DPF – deliberately missing the point

101 comments on “DPF – deliberately missing the point ”

• Comments are now closed

1. pollywog 1

   20 October 2011 at 10:14 am

   He’s just so fucking irrelevent these days eh…just like that blubbering fool Slater.
   • logie97 1.1

     20 October 2011 at 10:34 am

     Unfortunately the Penguin is courted by the media as being relevant.
     He has a regular spot on RNZ Afternoons.
     He gets paid for a column in the Herald.
     He is referred to by media regulars as New Zealand’s leading blogger.
     And all the time, most of the pundits do not know of his and the Cetacean’s direct
     affiliations to a political party
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 2:52 pm

       Time for the Left to get its own MSM channels.
       • chris73 1.1.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

         You mean like this guy?

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/john-pagani-left-leaning
         • fmacskasy 1.1.1.1.1

           21 October 2011 at 11:19 pm

           Indeed, Chris.

           By the way, it might help John is folk posted on the comments section of his column and shared their thoughts on his writings. Right now, the “feedback” appears to emanate mostly from a handful of reactionary trolls…
     • chris73 1.1.2

       20 October 2011 at 5:00 pm

       All they have to do is go to his site and click on the blue Disclosure Statement icon, its not like hes trying to hide it
       • felix 1.1.2.1

         20 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

         There’s nothing in his disclosure statement that indicates his blogging arrangement with the National party.

         ps I don’t recommend anyone go to his site until we get a definitive answer about what malware he’s distributing.
         • Vicky32 1.1.2.1.1

           21 October 2011 at 11:47 pm

           ps I don’t recommend anyone go to his site until we get a definitive answer about what malware he’s distributing.

           Indeed! It’s scary….
       • logie97 1.1.2.2

         20 October 2011 at 5:52 pm

         The majority of pundits do not spend time in these types of sites. However, when the commercial radio stations, television, and newspapers seek his opinion with the preface “New Zealand’s leading blogger” it is quite different from prefacing, The National party’s leading blogger, and affords him a status that he does not deserve.
     • Gosman 1.1.3

       21 October 2011 at 9:59 am

       Are you stating that he isn’t NZ leading blogger?

       According to the, (admittedly out of date), blog rankings Kiwiblog was on top. Doesn’t that mean he is at least one of Nz leading bloggers if not the top?
       • pollywog 1.1.3.1

         21 October 2011 at 10:11 am

         slow day huh ?
2. vto 2

   20 October 2011 at 10:29 am

   Those who adjust their arguments to suit an agenda are not worth listening to.
3. coolas 3

   20 October 2011 at 10:30 am

   Having Farrar as National’s lap dog is great. He fetches and barks when commanded and rolls over to have his fat tummy rubbed after pleasing his masters. But I can’t decide whether he’s a poodle or a pug. Any suggestions?
   • vto 3.1

     20 October 2011 at 10:33 am

     Neither. More like one of those old forgotten teddy bears with missing eyes and stitching coming undone, all dusty and dirty and unloved. Fortunately these sorts of teddies usually find at least one person to pick them up and take them home…
     • sophie 3.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 2:26 pm

       Like the dolly on the dustcart.
   • logie97 3.2

     20 October 2011 at 10:37 am

     Hey, don’t mention him in the same breath as a poodle.
     I know of several standard poodles that are not afraid to
     stand their corner – intelligent as well as feisty.
     • Ianupnorth 3.2.1

       20 October 2011 at 10:49 am

       I saw a Standard Poodle in Waitakere once being used as a guide dog, at least it had a valuable purpose, unlike DPF who is simply a turd.
   • Deadly_NZ 3.3

     20 October 2011 at 3:49 pm

     Just a Poison Dwarf.
4. Lanthanide 4

   20 October 2011 at 10:42 am

   I really have to believe that Farrar actually doesn’t truly believe some of what he writes and knows it to be a distorted or shallow take on a subject and he’s simply writing it because he knows the sheep will fall for it and back his paymasters. This thought has occurred to me on several occasions reading his ‘blog’ on stuff.
   • fmacskasy 4.1

     21 October 2011 at 11:22 pm

     I concur, Lanthanide. I must admit I got the same impression. Especially when one hears of his occassional liberal views on Jim Mora’s panel and it’s hard to reconcile the two DPFs. Perhaps he’s “mellowing” in his old age?
5. King Kong 5

   20 October 2011 at 10:43 am

   If it is a reasonable thing for a Labour candidate to post on her facebook page why did she take it down?
   • just saying 5.1

     20 October 2011 at 11:05 am

     I’ll take a wild stab in the dark here King Kong.
     There is an election in a very short time, and NACTs spinmasters are weaving a whole lot of crap about it, and it isn’t actually important, and Rose wanted to cut off the spinmeister’s oxygen supply. Correct me if my science is wrong, but bullshit doesn’t stink without oxygen.
     Waddayareckon?
     • queenstfarmer 5.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 11:18 am

       No dice. You think that all it will take to get Labour candidates to take down election material is for their opponents to attack it?
       • just saying 5.1.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 11:22 am

         I think you will keep on with the bullshit until you run out of oxygen. And I think it is perfectly reaonable for her to attempt to deprive you of it from her end
   • queenstfarmer 5.2

     20 October 2011 at 11:17 am

     Exactly. The fact she took it down is a clear admission that she realises it is wrong.
     • felix 5.2.1

       20 October 2011 at 11:32 am

       Na, it’s an indication that she thinks deceitful little fuckwits like you and Farrar are going to waste her time with this sort of bullshit.

       She’s wrong to take it down though. She should republish it immediately, bigger and louder than before and force you to justify your pathetic whining.
       • Puddleglum 5.2.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 11:34 am

         Agreed. Taking it down was a mistake.
       • queenstfarmer 5.2.1.2

         20 October 2011 at 11:40 am

         What “deceitful” thing did I do? Or is this just another name-calling false accusation?
         • felix 5.2.1.2.1

           20 October 2011 at 12:17 pm

           It’s a description of the general character of your interactions on this site to date.
           • queenstfarmer 5.2.1.2.1.1

             20 October 2011 at 12:43 pm

             So surely then you can point to one example… Or can’t you? And if not, why not?
             • McFlock …

               20 October 2011 at 2:23 pm

               “Exactly. The fact she took it down is a clear admission that she realises it is wrong.”

               That’s a blatant untruth – “clear admission”? Bullshit. It’s not even an implicit acknowledgement.

               But then such wilful torture of the English language is a clear indication of your constant desire to fellate Key and the NACTs.
                
               • queenstfarmer …

                 20 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

                 Not at all. Are you saying she took it down by accident? It’s a fact-based observation. To the extent of any opinion, then it’s no more and no less valid than an assertion that she did NOT take it down for that reason.

                 But points for at least trying.
                 • McFlock …

                   20 October 2011 at 3:02 pm

                   “Not at all. Are you saying she took it down by accident? It’s a fact-based observation. ”

                   On the balance of probability, yes.

                   “To the extent of any opinion, then it’s no more and no less valid than an assertion that she did NOT take it down for that reason.”

                   Nope. What you now call an “opinion” was an explicit statement of fact: “[fact we both agree on] is a clear admission that she realises it is wrong.” That sentence is in no way equivocated or described as “opinion”. It is an allegation of fact based on what you claim to be the only logical interpretation. The fact it is the worst-case logical interpretation of several possible interpretations is deceitful – and I don’t think it’s self-deceit.

                   I also suggest that the fact that you now try to argue that you were only stating an “opinion” rather than presenting propagandist innuendo as fact is another example of being deceitful.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     20 October 2011 at 3:57 pm

                     The fact it is the worst-case logical interpretation of several possible interpretations is deceitful

                     Who says it’s the “worst-case logical interpretation”? That is your opinion, with which I disagree – yet which you have expressly labelled as “fact” – which ironically is worse than what you incorrectly accused me of doing.

                     As I said, I made a fact-based observation. I don’t know what you base your observations on. Just because you disagree (on the basis of no evidence, I note) doesn’t make it deceitful. Although I do find it curious that you think (“on the balance of probability”, ie guessing) that she just accidentally deleted the picture, right after a blogger criticised it.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2011 at 4:32 pm

                     Oh, if you disagree that it’s the worst-case interpretation, name a logical interpretation of removing said satirical billboard from the facebook page that is worse than it being a confession that the billboard joke was in some way “wrong”.

                     There are many less-bad logical interpretations to make (some of which have been pointed out here) such as a tactical suggestion from head office, or maybe seeking to minimise the pointless diversions it causes, or a web-volunteer panicking at Farrar’s idiocy, etc. But you leapt to “clear admission it was wrong”. Not a “fact-based observation”, an outright claim about a “clear admission”.

                     You’re basically the opposite of PeteG – he refuses to commit to anything and then tries to claim he stands for specifics, whereas you make clear and concise statements but then pretend that they aren’t as precise as they actually are.

                      
                     btw, I included “on the balance of probability” because sometimes accidental deletions do happen. I didn’t say it was likely, but the “coincidental fuckup” is always a possibility that theorists often discount out of hand, and is another possible inference to logically draw from a picture no longer appearing on a website.

                     [edit] unless of course for a small period of time ACT policy really was “lorum ipsor porkum”…
             • felix …

               20 October 2011 at 3:06 pm

               Haha framer. You never acknowledge reasoning, evidence, or anything else that doesn’t suit your ignorant prejudices, as has been shown here over and over again.

               So would should I bother? Anyone reading regularly knows your moves.
               • queenstfarmer …

                 20 October 2011 at 3:38 pm

                 As they do yours. There is reasoning and evidence to back up everything I say. Whereas you tend to fall back to name calling, which is fine but does not advance a debate.
                 • felix …

                   20 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

                   “There is reasoning and evidence to back up everything I say”

                   The sad part is that you actually believe that.

                   The funny part is that you believe it because you don’t know how reasoning works, as you so often demonstrate yourself far, far better than I could ever hope to.
     • Puddleglum 5.2.2

       20 October 2011 at 11:33 am

       Oh, rubbish.

       Just saying has it right, above.

       This is a mock billboard not an overly wordy ACT party newspaper advert that bores people to distraction with rambling, incoherent rants. It makes points that any New Zealander – who understands the relevant contexts and has minimal access to the news media – would instantly recognise.

       Didn’t you see the words “How are we doing?” – that means, how are we doing in relation to the following.

       If you – and DPF – genuinely think that this Christine Rose character genuinely believes that John Key caused earthquakes, mine explosions and tanker groundings then why would you think that someone so deluded would ‘suddenly’ realise the irrational error of her ways?

       You’re making no sense, qsf. 
       • queenstfarmer 5.2.2.1

         20 October 2011 at 11:50 am

         I’m not arguing for or against the billboard. Just noting that she took it down when the faced with criticism. I expect she (or others) will put it back up, because party activists realise that taking it down was an admission it was wrong, which is worse than the picture itself.

         It’s a minor issue, really.
         • Puddleglum 5.2.2.1.1

           20 October 2011 at 12:11 pm

           “It’s a minor issue, really”

           Agreed.

           Apologies for the ‘Oh, rubbish’. Just exasperation at such a ludicrous reading (by DPF) of this mock billboard.

           The tick boxes, the ‘how are we doing?’ made it clear to me what was intended.
     • lprent 5.2.3

       20 October 2011 at 11:43 am

       No. It was an distraction that she did not require. It gets in the way of her campaign.

       It’d require a determination by the electoral commission to decide if it is invalid especially as it is a spoof (albeit a completely accurate one).

       It is only a pathetic jerk-off like yourself or DPF who’d think otherwise (if you can think of course).
       • queenstfarmer 5.2.3.1

         20 October 2011 at 11:54 am

         I’m simply observing the facts.

         How can it be a distraction? Are you saying that Labour’s candidates are so fragile that relatively mild criticism by a blogger on a particular issue will cause them to backtrack? If so, why?
         • Tigger 5.2.3.1.1

           20 October 2011 at 12:20 pm

           It is a distraction because Farrar and people like you have made it one. It was a joke post and she treated it like one (ie. took it down when it was clear it was being twisted into something that took away from her real messages).

           My god, is the right wing getting dumber or just more desperate?
           • lprent 5.2.3.1.1.1

             20 October 2011 at 12:27 pm

             Quite simply the psuedo-billboard was spot on for message because this government has been a screwup from start to finish.

             I’d call this reaction as being desperate because there really is nothing that dickheads supporting National can point to say in what National has done in the last term that will help NZ in the long term, just a pile of meaningless political gestures. Effectively National are still cruising on the legacy of low debt and a working social and economic system that Labour left them.

             Nationals lack of constructive decision making will eventually cause failures. The billboard displays some of the symptoms.

             Nationals (and their idiotic supporters like dsf) biggest claim this term would have to be that they haven’t screwed up that legacy too much so far.
           • queenstfarmer 5.2.3.1.1.2

             20 October 2011 at 12:55 pm

             How did I (or other posters here) make it a distraction just by commenting on the lead article at this website?

             Does this apparent rule of “if someone creates a distraction about a joke post, then we had better take it down to avoid getting off message” apply to blog sites too, or just Labour candidates? (which is not my view, but which is what you are saying).
             • Tigger …

               20 October 2011 at 1:04 pm

               qsf – uh because you’re taking it seriously rather than the joke it is and trying to make legitimate arguments about something which is just plain silly. Lprent is right, you’re a jerk-off. You’re only here to pick fights and be a dick.
               • queenstfarmer …

                 20 October 2011 at 1:38 pm

                 Wrong again. I didn’t make any comment on the veracity of the billboard, or whether it should be taken seriously. I have only made observations on the fact she removed it when faced with criticism (which wasn’t from me, you’ll note).
       • King Kong 5.2.3.2

         20 October 2011 at 11:58 am

         I don’t see how debating polictical points you stand behind is a distraction to a campaign.

         Even a spoof that is pointing out that Key is unlucky for NZ/ doesn’t handle issues well/ caused these events (or whatever it is meant to mean) should be backed up.

         Taking it down shows that she became uncomfortable with the politicising of people dying in disasters when faced with the public spotlight.

         [lprent: Opps: Your ban was over a few days ago. Just removed you from automoderation. Been distracted by a large structural code change at work. ]
         • lprent 5.2.3.2.1

           20 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

           Ah. Perhaps you’d like to point out the political point you see her making. Perhaps you’d then like to explain how it fits into Christine Rose’s election strategy for Rodney?

           After all you’re the one claiming that there is one…
     • fmacskasy 5.2.4

       21 October 2011 at 11:25 pm

       Or, she saw it as an unnecessary distraction from the real issues? Y’know… those trivial things like high unemployment? Massive borrowings to pay for tax cuts? That sort of stuff…
   • lprent 5.3

     20 October 2011 at 12:20 pm

     …why did she take it down?

     In the lines of the trolling rhetorical question – why do you think that it is the focus of her campaign rather than simple humour?

     Of course it is simple enough that even a sewer rat like yourself can understand it. Probably why you’re asking questions…
     • King Kong 5.3.1

       20 October 2011 at 1:49 pm

       Surely the primary focus of her campaign is “vote for me and help the party I represent form the next Government because we will be better than the other guys”.

       Posting this billboard is a plank in the message that the current guys arent up to the job. Unfortunately it has been interpreted as these guys are not up to the job because they have had a hand in killing people/eco systems with the disasters referenced.

       She realised this and took it down because, quite frankly, voters don’t like that kind of politics.

       Well done to Christine for realising her mistake.
       • felix 5.3.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

         it has been interpreted as…

         Not really. As far as I can see no-one but Farrar (who’s paid to say such things) and a handful of his doe-eyed fans has made that interpretation.

         In the real world people don’t think John Key causes earthquakes, only in Farrar’s fantasies.
6. Joe Bloggs 6

   20 October 2011 at 10:45 am

   .
   … any reasonable reading would have it that …

   Let’s qualify that statement – any liberal-left political activist set on defending the indefensible would read this to mean …

   Whether she had some deeper, more noble intention or not, Rose’s post is tasteless and offensive.

   She tries to associate John Key with tragedies that are still raw with emotion. Her communications platform is don’t give them another chance, because it’s not worth the risk. There’s plenty of finger-pointing going on.

   Furthermore Rose deleted the post as soon as it was commented about on other blog sites – she doesn’t have the strength of character to stand behind her sly innuendo. Politicising the lives lost in these tragedies is pretty poor form but using humour to do the job goes beyond tasteless.

   And it’s ironic in the extreme that Eddie concludes from this that David Farrar is stirring the sewer with ridiculous smears.

   The truth is that major disasters test any government. There’s been no evidence that the response would have been any different under Labour.

   It’s yet more dishonest gutter politics on Labours part.
   • felix 6.1

     20 October 2011 at 10:48 am

     “Let’s qualify that statement – any reasonable liberal-left political activist would read this to mean …”

     You serious Joe? You think apart from leftie activists, a reasonable person would conclude that the picture was saying John Key caused an earthquake?

     You really think that?
     • lprent 6.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 12:29 pm

       felix: Don’t torment him too much – he isn’t particularly bright on the relationship between cause and effect.
       • felix 6.1.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 1:23 pm

         Yes, and he is a delicate wee flower as evidence by his mock outrage. I’ll be gentle.
   • Ianupnorth 6.2

     20 October 2011 at 10:54 am

     Oh, and key running around smiling and waving at positive news events (RWC opening, etc) and missing in action at bed news (credit downgrades) isn’t politicking? The man is an opportunist, sooner he is gone the better.
      
     Pike River – he lied and said mining standards were the same as Aussie
      
     Christchurch – did he and Brownlee do as much as they could have?
      
     The Rena – was he not having his picture taken hammering up billboards in Hamilton, rather that finding out what was about to happen in the BOP?
      
     On all three accounts he was not demonstrating leadership, he is in a position of accountability and people need to be aware he is not being held to account.
     • Lanthanide 6.2.1

       20 October 2011 at 11:05 am

       “Christchurch – are he and Brownlee doing as much as they could be?”

       Fixed that for you.
   • Puddleglum 6.3

     20 October 2011 at 11:47 am

     “Rose’s post is tasteless and offensive.”
     So, any pointed and direct criticism of how John Key and the government have handled some of the biggest natural, workplace and environmental disasters in recent years in New Zealand is ‘tasteless’ and ‘offensive’? How about praise then?

     When Peter Leitch praised John Key in the context of some incoherent comment about Pike River, was he being “tasteless and offensive” in “politicising the lives lost” in that tragedy? If not, why not?
   • Draco T Bastard 6.4

     20 October 2011 at 12:13 pm

     She tries to associate John Key with tragedies that are still raw with emotion.

     No she didn’t. Only someone deluded would think that she did (Admittedly, RWNJs are deluded as a matter of course). What she did was draw attention to the 3 strikes law, point out that National is in government and then asked about their response to some fairly major events.
   • fmacskasy 6.5

     21 October 2011 at 11:27 pm

     “Whether she had some deeper, more noble intention or not, Rose’s post is tasteless and offensive. ”

     Oh, puh-leese. Since when did NAT/ACT supporters worry about “tasteless and offensive”?! Jeez… *facepalm*
7. randal 7

   20 October 2011 at 10:47 am

   the only thing that really blows farrars hair back is whether the sausage rolls or the rubber chickens have run out.
   the dont call him fatboy for nothing.

   [lprent: Seems like there was only pointless abuse in the comment to me. I’m sure you’re aware of what I think about pointless abuse comments? ]
8. Uturn 8

   20 October 2011 at 11:08 am

   If you were going to be all English Language about it… possibly the problem is the second sentence. “How are we doing?”, should be something like “How’s our leadership?” Otherwise it assumes the reader will know the implied meaning of the colloquial phrase and, in politics, no one knows anything they don’t want to know.

   What exactly is the political advantage of Kiwiblog’s maintainance of the attitudes found in their comments section? I’ve seen that stuff first hand in real life, but to cultivate it online too, blows my mind.
   • Tigger 8.1

     20 October 2011 at 11:20 am

     I don’t agree Uturn – how are we doing? is a question you ask when you want someone to rank your performance? So the focus is not on having created the situation, but the response to the situation.

     Farrar really is a shameful little egotist. This is a reach, even for him.
     • insider 8.1.1

       20 October 2011 at 11:45 am

       Well it says “3 strikes and we’re out” and those three strikes listed are natural disasters next to a picture of Key. So when it asks about “how are we doing?”, the first thing that occurs to me is there is a link between the occurrance of the events and Key, not the post event management. Not that he caused them but that there is some form of relationship. She could have done something amusing perhaps with the natural disasters thing and the picture of Key – ‘let’s not have another one’ or similar – but the meaning was way too ambiguous or required a few too many steps to ‘get it’.

       I don’t think this ‘attack’ is particularly spiteful or concerning – I think it is plain stupid; and it is that stupidity that needs attacking not Farrar, because of course he is going to take a partisan swipe, just as the Standardistas regularly over-parse mundane stupidities from the other side. You’d be better address that stupidity to stauch the flow (Hone’s Hanging, Darien’s butcher baiting, Little’s imaginary gunnings, Chauvel’s self promotion – they were all said like it or not) or just ignore it, because social media is full of such things and it will only get worse.
       • Puddleglum 8.1.1.1

         20 October 2011 at 11:55 am

         “the first thing that occurs to me is there is a link between the occurrance of the events and Key, not the post event management.”

         I don’t intend this aggressively – because I respect much of what you contribute – but are you being honest in making this claim?

         You have been a regular reader of this website and – I presume – take more than a passing interest in media reports on such events. Given that awareness, did you really think – as the “first thing” – that this must be claiming that John Key caused the earthquakes, mine explosion and tanker grounding? Honestly?

         Also, your particular suggestion as to how she could have been more humorous, ironically, actually does imply that Key caused these things. Surely that’s an empty and ineffective way to criticise this government – no matter how ‘humorous’?
         • insider 8.1.1.1.1

           20 October 2011 at 12:16 pm

           Puddle

           I was trying to recreate a process and provide an alternative view – I understand what she was trying to do, I just don’t think it was as clear cut as Eddie says or that it worked. When I look at an ad the first thing I;m going to do is look at the words and the images and how they relate. To have to rely on an unclear shared understandign in order to get it makes it not work for me in this case. I specifically said I ddn’t think the link was causal but there was a relationship suggested – that relationship wasn’t clear and nor was the inference about management. Ultimately it was the kind of dumb thing you don’t expect from candidates and they are rightly criticised if they do it.
           • felix 8.1.1.1.1.1

             20 October 2011 at 12:21 pm

             But your alternative view relies on the observer actually thinking – if even for a moment – that John Key might be able to cause earthquakes.

             I don’t think even you would accept that as a possibility.
             • mike …

               20 October 2011 at 1:21 pm

               Love the bloggers getting outraged that the billboard is claiming that John Key caused these things. I guess it reflects their own stupid thought processes: “What? John Key caused the earthquake? Now that’s just downright misleading!” Like there is a danger that people might actually be persuaded that John Key can cause earthquakes.

               That people like the above are out there, voting Smiling John into power… I despair.

               Besides, everybody knows that…

               bOB pArKEr caUSeD tHe qUaKe. pROoF:

               http://bobparkerengineeredthechchquake.blogspot.com/
               • felix …

                 20 October 2011 at 1:28 pm

                 I thought that was a crackpot theory, but damn that website is very persuasive.
                 • mike …

                   20 October 2011 at 5:38 pm

                   Brilliant website sadly but rightly ending with a final post on feb 22nd: “It’s not funny anymore.”

                   I think it is arguable that the billboard could be politicizing tragedy, and it’s quite possible that that may have occured to Rose, or been pointed out to her that it could be seen that way. Maybe that’s why she took it down. Maybe she’s big enough to realize she could have offended people.

                   On the other hand why shouldn’t the govts handling of these events be up for criticism? It’s a fine line here I feel.

                   But to claim that Rose might be trying to persuade people that Key actually caused any of these events is retarded. Who would it persuade that Key can cause earthquakes? Persons tripping on high doses of LSD? Raging paranoid schizophrenics who had stopped their meds? That’s a pretty small target audience who might not even buy it. (And were probably never going to vote National anyway…)

                   I guess she never thought that people would be dumb enough to agree with any Nat blog reptilians who might try to suggest that. I guess she overestimated the intelligence level of kiwibloggers. Easily done.
                 • mik e …

                   20 October 2011 at 11:20 pm

                   afew would have all the answers on that its probably a bit late now as the world will end tomorrow
             • insider …

               20 October 2011 at 1:27 pm

               No it requires me to think that that might be what Ms Rose was suggesting in her ambiguous poster.
               • felix …

                 20 October 2011 at 1:34 pm

                 That’s the same premise from a different starting point.

                 You’re now saying that she thinks people will believe that John Key can cause earthquakes.

                 That would be a really stupid thing for her to think, and incredibly stupid for you to think that she would think it.

                 ps ambiguous means unclear. The poster is very clear as no-one thinks John Key can cause earthquakes.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   20 October 2011 at 1:42 pm

                   having said that however, Key is a bad omen for NZ.
                   • felix …

                     20 October 2011 at 3:14 pm

                     Yes, bad luck does seem to follow him around.
           • Tigger 8.1.1.1.1.2

             20 October 2011 at 12:25 pm

             insider – your ‘view’ is based on a completely irrational logic (that the personal actions of humans cause natural disasters) and in your reading ‘relationship’ and ’cause’ must mean the same thing.

             Having to explain this joke to people has gotten very, very boring.

             And hey, it’s not like she said she wanted wages to drop…
           • Puddleglum 8.1.1.1.1.3

             20 October 2011 at 12:33 pm

             The ‘iwi-kiwi’ must have been a complete mystery to you then?

             Helen Clark plus ‘iwi’ – huh? She isn’t an iwi, she isn’t even a member of an iwi. What could it mean? 
             • felix …

               20 October 2011 at 1:08 pm

               Totally baffling.
             • insider …

               20 October 2011 at 1:33 pm

               Yep, advertising is always pure science – predictable, rational, always creates exactly the response it intends every single time, never fail, and with no distracting emotional overtones at all. And Coke really is the real thing.

               In this case the context and the message were unclear in a way that Iwi/Kiwi wasn’t.
               • felix …

                 20 October 2011 at 1:38 pm

                 Careful insider, you’re at about 160 degrees. Any further and you’re likely to catch a glimpse of your own argument.
               • mike …

                 20 October 2011 at 6:38 pm

                 So your complaint is that really the fact that Rose merely associated Key with these negative events in a “National connected to bad things, thus National is bad thing” guilt by association tactic?

                 Of course it’s not Key’s fault that these things happened on his watch, but they did. As so National IS associated with them because they had to come up with a response, and Labour could sit back and criticise it. Politically that’s bad luck for National, and good luck for Labour.

                 Maybe you’ve never seen an election before Insider, but this kind of thing happens pretty much constantly. Associate opposition with bad thing, and self with good thing, hence the classic baby kissing politician. They all do it. All of them. A lot.

                 In a perfect world this wouldn’t happen, politicians would debate issues on a purely rational basis, always truthful, never misleading or resorting to ‘tugging the heart-strings’, or smearing opponents, or play on our fears and insecurites. (Thus John Key would still be hoovering up $$$ from the middle class at Merrill Lynch to make himself richer instead of doing the same thing to the middle and lower classes as PM of NZ.) “Look! Here’s a picture of some smiling kids! So why wouldn’t you vote for me!” Alas Insider, we don’t live in that world.

                 Maybe you should send an impassioned email to the leaders of all our political parties to point out the error of their ways. Let me know how that goes.
9. thejackal 9

   20 October 2011 at 11:39 am

   Here’s the revised National Hoarding’s together in one place: National’s Blighted Future Plan

   Wonder what the DF and his minions of the bog think about that?
10. ghostwhowalksnz 10

    20 October 2011 at 11:54 am

    Perhaps She could claim she “got the information in an email so I thought Id use it”

    Worked for John Key
11. randal 11

    20 October 2011 at 12:05 pm

    dear lprent.
    I will never do it again!

    [lprent: I don’t mind abuse (provided it isn’t carried too far). Just explain why you’re dishing it out. ]
12. Rich 12

    20 October 2011 at 12:41 pm

    http://www.kiwibleurgh.com contains content from national.org.nz, a party regularly proven to distribute malware. Get it in your country and you’re fucked.
13. thejackal 13

    20 October 2011 at 1:01 pm

    I made a complaint to the Police on 22 September about David Farrar’s Malware:

    Sent: 2011-09-22

    Dear Peter Marshall,

    I write to lay a formal complaint concerning malware from the website Kiwiblog. After visiting the site, my computer becomes slow and unresponsive, with some features no longer working.

    After some investigation into this I found that the Kiwiblog website that is administered by David Farrar, is installing a small application onto my computer. The program is known as an LSO cookie and can undertake various tasks on a person’s computer.

    The application gives no warning that it is being installed. Kiwiblog does not inform the user that an application is being installed and there is no option to remove or not have the application installed. Therefore I believe this program is unlawful under current New Zealand laws:

    Cookies or similar devices must not be used unless the subscriber or user of the relevant terminal equipment:

    • is provided with clear and comprehensive information about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and
    • is given the opportunity to refuse the storage of, or access to, that information.

    I would appreciate you looking into this matter, as I believe it is of a serious nature that deserves further investigation.

    I suspect what EDDIE has found is something a bit more sinister though.

    Peter Marshall is ignoring my formal complaint. Perhaps the cops are too busy spying on Greenpeace.
    • Tom Gould 13.1

      20 October 2011 at 1:50 pm

      Do you have any advice on how to check for and remove malware from Toryblog?
      • joe90 13.1.1

        20 October 2011 at 2:11 pm

        http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html
      • nadis 13.1.2

        20 October 2011 at 2:14 pm

        Tom its not really malware – it’s just a regular old fashioned privacy issue. I’m not an expert but my understanding is websites can only receive information from the cookie they left behind which is only able to capture information about that one site (but I could well be corrected on that.) Change your settings as per the link below, and don’t believe this is a Kiwiblog issue. It’s an internet issue – you get LSO cookies from pretty much every flash using site you visit. I just checked mine – i would estimate at least 400+ cookies to be deleted, and I do this on a reasonably regular basis.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1

          20 October 2011 at 3:05 pm

          The Right wingers are bastards when it comes to internet privacy. If that cookie logs which sites you go to, your usernames etc they will use it against you.
        • Deadly_NZ 13.1.2.2

          20 October 2011 at 4:05 pm

          I’m using FireFox with the addons Beef Taco and Better Privacy both delete all unwanted cookies upon closing down of the browser.
    • nadis 13.2

      20 October 2011 at 2:08 pm

      I suspect you’ll have a problem with not just kiwiblog but any site that uses flash, especially if you play flash based games. Why not change your default settings in flash or security settings so no cookies are installed without your approval? Or browse kiwiblog in private mode using Firefox? It kind of ruins your argument that LSO cookies from Kiwiblog are evil but those from thousands of other sites are not, unless you can specifically prove specific harm or damage from the Kiwiblog one that you don’t get from the others.

      Also your complaint letter should be a lot more detailed than “can undertake various tasks on a person;’s computer”. By that logic anytime you connect to the internet you have the same egregious breach of your human rights. And rather than believing the program is unlawful you should point out what law it breaches. Otherwise you’ll be waiting about 5 years while the police try and understand what you are on about it, and this will just get prioritised down behind muggings, robberies, fraud and shoplifting. If you trying to make a political point you need a snappier marketing angle.

      http://epic.org/privacy/cookies/flash.html
14. Uturn 14

    20 October 2011 at 2:04 pm

    There is a sign down my street that says Labour support NO ASSET SALES. I won’t vote for that because I want to be able to sell my car at the end of this month.

    Another billboard speaks of a brighter future with National. There is a lot of sun where I am now already so can anyone tell me when the increase of light might begin because I’d like to get some shadecloth up over my tomatoes.

    I prefered voting when it was just about national debt.
    • Afewknowthetruth 14.1

      20 October 2011 at 2:59 pm

      The increase in sunlight will occur in conjunction with the collapse of industrial society: the pollution generated by factories and aircraft will decline in line with the global econonic contraction due to Peak OiL. Less atmospheric pollution = more sunlight.

      It will certainly be very noticeable from 2015, and in all likelihood will commence in 2012.

      See, National were telling the truth after all.

      PS Get that shadecloth while the global industrial economy is still functioning.
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        20 October 2011 at 3:02 pm

        Industrial society in some form will keep going for another 20-25 years. Not at a high level but it will be there. Deindustrialisation will be a fairly rapid process but certainly not overnight.
        • King Kong 14.1.1.1

          20 October 2011 at 3:09 pm

          To paraphrase “Dumb and Dumber”;
          Just when I think when you couldn’t say anything dumber you say something like this and totally redeem yourself.
          • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1

            20 October 2011 at 6:55 pm

            Did you find it to be autobiographical?

            see what I did – “I know you are but what is he?”. Equivalent maturity level to your fine self.
        • mik e 14.1.1.2

          20 October 2011 at 11:25 pm

          You mean like nick smiths shampoo[snake oil] it will happen but not over night
          Pantene a brighter future

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS