22 Comments Posted

  1. greenfly Says:
    October 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    > btw – Key lives in HELENSVILLE????? No !!!

    No, he lives in a big grey house in Parnell, and also has homes in Wellington, Orewa and Honolulu, if I remember correctly. Helensville’s just the electorate he stands in. Don’t know if he chose it for the name, or what.

  2. owen – that’s a very generous interpretation of what those turf salesmen do! Pigpost? That’s a new one on me? What’s that?
    btw – Key lives in HELENSVILLE????? No !!!!

  3. I suspect that people who sell turf are selling just that.
    They would scrape out an area and fill it with pigpost compost mix (which they would buy from somewhere else) and then plant the grass seed and when the turf was sold they would sell it and then repeat the process over and over – complete with any worms.
    Consequently I would assume that they are adding to the world’s supply of mature topsoil rather than diminishing it.

  4. Yes, you’re right. We seem to have become a McDonalds drivethru type of society.

    “…and would you like turf with that…”

    Wonder what happens to the worms.

  5. greengeek – whenever I go into town, I pass a farm where a field has been given over to turf production – diced, lifted and sold – and I shake my head in wonderment – who, in their right mind, would sell their topsoil???? Too bemused to continue, I’ll stop.

  6. I’m struggling to come to terms with that lawn! Was it laid down by Greenpeace (then surely it won’t be plastic astroturf), is it the work of the Nats (in which case it probably is). Is there a reason why northern lawns aren’t sown in situ? Strange days.

  7. Looks neat. Kind of in the Christmas spirit somehow.

    BP…

    BluePeter Says:
    The two aren’t mutually exclusive. New Zealand should focus on three things: agricultural exports, IP development, and tourism.

    …….whats “IP development”??

  8. well if you think of a terrorist as “an individual or conglomeration of individuals which create, use, or proliferate terror or fear as a means to accheive a desired outcome” then yes GreenPeace, and the green movement as a whole, are a bunch of terrorists. But the things about which they create the fear are not created by the movement but by the corporations and governments of this world, lol. by that (perfectly acceptable) definition the national party using the financial ‘crisis’ s also a terroist organisation.lol.
    I doubt you could even classify greenpeaces actions in this case as defamation or defacement, for once. a violation of private property rights sure, but they shouldint really exist in the first place.

  9. “You can define terrorrist any way you like”

    Rubbish, all hope of communication goes down the drain if we pretend that words are entirely malleable.

  10. “I don’t even always think what they do is wrong, but that still does not absolve them of the appropriate label for their behaviour.”

    So their actions are terrorist, but you sometimes agree with them. So you are supporting terrorism? What is your definition of terrorism?

  11. Ah, an ad hominem attack.

    You can define terrorrist any way you like. Before 9/11 the USA had issued over 100 definitions of what a terrorist is, and I’m sure theres a lot more now.

    However, I can assure you that my definiton of a terrorist is not “someone I don’t like”; I’ve known lots of people over the years who are members of Greenpeace, none of whom I’ve disliked, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t act like terrorists.

    I don’t even always think what they do is wrong, but that still does not absolve them of the appropriate label for their behaviour.

  12. “Yeah, Greenpeace, bunch of terrorists.”

    “Terrorist” here being defined as “somebody I don’t like”. A pathetic and juvenile comment, unless you really have such a stunted moral sense as to be unable to tell the difference between people who lock themselves on to bulldozers and erect cardboard cows and those who put bombs on buses.

  13. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. New Zealand should focus on three things: agricultural exports, IP development, and tourism. That pays for everything else.

    Primary is not a concern, unless everything remains stuck in primary.

  14. If anyone in Greenpeace (or the Green party) has convincing evidence that converting forest to perrenial pasture decreases carbon sequestration would they please supply the equation describing the relationship between the inputs and outputs.

    Then I can nominate them for a Nobel Prize.

  15. Yeah, Greenpeace, bunch of terrorists.

    Whats that saying – oh yes, not in my name.

    BP – you’re right. And that is why NZ is committed to being a downward looking country. Theres not much value add in commodity farming.

Comments are closed.