Zombie Walk

News Flash:

Headline: Hordes of Zombies roam city streets

Dateline: Adelaide Sat 26 May

Hordes of the undead rose from the Adelaide Parklands to traverse the streets of Adelaide.

Whilst most were docile, some moved incredible fast and demonstrated rudimentary motor skills suchs as operating cameras and other technological devices.


No one is sure what their purpose was, but as the shambolic mass stumbled down Rundle Street, Rundle Mall and Hindley Street, the chant of brains could be heard continually, making this reporter suspect they were protesting the lack of intellectual stimulation that Adelaide has to offer the denizens of the underworld. (or the populous at large - Ed.)

As far as we know, no one was injured or turned into a Zombie during the walk, although there was one weird zombie preaching the word of the Lord to the others in an apocalyptic manner.

Unfortunately that zombie was obviously more braindead than the others, as he kept trying to cite the scriptures but clearly had no proper understanding of them. One choice quote was "Jesus died on the Cross for our Sins, that should have been you" which is a clear misrepresentation of the meaning of the Cruxifiction.

Unfortunately this reporter was too busy staring at the raver zombie's cute ass and considering if sex with the undead would be considered necrophilia to take a photo of preacher zombie.

Video footage of the event follows, where you can hear a little of the preaching of the braindead zombie ...



More Photos and Videos at Ringo.com

How real are the commentators?

I was thinking about something whilst looking at Andrew Bolts blog today - How many of those people are REAL people with real desire to know more and debate the issues Bolt puts forth, and how many are news corp stooges and cronies?

Likewise with the AdelaideNOW blog, which is full of praise for the new layout?

I don't like the new page because the stories are different from the Advertiser, meaning if I want to read the front page I have to go buy the paper, which I refuse to do. I'm not paying for one or maybe two stories. Also, you used to be able to read the paper and stories from up to a week previously, but I can no longer find that functionality on the website.

Sure, I can go online and read other sites, but when Adelaide only has one news source, it kind of makes it a little hard to find stuff about us from an Adelaide perspective. But that's besides the point.

Anyway, on Sunday there was a story by Amanda Blair, an ex Adelaide radio jock, about how DJs and radio hosts are aware that most callers to the station are fake.

And it got me thinking... how do we know these blog commentators aren't fake?

The posts are moderated anonymously, and there's nothing to tie people to their posts like other sites like Kotaku or even a web forum.

I added a comment to the AdelaideNow website, and hopefully Rod, the editor, can answer...

Hey Rod,

Just like to get your opinion on something...

Given that the fake radio caller thing has been blown wide open by the Sunday Mail (well, for those listeners too stupid to realise the truth beforehand anyway), I'd like to know what guarantees do we have that people responding to these blogs aren't just newspaper people posing as 'concerned readers'.

Because the posts are moderated before we see them, I feel that this is very open to abuse, much like the Radio calls.

Surely a registered user database would be better than anonymous posting coupled with anonymous moderating.

Andrew Bolt's brilliant journalistic mind...

Andrew Bolt on the Herald Sun is bashing the 'left wing bias' in today's media.

Very admirable, but he totally misses the point.

On his second post about the Lebanese taxi apparently bombed by Isreal being a hoax (and talk about beating a dead horse) He says "Well, we know now beyond doubt, thanks to Zombietime, that the story was completely false".

I had to post a comment, and I'll be interested to see if it's published. Here's what I wrote:

Um, no we don't.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the real truth. Mr Bolt is a lazy, inept journalist.

Here we see his absolutely brilliant journalistic mind at work: Take one source and treat it gospel truth.

The Zombietime people just look at photos and surmise the outcome. It is hardly irrefutable proof that what occurred is a hoax.

To really tell if this occurred, you'd need to travel to Lebanon and interview people from both sides of the conflict, interview observers and witnesses, analyse the metal around the hole looking for burn residue.

But if you are happy to report a biased, unfounded and quite possibly false piece of photographic comparative analysis as truth and demand an apology from other sources who report a different truth, then that's your problem, not mine.

However, you're the one being paid as a 'journalist'.

Then again, you're not really a journalist, are you Mr Bolt?

Just like owning a guitar is not enough to make you a rockstar, you're just being paid by a newspaper to put your words on a page...