| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 116360 | 2011-02-28 18:57:00 | Ken Ring on Campbell Live last night | Colpol (444) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1182257 | 2011-02-28 20:24:00 | It's John Campbell, what do you expect. Personally I thought it was great. Probably cuz I don't believe the Ken Ring BS but I'm happy JC put him in his place. Globe is right, we don't need more panic down here. |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1182258 | 2011-02-28 20:47:00 | I used to think John Campbell was a decent reporter, he sunk to some pretty low levels in the one sided interview. Yes I now concede John Campbell has become a clown is definitely short of the picnic set Wasn't Campbell a lawyer at some stage? Maybe too much watching American movies and TV shows centred on the heroic antics of the prosecutor - or defense counsel - have influenced him too much. What a reprehensible and asinine performance from Campbell. An interview should be a two-way thing, an exchange of ideas, the bringing out of opinions and facts from both sides. Certainly it should not be an all out rabid bad-mouthing on the part of the interviewer. There is no justification for any attack especially of that nature on anyone in any media. Reminds why I don't watch Campbell. Or TV3 for that matter -a TV version of gutter press. |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1182259 | 2011-02-28 21:28:00 | I don't think Campbell was a lawyer, he has an English degree. He used to be pretty good, I remember him on 60 Minutes back in the day. |
Siobhan Keogh (16063) | ||
| 1182260 | 2011-02-28 21:28:00 | Well friends from nelson went to Christchurch last weekend to visit family, while they were there friends father said he had heard that they were in for another shake that weekend or a day or so either side. I don't know where he heard it from but it was obviously accurate. Incidently friends left to come back the morning of the shake | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1182261 | 2011-02-28 21:30:00 | Interesting take on it here: sciblogs.co.nz | Siobhan Keogh (16063) | ||
| 1182262 | 2011-02-28 21:46:00 | Interesting take on it here: sciblogs.co.nz OMFG: Someone stole what I said. :( Which one of you wrote that? JC reminds me of Stephen Sackur, just very rude and classless version of him. Scrap that. JC tries to pretend that he is Stephen Sackur, but he isn't. He's just a classless prick who does nothing but bombard a populist view on any and all of his interviewees. You can get any person in the world, any intellectual/scientist/whoever, bombard them with 20 question - before allowing them to answer change the topic, rephrase the question or reiterate something. I would think that in an interview one would be allowed to answer the questions one was asked... |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 1182263 | 2011-02-28 22:20:00 | While I don't really believe the theories of the guy, I think the way Campbell conducted the interview was terrible. Felt like he just got the guy on to vent some anger at someone - I almost got the impression he was trying to find a scapegoat to direct peoples anger towards. Well done ******* Live. | inphinity (7274) | ||
| 1182264 | 2011-02-28 22:41:00 | Just for the record, I'll supply again the link to Earth Tides (hvo.wr.usgs.gov) that I provided in the earlier thread on the Campbell Vs Ring one-sided "interview". The link between earth tides and volcanic activity has been established, so although proof to scientific standards is not yet recognised, it doesn't take a huge leap,of faith to accept that an unstable geological formation might give way under the influence of the next major king tide/earth tide sequence. After all, the scientists agree that the latest earthquake (on a previously unknown fault line) was triggered by the first one. Campbell was spoiling for fight and Ring was a gentleman, but still manage to shut him down. He was not saying that earth tides were a factor in any particular instance, just that there was an enhanced risk. Billy And as for Prefect's insightful contribution, I refer you all to Paraprosdokian No. 5 in Monday laughs. |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1182265 | 2011-02-28 22:46:00 | Ding-a-Ling Ring says that earthquakes occur because of the Moon's forces . Well, the attached plot shows the Earth tides for Christchurch (the cathedral, in fact) . These are the movement of Earth's crust in response to the gravitational attraction of the Moon overhead . There is continual movement, just like the ocean tides, but we cannot feel it because we are on top and have no frame of reference, but satellites detect it and altimeters must be adjusted to account for it . I defy anyone to find any pattern in this record that correlates with the large earthquakes we've had . And in any case, tomorrow (2-March-2011) is the day when the Earth tide is largest over the period, so why does he say 20-March is the day? Ring is a charlatan who fools gullible people with pseudo science . As Campbell pointed out last night, he has no science training, and is no better than an astrologer . |
TideMan (4279) | ||
| 1182266 | 2011-02-28 23:05:00 | Ding-a-Ling Ring says that earthquakes occur because of the Moon's forces . Well, the attached plot shows the Earth tides for Christchurch (the cathedral, in fact) . These are the movement of Earth's crust in response to the gravitational attraction of the Moon overhead . There is continual movement, just like the ocean tides, but we cannot feel it because we are on top and have no frame of reference, but satellites detect it and altimeters must be adjusted to account for it . I defy anyone to find any pattern in this record that correlates with the large earthquakes we've had . And in any case, tomorrow (2-March-2011) is the day when the Earth tide is largest over the period, so why does he say 20-March is the day? Ring is a charlatan who fools gullible people with pseudo science . As Campbell pointed out last night, he has no science training, and is no better than an astrologer . Mmmm . . . . . . so you accept that the scientists say that the prior earthquake provoked the unknown fault into activity, but you don't think that plus or minus 300mm of movement (more or less) on a monthly basis might not further weaken existing faults? You can only flex even the strongest of materials just so many times before they weaken and ultimately fracture, and we are talking geological time frames here . Is it not feasible that the first earthquake, followed by many aftershocks, weakened this fault and caused it to rupture? The scientists say it did, and if I read the reports correctly, it was vital that they reach that conclusion or our insurance would have been seriously compromised, so I'm not surprised that they would oppose any suggestion that 'other factors' had a hand in it, or any future event in this particular cycle . Men died for saying the earth orbited the sun, but they were dead right . Billy |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||