Garthwatch

No one seems to be concerned that the salacious slurs cast upon these revered historical figures might bring real distress to thousands of believers, reduce many to tears and drive others to their knees in lamentation and to beseech God to forgive the perpetrators.

I find it absolutely hilarious that a lot of the people who have commented and can't understand why a Christian would be offended are the same people who would be quick to get offended and attack those who don't believe their views on a several topics on Your Views

oh jason pedantic had a go at you

What a dipshit...
On the topic of South Park, he starts carrying on about slating Islam rather than Christianity. I guess he conveniently forgot the episodes where they do exactly that then.

.

What a dipshit...
On the topic of South Park, he starts carrying on about slating Islam rather than Christianity. I guess he conveniently forgot the episodes where they do exactly that then.

That whole column is a joke. I did enjoy a moment of delicious irony when he referenced Chirst Almighty! as being concieved from 'dark and ignorant minds'.... Ummm I wonder if he considered the countless number of people that have been murdered in the name of christ, or the brainwashing of hundreds of millions of people into believing dogma that can be easily disproved using irrefutable science, logic or just some plain old common sense.

when I get old

tbh, and it hurts me to say this about GG, i agree with quite a bit of that article.

Let's give him some credit. He has managed to distinguish between paedophiles and homosexuals, which is more than we might have expected. I like his explanation for not "touching" more often on male homosexuality, homosexuals being a far more "infinitesimal minority" than pedophiles. I suspect that the lack of writing on homosexuals has less to do with their minority status and more to do with the fact that the editor sat him down and told him that it was the twenty-first century, and he wasn't allowed to do it anymore because advertisers would complain. As for the vegan/vegetarian distinction, that's just the sort of quality, Google-led research I've come to expect from Garth.

I have written often about child abuse and paedophilia, have touched on male homosexuality but find it expedient these days simply to ignore such an infinitesimal minority, and every time I encounter a vegan or vegetarian (I'm told there's a difference) I simply shake my head in wonder.

Well that was weird... but then I suppose we've all talked to an elderly relative and had the same experience of conversation suddenly veering off course. Then again, most senile old folk don't have columns in the country's leading daily newspaper, a column which has swung from righteous rage at animal abuse to advice on getting a dog.

Our new national flag will, I desperately hope, not be a Maori flag. A flag representing a minority race, not a cosmopolitan nation, would be as inappropriate as our existing flag, which is essentially British.

The tino rangatiratanga flag is definitely out. Red and black are not only the colours of death but colours associated with anarchy and pan-Arabism.

And any other flag that has a Maori theme should not even be considered. The national flag must be representative of an independent nation in all its complexity yet must at the same time be simple and instantly recognisable.

As a last resort, perhaps, considering that we are infested by thieving Australian-owned banks and businesses owned by multinational corporations, which annually suck billions of dollars out of our economy - thanks to Douglas and co and their successors - we could well consider appropriating the Jolly Roger.

http://editingtheherald.blogspot.com/2010/02/party-on-garth-2010.html

Says it all really

Environmentalist David Suzuki made the point recently: If there are scientists who believe in creation who dont get media time to create the impression that doubt exists in the scientific community about how life came into being, why is it that the tiny proportion of scientists who deny global warming are taken seriously, as if there is doubt about climate change???

'Climate hysteria won't last test of time'

Fucking Herald Fucking Insane for printing this crap.

Environmentalist David Suzuki made the point recently: If there are scientists who believe in creation who dont get media time to create the impression that doubt exists in the scientific community about how life came into being, why is it that the tiny proportion of scientists who deny global warming are taken seriously, as if there is doubt about climate change???

1 is it a tiny minority who deny (or at least are sceptical of) global warming?
2 the herald has an oblgation to print all views
3 scientists who believe in creationism have expressed their views in the herald

the herald has an oblgation to print all views

I wasn't aware of this obligation

So should it print flat earthers?

I suppose it was inevitable that the feeding frenzy about various “gates” in the British press would attract the attention of the wise old man of Rotorua, Garth George. In today’s Herald he emerges from his sulphurous lair to add his muted sqeak to the hubbub.

I wasn't aware of this obligation

Even Brian Rudman - and God knows I wish sometimes that one of his beloved volcanic cones would erupt right under his bum....

So, do newspapers reflect society or the other way round? Frankly, I don't give a damn as long as my newspapers keep arriving every day and continue to contain serious, intelligent news, information and analysis that you can't get anywhere else.

Not that I have any objection to Whanau Ora being just for Maori. Separatism has been the order of the Maori day for decades now and if Whanau Ora manages to alleviate the dreadful social problems that afflict that race, then all of us would benefit.

Garth George has this climate science stuff sorted out, it's a scam you see. And even if it weren't, New Zealand's emissions make such a tiny proportion of the worlds carbon dioxide we should just do nothing. You want evidence or New Zealand's tiny carbon footprint? Well, George doesn't need evidence because he has his suspicions:




But, as Gareth Renowden points out at Hot Topic, George's suspicions don't match the data. In order to work out how much carbon dioxide Mt Unpronounceable (Paul Litterick's joke, not mine) was shooting into the atmosphere the Guardian took the surprising step of asking some scientists. The upper bound of their estimates is 300 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per day (or about 1040 tonnes in 5 minutes). Impressive, but not much when compared with the 377 million tonnes New Zealanders managed between 2004 and 2008.

Amazingly, Garth George's estimate is out by a factor of 2.75 million. That's equivalent to estimating the driving distance between Dunedin and Auckland as being 60cm. I couldn't let a week that combined such breathtaking stupidity with this nice infographic go without memorialising George's folly:

"Surely it is perfectly logical to acknowledge that if female groupies attach themselves to sportsmen, drink with them and take them home, chances are they'll end up screwed."

players in recent years should surely have warned any sports-loving young woman to stay well away unless she is prepared to go all the way.

That one is straight up unbelievable, I honestly can not believe the Herald printed it. "Maori walk slow to piss off white people" and "rugby players rape so woman shouldn't be around them". Hole. E. Shit.