And not for the first time – it’s a pattern with you. You start with a complete lie, then when challenged you argue some trivial side issue until people forget what the discussion was about or get bored and leave. Then you claim you were never arguing that point anyway.

And now you label others “trolls” because we see through and call you on your shallow, transparent bullshit.

Lets have it again: “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code”

Your words. Back them up, whoever you are.

Oh don’t be silly. At the time of posting the “Latest Comments” column listed various nicks. Ten (taken at face value or with public context) I would classify as not anonymous: Tim Ellis, Rex Widerstrom, Ron Hanson, lprent, bill brown, tony norriss, jo zinny, Steve Pierson, John Stevens, Brian Dooley.

Anonymous posters? Thirty three: r0b, barnsleybill, higherstandard, Quoth the Raven, insider, Robinsod, Bill, simon, Weather Eye Of The North, pdm, Roflcopter, gobsmacked, Ben R, Felix, Peter, Aj, Scribe, bobo, Tane, randal, Dom, vidiot, Paul, Daveski, Pascal’s bookie, Nick, Hauraki, Ianmac, Ari, mondograss, milo, burt, rosa.

Anonymity is the norm on blogs Tim. This is the second time I’ve seen you called on a lie, and trying as a last resort to appeal to your use of the nick “Tim Ellis” as some proof of your moral superiority (the “argument from authority”). Doesn’t work that way. Here our demographics and socio-political signs and signifiers are null and void. Here we are the quality of our arguments. You need to lift yours – a little basic fact checking before you post.

I’ve still got work to do before the day is done, so bye now.

[lprent: You're incorrect. It is more common for people to use anonymity than real names exposed. It has been that way since the networks started linking when I was was a student for the first time. In the end it is peoples ideas rather than their identities that carries weight.

There are very few people whose real identity carries any weight on the nets - after all you seldom know where they acquired it from. However a good strong on-line personality does carry weight. You can search for it and see what they said and thought decades ago as you can with 'lprent'. You do have to know where to look of course.]

Don’t get all snotty Tim, anonymity is the norm on blogs. How do we know Tim Ellis is your real name? We don’t. And we don’t care – why should we? You are the quality of your arguments here, that’s one of the things I like about it.

As for the lie with which you started this thread, you should really stop digging comrade. You said “Shane Jones announced last week that the Government had adopted the option, and it was going into the Building Code”. It’s a bit of a worry that you regard being called on a blatant lie a “nit-pick”.

Did you see the Close Up show on Monday? Shane Jones pretty much conceded it would have gone ahead if there had not been a public backlash against it. The regulation was due to come into force in a couple of months’ time. Spare me the sophistry of a consultation process. You don’t change regulations just a couple of months before they’re due to come into force, eighteen months after the official consultation round, unless you’ve faced overwhelming public pressure.

If this issue had been outside the confines of an election campaign (like the smacking issue), then the Government would have ploughed ahead with it.

And now it’s over to you to ignore the overwhelming evidence and nit-pick tiny holes in what I’ve said. You might ask me to define the word “the”, or produce a reference as to whether Shane Jones really is the responsible minister.

Good, because you need it. It is starting to look like your style to mix lies in with reasonable argument and the usual spin. The only question is whether this is down to a genuinely distorted world view (you genuinely believe your incorrect claims) or whether it is completely deliberate propaganda (you know exactly what you’re doing).

The bullet points you have quoted above come from here here. They make it clear that what is discussed is “proposed amendments” which are “not mandatory“. And you missed a couple out:

• The Department of Building and Housing have consulted on the proposals. All submissions will be carefully evaluated before a final decision is made.

• Any such measures will come into force after a full and considered reflection on the consultation.

This is so far from your original claim that it ain’t even funny.

Shane Jones said:

The Facts are:

• The proposed amendments are only intended for new homes and additional water systems and will not apply to existing homes unless a whole new system is installed.

• The rules are to improve the energy efficiency of hot water systems and will help people save money on their energy bills.

• The low-flow rate is not mandatory. People will have an option to use a shower head of their choice.

• A high-flow head could be used if an efficient heating system is installed, like a heat pump or a solar system. The important point is the over-all energy efficiency of the water heating system.

That was the standard due to come in force in a few months’ time. Shane Jones’ initial reaction was to defend it. He only canned it when the PM reined him in.

And now you say:
“I don’t resign from my position that the showerhead issue was almost certainly going to be included in the building code”

So essentially you admit that your first statement was pulled out of your arse.

You’re not even a good liar Tim, and certainly no more than an amateur thinker. Back up what you said or apologise for misleading the house.