Written By: - Date published: 12:12 pm, December 6th, 2008 - 134 comments
Categories: blogs -
Tags: dpf, farrar, ps, slater, whaleoil
A mate just pointed out that the metadata of David Farrar’s election analysis document suggests it was authored on a Parliamentary Service computer. With the document open in Microsoft Word go to the ‘File’ menu then down to ‘Properties’. You’ll see something like the image below:
Of course you’ll notice that the document title looks historical but Word is pretty aggressive when it comes to updating its metadata automatically (particularly when it comes to local user data on the machine in use).
A month or so ago, our own IrishBill pointed out Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) own admission to The Herald that he was working closely with the National Party research unit raking muck.
Perhaps his mate Davey is back in there too…
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Illuminatedtiger:
You described this thread above as “good research”.
Didn’t it occur to you that “good research” might include checking over at Kiwiblog? There, in a thread amusingly titled Inspector Clouseau strikes again, DPF rebuts this non-story:
Good research indeed!
egg on face it seems.
a recently common trait of many things left.
Why is David Farrar asking for written statements from those at The Standard when there has been >= accusations about himself being an insider?
As for the Word template from 1999, forgive me, but I don’t completely buy that. I’ve got Word documents here from 1999 (most saved to 3.4 inch floppy disks) that I’ve had major issues with getting to run on the latest copy of Word (2007). Even if it loads I wouldn’t do any substantial work on it, I would start afresh.
Illuminatedtiger:
I’m not DPF’s spokesperson, but I’d say he has one of the most – if not the most – extensive disclosure page in New Zealand’s political blogosphere. Now what do you mean by “insider” exactly? And what accusations (and, more to the point, what evidence) do you have to suggest he is an “insider”?
As to this latest “accusation” (you seem to regard All Your Base’s post as a heroic accusation), DPF has stated as clearly as one possibly can that he’s not on the PS payroll.
And that’s your basis for saying that DPF is telling porkies? That you would do something differently?
All Your Base:
Any chance of you retracting (or qualifying) this clanger:
It seems that a few commenters here (notably Graeme and Rex) strongly disagree. And I have to say, it hasn’t been my experience either.
Illuminatedtiger
“As for the Word template from 1999, forgive me, but I don’t completely buy that. I’ve got Word documents here from 1999 (most saved to 3.4 inch floppy disks) that I’ve had major issues with getting to run on the latest copy of Word (2007). ”
After much investigation into your problem, it seems you are the only person on planet earth running a 3.4″ floppy disk. I can understand why you are having so many issues trying to get it to work. Suggest you upgrade to a 3.5″ floppy disk, you might find that a bit more compatible with most systems.
Daveski
The rumors of Labour party involvement and the standard really started with this post also from all_your_base.
Happy New Year
[lprent: Noone ever denied that some people on this blog are involved with the NZLP. I'm a member for instance (and that was made clear early on). What we denied was that we were setup by the NZLP (I set it up), that we received money or services from the NZLP (I'm the only person that has paid anything), or that we were paid by parliamentary services. We were on servers for 3 weeks that had been a donation to the NZLP (ie that the NZLP didn't pay for), and that the NZLP had given control to a left-wing activist who I'd hit up for some server space.
Whale lied about all of those things and others. Face it the guy lies chronically, it is a lot harder to find him telling the truth. DPF then chose to dog-whistle on the whales lies despite their source in what is now a familiar pattern. Frankly I personally find it difficult to distinguish between them - they do the same thing at two levels, and it looks to me like they do it for the nats.]
I’m someone intimately acquainted with both the Office legacy file format, as well as the new ECMA 376 OOXML file format, the final ISO 29500 file format as and the various versions of Microsoft office from 6.0 (1994 ish) through to Office 2007.
I can say with some authority that the document migration between version 6.0 and version 2007 is pretty good.
I would also note that it’s likely that PS would have been using Office 97 when DPF worked there in 1999. The office binary file format has remained consistent between version 1997 and version 2007. 2007 does support the ECMA 376 OOXML file format but it does not appear that DPF is using this- rather he is using the legacy Office 97-Occife 2007 binary file format.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the file down loadable from DPF’s blog is the same Office 97-07 binary file format that would have originally been used to save the file back in 1999.
If you would like some help getting your 1999 era word documents working in 2007 then please do feel free to drop me an email (I’m sure you can contact the mods to get my email address). If you want a more detailed forensic analysis of the file format then I’m happy to sort that out as well.
I don’t do Photoshop or other file formats, just Microsoft stuff.
hahahaha. you guys are so pathetic!
The Standard gets self-pwned again!
Time to wind things up lads, there are only so many times you can jump the shark.
lprent
Well call me naive then, but I thought you (the collective “you”, not just Lynn) were better than that. I don’t want to sound holier than thou – though I’m afraid I’m going to – but being half-assed “outed” as nothing more scandalous than a contributor to a blog isn’t even close to the filth I’ve had thrown at me, including in Parliament, under cover of privilege, by Ron Mark.
I could have chosen to have dived into the excrement and rolled around with him, but I didn’t. Partly because (I hope) I’m better than that, but also because, tactically, it would have been a stupid mistake.
When politics becomes personal, people lose their objectivity. Now I know you’re just itching to tell me this isn’t an objective blog… I understand that. I’m not talking political objectivity, however. I’m talking about being able to stand back and make a rational assessment of your own behaviour.
But thanks for clarifying the Standard’s standards, which seem to amount to “Where Whaleoil goes, we go”.
I see you Standard wanks… [deleted]
[lprent: If you want to be an idiot, do it elsewhere. Setting it so you get moderated]
4884 has never commented at kiwiblog
pwned again
PS, I see you changed your response so it doesnt tell 4884 to go back to Kiwiblog
are you going to apologise for saying it in the first place?
[lprent: I didn't say that. It isn't one of my standard phrases (could have been another moderator - we do overlap from time to time). Besides this idiot was worse than the KB sewer level, more like Whale or Heine. ]
Rex: “Well call me naive then, but I thought you (the collective “you’, not just Lynn) were better than that”
The others may be (they do their own thing), but I certainly am not. I’m of the general opinion that if you don’t stop bad behavior then it will increase. That is of course the underlying basis of the entire judicial system.
In the case of the blogs and their use in politics, it is quite clear that turning the other check just encourages people to attack you more. If you want an example, just look at the standard of the comments section back in November prior to moderation (or the KB comments sewer at almost anytime)
However there are two points to remember. It is unlikely to be in the same style.
After all Cam isn’t exactly that good at it – the ‘sod (whoever he is) is probably better. Certainly more humorous.
It is unlikely to be as stupid. A lot of the wingnuts I see that come here like 4884 seem to have a real inability to use their brains.
A lot of the posters I see here like AYB seem to have a real inability to use their brains.
Seriously, the OP was a joke. No one but the most partisan DPF-hater would buy it for a second.
Then again, that WAS the intended audience, wasnt it?
You need to redo the title:
“Farrar back on the PS payroll? No. No he isn’t, sorry.”
You keep going on about the sewer in the comments section at Kiwiblog, and how moderation has improved the standard at The Standard.
But The Standards big problem has always been the sewerage in its posts, not the comments.
Daveski :
I think that the point of the post was to draw a comparison to the standard of evidence that DPF uses when writing smears.
For instance about this site DPF has written – this, this, this, and probably others that I didn’t google.
I don’t think that there is probably a fact in those posts that could be proved apart from the IP in the first link. Which had a simple explanation as I’ve explained many times.
For instance DPF says in the last link:
Now notice this. What he said was that someone who denies being involved in the standard couldn’t say that that a site with posts from psuedonymous authors, who the authors were. Basically that is lying without quite saying it (unlike Whale who just flat out lies).
The second link has
This is a classic dogwhistle. This is a site that guards the identity of its posters. So DPF is saying that the CPS was unable to confirm or deny because he didn’t know and was unable to find out. I don’t know and I run the site – all I can say is that posts weren’t written using parliamentary IP’s
Do you see a pattern here? In my opinion, the only difference between DPF and Cam is that DPF lies by implication and with more subtlety than Cam does. Apart from that it is hard to distinguish between them. Sure there is going to be speculation about the identity of posters on this site – but both Cam and DPF just make crap up and idiots swallow it whole. Of course that is just my opinion…
Perhaps you should look at the level of evidence used to justify DPF’s attacks on me that is implicit in all of those posts? Then look at his credibility and veracity?
Chris Auld
DPF said he had re-used the same document as a template after each election. There is no retrieving from a floppy disk under an old version of word issues about this. 1999 – email was well in use so was burning CD’s?
Sure you can ignore what DPF said about how the document still exists and make a great story about the issues associated with retrieving a file in 2008 that was stored on a floppy since 1999 but that’s all you have done – told a story.
Burt: DPF’s explanation is probably correct – see my comment earlier. However since DPF has never appeared to accept my explanations in the past (or almost anyone else associated with blog sites from the left), I see no reason to accept his.
After all the only purpose of blogs is to do ‘mischief’. It is going to be interesting.
lprent
If the purpose is to do ‘mischief’….
If I recall correctly you once admitted that the standard was running “for a short period” on a Labour party funded server, is that correct?
edit: I see you mention it above as well.
burt: No
We were running for 3 weeks on servers owned by an ISP and operated by that ISP. That service was donated for use by the Labour party. The labour party passed to an activist to run multiple left sites. We were one of them because we’d run out of capacity on my systems.
So you are wholly incorrect. We never ran on a “Labour party funded server”. That was just the smear that DPF and Whale put on it. Essentially a lie, which has been repeated frequently.
This was explained at the time, but wingnuts appear to prefer to believe lies rather than explanations.
LP – acknowledging your point.
While I still believe in this case it was a long bow to draw, I will accept that there is mischief in blogland as you put it.
Perhaps my point should have been that the Standard does have an opportunity to redefine the blogging landscape while retaining its healthy partisan perspective.
Daveski: I was referring to the statement on the KB banner
“DPF’s Kiwiblog – Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003”
Sure we could try to set a new standard. The question is more why should we? As far as I can see, that would simply open us up to more malicious mischief of the type that we’ve seen this year from DPF (and Cam).
I think that a deterrence strategy is far more responsible despite its known problems. The only thing that I’d look for is that that mischief from this site has at least the same level of ‘evidence‘ as has been used to support posts at KB in the past. So there will be a place for dog-whistle posts on this site. David could probably be called responsible for this strategy, after all he pioneered the meme in NZ blogging.
It is of course a standard method used by people like Crosby Textor, and will probably be used again over the next 3 years. For instance look at the history of the dog whistle used in the Tampa Bay incident in the election in aussie some years ago.
lprent
Are you saying that this post by all_your_base is a classic Crosby Textor style dog-whistle?
Given you comments in the past and even in this thread about how much you disapprove of the Crosby Textor style I’m surprised you are defending all_your_base.
[deleted]
[lprent: probably dad again who is banned. I must finish that banning plugin]
So let me get this right, those who you accuse of being at “sewer level” are guilty of nothing more than being anti Labour?
This could be a really good site if you just let people make valid points about the shoddy (and some might say corrupt) Labour party, the problem you have is that you ban anybody who dares speak out against Labour and against socialism.
No wonder people are on the opinion that the left want to control free speech.
burt: So you want to avoid the topic of the
“…the standard was running “for a short period’ on a Labour party funded server”
Does it raise too many questions about the type of campaign that NACT have been running for the past few years?
Attention rightie dolts.
YOUR beloved Party is now in power.
It is OUR turn to make up shit…. and your turn to eat it.
Anybody tell the truth on this blog?
All lefties are liars.
jtf:
Making comments that have a point and an argument is fine – there are a lot of anti-labour people who do exactly that on this site every day.
Repeating hackneyed lines repeatably (that are usually incorrect) isn’t – that is known as trolling and isn’t tolerated here. Since that is the bulk of what I usually see when I go into KB’s comments section, I describe it as the sewer. It is a site that appears to me to cater to close to the lowest common denominator in its comment section, and is usually pointless to read.
DPF, in my opinion, facilitates it by writing dog-whistle posts designed to elicite exactly that response.
In short, you have to engage your brain here, while I view it as being discouraged at KB.
Oh, and another thing AYB, who the feck are you; just some anon blogger.
Farrar is known, has a face, a name and is sought after for his opinion on radio, tv and print. And you are again, mister anon.
You have some gall to call out Farrar when you stand behind your shield.
It might pay to remember about those in glass houses…………
Ah sd, if all else fails and you have nothing worth saying, then there are always the ultimate shields of the wingnut. Righteous indignation, implied threats, and meaningless phrases.
One of the main reasons to be pseudonymous here is to avoid being stalked by the media for quotes (as well as Cam’s crowd). From what I understand when the main posters decided that we had to have someone for the media to talk to, SP/Clinton lost. Not everyone has the ego problem that makes DPF want to do those things on the media.
BTW: for some reason it was considered that I wasn’t politically cautious enough – ie too blunt
lprent
No not at all. I’m happy to discuss it further but you are splitting hairs and I’ve been over it in detail and been banned before for pursuing answers.
So I’ll ask another question and run the gauntlet again. Did Labour declare the donation and the gift to the activist? Is so then when? If not, why not?
Without a clean paper trail showing the monies received/gifted being openly accounted for all we can really say is the server resources were being paid for via a donation made to Labour.
all_your_base/lprent
I also agree with George that this sort of post undermines the credibility of the standard.
With all due respect, there is always going to be more negative than positive consequences for the standard every time the “on the PS payroll” angle is trotted out.
Or have I misunderstood some grand trading places where DPF moves into the inner sanctum and denies it and you guys are now on the outside so you are going to take over DPF & Whaeloil’s position and sink to the level you describe as disgusting?
burt: I’d guess that it is/will be in Labours declaration, and probably the ISP’s accounts. Why are you asking me?
It isn’t a server that I have any control over. Therefore there is no paper trail. There isn’t even a e-mail trail because it was organized verbally when I was moaning about the server loads.
There is a link to an invoice for the server we’re currently on in the About. I put it up last month after ginger asked about the sites cost. Incidentally that was also the first time any person from the right had asked politely about this sites finances.
Usually it has just been accusations from the wingnuts – which is what you got banned for. If you’d asked politely then I would have provided. It is not as if I have a duty to disclose the finances of a privately held blog. For all of DPF’s ponticating in his comment above, he never bothered to simply ask – it would have probably interfered with his smear.
BTW: It isn’t hair-splitting – there was no transaction, and we were on a shared server for 3 weeks. Approximate costs – peanuts
Lprent
“One of the main reasons to be pseudonymous here is to avoid being stalked by the media for quotes”
Weak, but never the less a plausible answer. You might want to ask other bloggers and see how much stalking they get. May be time to review that policy.
But you see that without real names to identities then you (not you personally) have created the question who are these guys and who they do work for. Until you (again, not you) name names, this question will always be present. Once you throw in alleged stories of 9th floor involvement then it becomes more and more difficult to show independence from any direct labour party associations.
sd: The point I’m making is all of those stories about 9th floor are alleged. There is and has been no proof.
The opinions of the posters here are what they write, done in their free time, and not on their employers behalf.
Of course there is always the edifying example of that obnoxious clown Cameron Slater with my previous employers to discourage anyone from considering doing the same. No doubt some similar stalking of employers would then ensue in exactly the way that arsehole did with me – see link, link and link
Tell me, would you feel comfortable with that happening to you? Of course the fuckwit was as usual wrong at almost every level and lying to boot. Oh and DPF as usual was along for the ride.