Title?!
I've got a third degree burn on my wrist from going down the waterslide as fast as i possibly could. I won - 2.90 seconds. And now I've got this cool wrist bandage that Shaggy decorated with the words - 'Rad Dude'.
I'm also sitting next to a sticky pad for 'critters' at my feet. There are two rats on it. They are still alive. I would feel more sorry for them if they didn't stink.
Keep me updated with your lives fellers - how many more holiday days do you have left?
posted by Jakes @ 11:13 AM
31 comments
31 Comments:
Well at least you won huh? but 3rd degree burns, that pretty serious, ah well good story i guess. just hope that you avoid further accidents bud, we want you back in one piece.
Hey Jakey Smakey,
Good work on your success in watersliding, perhaps you should look at that for a future proffession.
On a completely different topic: Do you think it is possible that over time the term "The Devil" has evolved into two different meanings? The 1st one would be Satan, and the 2nd would be when some religious people use it as a reason for why they have sinned. Could it be just a saying that the meaning has been forgotten and now it is taken literally that the devil has intervened with a persons actions?
Sorry, just a random thought i had. And to change the topic once more: Do Canadians watch Southpark?
Good to hear your having a good time Jakes
Wouldn't worry - there's HEAPS of animal sacrificing in the Bible. God likes it. Go sacrifice your cat.
I don't know about that 'Devil' idea. I'm not sure, and I don't know where to start looking. The two major events that the Bible describes that involves the Devil/Satan are in creation - the snake (commonly referred to being the Devil) which tempted Eve, and in the story of Job, where God allows Satan to totally screw up this dude's life, but He kept on Praising God. And there are tonnes of references to 'Evil Spirits' inside people.
Robbie, describe what your engineering textbook says about bridges, re:support structures and roads.
umm as for the animal suffering thing... Just off the top of my head, we were given dominion over the earth and everything in it (including animals) and we still must respect it, and manage it is a 'good' way. So torture of animals would not be on the list of good Christian values, i dont think.
oh and auckland uni goes back on 18th July.
Guardianship of mother earth has long been seen as a meaning to life by some.
and aren't we doing a grand job at that.
Ha - yeah.
You should come to America - land of the free to see exactly wot a crap job we're doing at keeping our world. LA is insane. SO much air pollution, roads EVERYWHERE that have at least 3 lanes on each side, and most seem totally oblivious to it.
The self-professed Christian nations are inflicting the worst damage on the environment, placing profit before the well-being of our world. It sucks.
I'm thinking I probably should donate to Greenpeace.
it is the christian societies that are the capitalist societies. money money, something about heaven, money.
Yes, you should donate to Greenpeace, the people in ALbert park are nice. BUT, you should also try using your preaching power to try and 'enlighten' the people your with to the environmental issues.
It's where NZ is heading. If you want to live in that, vote National.
Be carefull not to confuse christians with athiests or those who merely claim to be christian (but do not practise it), which it would appear that you are doing.
Im not sure on what evidential proof that you base your accusations that Christians do not care for the poor. I also struggle to see how something can be simulateously nearly, and completely ignored... I think if you did look at the balances of even the richest of genuine Christians, you would not find some huge outrageous sum.
Jesus didnt make anyone do anything. You make him sound like some tyrannical, opressive government.
Im not sure what point you are trying to make by berating Christians. Are you trying to offend them? To provoke anger from them? To point out their wrongs so that they can change them? Or is it just a general rant to make you feel better about yourself?
I think it might be a better idea for you to think about what you are doing to be selfless and help the needy.
Oh and can we please dispense with the sweeping general comments. When they are mixed with fact they become very believeable and are very destructive when they are not true.
The Governments of the World are those with most power, and have the greatest ability to help - and they are (mostly) secular.
so it's not your problem then rob?
sure, your a christian and supposed to be helping, but why should you if they aren't..
sounds like a fine argument.
Observation: there are a lot of attacks going on here..
Romans 12:18, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone".
Personally, I don't see the need for attacking.. how about some debate? We've gotta respect each other!
Just a thought guys...
I forgive you Hannah.
lol. nice.
There seems to be two types of Christians - the luke-warm kind who follow Jesus when it's convenient, and the hard-out, all for nothingers. I think it's time that all of us who claim to be Christian (including me) actually start sacrificing our own comforts for the will of God and the needs of others (in that order).
CS Lewis reckoned that we should give until it hurts.
Why would voting for National be screwing up the environment?
For further reading refer to: Green Stats Sheet (post name curtosy Rob), extra money stuff, Scott - a living example
I am voting for National to get Labour out of government; for the following reasons:
1) Labour have had enough terms in power - it's time for them to have a rest, and let someone else screw up our country.
2) Labour today has an incredibly feminist agenda including (policies past by Labour and yet to come):
- All laws enforcing individual ownership of children abolished. (Biological parents are just guardians)
- Paid maternity leave of twelve weeks. (Paid by the employer).
- Abortion to be free and on demand.
- Civil unions act.
3) A vote for National would not be screwing up the environment.
I feel that by voting for Labour they will continue with their current agenda which doesn't seem to help me at all. It's not that I disagree with all their policies, it's just that they do not care about the average white male.
What about..
Michael Cullen, male, deputy prime minister.
Continuing male majority in parliament.
I don’t believe that they ‘don’t care’, rather that the average white male is in terms of health, finance, living situation and other standards of living, adequately cared for already.
The other groups demand FOCUS, this does not, however, result in the white male being ignored. They just no longer hold the spotlight.
And what is wrong with paid maternity leave?
What is wrong with making the option of abortions availible? I emphasise OPTION.
And I think we’ve already established our difference in opinion over the civil union bill. I do, however, want to reiterate that it is not “gay marriage” it is and alternative option to marriage. It is a CIVIL UNION. A uniting of people. Something, I believe, that should be encouraged.
Giving some else a go is a fair idea, but I do not believe we have to settle with “someone else [to] screw up our country.”
With this I want to emphasize the minor parties relevance. It is with them that you can push through specific policies, or at least bring them into parliament. Why is that people still see it as a race between National and Labour? There are, what, eight parties in the current parliament. The government is formed through a two party coalition and other agreements of confidence.
I believe Labour is the better option if you must choose between the two big-guns. I also believe they need strong minor parties in partnership with them to keep them in check, or at least in conscious.
Perhaps I should have worded it with more thought – but a vote for National would not be beneficial for the environment and conservation efforts.
Their policies are availible at: http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=2845
Take two of them:
Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol from 2013 if New Zealand makes commitments to reduce emissions beyond those binding trading partners like Australia and the United States.
Change New Zealand’s position in future climate change negotiations by insisting that all significant countries limit emissions particularly countries like China, Brazil and Singapore, and refuse to make any future commitments until such countries agree.
Again, the “why should we if they don’t” idea. I guess it suits you rob.
Someone has to initiate it. I think the question should be “why isn’t that us?”
Kofi Annan called us a model nation, we should be living up to that compliment.
The Labour party has more outlined, specific and planned policies at: http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/conservation_and_environment/index.html
ACT has always impressed me with the amount of detail you can find online about their policies. While I wouldn’t touch Rodney with a stick, here is the link to their policies, you’ll find environmental ones about half way down.
http://www.act.org.nz/policy.aspx
New Zealand First touches on it here: http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies/environment.php
They, or should I say Winston, has an economic priority similar to National.
If you want the best, in my view obviously, policies on environmental issues read the ENTIRE Green party website http://www.greens.org.nz/
Or go to the frogblog updated all the time (its linked on my clog – ‘hopping down the corridors of power’).
That’s all.. :)
thanks for the info guys.
political questions are so long.
so.... The meaning of all existance?
Hey Jakes, since you've been in San Diego, have you seen Jerome, Jon, Chad and the guys?
'Stars' sounds AWESOME!
I 'think' (just trying to remember) that its something like nine weeks full pay by the employer, and she still has job security etc.
It costs the employer a shit-load because he/she would also have to hire a replacement (and maybe train them) for the nine weeks.
P.S. If you add in the ammount of scholarships women are entitled to over men, the pay irregularity would probably even out lol.
nice sweeping fact with no evidence myles.
David, you arogant bastard.
what the fuck is this?
"so if i'm employer, i'm responsable to pay for some girl thats gone and got knocked up."
I hope you die alone.
robbie -it is not 'paid time off'. It is a extremely demanding time. Child birth, seemingly surprisingly to you, though I'm sure you've seen me go pale enough to know (wait, you do know, you're supposed to be designing the "outter womb" thing). Anyway, child birth isn't something you bounce back from.
In perspective, we have just had three weeks holiday. Have we not been coming a sudden unexpected realisation of how quickly time has passed by?
New Zealand needs the babies to keep our population at a half decent level - mr economy fuck wit david might latch onto that perhaps? the maternity leave is an investment.
Acuses her self-apointed opposition of having no evidence - while managing not to even attempt to correct the "sweeping facts".
Moves on to 'character assasinations' which could imply that she believes the audience to be lacking intelligence; who must (according to her actions) rely on sassment instead of reason to judge the victor.
Wraps it up nicely with a tangent from the actual debate of the policy - which is not that paid maternity leave is important, The real issue is by whom it's payed.
Ahh what a politician. *sigh*
And confirmed is 3 months paid leave.
"Acuses her self-apointed opposition of having no evidence - while managing not to even attempt to correct the "sweeping facts"."
they're pretty words, but what are you saying?
You made a sweeping fact, i was identifying that.
And no myles, your point was focused on who was paying it. I was replying to robbie (which I made clear) who was inquiring in general as to the IMPORTANCE of paid maternity leave.
I did not say whether it was wrong or correct. And no, I am not going to go through and work out the figures to find out.
And I did not go on a tangent. I was using an example most of us can relate to try to express that the supposedly outrageous 9 weeks, now three months, is a short time - or at least it would disappear very quickly with a brand new baby to care for.
Lots of words, not much basis. Ahh such a christian *sigh*
My
dispute
over
this
issue
is
that
the
employer
pays
it.
Ignorant dumbass.
I forgive you.
and what's with the "im awesome" attitude you've been blurting out these days hannah?
hannah sarnay I mean.
I must say, your not winning people over at all, if not just achieving the opposite.
Its me your long lost twin brother!
Woah, that's really funny.
My bet is that it's Sam Williams.
yeah Jakes im beginning to wonder if you are alive or not??? either that or you're enjoying yourself too much to remember us...
Post a Comment
<< Home