Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1346 Location: Nelson area
ALCP's Press releases Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:53 pm
ALCP Challenges Government to show some spine
Tuesday, 26 August 2008, 11:09 am
Press Release: Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
ALCP Challenges Government to show some spine.
ALCP calls on the Labour-led government to include a question in the next postal referendum, that asks New Zealanders to vote on the legality of cannabis.
ALCP challenges the Labour government to finally act on it's two Health select Committees findings into the harms of cannabis, The 2003 cannabis inquiry received 532 written submissions, with 78 percent of those supported changes to the current way cannabis is managed. Only 17 percent supported the continuation of prohibition. The study concluded that the government "...should reconsider the legal status of cannabis."
ALCP Spokesperson, Steven Wilkinson says "This country has legalised prostitution, homosexuality, and acknowledges same-sex marriages. It is time time to deal with society's last great hypocrisy, the prohibition of cannabis. Regulation is the mature and intelligent way for society to handle the drug cannabis. he said.
ALCP calls for a question to be added into the next referendum, asking New Zealanders how they think cannabis should be managed, through prohibition or regulation?
The recently released 'New Zealand Illicit Drug Harm Index', paid for by the New Zealand Police, shows the cost of prohibition exceeds 115 million dollars, while the actual cost of cannabis to society is only 67.3 million. Steven Wilkinson says "Where is the logic in spending more to prohibit cannabis, than the social cost to society from cannabis?"
ALCP feels its high time for New Zealand to have a say in how this drug is managed in society. The referendum would allow normal people to have their say without the fear of stigmatisation, and be heard by representatives who are expected to act on their wishes.
Mr Wilkinson said "This issue needs no petition when over 370,000 New Zealanders used cannabis in 2006. The jury is in, the studies are done. Now is the time to act.
Steven Wilkinson says "Does Labour have the mettle to shake off the shackles of that flotilla of parasite parties and do one last bold act. Include the cannabis question in the referendum".
Well scoop posted it. I wonder if anyone else will
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
Re: ALCP's Press releases Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:41 am
steveoh wrote:
ALCP Spokesperson, Steven Wilkinson says "This country has legalised prostitution, homosexuality, and acknowledges same-sex marriages. It is time time to deal with society's last great hypocrisy, the prohibition of cannabis. Regulation is the mature and intelligent way for society to handle the drug cannabis. he said.
I'm glad that this part was printed. I've noticed that people often question their beliefs after cannabis prohibition is compared to prohibition of other freedoms, such as homosexuality, prostitution, etc. _________________ This is our year - TICK THE LEAF: www.alcp.org.nz
Joined: May 11, 2006 Posts: 333 Location: Auckland
Re: ALCP's Press releases Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:23 am
Lochaber wrote:
I'm glad that this part was printed. I've noticed that people often question their beliefs after cannabis prohibition is compared to prohibition of other freedoms, such as homosexuality, prostitution, etc.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1346 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:55 am
bubblebobble wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one who cares, but there is a pretty high degree of amateur grammar in there. I'd say that's probably down to the reporter, though.
Regardless, it comes off quite well. Your comments are all reasonable, and people will be hard pressed to nitpick.
Well, I did study amateur grammar at school Maybe I should have taken more notice of the talking head at the front of class, instead of looking out the window, dreaming.
Thanks for your other comments.
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
Maybe I'm the only one who cares, but there is a pretty high degree of amateur grammar in there. I'd say that's probably down to the reporter, though.
Regardless, it comes off quite well. Your comments are all reasonable, and people will be hard pressed to nitpick.
At the risk of enhancing my reputation as a nit-picker, I'd just like to point out the following inaccuracies:
1. The Labour Government only carried out one inquiry into cannabis use since being elected in 1999.
The 1998 cannabis inquiry was undertaken by a National government.
2. The 2003 inquiry received 552 written submissions.
3. The 2003 inquiry did not conclude that
Quote:
the government "...should reconsider the legal status of cannabis."
That was the conclusion of the 1998 cannabis inquiry.
The recommendations of the 2003 inquiry were:
Summary of recommendations to the Government
....Legal status - that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.
and
Summary of recommendations to the House
....- that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider an appropriate legal status for cannabis.
More importantly, however, the 2003 inquiry also reported on page 67
United Future minority view
....United Future, as part of our supply and confidence agreement with the Labour/Progressive Government, has an undertaking from the Government that there will be no government-led move to change the legal status of cannabis during this term of government. Therefore we see no benefit in having the cannabis issue referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
4.
Quote:
Mr Wilkinson said "This issue needs no petition when over 370,000 New Zealanders used cannabis in 2006. The jury is in, the studies are done. Now is the time to act.
I think you'll find that a petition with a few hundred thousand signatures etc is required before a citizens' referendum can be held.
Finally steveoh wrote:
The recently released 'New Zealand Illicit Drug Harm Index', paid for by the New Zealand Police, shows the cost of prohibition exceeds 115 million dollars, while the actual cost of cannabis to society is only 67.3 million. Steven Wilkinson says "Where is the logic in spending more to prohibit cannabis, than the social cost to society from cannabis?"
Some people argue that cannabis only costs NZ $67.3 million because of the $115 million spent on its prohibition.
Those people would argue that the cost of cannabis to society would be much higher (more than $1 billion like alcohol) if there were no prohibition.
That's their "logic" anyway.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1346 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:39 pm
potshots wrote:
bubblebobble wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one who cares, but there is a pretty high degree of amateur grammar in there. I'd say that's probably down to the reporter, though.
Regardless, it comes off quite well. Your comments are all reasonable, and people will be hard pressed to nitpick.
At the risk of enhancing my reputation as a nit-picker,
###(I would have hoped from you Jason that your motivation was more altruistic, but I realise its not)###
I'd just like to point out the following inaccuracies:
1. The Labour Government only carried out one inquiry into cannabis use since being elected in 1999.
The 1998 cannabis inquiry was undertaken by a National government.
###(Labour or National (both the same)have never acted on any of the recommendations)###
2. The 2003 inquiry received 552 written submissions.
###(We could also count the 1,978 submissions not counted (yawn) Then we are looking at 95% of submissions wanting to see some form of liberalisation of the cannabis law. )###
3. The 2003 inquiry did not conclude that
Quote:
the government "...should reconsider the legal status of cannabis."
That was the conclusion of the 1998 cannabis inquiry.
The recommendations of the 2003 inquiry were:
Summary of recommendations to the Government
....Legal status - that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.
and
Summary of recommendations to the House
....- that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider an appropriate legal status for cannabis.
More importantly, however, the 2003 inquiry also reported on page 67
United Future minority view
....United Future, as part of our supply and confidence agreement with the Labour/Progressive Government, has an undertaking from the Government that there will be no government-led move to change the legal status of cannabis during this term of government. Therefore we see no benefit in having the cannabis issue referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
###(Thank's for pointing that "typo" out no one else who checked the release noticed it)###
4.
Quote:
Mr Wilkinson said "This issue needs no petition when over 370,000 New Zealanders used cannabis in 2006. The jury is in, the studies are done. Now is the time to act.
I think you'll find that a petition with a few hundred thousand signatures etc is required before a citizens' referendum can be held.
###(Duh I'm not ignorant potshots, I was just pointing out that way more people in this country use cannabis than the amount of people (signatures) that are need to force a referendum.)###
Finally steveoh wrote:
###Thank god###The recently released 'New Zealand Illicit Drug Harm Index', paid for by the New Zealand Police, shows the cost of prohibition exceeds 115 million dollars, while the actual cost of cannabis to society is only 67.3 million. Steven Wilkinson says "Where is the logic in spending more to prohibit cannabis, than the social cost to society from cannabis?"
Some people argue that cannabis only costs NZ $67.3 million because of the $115 million spent on its prohibition.
Those people would argue that the cost of cannabis to society would be much higher (more than $1 billion like alcohol) if there were no prohibition.
### And some people think we should teach "creation" in schools.###
That's their "logic" anyway.
Pedantic is a word that comes to mind.
At the moment I feel that the NORML forum is more of a place to shoot people down and not a forum of like minded people striving to change a HARMFUL law.
I have decide to separate myself from the forum. Any future letters I shall post on the ALCP site.
I wish every one luck. I can be contacted on stevenatalcp.org.nz.
Thanks to everyone who in the past has helped me financially, and given words of support, encouragement. I am not giving up, I will continue doing what I do - getting off my arse, getting my face away from the computer monitor and talking to the public.
Potshot I suggest you spend the amount of time you have put to your "The Secret Evidence Of The 2003 HSC inquiry" and go through your past posts (in all the threads) you will see a pattern of not furthering the debate, but closing it down. Maybe you should look at your motivation for being part of the cannabis debate
I wont be hanging around to read your reply
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
wreckers and haters. Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:02 pm
Good one Potshots. Thanks to you one of New Zealand's most active and inspirational clr advocates (not to mention inspiring posters to these forums) has left the NORML site.
You should find another form of therapy than venting your twisted spleen on this site. Its not all about you.
I liked the press release Steveoh - good job. And your efforts are very much appreciated regardless if you have some difficulties with grammar/spelling as I myself do. As I am sure you are aware of, 'spell checkers' can easily address spelling issues, but grammar is more technical in nature.
The simple fact of the matter is - as long as the message gets through, that is the main thing and the essense of communication. Most all of my posts/writing have spelling mistakes and grammar issues but I don't consider it necessary to correct every single mistake just so it becomes some kind of literary master-piece. What you need is an editor - for someone such as yourself should not be consumed with the literary merits of your 'voice of reason'.
Nit-pickers are concerned with 'details' because they consider that if the public reads a press release from ALCP and it is spelled all wrong and the grammer all over the place, then the public will think that the humble cannabis fiend is an uneducated lout. But so many think that any way don't they?
Personally, those who would focus on such like, ie grammar and spelling, are exactly that which they profess to oppose. Those who would judge so harshly a mans words rather than the 'content' of what they say are most certainly in need of an education. And that kind of education will not be found in books; but rather, through experience in seeking to comprehend a basic understanding of what it is to be human.
But hey, I say too much any way. Please Steveoh reconsider your leaving this site because I very much enjoy your input and I am sure a great many others do aswell. There is no question that your efforts elsewhere do indeed take much resources and time, and for the most part go unrecognised and unrewarded - but I for one wish to express my gratitude that there are people like you who will put aside your own personal aspirations and do what is right and just on behalf of all those who either have not the strength to do so themselves, of alternativly are too afraid to speak out as such, or are simply of the view, 'Who gives a shit?'
Sometimes though I think you would do well to be a little more tollerant of 'alternative' view points and criticism. I have had a run-ins with Potshots on this site myself but I am pretty sure he is on the same team as us and while he could be a bit more complimentary on ocassion, and seeking to boost morale, rather than lowering it, his 'intention' is the same as ours.
Criticism is helpful if it is constructive and has the aims of progress at heart, and Potshots has also contributed much of his own time and effort toward our common goal. I think you were a little harsh on him and he was just trying to 'help' you, if but not quite so tactfully. We all have bad days and say things which later we may wish we had not.
Also Steveoh, do not underestimate the power and reach of any 'words' here. While they may appear to be unread and unrecognised, nothing could be further from the truth! Tis only narrow mindedness when people bleet on about all those people here who just "talk shit" etc. You yourself know full well that your 'bust' thread has over 50 thousand views thus far. And while replies and views are some indication of 'reach', they are but a 'fraction' of actual views and effectivness at large in facilitateing further understanding of this aweful war on cannabis(people) mainly perpetrated by the USA on Kiwi's and other nations.
Also, no one really knows what any one else does besides the 'words' now do they? It is all very well to speak of grinding the pavement and berateing those who 'talk shite' but unless you know them personally how would any one know exactly what efforts they may make toward ending this war on people? I speak much, but do you know what I have done and put up with regards cannabis prohibition? What about Potshots? No? I didn't think so.
The ALCP website at present is all but dead. Has to be said. Norml gets far more trafic and Steveoh you would do well to re-consider and come back here because I personally appreciate your efforts and updates and would like to get some of your views on ALCP policies as they stand now and how they may be modified for the future should ALCP again fail at the next election. I know that sometimes you yourself must wonder 'Why bother, no one gives a shite, no one cares, fuck this' etc...but keep on keeping on because there are literally 'hundreds of thousands' of people in this country alone who have 'no representation' what so ever is so far as cannabis is concerned and therefore people like you are very much needed. Just because there are too many sheep who do 'ba ba ba'...don't let their indifference and apathy detract from the true path of righteousness.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 442 Location: New Zealand
Stinkcunts and softcocks Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:21 pm
A few years ago there was a regular contributer to these forums who called himself "McSpots". In one of his posts he defended his unwillingness to disuade some under 18 pot enthusiasts from taking part in a public protest, by saying he didn't want to be a "stinkcunt". Naturally that phrase has stayed in my memory (some of those underagers have continued to be active cannabis law advocates) and it wasn't long before I formed the view that a problem that cannabis law reform movement suffered from was "softcocks and stinkcunts". I had this in mind when I posted on the thread at www.norml.org.nz/postt5974.html. However activity also has to have some accuracy to be effective and Potshots critique is valid. In relation to the press release I also would question the point of attacking Labour over the lack of progress in cannabis law reform. If any party fucked up in terms of CLR it was the Greens during the 2002 -2005 period of parliament. I believe that they were given the understanding that if they put up a suitable bill then Aunty Helen and her liberal friends would have come in behind (like the anti-smacking bill). But the Greens didn't have the guts as they were concerned about the middle age middle class female vote they were targetting. But that's history now - it would be good if people could learn from that. That's another challenge for CLR, learning from the information that's out there - even if it comes in an uncomfortable form.
Sorry Steveoh but you can't desert us.. and simply this is too valuable forum for you not to keep active on.
I promise you there is some interesting stuff , that will bring cannabis to the fore to such and extent this forum will attract a whole new audience .. wanting more education..
There are three different TV doco's or mini doco's and some serious print media sitting on some real good stuff..( I am sure more are out there as well)
You contributions are going to be important ..
Don't let potshots get to you.. he means well I am sure .. I have a literary skill levels these days that are wanting , but at times the message does get through.. yours are a few levels above mine..
Potshot does some good stuff , I value his as I do yours.. he can't help being a pedantic old bugger at times , unlike you and me he is a perfectionist ..Some of my best friends are as anal as he is , I would be lost without them.
Joined: Oct 27, 2004 Posts: 242 Location: Dunsterdam
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:34 pm
Don't worry Tony, i'll make sure we get some valuable forums going on alcp.org.nz
Here is another ALCP exclusive to scutinise.
ALCP goes for "R18 Cottage Industry"
Written by media team
Tuesday, 26 August 2008 10:31
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party has agreed on policy providing for an Amsterdam style "R18-cottage industry" (including adult's home-grow and med-pot provision).
"It would be like alcohol regulation, but without the gross commercial aspects"
Cannabis law reform has a 32 year precedent in Holland which included successfully separating soft and hard drug markets, a situation NZ government is currently blindly grappling with (gateway to methamphetamine, "wide open").
In NZ, going Dutch will impact beneficially across the policy spectrum, in health, education, justice, law and order, race relations, economy and environment etc....
Unlike the other parties, ALCP sees it as a priority getting NZ, and the world, 'beyond prohibition'.- See our Intersectorial Policy
If one in twenty Kiwi voters makes a conscience vote this election for some War on Drugs peace, victory is assured:
By making the black market a green one, the ALCP will fix the major problem in NZs law and disorder, reduce the need for police and prisons, introduce a level playing field for health promotion and drug education, and restore general good vibes to the community!
"Cannabis law reform is the lynch-pin issue in NZ", said party deputy, Michael Britnell.
With sensible and rational and open, informed debate, the ALCP people are the new breed in New Zealand politics - real Kiwis, concerned about community and environment, values and justice, and with a recipe for success and safer communities together.
ALCP's draft list at present includes Michael Appleby (leader), Mike Britnell (deputy), Paula Lambert , Julian Crawford, Stephen Wilkinson, Irinka Britnell (party secretary), Daniel Strype, and Kevin O'Connell (president). the list remains open for new nominations and welcomes inquiries to secretary@alcp.org.nzThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The ALCP promise, when elected, to do NZ a massive favour. we will 'legalise cannabis/hemp for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes, and institute a proper balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual'.
Aotearoa Legalise cannabis party advocates consistency with R18 cannabis, alcohol and tobacco, and is not averse to the idea of adjusting this age limit, as appropriate.
Re: wreckers and haters. Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:21 pm
Duncan wrote:
Good one Potshots. Thanks to you one of New Zealand's most active and inspirational clr advocates (not to mention inspiring posters to these forums) has left the NORML site.
You should find another form of therapy than venting your twisted spleen on this site. Its not all about you.
I'm so glad that I've got a good sense of irony.
Duncan,
You say that it's not all about me and yet your previous post (1 month ago) stated something like "You're wrong again potshots" (when in fact I was actually right!). So I can't help but think that it is you that is making it all about me in order to vent some spleen yourself.
steveoh wrote:
Pedantic is a word that comes to mind.
At the moment I feel that the NORML forum is more of a place to shoot people down and not a forum of like minded people striving to change a HARMFUL law.
I have decide to separate myself from the forum. Any future letters I shall post on the ALCP site.
I wish every one luck. I can be contacted on stevenatalcp.org.nz.
Thanks to everyone who in the past has helped me financially, and given words of support, encouragement. I am not giving up, I will continue doing what I do - getting off my arse, getting my face away from the computer monitor and talking to the public.
Potshot I suggest you spend the amount of time you have put to your "The Secret Evidence Of The 2003 HSC inquiry" and go through your past posts (in all the threads) you will see a pattern of not furthering the debate, but closing it down. Maybe you should look at your motivation for being part of the cannabis debate
I wont be hanging around to read your reply
steveoh,
I'd rather be seen as being pedantic than petulant.
I'd also rather be pedantic than prescriptive.
You seem to be missing the point.
It was you, and not me, that issued a press release on behalf of the ALCP with factual errors and poor grammar (bubblebobble's observation & not mine - I actually thought your grammar & spelling wasn't too bad for a change).
So maybe you should think about what your response would have been if it had been me that had released an ALCP press release containing errors. I'm sure that you (and Duncan too) would have had plenty to say about that.
Considering the amount of effort that I've spent trying to inform others about the 2003 HSC inquiry, it seems a bit strange that you should still get simple facts wrong.
Anyway, I've already come to terms with the fact that our views about CLR etc always appear to be at odds and I can live with that.
On the other hand, you still seem to be struggling with the fact that we all have different views on how to do things.
Personally, I'd rather spend my time writing LTEs because I believe that they reach a wider audience whereas you would rather talk to the public in person beause you like being a politician. To each their own I say.
But I would suggest that if want to make it to The Beehive, aka the "snake pit", then you need to become less sensitive to criticism and make more effort to get things right (eg facts, spelling, grammar etc) because other people will notice.
Neuron wrote:
I liked the press release Steveoh - good job. And your efforts are very much appreciated regardless if you have some difficulties with grammar/spelling as I myself do. As I am sure you are aware of, 'spell checkers' can easily address spelling issues, but grammar is more technical in nature.
The simple fact of the matter is - as long as the message gets through, that is the main thing and the essense of communication. Most all of my posts/writing have spelling mistakes and grammar issues but I don't consider it necessary to correct every single mistake just so it becomes some kind of literary master-piece. What you need is an editor - for someone such as yourself should not be consumed with the literary merits of your 'voice of reason'.
Nit-pickers are concerned with 'details' because they consider that if the public reads a press release from ALCP and it is spelled all wrong and the grammer all over the place, then the public will think that the humble cannabis fiend is an uneducated lout. But so many think that any way don't they?
Personally, those who would focus on such like, ie grammar and spelling, are exactly that which they profess to oppose. Those who would judge so harshly a mans words rather than the 'content' of what they say are most certainly in need of an education. And that kind of education will not be found in books; but rather, through experience in seeking to comprehend a basic understanding of what it is to be human.
Neuron,
The target of a press release is newspaper editors and they are likely to be even more nit-picking about poor grammar, spelling mistakes etc than me. So if someone wants their press release to get published then it makes sense to take some care re: the basics like grammar, spelling, facts etc.
Neuron also wrote:
Sometimes though I think you would do well to be a little more tollerant of 'alternative' view points and criticism. I have had a run-ins with Potshots on this site myself but I am pretty sure he is on the same team as us and while he could be a bit more complimentary on ocassion, and seeking to boost morale, rather than lowering it, his 'intention' is the same as ours.
Criticism is helpful if it is constructive and has the aims of progress at heart, and Potshots has also contributed much of his own time and effort toward our common goal. I think you were a little harsh on him and he was just trying to 'help' you, if but not quite so tactfully. We all have bad days and say things which later we may wish we had not.
I have tried being tactful but found that it wasn't that successful, so I just try to get to the point these days.
Anyway, you're pretty much on the money with your comments although the only thing that I regret writing is "I'd just like to point out the following inaccuracies:" because I didn't so much "like" pointing out the errors but instead felt that I should (to not point out the errors seemed like a bigger sin).
Paul13 wrote:
A few years ago there was a regular contributer to these forums who called himself "McSpots". In one of his posts he defended his unwillingness to disuade some under 18 pot enthusiasts from taking part in a public protest, by saying he didn't want to be a "stinkcunt". Naturally that phrase has stayed in my memory (some of those underagers have continued to be active cannabis law advocates) and it wasn't long before I formed the view that a problem that cannabis law reform movement suffered from was "softcocks and stinkcunts". I had this in mind when I posted on the thread at www.norml.org.nz/postt5974.html. However activity also has to have some accuracy to be effective and Potshots critique is valid.....
When I read the word "softcock", the Australian TV satire Frontline immediately sprang to mind as one of the characters (the director I think) was always dismissing people as softcocks.
Sometimes I get the feeling that CLR suffers from a lack of "reasoning", to borrow a Rasta expression. Offering even constructive criticism seems to be frowned upon. However, I believe that our ideas should be subject to scrutiny as that's a good way to improve them. Iron sharpening iron!
Tony wrote:
Don't let potshots get to you.. he means well I am sure .. I have a literary skill levels these days that are wanting , but at times the message does get through.. yours are a few levels above mine..
Potshot does some good stuff , I value his as I do yours.. he can't help being a pedantic old bugger at times , unlike you and me he is a perfectionist ..Some of my best friends are as anal as he is , I would be lost without them.
Perfectionest - yes; anal - no more so than most people.
Or put it this way: I'm still as perfectionist as I ever was but I've certainly become less anal as I've got older.
Constructive criticism is frowned upon because it's only constructive in the mind of the person who's delivering it. When someone says to me "In my opinion this would be better," all I hear is "U R DOEN IT RONG." I think it's human nature. We all think our way is best because it's what we're used to.
For instance if I were to say that even though you're likely to be right, pointing out every error that someone makes in detail is unnecessary, you might be inclined to get defensive about it because you were only trying to help. That's not how I feel; I'm merely using it as an example.
Everyone tries to help in their own way, and everyone has different ways of going about things. Some people like to wave signs and shout. Some people like to write letters. Some people like to try to change everyone's mind, one person at a time. What we suggest is only what we think would be best, and clearly that is not the same for everyone.
Just personally I thought Steve would have thicker skin and not abscond, for lack of a better word, at the first sign of real criticism. The fact of the matter is, if you're going to play with the big boys, then you need your presentation and facts spot on. He has no doubt been talked down to by cops and judges and probably lawyers, and unsympathetic public members. Quite surprising that he can't stand criticism from where people have the best intentions.
This goes for everyone ever (i.e. I'm not just 'picking on' Steve), and IMO includes spelling and grammar. They are basic things that show you are above an NCEA "graduate" in terms of motivation to do well, intelligence, and linguistic capability. Essential if you're campaigning to change the laws of an entire country so that adults can get stoned for whatever reason.
Just sayin'.
Best part is people are gonna read this and get annoyed at me, because they feel that perfect spelling and grammar is a stupid idea. They might feel that what we really need is dreamers and visionaries and people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in, and that grammar is a waste of precious time, which is only going to illustrate my entire point.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 442 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:28 am
bubblebobble wrote:
Constructive criticism is frowned upon because it's only constructive in the mind of the person who's delivering it. When someone says to me "In my opinion this would be better," all I hear is "U R DOEN IT RONG." I think it's human nature. We all think our way is best because it's what we're used to.
For instance if I were to say that even though you're likely to be right, pointing out every error that someone makes in detail is unnecessary, you might be inclined to get defensive about it because you were only trying to help. That's not how I feel; I'm merely using it as an example.
Everyone tries to help in their own way, and everyone has different ways of going about things. Some people like to wave signs and shout. Some people like to write letters. Some people like to try to change everyone's mind, one person at a time. What we suggest is only what we think would be best, and clearly that is not the same for everyone.
Just personally I thought Steve would have thicker skin and not abscond, for lack of a better word, at the first sign of real criticism. The fact of the matter is, if you're going to play with the big boys, then you need your presentation and facts spot on. He has no doubt been talked down to by cops and judges and probably lawyers, and unsympathetic public members. Quite surprising that he can't stand criticism from where people have the best intentions.
This goes for everyone ever (i.e. I'm not just 'picking on' Steve), and IMO includes spelling and grammar. They are basic things that show you are above an NCEA "graduate" in terms of motivation to do well, intelligence, and linguistic capability. Essential if you're campaigning to change the laws of an entire country so that adults can get stoned for whatever reason.
Just sayin'.
Best part is people are gonna read this and get annoyed at me, because they feel that perfect spelling and grammar is a stupid idea. They might feel that what we really need is dreamers and visionaries and people who are prepared to fight for what they believe in, and that grammar is a waste of precious time, which is only going to illustrate my entire point.
I may not always practice what you wrote but I can't disagree with it!
But I think that as long as the meaning is decipherable then its more important that the meaning is accurate than it is that the grammer, spelling, presentation etc be at a high level - though of course that stuff is appreciated and makes the arguments more "acceptable". Also I think that if the guts of the material is accurate then small errors shouldn't be dwelt on too much.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
Well, I did study amateur grammar at school 
And your efforts are very much appreciated regardless if you have some difficulties with grammar/spelling as I myself do. As I am sure you are aware of, 'spell checkers' can easily address spelling issues, but grammar is more technical in nature.
