woman, I think at Zwines. Him and his mates were stopping anybody from intervening. fluffybunny of a young man.

What is a "Boot Boy"? Just a prick that kicks the hell out of someone?

Back in the day, skinheads with Doc Martens 1460s, Sta-Prest pants, braces and a bad attitude. Thugs, mostly racist. They would fight in packs and didn’t need a reason. And yes they kicked the hell out of people.

@Crucial said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@Nepia said in What are you listening to, right now................:

You guys are old, I was in nappies and at kindy at that time.

The first "concert" I can remember going to when I was 4 or 5 was Herbs at Napier Municipal Theatre, by going to I mean sitting out in the car park with my Aunty and cousins listening to the music. I think I only remember it because I'd been given an astronomical amount of money to buy lollies (probably $1) and so just pigged out the whole time.

Don't forget that in those days being uunderage wasn't such a big deal. As long as you kept your head down and didn't act like a dick it was pretty much self policing. I was only 14 in '79 but my mates were 15 and had licences and cars. Sneaking into Auckland from Manurewa was the go on a Saturday night. By 16 I was hanging out with bands and being taken to gigs with them. By 17 I was doing sound/lights and roadie-ing on occasions.
@JC is probably old though

Yeah old alright, I turned 18 in 79, in my second year at Uni. My first year I looked like a child (well let's face it, I was) so there was no drinking that year. The moment I got some bumfluff going on my top lip though I was unstoppable at the pubs. The Globe, The Kiwi, Occidental, one up the top of Symonds Street that I can't remember the name of was great because you could stop off at Tik's Tok's for a feed on the way back to the halls. I got caught in a raid with a couple of dozen other underagers in the Kiwi one afternoon so we had to relocate to the other pubs for a while until the bar staff stopped being pissed off at us. The guy in the Globe used to give us a heads-up if there was a raid due.

On of the guys in the hostel was a boot boy, I seem to remember he ended up going to jail for his involvement in a fairly brutal beating of a woman, I think at Zwines. Him and his mates were stopping anybody from intervening. fluffybunny of a young man.

@Crucial Yep. They said his leaving was about musical differences but apparently the real story was they had had an argument about how to make a cup of coffee. Imagine for a moment the producer was Mike Chunn. Because it was. At the same time as he was playing Julia on the circuit with Citizen Band he was recording that appalling noise. Top work.

@Crucial No no no. You misspelled “Suicide 2“ by Proud Scum. Let me refresh your memory:

Even their names were awesome. Jonathan Jamrag. John Atrocity. Bruce Hulk. Alistair Rabbit. Skid Rowe, admittedly not so much.

@Crucial said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@JC said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@kiwiinmelb Island of Real was in Airedale Street. I saw a few bands there Sheerlux, basically a punk covers band, then Rooter a few weeks later. They were a laugh. Toy Love too, they were a different league altogether. It was a weird venue, I guess it was a cafe, but that was before anyone in NZ knew how to make decent coffee. So everybody seemed to be drinking water to wash down mandies or smuggled in vodka. Or Benadryl and morning glory seeds.

I might be confusing my venues but did Island of Real evolve into the equally short lived CS Cafe?

Haven’t heard the name Sheerlux in decades

I don’t know about the XS cafe thing sorry. When I could get away with drinking underage I started hitting the Windsor, Gluepot, Globe, Mainstreet, New Station etc. I was at O’Rorke Hall right beside the Globe so that was ideal.

Sheerlux were OK I guess, they could play well but they were pretend punks who took a lot of stick for not being real enough. I was never a punk but some of the music that came out of the NZ scene was awesome. Proud Scum were my favourite band for a while.

@kiwiinmelb Island of Real was in Airedale Street. I saw a few bands there Sheerlux, basically a punk covers band, then Rooter a few weeks later. They were a laugh. Toy Love too, they were a different league altogether. It was a weird venue, I guess it was a cafe, but that was before anyone in NZ knew how to make decent coffee. So everybody seemed to be drinking water to wash down mandies or smuggled in vodka. Or Benadryl and morning glory seeds.

@dogmeat said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@JC said in What are you listening to, right now................:

@Snowy No More Heroes. If I remember I heard Rattus at a party and went out and bought it. Bugger me if a couple of days later No More Heroes was out. Back then there was no NZ music press, not even Rip It Up., so there was no way of knowing when records would be released. They just appeared.

Not true. There was Hot Licks - I know as I reviewed for them. I had to try and find something to write about Jonathan Livingston Seagull

Wasn’t Hot Licks dead by then? My memory is hazy but I thought that’s where the RipItUp guys came from