Translation: because lefties are dirty jobless hippies who have time to write bullshit for student magazines inbetween bong hits and complaints that the rich don't pay enough taxes to further subsidize their already heavily subsidized educations.

Most don't meet that profile, but there are of course some who do. But let's just assume for argument's sake that they are all like that. What do you plan to do about it?

I take out my anger on small children and puppies.

Problem solved. Now we can enjoy our magazine and you can enjoy your sadism. :P

I retract agreement with adolf

Cocks. Not even Craccum prints articles that shoddy.

From what I've heard on radio or read in the papers it looks like that rape article is causing widespread scruntiny (Newstalk ZB is particularly hard on student magazines in general). From what I've seen in today's Sunday news (I got it for free after eating at Subway), the Office of Film and Literature Classication has been asked by police and community groups to determine if the article is objectionable. There may be legal action for the Critic.

there's no denying it: Critic is a collective of cocks

I thought Craccum is pretty low but that link proves that there are worse.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cf...jectid=10347305

I still maintain that Jews are hilarious.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you solely listen to fucking ZB and read the herald, of course these things are going to sound bad.

The problem with these sources is that they are run by people who are either: old; boring; stupid; or a combination of all three. For this reason they are barely credible news sources.

It's like listening to an ACT critique of Greens policy. The two groups are fundamentally different and the ACT party are old, boring, and stupid. Anything involving a critique of something contemporary by a conservative is not going to be even remotely accurate.

Sure the article sucked. It was poorly written and not very entertaining. It is sensational and deliberately provocative. Anyone who reads more into it than that is a fucking retard in my opinion.

Natch. That article is obviously satire, and from what I gleaned, it's the 'offensive' issue. But the media love to jump on this stuff, cause it's easy to misrepresent and get headlines from, and the student media love to publish it, because they know they'll get a spot on Close Up and Radio NZ. It's one of those things where everyone is locked into this little dance, they all know they're doing it, but they can't stop.

It's the student media's job to be offensive once every two years, it's the grownup media's job to be offended -- and it all takes place within carefully prescribed boundaries (that the student media think they're pushing). Yaaaawn.

That sums it up very nicely.

Hello Craccum readers. There seems to be alot of intelligent discussion about issues that have been raised in the student media recently. Therer also seems to be other comments which according to the rules that are outlined below are questionable



4) Offensive Posts, Links or Images: No NSFW content. NSFW ("Not Safe For Work") is defined as anything that most people would not want seen by their bosses, parents or teachers. Do not use profanity, racial, ethnic, religious, or other slurs, or post sexually-oriented material, or any other offensive material. This includes "Victim Pictures" of people and animals after they have been through some form of bodily trauma, "Goatse" - Photographic picture featuring the rear end of anatomy, "Tubgirl" - Photographic picture featuring creative uses of anatomy and liquids.

The comments from Adolf Chiang about me I find (moderately) offensive, you have never met me and [FLAMES]. Other comments through the site also are uninformed and echo lies told by various student politicians that infest this place. I take the fact that the moderator hasn't removed them, as permission to use an equivalent level of offence if necessary [no it isn't - the oob]. Thank you.

Back to the drug rape article. When I initially wrote it, it was in response to a friend of mine who was kept unconscious for two days and used for sexual gratification. I realise that without influence, money or power, that it is really hard to get your voice heard. I decided that I would write a piece deliberately targeting the sensibilities of the 'mad left', and in particular radical feminists in order to get the media exposure to spread the information. I also decided to not put in details of how to actually make the chemicals as that would be a step too far. My approach worked, albeit late, it took three weeks to get noticed.

When Radio NZ interviewed me, I stated in response to a why question, " well, a very few women, say 5 will possibly get raped because of what I have written. However, I know that say 200 will not get raped, so thats 200-5 = +195 so thats a victory against wrong as far as I'm concerned".

Many girls came up and congratulated me, saying "we didn't know that that could be done" and similar. Only one girl assaulted me; threw her chips and a 6ft 3 guy tried to attack me, I gave him a liver squeeze and threw him into a wall. I sent the article to Epsom girls, Diocesan and Baradene, as I know girls from these colleges who are good friends. Their overly conservative staff warned my friends against me!!, they laughed. Another headmaster from a more mainstream and sensible school sent it to many other schools via friends in his network to warn the girls of what men could possibly do. This was the best thing that came out of it I feel.

Why the over-reaction?
1. Evelyn Ashton of "sing like a dog farting" on TV 3 is partially responsible. She was a flatmate for a year and a half and we had a falling out over my mate doing the dirty on her best friend. Evie never forgot and being the vengeful maggot that she is, decided to twice slag me off on air on her far-left program Flipside. She never even read the piece as it was three weeks too late. She incited people on air to commit acts of violence against me. I never saw this and heard about it too late to take legal action. In a varsity.co.nz survey, 2 out of 3 respondants approved of my means of publicising this issue. The Flipside survey was i in 3 approval, actually quite good when you realise that most of those people would also have never read the piece. Thank the Gods that I didn't root Evie when she offered herself up to help pay off her student loan!

2. Princes St Labour. These critters attacked anything that I tried, which was good becuase it encouraged me. The AUSA exec banned the methamphetamine recipe article(fake) because a) several were on it and trying to keep it secret and B) it was me again in the press and I was more well known than them and it hurt them so bad!! Also because I'm older than most of them, there was a fair bit of agism, which is to be expected and doesn't bother me a bit. So as soon as another article appeared in press they inevitably bit hard...

3. Political correctness. This, far from being a tool of the right to disenfranchise leftist intellectualisms, is the harbinger of the new dark ages. Just as Galilleo was oppressed for postulating that the earth revolved around the sun against religious doctrine of the times, likewise anyone not conforming to the current leftist 'groupthink' climate is immediately discredited. Race, gender, sexual preference discussions are just some of the topics gauranteed to provoke an unreasonable response.

The Craccum editors are constrained in how much coverage they can give me as I am currently banned by John Hood until jan 1 2006 for allegedly aciding the parking meters. As a non-student I recognise that Im lucky to get anything in the magazine, but got a bit starved for publishing, so I sent 5 articles to Critic. She drew upon two of them, holocaust olympics and drug rape, for inspiration but I had no idea of the content or that they were even doing that. Apparently its much 'worse' than my original. I made my original funny as it could be so that it would be read, shocking to be remembered and to get coverage. She didn't even give me any credit! Perhaps thats a good thing in light of the past reactions to articles.
As far as other comments go, I believe that Craccum isnt about good writing, although its nice when that happens. Its more about bad writing actually, about shock, porn, cartoons, all manner of vilenesses, badly written but brilliant ideas, about these ideas finding their way into the media without the constraints and clamps of conservative conformity interfering with freedom of expression, something that I believe that the outside world could do with. Craccum is a valuable tool for editors and writer to test their mettle.

Finally I'm not here to be a sexual predator Mr Chiang, it would be easy to become a school teacher and indulge. Ask the Shadows management; they refused to trespass me until the order came down form the corrupt, Princes st backed executive to the Bacchid board of directors who run Shadows and I have always behaved beyond reproach within its walls. I'm here because the student media provides a highly effective forum that reaches 1,000's of tommorrows movers and shakers. I'm here to fight the political absurdities of both the left and the right. I thank anyone who has ever taken the time to read my stuff, love it or hate it, and I'll see you around next year.

regards
nicholas P Keesing/ian piquet/feminem

What was that about? Am I an idiot in your opinion? I don't recall making specific comments about you.

Greetings Keesing.

It's a shame when the media plays the 'shock-value' of a story angle more prominently than the message the article was trying to convey.

It represents a failing in the real-world media and I would suggest it is inferior to student-media in that regard.

Nicholas, I don't know if you are just taking the piss with that post, but seeing you probably aren't I'm going to have to respond.

I am not impressed. No one cares that your ex flatmate is on TV now

You really have a high opinion of yourself, don't you? No one cares how old you are, but to me it sounds like whatever that may be, you're not acting it. Grow up.

That's great. A religious totalitarian society subverting an honest scientist is likened to a group of people in a democratic society that have a particular take on an etiquette for tolerance and sensitivity? Nice analogy.

FIGHT THE POWER~!!!!

You know what? I think for you to even be moderately offended by Adolf Chiangs comments it would actually have to be you that has problems with esteem. The whole point of being published and putting yourself in the public eye is that people who don't know you are going to slag you off, a lot, whether or not your ideas are good or bad, whether or not you're articulate or enjoyable to read. Had you bothered to read some of Adolf's other posts you'd probably know that he's probably not worth responding to in your case, however if you've got a problem with what he has to say why call him an "emotionally based loser"? If you’re such a great famous writer why can’t you respond constructively as opposed to resorting to personal insults to someone you don’t know in your first paragraph? It makes you sound really bitter.

Salutations Comrade Keesing!

Political correctness has achieved something and bitten someone who aimlessly bashes leftwingers.

FIGHT THE MACHINE FOR LIFE BRO!

Dwelling on a student article to this extent goes to show just how desperate they are for some news.

It is always of a concern to me when men of your age "befriend" impressionable school girls.

how would rooting you pay off her student loan? surely she has made a more successful carreer for herself than you have.

What a crock of shit...Are you really suggesting that the Princess street labour "critters" 1) have control over the executive 2) have control over Bacchid 3) have control over Brett and shadows and 4) actually give enough of a shit about you to bother?

Your kung fu is strong, my son, but mine is stronger.
You still have much to learn. You must use discipline.

Fear does not exist in this dojo.
Pain does not exist in this dojo.
Defeat does not exist in this dojo.

Wax on, wax off.

Who is this buttsniffer? no one gives a fuck bro. take your ego and show it to your jizz whore. she'll be most impressed. then you guys can.... the mind boggles.......

'the Craccum editors are constrained in how much coverage they can give me as I am currently banned by John Hood until jan 1 2006 for allegedly aciding the parking meters.'

they must be so disappointed they cant give you coverage. what do you think you are , a fucking tsunami? and youre articles...welll i just love them... especially ones like at the end of last year, when you laid into the new zealand police without any real point, just a self gratifying wankfest of me me me. like i already said, no one gives a fuck. and here you are comparing yourself to gallileo? and saying you throw big men into walls? please. suck a fat one, nutlicker.

The man himself !! Post some more Nicholas P. Best thing I have read all year. :clap:

Will we see comment forthcoming on Critic editor Holly Walker's blog?

:iiam:

Why does it refer to Holly Walker as the "most notorious student editor in NZ"? What a fuckload of fuck.

Critic is a fuckload of fuck. And here is proof:

:bullshits:

There are so many other ways she could have gone about putting shit in her mag to "highlight the issues". Lets face it, it was a glorified publicity stunt aimed at trying to out-do Craccums' glorified publicity stunts of the past, remember kids, it's been done before and nobody likes a copycat.

She sucked a lot of cock to get that title?

I walked through Otago Uni yesterday but there were no critics about...