Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote >him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mpsWonder if cutting MP salary's and paying them by attendance would help. Plus drop MP golden handshake superannuation at the same time. Then we'd get more doing the job because they care rather than for the exorbitant returns...
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >the thought police have not showed up.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:57:16 AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
Wonder if cutting MP salary's and paying them by attendance would help. Plus drop MP golden handshake superannuation at the same time. Then we'd get more doing the job because they care rather than for the exorbitant returns...4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >the thought police have not showed up.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >the thought police have not showed up.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:57:16 AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:John Collinge, Jami-Lee Ross), wannabe rooters/sex pests (Chris Bishop), rioters (Uffindell, Shane Ardern) and really retrograde rapscallions. Only one organization comes close to the National Party for sheer unattractiveness and foulness---and that's
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
No there are not, Tony, you old liar. You know perfectly well that National AKA the Nasty Party has a shameful record of racists (Brash, John Slater, Jenny Shipley) rorters (Bill English, John Banks), rotters (Hamish Walker, Andrew Falloon), rooters (4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >the thought police have not showed up.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:30:27 PM UTC+12, John Bowes wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:57:16 AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
You'd lose all the ACT bludgers and most of National. Which would be a good thing.Wonder if cutting MP salary's and paying them by attendance would help. Plus drop MP golden handshake superannuation at the same time. Then we'd get more doing the job because they care rather than for the exorbitant returns...4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem thatI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no balance in it.
the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
Nah - it is you that lies.Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is nohttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >> >the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
No there are not, Tony, you old liar. You know perfectly well that National >AKA the Nasty Party has a shameful record of racists (Brash, John Slater, Jenny
Shipley) rorters (Bill English, John Banks), rotters (Hamish Walker, Andrew >Falloon), rooters (John Collinge, Jami-Lee Ross), wannabe rooters/sex pests >(Chris Bishop), rioters (Uffindell, Shane Ardern) and really retrograde >rapscallions. Only one organization comes close to the National Party for sheer
unattractiveness and foulness---and that's the ACT cult.
Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote >>him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >>the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for >some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and Waititi >and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote >>>him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >>>the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for >>some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >>>>the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>>>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to >>>>>vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >>>>>the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, >>>>for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds >what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Their share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>>>>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>>>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>>>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>>>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to >>>>>>vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that >>>>>>the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, >>>>>for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs usual Rich YOU are wrong! What else do you think the $55 million is used for? Read the criterion for receiving payments and then explain why many don't believe the msm are nothing but the propaganda wing of the Labour party! Then YOU apologise to Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyNothing like this piece of bullshit from you Rich. When it comes to pig ignorance Rich you beat even your inglorious misleader Chris Hipkins!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Their share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Their share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mpsI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >> >>>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your opinion is just pro government garbage...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mpsI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >> >>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >> >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >> >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the thr ignorant one. But why did you have to be so abusive?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money funds >>what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Their share of 55 million dollars - simple really.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there is no >>>>>>balance in it.
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while the >>>>>>>article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers repeating it >>>>>>>being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >>>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more than an >>>>>>>offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now power to >>>>>>>vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. Politics, >>>>>>for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, and >>>>>>Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >>>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He is distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your >opinion is just pro government garbage...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has >> >no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
The government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money >> >> >fundsYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but ITheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there >> >> >>>>>is nohttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while >> >> >>>>>>the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However >> >> >>>>>>
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now
power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, >> >> >>>>>and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >> >> >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >> >> >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See
you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich!
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Very few if any of Rich's responses make any sense. We're lucky if they're on topic :)
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He isOn Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
The government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but ITheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more >> >> >>>>>>than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to >> >> fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See
you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich!
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >>> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
The government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but ITheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >>> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article -
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>> >> supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >>They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He is
which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by
Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with
the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the
government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look
at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies
. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of
projects that have received funding is here: https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media
puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny
evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and fantasies.
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He is >distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your >>opinion is just pro government garbage...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air has
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >>> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
The government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money >>> >> >fundsYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but ITheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there >>> >> >>>>>is nohttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more >>> >> >>>>>>than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now
power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >>> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, >>> >> >>>>>and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article - >>> >> >>>>and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>> >> >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to >>> >> fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See
you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >>They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich!
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyI do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He >>isOn Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your >>>opinion is just pro government garbage...
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air >>>> >has
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >>>> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pigThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that money >>>> >> >fundsYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but ITheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because there >>>> >> >>>>>is nohttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates.
However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more >>>> >> >>>>>>than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >>>> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell, >>>> >> >>>>>and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article >>>> >> >>>>-
and the government would have read it at the same time as National. >>>> >> >>>>Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate
misinformation.
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to >>>> >> fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>> >history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >>>They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich!
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece
which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by
Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with
the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the
government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look
at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies
. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst
Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of
projects that have received funding is here: >https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media
puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny
evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >fantasies.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyI do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Clearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhere the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air >>>>> >has
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >>>>> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to >>>>> >> fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. YourThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.I think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers
repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more >>>>> >> >>>>>>than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>>>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >>>>> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>>>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it.
No government money was used in writing or publishing that article >>>>> >> >>>>-
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>> >> supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>> >history!
have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
above.
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >>>>They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He >>>is
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece
which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by
Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with
the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the
government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look
at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies
. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>projects that have received funding is here: >>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny
evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, there >is a name for that!I don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyI do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
isOn Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual your
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registrationThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing that articleI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now
power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>> >> >>>>
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>> >> supported your lies.
has
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years... >>>>> >Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>> >history!
above.
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism.
They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece
which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by
Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with >>the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the >>government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look
at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies
. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>projects that have received funding is here: >>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept
it and apologise.
You can't stand others opinions as this post of yours shows! do stop lying and relying on your own less than accurate opinion!Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your
is a name for that!
statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou really are an asinine fool if you believe that giving money to someone does not influence what they do or say. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of life.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyI do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >>they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSo why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual >>>>>your
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air >>>>>> >has
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registration >>>>>> >> is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used >>>>>> >>toThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that >>>>>> >> >moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing thatI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because >>>>>> >> >>>>>therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far >>>>>> >> >>>>>>more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>>>>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does >>>>>> >> >>>>>>seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>>>>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and
Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>>> >> >>>>
article
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as
National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>>> >> supported your lies.
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years...
Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>>> >history!
above.
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism. >>>>>They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He >>>>is
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece
which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by
Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with
the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the
government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look
at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies
. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>>projects that have received funding is here: >>>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept
it and apologise.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, >>thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your
is a name for that!
statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the >projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So are you now claiming that Stuff has not complied with the
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou really are an asinine fool if you believe that giving money to someone does
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >>>they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
is<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:So why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual >>>>>>your
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link >>>>>>> above.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registrationThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that >>>>>>> >> >moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing that >>>>>>> >> >>>>articleI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because >>>>>>> >> >>>>>therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and
Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>>>> >> >>>>
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as >>>>>>> >> >>>>National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used >>>>>>> >>to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>>>> >> supported your lies.
has
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years... >>>>>>> >Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>>>> >history!
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism.
They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece >>>>which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>>>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by >>>>Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>>>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with >>>>the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the >>>>government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>>>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look >>>>at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies >>>>. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>>>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>>>projects that have received funding is here: >>>>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>>>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>>>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>>>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept
it and apologise.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, >>>thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your
is a name for that!
statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the >>projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
not influence what they do or say. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of life.
Suck it up.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So are you now claiming that Stuff has not complied with the
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou really are an asinine fool if you believe that giving money to someone does
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
is<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:So why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link >>>>>>> above.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registrationThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that >>>>>>> >> >moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberate >>>>>>> >> >>misinformation.Their share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing that >>>>>>> >> >>>>articleI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because >>>>>>> >> >>>>>therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it
while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now
power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past.
Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and >>>>>>> >> >>>>>Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>>>> >> >>>>
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as >>>>>>> >> >>>>National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you).
Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig
ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used
to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism,
which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has
supported your lies.
has
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years... >>>>>>> >Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See
you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ
history!
your
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism.
They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece >>>>which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share >>>>of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>>>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by >>>>Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping >>>>below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>>>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with >>>>the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the >>>>government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>>>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look >>>>at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies >>>>. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>>>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>>>projects that have received funding is here: >>>>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>>>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>>>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to >>>>make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>>>fantasies.
they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept >>it and apologise.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, >>>thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your >>statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
is a name for that!
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the >>projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
not influence what they do or say. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of life.
Suck it up.
conditions of grants made to it from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund? Yes we know that not every person or company always complies
with the law, but that appears to be a big accusation you are making, without any evidence - on some matters it is prudent to have evidence, rather than just a personal opinion based on no facts at all . . .
So can you identify which grant from the Fund has not been compliedYou need to follow your own rules Rich. Stop blustering and provide some evidence Tony is wrong or for once in your useless life admit your just a feral Labour party troll defending the worst and most corrupt government in NZ history!
with? Bluster is not evidence, Tony.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am implying nothing of the sort - you need to take English comprehension lessons and stop spinning lies from what I wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So are you now claiming that Stuff has not complied with the
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou really are an asinine fool if you believe that giving money to someone >>does
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >>>>they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
is<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:So why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual >>>>>>>your
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link >>>>>>>> above.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on >>>>>>>> >Air
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicleThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that >>>>>>>> >> >moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing that >>>>>>>> >> >>>>articleI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>now
power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>past.
Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as >>>>>>>> >> >>>>National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
registration
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used >>>>>>>> >>to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>>>>> >> supported your lies.
has
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years... >>>>>>>> >Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>>>>> >history!
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi >>>>>>>journalism.
They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>>>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. >>>>>>He
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>>>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece >>>>>which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share >>>>>of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>>>>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by >>>>>Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping >>>>>below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>>>>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with >>>>>the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the >>>>>government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>>>>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look >>>>>at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies >>>>>. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>>>>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>>>>projects that have received funding is here: >>>>>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>>>>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>>>>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to >>>>>make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>>>>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept
it and apologise.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, >>>>thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your >>>statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
is a name for that!
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the >>>projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
not influence what they do or say. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of >>life.
Suck it up.
conditions of grants made to it from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund? Yes we know that not every person or company always complies
with the law, but that appears to be a big accusation you are making,
without any evidence - on some matters it is prudent to have evidence,
rather than just a personal opinion based on no facts at all . . .
So can you identify which grant from the Fund has not been compliedI agree that your bluster is nothing like evidence.
with? Bluster is not evidence, Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:22:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou really are an asinine fool if you believe that giving money to someone does
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:As always, your "facts" are just opinions, unsupported by any
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I do not deny evidence, you are lying. Stuff got some money, lots of it and >>>they have used it and do use it to support government agendas.
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 8:56:26 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
is<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:So why did you bring it into the thread? A distraction because as usual >>>>>>your
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:44:30?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 06:37:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyClearly you cannot comprehend a clear statement. Yes NZ n Air does >>>>>>> have links to specific journalism - it does not include the link >>>>>>> above.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Where the hell did NZ on Air come from? Nice to see you agree NZ on Air
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 05:53:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:57:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is like someone claiming that anyone paying vehicle registrationThe government paid them and others a share of $55 million, that >>>>>>> >> >moneyYour ignorant opinion is no proof. You are simply wrong - but I >>>>>>> >> >>suspect you know that, and are just spreading deliberateTheir share of 55 million dollars - simple really.No government money was used in writing or publishing that >>>>>>> >> >>>>articleI think the joke is offensive. But so is the article because >>>>>>> >> >>>>>therehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/131771613/how-an-offensive-joke-reveals-a-problem-with-how-national-chooses-its-mps
Never heard of Stephen Jack or the joke. Stuff then prints it >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>while
the
article is about how the joke is in poor taste.
It does look as if Stuff is in electing mode and considers >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>repeating it
being okay.
So National might have picked a few questionable candiates. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>However
1) National has not done this alone
2) Labour have over the last 3 years damage the country far >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>more
than an
offensive joke will
3) Not being in the electorate Jack is standing for I have now >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>power to
vote
him out or in.
4) Sure the joke will be offensive to some but at least it does
seem that
the thought police have not showed up.
is no
balance in it.
And there are just as many Labour incidents in the recent past. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>Politics,
for
some reason, attracts people like Jack, and Mahuta, and
Uffindell,
and
Waititi
and so on.
Yes, Stuff is earning the money the government has paid it. >>>>>>> >> >>>>
-
and the government would have read it at the same time as >>>>>>> >> >>>>National.
Prove collusion or apologise, Tony!
misinformation.
funds
what they publish - so as I said - simple really (just like you). >>>>>>> >> >Nothing for me to apologise for, but perhaps you should.
is funding the costs of Members of Parliament. Your are either pig >>>>>>> >> ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. No goverment money was used >>>>>>> >>to
fund that article. NZ on Air money is linked to specific journaism, >>>>>>> >> which does not include such reporting of political opinion. Your >>>>>>> >> persistent denial of truth is a disgrace to you and anyone who has >>>>>>> >> supported your lies.
has
no links to journalism. We've been telling you that for years... >>>>>>> >Denials of truth? Nah Rich that's your forte and always has been. See >>>>>>> >you're still doing it in defence of the most useless government in NZ >>>>>>> >history!
opinion is just pro government garbage...
Any of our main stream media have at best vague links to quasi journalism.
They're just the propaganda wing of your inglorious Labour party Rich! >>>>>New Zealand on air funding is absolutely nothing to do with this thread. He
distracting because he suddenly and belatedly realised that his >>>>>shoot-from-the-hip response to my post makes no sense.
It links to the thread "Stuff - the paid-for government mouthpiece >>>>which relates to the lie that Stuff is getting funding from "a share
of $55 million" that led to a claim that this link: >>>>https://twitter.com/OpinionistNZ/status/1647342554957086720
is evidence that government is paying for polirical commentary by >>>>Stuff, and to one of the nutters pushing that lie saying :
"Your constant support for a government that is steadily dropping
below National polling only makes me wonder how much YOU get from the >>>>Journalism bribe!"
and another from one or the other:
"Everyone knows that the news media in this country was paid off with >>>>the $55 covid fund and are still being paid off to promote the >>>>government line. The news media in NZ is just a New Zealand version of >>>>Pravda. Want to find out what's really going on here you have to look >>>>at overseas media."
and when asked for evidence, a stream of repitions of the earlier lies >>>>. . .
The reference to $55 million fund is clearly to the Public Interst >>>>Journalism Fund, which is administered through NZ on Air. A list of >>>>projects that have received funding is here: >>>>https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/
It is clear that Stuff has not been provided with money to be a media >>>>puppet - but I suspect Tony and John Bowes will continue to deny >>>>evidence, continue to lie about the government and and continue to
make statements without any evidence to back up their delusions and >>>>fantasies.
You can spin for the rest of your life but that is fact.
evidence. Your spin has just flushed you down the drain, Tony - accept
it and apologise.
Oh, and do stop being so rude to people with a different opinion to you, >>>thereI don;t mind different opinions - are you now claiming that your
is a name for that!
statement that Stuff used money from the Public Interest Journalism
Fund to support government agendas, Tony? I gave you the link to the >>projects that were approved - which of those are you referring to?
not influence what they do or say. That is not an opinion, it is a fact of life.
Suck it up.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:40:51 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,074 |