They just don’t learn

109 comments on “They just don’t learn ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   22 January 2008 at 1:44 pm

   Ah yes, my old mate Whale (who now appears to be stalking me – woohoo!). I noticed the smarter half of the FSC hasn’t posted on this. Perhaps he’s figured out he’s best distancing himself from the liability that is the fat man.
2. Insolent Prick 2

   22 January 2008 at 1:51 pm

   An appropriate disclosure statement by the Standard should read:

   “The Standard is proudly supported by the Labour Party, which subsidises the hosting of this blog. Some Standard authors are active Labour Party members. Some Standard authors are also paid employees of the EPMU. Some Standard authors are employed by Parliamentary Services and work in the Beehive.”

   Unfortunately, the Standard is too dishonest to make that statement. Despite campaigning for everybody else’s political affiliations to be outed, and championing the cause of the Electoral Finance Act, which by the Standard’s own claims, increases transparency and accountability in politics, the Standard has done everything it can to conceal its political ties.

   And by the way, I very much doubt the Trust Deed states that the donors list must be published on a daily basis. The Electoral Finance Act doesn’t require that party donations are listed until after the year they’re made. The FSC have said they will regularly publish their donors list. They’re evidently not working to the timetable demanded by the Standard’s chief stalker.

   While you’re asking questions, Tane, why don’t you answer some? Are any Standard authors employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party affiliate union, or Parliamentary or Ministerial Services? You’re asking for some transparency here. Why don’t you be a bit more transparent yourself?

   [IrishBill]: Prick, you’ve posted this comment several times now across several threads and are becoming a troll. You’ve been given more space to make your point than you would have been given on other blogs. If you don’t refrain from this behaviour you will face a one week ban.]
3. rjs131 3

   22 January 2008 at 2:11 pm

   Yes i am sure that it will lead to a backlash against Eric Roy in favour of the hard working, high profile, highly competent Lesley Soper
4. Phil 4

   22 January 2008 at 2:14 pm

   “2) By hitching their billboards to Shadbolt’s campaign, which is being funded by Hollow Men the Talley brothers, the Free Speech Coalition is, as many have suggested, fighting not for the right of New Zealanders to speak their mind, but for wealthy interests to abuse our electoral laws.”

   Erm, really?

   So, if a registered kiddy-fiddler were to support Shadbolt, you’d be suggesting that FSC, also in support of Tim, were also in support of paedophilia?
   D4J and I are both Nat’s, does that mean I’m in favour of his behaviour/writings here?

   I realise they’re extreme examples, but I’m confident that you wouldn’t want to be associated with some of the nutcases that inhabit the world of the far left, who happen to vote for the same party as you.
   Is this really how you want to play it?
5. Sam Dixon 5

   22 January 2008 at 2:15 pm

   And, the billboards are simply too obpaque.

   In a hard-to-read language in a hard-to-read colour they make a roundabout reference to the Electoral Finance Act, which is dishonest because the law wasn’t changed in reaction to Shadbolt, it was already being passed when he decided to use ratepayers’ money to campaign for his personal fiefdom.

   And, a small point. The text is menat to be a pun ‘silencing the rebel’ because Mugabe has repressed rebels. In fact, it was Mugabe who was the rebel who overthrew the racist dictatorship of Ian Smith in Rhodesia to establish Zimbabwe. Now, Mugabe himself is the dictator but he isn’t facing rebels who are breaking the law. The opposition are the ones who have had the law on their side, they have repeatedly won court cases – but, like National and Shadbolt here, Mugabe doesn’t like any result the democratic process that threatens his power and it is his regime that has repeatedly acted illegally.
6. stan 6

   22 January 2008 at 2:26 pm

   you know the least you guys could do is make a post clarifying this matter:

   http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/the_standard_hosted_by_the_labour_party.html#comments
7. Aj 7

   22 January 2008 at 2:36 pm

   In the Southland DT in the last few weeks:

   Not supporting Shadbolt:

   Editor, feature writers, fellow councillers, countless letters to the editor.

   Supporting Shadbolt:

   Eric Roy. All on his lonseome.
8. the sprout 8

   22 January 2008 at 2:37 pm

   that’s odd stan, you can write but not read. a most unusual aphasia that one.

   see if you can get someone to read this to you:
   http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39614#post39614
9. Glenn 9

   22 January 2008 at 2:45 pm

   Unlike D4J, you’re just a little too coherent to be convincingly feral!
10. Ruth 10

    22 January 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Repeating what I said to Ranapaia – I’m getting rather tired of this ‘holocaust on a plate’.

    To thick skins it may not be offensive, but it’s utterly tasteless, and a liability to be sure, even though National have distanced themselves from these people.
11. Tane 11

    22 January 2008 at 3:27 pm

    So, if a registered kiddy-fiddler were to support Shadbolt, you’d be suggesting that FSC, also in support of Tim, were also in support of paedophilia?

    If Tim’s campaign was against laws restricting kiddy-fiddling, and he was being funded by kiddy-fiddlers then that objection might have some merit.

    [Captcha: spending associates]
12. Tane 12

    22 January 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Yes i am sure that it will lead to a backlash against Eric Roy in favour of the hard working, high profile, highly competent Lesley Soper

    I’m no fan of Soper either, all I’m saying is that whether he likes it or not Eric Roy’s going to be harmed by association. That’s not very smart politics on the part of the FSC.
13. Name 13

    22 January 2008 at 3:53 pm

    hard working, high profile, highly competent Lesley Soper

    what drugs are you on? she’s hated in invervegas. and funny how all the letter writers to the paper are members of the Liarbour Party, eh?
14. Tane 14

    22 January 2008 at 3:55 pm

    I think he was being facetious. But given your use of the term “Liabour” I’m not surprised you failed to notice.
15. Phil 15

    22 January 2008 at 5:05 pm

    You’re avoiding my bigger question Tane…

    Simply because the FSC choose to put up a billboard in support of Shadbolt (I assume they have done this without his knowledge?) does not mean they’re supportive of the methods/means/motivations of the other backers that Shadbolt has. You’re drawing a long bow.

    P.S. I always assumed it was supposed to be spelt “Liarbore”… but it’s nowhere near as witty as “Labour – as painful as it sounds”
16. burt 16

    22 January 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Tane (and/or IrishBill)

    Is there a reason why no post have been made on this blog about the Labour party involvement in The Standard ?

    It seems to me that IP has a valid point, people have posted comments elsewhere deflecting the issue of using an IP address registered by Labour but there are no categorical denials or statement of exactly what is going on. It seems to me the defense of “we borrowed one of their pre-registered IP addresses” is another way of saying “Labour pay for it” – is this correct ?
17. Outofbed 17

    22 January 2008 at 6:04 pm

    This has been thrashed to death Burt

    The standard people can post what they like as it is their blog.
    If they do not post what you want them too , either set up your own blog or return to kiwiblog where you can be happy amongst the rest of the RWNJ ‘s and therefore find true happiness and enlightenment

    cheers
18. burt 18

    22 January 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Outofbed

    So who appointed you to tell others what they can and can’t ask on this blog ? Who made you Tane and/or IrishBill’s minders – you kinow the guys I addressed the question to.

    As for thrashed to death – I think it’s only the credibility of the standard that has been thrashed to death – It might have survived the beating if the authors didn’t apply the Labour party 3-D’s principal of Deny, Delay, Denigrate when the issue first surfaced.
19. the sprout 19

    22 January 2008 at 7:36 pm

    you wish burtie, you wish
20. Dean 20

    22 January 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Tane, all due respect for your post because I think the points you raise are relevant, but will any of you have the guts to admit how much web traffic you use in a month and who’s footing the bill?

    Just in the interest of transparency, you understand.

    Lynne provided some good counter to the hype around the IP block, but despite myself and several other people asking the above question I’ve yet to see an answer to this question. Instead you all just seem to dodge.

    (Yes, yes, the sprout, im a fascist, let’s just take that for granted ok?)
21. Inventory2 21

    22 January 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Burt – maybe the FSC is secretly working on a billboard to comment on the hypocricy of a certain blog not disclosing its links with a certain political party. I wonder what Tane would make of that!
22. Santi 22

    22 January 2008 at 8:09 pm

    “Is there a reason why no post have been made on this blog about the Labour party involvement in The Standard?”

    The question is 100% pertinent and relevant.

    Here and now, can Tane and other of the stalwarts of the left state clearly who is behind the donations Lynn Prentice talked about? If not, why not?
23. Ruth 23

    22 January 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Why you right wingers defend the FSC is beyond me.

    I support National for the most part, but the FSC guys are obviously a pack of drunks, judging by at least one of their founding members deranged blog posts. They are a disgrace.
24. Kimble 24

    22 January 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Wow, Bill is talking about banning IP because he is asking questions Tane et all dont want to answer!

    Not only would you be a hypocrit regarding disclosure and transparency, you would be a hypocrit regarding the Crushing of Dissent on New Zealand Blogs©.
25. Pearl 25

    22 January 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Why on earth would Tane or Irish Bill think of banning IP for asking a simple question about this blogs funding, because everybody on blogosphere knows that it is funded by the Labour government, who also pay bloggers to write on trade me opinion .
26. the sprout 26

    22 January 2008 at 8:41 pm

    cheers Dean.

    “the Labour government, who also pay bloggers to write on trade me opinion”

    oh yeah – TradeMe Opinion is totally where it’s at for the cutting edge of opinion-leader manipulation, worth every cent of the thousands of hours spent there by Labour spin-doctors every month.
    Pearl, you should write a book, or a billboard or something.
27. burt 27

    22 January 2008 at 8:42 pm

    If IP is banned then How is The Standard funded? will become the question that must not be asked. As such large numbers of people will be banned and this blog will be known for it’s censorship regarding accountability and transparency…. Kind of fitting really.
28. the bean 28

    22 January 2008 at 8:50 pm

    funded? jesus burt do you think they are chowing through packets of instant and chocolate donuts that they are charging to someone? temporary server assistance from a tech guy that is a member of the party is hardly “funded”
29. Insolent Prick 29

    22 January 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Yes, apparently I’ve been banned because in IrishBill’s view, asking questions about whether the Standard’s authors are employed by the Labour Party, or Labour Party union affiliates, or employed by Ministerial Services or Parliamentary Services, is a taboo subject. Apparently, asking these questions, which are never answered by the Standard, constitutes telling “lies”, and making “false accusations”.

    Sheesh. It really would be very easy for the Standard to just issue a disclosure statement. I wonder why they’re so hesitant to do so?
30. the bean 30

    22 January 2008 at 9:01 pm

    because they don’t have to submit to bullying by trolls like you?

    you have been banned (although you still seem to be here) for repeating your claims as if they were fact and from refusing to talk anywhere near the post topics but instead repeating your same tedious accusations on post after post. when people debated the issue with you, you just lied. next you will be selling palm oil
31. the sprout 31

    22 January 2008 at 9:02 pm

    “Yes, apparently I’ve been banned because…”

    umm IP, you’re going to have to stealth your lying a bit better than that. you see, because we can read what you’ve written, that tips people off that you haven’t been banned.
32. Glenn 32

    22 January 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Why ban a man for asking a question ? Has New Zealand become a communist country like China who hate bloggers that ask the REAL questions ?
33. burt 33

    22 January 2008 at 9:05 pm

    the bean

    That might be so, would have been easy for Tane or IrishBill (or some other anon author) to post a thread explaining that wouldn’t it?

    Like I said before, it’s the Deny, Delay, Denigrate approach by proxy on other blogs that makes people wonder WTF is going on.

    captcha: ‘Moore allied’ ( apparently not anymore !)
34. the bean 34

    22 January 2008 at 9:12 pm

    ummm i seem to remember several comments explaining this…indeed the techie even gave the specifications for the way it is all set up in his house. but through all Ip et al’s hysteria these were ignored.
35. Pearl 35

    22 January 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Honesty is the best policy, because the truth always has a habit of sneaking up behind you and clobbering you to the floor , hence the saying another one bites the dust.
36. Insolent Prick 36

    22 January 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Come on, Bean, that’s not true. It is a matter of opinion whether the authors’ political connections influence how they blog. The Standard refuses to make the same kind of disclosure that they demand that DPF makes every time he appears in the media.

    It is astonishing, really, that asking questions about political affiliations, while making it clear that I didn’t care about the personal identities, results in a banning. I haven’t abused any of the Standard’s authors in asking these questions. Meanwhile Tane and IrishBill have done nothing to crank down on the defamatory comments made about me, which no less than four of the Standard’s commenters repeated on this blog.

    Tane’s duplicitous and sneaky explanations, which appear to address the question but actually don’t, have only made more people curious about why the Standard is going to such lengths to conceal the political affiliations of its authors. Drawing reference to the Standard’s Stalker-in-Chief, and his claimed intimidation following his outing, simply isn’t good enough. Tane and IrishBill don’t engage in stalking. The Stalker-in-Chief’s intimidation–if it actually happened, and there’s no reason to believe what he says is credible–was based not on the political opinions he expressed, but his constant threatening, abusive, and obnoxious behaviour.

    Tane could very comfortably state the political affiliations of the Standard’s authors–just as Kiwiblogblog has done. They choose not to.

    Makes more people wonder why they’re being so evasive, and taking the unprecedented step of banning somebody who is asking the questions politely. This, from a blog that championed itself as never banning commenters.
37. burt 37

    22 January 2008 at 9:15 pm

    the bean

    So who paid for it? Who paying for the traffic and which anonymous members of the standard are affiliated with the Labour party and/or on the parliamentary payroll? Questions anonymous people who demand accountability from others seem unwilling to answer.
38. Insolent Prick 38

    22 January 2008 at 9:19 pm

    No, the techie’s response was spin, bean. You have deliberately been spinning the Standard’s line, which doesn’t stack up.

    Somebody in the Labour Party, following an email from somebody at the Standard, offered resources to assist the Standard in getting back online. As much as you dislike that statement, bean, none of that statement is untrue.

    It is also absolutely true that despite the Standard’s campaign, since its beginning, to defend and apologise for even the most obnoxious elements of the Electoral Finance Act, requiring players in politics to identify themselves and their political links, the Standard refuses point-blank to disclose the political interests of its authors.

    This is why the Standard is losing all credibility.
39. Pearl 39

    22 January 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Didn’t they ban d4j yesterday for a trivial comment that wasn’t a threat ? I saw the comment in question and it was no threat, but as usual they needed a distraction to take the heat off, so d4j coped it again, just like he did on kiwiblog when some chap called hinamanu got stuck into him personally . It seems hardly fair .
40. the bean 40

    22 January 2008 at 9:34 pm

    god you lose all remaining credibility (and I am being generous claiming you even had any) when you defend D4j. if you want him, go chat to him on his blog
41. Pearl 41

    22 January 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Excuse me, I know d4j personally and if you knew the work he did in the community you would think differently of him . He helps so many families without even a mention of payment and the Courts ( where I work ) have the utmost respect for him .
    Don’t bag a man until you know him.
    Kind regards
42. the bean 42

    22 January 2008 at 9:44 pm

    well seeings I don’t know him personally, and I just know the abusive rantings he posts, I will judge how he presents- abusive, ranting and mad
43. the sprout 43

    22 January 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Pearl you are well beyond belief.
    bye!
44. Pascal's bookie 44

    22 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Pearl, did d4j teach you how to type by any chance?

    There are a number of people that type with the same style as dear old Dad so his community work perhaps extends into this area.
45. Pearl 45

    22 January 2008 at 9:51 pm

    Whatever you think about him I can tell you are wrong and many judges whom he knows personally do not think he is mad . Name any other para legal in New Zealand that can defend clients in both Family Court and Criminal Court jurisdiction ? He has people police bailed to his home.
    Good night . I cannot change your perception of his internet activity.
46. Pascal's bookie 46

    22 January 2008 at 9:54 pm

    G’night dad(space).
    😉
47. the bean 47

    22 January 2008 at 9:54 pm

    goodness…you know him so well…it almost feels as if he is with
48. the bean 48

    22 January 2008 at 9:55 pm

    us
49. Fred 49

    22 January 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Wasn’t he banned for life??
50. burt 50

    22 January 2008 at 10:19 pm

    From all_your_base

    Happy New Year

    Cyber-Santa came a little late to The Standard this year but we’re certainly not complaining – evidently we’ve got a New Year’s present instead.

    He and the techno-elves have moved us to a brand spanking new server cluster that should give us plenty of breathing room and make those pesky traffic congestion problems we were having a thing of the past.

    Seriously though, it wasn’t really Santa. Just like James Bond apparently we have our very own M and it’s him we have to thank instead.

    So it’s registered in a Labour party block and located in a brand spanking new server cluster and it was a present…..

    Anyone still saying it was some tech overlooking the registration details of the IP?
51. Tane 51

    22 January 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Pearl is Dad. Please ignore him. Prick, you’ve been exposed as a liar so many times it’s no longer funny. We let you dissent on here for months, even as you attacked our integrity repeatedly without any evidence. You’d have been banned on Kiwiblog months ago for that kind of behaviour.

    The thing is, we’re not going to let you jack all our threads with your lies. Most people would have a go and lay off after a while, popping up every now and then to ask a question. You seem to have made it your full time mission to spread lies on our comments threads and ruin it for everyone. We’re not going to have it.

    You’re able to post because as I understand it we don’t have the technical capacity currently to actually ban your IP or username. The idea is you take the hit voluntarily and come back in a week. You can choose to keep posting here and we’ll start deleting you, or you can see us back next Tuesday when you’ve got something new to say.
52. the bean 52

    22 January 2008 at 10:26 pm

    um…would that not back up EVERYTHING techie elf lynn was saying? how does that change anything burt? keep grasping buddy

    captcha: celery adultery
    (oh so true…how did they know?)
53. Fred 53

    22 January 2008 at 10:28 pm

    None of that come cheap, I’d like to see that valued at retail rates.
54. burt 54

    22 January 2008 at 10:30 pm

    In that link I just provided MikeE asked if “M” was the tax payer and the question was never answered.

    The question has still not been answered.
55. the sprout 55

    22 January 2008 at 10:36 pm

    fred breathe through your nose and read the preceding posts before blessing us with your pearls.

    tane – just ban the fucker on the grounds of terminal boredom. his sock-puppet friends will squeal of his righteous martyrdom but then IP has proven he’s not interested in facts and just keeps playing the same old broken record cut and paste.
    his comments drive people away from the site, his pastes are pollution. better off without him.
56. the sprout 56

    22 January 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Tane, that vetting code needs to be a priority huh?
57. Tane 57

    22 January 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Burt it’s been established long ago that the taxpayer is not paying for the standard. Even your mate Prick had moved on from that one. Here’s a suggestion: Go back to Kiwiblog and read Lynn Prentice’s explanation. If you’re too stupid to understand it then I suggest you stop coming here and embarrassing yourself even further.
58. Tane 58

    22 January 2008 at 10:51 pm

    sprout, yeah I tend to agree on both counts.
59. burt 59

    22 January 2008 at 10:54 pm

    Tane

    I agree with DPF on this one.

    The issue for me incidentally is disclosure. The Standard has attacked me on dozens of occasions for my voluntary disclosure of my links to National. To not disclose that someone in Labour was lending them server space, isn’t exactly practising what you preach

    So who pays for the bandwidth? If it’s the anonymous authors of the standard then fine, all the best… if it’s been provided via a donation from Labour then how do we value that over an election year?
60. Rick Prick 60

    22 January 2008 at 11:11 pm

    At least they paid for it, unlike you lot who seem to be funded by the taxpayer via the Labour Party.
61. PM 61

    22 January 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Wow, now you’re deleting the comments from those that query your ties with Labour!

    Truly amazing.
62. Rich Prick 62

    22 January 2008 at 11:17 pm

    ” . if it’s been provided via a donation from Labour then how do we value that over an election year?”

    Can we take it from that Tane that it is Labour paying and thus, us as taxpayers? Oh, and if you need to value it, the market can help you out with that. With the traffic you tout, I’d suggest its about $500 plus GST a month. How’s that for answers.
63. Outofbed 63

    22 January 2008 at 11:17 pm

    IP fuck off
64. burt 64

    22 January 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Rich Prick

    The standard might be victims of their own incompetence and success.
65. Rich Prick 65

    22 January 2008 at 11:22 pm

    A bit like their Dear Leader!
66. milo 66

    22 January 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Look, I’m pleased to see The Standard operating. But. What about the email offering support from the Labour party? Sounds like more than the “no-association” explanation being offered. And I don’t think it is threadjacking to accuse people of hypocrisy on the very topic you are posting on.

    And. If you allow Robinsod to call someone a pig-fucker, and repeat it, despite my complaint, then ban other people for abuse, it’s hard not to think that you truly are the Double Standard.

    Aren’t you better than that? How about some consistency? Alternatively, drop the tone of moral superiority.
67. Rich Prick 67

    22 January 2008 at 11:26 pm

    IP, I think that Outofbed’s comment is instructive. You’ve skewered them along with everyone else, they have gone to default mode. Don’t expect any rational answers/discussion here on in.
68. Rich Prick 68

    22 January 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Hello, IP’s comments are vanishing. Hmmm, interesting.
69. Rich Prick 69

    22 January 2008 at 11:40 pm

    As a Labour (taxpayer) funded wedsite, thanks for the demonstartion of the EFA, we pay for you all and you censor us. Nice work.
70. PM 70

    22 January 2008 at 11:59 pm

    To the hollow men and women behind the standard:

    Can I ask, do you think it would be inappropriate or unethical if people employed by a union were to run an anonymous blog and on that blog make a post about how someone high up in that union (eg the union’s president) was standing for a political nomination, together with a glowing recommendation (eg “…I’ve got to say I was taken by his level-headedness and the way he’d think before passing comment on anything – definitely a safe pair of hands”) while passing themselves off as independent commentators – all the while refusing to disclose that they worked for that union and hence had a vested interest?

    Not saying that that’s what you’ve done, of course. Just asking whether you believe that would be inappropriate or unethical? Simple question, really. A “yes” or “no” answer would suffice.

    Having asked the question, however, your refusal to deny that staff of EPMU are behind this blog really make these sorts of posts a bit suspicious:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=584

    Of course you could remove all suspicion by simply denying that anyone who posts on this blog is employed by said union.

    Simply, really. Yet no denial. Why wouldn’t you deny it if it wasn’t true?

    Hopefully you’re starting to see why disclosure statements are so important.
71. Robinsod 71

    23 January 2008 at 12:32 am

    Simple question, really. A “yes” or “no” answer would suffice.

    Would a “fuck off” suffice? It’s none of your business who writes for the standard or where they work. I’d suggest you pop over to Insolent Prick’s pro-national blog and ask him who his clients are if you an him are so concerned about transparency.

    While you’re at it ask him if he’s still fucking pigs.

    http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/pig-fucking/
72. milo 72

    23 January 2008 at 12:34 am

    Robinsod, can’t you ban yourself, or something?
73. Robinsod 73

    23 January 2008 at 12:50 am

    Why Milo? Because you disagree with me? I’ve asked IP a perfectly reasonable question and he has so far failed to deny it. Therefore it must be true. Read my link and you’ll see how serious I am.

    This is the same burden of proof IP and his mates (alteregos) are using in their allegations here. I figure if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me. Can you explain the difference?
74. Psycho Milt 74

    23 January 2008 at 6:43 am

    Would a “fuck off” suffice?

    Yes, it definitely would. I favoured “Fuck off, cunt,” but then I do tend to verbosity…
75. The Prophet 75

    23 January 2008 at 7:29 am

    Its looking more and more like there is some substance to the claims made against The Standard.

    Very, very hollow guys.

    Your silence is deafening.

    Mikes continued shrill whistles of ‘pig fucker’ would tend to lend more weight to the fact that something is being hidden.

    The longer it goes on, with bland denials, the more your credibility slips away.

    Ah well, I’m sure someone will get the Electoral Commission to sort it out…….

    …….and if they don’t, you’re just begging for someone with the appropriate skills to do some more digging.

    Rock and a hard place, aye boys?
76. Psycho Milt 76

    23 January 2008 at 7:52 am

    You may have missed this Prophet, but the EFA doesn’t cover blogs. Your “someone” will most likely find the Electoral Commission a great disappointment to them.
77. The Prophet 77

    23 January 2008 at 8:24 am

    Nothing to do with the EFA Milt. Except that this ‘blog’ may actually be commercial. No one seems to know. Even Graham seemed a little unsure. Good early tester for the EFA, don’t you think?

    Don’t you find it a little disturbing that these guys rabbit on about ‘transparency’ and ‘hollow men’ and ‘independence’, yet appear to be denying that any of them apply to them.

    I do.
78. Psycho Milt 78

    23 January 2008 at 9:08 am

    Any blog “may actually be commercial.” But in one sense you’re right – the moment The Standard’s authors start putting hundreds of grand into advertising campaigns, or appearing in the media with nothing to indicate their political affiliations, we’ll be in agreement.
79. Adolf Fiinkensein 79

    23 January 2008 at 11:17 am

    Milt, where on earth do you get the idea that anyone who appears in the media should declare political affiliations? Good God, man, if you did that you’d find ninety percent of the nations journalists are affiliated with Labour or the Greens.

    I’m more interested in hearing the means by which The Standard’s apparently luxuriously expensive IT infrastructure is funded by the tax payer.
80. Whaleoil 80

    23 January 2008 at 11:28 am

    Well someone is funding it and it isn’t the Standard, possibly it is Labour but definitely someone.

    It’d be nice if they could even once just tell the truth.

    never mind Bill English is now chasing their sorry asses.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0801/S00153.htm

    And it is frontpage on Scoop as well.

    hahaha captcha is parkers genius
81. roger nome 81

    23 January 2008 at 11:47 am

    “Well someone is funding it and it isn’t the Standard, possibly it is Labour but definitely someone.”

    You do realise that this kind og set up costs no more than a couple of hundred dollars per year to host don’t you. Really, what’s the big deal? It’s not like it’s a $500,000-$1.2 million electoral rort ala exclusive brethren.
82. g 82

    23 January 2008 at 11:58 am

    Why don’t you just pay for your own web hosting Tane and the standard? I along with others have lodged a complaint with the Electoral commission over this site’s hosting arrangements.
83. roger nome 83

    23 January 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Tane has already told you to stop posting as other people dad. Do you want to get yourself banned again?

    Also there’s no lie in what I’ve posted above. All off it can be proven.
84. Whaleoil 84

    23 January 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Roger Gnome lies like a flatfish. The “donated” Block of Static IP’s costs more than that per month.

    But hey keep defending anonymous donors of anonymous blogs why don’t you.

    Hollow bloggers, funded by a hollow party.
85. The Prophet 85

    23 January 2008 at 12:50 pm

    So Milt –

    Don’t you find it a little disturbing that these guys rabbit on about ‘transparency’ and ‘hollow men’ and ‘independence’, yet appear to be denying that any of them apply to them?

    you seem to have missed the second half of my question.
86. Robinsod 86

    23 January 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Fuck yeah – the notorious standard. Looks like these guys have really pissed the tories off! Boo hoo tories…
87. sodribon 87

    23 January 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Queer liars
88. roger nome 88

    23 January 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Whale blubber:

    This from the person who hosts the standard:

    lprent Says:

    January 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
    Whaledreck

    a. A small block of static IP’s costs very little – at least if you aren’t buying them retail.

    Try orcon – they have ‘free’ static IP’s – just part of every broadband account.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/the_standard_hosted_by_the_labour_party.html
89. Inventory2 89

    23 January 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Transparency eh – seems like it’s more a case of “you must be transparent, but we reserve the right not to be”. Ah well, seems that this story is getting some traction now, despite all of Tane’s blustering and posturing. Scoop is reporting it on the front page, it’s top of the editor’s picks, and second on the sitewise “most-read” list – and I thought Scoop.co.nz was left-leaning! Maybe some journo from Scoop will read all the allegations of bestiality, and tell the people of New Zealand just what venom the Labour party is supporting via The Standard.
90. Adolf Fiinkensein 90

    23 January 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Inv2, it’s not venom – just puerile juvenile stupidity. The sort of stuff you’d expect from lower decile fourth formers. If The Standard is any indication of what Labour is getting for it’s twenty or thirty grand per year (remember, they tell the world they have ‘a team’ keeping the show afloat) then they’d have been better to spend the money buying pissups for voters in Otara.
91. Insolent Prick 91

    23 January 2008 at 2:13 pm

    [Irish Bill] You’ve been banned for spamming IP/The Double Standard. That ban just got extended to two weeks]
92. Inventory2 92

    23 January 2008 at 2:17 pm

    IP – as I’ve just noted over at Keeping Stock, “It seems that transparency is a one-way street when you’re left-of-centre.” I’ve also taken the liberty of pointing out the response that you have received to your questions!
93. Matthew Pilott 93

    23 January 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Wow – you guys are so stupid you believe the bullshit now! Or is it just for show? But then why would you say something just for show that makes you look stupid? I guess if you were stupid and said it just for show, you wouldn’t realise it would make you look stupid.

    Perhaps that’s it.

    P.s. I don’t think scoop really leans any way, given that it mainly publishes press releases… press releases from anyone. But given you believe Labour gives The Standard funding to the tune of $20-30k a year…what the hell? Sure, the scoop is a Green Party front, you guessed it.
94. PM 94

    23 January 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Matthew – One would argue that anyone who didn’t believe it were the “stupid” ones, considering the evidence is clear and the VDS haven’t even denied it (other than an initial few lies from Tane that were quickly changed once they figured out what their response was going to be).

    This blog is funded by Labour. That’s as plain as day, and hasn’t even been denied by them!
95. Matthew Pilott 95

    23 January 2008 at 3:46 pm

    PM, perhaps you might want to read Robinsod’s ‘pigfucking’ post at newzblog. You see, just making an allegation doesn’t make it true. Some people, perhaps you are not one of them, are aware of the minimal costs of running a blog. Often there is no cost whatsoever.

    Hosting is not proof of any funding.

    You’ll notice IP never denied that he fucks pigs, an allegation made by robinsod in the context of the newzblog post. By your logic, if The Standard is funded by Labour, then a certain someone commits acts of bestiality. Now, an allegation without proof is just that – but no denial does not make such an allegation true. It often lends the allegation credibility, something you probably know all too well but are conveniently ignoring.

    That’s why your logic is flawed, and obviously so.
96. PM 96

    23 January 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Is there any evidence of the bestiality?

    There IS evidence that Labour are hosting this blog. Oh, and Mike Williams has apparently confirmed it now, too.

    My, don’t you look a little silly now?
97. burt 97

    23 January 2008 at 9:45 pm

    PM

    Naturally now IP’s ban will be lifted now that the defenders of the indefensible have been hung out to dry calling IP a liar.

    Needless to say their apologies will be sincere and they will explain why they told bold face lies themselves.
98. burt 98

    23 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

    the sprout

    See: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=976#comment-14375

    Perhaps I should buy my first ever lotto ticket this week…
99. burt 99

    23 January 2008 at 10:12 pm

    IP

    I know you have been banned, so I don’t expect you to reply – but thanks for putting yourself on the line there. Hopefully this little incident will be the incident that delivers on Labour election promise of a new standard of openness and accountability.

    Is this where we say how great the EFB is?
100. Concerned from Tawa 100

     23 January 2008 at 11:19 pm

     What a disgrace. TVNZ:”Mike Williams says Labour Party activists are probably behind The Standard and admits a “tidy up” of who uses the web space may be needed.” I think it is time for the Standard to apologise to IP, immediately withdraw his ban and fill in some blanks on the “about” page. Show some decency or forever be labelled the Hollow men. Shameful.
101. Robinsod 101

     24 January 2008 at 12:13 am

     Is this where we say how great the EFB is?

     Sure is Burt. I’m glad you finally came around.

     Concerned from Tawa – IP, we all know it’s you. Don’t you have some kind of life to live? I notice on your blog you talk about “shagging hot women” but I’m pretty much certain that given you spend so much time seething over those interfering kids at the standard that’s probably as fictitious as your conspiracy theory lies…
102. Billbob 102

     24 January 2008 at 1:21 pm

     I have spoken to a lot of people in Invercargill and they all think the billboard is brilliant. And this in H2’s home town. What will she do about it?
103. Robinsod 103

     24 January 2008 at 1:57 pm

     No you haven’t. Nobody speaks “to a lot of people in Invercargill” unless they live there. And I don’t think you live there or you’d say so to further bolster your position.
104. Billbob 104

     24 January 2008 at 2:51 pm

     ActuallY Robinsod I do, by choice. There is no way that a Lobour candidate will get in here next election.
105. Robinsod 105

     24 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

     That’s not surprising Billbob. They took a caning last time because of the school review (they even shut down my old school) and because of Peck’s departure (and the fact he did no electoral work for the last year of his tenure. They still did ok in the party vote though. I’ve gotta say I’m surprised there’s support for those Billboards down there – they’ve never been folk to suffer fools down there. I haven’t heard, has the ILT come out in favour of Shadbolt’s campaign?
106. Billbob 106

     24 January 2008 at 3:29 pm

     No the ILT has not come out in favour and they most probably won’t. However Tim does have the support of the people. The only problem he had with the local Council was how he was funding his action. ie as usual he just went ahead and did it. I would guess that the majority in council support his stand. Yes we are getting the odd (and they are odd) Labour supporter writing letters to the paper but they are the same old ones all the time. Lesley Soper has not done much for the south though.
107. Robinsod 107

     24 January 2008 at 3:37 pm

     I agree Leslie hasn’t done much for the south but neither has Eric (though he is a much more personable polly) but for a social conservative he helped cause a lot of damaging change during the 1990’s. In my opinion Invercargill has an extremely poor choice of representatives this year.
108. Billbob 108

     24 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

     Yes Eric intentions are in the right place. He is a bit Presbyterian at times though. Southland however is on a roll despite Wellington. For example we have the European space agency people here to track satellite shortly. They have a tracking station at Awarua.

Links to post

1. Same old faces, same old tactics at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 23 January 2008 at 2:06 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS