I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

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.

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

Is this your answer to boy racing – getting rid of that male aggro in a safe way?

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”.

Captcha: “truce the” I kid you not.

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.