Written By: - Date published: 9:34 pm, January 16th, 2008 - 203 comments
Categories: scoundrels -
Tags: scoundrels
People often ask us at The Standard why we don’t post under our real names. Tonight Whaleoil has provided a damn good answer to that question. He’s got a new creep who goes under the moniker “Steady Eddy” and he’s decided to show his chops by stalking John Minto.
And when I say stalking I’m not joking – this guy has gone the whole hog by going through the purchase records for Minto’s home and even going there to take a picture! Now, Minto lives in a pretty distinctive house and when it’s being published on the web without his say so and commentated like this:
Socialist lickspittle and rent an outrage John Minto stained the pages of the NZ Herald earlier this month
he’d be well within his rights to be concerned about his personal safety.
We’ve always known Whale is a creep but this surprises even me. I notice the last word of this post is “scum” – I can’t think of a better word to describe its author.
I can only hope these freaks get taken to the cleaners for this.
Update: the image of Minto’s house appears to have been taken in 2006 (presumably by Slater) – perhaps “Steady Eddy” isn’t new to Whale’s blog at all…
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Robinsod has turned this place into a cesspit, Tane. He’s your biggest liability.
Y’see punter – you’re trying your hand at what’s called wedge politics. The thing is mate, you aren’t very good at it (kinda like everything else in this world).
I suggest you go back to work and stop making transparent attempts to manipulate people (hint: when they know you’re a psycho it doesn’t work). Oh and I’d also suggest you stop inventing other commenters to back yourself up – you’re too stupid to make them sound any different to your own drivel and you only humiliate yourself more.
Come on, r0b. The Standard did trumpet the fact that it didn’t moderate comments, ostensibly because its commenters were more civilised, and moderation wasn’t therefore necessary.
I’m not complaining that Robinsod’s extremism is moderated. I’m merely pointing out the difference between the Standard’s earlier assertions that moderation wasn’t necessary, and its current actions. You claim it is because the Standard is now a more popular blog. Now, that might be a reasonable explanation, if robinsod was a new commenter: a product of the Standard’s success. But he isn’t. He’s been consistently trawling the bottom of the barrel since the Standard began.
Tane has at best given Robinsod a slap with a wet bus ticket. He has, on the other hand, gone so far as to ban dad4justice. I haven’t seen Tane even threaten Robinsod with similar.
The Standard has every right to moderate its comments. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of originally saying it didn’t moderate, then doing so, while criticising DPF for doing the same.
My personal opinion is that if you’re going to set up a blog, it’s naive to state you’re never going to moderate comments. Comments moderation, as I suppose the Standard has now found, is not actually about limiting debate: it’s about protecting yourself from litigation through other people’s irresponsible behaviour, and protecting other individuals from harm.
Saying you’re not going to moderate comments simply invites both your friends and foes to dwell in the sewer with impunity. It is the Standard’s own friends–and robinsod is the most stark example–who have created the sewer that is now the Standard’s comments section.
I think you would agree, rOb, that Robinsod’s behaviour has gone too far, and he’s made a mockery of this entire post (which justifies anonymous contributions online) by threatening to stalk and out other anonymous commenters. Offering Robinsod a ban to give him an opportunity to reflect on his conduct might be a very constructive act. The Standard’s already done likewise to dad4justice: if Tane wants to preserve credibility, he should do likewise to Robinsod.
The Standard has every right to moderate its comments. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of originally saying it didn’t moderate, then doing so, while criticising DPF for doing the same.
IP you fool the standard does not moderate people it disagrees with, it moderates people for potential defamation or in the case of Michel Cabiling repeatedly and tastelessly pissing on Hone Tuwhare’s obituary.
The contrast has always been that the standard welcomes debate while Farrar bans lefties he doesn’t like. It’s interesting to see you demanding robinsod be banned. Is it because he hands you your arse every time you try to pick a fight with him? You’re the most obnoxious poster here and I have to agree with others that you’re just here to disrupt. You’re a beneficiary of the standard’s light moderation, but you’re just too stupid and dishonest to see it.
IP
You shouldn’t expect the supporters of the standard to be rational about this. This thread is about how it’s justifiable for the authors to remain anonymous when posting their political opinions while they also support people being required to publish their full name an residential address if they want to express political opinions.
These guys have shown very clearly that one standard is expected for them and another is expected for everybody else. Of course Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill expect you to behave differently to them, it’s how they operate.
Sorry stuffed up that link, it was:
Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill
Oh and just one more thing. It’s the Kiwiblog right who try to make things unpleasant here. Apart from the occasional outburst by Robinsod the left are very pleasant and reasonable people to deal with.
You, IP, are the worst person on this site. Do you realise no one else wants you here?
Sorry stuffed up that link, it was:
Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill
I love how burt thinks he’s funny. He’s like my 65 year old uncle. He learns how to bold his text and all of a sudden everything’s bold!. Now he’s learned how to link to Wikipedia. What a smart old drunk you are burty boy.
Burt – what whale did to minto is like me picking a rightwinger at random (say, Jakie Blue) and then posting her financial details and a picture of her house. What I’ve done is make sure people who want to endanger me have something to lose by doing so. If Minto had repeatedly defamed and threatened Whale around the traps I’d be less outraged by Whale’s actions. But he didn’t.
Tell me this Burt – do you think it’s fair that I’ve had to change my status on directory services and on the electoral role just because Whale and his psychopathic friends decided to out me?
I have to laugh when IP gets on his High Horse aye. 99% of the time the comments here are enthusiastic, combative (in a good imntellectual sense), enlightening and entertaining.
Prophet and Sobinsod continue a strange pissing-contest (I didn’t get it the first time around, but don’t care) and suddenly The Standard is a sewer.
IP, when you write such comments, do you think there’s anyone out there apart from the usual sycophants who actually read your comments and think that what you have written holds a modicum of truth. I can tell you, IP, that a vast majority would read such comments and dismiss them as vile trolling.
But please, tell me – do you think anyone reads what you say and agrees (apart from the obvious arse-kissers)?
James, most people on the right are reasonable to debate with, if not, perhaps, a touch combative (as we all can be) – don’t tar them all with the same brush as IP, they’re much more rational, decent and honest.
IP, I don’t understand where you are coming from. Perhaps theStandard did at one time congratulate themselves on not needing to moderate comments, but the fact that comments get moderated is caused by two things, objectionable posts and a moderator willing to moderate.
From what I can see here all of the ‘moderation’ that has happened in this thread is entirely necessary to turn off the flamethrowers that seem to be the default mode in internet ‘discussions’.
Dad4justice posted here today, so I’m not sure why you think he’s banned. Did he get a temp-ban a while back? Was it merited?
It seems to me that Robinsod is being moderated in the same was as the flamers who are attacking him are, and in a reasonably consistent manner.
You *have* to have good moderation in order to actually have discussion, otherwise the threads just become an exercise in trolling. Is that what you want?
capatcha: droll snail
Hi James Kearney, you like attacking the messenger as well I see.
So what do you think about IrishBill defending being anonymous while also supporting the EFB? Do you see any double standard in that or are you simply not interested in that and all you can think about is the style of my post?
Robinsod
Not at all – nor would I like it if I had to move because my residential address was required to be printed on something I wanted to say and some nutta started stalking my house. You can hide from here on because you have removed yourself from the directory, not so if the nutta’s have a piece of paper with your residential address on it.
Robinsod
Also it could easily be argued that John Minto would be required to print his residential address on anything he has published this year anyway. So ignoring what Whaleoil has done to you for a moment, it’s a bit rich to be upset about a picture of Minto’s house given the way the authors of this blog support the requirement to print a residential address on political opinions.
I know it’s hard defending the indefensible, but sometimes it pays to STFU rather than post threads like this which highlight the double standard of the being a Labour supporter.
IP: I’m merely pointing out the difference between the Standard’s earlier assertions that moderation wasn’t necessary, and its current actions. You claim it is because the Standard is now a more popular blog. Now, that might be a reasonable explanation …
Well thank you. It is a reasonable explanation.
… if robinsod was a new commenter: a product of the Standard’s success.
I wasn’t suggesting that Robinsod is new, it is other newly arrived commenters and trolls that changed the tone here. And ‘sod has let himself be drawn into confrontations that lead him to occasionally post foolish things. Which is a pity, because most of the time he’s reasonable, and at his best he’s smart and funny. I definitely want him on my side when the glorious revolution comes. [Sadly, I probably have to label that comment as an explicit joke, for the sake of the humour impaired].
I think you would agree, rOb, that Robinsod’s behaviour has gone too far, and he’s made a mockery of this entire post (which justifies anonymous contributions online) by threatening to stalk and out other anonymous commenters.
If we’re trying to have a reasonable conversation, then yes, I do agree that Robinsod went too far here. I don’t like threats to out people. There are perfectly valid reasons why people might wish to post anonymously.
Why would anyone want to track you down Mike?
What possible reason could anyone have for trying to find you after your name was mentioned on the interwebs?
What could you have possibly done that would make YOU think someone was going to come and get you and that you had better get your details removed from areas of the public record?
I’m scratching for reasons, help me out will ya Mike?
So Burt, the guts of your comment is that Whale is in fact a nutter because of his stalking, that’s all you had to say.
Also it could easily be argued that John Minto would be required to print his residential address on anything he has published this year anyway
Burt – You would be required to put your address on any election advert you publish this year. Does that mean Whale should put up a post with your financial details, name your suburb and post a picture of your house?
Oh and burt – the law in the last election (and since 1993) already stated you needed to put your name and street address on advertisements.
Section 221 of the Electoral Act 1993 (clause 2b) reads:
“The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.”
The only difference now is the definition of advertising has been extended to include some web-based stuff (a law change to keep up with technological change) and the period it covers has been extended to all of election year – this also reflects a changing political reality.
Matthew Pilott
No that is not the guts of it – only somebody trying to deflect the attention away from the double standard of posting anonymously while supporting legislation that requires people to disclose their name and address would say that.
But however it’s reasonable to conclude that as I think anybody who stalks others is a nutta that I also think WhaleOil is a nutta as well.
It’s easy for me to say that because I’m not myopically partisan and I can see faults where they exists, rather than just where I want them to be.
I should stop trying to make light of things just because it’s Friday afternoon, sorry Burt!
However as rOb mentioned I thought you already had to add those details.
Have a good weekend all.
I’m scratching for reasons, help me out will ya Mike?
y’know TP/IP – I ask myself that a lot. I mean, my behaviour although bad is considerably less abusive than a lot of Kiwiblog right wingers and yet I’ve never threatened them with physical violence and I haven’t seen anybody else do so either. And yet I get threatened reasonable frequently (your continual and deliberate use of my real name is an excellent example of such menacing behaviour). All I can really say is I guess the right is full of psychos who turn really really nasty when they get a taste of their own shit. You are a good example of that mate.
Interesting to see that when Robinsod changes gear and starts talking facts the right-wingers disappear. They’re only here for a fight because they have nothing meaningful to say. You should stick to commenting like this Robinsod: facts seem to scare them more than threats do.
Is it because he hands you your arse every time you try to pick a fight with him? You’re the most obnoxious poster here and I have to agree with others that you’re just here to disrupt.
Actually, James, Robinsod hasn’t engaged in a debate with me for several months. After losing every argument, he descended to telling me I was a nobody, that he had no interest in debating with me, telling me to “fuck off”, then tarted threatening to stalk me, then actually stalking me. Strange behaviour to stalk a nobody.
There are some people at the Standard who do debate. r0b certainly does. IrishBill does. Wqhile I have no doubt they have vested interests in their opinions (hell, I have a vested interest in lower taxes), I think they’re honestly held. Roger Gnome honestly believes his misguided views. Sometimes, as over the EFB when he was forced to back down from the standard Labour Party line that National was just as guilty as the Labour Party in stealing taxpayers’ money–he has the belated honesty to admit he’s wrong. I don’t credit Tane with the same intellectual honesty.
Matthew Pilott used to engage in debate, but he got cranky some while back after losing argument after argument at kiwiblog. It appears he was offended my my reference to him as Matthew Pilott, instead of his pseudonym “Fighter Pilott” at Kiwiblog. This was an error on my part, and I didn’t intend it to be an outing. I would suggest that a reference to him as Matthew when he’s posting as Fighter Pilott at Kiwiblog, and simultaneously as Matthew Pilott at the Standard, is not an outing. I say again I didn’t mean to offend. If I did so, I apologise.
I’m not sure where Robinsod’s ire comes from. I have never attempted to out him, or encouraged anybody else to do so. I’ve said at the Standard repeatedly that I don’t support outing anonymous bloggers. I’m quite comfortable with the Standard’s bloggers remaining anonymous. I accept that their may be sensitive issues relating to their employment, which would prejudice their future prospects if their actual identities were revealed.
There is an outright hypocrisy between the Standard’s opposition to anonymous contributions to politics, however, and the Standard’s insistence that it remains anonymous. I don’t have a personal problem with either, but it is total hypocrisy to maintain that political campaigning needs to be public, yet political activism on blogs should not be.
My personal view is that people are smart enough to make a judgement on the value of an anonymous contribution to either political life or political debate. Anonymity diminishes the value of the argument. Because the person making the argument cannot be personally held to account for the argument, the argument is less valuable than an argument made by a named person, whose real-life credibility is at stake when they make the argument. Let’s face it, you can say anything you like when you don’t have to account for it.
On the other hand, a very good argument made anonymously beats a crappy argument made by a named person every time. And I think the audience is generally smart enough to draw that distinction.
It’s good to see you’re commenting reasonably Prick. I had a word with ‘Sod and he’s going to pull his head in. You are not at all blameless yourself however, and we have all noticed your tendency to use other commenters names instead of their handles and to imply you know biographical detail about them. We enjoy the fact that the standard is a forum for real debate and would appreciate it if you maintained the tenor you’ve shown in your last comment.
Captcha: “truce the” I kid you not.
Yes, very good IP, I mean….me.
IP Wqhile I have no doubt they have vested interests in their opinions (hell, I have a vested interest in lower taxes), I think they’re honestly held.
Why is it that persons from the right so often see life only in terms of personal gain? I have no financial “vested interest” in supporting a Labour government. I would benefit enormously from some forms of lower taxes. The interest that I and many others have in supporting the political left is to support a fair society and a sustainable environment. Is that impossible to believe?
but it is total hypocrisy to maintain that political campaigning needs to be public, yet political activism on blogs should not be.
There are worlds of difference between campaigning and blogging, so it is not at all hypocritical to treat them differently. And the requirement that campaigning should not be anonymous is not new, as robinsod pointed out above it has been in place in NZ since 1993 (and it is also in place in other similar democracies such as Canada). Once again you are attacking a “strawman”.
If you want to attack total hypocrisy, you should go challenge DPF for his lifetime banning of posters with opposing ideologies, while ostensibly championing the cause of “free speech”.
Guys
Is this your answer to boy racing – getting rid of that male aggro in a safe way?
Guys
Is this your answer to boy racing – getting rid of that male aggro in a safe way?
Why would you assume that I’m a guy? Not that I’ll see your reply, I’m off for a week – byeeee
rOb
that’s cheating leaving after landing a punch, ineffectual as it may have been.
Guys is a mixed gender term.
Male aggro is in the systems of both men and women, just as love and sharing and caring are in the systems of both men and women.
Don’t let the sharks bite.