April fool Pete George released from ban…

Written By: - Date published: 1:53 pm, April 1st, 2015 - 113 comments
Categories: admin, scoundrels, The Standard - Tags:

One of the problems with writing anything on April 1st is that it can be misconstrued. But surely everyone must realise that this cannot be when I say that Pete George was released from his ban this morning.

Something that he was clearly bracing himself for yesterday when he directly lied about this site yet again…

While Chris Trotter at Bowalley is prepared to debate, and Red Alert (the Labour Party blog) is defunct, there’s something in common with a number of the other lefty blogs – they all seem to have an intolerance of views different to their own. That’s not just a lefty blogroll, it’s also a list that contains all the blogs who have banned me (but not No Right Turn bans where all comment except from it’s author is blocked).

Whale Oil, The Standard, The Daily Blog, Dim-Post and Public Address have all had hissy fits at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.

On this site he gets booted for his behaviour, not those tedious and badly thought through opinions that he put in comments.  I rather suspect that this is also the case on the other high comment blogs that he gets bans from, including Whaleoil.

With Pete George, about the only thing you can absolutely rely on is that he doesn’t know why he has opinions. It is painfully clear that the ignorant fool has never thought them through.

On this site, over many many comments I have observed that, when challenged on his ‘opinions’ that the lazy and gutless wonder doesn’t try to deal with the limits of his knowledge. Instead he always seems to try to shift the topic or starts whining that people ask him to clarify or provide background. When told that he is wrong and given links to read, he seldom seems to read them.

Essentially he acts like a media parrot, repeating things that he has heard or read on media without ever bothering to understand the issues. The underlying motivation appears to garner attention. We have all run across people like him before, they are those boring knowitall gabbling chatterers that everyone avoids at parties, BBQs, and other social events.

But we don’t boot him for that, regardless how many requests we get from other commenters (and authors).

All high comment blogs have rules which you expect to follow when you are on those sites. They are there to minimize the amount of work that the moderators have to do. But Pete often doesn’t follow the rules as can be seen in this comment to an author that got him banned.

Thanks for the reminder about your deliberate dishonesty.

And thanks for the opportunities to keep demonstrating your dishonesty. So far you’ve managed to keep that out of your authoring (that’s been promising) but you’ll find it’s difficult to keep the two separate – lying at one level will end up impacting on another.

He attacked one of the new authors directly and personally, which is something that I can do but he is very limited in what he can do. That is against the policy about attacking the site or authors. That policy is in there for a particular reason. It is hard to get authors to write for nothing on a site. So we tend to protect those people who give up their time to do so because this is the authors site.

But what got him banned was not that directly. It was that he managed to make a whole long comment thread about this purported “dishonesty” and didn’t provide ANY examples. Not one link. No referenced quotes to point to it. Nothing…

While reading the comments to determine this, I saw that he’d been warned by other moderators for several things. This included pointing out the sections of the policy that I would eventually use to decide to ban, and a warning when he implied that he would ‘out’ the author.

The comment and subsequent discussion was a complete waste of moderator time including mine. His ban was almost entirely for that.

His ban had nothing to do with “…at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed”. If we’d wanted to do that, then he would have been banned from our site months ago.

 

113 comments on “April fool Pete George released from ban… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    1 April 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Sadly, the only part of this post he will read or understand is his name.

  2. fisiani 2
    1 April 2015 at 2:40 pm

    What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others.

    So which part of policy is ignored when I am referred to as FizzyAnus or homoerotic attack “jokes’ are tolerated and even celebrated by moderator? Is that not tone or language that has the effect of excluding others?

    • Tracey 2.1
      1 April 2015 at 2:50 pm

      If PG was correct (in the quote above) you would be perpetually banned. But you are not.

      Nice to see you back, I miss your sense of humour and canny way of mocking the PM and his party relentlessly with their own mantras.

    • weka 2.2
      1 April 2015 at 2:58 pm

      “So which part of policy is ignored when I am referred to as FizzyAnus or homoerotic attack “jokes’ are tolerated and even celebrated by moderator?”

      I agree this is wrong, and it undermines the debate (and I’m sure puts people off). I also have to wonder about peple who need to equate the human body with abuse. Problem is, the rules say you can pretty much be as rude as you like so long as you make a political point (hence no pointless abuse, but pointed abuse is tolerated). If the moderators start moderatoring for rudeness, they’d have a much bigger job, and there’d be way more arguments over what is fair/reasonable. Plus there’s the impact on the robust debate ethos. Where’s the line?

      • lprent 2.2.1
        1 April 2015 at 3:22 pm

        Exactly. We will target outright bigotry.

        However we are really not going to waste time trying to get people to be sensitive to other people in a situation where the social cues are pretty slim and the audience is diverse. These are arguments not politeness contests. Being abusive to one degree or another is going to happen because it is one of the few ways to express feeling that jumps across the text barrier.

        Furthermore, while I can slice and dice people in text without ever bothering to be abusive, this is a learned skill that I have picked up over decades on the net. Newbies are essentially defenceless. Allowing pointed abuse is worth while simply to even up the playing field a bit. Kids learn how to be abusive early – ask any parent. As they get older, most refine the techniques and learn control on when it is used. Exactly the same thing seems to work with internet newbies.

        Not to mention I’d lose my main tool on educating trolls. There is no point in being nice to those arseholes.

        So we just make sure that there is some kind of obvious point to each comments that use any abuse and that they relate in some way to the conversation/debate/argument. We will let some polite pointless abuse through if it is actually witty. Doesn’t happen often.

        • Skinny 2.2.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 3:51 pm

          Lol this is the funniest April fools page/joke I’ve read all day!

          Cheers Coobah lol.

      • Tracey 2.2.2
        1 April 2015 at 3:23 pm

        I agree. However the irony of fisiani’s possibly faux outrage is not lost on me given his/her deliberate strategy to inflame in his/her posts.

        • weka 2.2.2.1
          1 April 2015 at 3:29 pm

          I’m not sure it is faux outrage, but I found your response to Fisiani re mocking funny, thanks for that. And yeah, Fisiani gives as good as they get, so if they don’t want to be called names they probably should stop troling.

          • Tracey 2.2.2.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 3:32 pm

            the irony is even bigger if the outrage is genuine.

            I can’t recall fisiani on the roastbuster threads or other threads where gender and other epithets abound, expressing disgust at the name calling.

    • lprent 2.3
      1 April 2015 at 3:24 pm

      See my reply to weka

    • Skinny 2.4
      1 April 2015 at 4:29 pm

      Yes Fisiani I thought the FizzyAnus was a tad rough, ‘fizzing at the bung’ used in context, would have been much less offensive don’t you agree?
      Some people have poor tastes. I nod my head at the shame of it.

    • felix 2.5
      1 April 2015 at 4:45 pm

      Probably the first time I have ever agreed with fizzy, but I have always found the anally-oriented name calling directed toward him (I have always assumed fizzy is male) pretty tasteless. In my opinion there is an underlying homophobic subtext.

      I often refer to our little friend as “fizzy” because I know it annoys him, but I would never make fun of his anus.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1
        1 April 2015 at 4:51 pm

        If Fisi were thinking clearly he’d recognise these nicknames for what they are: backhanded compliments: a sign that he gets under people’s skin, as I’m sure is his intention.

        As Tracey says, his outrage is feigned.

      • McFlock 2.5.2
        2 April 2015 at 3:20 pm

        not sure about homophobic or homoerotic insults being used against fizzy, but the “fizzy anus”-style comments just strike me as plain old potty humour. Not only do I respect potty humour, I might have made one or two of those comments myself.

        Lying arseholes like fizzy attract piles of insults, and if that gives fizzy roid rage then frankly it’s a hole in one… 😛

        edit: Oh, wait, after a particularly sycophantic fizzy comment I suggested that there were flecks of jk’s cum on fizzy’s mouth. That wasn’t so much “homoerotic” as a simple reference to fellatio. The emphasis wasn’t on fizzy’s gender, just on the exceptional lipservice fizzy was doing for john key.

        • tracey 2.5.2.1
          2 April 2015 at 3:24 pm

          I must say it has always struck me as to be akin to calling him a hairy arsehole, but he clearly feels it is a homosexual reference.

    • Hateatea 2.6
      1 April 2015 at 7:19 pm

      Fisiani, I take offence at how people abuse your name and agree that it isn’t appropriate.

      As for your comments- that is where I part company with you. Constant references to ‘ Honest John’ have me reaching for the vomit bowl and divert my attention from your message, if there is one.

  3. Sacha 3
    1 April 2015 at 3:56 pm

    “On this site he gets booted for his behaviour, not those tedious and badly thought through opinions that he put in comments. I rather suspect that this is also the case on the other high comment blogs that he gets bans from ..”

    Repeatedly ignoring instructions about expected conduct and having a go at the blog’s moderator was certainly the reason on Public Address. Like turning up at a bar and attacking other guests and the manager again and again, then feigning surpise when you’re trespassed. He reliably lowers the tone wherever he goes.

    • Pete George 3.1
      1 April 2015 at 6:44 pm

      Funnily enough that’s not quite how I remember it (and it’s presumably still on record). Someone claimed Nicky Hager had never been wrong in any of his books and I challenged that claim. I showed that he had admitted mistakes himself in Dirty Politics, and there are a number of other assertions or implications that have been strongly challenged. However you and a couple of others didn’t like this ‘behaviour’ and kicked up a fuss which led to Russell kicking me off. Sound familiar?

      What you also haven’t explained is that you seem to have a wee obsession with shutting me up here too. Can’t have dissent in the ranks, can we.

      “He reliably lowers the tone wherever he goes.”

      You’re making that up, unless you stalk me everywhere I go online.

      Have you ever wondered what people think of your intolerant tone? Some here are obviously going to be be comfortable with it, but that’s just some.

      “Like turning up at a bar and attacking other guests and the manager again and again”

      Very funny, who attacks who? Political forums that aren’t up to debate or alternative opinions should make it clear they are limited to a yes club shouldn’t they?

      • weka 3.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 6:47 pm

        🙄

        Sacha, I’m proud of your intolerance there, keep it up mate.

        • Sacha 3.1.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 6:51 pm

          Comes naturally when exposed to that toxic shade of beige.

          • Pete George 3.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 6:58 pm

            Funny how the insidious swarm. Hasn’t taken long, has it.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2015 at 7:04 pm

              White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) is an informal, sometimes disparaging and offensive term for a group of high-status and influential White Americans of English Protestant ancestry. The term applies to a group believed to control disproportionate social, political, and financial power in the United States. It describes a group whose family wealth, education, status, and elite connections allow them a degree of privilege held by few others.

              When the term appears in writing, it usually indicates the author’s disapproval of the group’s excessive power in society. The hostile tone can be seen in an alternative dictionary: “The WASP culture has been the most aggressive, powerful, and arrogant society in the world for the last thousand years, so it is natural that it should receive a certain amount of warranted criticism.” People seldom call themselves WASPs, except humorously; the acronym is typically used by non-WASPs.

            • tracey 3.1.1.1.1.2
              2 April 2015 at 9:16 am

              ever wondered how fisiani lasts here if anyone who dissents is banned and hounded out?

      • Sacha 3.1.2
        1 April 2015 at 6:55 pm

        Peter, we could ask the actual person who banned you to come explain himself, but history suggests that’s a waste of our time and his. I trust readers to make their own judgement about who is the most reliable reporter on this. You can believe whatever you like.

        However your repeated behaviour destroys conversations and any sense of community. That’s a problem. I wish you gone because discussion places like this have value. Otherwise I have no interest in your boring little existence.

        • Pete George 3.1.2.1
          1 April 2015 at 7:07 pm

          No, what destroys conversations is exactly what you and weka and OAB are demonstrating now. How long will it take this time for you to whine about me disrupting a thread? Then niggle for banishment? Same old pattern.

          It’s bemusing but quite funny to see the levels of petanoia. Fear of what? I’m quite harmless.

          • weka 3.1.2.1.1
            1 April 2015 at 7:17 pm

            Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ‘Oh no, not again’.

          • Sacha 3.1.2.1.2
            2 April 2015 at 8:17 am

            Given that the post is actiually about you, Mr George, for once you’re not disrupting the focus, just living it out in public .. again. Enjoy the righteousness.

            Edit: ah, I see it won’t be for long.

            • felix 3.1.2.1.2.1
              2 April 2015 at 8:33 am

              You’ve confused him now. He doesn’t realise there are threads that aren’t about him.

  4. John Shears 4
    1 April 2015 at 5:55 pm

    So are you all saying effectively that Fisiani is actually a bit of a Fizzer and that his contributions are really a waste of time? Just asking.

  5. fisiani 5
    1 April 2015 at 6:33 pm

    There is no false outrage. I submit an opinion from the Centre of politics and am showered with gratuitous childish scatological insults all of which are deemed fair comment simply because the tribe has spoken. I never swear at anyone, I thank those who acknowledge the fairness of my legitimate complaint.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      1 April 2015 at 6:39 pm

      “the Centre” 😆

      • Pete George 5.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 6:51 pm

        Fisiani seems fairly moderate to me, and I suspect I’ve engaged with a lot more righties than you have online.

        Hard righties can be as bad as hard lefties at labeling anyone different as the opposite extreme. I think most are simply incapable of accepting or understanding variations in views across the spectrum.

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 7:01 pm

          The poodle is a group of formal dog breeds, the Standard Poodle, Miniature Poodle and Toy Poodle (one registry organisation also recognizes a Medium Poodle variety, between Standard and Miniature), with many coat colors. Originally bred in Germany as a type of water dog, the breed was standardized in France. The poodle is skillful in many dog sports, including agility, obedience, tracking, and even herding. Poodles have taken top honors in many conformation shows, including “Best in Show” at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in 1991 and 2002, and at the World Dog Show in 2007 and 2010.

        • MrSmith 5.1.1.2
          1 April 2015 at 7:48 pm

          “I think most are simply incapable of accepting or understanding variations in views across the spectrum.”

          Pete didn’t you mean to write.

          Or accepting the views across most of understanding in spectrum are simply incapable variations I think.

    • tracey 5.2
      2 April 2015 at 9:18 am

      There you go again. You are a scream dude/dudess. Your parody is fabulous. Why can’t others see you are anti government cleverly using their slogans to mock them?

  6. Pete George 6
    1 April 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Lynn, you’ve accused me of lying in:

    While Chris Trotter at Bowalley is prepared to debate, and Red Alert (the Labour Party blog) is defunct, there’s something in common with a number of the other lefty blogs – they all seem to have an intolerance of views different to their own. That’s not just a lefty blogroll, it’s also a list that contains all the blogs who have banned me (but not No Right Turn bans where all comment except from it’s author is blocked).

    Whale Oil, The Standard, The Daily Blog, Dim-Post and Public Address have all had hissy fits at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.

    Where is the lie in that?

    [lprent: Ok, since you appealed. In effect you are appealing previous judgements. Jurisprudence indicates that an appeal has to find that the laws and process were improperly followed.

    So lets see you find evidence to the contrary in previous bans. Go and find any instance on this site where you have been banned where this site got upset at “…being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”, as opposed to being kicked off for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked.

    I already checked while writing the post and there are none. I have provided explanations each time for why you were banned framed in terms of OUR policy. So show me one where that isn’t the case.

    You have consistently lied here and on other blogs about why you were banned. You have been banned from other blogs and then lied about why you were banned. In my opinion, you are a toxic blogger who seems to lie. In all cases you appeared to lie to play the victim.

    To give you an incentive – you are banned for a year for lying about this site – unless you can provide one by the end of easter. Then I remove as much access as I can to this site from you.

    Note that your posts attempts to say that we have an ulterior motive for banning you. You will find that listed in our policy as a self-martyrdom offense. It is also the only offense that that I follow people outside this site for and exert penalties here.

    I will keep my occasional eye on spam for your answer. I will also watch your site in case you give up in your search and try your characteristic evasions and trademark bullshit. ]

    And you have stated:

    With Pete George, about the only thing you can absolutely rely on is that he doesn’t know why he has opinions. It is painfully clear that the ignorant fool has never thought them through.

    Is that deliberate lying? Or ignorance? Or can you substantiate it?

    [lprent: We can discuss that when and if you get back. Kind of pointless for me to exert effort otherwise. ]

    • weka 6.1
      1 April 2015 at 7:19 pm

      In various episodes, Santa’s Little Helper can be seen chewing on newspapers and other objects in the Simpsons’ household, destroying furniture, and digging holes in the backyard. In “Bart’s Dog Gets an F” (season two, 1991), he manages to infuriate the entire family by destroying valued items in the home. As a result, Homer and Marge want to get rid of the dog, but Bart and Lisa convince them that he can be trained at an obedience school. Santa’s Little Helper does not do well there as Bart is unwilling to use a choke chain suggested by the instructor. The night before the final exam, Bart and Santa’s Little Helper play, thinking it will be their last few hours together. This bonding breaks down the communication barrier, allowing the dog to understand Bart’s commands, and consequently pass the obedience school.

    • the pigman 6.2
      1 April 2015 at 8:29 pm

      Do I lose if I get baited into responding to him?

      “Where is the lie in that?

      How about here, Pete? “The Standard… [has] hissy fits at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”

      As you know, The Standard is pretty far from having a controlled message, its authors disagree on many things, and its commenters disagree on most things. You know this. You also know that this is a lie that infuriates lprent whenever you bandy it about, so why keep doing it?

      I don’t have time for many of the other blogs you’ve mentioned (I think the Dim Post is excellent in most respects, though) but I have some sympathy for them with regard to dealing with you. If you are copping bans or inciting “hissy fits” at blogs across the political spectrum, is it time to consider that, perhaps, it is not their moderation policies that are the problem, but rather

      [dramatic chord]

      … you?

    • the pigman 6.3
      1 April 2015 at 8:57 pm

      Aww now he’s banned again 🙁

      Prayin’ for ya Pete.. can you perform an Easter Miracle and resurrect yourself by Sunday?

      • tracey 6.3.1
        2 April 2015 at 9:22 am

        It’s what he really wants, a ban to prove to himself that he is threatening to others because of the truth he speaks… he has this self righteous view of himself as a martyr. That his criticisms on this site are almost always of the Left speaks volumes about whether he sits in the centre or not.

        For the record I think the centre in NZ is now well to the right (if that makes sense)…

        Pete and Fisiani want to see themselves as the average NZer, that way they can pretend to represent a majority and thereby reinforce their own views of the world.

      • David H 6.3.2
        2 April 2015 at 10:52 am

        Naaa there’s only been one that may have done that. Depends if you are religious. I can’t see PG doing that. Well it is Easter, so you never know, but I won’t hold my breath.

  8. logie97 8
    1 April 2015 at 8:49 pm

    PG must feel he has arrived. A whole post dedicated to him.
    And he can comment on it as well.
    This is Pythonesque.
    “Is this going to be the Five Minute Argument?”
    “No it isn’t”
    “Yes it is!!!”
    “No it isn’t…”

    • weka 8.1
      1 April 2015 at 8:56 pm

      😀 thanks logie, that’s brilliant. Almost a shame he set a world speed record for getting a ban. Classic though. Let’s all come back on April 1st 2016.

  9. philj 9
    1 April 2015 at 9:15 pm

    Oh no PG has returned. I have better things to do.
    The Standard is not the right place for PG. TV1 perhaps?

  10. te reo putake 10
    1 April 2015 at 9:26 pm

    So, been a way a couple of hours. Did I miss anything?

    • vto 10.1
      1 April 2015 at 9:45 pm

      No. Try back again next week. Though it will likely be worse then.

      • weka 10.1.1
        1 April 2015 at 9:54 pm

        Did you not see the good news above?

        • vto 10.1.1.1
          1 April 2015 at 10:01 pm

          aha so I see

          oh well the ball is well and truly in PG’s court now.

          come on PG show us your stuff

          I am sure we will all readily read your response to mr prent’s requirement for evidence of your claim about him

          … the court is clear …… the crowd hushed ……. …….

  11. les 11
    1 April 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Pete George ,why not just ignore him and not respond to his posts if they are so repugnant?

    • vto 11.1
      1 April 2015 at 10:11 pm

      oh its so much bigger than that now ………. shhh

    • weka 11.2
      1 April 2015 at 10:15 pm

      “Pete George ,why not just ignore him and not respond to his posts if they are so repugnant?”

      That only works if everyone does it. And they never do (although today was pretty good).

    • Stephanie Rodgers 11.3
      2 April 2015 at 9:41 am

      There’s a great post on Freethoughtblogs about “ignoring the trolls”:

      … silence is a reaction, which is the third problem with the feeding metaphor. Not only is it behavior, but it is highly rewarding behavior to trolls. The important thing to remember about trolls is their purpose. It isn’t to get attention for themselves per se. It is to control the conversation.
      http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/02/28/dont-feed-the-trolls-is-bad-science/

      • ropata:rorschach 11.3.1
        3 April 2015 at 2:48 pm

        From my experience dealing with naughty children, the reason they pester others is to garner attention and to revel in the wicked glee of stirring up outrage. So they either get a time out or get retribution in kind. A time-out is more civilised than letting trolls create chaos.

  12. Lloyd 12
    2 April 2015 at 12:32 am

    In reading this I realised Pete and Fizzy think they are “centre” in politics.
    This may well be the case if they include the USA political spectrum. When you look at the New Zealand political spectrum over the last 130 years or so you realise that the present National government is actually far to the right of almost any other government. In supporting ‘Honest John’, Pete and fizzy are in with the brownshirts. Sorry guys you are far right, not “centre”.
    Socialism is mainstream and centre in New Zealand and don’t you forget it! Labour is THE centre party.
    If you ask any National politician to name ten or so pieces of legislation they are proud their party passed in Parliament , nine out of ten would have started out in the left of the political spectrum. Unfortunately there isn’t much that “Honest John’s” team have passed that anyone would be proud of, including Adolf. At least Adolf got to take over the countries he sent his armies off to invade, and didn’t have to ask the locals for permission to allow his soldiers to fire their guns…..

    • fisiani 12.1
      2 April 2015 at 9:04 am

      Lloyd gets the Godwin award. Comparing the National party and Honest John Key to the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler shows the blinkered risable extremism of the nutters on the Left yet again.

      • Sable 12.1.1
        2 April 2015 at 9:36 am

        I always worry when someone feels obliged to use adjectives like “honest” to describe someone. Its akin to calling a cheap $20 buck watch from China a “deluxe” timepiece.

        • David H 12.1.1.1
          2 April 2015 at 12:51 pm

          @ Fisi Reminds me of those old..

          Honest John – Car salesman.
          Honest John – Insurance sales man.
          Honest John’s – Snake oil salesman.

          Now can you see why calling TricKey honest, is more about you having rose coloured glasses on, with Blinkered sides. Than your own thoughts. But you parrot on with the platitudes memorised and that are frankly dishonest.

        • felix 12.1.1.2
          3 April 2015 at 7:15 am

          lol yep or a country with the word “democratic” in its name.

      • tracey 12.1.2
        2 April 2015 at 9:39 am

        And calling a guy who is on record of lying and/or misleading the voters of NZ more than 250 times, Honest John, makes you what? Even tempered and sane?

        Godwin, like PC is the refuge of those unable to argue the actual points raised. Designed to shut down a discourse.

        BTW only yesterday you said

        http://thestandard.org.nz/april-fool-pete-george-released-from-a-ban/#comment-994346

        you don’t call people names yet here you are calling Lloyd a nutter.

        • weka 12.1.2.1
          2 April 2015 at 9:49 am

          heh. I suspect that link will come back to haunt fisiani quite a few times. Unless he successfully argues it’s ok to demean someone for their perceived mental health but not for their sexuality 😉

        • fisiani 12.1.2.2
          2 April 2015 at 11:02 pm

          Comparing John Key with Adolf Hitler is clear evidence of mental illness. No sane person could do so.

        • fisiani 12.1.2.3
          2 April 2015 at 11:04 pm

          I never said I don’t call people names.
          I said I do not swear. Do you not know the difference or just making things up again

          • McFlock 12.1.2.3.1
            2 April 2015 at 11:24 pm

            Pretending that treating us like fucking morons (such as pretending that you are the voice of the “Centre of politics” or that key is “honest”) is somehow better than explicitly calling us “fucking morons” might be an excuse to derail or even be an honestly-held opinion, but it’s still bullshit.

          • the pigman 12.1.2.3.2
            2 April 2015 at 11:29 pm

            Fizzer, you are railing above ^^^ not at swear words but tone/language that has the effect of excluding others. Don’t you agree labeling someone a “nutter” does exactly that?

            Nothing there about not swearing. Did you just pull that out of your ar— rear end – or are you attempting to obfuscate in respect of your hypocrisy?

            Incidentally, I don’t get how FizzyAnus is homoerotic/homophobic. Just sounds to me like someone who is literally fizzing forth with shi— spurious claims and unsupported arguments.

            • McFlock 12.1.2.3.2.1
              3 April 2015 at 12:34 am

              lol
              it might refer to the ginger beer method as used by the Cable Street Particulars.

  13. fisiani 13
    2 April 2015 at 11:40 pm

    Socialism is a form of mental illness and should be in the DSM. I am convinced that all my critics here have to be nutters.

    • the pigman 13.1
      3 April 2015 at 12:01 am

      SOCIALISM IS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS.
      WAR IS PEACE.
      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

      Keep drinking that fizzy kool-aid, chap.

    • McFlock 13.2
      3 April 2015 at 12:38 am

      Who’s more mad – the nutters in the nut house, or the allegedly sane person who chooses to live there?

    • ropata:rorschach 13.3
      3 April 2015 at 2:44 pm

      fizzy lies yet again.

      Socialism = a flourishing democracy and civil society. Not some totalitarian boogeyman dreamed up by Fox News.

      Equating Capitalism with freedom and democracy is the big lie of our time. It’s just a buzzword to allow corporations to trample human rights, exploit the poor, and pillage the environment.

  14. felix 14
    3 April 2015 at 7:32 am

    Poor old Pete.

    He finally gets what he’s always wanted, a post on TheStandard that’s all about him.

    And we use it to talk about fizzy’s concerns. 😀

  15. lprent 15
    4 April 2015 at 11:06 am

    For anyone interested, Pete George announces proof of a moderator violating the policy with Eddie imposing a ban after PG made an assertion of fact without bothering to back it up with anything.

    As usual the lazy fool doesn’t provide it where specified and he clearly hasn’t ‘read’ the policy.

    This is my reply.

    Do you ever read our policy to the point where you understand it? Perhaps you should have read it before writing this post.

    The policy clearly states (and has been in there since about late 2008 or early 2009):-

    This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

    So you made an assertion of fact and a moderator called you to provide proof on it. This is explicitly defined as being an offense in the rules of our site.

    Because of your track record of avoiding providing proof of your assertions (a tactic that we call avoidance), Eddie imposed a time limit and a penalty in advance (just as I did here). It took you a day to find anything that fitted your assertion, and that was in an online forum that most people wouldn’t have had any access to. However the ban was lifted after you provided the required standard of evidence.

    So no, if you’d put this in front of me on our site as was specified, then I’d have rejected it because it was a moderation based purely on policy.

    BTW: You did “appeal”. After I wrote a post saying that you were a liar on this site about our site, you said…

    Lynn, you’ve accused me of lying in:

    While Chris Trotter at Bowalley is prepared to debate, and Red Alert (the Labour Party blog) is defunct, there’s something in common with a number of the other lefty blogs – they all seem to have an intolerance of views different to their own. That’s not just a lefty blogroll, it’s also a list that contains all the blogs who have banned me (but not No Right Turn bans where all comment except from it’s author is blocked).

    Whale Oil, The Standard, The Daily Blog, Dim-Post and Public Address have all had hissy fits at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.

    Where is the lie in that?

    Since I’d explained already where the lie was – that we don’t do that. I imposed a ban forcing you to prove your assertion that we banned you because outside of our clearly stated rules.

    Now for wasting my time and being stupid enough to point to a ‘banning example’ where a moderator forced you to provide proof of a similar unsubstantiated assertion of fact, I will have to think about doubling the penalty for wasting my time by making your plea here rather than where it was specified.

    I have to say that you rather remind me of that lazy git Cameron Slater who is currently having to plead for a chance to put an appeal to the Appeals court because he didn’t put in the paperwork in on time last year.

    You have until Monday

Links to post