More twists in Mediaworks firearm purchase

While journalists generally have been supportive of Heather Du Plessis-Allan over the Story rifle buying story, and scathing of the police for searching her home David Fisher and NZ Herald have been doing some actual investigative journalism.

Fisher reveals a number of very pertinent facts in The Big Read: Twist to TV gun-buying tale.

Elements of TV3’s gun buying story were contrived as documents show a production manager on the show may be directly implicated in the purchase and delivery of the .22 rifle at the centre of a police inquiry.

The Herald also understands Mark Weldon, the boss of TV3’s owner MediaWorks, appears to have personally approved the gun buying story.

During broadcast of the story, du Plessis-Allan was shown holding a piece of paper to the camera saying: “Normally you take this form down to the police station along with your firearms licence. The police officer checks that you actually do have a firearms licence and signs at the bottom of the form. We can tell you we didn’t take the form to a police station.”

In the wake of an outcry over the search, police put out a press release saying TV3 staff would not be interviewed so detectives took “steps necessary to obtain the information required to progress the investigation”.

Du Plessis-Allan told viewers that night TV3 had handed over information sought by officers.

“They asked me for the original mail order form – I handed it over. They never asked me for my handwriting samples and know that had they done it, I would have handed them over.”

The Herald has studied the copy of the mail order form used to buy the rifle from Gun City and compared it to the form shown in the broadcast on October 21. The documents are different – the “B” in “bolt”, the “R” in “rifle” and the “AC” in “action” most strikingly so.

It means detectives were confronted with the possibility of more documentation other than that which was used to purchase the weapon.

The existence of two forms would compel detectives investigating the gun buy to search for other documentation, according to Criminal Bar Association president and former police detective Tony Bouchier.

The search warrant of du Plessis-Allan’s home was for more than handwriting samples:

The single reference to the “original mail order form” by du Plessis-Allan has been the only comment about the documentation used to buy the rifle. Both Story hosts have spoken repeatedly of the search being to obtain handwriting samples, referring to police “looking for handwriting samples”.

There has been no reference to the second part of the search warrant – of which the Herald has a copy – and its second stated objective. The warrant specifically seeks “all copies of the Gun City mail/online order form, or other sheets of paper that have Justin Devine’s signature on it,” referencing a copy of the actual order form used to buy the weapon and the false name adopted for the purchase.

Another person involved:

Along with the order in the name of “Justin Devine”, the form carried a credit card number said to be in the name of “J Devine”.

Story’s production manager is Jayne Devine, according to her LinkedIn page. The address on the Gun City mail order form to which the rifle was delivered has been matched by the Herald with Ms Devine’s home address.

So the Story story was a packaged story that left out a few of the details. As has coverage of the search.

While a jail term is a possible outcome for forgery and impersonating a police officer I don’t think that would an appropriate penalty. But it seems reasonable for the police to investigate this.

And it’s good to see journalists like Fisher doing some hard core investigating rather than just jumping on the media bandwagon (and mutual defence wagon).

 

Leave a comment

54 Comments

  1. Brown

     /  9th December 2015

    ”While a jail term is a possible outcome for forgery and impersonating a police officer I don’t think that would an appropriate penalty.”

    This is where I disagree. Locking up a few leftie journos for fraud will start to see them take reporting news seriously again and stop feeding the masses rubbish.

    Reply
    • What!? And leave the field open only for rightie journos feeding the masses rubbish? No way. The media needs balanced rubbish; needs to strike its own garbage equilibrium.

      Thinking aloud a shade more seriously though, stream of consciousness: Let’s assume the HDPA case is “a bad thing done with a good outcome”. The loophole allowing the bad thing has apparently been closed. So, it seems to me, an appropriate, least-invasive level of investigation and perhaps some censure is warranted.
      I do think the law should have the discretion to “just let it go”.

      There are bad things happening with bad outcomes which I’d rather see police resources used on.

      I don’t know whether the ‘seeming’ misuse of the HDCA law towards YourNZ warrants police investigation? I guess perhaps the quick discharge is a positive outcome? I guess its entirely a civil matter is it?

      Anyhow, z’where I’m at right now. (Might change?) Focus limited police resources on crime that has bad outcomes. Otherwise, like KvG in Kaikohe, the expenditure of resources not only looks pointless, the way is left open for accusations of “Witch Hunting”.

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  9th December 2015

        2 things on that ‘loophole’ you mention.

        1. Just how many previous people had used that so-called ‘loophole’ to illegally purchase a firearm prior to this ‘story’ on TV3? My understanding is none, so it wasn’t exactly an issue – NZ doesn’t have a major problem of people illegally buying firearms over the internet.

        2. It wasn’t so much a loophole – which I understand to be an ambiguity in the law that makes some acts in contrary to the law legal – what she did was outright illegal, she exposed no loophole, but just showed how easy it was to break the law. Breaking the law – in this case fraudulently completing a form – is not a loophole in my opinion.

        Reply
        • One of those thumbs up is me. That’s a very balanced viewpoint Missy.
          I wonder what did prompt the story then?
          As I recall, the broadcast mentioned one or two ‘complaints’ from people who had guns left on their front doorsteps by couriers?
          I often wonder, how do these things get to the media in fhe first place, rather than to the parties directly involved; the couriers, gun shops and police?
          I have questions –
          1) Is the number of firearms purchased illegally on the internet a known quantity?
          I mean, if people have gotten away with it we won’t know, will we?
          2) Perhaps her intention in breaking the law was to show how it might be done – or might actually be being done? This is not the same, to me, as simply breaking the law for the sake of it?
          Hence I reckon keep the investigation and ‘punishment’ in proportion with the ‘crime’.
          And utilize police resources proportionately to the severity of crimes being committed.

          I know the counter-position: She broke the Law.

          So did hundreds of homosexual men who still carry convictions despite their sexual preference no longer being illegal.
          So have thousands upon thousands of marijuana users who, I predict, will one day be in the same position.

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  9th December 2015

            Yes, but the gay men were consenting adults doing things with their own bodies and not harming anyone else; that law was absurd. This was a very different thing; a gun is a lethal weapon, and the laws on gun ownership affect everyone. If a criminal did this and boasted about how easy it was to circumvent the gun laws, I don’t think that they would be treated as a hero who had exposed a loophole in the law. This wasn’t a loophole, it was fraud and various other crimes. If it had been something that she could do quite easily, it might have been a loophole. As it was, it was a crime, and a journalist should not be given special treatment. Not for a firearms offence. Anyone could claim that they only did it to show how easy it was to do. Firearms are too dangerous to be treated lightly.

            Reply
          • Missy

             /  9th December 2015

            PartisaNZ, I am not sure what prompted the story, not being in NZ I have not seen any of the TV3 stuff, and really only know what I have read on the internet – we can speculate, but I don’t think we will know for sure. I do recall at the time reading something about an interview Greg O’Connor did on Radiolive where he mentioned how lax the law around internet firearms sales were – that could have been a trigger for it.

            I don’t recall anyone saying that guns had been left by the courier (but I may have missed that) I do remember seeing where some had said others had signed for the guns, the courier had left them with the person who had signed, and that person left them.

            I agree, I often wonder how some things get in the media, for me this particular story is starting to look like someone pushing an agenda, I am not sure what though, whether it is Greg O’Connor for arming the police, or an anti-gun person/persons trying to stop the sale of firearms, or something else entirely.

            As to your questions:

            1. I am not sure on that, however, I understand an audit has been undertaken since this story of Gun City, and not one of their internet sales, other than TV3’s, has been shown to be fraudulently bought. I would imagine that internet businesses would be tightly monitored though, and maybe more so now.

            2. I disagree on the intent in this case, I do believe the law was broken for the sake of it, it makes for a more dramatic story and higher ratings for TV3, I do believe they could have shown how easy it is without actually breaking the law. I do not believe they had criminal intent for the use of the firearm, but their was an intent to break the law to obtain it.

            I do think this case needs to be investigated, but I do not think that any punishment TV3 may incur (if they are found guilty of a crime) should include jail time.

            I don’t think it is right to compare this to homosexuality or marijuana users, I do not see a time in the future when fraud will be legalised. But I get the point – my position on those issues is for another discussion I think. (and don’t read into that, that I will most likely disagree with you – I may surprise you. 🙂 )

            Reply
    • I repeatedly see references to ‘Leftie journalists’, on the blogs. Can someone please explain to me why the MSM, which is owned by Rightwing peeps (e.g Rupert Murdoch) employ all these ‘leftie’ journos? It dosn’t really make sense to me. ?

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  9th December 2015

        @belledejourNZ I didn’t realise Rupert Murdoch owned any media interests in NZ, out of curiosity which one’s does he own in NZ?

        Reply
        • RM has a stake in APN which owns some papers including the Herald, the HOS, BOP times and others, APN also owns quite a lot of radio incuding Newstalk ZB, Classic Hits.Hauraki, Radio Sport, and others, NZ Women’s Weekly and others. I don’t watch TV any more,but if Prime is still around I think that is a NewsCorp/RM thing too.

          Reply
          • Missy

             /  9th December 2015

            Oh, right, I didn’t realise that. As someone I used to work with said ‘every day is a school day’, I have learnt something today. Thanks. 🙂

            Reply
      • Here’s my theory belledejourNZ. It’s just my theory, quite simple but likely to raise a shitstorm. It’s the PartisanZ view.

        1) Right-wing sheeple are the primary consumers of the various media.
        They are most likely to pay for it and to advertise in it.
        Because of this they have a “vested interest” in its content.

        2) Leftie journos annoy, anger and sometimes expose the right-wing sheeple, inciting them to go buy the media, retaliate in it and spend more money to protect their vested interests. This makes the leftie journo highly employable, yes? Their role is to create the ‘polarisation’, to incite the market demand, and they know it.

        Shit, it’s a binary equation. I thought I’d have to write a novel.

        Some branches of the media have become right-wing, back-slapping sheeple dips, notably talk-back radio, where you’ll be hard pushed to find a leftie journo within the blast radius.

        The sense all this makes is the sense of the marketplace, not necessarily “sense” as we commonly understand it. It’s not the sort of sense you’d apply in your family, among your friends, in your local community or even the wider community if you, personally, had the power to do so. Not ethical sense.

        But because it’s “the marketplace” it is excused from making such sense.
        It’s supra-ethical. The ethics of ‘devoidance’.

        Novellette. Darn!

        Reply
        • Ben Rachinger

           /  9th December 2015

          Define “marketplace”. I enjoy reading your novels. We share a lot of views. Steeple is a turn off word though Z, from a writers perspective. You want to be read..

          Not turn people off.

          Reply
        • Ben Rachinger

           /  9th December 2015

          Sheeple*

          Reply
          • Yeah, I know, the word “Sheeple” turns me off too. I’ve previously only seen it used to mean “people who blindly follow left-wing views”.
            You’re not a bad novelist and short-story writer yourself sometimes Ben, though I don’t read the Social Media ones.
            Have to think about the “marketplace” thing. I haven’t worked out exactly where I stand with it’s definition yet. I know it has something to do with “the foreign, non-human element money”. Along the lines of this, from Frank E Warner, “All fellowship, all personal relations have come to an end, labour is a commodity to be bought (and sold like any other product).

            Reply
        • Mike C

           /  9th December 2015

          @PZ

          LOL 🙂

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  9th December 2015

            People who say sheeple seem to think that it’s madly original. Like those who say that X is like turkeys promoting Christmas. Both are very old and tired.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  9th December 2015

              In fact, it seems that sheeple has been around since the 1940s. Someone should tell Cameron Slater that the turkey/Christmas thing has probably been around at least as long. There would be nobody here who was alive when these were new.

            • Veiled insult followed by salt in the supposed wound made by veiled insult. Or, smart words used as dumb action. You’re capable of transposing ‘people’ for sheeple and commenting on the content of the post, aren’t you?

            • yes, ditto ‘feminazis’ and ‘wussell norman’ and other things. I tend to resort to scrolling past these kind of posters, once I see that stuff.

            • oh, but I didn’t mean you Partisan Z. i am enjoying your posts so far 🙂
              I am mainly talking about the kind of posters you find on Kiwiblog and WO these days. That is how I ended up here, in part (that, and the rabid anti-muslim fervour of recent weeks.) I used to live surrounded by Muslims for years. Was not afraid of them then, why be now? They were quiet and good neighbours.

            • Lifetime learners unite!
              I chose to use the word “sheeple” in my media theory post because it was used insultingly by Alan a few days ago as a euphemism for “leftie”. I note no-one questioned his use of the word.
              My learning –
              It was a mistake to use it here because it has turned readers off from what is otherwise a cogent, if exaggerated, description of the media’s sway on our ’emotellects’, which we are all so convinced we can operate as separate orbits of our being, intellect and emotion.
              Indeed, sometimes we assert we are being purely rational while actually insulting each other on here. That’s how ridiculous this long standing ‘separation’ belief is in our culture.
              And it pertains most definitely to this thing we call Law.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              No, it wasn’t a euphemism for Lefties. It was for all those who uncritically swallow what Lefty journalists tell them. That is much wider.

            • Missy

               /  9th December 2015

              PartisaNZ, you are one of a couple of commenters here I read everything – or almost everything – you post. I don’t always agree with what you say, and I don’t always comment on what you say, but I usually do read it. 🙂

              On the use of the word ‘sheeple’ – I don’t like that word, but also it didn’t turn me off what you said.

              I did like what you wrote, and I especially like (and to a point agree with) your idea of the ‘media’s sway on our emotellects’ – actually I love that word emotellects!

  2. PartizanZ, your logic is as appealing as saying someone is partially pregnant.. There is one law for all of us, and Journalists are subject to the law. Police prosecute, courts decide based on all of the evidence, don’t take it out on the Police, it is their job. I think that she should go to prison if found guilty to underline the point that Justice is blind.

    Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  9th December 2015

      “Elements of TV3’s gun buying story were contrived as documents show a production manager on the show may be directly implicated in the purchase and delivery of the .22 rifle at the centre of a police inquiry.”

      Many of the very many comments, worked out the above, on day, one after the story broke.

      Reply
    • bjmarsh1 – your logic is as appealing as saying someone who is pregnant should go full term no matter what the circumstances of how she became pregnant or of the pregnancy itself. What would blind justice decide, for instance, if it came to a choice between the life of the mother and that of the child – it’s survival being viable – if only one can survive but it means acting prior to full term?
      There are perfectly equally illogical counter-arguments, summed up in sayings like –
      “The Law is an Ass”
      “One law for the goose and one for the gander”
      “You get the justice you can afford”
      and, oddly –
      “Justice is blind”
      Why do we want to have blind justice? What for?
      Is it blind justice giving dangerous criminals bail?
      I contend Justice is hampered by being blind.
      And Justice is peeking anyhow.
      Justice is being politically influenced. Justice is maybe even taking bribes?
      Aspects of Justice, as we know it, certainly represent something which has passed its ‘use by date’ …. to exaggerate for effect I’ll call this “The Rule of the Lodge”
      And, sigh!!! How the f*ck does saying, “There are bad things happening with bad outcomes which I’d rather see police resources used on” constitute “taking it out on the police”?
      Don’t say that and then accuse me of exaggeration.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  9th December 2015

        The reason for justice being blind is that it is supposed to be impartial and not prejudiced by appearances, skin colour or other such things, hence the depiction of justice as a woman with a blindfold. So yes, one would want justice to be blind in that sense.

        Mr Bumble in ‘Oliver Twist’ said that the law is a ass, not an ass. He was referring to the fact that in the eye of the law, his wife acted under his direction and this meant that he was liable for her crimes. He remarks bitterly that in that case the law is a ass-a idiot, and that if that is the eye of the law, the law must be a bachelor and he hopes that the law’s eye will be opened by experience.Mr Bumble’s speech patterns (‘ ass, a idiot’ ) show his ignorance.

        It’s ‘what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’, i.e. it’s the same thing. This saying is unaccountably misquoted in ways that make it meaningless, as does saying that the proof’s in the pudding-proof of what ?-instead of that the proof of the pudding’s in the eating.

        Reply
        • I stand corrected and somewhat chastised on all the semantic and literary allusion components of my writings.

          Here’s how the absurd notion of separation of intellect and emotion pertains to Law.

          Western law is still based on the traditional ideas of Roman law, which, notwithstanding its clearness and definition, has the stamp of its origins in a period of slave exploitation and ruthless self-seeking. One-sidedly individualistic, it is imbued with a naive belief in the virtues of forms and formulae, intended to protect the intellectually and emotionally weaker, but in reality these advantage those who are more familiar them.

          Thus the law, far from understanding the individual, seeks to understand human relations mechanically, to reduce them to typical forms and decide according to type.

          It sees cases instead of persons. Morally, however, it is not the same thing if a person purchases a firearm for the purpose of disclosing their actions to the public on television, or for the purpose of keeping the purchase secret and threatening, harming or killing another person with that firearm.

          The law of a machine-age world knows nothing of such distinctions. In its eyes each person is not the embodiment of the mysterious life force, unique and non-recurring, but a machine part, replaceable by another of the same type, to be treated exactly the same.

          It sees people and their acts only as types, and measures both by rigid standards.
          Criminal law is built up on the conception that certain acts are injurious and must be prevented. It punishes the person who commits them for their act. It takes little or no account that each criminal act is a combination of many different factors. Unfavourable predisposition, mental or financial distress and imponderable personal influences; such as the inducement to commit a crime to generate TV ratings, rather than perpetrate actual physical harm.

          In attempting to be the only truly rational ordering of human conduct, each age has that law which corresponds to its measure of reason, its rational insight into the conditions of its existence. The dehumanisation of our life, the stress and struggle forced upon us by our economic system, have immensely increased the frequency and bitterness of crimes and legal disputes.

          The absence of any true international law, lack of rights of the individual as against the State, and the backwardness of criminal law … “all these testify to our times and their measure of rational insight” (Warner)

          And wherever human organisation is considered there is a tendency to forget this organisation is made up of people, only people, with all their faults and merits.

          Ψ PartisanZ – “A State can be imagined that would satisfy the most stringent demands of ethics”. Therefore, an ethical world : or I dissent!

          Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  9th December 2015

      BJ, I wish you would send your comments to Mr Finlayson. Chris seems to have mislaid such concepts.

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th December 2015

    If we could lock up journalists for writing crap there would be a lot of blank space in our newspapers. I am sure PZ could fill it effortlessly.

    Reply
    • Low Alan, low. I see the humour. “Nah, nah, nah nah nah! You can talk!!!”
      Your articles would be brief and beside the point.
      The real problem is you – and Brown and cronies – would only lock up leftie journalists for writing crap.
      The rightie journalists who’s crap supports your right-wing views can write no crap, right?
      So, you’re right, I’d happily step into the void and write leftie crap to maintain the media garbage equilibrium.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  9th December 2015

        I’m an equal opportunity crap-hater, PZ. There aren’t many of them but right-wing journalists who produce crap should also get the toss.

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  9th December 2015

          I always find it amusing how pretty much everybody perceives that the majority of the media is on the “other side” politically.

          We can’t all be right but we could all be wrong 🙂

          Reply
          • Brown

             /  9th December 2015

            Jamie makes a good point but looking at the media from the outside I can’t think of anyone on the right. Some say they are but by their deeds you shall know them – and they are not. They fluff around the fringes without upsetting the applecart because their salary depends on it. Hence locking up lefties is valid because that’s all we seem to have available and HDA is, in this instance, as shonky as it comes by making a problem when there wasn’t one for no useful purpose other than to attack gun ownership with emotion rather than facts.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  9th December 2015

              What would a journalist or broadcaster have to do or say to qualify as “on the right” in your opinion?

            • @ Brown – you actually wrote this – (I laughed and laughed so thanks for the mid-riff exercise) –

              “They (pseudo-right-wing journos) fluff around the fringes without upsetting the applecart because their salary depends on it. Hence locking up lefties is valid because that’s all we seem to have available and HDA is, in this instance, as shonky as it comes”

              Your honour, I rest my case without having made one.

              Have them wear a Red Star with ‘PRESS’ on it too maybe?
              So we can identify them in public. They might come near the children. They might associate with teachers and social workers. I’m sure its dangerous for more than 3 of them to gather together in public.

              Oh, and, it’s not a Witch Hunt, right?

              Even if HDPA made a problem where there wasn’t one, I still contend the police are now pursuing a case where one is mostly unnecessary.

            • kittycatkin

               /  9th December 2015

              I think not. No matter who commits a crime, it is still a crime and nobody is above the law. It was a very stupid thing to do.If she’d robbed a bank and told how easy it was to do, she would not be given much sympathy and there wouldn’t be cries to let her off. Guns cannot be treated lightly.

          • kittycatkin

             /  9th December 2015

            How true, Jamie 😀 I should have been able to work that out for myself 😀

            Reply
  4. I personally am more concerned about the “Ghost Gun” manufacture using 3D printing and milling techniques as outlined here http://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/. Given the ease of purchasing of 3D Printers and the computerised aluminium milling machines, it is a short step for a dedicated nutcase to set up a mini rifle manufacturing sans serial numbers.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  9th December 2015

      Dedicated nutcase, or more likely a dedicated organised criminal group.

      Reply
      • @ bjmarsh1, jamie – 3D printed guns are certainly a possibility, but I think the trade in stolen (and otherwise acquired) firearms will keep the criminal element supplied for quite some time, especially while each firearm is not registered, only registered owners.
        Policing this is a useful area to devote police resources to I reckon.

        Reply
        • I agree, but the sheer ease of setting up a like system to that demonstrated in the reference is a concern and should be on the Customs watch list for imports.

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  9th December 2015

            Would a 3d printer be able to make something convincing in the way of guns ? Real ones are quite heavy, so even if the printer could make something that size, wouldn’t it be obviously not real ? Does anyone know ? I wonder if it might not, in fact, be a non-starter, more trouble than it’s worth.

            Reply
            • A 3D printed one shot pistol has been made and tested. I’m not posting a link or anything. Saw it on TV. It was potentially lethal as a pistol at close range and almost as potentially dangerous to the user from risk of jamming and exploding.

            • Kitty… Cody WIlson in the US gets in trouble with ATF and FBI for posting how to make a pistol using a 3D printer… its real

            • Kittycatkin, please look at the reference I gave you above. I have watched other videos about what is possible from 3 D printers and the manufacture of arms is possible using 3D printing techniques. I own and use a 3D printer so understand what is possible – believe me?

            • Robby

               /  9th December 2015

              @ Kitty
              Yes, it is easily done, however the printer required would be pretty expensive, as obviously a gun would need to be ‘printed’ from steel or titanium. Although it is possible to print a gun in plastic using the same blueprint in a cheap 3D printer, whoever test fired it would probably win the 2015 Darwin award posthumously….

            • Brown

               /  9th December 2015

              Nope. You can print in all sorts of tough alternatives to metal (and metal printing is easy with the right, very expensive, printer) so you just get the metal bits, if you need them at all, you need printed professionally by taking in the stick with the plan on it. I have seen pictures of exotic metals printed into mechanical parts for engines and they are beautiful to behold.

              I gather printed guns do work but have never seen one fired in the flesh so to speak. They will only get better / easier to make and how the heck will you control that? Maybe ammo is easier to manage but I’m not a gun owner or user and don’t know much about that.

    • it is probably happening right now, and in NZ!

      Reply
  5. unitedtribes2

     /  9th December 2015

    I shot the rabbit off the front lawn this morning. Should I send the gun back to Gun City now or perhaps just drop it in at the police station?

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  9th December 2015

      @UT2

      You killed Flopsy or Mopsy or Cotton-Tail or Peter with your shot gun this morning.

      You’re a real hero 🙂

      Reply
    • Nothwithstanding where and how safely the murder of this rabbit occurred, it depends if you are a registered gun owner? And how you acquired the gun? Care to share?

      Reply
      • Quite a stream this one eh? A river in flood, one might say? ‘Reply’ facilities failing as posts narrow to a few words wide – a good sign I think PG?

        Just want to say thanks Missy for your comment way up above: “Emotellect”. I like coining words (if I have done so). It’s an “intuitellectual” pursuit of mine.

        In a 1992 submission to a certain Royal Commission, I believe I coined the word “Necrography” for ‘the graphic depiction of death’.

        I argued on the basis there are essentially two distinct life forces, Eros and Necros: Love and Death (or Fear of Death) and we should therefore have two distinct words or names to define them.

        This exercise was a big fail on my part. Necrography has since become the name of internet and gaming activity of a Zombie/Death Cult nature. I have no idea whether I truly coined the word, although at the time no-one I knew had heard of it before.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: