"A New Zealand Man Who Claimed He Was Raped by a Wombat
and that the experience left him speaking with an Australian accent has been found guilty of wasting police time," reports the Telegraph (U.K.). "Police prosecutor Sergeant Chris Stringer told the court that alcohol played a large role in [the man's] life." To put your mind at rest, "Although powerfully built and about the size of a small pig, [wombats] are very rarely dangerous."
Thanks to Victor Steinbok for the pointer.
The call struck me as crazy rather than a joke until someone explained to me that (1) many New Zealanders have a poor opinion of Australians, and (2) such people make fun of the Australian accent. So in context, this call is like Prof. Volokh calling the police and telling them that he had been hit in the head with a brick and was now talking like a USC student.
I agree with Ex-Fed; the guy could totally write a lowbrow comedy based around this and sell it to Hollywood.
Watch the brilliant HBO series "The Flight of the Conchords," a comedy about a pair of musicians from New Zealand trying to make it in New York. They are regularly annoyed at being mistaken for Australians (or Brits).
American (to the two muscians, commenting on their behavior) "Hey, I don't know how things work over in England"
Conchords "New Zealand!"
American "whatever."
Or in another situation:
Conchord: "I'm from New Zealand"
Clueless idiot: "You mean with Vikings?"
Conchord "uhh....."
Next!
And you should hear an annoyed male Koala...
This is why wombat rape is vastly under-reported...
I don't know, are wombats edible?
I don't think weevils eat wombats.
It was one of the Nutty Professor movies with Eddie Murphy.
Just doing my bit to contribute.
Those who are really bad alcoholics may experience delirium tremens (DTs) when they stop drinking abruptly, and DTs are often marked by florid hallucinations involving unusual animals, e.g., "pink elephants." My first thought was that Cradock might have been going through DTs, but his follow-up call suggests he wasn't delirious (not going through DTs)or otherwise in a state of diminished mental capacity. Far more likely, he was less impressively intoxicated, a bit disinhibited, and thought he was being funny in front of one or more other inebriates when he made the 911 call. Anyway, that's my medical perspective on the story. (Oh, and Cradock ought to be counseled to take vitamin B1 supplements, because those who derive most of their "nutrition" from alcohol over an extended period of time and don't get enough B1, or thiamine, in what they do eat, are liable to develop a devastating neurologic injury, namely Wernicke's encephalopathy.)
BTW, The South Island of NZ is very beautiful, and Motueka, where Cradock hails from, is especially beautiful.
I expect Australians have some reason(s) to complain about NZers in turn. I don't know what that would be, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it traced to some sports rivalry, like in rugby.
File that under: "Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time". In fairness to Mr. Cradock, claiming that you've been raped by a Wombat could only work as humor if the report was given in a faux-stralian accent.
Friends don't let friends dial drunk.
Sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim. Next we'll hear that he led the wombat on.
neurodoc : Q: What do you call the eastern suburbs of Sydney? A: New Zealand. [I think this type of joke is prompted by the feeling that some Kiwis take advantage of the easy immigration policy we allow them - personally I have nothing against them.]
I think that should be a defense is cases like these--sort of like the plaintiff's adultery in a New York divorce case is a defense in cases where divorce is sought due to defendant's adultery.
Makes no bloody sense, but, hey, it makes for entertaining days at the matrimonial parts of Kings County Supreme Court.
But I think we are all wondering if Obama has distanced himself sufficiently from the wombat.
That puts my mind at rest like this statement:
I cannot say for certain, but I strongly suspect that such advice was given only to women, or in situations of rape involving women. I simply cannot imagine a man telling other men to just take it like a pansy.
The wombat, through a representative, said something about a wide stance. He is avowedly heterosexual (heterowombativesexual?).
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.