Bullies

48 comments on “Bullies ”

• Comments are now closed

1. coge 1

   13 July 2008 at 4:46 pm

   Stifling of dissent. Now, where have I seen that happen before?
2. illuminatedtiger 2

   13 July 2008 at 4:49 pm

   And the right claim to be for free speech!
3. IrishBill 3

   13 July 2008 at 4:53 pm

   Coge, probably over at Kiwiblog. As I understand it David has banned or moderated nearly all of the left wingers there. I urge you to go over to Kiwiblog immediately and call him to account for it.

   But BOT, it seems to me that the pushpoll has been superseded by the blogosphere as a means for pushing political smears. It’s not surprising then, that CT are paying attention to political blogs here.
4. dad4justice 4

   13 July 2008 at 4:53 pm

   What a load of bully beef bollocks.
5. illuminatedtiger 5

   13 July 2008 at 4:55 pm

   Enjoying your ban from Kiwiblog Peter?
6. dad4justice 6

   13 July 2008 at 4:56 pm

   No comment tiger tuger !!
7. illuminatedtiger 7

   13 July 2008 at 5:00 pm

   Until September! Who’s been a bad boy then. I hope for everyones sake that your brand of vulgarity doesn’t become a permanent fixture here.
8. dad4justice 8

   13 July 2008 at 5:02 pm

   The only branded vulgarity that flows around here is from the frothing mouth of a twisted tiger, who is not the full quid. End of story boy!
9. jafapete 9

   13 July 2008 at 5:05 pm

   “For those of you who don’t know the background to it, Jafapete put up a post stating Crosby Textor had been successfully sued for push polling in Australia when if fact it was Mark Textor as an individual.”

   A small point, but I said it was Crosby, relying on a Guardian article. I knew that was alleged that one of them had engaged in the alleged push-polling, couldn’t recall which, and up came the Guardian article on google.

   So I got it wrong. Unlike many of the kiwiblog right, I’m always happy to apologise when I get something wrong. No problem. And the lawyer was very nice about apologising to me when he accidentally used my name in a subsequent comment on my blog (since removed).

   Postscript: What did you get banned for so long from KB for, Peter, me old China? You can comment on my blog as long as you behave yourself.
   
   [IrishBill says: Thanks Pete. I’ve fixed the post up.]
10. dad4justice 10

    13 July 2008 at 5:08 pm

    We all get it wrong at times jafa,for example, just look at the present bully beef gummint. Who will can them? Tiger tea anybody?
11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    13 July 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Lynn you really want to have a look at the way your scripts handle the TITLE tag… this appears in the sidebar as “Bullies at the Standard 2.0”. Not sure that’s quite what you want archived in Google for the next 6000 millenia 😀

    Leaving aside digressions on Hager (I could go on about the validity or otherwise of source material being a separate issue to one’s interpretation of that material, and thus defending him on that basis is as valid as going along to your book group and defending your spouting of radical Darwinist capitalism because you happen to have read a perfectly valid copy of “The Wealth of Nations”, but I won’t 😉 I agree with you.

    The recourse to lawyers and writs (or even threats of writs) for defamation is becoming the new last refuge of the scoundrel.

    Of course it would help if defamation laws were reformed so that those of us genuinely defamed were able to afford to seek redress whilst those clearly using the process to muzzle valid criticism found it too expensive, but that’d require some careful thought and political action.
12. Blar 12

    13 July 2008 at 5:15 pm

    If JP and the NBR were right, I highly doubt they would have backed down. Accusing a polling company – whose chief pollster is incidentally a highly respected member of the Australian Market & Social Research Society – of push-polling is a pretty big deal.

    I don’t see how telling a blogger or a media outlet to tell the truth stifles dissent. It’d be helpful if you could deal with the veracity of what JP and the NBR wrote rather than chuck poo at Crosby Textor
13. illuminatedtiger 13

    13 July 2008 at 5:26 pm

    The only branded vulgarity that flows around here is from the frothing mouth of a twisted tiger, who is not the full quid. End of story boy!

    Come on dad. I’ve seen everything you’ve had to say at Kiwiblog and TBR and I don’t think any of it could be considered G-rated.
14. Anita 14

    13 July 2008 at 5:28 pm

    One of the (many) things that baffle me is why the media is taking it. They’re clearly being bullied by the Nats and their friends and allies, yet they’re continuing to potter along as if Key was the smiliest happiest nicest man anyone could ever want their daughter to marry.

    Do they not link him with his minders’ actions?

    Are they so sure the Nats are going to win and that they’ll continue their bullying ways that they’ll do anything to butter Key up?

    Huh? Huh? 🙂
15. dad4justice 15

    13 July 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Nasty tiger ; Your opinion, and I am happy police have spoken to me offering assistance, so we can nail the anonymous creeps who threatened “to do me in and rape my daughter”. They understand my genuine concerns and building frustration with the depraved comments from alex burns@atheist, dad4justice@muslim and fugley.Malicious phone calls 24/7!! The internet is a disgusting environment that is abused by evil cowardly creeps. Blog owners only get one side of story when they ban me. At least the police FINALLY understand tiger !!I hope it wasn’t you naughty tiger?
16. IrishBill 16

    13 July 2008 at 5:38 pm

    IT and dad, please take your argument elsewhere.
17. illuminatedtiger 17

    13 July 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Sorry IB.
18. jafapete 18

    13 July 2008 at 5:42 pm

    “If JP and the NBR were right, I highly doubt they would have backed down.”

    Blar, Do I have to spell it out to you in baby language?

    I put “Crosby” when I should have put “Textor”. Big friggin’ deal. That’s sloppy checking, not about veracity.

    It wasn’t C/T who did the push-polling (or “attitudinal survey”) in the 1995 byelection. It was Rot Morgan, on behalf of the Liberal Party. But Textor and his boss the Director of the Liberal Party both wrote letters apologising for the polling, and the LP paid out $80,000 or so. Why would they do that?

    If the Australian Market & Social Research Society want to honour Textor, says nothing I didn’t already know about market researchers is my view.
19. illuminatedtiger 19

    13 July 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Meanwhile people viciously slander Hager calling him a liar, a thief and a hacker and Hager does nothing. I admire his tolerance of such lowlife right wing scum.
20. Will de Cleene 20

    13 July 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Why is it that the right are so much more litigious than the left?

    Because the left have nothing to lose.
21. Blar 21

    13 July 2008 at 5:58 pm

    “Meanwhile people viciously slander Hager calling him a liar, a thief and a hacker and Hager does nothing”

    Maybe he doesn’t take issue with it because he likes to play the victim card and at least one of three appears to be true.
22. lprent 22

    13 July 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Rex: Good point – looking now.

    Fix1 in place. Now is there a better way to do this.
    Fix2 in place. That will do it. Pop into version control.

    Thanks Rex
23. Anita 23

    13 July 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Blar,

    Personal attacks and defamation becomes you; welcome to the National Party campaign team.
24. Live Free Or die Hard 24

    13 July 2008 at 6:46 pm

    [lprent: deleted – you are banned I believe – starting the enforcement process]
25. Draco TB 25

    13 July 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Meanwhile people viciously slander Hager calling him a liar, a thief and a hacker and Hager does nothing. I admire his tolerance of such lowlife right wing scum.

    I really wish he would take them to court though. These people will continue to spout the lies and slander to instill doubt in peoples minds. Do that enough and people will no longer believe what he writes no matter how solid the evidence and that will be very bad for the country.

    It’s also the only way to stop them as they themselves say all the time – people doing the wrong thing need to be punished. I don’t like it but in this case it happens to be true as it’s the only language that they understand. As far as they’re concerned they must be right because Hager isn’t doing anything to stop them.
26. Robinsod 26

    13 July 2008 at 7:22 pm

    As far as they’re concerned they must be right because Hager isn’t doing anything to stop them.

    Ah yes – the ol’ pigf*cker scenario…
27. Chris S 27

    13 July 2008 at 7:28 pm

    lprent – is that really much better?

    The Standard 2.01: Bullies

    [lprent: I think that with ‘Bullies’ as a post title, it has problems if we put the site name near it (regardless). I Could just remove the site name. Going shopping I’ll think about it afterwards]
28. travellerev 28

    13 July 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Ok I’ve had it. Dads4justice is not OK. Standard please judge and ban
29. randal 29

    13 July 2008 at 7:45 pm

    d4j’s last post was more than one sentence long and almost coherent. is he buying his material from CT?
30. bill brown 30

    13 July 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Lynn,

    How about “on” instead of “:”

    [lprent: I thought about it. But I could see ways that anything I used on the right of the post topic could create a possible problem. It seemed expedient to make it clear what was topic and what was the site.]
31. Dean 31

    13 July 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Anita:

    “Personal attacks and defamation becomes you; welcome to the National Party campaign team.”

    Your irony is breathtaking. For 10 points, can you tell me which of the current Labour front bench have ever called across the chamber “take your pills” to a member of the opposition? For bonus points, please explain how this is not a personal attack and how you see fit to bury your head in the sand over that when you choose not to over things National members say.

    Absolutely pathetic, Anita. People like you breathe new life into that tired old cliche “the double standard”.
32. Anita 32

    13 July 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Dean,

    To repeat myself, I am not a Labour party supporter. I don’t support that behaviour of the Labour front bench and it goes on the (rather long) list of reasons I won’t vote for them.
33. Dean 33

    13 July 2008 at 8:06 pm

    “To repeat myself, I am not a Labour party supporter. I don’t support that behaviour of the Labour front bench and it goes on the (rather long) list of reasons I won’t vote for them.”

    Fair point, and if I said anything to imply that I thought you were then I apologise.

    But it is a huge double standard to attack National for using personal attacks when Labour are just as bad.

    [lprent: Dean – you should know by now that there are all types of people here. Not all of them are Labour supporters. Some of them feel about being associated with any party like you would feel like if someone said (at a guess) you were responsible for NZ First. Think before you write – maybe use the search to look up what they’ve said previously before you write.]
34. randal 34

    13 July 2008 at 8:16 pm

    oh gosh. maybe they should have a refereee and fine mp’s for not being role models. what is the world coming to now. I cant stand it. its all too sad.
35. Lew 35

    13 July 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Dean: “But it is a huge double standard to attack National for using personal attacks when Labour are just as bad.”

    It is only a double standard if the person pointing the finger is a Labour supporter, or conversely when complaining about Labour’s bad behaviour if one is a National supporter. I suppose you could argue that while SP and the majority of the Standardistas are declaredly not Labour voters, they are Labour supporters in a sense because to be National’s enemy is in a sense one must to an extent favour Labour.

    However, it’s a long bow. A much shorter bow are to apply this criticism to those who explicitly are National supporters whose constant finger-pointing about dirty tactics employed by Labour are not so much to criticise the employment of dirty tactics in the general case, but as a sort of `they did it too!’ schoolyard taunt.

    Care to distance yourselves from those folks? Or are we to understand by your refusal to do so that you endorse them?

    L
36. Graeme 36

    13 July 2008 at 8:50 pm

    The stifling of dissent is of course straight out of the CT handbook and is just a variation on the same theme that brought us…

    the apology from Radio NZ for airing comments that Nicky Hager was a thief?

    Do you think Nicky was taking a leaf from CT for that? That he was bullying?
37. Dean 37

    13 July 2008 at 8:55 pm

    [lprent: Dean – you should know by now that there are all types of people here. Not all of them are Labour supporters. Some of them feel about being associated with any party like you would feel like if someone said (at a guess) you were responsible for NZ First. Think before you write – maybe use the search to look up what they’ve said previously before you write.]

    Good point, lprent. However, at least I issued a genuine apology.

    Could you also point this out to r0b? He seems to be of the opinion that I’m a National supporter because I don’t like Labour.

    It might be a good idea if he thought about what he wrote before he wrote it, too.

    [lprent: Yep – I was impressed with the apology – that is why my note was an explanation rather than other possible actions.

    If rOb does make that class of statement:- that you as a member/supporter of a party were responsible for other members/supporters actions when you aren’t a member/supporter of a party (and weren’t defending them anyway) – feel free to draw it to my attention. It would be an unjustified provocation that is liable to lead to a flame war.

    From my observation, rOb doesn’t do that. But he does challenge people defending behaviors that he disapproves of, and then tends to get quite tenacious about following up. But he is usually quite meticulous about it from what I’ve seen. After all he was the person who commented early this year that I should improve the search functionality to include comments – which eventually I did.]
38. Dean 38

    13 July 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Lew:

    “Care to distance yourselves from those folks? Or are we to understand by your refusal to do so that you endorse them?”

    I am most definitely not a National supporter. And I do not endore the stupidity of some of it’s supporters.

    However, I think you’re glossing over the main point.
    Just because one is a supporter of one party or another doesn’t mean double standards ought to be overlooked, as with the whole “National is Nasty!” theme people like SP are touting. Anyone with any reasonable degree of intelligence can see where both parties are just as bad as each other.

    To continue to pretend that it’s ok because this is a left-leaning blog is just silly. Some people point out the whole “kiwiblog right” and they have an excellent point, but this site has it’s share of the “standard left” – those who are so convinced by their own riteousness that the reality of their own supported party evades them.
39. killinginthenameof 39

    14 July 2008 at 12:29 am

    Imagine if labours pr company decided to hold the right to account for every “accident” they had made posting online, hell it woudl be enough to bankrupt whale oil (again??) easily!
40. Oliver 40

    14 July 2008 at 2:26 am

    Crosby/Textor are entirely within their rights to see that incorrect information about them isn’t published. National Radio issued an apology to Hager and you didn’t call that a result of bullying.

    I am 100% convinced that you only call this bullying because it came from Crosby/Textor, if any other organisation had done the same to David Farrar I’m sure that you’d applaud their defence of their right to fight libel/slander.
41. Phil 41

    14 July 2008 at 9:36 am

    “Why is it that the right are so much more litigious than the left?”

    All the talented lawyers sit on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Look at the hash Labour has made of complying with it’s own law – the EFA.

    Random thought of the day; is that why they call it “left-overs”?
42. higherstandard 42

    14 July 2008 at 9:39 am

    ‘All the talented lawyers sit on the right hand side of the political spectrum’…….. nope there is nothing to suggest this and in fact much to suggest just the opposite.

    Regardless of where they sit most are, however, happy to gorge on the government coffers.
43. Ari 43

    14 July 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Because the left have nothing to lose.

    More like the left wingers don’t have the cash to waste on petty squabbles and suppressing freedom of speech.

    Oliver: Sure they are entitled to ask for corrections, but do they need to go through a lawyer to do it? It’s kind of like warning someone who was about to unknowingly stray onto your property that you have guard dogs that haven’t been fed recently.
44. Oliver 44

    14 July 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Ari,

    If you go through a lawyer from the start you know that nothing will get done in a manner that can queer the pitch for any potential future litigation, mediation or arbitration.
45. Anita 45

    14 July 2008 at 5:11 pm

    I’m pretty sure it’s possible to get straightforward factual inaccuracies sorted out without having to wave lawyers around.
46. The Optimist 46

    14 July 2008 at 8:54 pm

    If true it is very different from the US where the trial lawyers mostly vote Democrat. Although I suppose that can hardly be called left wing in the NZ context.

    I think it’s bizarre to hit a blog with a legal letter – unless perhaps he had a previous warning. Surely a quiet note would have been enough to get a correction.

    It happened a few months ago too. Is it becoming a pattern?
47. Swampy 47

    19 July 2008 at 2:18 am

    “Why is it that the right are so much more litigious than the left?”

    Why is it that the left are so much more condemnatory and denigratory than the right?
48. Swampy 48

    19 July 2008 at 2:23 am

    Hager’s claims are not based on solid evidence, credible research requires more than one source.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS