Thread: New Zealanders presented with 40 flag options to vote for new national standard

ENT,

It's not just that you're objectively wrong.

It's also your apparent - almost pathological - inability to admit that you're wrong, your lies, and your ham-fisted, clumsy and ridiculously transparent attempts at obfuscation and shifting the goal-posts.

Contradicting yourself with your own links is quite amusing though. So there's that.

So now we know that modern Classical Maori didn't arrive in New Zealand until around (peg date)1625 AD, around the same time as Tasman (1642 + 1644 AD), well after the Portuguese and Spanish got to Hokianga and intermarried with the locals (peg date 1520s AD).
Nearly half the forest cover had been burned by then.

Current research also indicates that Moriori came to the Chatham Islands from New Zealand about 1500. Moriori traditions, however, hold that there were people on the island before the canoe voyagers arrived.
1. ? Moriori ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

In 1769, Cook was late, Classic Maori had arrived along with wars, and with fortified pa sites.

The Moa and half the forests had gone, burned, the seals gone, except in isolated colonies, and the previous occupants before the cannibal Maori arrived were either eaten, slaves, subsumed or escaped to more isolated South and West coast areas, and the Chathams.

By then Maori had very little easily available protein sources, so cannibalism, slaves were cheap.
Cook gave them some pigs, that helped.

Sealers and whalers arrived, eating up the last of the seals
British and other colonists arrived. Maori were trading and marrying in with the newcomers

Then the French whalers and troops arrived at Akaroa in 1838, a safe spot out on the edge of an easily defended old volcano.

That turned into a big excuse for the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840.

I wonder how a version of the Portuguese flag would go in NZ, or a Sri Lankan one?

And there you go again.

Your own links disprove your claims. You have zero credibility.

Poppycock.

You're a liar, a fraud, and a nutter who just makes stuff up ENT.

But the thing of it is you're just not very good at it. Well, aside from the nutter who makes stuff up bit. You're actually kinda talented at that.

why is it Tony never seems to come up with any evidence himself and just nit picks and slags off other sources, apart from having to call on some outside blog help that's just as PC as him. Whatever the subject he always claims people he disagrees with have contradicted themselves, moved the goalposts and have no credibility. All wrapped in in the usual insults, snide remarks and bigging himself up of course. Lets have some proper evidence from Tony without the stupid remarks, is that possible?

Probably not, he can't help it.

All a bit rich from someone who has no knowledge on the topic and is only agreeing with ENT to disagree with me.

How can anyone agree with you as you don't put forward anything other than a rant and insults.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly94

How can anyone agree with you as you don't put forward anything other than a rant and insults.

That's patently false and you are a liar.

I supplied links earlier in this thread. You have no interest in the actual truth or facts because you're a pathetic whiny old man who just wants to whine.

Anyone with an objective viewpoint can easily see the facts and that ENT is dribbling shite again. I also posted earlier in this thread that you'd do exactly as you are doing now because you're just stupid and pathetic that way.

So what makes you think that I'd care that a whiny, lying, stupid old fool like you who has a vested interest in believing the nonsense ENT is spouting doesn't agree with me.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

So what makes you think that I'd care that a whiny, lying, stupid old fool like you who has a vested interest in believing the nonsense ENT is spouting doesn't agree with me.

Ah but you do care sweetie-pie, and it shows

I think yourself and xanax need to get a bit of perspective.

You're just a couple of lying and not particularly bright old codgers on an Internet forum and, much as you wish you were more to me, that's all you'll ever be.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I think yourself and xanax need to get a bit of perspective.

You're just a couple of lying and not particularly bright old codgers on an Internet forum and, much as you wish you were more to me, that's all you'll ever be.

Oooooh, ya brek ma heart!

Typing out a list of links is not an argument is it? Do try a few posts without the juvenile insults Tony, it only makes you look weak.

There is no argument xanax, ENT is wrong.

Anyone who isn't an idiot can see that. Which is why you can't.

This ignore function's great, missed pages of enteritis and his mate asslickfly, no loss

Back on topic, for there is a topic, confirmed results of NZ referendum

The British ensign proved to be the victor with no real change in votes from the preliminary results: 1,208,702 (56.6 per cent) voted for the current flag and 921,876 (43.2%) voted for the silver fern contender.

The total votes received were 2,140,895 - but about 10,000 of those were either invalid or it was unclear which flag the voter had selected.

Turnout for the referendum was at 67.78 per cent of the total number of people on the electoral roll as at 3 March - about 3.1 million Kiwis.

Difference being I accepted that error and learnt from it, ENT.

And here you still are digging holes, Googling up links that disprove your own erroneous point, and engaging in every bit of disingenuity, obfuscation and general stupidity you can think of all just to avoid having to admit that you're wrong.

You're not very bright.

More flag options that didn't make the cut

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Difference being I accepted that error and learnt from it, ENT.

.

could you point out that post were you admit you were wrong, i'd like to print it out

Originally Posted by Dragonfly94

i'd like to print it out

To pin it on your wall next to the pics you collect of me no doubt, you creepy old perv.

Stop pretending you're interested in actual facts, xanax. It's not my problem that you're too stupid to read the thread and so pathetic and lacking in integrity that you're not interested in objective reality even if you did.

Go find it yourself. You may also want to seek some help for this unhealthy obsession of yours while you're at it.

so you are lying then? that's a bit ironic coming from you.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly94

so you are lying then? that's a bit ironic coming from you.

That tells me that you struggle with reading comprehension and don't know the meaning of the word "ironic".

Post the link then if you are not lying

That tells me that you struggle with reading comprehension...

Go find it yourself.

See, I knew it.

For one xanax it's your accusation, you back it up. If you believe that I'm lying and didn't say what I said I did then it would be quite a simple thing for you to prove. It's either in this thread or it isn't. Which leads me to my second point.

For another, I'm not in the habit of trying to prove something to a noted and known liar who has demonstrated that objective fact and reality are very much secondary considerations. You will believe what you want to believe regardless because you're just that dumb.