Open mike 05/01/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, January 5th, 2014 - 236 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step right up to the mike …

236 comments on “Open mike 05/01/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    5 January 2014 at 7:25 am

    Was it Draco who reckoned some downturn was gonna happen this year?

    Someone else thinks so, too. I’m not sure what the repercussions would be globally of such a down turn to the Dow, but it doesn’t sound good:

    In what may be the bearish call to end all bearish calls, one technician believes 2014 will be the year of “major reversals,” with the Dow Jones Industrial Average expected to start a two-year decline that could eventually take it down more than 70% to below 5000.
    […]
    “Based on our longer-term time cycles the present stock market rally must be considered the bubble to end all bubbles,” Mr. Zimmerman wrote in a note to clients.

    He doesn’t believe the Dow Industrials will hit a long-term cycle low until 2016, somewhere in the 5770 to 4650 range. The Dow hasn’t seen those levels, which are 65% to 72% below current prices, since late-1995 to mid-1996.

      • karol 1.1.1
        5 January 2014 at 8:17 am

        Ah, thanks, Saarbo. And I see today both Stuff and the NZ Herald Online (Herald on Sunday) are talking up the prospects for 2014.

    • Seti 1.2
      5 January 2014 at 8:47 am

      Is this the same technician who predicted back in March – “We’ve been looking at (S&P 500 index)1,480 as critical support. That held. So there’s a chance of one more leg up, maybe to 1,590, best case. Everything leads to a big brick wall overhead at 1,590.” The S&P finished the year at 1848, up 24% from that projection.

      You know that technical analysts disregard economic data/conditions and forecast solely on past trends on a chart?

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        5 January 2014 at 10:00 am

        Yip Seti. That ‘prediction’ is really complete bunk. He says that the Dow is going to drop by 70%, because… no reason, just because.

        • Zorr 1.2.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 10:31 am

          I agree that random analysts often shouldn’t be listened to because they are often selected out of the crowd for having interesting/differing views in a marketplace where “interesting” isn’t the word you’d use to describe it (because, lets face it, stock markets ain’t *that* interesting)

          However, there are other things to be worried about considering the fact that as the modern economy recovers from these shocks, it isn’t getting stronger/more robust, only richer (“jobless” recoveries). Much like a heart attack patient, every shock is making it permanently weaker without significant change made to the system.

          Up until now, there have been financial shocks every 5-7 years due to the boom-bust nature of our current system – the last one was in 2008. We’re sailing close to the wind and no matter how much anyone might want to use the current economic numbers to herald a new age of prosperity, it ignores history.

          I’m never going to predict X will happen in Y year because I am tired of the constant predictions of doom. Just… we need to stop looking at these economic numbers as a source of truth because, in reality, they’re just an indicator of the rich getting richer and nothing more.

      • phillip ure 1.2.2
        5 January 2014 at 10:05 am

        lost long comment…

        ..just header and blank white screen..after hitting publish..

        ..(can’t be fucked composing it again..)

        ..it also happened yesterday/at regular intervals in the past..

        ..w.t.f. is with that..?

        ..am i the only one it happens to..?

        ..(update:..and what’s with the randomness of it..?..(this one gets thru..?..)

        phillip ure..

        • Te Reo Putake 1.2.2.1
          5 January 2014 at 10:16 am

          Perhaps the spambot filter disapproves of your writing style, Phil? After all, your comments often read like the utterances of a misfiring random phrase generator.

        • lprent 1.2.2.2
          5 January 2014 at 11:53 am

          Ummm. The server is showing no problems over the last 3 days. That is a typical reaction for a timeout between the browser and the server.

          Typically if it’d been a problem with the server, then the comment would have saved but the much more expensive display of a new page would have failed to have arrived back in time. ie A refresh would display the comment.

          If you aren’t getting even that, then I suspect that you’re having either link problems to your ISP or browser problems with it attempting to hold persistent links and not recognising when the server drops them. Try a reset on your router/switch. Try a different browser (chrome is very good, firefox is pretty good).

          • phillip ure 1.2.2.2.1
            5 January 2014 at 12:52 pm

            @ lprent..chrs 4 that..

            ..it has never happened anywhere else for me..

            ..and i am on firefox..

            ..and..i am wondering if i am the only one who has experienced this..?

            ..phillip ure..

            • lprent 1.2.2.2.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 6:08 pm

              It happened quite a lot early last month because of the spambots sucking up the CPU time. The comment would save, but they wouldn’t get the page update.

              But I haven’t had any reports of it since I dropped akismet for a different system.

              BTW: akismet reported a 70% increase in spam last year !

  2. Philj 2
    5 January 2014 at 7:34 am

    Xox
    Seems that the old saying “we hang together or we hang separately” has been forgotten. Why is that? Those on the right get it. Possibly cause their overarching rationale is power /Money. The left begin to sound like squabbling Street urchins. I fear the middle class have to suffer a bit more before fundamental change will occur politically, if ever, with Labour.

    • Murray Olsen 2.1
      5 January 2014 at 11:53 pm

      That seems to assume that Labour is a vehicle for the middle class, which may well be right. Your fear leaves open the possibility of building a political vehicle which doesn’t depend on middle class sensibilities. I think that’s where our hope lies.

  3. KJT 3
    5 January 2014 at 7:37 am

    I’ve just taken some time out.
    Because I am really pissed off and finding it hard to remain objective., Also to decide if what I thought happened really did happen, to listen and think about what everyone said.

    I was going to reply to Weka as promised, who seemed to be, finally, starting to do what she was asking me to do, Listen! I havn’t cooled down enough yet, however.

    We all bring baggage, including different life experiences and points of view to the discussion.

    At primary school I was a small geeky, bookworm who suffered a lot from the attentions of the school bullies.
    The experience left me with a strongly developed sense of fairness, an instinct to fight for the underdog and and a contempt for those who hide behind their “Authority” abuse their power or position and “the rules”, (often of their own making).

    I’ve found that the only way to deal with these people is to stand up to them. And , if you are different, be yourself. Most people will respect you for it.

    Most of my life I have been getting into strife, standing up to authoritarian bullying types. (Most of them have been white males, by the way). Usually to help someone who hasn’t the power to stand up for themselves.

    If you have been listening to me, you would know I am pretty pissed with the mess the current people in power (Also I agree, mostly white males, but not all), have been making.

    I don’t think simply replacing authoritarian bullying white males with authoritarian bullying women, or authoritarian bullying RWNJ’s with authoritarian bullying lefties. is the answer however.

    I, mostly stayed away from the conversation about rape.
    That subject was hurtful enough. It was just a year since my daughters school friend had been murdered by her ex partner.
    I didn’t need a discussion where I knew, unless I kept to every dotted I and crossed T of the QOT approved script I would be in the firing line.

    This time I thought, “what gives QOT the right to dictate the terms of the conversation, and then bully people into submission with powerful accusations, which were neither fair, nor justified.. Moving into the house and walking around with hobnailed boots covered in dogshit from other conversations and then complaining that the males leave the toilet seat up.

    I get it that some who are involved with the Labour party are angry with being marginalised and told to STFU. By “white dudes”. (Also I seem to remember by at least one brown dude and some white women). Taking it out on people here that are on your side though, is both unnecessarily divisive and counterproductive.

    Respectful disagreement is healthy. I don;’t want to silence QOT or anyone else.

    The point is we seem to be concentrating on one issue at a time, letting the right frame the debate and only getting the odd hard fought win.

    I look around me and despair that, despite some wins, life for most of the people around me is getting shittier and shittier.
    I see people in miserably paid dead end precarious jobs, if they have one. Women trying to bring up kids, in horrific circumstances, being pissed about by the gestapo at WINZ, and vilified by unthinking and judgmental people who have no clue about what they have to face. I talk kids out of committing suicide after yet another round between dodgy employers and WINZ. I saw the light go out in a gay kids eyes when he was bullied, and it came back at a gay wedding when he realised that he was not alone.

    Like fuck, I don’t care about women’s rights, LBGT rights, the rights of people with disabilities. I have a mentally disabled son FFS. We are still hurting from fighting the system of mainstreaming, cost cutting and peoples attitude to the mentally ill.

    When I suggest solutions like a UBI, Empowering those people is high in my thoughts.

    The we have all the other important a necessary issues such as AGW and resource depletion. Making sure our kids still have a world to live in.

    How do we use our energies on all the things that need doing?

    The crazy thing here, is, that if QOT was really being told to STFU, on here, I would have backed her, for the same reasons I backed CV.

    • phillip ure 3.1
      5 January 2014 at 7:53 am

      @..kjt..

      “..At primary school I was a small geeky, bookworm who suffered a lot from the attentions of the school bullies.
      The experience left me with a strongly developed sense of fairness, an instinct to fight for the underdog and and a contempt for those who hide behind their “Authority” abuse their power or position and “the rules”, (often of their own making).

      I’ve found that the only way to deal with these people is to stand up to them…”

      (and..)

      “..“what gives QOT the right to dictate the terms of the conversation, and then bully people into submission with powerful accusations, which were neither fair, nor justified.. Moving into the house and walking around with hobnailed boots covered in dogshit from other conversations and then complaining that the males leave the toilet seat up..”

      (and..)

      “..I don’t think simply replacing authoritarian bullying white males with authoritarian bullying women – or authoritarian bullying RWNJ’s with authoritarian bullying lefties. is the answer however..”

      (and..)

      “..The crazy thing here, is, that if QOT was really being told to STFU, on here, I would have backed her..”

      +1..+1..+1..+1..

      phillip ure..

      • karol 3.1.1
        5 January 2014 at 8:06 am

        So then we are agreed: some folks on TS cannot dictate priority lists of what we can and connot focus on during election year; some way wish to put their main focus on “economic” topics as understood by them (for me economics can’t really be separated from cultural analysis; sometimes problems require more of a monetary/financial focus, others more of a structural or cultural focus); those wanting to comment critical about gender and sexuality and/or feminism should be able to do so.

        That was the point of QoT’s post, which seems to have got pushed into the background while personality conflicts have become foregrounded.

        In “It’s 2014 and we have a job to do” QoT said,

        It’s not just about winning an election. It’s not just about getting Labour, or Labour/Greens, or Labour/Greens/Mana etc over the line.

        It’s about getting the people of New Zealand to turn out and vote for a different kind of country. Not a country where Paula Bennett gets to pull the ladder up behind her. Not a country where finance companies get bailed out while rail workshops have to close their doors. Not a country that uses material wealth as a moral yardstick, blaming the poor for being poor and assuming the wealthy should be listened to. Not a country which points a finger at those who have no power and makes them the scapegoat for our failures.
        […]

        It may sound all a bit Pollyanna, but I absolutely believe we can do it … if the heterosexual leftwing dudes could please just stop complaining every time we spend five minutes on issues which don’t purely benefit them.

        We’re all in this together, guys. We’re all aiming for the same thing. We all want that better New Zealand and that strong leftwing government. And you know what, we’re here on the left because we’re fighting in the same war: the war against the powerful elites standing on our necks.

        While people continue to focus on personality conflicts, the main points in the post are being sidelined. Maybe we could get back to discussing these points and others raised in the post.

          • karol 3.1.1.1.1
            5 January 2014 at 9:00 am

            Yes, Saarbo. It’s one of Trotter’s posts that I agree with. And his historical story is apt, rather than something to wade through to get to the real point.

            • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 11:00 am

              I like Trotter’s historic fables.

              Those who forget their past are indeed doomed to repeat it. And it is the storytellers who are our best reminders.

              • karol …
                5 January 2014 at 5:32 pm

                Oh, RL, I am very much into history and learning from it. I think Troter uses historical analyses better in some posts than others. Sometimes it takes too long to get to the point. And sometimes, the point could have been better enhanced with a different narrative.

                • RedLogix …
                  5 January 2014 at 5:44 pm

                  Well yes – over the years I’ve seen stuff from Chris I adored and I personally enjoy the diversions and rambles. You’d probably not be too surprised by that. On many issues he’s a fine, reliable moral compass.

                  And I think we’ve all seen him steer badly from time to time – but he’s not alone in that. He’s capable of changing his mind and acknowledging what is going on around him, and has my respect for it.

                  But you hit on a good point – history, fables, anecdotes, humour and legend are far more powerful than abstracts and reflections. They go to the heart of affairs.

          • RedbaronCV 3.1.1.1.2
            5 January 2014 at 12:45 pm

            I was interested in his calling on the narrow focus and why society accepts it so willingly even though the outcome is poverty for blameless children :

            “… men so willing to impregnate … women but so unwilling to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood”
            I took out the word “young” as this is not necessarily so.

          • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1.3
            6 January 2014 at 12:06 am

            I hated Trotter’s latest contribution. I thought he was making an artificial distinction between the left and the “oppressed”. This might suit someone who’s happy to send out pronouncements from their ivory tower, but I see the left as an organic part of those who oppose capitalism. A real left comes out of the struggles of workers, of women (same thing, but here to ram the point home), those with different (healthy) sexual preferences, indigenous peoples, refugees,……… The left will be, and must be, made of these people. The left is not some intellectual grouping that stands aside until called upon, which is the message I got from Trotter. That would be a left that has accepted its fading relevance and is not a left that I would ever be part of.

        • KJT 3.1.1.2
          5 January 2014 at 9:53 am

          “In 2014 the New Zealand Left must have more on its agenda than “win power”. We should want to create a better New Zealand, and doing that is about so much more than economic policy (which is also, obviously, important). It has to touch everything. And it’s going to take people working in different areas on different parts of the plan to make it all happen.” QOT. – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/03/expanding-the-parameters-of-the-possible-the-lefts-mission-in-2014/#sthash.0yOvhVX2.dpuf

          Please.

          • Bill 3.1.1.2.1
            5 January 2014 at 11:10 am

            Just read that – his focus on the dangers of and the obvious medium to long term negative consequences of ‘capture’ were…a pleasant surprise. Old Trotter channeling anarchism…who’d have thunk it! (Mind you, Lenin used enough anarchist rhetoric before…well, yeah…)

        • Bill 3.1.1.3
          5 January 2014 at 10:50 am

          Maybe…just maybe…the problems have arisen because QoT presented her thoughts in a way that suggests fragmentation to the reader…as though a division exists between non-heterosexual and non-male issues and heterosexual male issues…that things exist in isolation? (penultimate para pasted above)

          Sure, we all want a better ‘New Zealand’. But no single focus or collection of single foci will ever deliver that.

          Maybe it’s time for all of us to get over ourselves and start being real about our supposed understanding of the notion that any (certainly most) issues are comprised of constituent parts….economics, race, gender, disability etc etc etc.

          Anyone wanting to elevate one part, regardless of the circumstance and just as a matter of course…or ignore and discount parts they aren’t so up to speed on as a matter of course…well, they ain’t on any bus of unity that I can see.

          If global warming and resource depletion are taken to be the biggest and most immediate challenges facing us – then aren’t we ‘duty’ bound to seek out and understand the ramifications of the problem and of any proposed solutions in terms of economics and gender and race and whatever other broad areas of relevant human experience that are put forward…and accord them each the priority they deserve at any given moment to collectively gain the greatest understanding… which we’re going to need if we are to have any hope of arriving at or attempting any solutions that will deliver a ‘better New Zealand’.

          And even if no eye is being kept on those looming problems and the issues being picked up on have a narrower focus, then the same applies, no?

          I mean, even the Marriage Equality Bill definitely had potential ramifications in terms of class. People will have their own opinion as to whether those class issues were taken on board and adequately addressed. (If they think they were, then the point is as illustrated as it is if they think they weren’t….so, y’know – no point in anybody hefting their opinion onto the site just for the sake of having an argument )

          Anyway. Sunny. Second coffee…and gone. (Hope the thoughts of this comment are more clearly explained and less liable to be misunderstood than some of my recent attempts here 😉 )

          • enjoy every sandwich 3.1.1.3.1
            5 January 2014 at 12:09 pm

            Maybe…just maybe…the problems have arisen because QoT presented her thoughts in a way that suggests fragmentation to the reader…as though a division exists between non-heterosexual and non-male issues and heterosexual male issues…that things exist in isolation? (penultimate para pasted above)

            No, the problems did not arise because of that. The problems arose because of exactly what KJT said..what QoT(and others) did was dictate the terms of the conversation, and then bully people into submission with powerful accusations, which were neither fair, nor justified..

            • Sacha 3.1.1.3.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

              “what QoT(and others) did was dictate the terms of the conversation”

              Only if you’re prepared to believe one moderated blog post is the whole of the conversation. Or that any of these discussions happen in a vacuum.

              • karol …
                5 January 2014 at 5:39 pm

                Agree, Sacha. It has been done on some other posts by other authors on TS: e.g. on climate change, and they have been tightly moderated in order to avoid major thread derails that would take the conversation away from the one the author was focused on.

                Re QoT’s post: other authors were quite free to post alternative arguments, and still are. And many commenters have done on open mike, as well.

                That’s how TS works as far as I am aware.

            • phillip ure 3.1.1.3.1.2
              5 January 2014 at 12:57 pm

              @ ees..i think it was a mix of the two…

              ..as they were the two wings of my objections..

              ..phillip ure..

              • phillip ure …
                5 January 2014 at 5:47 pm

                i must admit to getting a grumpy about the claims of ‘ignoring’ of important-issues by most others..(the ‘but what about me..?..it isn’t fair!’ cries from many here..

                ..the stfu-syndrome currently being explored/riffed on here by those supporting/defending that ‘bullying’ perceived by others ..

                ..can i give you a master-class in being ignored/told to stfu!..?

                ..y’see..amongst other issues..(leagalise now!/end-poverty-now!) i presume to speak up for all those animals most of you commit cruel/vile crimes against..

                .each and.every fucken day..and multiple times..

                ..you pay other people to (out of your sight..sensibilities must be protected..eh..?..)..the torture/kill/cutting-up of beautiful/living sentient-beings..

                ..just so you can then fucken eat them..

                ..eh..?

                ..(not to mention you are fucking the planet..and giving yourselves/yr children fucken cancer..?..could you be more narrow/self-indulgent..?..

                ..why don’t you tuck a couple of ciggies in with their cheese-sandwiches..?…both have the same long-term effects..a life-long addiction..often leading to a nasty/premature-death..w.t..f..!..eh..?..what are you doing..?..)

                ..and what do i get for my efforts on behalf of those animals..?

                ..ay best ignored..and at worst..sneered at..eh..?

                ..and lets not forget my other sneered-at/ignored-‘issues’..

                ..not least amongst them..

                (and never even fucken thought of by most of you..on both sides of this interminable pile of shit pretending to be a discussion)..

                ..being the 370,000+ animals tortured/killed by the vivisectors in their ‘animal-testing’..

                ..each and every year..

                ..over one thousand more animals each and every day..being thrust into these fucken horror-labs..

                ..and tortured/killed by those sick/ sadistic-cnuts..(that last word is non-gender-specific..eh..?..)

                ..how about a ”but what about them..?..it isn’t fair!’..for/about them..eh..?

                ..for about..i dunno..five minutes..?

                ..that’s if you can pull yr heads out of yr self-pitying lowest-body-orifce..

                ..eh..?

                ‘cry me a fucken river!’..indeed..!

                phillip ure..

                • phillip ure …
                  5 January 2014 at 6:00 pm

                  anyone who comes at me..preaching ‘human-rights’..

                  ..while wiping the pig-fat from their lips – with the backs of their hands..

                  ..just gets a raised eyebrow..

                  ..and a ‘really?’..

                  phillip ure..

                  • weka …
                    5 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

                    just curious, do you eat mushrooms?

                    • phillip ure …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:19 pm

                      you gunna lay that ‘but what about the hurting-vegetables?’ crock of shit argument/attemped defense of the indefensible on me..?

                      ..are you..?

                      ..good luck with that..!

                      ..eh..?

                      and if i am just being too prickly..and it is an honest question..

                      ..i don’t seek them out..

                      ..but see no ‘hurting’-reasons not to consume..

                      ..if so desired..

                      phillip ure..

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:30 pm

                      No, I was just curious as to where you draw the line. Is it sentient beings?

                  • phillip ure …
                    5 January 2014 at 6:13 pm

                    and funny story..!..(with an historical-twist..)

                    ..i’ve looked into this a bit..

                    ..and it is a shock of recognition to see that the arguments about/against freeing the animals..

                    ..so so echo those used to argue against the ending of human-slavery..

                    ..namely ..’economic’..(as people putting forward ‘radical’ ideas on this subject are regarded as ‘economic-terrorists’ by this govt/spooks/the animal-slavers..)

                    ..as in ‘how could we possibly change from dairying..?..it is what holds our economy up..?’..

                    ..those economic-doom predictions were one of the strongest weapons in the pro-slavery-argument-arsenal..

                    ..and of course the ‘but we all use them..!-arguments’..

                    ..the animal-echoes/similarities of which..

                    ..surely i don’t need to detail..?

                    phillip ure..

                • Belladonna …
                  5 January 2014 at 6:57 pm

                  You have my admiration Phillip. Your posts on animal welfare matters resonate with me. It is beyond me why so called caring people are willing to ignore the terrible cruelty inflicted on animals for what, a plate of food? Vegan food is delicious so what is the problem. It feels like a losing battle at times but I see progress all around me these days.
                  Keep up the good work.

                  • weka …
                    5 January 2014 at 7:02 pm

                    I take it those are rhetorical questions?

                  • phillip ure …
                    5 January 2014 at 7:05 pm

                    i too see that progress..belladonna..

                    ..and tho’ i rail..i am also aware that most people just have not thought this thru..

                    ..and that if they do..

                    ..and open their eyes to the horrors/cruelties done in their names..

                    ..for just that ‘plate of food’..

                    ..many will change..

                    ..and of course the recent definitive proof of meat/dairy both causing cancer..being published/released..

                    ..will hurry that needed ‘thinking-process’..

                    ..and we can always remember..belladonna..

                    ..that like those first fighters against insurmountable/seeming impossible-odds..

                    ..the human-slavery abolitionists..

                    ..we are on the right side of history..

                    ..and eventually…we will prevail..

                    ..phillip ure..

                    • phillip ure …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:44 pm

                      a sacha..

                      ..no’..no honey..

                      ..it falls into the animal-bye-product category..

                      ..and many of the bees are ‘offed’..in the process..

                      ..and that honey is the winter-food for the hive that the bees have collected..

                      ..the honey-marketers also put sugared-water as a replacement for the honey they take..

                      ..the bees should just be left to do what they are meant to do..

                      ..to help with the propagation of the food we should be eating..

                      ..(and i am more than happy to answer any such questions on this topic..i won’t ‘bite’..(food/eating-joke..!..geddit..?..geddit..?.)

                      ..and as for weka..with the smart-arse ‘rhetorical’ ‘dig’? @ belladonna..?

                      ..that is my breaking/snapping-point for you..eh..?

                      ..and i am going to have what has gone into popular-lore as a ‘qot-moment’..

                      ..and use my personal-‘authority’..that you must ‘respect’..to tell you to ‘fuck off!..eh..?

                      ..i have (eventually) tired of yr obstructionist-pedantry/serial-bullshit….

                      ..and you can go and join qot in the no-speak-to zone/corner..eh..?

                      ..like qot..consider yrslf ‘moderated’ ..

                      ..out of any mutual-dialogue…eh..?

                      ..phillip ure..

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 9:07 pm

                      lolz, ok, my loss I guess.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:23 am

                      Liver, phillip, freshly killed lambs liver, sautéed with bacon and onions, great for breakfast or dinner, inexpensive, moped up with homemade bread. I never eat straight butter or marg, but the sheer delight of offal, it gets me through the night. Yum. I do use butter with lamb’s brains, slightly noisette, tossed in the pan, served with home-made potato rosti’s -friggin good. Stuffed lambs hearts, just make sure you trim off all the fat, make a nice stuffing, eggplant, capsicum, fresh herbs and all that, then braise them, lovely, and then there’s the other favourite, sweetbreads, an instant meal in a moment. And there’s them thar kidney’s, great for breakfast on toast, with a couple of eggs. Sets you up for the day, who needs lunch?, and finally, the shepherd’s favourite, lambs tails. Fried, then braised in the oven, served with some mashed potatoes and fresh veges.
                      See phillip, all inexpensive. And eaten sparingly, they won’t turn you into some blood-lusting carnivore, just a conscious, caring Kiwi doing his bit to help eradicate the wastefulness of the giant foodprocessors who would prefer not to offer such tasty tipbits to Kiwi consumers.

                    • phillip ure …
                      5 January 2014 at 11:01 pm

                      @ (vegan-slagging) link..

                      “..My Life as a Feminista

                      Likes:
                      feminism
                      disgruntled women
                      burgers
                      love poems
                      gourmet cheese
                      frozen yogurt..”

                      just another flesh/dairy-addict..eh..?

                      ..may as well ask an active heroin addict..

                      ..for an unbiased view on the benefits of not using narcotics..

                      ..phillip ure..

                    • QoT …
                      5 January 2014 at 11:05 pm

                      Yes. People who eat burgers, gourmet cheese and froyo are exactly the same thing as heroin addicts. 🙄

                    • phillip ure …
                      5 January 2014 at 11:22 pm

                      yep..as in both are addicts/addicted..

                      ..the only difference being..

                      ..heroin doesn’t give you cancer..

                      ..flesh and dairy bye-products do..

                      ..(or is the science being denied..?..)

                      (and as can be seen..what it is alleged i said vis a vis heroin/dairy..

                      ..isn’t actually what i said..

                      ..but then..the writer does have a bit of a track-record in that area..

                      ..that reading into others’ words what they want..

                      ,.eh..?

                      phillip ure..

                    • phillip ure …
                      5 January 2014 at 11:39 pm

                      and just in case the meat/dairy/cancer-links are disbelieved/doubted by readers..

                      ..here is a cache of evidence..

                      http://whoar.co.nz/?s=meat+dairy+cancer

                      ..so now..

                      ..what does the reader do with this new knowledge/awareness..?

                      ..that’s the funny thing about knowledge/awareness..

                      ..you may be able to deny it/carry on..

                      ..but once learnt..something like that can’t be forgotten..

                      phillip ure..

                    • phillip ure …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:05 am

                      and of course a salient fact to hang onto when considering these meat/dairy/cancer-links..

                      ..is that those cancers now directly linked to eating animal-flesh/bye-products…

                      ..are cancers that we here in new zealand have world-beating rates of..

                      ..plus we have world-beating rates of that animal-flesh/bye-products consumption..

                      ..that causes those cancers..

                      ..go figure..

                      ..eh..?

                      phillip ure

                    • McFlock …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:20 am

                      I tried kicking my addiction to meat, but I relapsed when I tried cold turkey

                      [lprent: Groan. Have you been sampling too many Xmas cracker jokes? ]

                    • QoT …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:29 am

                      Everything gives you cancer eventually. Price we pay for life expectancy past 40.

                      Here’s the thing, phillip. In the first instance I’m not going to kill any more braincells trying to understand your writing than I need to, and in the second, I don’t give a fuck how you or anyone else chooses/needs to eat. What pisses me off is this nigh-constant badgering and evangelizing from food-preachers. No one has a moral obligation to be healthy, especially not healthy-according-to-phillip-ure’s-definition-of-it.

                    • Zorr …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:28 am

                      urg – it’s late and I’m needing a distraction hence the only reason I am even engaging here

                      I have tried to point it out to you before I believe (I should probably look it up) but vegan lifestyles are a product of affluence and can only be afforded by those who don’t suffer food insecurity. Diets that are general in nature are more robust and sustainable (in growing of and maintenance of) than exclusionary diets.

                      The complaints about meat (in general) causing cancer is similar to complaining that life causes death.

                      As I always tell anyone trying to food preach, everyone is different and dietary requirements differ from person to person. I eat what I eat to meet my requirements – you can eat what you want, but quit the “I know better” act

                    • phillip ure …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:36 am

                      “..Everything gives you cancer eventually. ..”

                      what a trite/shallow/fatuous statement..

                      ..may as well have a ciggie then..eh..?

                      (then we lurch into ad-hom-mode:)

                      “..In the first instance I’m not going to kill any more braincells trying to understand your writing than I need to..”

                      really..?..that’s all ya got..?

                      ..and quite happy to go on killing animals tho’..eh..?..no problems with the torturing/cruelties inflicted on defenceless/powerless-animals..

                      ..just so you can chew their flesh/fat/limbs..

                      …what an advanced conciousness you possess..eh..?

                      ..not even aware enough to feel uneasy about it..eh..?

                      ..you do have a long road to travel..

                      ..and how does it feel to have the awareness that you are an oppressor..?

                      ..you see none of what you rail against the (admitted) historical/current-oppression of women by men for in what you do to animals..?..really..?

                      (and funny..)

                      “.. What pisses me off is this nigh-constant badgering and evangelizing from food-preachers…”

                      (substitute identity-politics’ for ‘food’ in that sentence..eh..?..heh..!.

                      ..who would that remind you of..?

                      “…No one has a moral obligation to be healthy..”

                      no..not quite sure what the point being attempted there is..

                      ..but i do feel you have a ;moral obligation’ not to hurt/kill/eat animals..

                      “.. especially not healthy-according-to-phillip-ure’s-definition-of-it…”

                      ..it’s not ‘my’ definition..it’s science..

                      ..whether you deny that or not..

                      ..is entirely up to you..

                      ..but you do now know that meat/dairy causes cancer..

                      ..that knowledge you can’t deny..

                      ..even/especially as you tuck into yr chicken mcnuggets..

                      ..hope i haven’t spoiled yr future carnivorous-enjoyments in any way..

                      ..eh..?

                      phillip ure..

                    • McFlock …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:08 am

                      Funnily enough, phil, people who try and scare other people into following their moral belief system tend to do so in lieu of being able to present an actual point.

                    • phillip ure …
                      6 January 2014 at 7:34 am

                      @ mcflock..

                      “.. Funnily enough, phil, people who try and scare other people into following their moral belief system – tend to do so in lieu of being able to present an actual point…”

                      mcflock..you seem to have forgotten that i am just the messanger..

                      ..i am just passing this new information/knowledge on to you/readers..

                      ..what you do with that information/knowledge is up to you..

                      ..and as for not having ‘a point’..?

                      ..are you kidding..?

                      ..how could giving cancer-warnings/information not be ‘a point’..?

                      ..phillip ure..

                    • QoT …
                      6 January 2014 at 10:53 am

                      Yes, phil, when you refer to people who admit to liking gourmet cheese as “meat/dairy addicts”, it’s definitely me making the trite, shallow, fatuous statements. You’re the absolute voice of reason.

            • fender 3.1.1.3.1.3
              5 January 2014 at 3:39 pm

              “……… powerful accusations, which were neither fair, nor justified..”

              Sounds more like someone named ‘enjoy every sandwich’ who was calling Karol biased, toxic, and creating posts with a one-track “gender issue” emphasis during “the last few months”. This ‘enjoy every sandwich’ was the most unfair abusive stirrer involved whose use of this newfound name was imo cowardly, could be CV himself (hope not, wouldn’t expect that from him), reminded me more of King Kong or BM.

              • enjoy every sandwich …
                5 January 2014 at 5:21 pm

                If you think it was fair of QoT to call people rape apologists or rape proponents for questioning her authority then you surely wont mind me calling you a racist for having a go at CV because he’s asian.

                Stop being so fucking racist, fender you cowardly racist, hiding behind your racist anonymity.

                • weka …
                  5 January 2014 at 5:37 pm

                  “If you think it was fair of QoT to call people rape apologists or rape proponents for questioning her authority”

                  [citation needed] 🙄 Bet you can’t though.

                  It’s pretty obvious that you have some shit in your head about QoT and that this is a personal thing.

                  Good call fender, obviously not someone new to the place.

                  • enjoy every sandwich …
                    5 January 2014 at 5:45 pm

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/national-day-of-action-against-rape-culture-16-nov-15th/#comment-729255

                    Beautiful ass-covering there! You’ve been called rapists, which is terrible!!! Or maybe you were just called rape apologists. Or maybe just enablers. Which are JUST as terrible!!!

                    or how about this one…

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/its-not-just-about-cyber-culture-judith/#comment-722547

                    It has been a fucking long day full of fucking rape proponents (at this stage I’m canning the word “apologist” as too moderate) so all I can say is: yeah, mike. That’s exactly it. Enjoy living in our fucking world.

                    happy, weka?

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 5:54 pm

                      Those two links don’t show QoT calling someone something for questioning her authority (your exact phrase). The last bit is a lie you just made up.

                      (IMO there is no difference between calling someone a rape apologist and calling someone a neoliberal or a RWNJ. They’re all just terms of description. If the hat doesn’t fit then don’t take offense.)

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:19 pm

                      weka, you are correct, questioning her authority was not the right turn of phrase. I should have said that QoT falsely accused people of being rapists, rape enablers, rape proponent, rape godknowswhatelse…because I
                      consider QoT a bully who gets off on power trips and she felt she had a weapon she could use.

                      Hmm actually…didn’t you, weka, pick up the rape-culture bat and give it a few swings?…

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/david-shearer-isnt-jesus-no-sht-sherlock/#comment-571594

                      Pretty difficult to resist the power of the rape-culture bat eh?
                      Giving it to QoT was a bit like giving the Ring of Power to Sauron but it looks like you were just as easily drawn to it. Gollum to QoT’s Sauron?

                      IMO there is no difference between calling someone a rape apologist and calling someone a neoliberal or a RWNJ. They’re all just terms of description. If the hat doesn’t fit then don’t take offense.

                      Well then in your opinion you won’t mind me saying…weka you are a paedophile and a rapist and a racist. And a banana. All just terms of description as you say…

                    • McFlock …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:34 pm

                      And how closely are those descriptions of weka based in fact?

                      As opposed to someone who excuses rape by saying it’s the woman’s responsibility, which fills the criteria of “rape enabler” quite nicely?

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 9:04 pm

                      “rape-culture bat”

                      That’s quite a turn of phrase you have there sandwich. Keep it up, here’s some more rope if you need it.

                      “Well then in your opinion you won’t mind me saying…weka you are a paedophile and a rapist and a racist. And a banana. All just terms of description as you say…”

                      Yes, descriptions, but as I also said, if the hat don’t fit then don’t get offended. So I’m not offended by you calling me names – see McFlock’s point and because, well, you’re being a dick which really has nothing to do with me.

                • fender …
                  5 January 2014 at 6:38 pm

                  “……….. then you surely wont mind me calling you a racist for having a go at CV because he’s Asian.”

                  Wow, I’m almost lost for words here, you are seriously off the planet. I could be Asian too for all you know. When CV or anyone else here (other than ‘enjoy every sandwich’) has or does find me anti-Asian or racist in any way I’ll gladly ban myself permanently.

                  I haven’t even “had a go” at CV, you seem to be confusing an increasing dislike for ‘enjoy every sandwich’ with “having a go” at CV.

                  The sooner CV returns and ‘enjoy every sandwich’ is consumed by seagulls, the better.

                  • enjoy every sandwich …
                    5 January 2014 at 6:51 pm

                    Yes it was an irrational comment. That was the whole point, to emphasise the twisted logic which QoT, Weka, karol and others have used at times to justify their spurious arguments.

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:01 pm

                      A sandwich of assertion and no substance.

                      Lynn made this great point in his post the other day. Time for you to step up.

                      But if you are eccentric, then the one thing you need to do on the net is to learn how to argue your pet hobby horses *well*. Simple repetition of assertions is simply boring and causes a rapid movement from amusing/interesting to outright boring trolling really fast.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/cataloguing-labour-ulterior-tendencies/

                    • marty mars …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:13 pm

                      lol – all it showed was how irrational you are ees – you come across with quite an angry vibe, may i suggest you calm down a bit – why have you got so worked up about this and why keep going on about tat’s ethnicity – we know you know he did a post on it. Might be time to fess up about your real issue/s because this all seems a bit fluffy and out of proportion to that ‘angry vibe’ of yours.

                    • Sacha …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:34 pm

                      Sandwich, do explain your understanding of ‘good faith’.

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:50 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: Pointless and probably a comment from a drunk. Adding you to auto-moderation until you sober up. ]

                    • fender …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:53 pm

                      Is that you Redbaiter?

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:59 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: Pointless and probably a comment from a drunk. Adding you to auto-moderation until you sober up. ]

                    • marty mars …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:59 pm

                      should get that anger seen to though – must be causing all sorts of internal troubles

                    • Sacha …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:02 pm

                      so that’s what a sandwich ‘enjoying itself’ sounds like..

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:11 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: Pointless and probably a comment from a drunk. Adding you to auto-moderation until you sober up. ]

                    • karol …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:20 pm

                      I AM A MARTYR!!! (aint that right karol,

                      The only username I’ve referred to as being set up as a martyr, is CV.

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:25 am

                      Sober privilege strikes again! Support:

                      http://transsoberidentity.tumblr.com/

        • greywarbler 3.1.1.4
          5 January 2014 at 11:32 am

          I don’t agree that we shouldn’t have priority lists – if we are intelligent plus pragmatic we must have them as part of a plan, not just react to demands and cries of unfair and ‘foul’
          And to criticise anyone for noting and stressing the importance of concentrating on desperate problems that have not been in the same form at any past election is not just irresponsible it shows lack of critical judgment.

          First things first and dreaming idealistic people, or demanding egoistic with issues, aren’t the people who are going to think how to achieve viability for the country. Yes Labour needs to win, along with other parties, and yes it has to be something else than status quo-minded self-serving pollies. But more it needs to be hard-nosed about saving NZ and all of us from the downward slide into white slavery, British and USA style poverty that we are seeing.

          Labour should be prepared to both hand out band-aids at first, and take immediate steps to get government-inspired work (including local government) going in the cities and round the country so people can be doing useful stuff for their wages which wold be higher than UB.
          At the same time Labour coalition would be working on ways to instigate climate change policies, financial stability policies asap, and keep the people and their need for jobs with integrity and living wages in their sights at every moment. Listening to people all the time, especially ones with ideas that would give immediate help to those in need and not cost too much, and those that would change paradigms that are costing, and not delivering improvement.

          There need to be people with policies to cope with climate change steps –
          that is TO START practical ones and continue on a considered and responsible path,
          AND also straight away how to alleviate stress and extreme poverty,
          AND make steps to achieve better financial stability and generate national income rises
          at perhaps 2% each year for all, while raising the minimum wage, and setting reasonable labour standards for hours for all especially casual and part-time
          AND then carry that forward in steps, with people in the field working with the pollies to get the best systems at the best price.
          AND to pay attention to people’s concerns and use the power of government to bring fairer systems.

          We need a government that can be like the god Janus that looked both at the past and to the future. If Labour can’t do it then it would be a good name for a new political party –
          the Janus Party. (Google – In ancient Roman religion and myth, Janus is the god of beginnings and transitions, thence also of gates, doors, passages, endings and time.)

          • greywarbler 3.1.1.4.1
            5 January 2014 at 1:02 pm

            An ironic view of what was important in USA politics with a Mitt Romney slant – from Joss Whedon.

            [lprent: Snap. I heard that as well. When I got back home I watched it and put it up. ]

          • karol 3.1.1.4.3
            5 January 2014 at 5:46 pm

            I agree that politcal parties will have priority lists. But this indicates where I think some of the problem with the debate lies. Many continue to see TS as laregly a Labour Party blog, rather than a wider left wing one.

            I am not a member of the Labour party, and I have party voted Green in recent elections.

            The Greens also have some different priorities from Labour.

            I do think that partly this debate has arisenn becuse of some history of tensions within the Labour Party/caucus – partly around gender and sexuality. But that also bleeds into tensions abotu the Labour caucus’s timidity with the ways it addresses poverty, social security, etc.

            I also think there’s some nervousness within Labour about dealign with all this coming to election year.

            I’m also not a Green party member, and will criticise them if I feel their responses to some of the country’s problems are flawed in some way.

        • lprent 3.1.1.5
          5 January 2014 at 11:55 am

          Personally I put a lot of it down to hangovers. I wasn’t my usual cheerful self after the scotch the evening before.

    • chris73 3.2
      5 January 2014 at 8:00 am

      Respect for being open and upfrint

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.2.1
        5 January 2014 at 1:08 pm

        + 1 Chris73

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.2.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

          p.s I’m glad you posted this comment KJT, I have been feeling a bit put off by what transpired. My view is that there were errors committed by people on both sides of the debate and I am hoping that people from both sides of the debate learned things – that way we move forward positively.

    • rhinocrates 3.3
      5 January 2014 at 8:02 am

      Compare your experience with that of Hooton – he obviously suffered bullying – in his case, for his lack of intelligence because he constantly reveals his insecurities by sucking up to the powerful and lashing out at his critics in the most childish ways. You’ve done better than you think, KJT.

    • North 3.4
      5 January 2014 at 8:16 am

      @ KJT +++

      As I responded on OM 4/1/14 only this morning, I’m feeling much better.

    • Saarbo 3.5
      5 January 2014 at 8:34 am

      @KJT

      Nice comment.

    • RedLogix 3.6
      5 January 2014 at 10:30 am

      KJT,

      That’s the post I could have, should have, written myself. In every detail. (Except that my disabled child is a daughter.)

      I don’t think simply replacing authoritarian bullying white males with authoritarian bullying women, or authoritarian bullying RWNJ’s with authoritarian bullying lefties. is the answer however.

      Precisely. It’s where most of my thinking has been this last few weeks. But I do want to add something really important.

      Labelling individual people ‘authoritarian’ and others ‘liberal’ is an almost authoritarian act itself. It’s more like two distinct modes of behaviour that we switch between according to circumstance.

      Michael Chance created the concept of two modes of social interaction, agonic and hedonic. The one based upon threat, power and anxiety; the other on playful catching of attention and prestige. Whereas the rhesus macaque’s social system in mainly agonic, chimpanzees are capable of hedonic social relationships. Humans can switch between modes (Chance and Jolly, 1970).

      It’s worth saying that in the seven years I’ve been associated with The Standard (I think I landed here about 2 weeks after it was set up and I’m probably one of the more persistent stale smells in the basement) – that the tone used to be substantially more confrontational, testosterone poisoned and agonic. Things have moved.

      And once again, thanks and respect KJT. This is as much a journey of self discovery and you reminded me of some important things about myself.

    • weka 3.7
      5 January 2014 at 11:41 am

      Hi KJT 🙂 thanks for taking the time to think that all through and reply. It’s good to understand some of your background and where you are coming from.

      I’m still not feeling heard well.

      This is not about what indivual ‘white males’ are doing in the sense of ‘it’s all white men’s fault’. I have repeatedly said that that is not what I mean. If you can understand the analysis of the dynamic we have been naming, then we can probably debate it, but at the moment I don’t feel you understand what I actually mean when I talk about ‘white dudery’. We’re still missing each other at that very basic level.

      “I get it that some who are involved with the Labour party are angry with being marginalised and told to STFU.”

      Do you mean here on ts? As far as I know, no-one that was challenging CV has anything to do with Labour. That you have got this so wrong suggests that you have missed an important part of what happened.

      “Taking it out on people here that are on your side though, is both unnecessarily divisive and counterproductive.”

      Again, I feel like the issues being raised are not understood by you yet. If we broadly summarise one of the issues as how women have been marginalised within leftwing politics, then your characterisation of us talking about that as “both unnecessarily divisive and counterproductive” perpetuates the problem. I get that you are talking about how we are talking, but I know from long experience as do many other feminists, that it’s not just about the how, it’s about the actual politics.

      I think things got out of hand, and like you I will go back and think about that when things have settled a bit, because I want to see how that all played out. I already know that at least some of this is down to this dynamic having been going on for decades and some women are no longer willing or even able to be patient about it. Or unnecessarily polite.

      I don’t think this aspect should be undersestimated. I watched Bill and RL trying to engage in conversation in the last day or two and getting into all sorts of trouble. I’m sure that they thought that their contributions were benign and well meaning, yet it was clear to me from the outside how mismatched their comments were with the mood of many women here who were still very angry about the whole situation. Bringing abstract concepts into a space where some people are still processing emotional and politics conflict strikes me as a good example of how much we are all misunderstanding each other here. I also think that for some there is this idea of a level playing field in terms of the debate, whereas for others we know that that we are still on an uphill slope.

      The biggest thing I have taken from all that is how poorly in this particular conversation our (all of us) communication skills functioned (most of us expressed our thoughts coherently enough, but there was a big gap in listening, understanding, willingness to check things out etc). I don’t know if this is because we’ve lost those skills, or if it was a temporary glitch or what, but in terms of pretty much everyone’s desire to be able to work together, this seems key.

      • RedLogix 3.7.1
        5 January 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Bringing abstract concepts into a space where some people are still processing emotional and politics conflict strikes me as a good example of how much we are all misunderstanding each other here.

        Heh – point taken. Especially when those abstracts are still way short of half-baked. 🙂

        • Bill 3.7.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 1:52 pm

          Half baked you say? By that scheme of things, I was only suggesting ingredients that might go in the mixing bowl and hadn’t even thought about pre-heating the oven ffs. Anyway, those new super absorbent mops? They ain’t bad for splattered spillages.

      • KJT 3.7.2
        5 January 2014 at 3:47 pm

        “The biggest thing I have taken from all that is how poorly in this particular conversation our (all of us) communication skills functioned (most of us expressed our thoughts coherently enough, but there was a big gap in listening, understanding, willingness to check things out etc). I don’t know if this is because we’ve lost those skills, or if it was a temporary glitch or what, but in terms of pretty much everyone’s desire to be able to work together, this seems key”.

        +1

    • weka 3.8
      5 January 2014 at 11:56 am

      If you think that QoT is abusing her privilege as an author, I’d like to suggest that you do some research on what happens to women who blog about feminism. It’s pretty horrific, far far worse than anything that has happened here. In that sense I understand why someone in QoT’s position would respond aggressively and moderate hard.

      I also think it is the height of hypocrisy that QoT is being labelled authoritarian and a bully and called on her behaviour*, when no-one has done this to Lynn. It’s possible that no-one would try that with Lynn because he would just ban them for breaking the ground rules around criticising an author and telling them what to do. It’s also possible that people don’t have a problem with Lynn doing it because he does it to RWNJ and newbies, whereas QoT has focussed on standardistas.

      *except I still don’t see her being called on her behaviour other than by labelling her. Telling someone they are authoritarian and a bully without exploring the dynamic or effects is not really that helpful IMO. I’m still unclear what the actual problems are.

      I’m also disappointed to see QoT being singled out here. She in fact arrived rather late to the debate, which had been going on for some time before she put up her post. If the real issue here is with her behaviour rather than her politics, then please deal with it separately. Otherwise it just further confuses a whole bunch of already overlapping issues and dynamics.

    • QoT 3.9
      5 January 2014 at 12:31 pm

      You know what pisses me off, KJT?

      When people come on to my posts and call me a liar. When people say that things I have observed, and which many other people have also observed, are “just in my head”.

      When I provide links to establish that I am not just making things up, and people – i.e. you – continue to insist that I’m a liar, and continue to comment on a post after being told to stop by a moderator.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-751884
      http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-751902

      Sure, you never word-for-word told me to shut up. But you used basic sexist tactics to undermine my opinion and authority as an author here.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

      And now you want to pretend to be the victim? When you’ve been permitted to keep bringing up these accusations against me on three days’ worth of Open Mike posts?

      Cry me a fucking river.

      • KJT 3.9.1
        5 January 2014 at 1:30 pm

        No. I did not call you a liar. That was your words. I didn’t see the same things in those posts that you do.

        I think you are too intelligent not to see what you did.

        • V de Plume 3.9.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

          It’s okay to not see the same things. When you go from that to “my interpretation is the only correct one and therefore any problems are COMPLETELY IMAGINED”, that’s not okay. It’s really simple.

          • KJT 3.9.1.1.1
            5 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

            Where did I say that?

            • weka 3.9.1.1.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

              “CV making digs about identity politics is only in your head.”

              Those are your words KJT. QoT just linked to it.

              Even if you don’t agree, cannot you not see how others might take what CV said on various occasions as ‘digs’.

              eg (also already linked to at least once)

              “In the mean time let’s get on with a few wins in some boutique identity politics.”

              “Man you can’t say that shit about QoT’s good friend.

              Don’t you know, you can be a privileged neolib and be an identity politics champion at the same time! There’s nothing philosophically inconsistent about supporting gay marriage and pay equality at the same time as stripping out and selling a nation’s industries, for instance.”

              I could go on.

              KJT, this is what I mean when I said I felt you weren’t listening. There is an opportunity there to stop and really check out what we are saying and see if it matches what you are hearing. I’m not talking about you having to agree, I’m talking about basic communication and listening skills and making sure that we know what is meant before we react to it.

        • QoT 3.9.1.2
          5 January 2014 at 2:21 pm

          And here we have another basic trolling trope, the “I never actually said the word “liar” ergo I didn’t call you a liar so you’re a liar”.

          Do tell us, KJT, what other interpretation are we silly ladies meant to take from the phrase “that is only in your head”?

          • KJT 3.9.1.2.1
            5 January 2014 at 3:49 pm

            Simply that I disagree with your interpretation.

            “Silly ladies” again you are putting your words in my mouth, your words, not mine.

            • QoT 3.9.1.2.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 4:55 pm

              It must be a funny type of English they speak on your home planet, where “that’s only in your head” is the same as “I disagree with your interpretation”.

              (And where a simple, factual statement like “this person keeps making comments about this topic” is something you can “interpret” differently.)

          • enjoy every sandwich 3.9.1.2.2
            5 January 2014 at 5:41 pm

            What do you care about false accusations? In the past you have falsely labelled people as rapists and rape apologists and rape proponents with great gusto.

            What’s wrong? Did KJT hurt your wittle fee fees?

            • KJT 3.9.1.2.2.1
              5 January 2014 at 5:42 pm

              I have issues with QOT, but this is going too far.

              • enjoy every sandwich …
                5 January 2014 at 5:47 pm

                How is it going too far?

                This is a very small taste of her own medicine.

                • weka …
                  5 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

                  Ah, and eye for an eye then… good to know where we stand.

                • KJT …
                  5 January 2014 at 6:03 pm

                  “Being bullied is an excuse for belittling and bullying someone else”.

                  No it isn’t!

                  • enjoy every sandwich …
                    5 January 2014 at 6:17 pm

                    Great so we all agree, QoT is a bully! And what do bullies do? They use any power they can get their grubby little hands on to dominate others. I think that fairly sums up a great deal of QoT’s behaviour since she got her hands on the rape-culture bat at the start of this going-on-a-year shit storm.

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:25 pm

                      Like everyone here, you get to choose how you behave ees. In seven years of moderating this site I’ve seen it all several times over.

                      You know what impresses me? People who learn.

                    • KJT …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:28 pm

                      Half a dozen of the people who used to bully me as a kid, work with me right now. In fact I am their boss.

                      It is still no excuse for returning the same behavior.

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

                      @RL – so which is QoT, can learn or not?

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:04 pm

                      QoT can speak for herself. What’s your excuse?

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:28 pm

                      My excuse for what?

                    • QoT …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:29 pm

                      Yes, categorising the broad discussion about rape culture and sexual violence as “the rape-culture bat” is definitely something you would do if you didn’t have a massive chip on your shoulder. 🙄

    • V de Plume 3.10
      5 January 2014 at 1:24 pm

      “At primary school I was a small geeky, bookworm who suffered a lot from the attentions of the school bullies.
      The experience left me with a strongly developed sense of fairness, an instinct to fight for the underdog and and a contempt for those who hide behind their “Authority” abuse their power or position and “the rules”, (often of their own making).

      I’ve found that the only way to deal with these people is to stand up to them. And , if you are different, be yourself. Most people will respect you for it.”

      Some people, however, will accuse you of being an authoritarian bully.

      Seriously. On a post about (among other things) women getting told to ‘wait their turn’ by men, or being told they could only have five minutes, a man commented to literally say ‘sure, you can have five minutes, then focus on *MY* list of priorities’. That is the bullying and silencing here; joining an existing trend that disempowers women’s voices. The post moderator quite rightly told him to fuck off. It is one post on a giant website; that man and every other man who’s sulking about it are quite free to whine on any number of posts, including this one and yesterday’s one where you posted the same comment.

      But this is not new. Marginalised groups daring to stand up to bullies are always, always accused of ‘bullying’ themselves. Despite the fact that if people had just stopped when told they were out of line, the whole thing would have stopped. People kept getting told off because they kept arguing with the post author and telling her not to moderate how she sees fit. But somehow *she* is the bully? She got told to GET COUNSELLING because she USED A SWEARWORD. And yet people (men) still had the unbelievable gall to claim they’d never seen silencing tactics used here. You say that “if” QoT was really being told to STFU you would have backed her. Spoiler alert: people tell women to shut up in lots of ways that don’t involve the actual words. That’s kind of the point of ‘silencing tactics’.

      You keep insisting you care about women’s rights, but you told QoT the issues here – issues that have been noted by multiple women – were “all in her head”. That is not being a goddamn ally. You literally sat there and told a woman that this sexism nonsense was in her imagination, and then called her an “authoritarian bully” for being pissed at that. And I’m supposed to trust you as an ally?

      You’re angry. I get it. How come *your* anger isn’t bullying, but hers is? That’s what I want to know.

      • KJT 3.10.1
        5 January 2014 at 1:50 pm

        “You keep insisting you care about women’s rights, but you told QoT the issues here – issues that have been noted by multiple women – were “all in her head”. That is not being a goddamn ally. You literally sat there and told a woman that this sexism nonsense was in her imagination, and then called her an “authoritarian bully” for being pissed at that. And I’m supposed to trust you as an ally?”

        Bullshit. I said that I couldn’t see the same things.
        CV would have said the same things if he had been arguing with me. So I still don’t see were the sexism comes in. Except right at the end when things were getting heated and a few said some things I know they regret.

        In Green policy discussions, recently, some of us have been told to wait and be silent about economic issues. Because sticking to economic principles that benefited ordinary people may be an obstacle to getting elected. A policy convener just resigned because of it.

        Very similar to the above. I don’t think anyone’s gender had anything to do with it, there, also.

        • V de Plume 3.10.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Me: “You keep insisting you care about women’s rights, but you told QoT the issues here – issues that have been noted by multiple women – were “all in her head”.”
          You: “Bullshit. I said that I couldn’t see the same things.”

          Direct quote:
          “CV making digs about identity politics is only in your head.”
          http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-751884

          I’m sorry, you said “only”, not “all”. I apologise for misquoting you.

          I still consider that comment arrogant and dismissive, and completely at odds with your stated support of women against sexism. And I reiterate the rest of my original comment.

        • weka 3.10.1.2
          5 January 2014 at 2:37 pm

          “So I still don’t see were the sexism comes in.”

          It’s this: we want to talk about the impact on us, as women, of the ’boutique identity politics’ line and the strategy of making tiers that exclude the politics of oppression as priorities. A big fight ensues. In that fight, a feminist who has a clear right to write post and moderate it how she sees fit (a right that many men exercise here without criticism), writes a post and then gets told that her view, and the view of many other women, is a fantasy (in her head).

          Shorter version:

          “As a feminist I see this and this.”

          “You’re wrong, it’s only in your head.”

          It’s ok that you don’t see the sexism KJT. But it’s not ok that you don’t stop and listen to your peers who are trying to explain where the sexism is.

          • weka 3.10.1.2.1
            5 January 2014 at 2:42 pm

            I’ll add to that. If you aren’t familiar with a range of feminisms or the politicised voices of women, then the context won’t be apparent. Women’s voices are historically often marginalised by such things as ‘it’s in your head’, and it’s important to understand that many times when those things are said they are backed up with institutional power (just ask if you want examples). I’m not saying you are doing that, you just used the term, but that’s part of why it is getting such a reaction.

            Worse, (and I really can’t stress this enough), that we even have to be explaining this stuff in a left wing political space in 2014 is depressing beyond belief.

            (and everything I’ve just said can be applied to other classes of people too).

            • KJT 3.10.1.2.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 3:22 pm

              Ok. I do have a problem with people who talk in abstractions.

              You have to beat me over the head with a brick or draw me a picture before I get it.

              I am still totally baffled about what Stargazer and Bill were saying yesterday.

              And. I think you forget that every field of study has “technical terms”, and concepts, Words that are catchalls for a whole range of ideas. My fields have their own. To those who haven’t studied that subject it is a foreign language. Sometimes we use words in ways which may have a particular meaning in one language, unknowingly.
              I don’t think you can expect us to learn a whole new language in your subjects. It takes a while.

              But I feel equally you guys are misunderstanding me. I don’t have hidden agendas or subtexts in what I say. I simply try and say, as clearly as I can (not always as clearly as I would like).
              I believe, and I still do that I was responding exactly as I would to anyone male or female who I felt was not catching my meaning, or listening. Or. Anyone who seem to be finding all sorts of things in my comments that I have not intended to be there.
              I still think you guys are looking for, and finding sexism, where it is neither intended or apparent. Not to me anyway.
              I would have been just as pissed if it had been Iprent who censored us, for what I think, was simply to find a way ahead with goals we all have… Prioritising was only a suggestion from CV. I don’t think he intended to single out women’s issues. In fact as a Kiwi Asian I think he is well aware we have a long way to go in these areas.

              I am trying to understand and find ways we can work together for our goals.. OK.

              • weka …
                5 January 2014 at 3:47 pm

                “I am trying to understand and find ways we can work together for our goals.. OK.”

                I believe you 🙂 I also believe this is true of QoT.

                “I still think you guys are looking for, and finding sexism, where it is neither intended or apparent. Not to me anyway.”

                We are working with different ideas about sexism then. Sexism (or racism etc) isn’t just about what individuals intend or are conscious of. I don’t feel I have the energy to do a sexism 101 explanation toady, not even link to it, but perhaps it is progress enough if you can acknowledge that there is something here that is real but invisible to you currently.

                And. I think you forget that every field of study has “technical terms”, and concepts, Words that are catchalls for a whole range of ideas. My fields have their own. To those who haven’t studied that subject it is a foreign language. Sometimes we use words in ways which may have a particular meaning in one language, unknowingly.

                You have to beat me over the head with a brick or draw me a picture before I get it.

                Fair enough, and that does make more sense of your comments in hindsight. Can I suggest then taht when you read things you don’t understand, you stop and ask for clarification or even help understanding? Ask people to draw the picture. At the moment you might risk some somewhat heated responses but I think in general people will be happy to explain what they mean.

                I’d also suggest taking up the opportunity when it’s offered to do some research. Occasionally people link to feminism or other 101 topics. I wonder if we shouldn’t compile a list of easy to read links. I am for example about to start talking about tone arguments. This is concept well known in many political spaces. It’s being used here on ts and I think it needs to be named. I know that lots of people here know what I mean by that, but there will be others who don’t. An opportunity then (this is what a tone argument is, once we have a shared understanding of what that means, can we look at if weka is correct that it’s been used here?).

                http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

                I know for myself that the more pissed off I got the more I short-handed, hence ‘white-dudery’. I’ll note again that Hooton was the only person who attempted to ask me what I meant by that. Many others just made assumptions that were basically incorrect and led to a lot of wasted time and energy IMO and took us down paths that were not just deadends but ones that have been hard to backtrack out of.

                • KJT …
                  6 January 2014 at 9:05 am

                  This is personal, so apologise for all the”I’s”.

                  Some time ago Karol explained why we should not use the C word.
                  And, In another conversation QOT objected to my use of the use of “Ballsy”.
                  I reacted to the “tone” used and I think I it was me who called Karol the “language police”. I know I told QOT she was being a “Dick”.

                  You may not have noticed however, that I have made sure that I do not use those words since. And I explain to those around me that we should not use them also.
                  I did listen, and on reflection decided they were both right..

                  Have you considered that the strong reactions that I, and some others here, have to some individuals in your group have nothing to do with the fact that they are women, or your politics.
                  It is how you say say things, which is quit different from how, Iprent, for example says it.

                  I do understand why QOT, in particular, is angry with some people, (Two sandwiches short of a picnick proved that point rather well). But transferring it to people who are really trying, however imperfectly, to deal in good faith, is neither fair nor productive.
                  A comment from her yesterday made it clear to me that she is not hearing me, or seeing me, as an individual..
                  There is no way I would belittle her as a “silly women”. Even in my thoughts.

                  By all means tell me if you think I am talking in a sexist way. But please, in words of two syllables. Sometimes I reserve the right to say I don’t think I am. But I will say why.

                  I don’t think however, I have the time, or even the ability, to learn to navigate the semantic minefield that conversing, with QOT in particular, seems to involve..

                  • karol …
                    6 January 2014 at 9:23 am

                    Thanks for this, KJT.

                    I do generally try to say things by focusing on the comments and issues, rather than attack the commenter. We all have our own style of commenting – some are more confrontational than others. I’m pleased that you did read and take note on the language issue.

                    Sometimes it takes a strong statement for people to take notice, and realise how something has been experienced by others (by the more marginalised and, those with less privilege in some or all areas of life). Sometimes after hearing or reading the same stuff again, and again, and again – maybe having already expressed disagreement or distaste – I and others just get fed it and say what we think – bluntly, directly – maybe angrily.

                    Sometimes, continually saying it as “nicely” as possibly, with as clear an explanation as possible, etc etc…. some people attend to the “nice” and miss the critique completely.

                    Most of us find criticism hard to take – often there is an initial defensive reaction before we step back and consider the criticism. Sometimes, no matter how carefully it is stated, the criticism is received as an aggressive shout. Some people never get beyond the first defensive reaction and continue to react to criticism with continual attack! attack! attack!…. any mention of the original and/or continuing criticism.

      • KJT 3.10.2
        5 January 2014 at 2:03 pm

        “She got told to GET COUNSELLING because she USED A SWEARWORD. ”

        I thought the person who said that was well out of line, myself.

      • Bill 3.10.3
        5 January 2014 at 2:33 pm

        aw, ffs! Can we all drop the ‘oh, so precious’ holier than thou bullshit and put down all the pointy fingers? Yes – some people have used terminology that others can, if they really want, use as a stick to beat them with from here to now. And some people have been hypocritical – pot and kettle and all that.

        Is there any point in taking it all and gathering it together to either build a wee platforms of righteousness or to construct into some whacky beaty sticky things?

        • Sacha 3.10.3.1
          5 January 2014 at 2:38 pm

          Or you could try to understand what the issue is beyond ‘terminology’, then find a way to work together.

        • V de Plume 3.10.3.2
          5 January 2014 at 2:43 pm

          Okay. One good faith attempt:

          (Some) men are saying things and acting in a way that hurts (some) women and causes them to feel like things that matter to them – things that affect their quality of life – are being dismissed. Several women have spoken of feeling unwelcome to post here about issues that affect them. Women are already a marginalised group in society.

          Women are trying to express their frustration. QoT’s post was a plea for people to stop shutting down these “identity politics” issues.

          You characterising this frustration and these pleas as people using “a stick to beat them with from here to now” is another example of the dismissiveness that causes this frustration. Can you understand that some people are really upset about how they feel they are being treated – by people who claim to be *allies*, no less? People are upset and frustrated and your “if they really want” is very reminiscent of the old “you’re just ~looking to be offended~” dismissal.

          People are just asking for their issues to be considered valid and you are describing that as “building a wee platform of righteousness” and/or “constructing some whacky beaty sticky thing”.

          That’s a) really arrogant, self-centred and dismissive, and b) THE ENTIRE PROBLEM WE’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

          Okay?

          • Bill 3.10.3.2.1
            5 January 2014 at 3:27 pm

            Good faith response.

            I read the ‘in your head’ comment to be referring to one only other comment on one thread (the one that led to CV’s commenting rights being withdrawn) ….it wasn’t pluralised or indicating any opinion on whether dismissal had or hadn’t been meted out by that commenter in other threads or discussions where gender had been raised.

            Using ‘in your head’ as a phrase is (at best…at very best) a fucked up way to be saying ‘I don’t agree with your interpretation’

            I guess KJT is the only one who can say whether a) they reckoned that there has been no dismissal of gender in general at ‘ts’ or b) whether they simply thought that the one comment on that one occasion wasn’t being dismissive.

            If a) then that one example could be a doorway to explore and discuss all those things you mention. If b) then, it’s not.

            Also, if a) then my comment above is out of place and I’d appreciate if it was considered as both retracted and withdrawn.

            • V de Plume 3.10.3.2.1.1
              5 January 2014 at 3:35 pm

              Ah, gotcha. Yes, I (and I believe a number of others) read it as a).

              Thanks for your clarification, I understand where you were coming from much better now.

            • KJT 3.10.3.2.1.2
              5 January 2014 at 3:40 pm

              “I guess KJT is the only one who can say whether a) they reckoned that there has been no dismissal of gender in general at ‘ts’ or b) whether they simply thought that the one comment on that one occasion wasn’t being dismissive”.

              It was actually, (b). If I understand correctly.

              • QoT …
                5 January 2014 at 5:01 pm

                This is simply hilarious. Let’s look at the conversation again:
                http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-751881

                My comment:
                “It’s not the right who are dividing and ruling, KJT. It’s people on the left who demand that only their issues get talked about, who label anything else as a “distraction”, and who jump into every single conversation they can to make irrelevant digs about identity politics – i.e. exactly what CV has been doing recently.”

                KJT, first sentence of comment immediately in response:
                “CV making digs about identity politics is only in your head.”

                I don’t know on what fucking planet we’re on if we’re assuming that KJT was “referring to one only other comment on one thread” but it isn’t Earth.

                • QoT …
                  5 January 2014 at 5:03 pm

                  In addition? Let’s remember what the “one only comment” CV left on that thread said:
                  http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-751881

                  So if we’re buying this fascinating “interpretation” of KJT’s comment, we now have to believe that a smarmy, “sure you can have five minutes but that’s it” comment isn’t a dig at identity politics.

                  • KJT …
                    5 January 2014 at 5:19 pm

                    Oh come on.

                    In the Green policy website, just a few days ago someone was telling us we should shut up about quantitative easing and a living wage, because it was making the party less electable.

                    I didn’t think it had anything to do with the fact that I was male, and the one telling us to keep quiet was female.

                  • RedLogix …
                    5 January 2014 at 5:29 pm

                    “sure you can have five minutes but that’s it”

                    And retracted here: yeah it was pretty stupid and inflammatory, my quip about the five minutes. Sorry about that.

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01012014/#comment-751847

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 5:47 pm

                      He didn’t retract. He apologised for the flaming, not for the content or sentiment. I’m pretty sure he still means it (boutique politics should be prioritised downwards).

                      So here is the thing. Do you think that some of us had a problem with his comment because it was inflammatory? Or do you think we had a problem because of the reason it was inflammatory? There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding of this.

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

                      I shouldn’t be trying to speak for CV, but he’s not here and we’ve both been around here a while. I’ve seen him change a fair bit in that time and I like him.

                      Specifically I read it as an admission that that particular quip was a mistake; whether he included the word ‘retraction’ or not does seem a bit of a quibble. In the context of the kind of debate we’ve seen on TS over the years – ‘knife-work’ is one graphic description of it – it was a pretty innocuous line.

                      But it immediately struck me that, in the context of what was going on right then, it was going to come across as deeply sneering, dismissive – and completely the wrong thing to say.

                      The thing is – he took it on board.

                      I’m pretty sure he still means it (boutique politics should be prioritised downwards).

                      Yes I agree with that. But I’d also bet his position would change 180 deg if he could see a smarter path through this mess.

                    • karol …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:25 pm

                      I tend to agree with RL, that, while I disagree with CV’s take on the “boutique politics” thing, it was the fact that he jumped in so quickly to the thread making that comment, and in the way he made it, that immediately started to derail the discussion.

                      I think CV also did a good thing by stepping back in order to allow some cooling of the intensity of disagreements.

                      I think there’s been others trying to keep up the intensity with very personally focused attacks over the last few days – and I don’t think creating CV as some righteous and hard-done-by martyr is helpful.

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2014 at 6:40 pm

                      Obviously the flame was well placed and people reacted accordingly. I agree he apologised genuinely for that.

                      But it’s not quibbling to say that that wasn’t the only issue. The debate raged before and after and that was but one peak.

                      (btw, Red, it was you who used the term retraction, and I just pointed out that he didn’t in fact retract what he said, he instead apologised for how he said it. I’m just reiterating that for clarity’s sake).

                    • QoT …
                      5 January 2014 at 8:35 pm

                      I’d also note that YOU got the “apology”, RL. Funny that.

                    • Jim Nald …
                      5 January 2014 at 9:08 pm

                      I am a newcomer to the discussions about this issue and so please excuse me for catching up and making the following comment at this point as I work through what has been said.

                      I have just visited again QOT’s post on 1 January 2014 at 10am. Regarding the “five minutes” reference, one way of reading CV’s comment at 5.2 on 1 January 2014 at 11:21am is he should have put them in quotation marks given that he was repeating QOT (where she had earlier made reference to “five minutes” in her post) and he was not disagreeing with QOT nor was he demanding a time limit for the discussions, but he was repeating and accepting that.

                    • QoT …
                      5 January 2014 at 10:56 pm

                      Jim … all I can say is that you must be a very, very charitable person to see CV’s use of “five minutes” as a simple reference to my post, rather than a snide putdown which reinforces the idea that people like me need to stop talking.

          • RedLogix 3.10.3.2.2
            5 January 2014 at 3:38 pm

            People are just asking for their issues to be considered valid

            For much of it’s seven year life The Standard has been an open debating platform. A brute contest of ideas – in which you either made your point or got the shit kicked out of you.

            It wasn’t even a case of ‘winning or losing’ – you just said what you wanted and people either read it or didn’t, and drew their own conclusions. Moderation has usually been pretty light-handed; only the most egregious cases of trolling and repeated bad behaviour were dealt to.

            This often resulted in emotions running high – lots of abuse and bullying has passed under the bridge; way worse than anything seen in these recent threads. And how many times have I had to breath through my nose and not misuse my role as a moderator? (More than a few ‘deletes’ got ‘undeleted’ over the years.)

            We’ve seen it all and come out the stronger. Bill’s quite right, this has never been a space to get too precious about ‘whether you are being heard’ or not. That has never been it’s primary role.

            At the same time, I’m also willing to go with the idea that TS is changing, and that may demand a change of behaviour from all of us. Me included. And what impact it has on the role of moderation I hate to think. Personally I don’t think this is one change imposed moderation can help with much.

            Maybe we’re just in newish territory for a political blog in this country.

            • Bill 3.10.3.2.2.1
              5 January 2014 at 3:54 pm

              A brute contest of ideas – in which you either made your point or got the shit kicked out of you.

              Still dream of a day when I see ideas being explored rather than just contested. I know it happens on threads from time to time… very occasionally and shit, just nowhere near often enough.

              • weka …
                5 January 2014 at 4:00 pm

                “Still dream of a day when I see ideas being explored rather than just contested”

                Me too.

              • Murray Olsen …
                6 January 2014 at 12:58 am

                I think that will need to wait for the internet to mature, Bill. People used to make threats on the telephone that they wouldn’t make face to face. Now they do it on the internet. I live in hope that it will change for the better.

            • weka 3.10.3.2.2.2
              5 January 2014 at 3:57 pm

              I’m kind of hoping that we might possibly be breaking through something here. Either that or we’re completely fucked politically and as a species 🙂

              “We’ve seen it all and come out the stronger. Bill’s quite right, this has never been a space to get too precious about ‘whether you are being heard’ or not. That has never been it’s primary role.”

              Interesting. There are definitely more women here now than there used to be, both as authors and as commenters. It’s just a natural thing IMO if you have an increase of women in a traditionally male space, that these issues are going to come up.

              And it does change the culture. I think it’s an improvement, others may not, but you are right to name it as a change.

              • karol …
                5 January 2014 at 6:03 pm

                Yep. weka.

                I am used to a different kind of tone and approach having come from a background of participating in a lot of very women-friendly forums. Here the brutal contests sometimes get into put downs and point scoring rather than focusing on the substantive matters.

                I take a breath, and remind myself that this is a fairly masculine dominated forum – but then, also, the culture of the mainstrream of politics is still pretty masculine. And I probably will take it more easily than a lot of other women, and some men. I think it is the sort of thing that contributes to many people being put of both following parliamantary politics, and actively participating in politics.

                • weka …
                  5 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

                  Yes, I’ve also had lots of experiences of working in spaces that use different kinds of communications.

                  “Here the brutal contests sometimes get into put downs and point scoring rather than focusing on the substantive matters.”

                  This.

                  That’s the reason why I’m resisting the casting of QoT (and some of the rest of us) as bullies and authoritarian. The term is being very selectively applied.

                  For myself, I know that ts brings out a side of me that I philosophically disapprove of but am curious about. I have to pull myself up to not get swept up in the play of being mean. Other times I’m just enjoying the argument, and it can be a fine line between that and the whole witty mean thing. It’s been a useful learning experience to find a way of being here in the hard out macho shit (and again, the hipocrisy of now targeting QoT), and I’ve been thinking alot lately of ways of communicating that work in various settings. And how many people are multi-lingual.

                  I think you set a very steady influence, often posting in non-inflammatory ways.

                  • enjoy every sandwich …
                    5 January 2014 at 7:42 pm

                    [deleted]

                    [lprent: Pointless and probably a comment from a drunk. Adding you to auto-moderation until you sober up. ]

                    • fender …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

                      If you haven’t done already, can you keep filling your bread with the TOXICITY that will hopefully see you taken off the menu…

                    • enjoy every sandwich …
                      5 January 2014 at 7:55 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: Pointless and probably a comment from a drunk. Adding you to auto-moderation until you sober up. ]

    • Tracey 3.11
      5 January 2014 at 3:02 pm

      I would be surprised if CV is feeling like a victim. If there is one thing I would say about CV is he can dish it out. He is often beyond robust when he disagrees with someone. He was one of th eposters here that made me hesitant to engage at times because of his very forthright response to things he disagrees with.

      Anyway hopefully his hiatus is more about working out where his political future and energy is best utlised. In the Labour Party I cannot see how anything he says he wants will happen in the time span he wants. IF however he wants to be the radical Labour Party voice that makes a move from centre a lil more to the left more palatable for the electorate he may have a place.

      From everything I have read written by CV here over a year or more (and at Red Alert when I visited) he doesnt strike me as needing defenders.

    • Ennui 3.12
      5 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

      Well worded KJT.

      I too have experienced the bullying from both sides,,,,,I got bullied as an outsider but was very able to physically and verbally dish it out in return. That became standard response number one until I realised that it gave the bullies credence. More importantly I learned that an empathetic approach was worth its weight in gold for good will etc.

      When I watch what I perceive as bullying here (my perception) I don’t make allowances for gender, sexuality, status or what ever. I don’t have a “code”, or any expectation that anybody has to be conversant with or agree with my politics. I merely see abuse for what it is, and I see hurt. Hurt people don’t become persuaded by an alternate argument delivered with the death of a thousand slices.

      A couple of years ago I had a prior monicker (Bored) and I too fell foul of some crime against what ever. Like yourself I defended my right to my viewpoint. Oddly this coincided with a study I was doing into the Soviet show trials, and their pursuit of political correctness at any cost. Uncanny similarities followed, my own show trial. Q has me “Beef Hooked” on her site (or should I say her “ego chamber” to this day….) for calling her out as what she really is. This leads me today to question any vociferous opinion that is followed ideologically to the end as being suspect. Without circumspect or admission that you may not be correct, or that perhaps two or more “truths” can co-reside there is no real debate or persuasion.

      Tomorrow when I go back to work I have to work through an HR issue, two women accusing each other of bullying. Intractable and shrill. Neither prepared to see the others position and show any empathy. Quite frankly both may be at fault. Its a pain in the arse which I don’t need. Like at TS proceed with caution. Good luck.

      • Tracey 3.12.1
        5 January 2014 at 6:46 pm

        shrill?

      • marty mars 3.12.2
        5 January 2014 at 8:18 pm

        jeepers bored talk about holding a grudge trev – you were called out for going on about bennett’s weight on that thread were you not – I find that approach just lazy because there are so, so, so, so, so many other points to attack her on – then you said that QoT wasn’t human, remember, “Human, you, questionable.” – so mature, so witty – is your ego so big that you cannot see the truth of that exchange? FFS

        • Sacha 3.12.2.1
          5 January 2014 at 8:26 pm

          ew. is that Mallard who has been slobbering upthread?
          (reaches for wire-bristled brush)

        • Ennui 3.12.2.2
          6 January 2014 at 7:01 am

          You have a good memory: so do I. Scorpions sting, you dont forget, its not quite the same as holding a grudge. Its more cautionary.

          As for ego and maturity, try some circumspection.

      • QoT 3.12.3
        5 January 2014 at 8:24 pm

        Yes, I admit: I have committed the terrible, unforgivable crime of quoting you directly and linking to your words so others can judge for themselves. 🙄

        • Ennui 3.12.3.1
          6 January 2014 at 6:56 am

          Yes, keep it there, I keep good company. Since nothing has changed my mind, leave it for others to judge.

          • QoT 3.12.3.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 10:55 am

            Um … I was never going to do anything else. You’re the one complaining about it.

            • Ennui 3.12.3.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 11:24 am

              What complaint? I really don’t give a flying proverbial. You are the one who thinks it is important enough to keep “trophies” on public display, it is on your site after all. If your ego needs that kind of massage be my guest. Add a few more.

              • QoT …
                6 January 2014 at 12:26 pm

                You don’t care … but you’re still commenting about it and comparing it to Soviet show trials how many years later?

    • kenny 3.13
      5 January 2014 at 6:56 pm

      My thoughts are with you and your loved ones KJT………

      And yes a UBI would help sooooooo many people. Who’s brave enough to push for it? Oh that’s right – Social Credit, although the Green’s do have some policy which comes pretty close.

    • stargazer 3.14
      5 January 2014 at 8:07 pm

      “The point is we seem to be concentrating on one issue at a time,”

      who is this “we” you’re talking about? because everyone i know why has been talking about issues of gender, race, disability, etc etc has ALSO been talking about multiple issues around poverty, climate change, neoliberal free market structures and various other things that are apparently not “boutique”, even though some of them do only affect a segment of the population (in a direct sense).

      it’s this misrepresentation that really pisses me off, and it’s not just you who does it.

      • just saying 3.14.1
        5 January 2014 at 9:01 pm

        I have a hunch and I could be wrong.

        I wonder how much of what has been written in these threads has been actually been read by the guys who have had so much trouble understanding what we have been saying.
        I’ve read almost every word, not out of some obsession, but because when I’m in a discussion about things I care about,especially from a position of relative disadvantage, I’m trying to understand where everyone’s coming from, even when I’m feeling angry and impatient and being grumpy.

        I just have this suspicion that this is a difference when those who have been marginalised try to cross the barrier to those that aren’t (or aren’t in that particular way) . I’m not just talking about men and women – any person trying to talk about being marginalised to someone else who isn’t marginalised in that way – poor to rich, ethnic minority to someone from the dominant ethnic group, school of life to formally educated, cis to trans, able to disabled….. It reminds me of my own defensiveness in the past when I’ve encountered an “other” that I didn’t know much about at all, but for some reason assumed I did, or felt defensive that I didn’t, or just uncomfortable – I’m not sure which. It reminds me of a friend who uses a wheel chair who is regularly roughly and ineptly handled by people genuinely trying to help her, but who for some odd reason assume that they know how best to lift her etc. even when they’ve never done it before, but it has been her reality for many years. A really strange assumption to make but somehow this seems like a common thread in all these situations

        It’s just that most of the women in this conversation have been talking about what has actually been said. Whether our interpretations are right or wrong, we’ve asked questions about the actual words, we’ve linked and we’ve quoted, whereas, it seems to me we have been answered with assumptions about what has been said, assumptions way beyond what has actually been said, almost as if we are talking to people who feel they already know, without having to actually read all the actual words, that they’ve just skimmed the surface and picked out phrases here and there.

        As I say, I could be wrong…

        • Sacha 3.14.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

          that fits. takes extra work to listen from positions of relative power.

        • weka 3.14.1.2
          5 January 2014 at 9:13 pm

          wow, that’s interesting. Later in the week I’m going to go back and read from the start, so I will pay attention to that too. thanks.

        • JK 3.14.1.3
          5 January 2014 at 10:11 pm

          I don’t think you’re wrong, JS, sometimes its incredibly difficult to describe to the people you live with, the ones you relate to best, just how whatever it is that was said or done upset/offended you as a woman. In such cases, I just give up. Its not worth the domestic upset/fight it brings on.
          And it seems to me that this is what has been happening on this site with the original comments from QoT ‘s post on “its 2014 and we have a job to do” .
          And I’m not saying to QoT or Karol or the others that staying on her post “is not worth the domestic fight it brings on” : its very important – it was a message for unity and a plea that when others bring up a subject which is important to them personally (as happens so often with women) then everyone should take note of it, not dismiss it, and it should be brought into the sphere of everything that is important.

          • QoT 3.14.1.3.1
            5 January 2014 at 10:58 pm

            it was a message for unity

            And that might just prove js’s point, since the post was explicitly not a call for unity, given the baggage that phrase has in leftwing discussions (i.e. usually used by the dominant group to tell the marginalized to shut up).

  4. karol 4
    5 January 2014 at 7:40 am

    It looks like some Epsomites are getting worried that may not be able to be the tail that wags the dog come this year’s election – scaremongering about electoral boundary changes.

    • rhinocrates 4.1
      5 January 2014 at 8:14 am

      Haha, fun indeed. I wonder if the Epsomites realise that they’re a national laughing stock? Will “Epsom” become a synonym for “inbred idiotic puppet who plays a banjo”?

    • Anne 4.2
      5 January 2014 at 10:24 am

      Yes. I’ve seen the pamphlet. Highly emotive and crammed with inaccuracies.

      Their main point seemed to be they don’t want to be part of the Mt. Roskill electorate. They claim they have no community of interest with Mt Roskill, and Mt Eden (the mountain) is used as an example of a physical barrier. That is bullshit because the part of Epsom/ Mt Eden affected is on the western side which is next door to Mt. Roskill.

      The truth of the matter is the claimants are snobs and racists and they’re trying to put the fear of God into people that their property values will plummet. They are using the Grammar Zone as a fear tactic which is balderdash. If you accept their claims, then every time there was a change to electorate boundaries then school zones would change… that would mean school zones would be changing every few years and they stay constant.

    • Tracey 4.3
      5 January 2014 at 3:03 pm

      hehehehehhe

  5. phillip ure 5
    5 January 2014 at 8:04 am

    that ‘rough justice’ gig i mentioned yesterday..went off like a rocket..

    ..with hand on heart i can say it was the most enjoyable gig i have been to in a long time..

    ..and the one-sentence summary/’surprise’ i walked away with..what i was blown away by..

    ..was that the individual band members are all so skilled/polished..

    ..that despite ‘rough justice’ not having played together since the 80’s..

    ..as a band..they are that tight/smooth/slick/oozing-talent..that they sound as though they have actually been playing together most nites since the 80’s..

    ..that tight they squeaked..

    (with levels of that/such tightness that at one stage i felt i should leap onto the stage wielding oil-cans..

    ..to give them all a bit of a quick lube..)

    ..and the good news for those further south..is that they will be playing napier and wellington this week..(google-it!..)

    ..and i would really urge those who may find this sort of experience enjoyable..

    ..to get their arses along to those gigs..(you can thank me for the heads-up..later..)

    phillip ure..

  6. leftriteleft 6
    5 January 2014 at 8:51 am

    Found this lovely quote on WRH.
    Reminds me of the arrival of Keys leadership.

    “Have you seen the economic recovery? I haven’t either. But it is bound to be around here somewhere, because the National Bureau of Economic Research spotted it in June 2009, four and one-half years ago.”

    Cheers

    • Ianmac 6.1
      5 January 2014 at 9:41 am

      C’mon leftriteleft. There must be some mistake. If Mr English quotes NBER it simply must be true. It might be hiding in Scotch Mist.

  7. felix 7
    5 January 2014 at 9:44 am

    i don’t like it

  8. phillip ure 8
    5 January 2014 at 10:16 am

    (heh..!..)

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/nugs-newbies-6-tips-key-buying-and-consuming-legal-cannabis

    ..Nugs for newbies:

    .”..Whether you haven’t toked since the 70′s –

    – or you’re entirely new to the experience –

    – this is great advice…”

    phillip ure.

  9. phillip ure 9
    5 January 2014 at 10:51 am

    “..a GIF that accurately shows all of the people who have died after overdosing on pot:..”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/marijuana-overdose_n_4538580.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    phillip ure..

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      5 January 2014 at 4:11 pm

      The slideshow at the bottom is a compendium of corruption and stupidity within the US law enforcement. How much of that stupidity carries across to here?

  10. aerobubble 10
    5 January 2014 at 12:14 pm

    We don’t know what was dumped, but the land farming was within safe levels says ?scientist?.
    Please what NZ needs is a PM science adviser or something so that such obvious nonsense science is debunked.
    How can they not measure inputs, outputs, and the say its safe, we don’t know what was in the waste, we don’t know what happened to the soluble toxic waste! They could have dumped farm waste for all we really know.

    • idlegus 10.1
      5 January 2014 at 4:01 pm

      that ‘news’ from tv3 was like an ad for fonterra or something, the scientist said the environmentalists were ‘anti progress’, which seemed a weird thing for a neutral scientist to be saying (unless of course, he wasn’t neutral shock horror). & nothing about the fracking waste on farms, whether those farms were still being farmed on we were just told they have stopped dumping the waste. stupid piece of PR imo.

  11. aerobubble 11
    5 January 2014 at 12:34 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/04/eviction-tenants-housing-benefit-blackspots

    UK Tory-Liberal govt moves to create new ghettos. I suppose its understandable given how deaf the moderate right is to commonsense, they have to recreate the conditions for a Labour movement.

    • joe90 11.1
      5 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

      Tory pigs..

      A housing shortage that has been building up for the past thirty years is reaching the point of crisis. The party in power, whose late 20th-century figurehead, Margaret Thatcher, did so much to create the problem, is responding by separating off the economically least powerful and squeezing them into the smallest, meanest, most insecure possible living space. In effect, if not in explicit intention, it is a let-the-poor-be-poor crusade, a Campaign for Real Poverty. The government has stopped short of explicitly declaring war on the poor. But how different would the situation be if it had?

      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n01/james-meek/where-will-we-live

    • joe90 11.2
      5 January 2014 at 9:31 pm

      A 2009 interview with the no housing benefit tenants landlord Fergus Wilson.

    • Murray Olsen 11.3
      6 January 2014 at 1:10 am

      They dare to recreate the conditions because they, along with Blair’s Labour, believe that they have created a repressive mechanism which will use their CCTV cameras and their private prisons to keep any Labour movement in check. Or change Blair for Douglas/Lange/Palmer/Clark/Goff/Shearer and we see the same thing happening. The question for us at home is where does Cunliffe stand?

  12. freedom 12
    5 January 2014 at 1:38 pm

    These recent months, a lot of seriously interesting stuff has been going on here at The Standard.
    Here is a friendly community minded focal point* for those unavoidable days when, through no one person’s fault, constructiveness sometimes falters.

    tick tock

    *guestimated date only
    -obviously any early call will decimate this all important number

  13. Philj 13
    5 January 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Xox
    Have enjoyed TS, especially the links to interesting stuff. Watching the verbal jousting, and the debate of ideas is stimulating. I am disappointed to witness the terse language and the f word gratuitously used in a domineering and unhinged way. It is counter productive (for me) and not conducive to the common good. Tone can be as important as substance, and I feel this is not appreciated by QoT. I apologise now for my balls. I’m off to STFU. Happy New Year and good luck.

    • V de Plume 13.1
      5 January 2014 at 3:15 pm

      Hi. This is a little “boutique identity politics” and no doubt “PC gone mad”, but I’d like to point out that this idea that using swearwords is “unhinged” or a sign of needing counselling is, well… really fucking upsetting.

      I have mental illnesses, and have engaged in counselling on numerous occasions, and I can assure you that “using swearwords” was not one of the diagnostic criteria for any of them, nor was it something any of the counsellors seemed particularly concerned about. In fact, in many subcultures of society, using swearwords is simply considered casual conversation and not offensive at all.

      If you are interested in learning more about mental illness, you could check out the Mental Health Foundation of NZ (www.mentalhealth.org.nz/). If you are interested in learning about different forms of colloquial English, probably just continuing to hang out on the internet will do the job.

      PS no one has said anyone should apologise for possessing testicles or being male. *Some* men are being criticised for *things they have said*, not for being men. The old “wah you just hate men you femin*zi” tactic is just as old as “you didn’t say it *nicely* enough so I’ll focus on your naughty words instead of the issue you’re complaining about”.

      Happy New Year to you too.

      • Tracey 13.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 6:59 am

        “*Some* men are being criticised for *things they have said*, not for being men. ”

        Exactly

        None so blind etc…

    • NZ Femme 13.2
      5 January 2014 at 3:42 pm

      “… I am disappointed to witness the terse language and the f word gratuitously used in a domineering […] way. It is counter productive (for me) and not conducive to the common good. Tone can be as important as substance, and I feel this is not appreciated by QoT…”

      Do you mean like this?

      “…Fuck off sweetie…”

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-03012014/#comment-753221

      Strangely, nobody found this problematic. There is plenty of loud sweary stuff happening on a regular basis at TS. Is it only an issue if it’s coming from QoT?

      • stargazer 13.2.1
        5 January 2014 at 7:57 pm

        thanx for pointing that out NZ Femme. it really bothered me, but i was trying to deal with the other issues at the same time and didn’t have the energy to take this one on. not only that it’s swearing, but channelling the dismissiveness of paula bennett to jacinda ardern made it that much more of a shittier comment. yet all the people who complain about swearing had nothing to say.

        • RedLogix 13.2.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

          Oh dear, and there was me thinking I had developed this weird new talent.

          So when I wrote that you had no trouble understanding the meaning, instead of getting it 180 deg arse-about as you had been doing to me all night?

          Buggers that theory then.

          • stargazer 13.2.1.1.1
            5 January 2014 at 10:32 pm

            how had i been getting wrong. i’ve asked you for clarification, i gave you a detailed example re beneficiaries & asked you what you thought i should be doing differently, but i got no response. i gave you an example from the waikato interfaith council but got no response. yet you responded to JS with that shitty comment. tell me which comment of yours i got wrong, and what it is you were trying to say?

            i asked bill similar questions and also got no response.

            again, really not impressed with this attack from you, when i can’t see which bits of your comments you thought i misinterpreted. please clarify.

      • karol 13.2.2
        5 January 2014 at 9:13 pm

        And I have also been slapped down on TS in the past because I objected to the use of the c*** word being used as a term of abuse, and then some of those antaognistic to feminsim, gender politics, calling me the “language police”.

        And that word gets continually used on here.

    • Tracey 13.3
      6 January 2014 at 7:01 am

      is bugger or buggers ok?

  14. Philj 14
    5 January 2014 at 3:59 pm

    Xox
    HI V,
    Thanks for your prompt reply. It did clarify some of my thinking. I think there are fundamental issues within and between lefties that goes to the very core of what Labour really wants. It doesn’t have a clue what it stands for on the huge issues of the day, and what to do about them. I still feel that the tone of TS is as important as the content.
    Have a good day.

    • QoT 14.1
      5 January 2014 at 5:06 pm

      Quick litmus test, then: do you think it’s equally a problem when lprent dishes it out?
      http://thestandard.org.nz/mythbustin-waitakere-man/#comment-447337

    • Anne 14.2
      5 January 2014 at 5:31 pm

      Philj

      I think there are fundamental issues within and between lefties that goes to the very core of what Labour really wants.

      Don’t in any way equate some of the ‘debate’ that has been raging here in recent days with the Labour Party. As far as I’m aware most of the protagonists are not associated in any way with Labour. This is a forum which covers the full spectrum of political and social thinking although it does have it’s biggest response from the broader Left movement. Setting aside the unfortunate personal invective, there has been some very good contributions on both sides of the argument and in the end that is what counts.

      • karol 14.2.1
        5 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

        Anne, it should not be about the Labour Party – but people seem to keep seeing TS as a Labour Party forum – even some Stansardistas that I would have thought should know better.

        The debate does seem to me to have arisen, partly because of some angst within the Labour Party.

        • Anne 14.2.1.1
          5 January 2014 at 8:49 pm

          The debate does seem to me to have arisen, partly because of some angst within the Labour Party.

          True karol.

          I guess we’re all slaves to out personal experiences. In my case, it does concern me that certain issues – or at least the way they’re played out by NAct and the MSM – have been unfairly portrayed and ended up deleterious to the Labour Party over the years. That is why I fell foul of some in the L.P. who were pushing for the original wording of the remit that came to be dubbed by the media as the man-ban. Nothing was further from the truth, but it highlighted how important it is to both carefully couch… and then pursue certain policy/electoral ideas in such a way they can’t be misused by our opponents.

          Helen Clark was very good at managing issues and she succeeded in implementing some good social programmes during her term in office. She and her colleagues didn’t go nearly far enough, but Helen in particular was aware that a softly, softly approach was essential if Labour was to remain in office. That is the unfortunate reality, and is the cause of the angst within the Labour Party.

          • stargazer 14.2.1.1.1
            5 January 2014 at 10:40 pm

            and yet, anne, so many of the commenters here are exactly against that softly softly approach. they criticise the clark government for not dismantling the neo-liberal framework, for not restoring work rights to the level they were pre-employment contracts act, for only tinkering around the edges. any number of commenters criticise labour here for being too soft on economic & envoronmnetal issues, want labour to be bold with policy and language. it seems it’s only a crime to do these things when the policy relates to anything outside the strict & narrow economic issues that they are concerned about.

            re the media, electoral opponents will try to “misuse” absolutely anything put up by the left. the way to succeed is to reject their framing altogether, and turn the conversation around so we’re talking about the issues that matter in a way that matters. and the response has to be quick – not a 3-day apologetic response that totally buys into opposition arguments.

            • QoT 14.2.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 12:31 am

              so many of the commenters here are exactly against that softly softly approach. they criticise the clark government for not dismantling the neo-liberal framework, for not restoring work rights to the level they were pre-employment contracts act, for only tinkering around the edges. any number of commenters criticise labour here for being too soft on economic & envoronmnetal issues, want labour to be bold with policy and language. it seems it’s only a crime to do these things when the policy relates to anything outside the strict & narrow economic issues that they are concerned about.

              This +1000.

            • Tracey 14.2.1.1.1.2
              6 January 2014 at 7:04 am

              “and yet, anne, so many of the commenters here are exactly against that softly softly approach. they criticise the clark government for not dismantling the neo-liberal framework, for not restoring work rights to the level they were pre-employment contracts act, for only tinkering around the edges. any number of commenters criticise labour here for being too soft on economic & envoronmnetal issues, want labour to be bold with policy and language.”

              Which is why I dont understnd CV’s membership,and stnding for, the labour party (local politics)

  15. ak 15
    5 January 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Tears of despair mow tasting of joy and new growth by the end of this thread from this stale old piece of flatulence that has hung around here even longer than RL…..thank you all, especially you brave and intelligent men and women who are prepared to accept and change…..and try harder to stay always, forever, in the harbour of true aroha for all, especially those who have, and continue to suffer.

    We’ll stumble again. We’re human. But the way you have climbed back up here gives sweet succour to this poor old heart. Thank you.

  16. bad12 16
    5 January 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Into week one of the road test on the new pain blocking Meds and all is looking good, they work a treat 99% on the hip and 70ish% effective on the back,

    Lolz the biggest side-effect so far is the destruction of my appetite which no longer appears to exist, actually a plus coz i really need to loose some of that fat skin i find myself in, so a new years diet is going to be dead easy which is probably where i will find myself if i push it too far,

    Commenting tho i think might have to be kept to a minimum while i sort out the serious ‘sidies’ happening on the ‘psycho’ side of things, seems the new stuff has resulted in long streams of ‘thought’ where if vocalized appears to be akin to high speed Tourettes…

    • karol 16.1
      5 January 2014 at 6:11 pm

      Glad to see the pain blockers are working, bad. I didn’t realise you had to put off with so much pain in the past.

      Hope the adjustment to the meds work out.

    • Tracey 16.2
      6 January 2014 at 7:05 am

      Happy New Year Bad. Good luck with the meds and the sidies. Check in though so we know you are doing ok.

    • just saying 16.3
      6 January 2014 at 7:20 am

      Glad you’ve got that pain down to a dull roar.
      Wishing you all the best and looking forward to seeing you back when you have the “Tourettes” sorted.

  17. Philj 17
    5 January 2014 at 6:21 pm

    Hi QoT,
    If you are asking me re. IPRINT and I am reading the correct posting/reply, I answer, Yes, bad behaviour is, for me, unacceptable, demeaning and counter productive. This is a good site, but, for this sensible soul, a real mixed bag. A pity really, because it has some real stick going for it. Thanks to those responsible for its existence. 😉

  18. Philj 18
    5 January 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Xox
    Anne,
    Thanks for the clarification. I won’t make that assumption again. I am a newbie to this adventurous blog site!

  19. Ecosse 19
    5 January 2014 at 11:18 pm

    Ho Hum. I have just scan read today “Open”(closed/censored) Mic. To see that some that have the audacity to question & propose other ways forward. There has to be a balance of good, open, frank debate that does not discourage others from contributing. I realize that this site is not directly related to the Labour Party yet is a place apparently where those from the broad left can comment. Yet the amount of abusive, confrontational language is appauling . The remit surely, of the site is to challenge the actions of the racist right wing morons in charge and to agitate the labour party to to do better & put forward polices for those that have been victimized, forgotten, written off by those nasty NeoCons!

    Someone has said that this site is not a mouth piece of the Labour Party and a coalition of the broad Left however quote the fact of being formed in the late 30’s by The Labour Party. This may be wrong yet seems like a acute case of “Hypocritical Having My Cake and Eating It All!”

    From only being on this site for near on a month & I hate to jump to a conclusion yet can see no other. This site, seems to be run and by a “Gang of Four/Five”, whom have there own hobby horse issues and see no room for others to have their points fairly and equitably viewed without them being vilified. The Gang of Five, under the guise usually of authors, seem to run this site like a 3rd rate, chat room. These people should know better and allow open debate and get off their one trick hobby horses and allow others to fully contribute, yet they wont…

    One has to wonder about the mindset of these people whom protest to support the broad left yet seem intent on keeping the status quo on the site. Why would this be? Surely they cant be so shallow, as not truly to mean as they protest? Yet actually wish to keep this Perpetual Argue Mental Chat Room Atmosphere as it will secure their positions within it?!

    An election looms. NZ has been through merry hell under the command of The Wannabe Fascists of The National Party. A defining moment approaches. Unite as far as possible and agitate, organize, question The Labour Party to do better….Pose the views of our fellow citizens whom have had the life kicked out of them & don’t have the luxury of being a comfortable, one issue-no further comment author/chat room admin(s). I don’t want another term of enslavement of National, do you? Most on this site don’t I am sure….Yet, you have to wonder about some of the authors, As Opposition suits their purposes and keeps their Mini Me Personality, Power Base in Tact in The Fiefdom of TS….

    I may not be able to vote till later on this year against The Scum in charge of this wonderful country, however I can vote with my feet and would advocate others do to find a site where your voice, comment, suggestion,,,no matter how small is treated with equality, respect and with the true aim of creating a better New Zealand for all! Take care one et All!

    • McFlock 19.1
      6 January 2014 at 12:26 am

      I reckon that one thing holding back productive debate here and in general is the refusal to name names and show clear examples of what people are talking about. Oblique criticism like your comment is over my fucking head, for one.

      • QoT 19.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 12:34 am

        Paragraph 2 seems to be a wildly bad rehash of the “About” page.

        My interest is highly piqued by exactly which site Ecosse would recommend people “vote with their feet” to.

        • lprent 19.1.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 11:16 am

          The original Standard wasn’t formed by the Labour party, but was instead formed by unions. From memory it was started in the 20s rather than the 30s.

          I’m always kind of amused when people seem to think that the best way to deal with disagreement and arguments is to avoid it. Damn things never really go away.

          Best idea is always to figure out how to live with them and the people you’re arguing with.

          That is why we moderate based far more on behaviour rather than opinion. You damn near have to be advocating violence before we’ll moderate an opinion. But acting like a fool… That is another matter.

    • Tracey 19.2
      6 January 2014 at 7:08 am

      “Gang of Four/Five”

      Which is it?

  20. greywarbler 20
    6 January 2014 at 10:26 am

    lprent Is it hard to list the other blogs as you once did – left right? Would speed be limited if you did list again so you are leaving them off?

    • lprent 20.1
      6 January 2014 at 11:11 am

      The blogroll? They are actually still there under “site” on the menu bar

      http://thestandard.org.nz/site/blogroll/

      The biggest problem is that I haven’t had time to maintain them so they were steadily getting less relevant. It takes quite a lot of effort to simply look at the sites to see if they are still there every three months. I last did it at the start of 2011.

      I do have screen real estate issues, and I’m trying to keep the amount of javascript on site down. But it isn’t a problem if I seperate them off into a separate page.

  21. greywarbler 21
    6 January 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Thanks lprent. i understand. Could someone else sort the blogs? Just a thought.