Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely off topic.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upDeception is what the left work hard at. Better our schools concentrate on the three R's and give kids a good start in life. Instead I have it from a teacher that they're liable to spend at least 30% of the teaching time on Kapa Haka and god knows how
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that 1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely off topic.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that 1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is you, it looks the same.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely >>off topic.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that >>1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but >>probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the >>silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
I am one now you twerp.You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like >>you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would >>be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely >off topic.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that 1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but >probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the >silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you? >Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would be >slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:That's why Rich is defending it so vociferously! It's holy writ from the depths of the left sewer...
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is you, it looks the same.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed theI am one now you twerp.
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is >you, it looks the same.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that >>>1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but >>>probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like >>>you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would >>>be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic science.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is >>you, it looks the same.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that >>>>1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but >>>>probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of >>>>the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like >>>>you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't >>>>you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would >>>>be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Wonder which science degree Rich imagines he has? He'seems to be very enamoured of Labours belief that if you believe you are something it must be true. So typical of stupid little Marxists everywhere!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basicThe point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is >>>you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of >>>>>the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't >>>>>you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic >science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo Rich! YOUR simplistic view, lack of comprehension and trust in a comedy site has as usual let you down!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>have you?
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basicSee if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of >>>>>>the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't >>>>>>you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>have you?
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic >>science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyI understand your jealousy; one in a thousand undereducated people with no real qualifications are jealous of those of us who have earned ours.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that >>>>is
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you >>>>>>that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate >>>>>>but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of >>>>>>the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people >>>>>>like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't >>>>>>you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you >>>>>>would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>have you?
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Irrelevant - there are no far right parties in this country.Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic >>science.
There is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Nobody who uses logic the way he does ever earned any tertiary qualifications.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Wonder which science degree Rich imagines he has? He'seems to be very >enamoured of Labours belief that if you believe you are something it must be >true. So typical of stupid little Marxists everywhere!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that >> >>is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you >> >>>>that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate >> >>>>but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context >> >>>>of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people >> >>>>like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs,
wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you
would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand >>basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >>>Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >>Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >>>>Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >>>>>Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>What a kind and thoughful offer.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary. >>>>>Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up >>>>>>>>>>>
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>>>entirelyoff topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told >>>>>>>>>>you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and >>>>>>>>that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you >>>>>>>>>>would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand >>>>>>basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Nonsense, that is not the issue.Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >auto-check when sending a message.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte AgentThank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to auto-check when sending a message.
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ politicalOthers have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Spot on.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
off topic.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>>>>entirely
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or
'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right"
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
off topic.
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are >>>>>>>>>>>entirely
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or
'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
On 2023-05-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Spot on.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or
'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Hence we have Liberal Fascism Governments, including the present NZ. The >policies/ideas have merit but the carrying of them out is authoritarian. A >case of do as I say as it is good for you. Do not think.
To me left and right politically is just a general term, a bit like short
and tall people. It is not exact as in we have a tape measure.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Of course some have difficulty with the "far right" nonsensical descriptor. It is meaningless and has no basis in fact.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right"
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
entirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>are
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told >>>>>>>>>>>>you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >>>>>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and >>>>>>>>>>that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand >>>>>>>>basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>'small' government respectively.
as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of
centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further
right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
Most of that has also no basis in fact. Just a bland uninformed opinion.I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as >libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less so
than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to
describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the
name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn
the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three
UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their
actions . . .)
On 23 May 2023 23:23:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best annoying and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
On 2023-05-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Spot on.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and >>>>>>>>>>>that is
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told >>>>>>>>>>>>>you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or
'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Hence we have Liberal Fascism Governments, including the present NZ. The >>policies/ideas have merit but the carrying of them out is authoritarian. A >>case of do as I say as it is good for you. Do not think.
To me left and right politically is just a general term, a bit like short >>and tall people. It is not exact as in we have a tape measure.
I agree
, although most would be able to rank political parties from
left to right in a similar order. Small parties can be difficult to
place as they can change views depending on specific issues or who is
in the party - Peter Dunne tried to straddle the middle of most issues
in his various parties for example, but was on balance most often
between Labour and National.
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:but National voted for it" because it doesn't matter as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could do about it!
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >> >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyyou, it looks the same.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second >> >>>>>>>>language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >> >>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upentirely
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . . >> >>>>>>>>>You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >> >>>>>>>>
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >> >>>>>>>>have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >> >>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get
corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties. All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. Don't come out with your "
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThe jury is still out on that. Those of us that actually think, wonder why the government refuses to have an inquiry into the pandemic response - there could be nefarious reasons for that.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>> >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>> >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematicalYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal withAah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tonyyou, it looks the same.secondYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>> >>>>>>>>>arehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . >>> >>>>>>>>>>.
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told >>> >>>>>>>>>you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an
unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the
context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>> >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>> >>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and >>> >>>>>>>that is
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>> >>>>>>>>>people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>> >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>> >>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>> >>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>> >>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>> >>>>>>>>
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>> >>>>>>it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>> >>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
binary.
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to
understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get
corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your >>rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties.
All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian >>attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just >>authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme >>court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. >>Don't come out with your "but National voted for it" because it doesn't matter
as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could
do about it!
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, then
their incomes. Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions. National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but >without overall loss of lives.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:One of which is it was a typical ill conceived idea that wasn't really fit for purpose!
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They wantYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>> >>>>>binary.Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>> >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunkOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, andBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>> >>>>>>>>secondYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right youhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . .
.
are
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an
unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>> >>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>> >>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs,
wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>> >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>> >>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to
understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>> >>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>> >>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>> >>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>> >>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>> >to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>> >corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>> >your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>> >this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>> to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>> the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your >>rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties.
All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian >>attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just
authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme >>court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. >>Don't come out with your "but National voted for it" because it doesn't matter
as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could
do about it!
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, thenThe jury is still out on that. Those of us that actually think, wonder why the
their incomes. Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions. National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but >without overall loss of lives.
government refuses to have an inquiry into the pandemic response - there could
be nefarious reasons for that.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesbut National voted for it" because it doesn't matter as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could do about it!
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>> >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>> >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonyyou, it looks the same.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>> >>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>> >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>> >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>> >>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>> >>>>>>>>
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>> >>>>>>it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>> >>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get
corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties. All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. Don't come out with your "
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, then
their incomes.
Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions.
National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but without overall loss of lives.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesbut National voted for it" because it doesn't matter as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could do about it!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >> >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >> >>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >> >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >> >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >> >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >> >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I
was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to
the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >> >to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get
corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >> >your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not
to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties. All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. Don't come out with your "
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, thenLabour were slow and weak in the first response which most NZers believe. It was MIQ, mandates and the podium of truth which showed their true dictatorial approach to the controls Rich. Only a gormless little left wing troll like you would deny that!
their incomes. Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions. National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but without overall loss of lives.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with binary.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and that is
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of definingApparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right"
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >'small' government respectively.
as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of
centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further
right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less soI haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to
describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the
name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn
the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three
UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their
actions . . .)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:A lot of people may be wondering that, Tony - but then a simple search
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The jury is still out on that. Those of us that actually think, wonder why the >government refuses to have an inquiry into the pandemic response - there could >be nefarious reasons for that.
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>> >>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>> >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematicalYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>> >>>>>binary.Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>> >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>> >>>>>>it!Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, andsecondYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>> >>>>>>>>>arehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . >>>> >>>>>>>>>>.
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an
unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>> >>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>> >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>> >>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>> >>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>> >>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>> >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>> >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is
gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to
understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony.
(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and
the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>> >>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>> >>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel
free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>> >to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>> >corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>> >your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of
this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>> to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to
the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your >>>rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori parties.
All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian >>>attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not just >>>authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme >>>court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. >>>Don't come out with your "but National voted for it" because it doesn't matter
as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT could
do about it!
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, then
their incomes. Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions. National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but >>without overall loss of lives.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23 May 2023 23:23:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best annoying >and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
On 2023-05-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Spot on.
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or
'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Hence we have Liberal Fascism Governments, including the present NZ. The >>>policies/ideas have merit but the carrying of them out is authoritarian. A >>>case of do as I say as it is good for you. Do not think.
To me left and right politically is just a general term, a bit like short >>>and tall people. It is not exact as in we have a tape measure.
I agree
, although most would be able to rank political parties from
left to right in a similar order. Small parties can be difficult to
place as they can change views depending on specific issues or who is
in the party - Peter Dunne tried to straddle the middle of most issues
in his various parties for example, but was on balance most often
between Labour and National.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What are your bland uninformed opinions on the issues covered, Tony?
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Of course some have difficulty with the "far right" nonsensical descriptor. It >is meaningless and has no basis in fact.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right"
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:you, it looks the same.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>>>Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, and >>>>>>>>>>>that is
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I told >>>>>>>>>>>>>you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a second
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>people likeWell ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician, >>>>>>>>>>>>have you?
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour when >>>>>>>>>>you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to understand
basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>'small' government respectively.
as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of
centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further
right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
Most of that has also no basis in fact. Just a bland uninformed opinion.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as >>libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less so
than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to
describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the
name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn
the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three
UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their
actions . . .)
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:47:13 -0000 (UTC), TonySo where is it and when?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:A lot of people may be wondering that, Tony - but then a simple search
On Tue, 23 May 2023 16:11:06 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:The jury is still out on that. Those of us that actually think, wonder why >>the
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:53:40?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> >wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> >>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it toI had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo.Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They >>>>> >>>>wantYou ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>> >>>>>binary.Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>> >>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>> >>>>>>it!Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, >>>>> >>>>>>>andlanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem toYou may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>> >>>>>>>>>arehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>.
.
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>> >>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>> >>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>> >>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>> >>>>>>>>second
understand.
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>> >>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or
Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger
counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>> >>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a
mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>> >>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>> >>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour >>>>> >>>>>>whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>> >>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>> >>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical
language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to
understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>> >>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant
'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>> >>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood -
clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>> >>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>> >>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>> >>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent
than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>> >to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get
spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>> >corrected.
auto-check when sending a message.
Your not aware of much are you Rich! :)
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>> >your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political
parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political
organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>> >this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother
with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity
gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the
Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political
parties.
provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>> to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning. I have
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>> the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian
axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don
Brash.
If you're really interested in Authoritarian Rich I suggest you take your >>>>rose tinted glasses off and have a good look at the Labour/Green/Maori >>>>parties.
All of which are from the dark side of politics in their Authoritarian >>>>attitudes!
Are you saying Labours mandates and response to vaccinations wasn't not >>>>just
authoritarian but in breach of NZ's Bill of Rights! That from the Supreme >>>>court! Kind of destroys your regular wails about Labour being law abiding. >>>>Don't come out with your "but National voted for it" because it doesn't >>>>matter
as Labour had an overwhelming majority and there was nothing National/SCT >>>>could
do about it!
In an emergency, Labour put the lives of New Zealanders first, then
their incomes. Just as a war leaves few options, a pandemic
concentrates actions. National clearly wishes to look after business;
as it happened the actions of Labour protected businesses as well, but >>>without overall loss of lives.
government refuses to have an inquiry into the pandemic response - there >>could
be nefarious reasons for that.
gives:
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Inquiry-into-COVID-19-Lessons
and >https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-12/Summary%20of%20ToR%20for%20Royal%20Commission%20into%20COVID%20and%20any%20future%20pandemic.pdf
and >https://covid19.govt.nz/news-and-data/latest-news/royal-commission-to-draw-lessons-from-pandemic-response/
and >https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/05-12-2022/nzs-covid-19-response-to-be-investigated-by-royal-commission-of-inquiry
and >https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-launches-inquiry-into-covid-pandemic-response/a-63984486
and >https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/official-inquiry-covid-19-pandemic-response-its-time-and-its-vital
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:52:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou insulted everybody in this group. You use far right as an accusation, you know that, I know that and now you are doing the 5 year old bit of saying but that is not what I meant. You are a liar.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23 May 2023 23:23:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>annoying
On 2023-05-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Spot on.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, >>>>>>>>>>>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. .
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>second
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour >>>>>>>>>>>>whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>>understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining
'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>>> 'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>>Brash.
related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
Hence we have Liberal Fascism Governments, including the present NZ. The >>>>policies/ideas have merit but the carrying of them out is authoritarian. A >>>>case of do as I say as it is good for you. Do not think.
To me left and right politically is just a general term, a bit like short >>>>and tall people. It is not exact as in we have a tape measure.
I agree
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
, although most would be able to rank political parties from
left to right in a similar order. Small parties can be difficult to
place as they can change views depending on specific issues or who is
in the party - Peter Dunne tried to straddle the middle of most issues
in his various parties for example, but was on balance most often
between Labour and National.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyI was referring to you. My opinions are informed and rarely bland.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Of course some have difficulty with the "far right" nonsensical descriptor. >>It
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right"
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want >>>>>>>>>schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, >>>>>>>>>>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>second
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>understand
basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining >>>>'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>>'small' government respectively.
as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of
centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further >>>right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
is meaningless and has no basis in fact.
Most of that has also no basis in fact. Just a bland uninformed opinion. >What are your bland uninformed opinions on the issues covered, Tony?
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly >>>>related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>Brash.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as >>>libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less so
than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to
describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the >>>name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn >>>the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three
UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their >>>actions . . .)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ironic; you give an unsupported statement that is clearly wrong - I
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyI was referring to you. My opinions are informed and rarely bland.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Of course some have difficulty with the "far right" nonsensical descriptor. >>>It
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right" >>>>as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of >>>>centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further >>>>right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>>
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk >>>>>>>>>>>>it!
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, >>>>>>>>>>>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-uplanguage; which is a complexity that you do not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand.
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . .
.
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>second
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point of the article; but then you have never been a mathematician,
have you?
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your >>>>>>>>>>rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>>understand
basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics?
Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining >>>>>'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>>>'small' government respectively.
is meaningless and has no basis in fact.
Most of that has also no basis in fact. Just a bland uninformed opinion. >>What are your bland uninformed opinions on the issues covered, Tony?
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly >>>>>related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>>Brash.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as >>>>libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less so >>>>than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to >>>>describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the >>>>name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn >>>>the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three >>>>UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their >>>>actions . . .)
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:52:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23 May 2023 23:23:56 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-05-23, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Spot on.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They want
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people,
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>second
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right you
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has .
. .
are
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the
context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is ten.
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand.
and
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse
people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical constructs,
wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>mathematician,
have you?
suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric.It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1,
deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour >>>>>>>>>>>>when
you think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>>understand basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics? >>>>>>>>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>>
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised
to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that
your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining >>>>> 'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>>> 'small' government respectively.
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly >>>>> related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>>Brash.
Hence we have Liberal Fascism Governments, including the present NZ. The >>>>policies/ideas have merit but the carrying of them out is authoritarian. A
case of do as I say as it is good for you. Do not think.
A liar yes. But also stupid enough to think we don't understand that Labour isn't centerist but is in fact far right and authoritarian if not totalitarian! Despite Rich's uninformed belief...So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>annoying
To me left and right politically is just a general term, a bit like short
and tall people. It is not exact as in we have a tape measure.
I agree
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;You insulted everybody in this group. You use far right as an accusation, you
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
know that, I know that and now you are doing the 5 year old bit of saying but
that is not what I meant. You are a liar.
, although most would be able to rank political parties from
left to right in a similar order. Small parties can be difficult to >>>place as they can change views depending on specific issues or who is >>>in the party - Peter Dunne tried to straddle the middle of most issues >>>in his various parties for example, but was on balance most often >>>between Labour and National.
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who >acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National
Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would not
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his
position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for
New Zealand on the political compass - see >https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right
of the National Party.
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There
is a list of registered parties here: >https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:08:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyPerhaps you are an idiot - many things are possible. What I said is clearly correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Ironic; you give an unsupported statement that is clearly wrong - I
On Wed, 24 May 2023 03:49:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyI was referring to you. My opinions are informed and rarely bland.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 07:55:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Of course some have difficulty with the "far right" nonsensical descriptor. >>>>It
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:52:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Apparently some have difficulty accepting a descriptor of "far right" >>>>>as distinct from just ''right'' - I see Labour as being right of >>>>>centre, The Green party being left of centre, National being further >>>>>right than Labour, and ACT slightly further right than National.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:05:14 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 20:46:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Thank you. I was not aware that it could do this - I have set it to >>>>>>>auto-check when sending a message.
On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:36:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:36:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Some have strange views about political parties in New Zealand, and >>>>>>>>>the concepts of 'left' and 'right' are also not well understood - >>>>>>>>>clearly the concept of 'far right' is an emotive subject for some; I >>>>>>>>>was merely seeing if there is some common ground for some posters to >>>>>>>>>the group by looking at things a slightly different way . . . Feel >>>>>>>>>free to comment if you wish - this is an open group.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your simplisytic view misses the point of the article, Tony. They >>>>>>>>>>>want
On Mon, 22 May 2023 05:11:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You ere taken in by the stupid article that confused decimal with >>>>>>>>>>>>binary.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Aah, the power of Seymour - he tells Tony that 1 + 1 = 2 and Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>suddenly becomes a methematician is his own eyes - Who woulda thunk
On Mon, 22 May 2023 02:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh what a silly little man you are. You say that to most people, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-upBut to most people it looks the same - it is effectively in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>second
You may be correct, but since ACT is nowehere near far right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
.
are
entirely
off topic.
On topic however, the author says "Would it surprise you if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
you that
1+1
could also equal 10?"
For someone with a degree in applied mathematics that is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunate but
probably deliberate bit of deceit.
The implication is that 10 is the number ten. It is not in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>context of
the
silliness this author has posted. It is binary and never is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ten.
language; which is a complexity that you do not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand.
that is
you, it looks the same.
Not complex but you were taken in.
QED
I am one now you twerp.
You would think that the author would be careful not to confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people like
you
that do not understand slightly complex mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>constructs,
wouldn't
you?
Thank goodness the author did not dive into Octal or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hexadecimal,
you would
be
slavering at the bit. Best you keep to simple ten finger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>counting.
Well ahead of you there, Tony, but you do seem to have missed the
point of the article; but then you have never been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mathematician,
have you?
it!
The point of the article was childishness and political rhetoric. >>>>>>>>>>>>>It does appear that while you have sudden skills at adding 1 + 1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>deeper knowledge yet again escapes you, Tony - just like Seymour >>>>>>>>>>>>>whenyou think of it. Still, the polls suggest that the far right is >>>>>>>>>>>>>gaining at the expense of the Nats . . .
schoolchildren to look beyond the simplistic views, to go beyond your
rote learning to a true understanding, not just of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>>language, but its application to our modern world.
Gordon and I picked it immediately. You are still failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>understand
basic
science.
TYhere is no far right party in this country.
See if you can pick which party is furtherst from the left, Tony. >>>>>>>>>>>(Hint, there is a bit of competition for that position!)
Since when is 'furtherst from the left' (I assume you meant >>>>>>>>>>'farthest') anything to do with 'far right' in NZ politics? >>>>>>>>>I had intended to write furthest - the additional 'r' was a typo. >>>>>>>>>
Message headers reveal that you use a later version of Forte Agent >>>>>>>>than me and it has a built-in spell-checker that you have been advised >>>>>>>>to use before, so I have no tolerance of your typos. My posts get >>>>>>>>spell-checked when I press 'send' and there are always typos that get >>>>>>>>corrected.
You have repeatedly used the soubriquet 'far right' so many times that >>>>>>>>your use of this term is clearly an attempt to slur NZ political >>>>>>>>parties with the same brush as many truly far-right political >>>>>>>>organisations overseas (principally the USA and Europe). Your use of >>>>>>>>this term is clearly a deliberate put-down and slur. Don't bother >>>>>>>>with the whitewash you have posted above - your historic activity >>>>>>>>gives the lie to you being objective, as is your reference to the >>>>>>>>Political Compass website and its nonsensical framing of political >>>>>>>>parties.
Others have objected to the Political Compass, but none have ever >>>>>>>provided any realistic alternative, or even any reasonable reasons not >>>>>>>to use it for broad comparisons of party positioning.
That is because we don't need websites for the purpose of defining >>>>>>'left' or 'right' wing politics. The difference is simply 'large' or >>>>>>'small' government respectively.
is meaningless and has no basis in fact.
Most of that has also no basis in fact. Just a bland uninformed opinion. >>>What are your bland uninformed opinions on the issues covered, Tony?
I haveDefining 'authoritarian' or 'liberal' governments is not directly >>>>>>related to 'left' or 'right' because both can be either.
previously made it clear that in using left / right I am referring to >>>>>>>the economic policy comparison, not the Authoritarian / Libertarian >>>>>>>axis, where ACT has made a significant change since the days of Don >>>>>>>Brash.
Exactly; National is more authoritarian than Labour; ACT is nearly as >>>>>libertarian as The Green Party; Labour is authoritarian, but less so >>>>>than National. ("Liberal" can be confusing the term is used to >>>>>describe the least authoritarian members of National, but is also the >>>>>name of the conservative party in Australia; "Conservative" is in turn >>>>>the name of the right wing party in the UK - certainly the last three >>>>>UK Prime Ministers were not particularly ''conservative'' in their >>>>>actions . . .)
was asking for your opinion, Tony; perhaps you do not have one?
Yes - Rich will never agree however.https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087865/why-critical-maths-adds-up
Cheap anti-intellectual slogans may be all the far right has . . .
It's a stupid article by a silly journalist who lacks understanding of NZ's >desperately poor numeracy. Instead of trying to look clever with her silly >binary arithmetic stunt she should do her job and draw attention on NZ >children's numeracy and literacy disaster.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's a comment based on your profound stupidity is supporting a website that has been shown to be wrong.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe >>believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who >acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool forHe does not show any suppport for the validity of the website and he and you together make two people silly enough to pretend to believe something that is patently ridiculous in most of their claims - two people, so that is the end of that eh!
identification of political views - see >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the NationalOff topic.
Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would not
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his
position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for
New Zealand on the political compass - see >https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right
of the National Party.
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. ThereOff topic - none of them are relevant here and now. If they get in to parlioament I will take them seriously but until then they are just the straws you are clutching.
is a list of registered parties here: >https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was theAs stated there are no far right parties in NZ so your question is fatuous.
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >>>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information; >>>>>is there something wrong with being the furthest right political >>>>>party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >>statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who >>acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see >>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how
his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass isDavid Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would notOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his >>position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for
New Zealand on the political compass - see >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right
of the National Party.
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There
is a list of registered parties here: >>https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left
(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none
are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:10:35?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:imbecile :)
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >> >>>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
wrote:
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >> >>>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest
statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who
acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how
his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers
Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a
casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit
for unclear purposes.
Rubbish! Prove consistent use of it Rich or admit you're just lying to uphold your stupid "opinion".
Point out where it appears here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/01/general_debate_25_january_2023.html or here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ or even here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/about . Gee whiz. Looks like it is just another stupid lie from the ng
the world.No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass is
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the NationalOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would not
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his
position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for
New Zealand on the political compass - see
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right
of the National Party.
"a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
universe believes."
A lot closer than your blind acceptance of it as the be all of political positions Rich. But guess that's you through and through. Hell bent on displaying just how out of touch you are with reality and anything that doesn't fit your political view of
I agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right,
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There
is a list of registered parties here:
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left
(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none
are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed
policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they
are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get
National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a
realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too
old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have
become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the
soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now
some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The
rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT), John BowesDo you really expect us to accept that is an endorsement of political compass? Seriously?
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:10:35?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using >>> >>>a
wrote:
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>> >>>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information; >>> >>>>>is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe >>> >>>believes.
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest
statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who
acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how
his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers
Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a
casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit
for unclear purposes.
Rubbish! Prove consistent use of it Rich or admit you're just lying to uphold >>your stupid "opinion".
Point out where it appears here >>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/01/general_debate_25_january_2023.html or here
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ or even here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/about . Gee
whiz. Looks like it is just another stupid lie from the ng imbecile :)
I gave the url above, John Bowes, but just for you here is again: >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass is
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >>> >>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would notOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his
position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for >>> >>New Zealand on the political compass - see
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right >>> >>of the National Party.
"a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
universe believes."
A lot closer than your blind acceptance of it as the be all of political >>positions Rich. But guess that's you through and through. Hell bent on >>displaying just how out of touch you are with reality and anything that doesn't
fit your political view of the world.
I agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right,
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There >>> >>is a list of registered parties here:
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left
(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none
are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed
policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they
are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get
National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a
realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too
old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have
become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the
soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now
some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The
rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesimbecile :)
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:10:35?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best
annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information; >> >>>>>is there something wrong with being the furthest right political
party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I
certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest
statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who
acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how >> >his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers
Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a
casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit
for unclear purposes.
Rubbish! Prove consistent use of it Rich or admit you're just lying to uphold your stupid "opinion".
Point out where it appears here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/01/general_debate_25_january_2023.html or here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ or even here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/about . Gee whiz. Looks like it is just another stupid lie from the ng
I gave the url above, John Bowes, but just for you here is again: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statementthe world.
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass is
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >> >>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would notOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he >> >>was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his
position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for >> >>New Zealand on the political compass - see
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right >> >>of the National Party.
"a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
universe believes."
A lot closer than your blind acceptance of it as the be all of political positions Rich. But guess that's you through and through. Hell bent on displaying just how out of touch you are with reality and anything that doesn't fit your political view of
Okay so for once you didn't lie. However the fact is there is no endorsement for your political compass still shows you lied to back up an idiotic "opinion"!
I agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right,
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There >> >>is a list of registered parties here:
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left
(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none >> >are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed
policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they
are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get
National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a
realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too
old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have
become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the
soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now
some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The
rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It's just rich showing his typical lack of comprehension and stupidity :)
On Wed, 24 May 2023 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:10:35?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>He is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more >>> recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best
annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information;
is there something wrong with being the furthest right political >>> >>>>>party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>> >>>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
a
biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe
believes.
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >>> >>statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who
acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for
identification of political views - see
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how >>> >his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers >>> Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a >>> casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit >>> for unclear purposes.
Rubbish! Prove consistent use of it Rich or admit you're just lying to uphold
your stupid "opinion".
Point out where it appears here >>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/01/general_debate_25_january_2023.html or here
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ or even here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/about . Gee
whiz. Looks like it is just another stupid lie from the ng imbecile :)
I gave the url above, John Bowes, but just for you here is again: >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statementDo you really expect us to accept that is an endorsement of political compass?
Seriously?
Of course it is not.
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass is >>> "a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >>> >>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would notOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he >>> >>was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his >>> >>position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for >>> >>New Zealand on the political compass - see
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right >>> >>of the National Party.
universe believes."
A lot closer than your blind acceptance of it as the be all of political >>positions Rich. But guess that's you through and through. Hell bent on >>displaying just how out of touch you are with reality and anything that doesn't
fit your political view of the world.
I agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right, >>> but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There >>> >>is a list of registered parties here:
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some >>> >>are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your
sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties >>> >>that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left
(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none >>> >are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they >>> are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get >>> National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a
realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too >>> old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have >>> become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the >>> soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now >>> some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The >>> rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >>>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information; >>>>>is there something wrong with being the furthest right political >>>>>party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >>statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who >>acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for >>identification of political views - see >>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of theHe is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how
his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers
Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit
for unclear purposes.
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass isDavid Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would not >>acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regardingOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he >>was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his >>position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for >>New Zealand on the political compass - see >>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT >>parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right >>of the National Party.
"a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
universe believes."
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There >>is a list of registered parties here: >>https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your >>sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties >>that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left >(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and noneI agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right,
are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they
are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too
old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have
become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the
soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now
some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The
rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
On Thu, 25 May 2023 11:45:29 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That was not a claim, it was a throw away comment (obviously way beyond your comprehension) to show how ludicrous it is to suggest that the poltical compass has any validation or value. That you picked up on it speaks volumes about you. >>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:51:37 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 20:12:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:56:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:He cannot and will fail if he tries because he has already failed using a >>>>biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the universe >>>>believes.
So why do you use silly descriptions like 'far right" that is at best >>>>>>>annoying
and at worst insulting to our intelligence?
I do not consider it silly - it is providing additional information; >>>>>>is there something wrong with being the furthest right political >>>>>>party? I do not think it possible to insult your intelligence; I >>>>>>certainly did not intend to try.
Define "far right".
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
"Nobody else in the Universe"! Now that must be one of your nuttiest >>>statements, Tony.
I have previously referred to one prominent political operator who >>>acknowledges the political compass as a worthwhile tool for >>>identification of political views - see >>>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
DPF is an interesting political commentator. His mention of the
Political Compass website is not an endorsement but a reference to how
his viewpoints score. The reference to left/right,
authoritarian/Liberal remains flawed.
He is more than just a commentator - he worked for National, then more >recently took on polling for National - he was particularly close to
John Key. Following Key's departure and the publicity for Dirty
Tricks, Farrar joined with Jordan Williams in starting the "Taxpayers
Union" which broadly supports National(It claims to fight for lower
taxes and less government waste), and the NZ Free Speech Union
(mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders' rights to
freedom of speech) which broadly supports ACT.
Kiwiblog was started in 2003, and has contained that acknowledgement
of the Political Compass from the start - in the late 1990s when he
posted to nz.general, there was at one stage a sharing of personal
results from doing the test - Farrar scored similar to the ACT score
on that 202o chart.
That consistent use of the Political Compass does indicate more than a
casual reference; it is effectively an endorsement of its use, albeit
for unclear purposes.
No, it is a direct response to the claim that the political compass is
David Farrar may regret some of his past involvement with the National >>>Party "Dirty Tricks" process, but I doubt that many would notOff-topic in your relentless pursuit of political rhetoric.
acknowledge his political experience, his instincts regarding
political propaganda, or his theoretical political knowledge. When he
was still posting to nz.general (before Kiwiblog), he identified his >>>position as being close to where ACT shows now on the latest chart for >>>New Zealand on the political compass - see >>>https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020 - which fits with his
political support still being in favour of both National and ACT
parties. He acknowledged at that time that his views were to the right
of the National Party.
"a biased and grossly innacurate website that nobody else in the
universe believes."
The political Compass does not include all parties in its chart. There
is a list of registered parties here: >>>https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/register-of-political-parties/
My question was which party nz.general posters believed was the
furthest to the right on the left-right economic axis - and yes some
are referred to as far-right. If it would make it easier for your >>>sensitive feelings, Tony, perhaps you could identify the two parties
that you see as most far-right or far-left.
My take: of the political parties in Parliament, none are far-left >>(although the Greens and the Maori Party are headed that way) and none
are far-right (or heading in that direction). The political parties
not in Parliament don't warrant attention to this detail.
I agree with you that, overall, National as a party is not far-right,
but that represents the broad consensus that comes through in agreed
policies (to the extent they are not agreed only by the Leader - they
are an authoritarian party!). There are individuals however in the
party that are far-right in their views. Some of the antics which get >National MPs booted out are for expressing or acting on far-right
views and related actions; those booted out by other parties tend to
have either been stupid (the most common for all parties), or from a >realisation that they will never rise further, or they are getting too
old. National do have a problem in that some of their supporters have
become anti-vax nutters - some of those hold those beliefs through the
soft approach National took to deliberate misinformation; they put
attacks on government ahead of the countries best interests; even now
some nutters deny that New Zealand did very well in saving lives. The
rise of the party under Tamaki that appears to be designed to appeal
to far-right nutters may be just what National need to allow them to
move to a more balanced approach.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:56:33 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,693 |