On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:20:09 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/ >> >
Funny how the decline in teh lst year didn;t get through at the time .
. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable information. >>He
has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"!
What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial >>importance
today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime
Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge, influence >or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt >comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, >adolescent, unlettered, and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves

no

legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his >vanishing goes unremarked and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma, erudition, >substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name. None of which changes what I wrote - I didn't say he was a great PM, only popular.

Why the new nym Newsman?

Because his old one was discredited and burned?

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/ >>>>>
Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the time . >>>>> . .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable information.

He

has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"!
What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial importance
today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime >>>> Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge, influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent, unlettered,

and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes unremarked
and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma, erudition,

substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name.

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters
lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall
behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower
level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been
reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being
the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin
merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him
(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money
expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can
lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do
harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying
about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2,

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the time . >>>>> . .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable

information. He

has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"! >>>> What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial

importance

today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime >>>> Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge,

influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent, unlettered,
and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes unremarked
and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma,

erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name. >>

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters
lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall
behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower
level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been
reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being
the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin
merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him
(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money
expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can
lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do
harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying >about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned by Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a hardcore left, National hating zealot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:34:46 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2,

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the

time .

. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable

information. He

has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"! >> >>>> What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial

importance

today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular

Prime

Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge,

influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent,
unlettered, and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes
unremarked and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma,

erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his

name.

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters >> >> lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall >> >> behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower >> >> level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been
reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being >> >> the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin >> >> merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him >> >> (the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money
expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can >> >> lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do >> >> harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying >> >about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned by

Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a hardcore

left, National hating zealot.

Don't like the message - attack the messenger!

In Dickbot's tiny little world, it's not ok to question his sources!

Has that ever worked for you, JohnO?

You are such a hypocrite. If anyone dared to quote David Farrar here you'd be whining like a turbine.

Rashbrooke opposes the right and is not an unbiased source. This is a fact. Deal with it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the time .
. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable information. He
has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"!
What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial importance
today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime >> >>>> Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge, influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent, unlettered,

and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes unremarked
and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma, erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name. >> >>

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters
lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall
behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower
level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been
reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being
the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin
merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him
(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money
expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can
lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do
harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying
about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned by Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a hardcore left, National hating zealot.

Don't like the message - attack the messenger!
Has that ever worked for you, JohnO?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:53:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:34:46 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the time .
. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable information. He
has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"! >> >> >>>> What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial importance
today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime
Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge, influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent,

unlettered, and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes
unremarked and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma, erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name.

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters >> >> >> lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall >> >> >> behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower >> >> >> level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been >> >> >> reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being >> >> >> the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin >> >> >> merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him >> >> >> (the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money >> >> >> expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can >> >> >> lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do >> >> >> harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying >> >> >about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned by Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a hardcore left, National hating zealot.

Don't like the message - attack the messenger!

In Dickbot's tiny little world, it's not ok to question his sources!

Has that ever worked for you, JohnO?

You are such a hypocrite. If anyone dared to quote David Farrar here you'd be whining like a turbine.

Rashbrooke opposes the right and is not an unbiased source. This is a fact. Deal with it.

It doesn't work like that, JohnO - can you point to any part of the
article that is wrong? If I call you an ignorant unthinking supporter
of National, does that change the quality of your posts?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 23/02/2017 8:53 AM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the time . >>>>>> . .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable information. He
has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an "age"! >>>>> What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has trivial importance
today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular Prime >>>>> Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge, influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent, unlettered,

and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes unremarked
and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma, erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his name. >>>

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news" reporters
lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was overall
behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently lower
level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been
reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from being
the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the Nat-spin
merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing him
(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money
expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media can
lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts, do
harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill
served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the
seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage
rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying
about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong.

Yes Donald. Very dishonest media around every corner.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in teh lst year didn;t get through at the time .
. .

What is the point of your post? That someone is less popular than they used
to be? Are you going to start telling us when celebrities break up?

Great minds talk about ideas,
Average minds talk about events,
and small minds talk about people.

Keep digging that intellectual hole Rich.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:53:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:34:46 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), jmschristophers@gmail.com >> >> >> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2,

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at the

time .

. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable

information. He

has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an

"age"!

What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has

trivial importance

today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular

Prime

Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to challenge,

influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent,
unlettered, and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes
unremarked and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma,

erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to his

name.

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual
results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news"

reporters

lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was

overall

behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently

lower

level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had been >> >> >> reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John"
decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from

being

the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the

Nat-spin

merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the
loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing

him

(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called money >> >> >> expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media

can

lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a
result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts,

do

harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been ill >> >> >> served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the >> >> >> seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned reportage >> >> >> rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election worrying

about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so wrong. >> >

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned by

Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a

hardcore left, National hating zealot.

Don't like the message - attack the messenger!

In Dickbot's tiny little world, it's not ok to question his sources!

Has that ever worked for you, JohnO?

You are such a hypocrite. If anyone dared to quote David Farrar here you'd

be whining like a turbine.

Rashbrooke opposes the right and is not an unbiased source. This is a fact.

Deal with it.

It doesn't work like that, JohnO - can you point to any part of the
article that is wrong?

Yep. He says that Key's popularity took a "massive dive" in the last year of the poll, but if you look at the chart it does no such thing. It has the third term two thirds complete, and the second third, which would be the "last year" actually shows the
blue "favourable" line *increasing* from 50% to about 60%. Indeed over the entire third term the favourable line drops from about 65 to 60 - hardly 'dramatic' but because the source data is not provided we can't be exact.

Wrong, Dickbot.

If I call you an ignorant unthinking supporter
of National, does that change the quality of your posts?

Says the one who hasn't actually looked at the chart.

Note that Rashbrooke chooses to use favourability rather than preferred, which is used in all the mainstream, not paid for Labour, fully published and without
details withheld polls.

All that really tells us that the alternative politicians are dead set unelectable as they are so much less preferred.

Preferred is all that matters in an election and no amount of cherry-picking can get around that.

Meanwhile, Angry little Andy is *preferred* by about 7% of voters. You really need to deal with that rather than obsessing over John Key... still.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 12:35:15 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:53:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 10:34:46 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:18:45 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 08:53:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:18:27 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>

On 22/02/2017 9:57 PM, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:01:14 -0800 (PST),

jmschristophers@gmail.com

wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:12:07 AM UTC+2,

nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.goodsociety.nz/data-shows-dramatic-decline-in-keys-popularity/

Funny how the decline in the last year didn't get through at

the time .

. .

It is hard to imagine a more irrelevant piece of questionable

information. He

has not been Prime Minister for what in political terms is an

"age"!

What happened or did not happen or was or not posted is has

trivial importance

today.
Perhaps you have nothing of value to post!
Or maybe you have a negative fixation on one of the most popular

Prime

Ministers in at leat 20 years?
Tony

He was popular only in the sense that he did nothing to

challenge, influence or change the thinking of the nation, a large majority of which simply felt comfortable with him as one of their own: coarse, toe-curlingly gauche, adolescent,
unlettered, and 'slippery.' Unlike his predecessors, he leaves no legacy, no resonance; not even a whiff of longing or nostalgia. Hence, his vanishing goes
unremarked and unmourned.

Popular, maybe, but lacking the essential qualities of charisma,

erudition, substance and legacies that mark the true statesman.

Just another political bird of passage with nothing of note to

his name.

The article is as much a commentary on the media as on the actual >> >> >> results. Despite fawning sycophantic articles by the "news"

reporters

lauding his "record popularity", the numbers show that he was

overall

behind Helen Clark, and that his last year was at a consistently

lower

level of polling support than Helen Clark, and that support had

been

reducing fairly consistently. No wonder the shallow "trader John" >> >> >> decided to get out while he could pretend to be ahead. Far from

being

the "most popular prime ministers "as so often peddled by the

Nat-spin

merchants, he got by thrugh siplaying a high level of personal
confidence ndespite a low level of actual success; he bought the >> >> >> loyalty of some wealthy individuals who did very well from knowing

him

(the extreme probably beng Theil who outmatched the so-called

money

expert Key by better understanding the real value of options).

Trump and Key both demonstrate how the herd mentality of the media

can

lead them to completely misjudge real political issues, and as a >> >> >> result of selling their own opinions rather than verifiable facts,

do

harm to the population they are supposed to serve. We have been

ill

served by the thrall to which "reporters"can respond to slick
entertainment, how the denigration of values can be ignored by the >> >> >> seduction of power, and the extent to which we get canned

reportage

rather than true journalism.

The reality

Are you going to spend every waking moment until the election

worrying

about John Key?

No, I am worrying about the shallow media who can get things so

wrong.

They probably don't pay too much to UMR polls as they are commissioned

by Labour itself. They also are vague to evasive on giving the details of the question asked for the poll.

As to the article by Max Rashbrooke - hardly unbiased. The guy is a

hardcore left, National hating zealot.

Don't like the message - attack the messenger!

In Dickbot's tiny little world, it's not ok to question his sources!

Has that ever worked for you, JohnO?

You are such a hypocrite. If anyone dared to quote David Farrar here you'd

be whining like a turbine.

Rashbrooke opposes the right and is not an unbiased source. This is a

fact. Deal with it.

It doesn't work like that, JohnO - can you point to any part of the
article that is wrong?

Yep. He says that Key's popularity took a "massive dive" in the last year of

the poll, but if you look at the chart it does no such thing. It has the third term two thirds complete, and the second third, which would be the "last year" actually shows
the blue "favourable" line *increasing* from 50% to about 60%. Indeed over the entire third term the favourable line drops from about 65 to 60 - hardly 'dramatic' but because the source data is not provided we can't be exact.

Wrong, Dickbot.

If I call you an ignorant unthinking supporter
of National, does that change the quality of your posts?

Says the one who hasn't actually looked at the chart.

Note that Rashbrooke chooses to use favourability rather than preferred,

which is used in all the mainstream, not paid for Labour, fully published and without details withheld polls.

All that really tells us that the alternative politicians are dead set

unelectable as they are so much less preferred.

Preferred is all that matters in an election and no amount of cherry-picking

can get around that.

Meanwhile, Angry little Andy is *preferred* by about 7% of voters. You really

need to deal with that rather than obsessing over John Key... still.

Note the comments section: someone asks for a URL for the data. Rashbrooke admits that it is unavailable.

So the whole premise of the article is based on unverifiable data. Just like when Angry little Andy was waving around a printout of a UMR poll after Labour polled a low result. He wouldn't release the data.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)