David Farrar – A known hypocrite and a bit of an idiot (in my opinion).

Written By: - Date published: 4:04 pm, February 24th, 2010 - 130 comments
Categories: blogs, dpf - Tags:

Sysop

David Farrar obviously lost it today. In a post called “Anonymous Smears” he is upset about Eddie pointing out Murray McCully and his mining shares. There wasn’t an value known when the post was written, so Eddie reasonably asked if there was a conflict of interest.

Well Farrar is welcome to disagree with the post. That is simply his opinion and he is known to have more than a few of those. Frequently in my opinion – they are just wrong. I have no doubt that some of the other authors will deal with the issues on McCully.

I just want to make my opinion of other parts of his post related to this site quite clear. I think that he is making an idiot of himself.

He seems to think that The Standard has a ‘view’. Now I know that Farrar isn’t particularly technically literate. But surely even a fool would understand that “The Standard” is just some software running on a server. It is the people who write opinions – not a machine. I program the computers for a living and the only thing more stupid in my opinion are some of the trolls that I deal with periodically in this site.

David has read our About he knows that this site runs as a cooperative. Authors write their own opinions and there is no editorial control apart pulling a post after it is put up. I know that he is aware of this because he has written many posts about our site and how it runs in the past. So why is David pretending that the site has an editorial policy? Well the alternative is that he’d have to be upfront about his attacks and direct them at a person. It is easier (and probably safer) to direct it at an abstract concept that can’t defend itself.

David Farrar points to several posts from 2008 from The Standard during the Winston Peters stuff that year as examples of a ‘double standard’ by ‘The Standard’. He links to and quotes from two posts by the psuedonym Steve Pierson.

Steve was listed on our contact page at the time under his real name. David knew this and had written about him – so this wasn’t anonymous. It was a single author out of the 12 or so who were writing at the time. It was someone clearly expressing their opinion,  in fact the quotes that David quoted clearly show that Steve was expressing his own opinion.

But now we come to crux of what the David is upset about…

The Standard suggest McCully is corrupt for following the rules and declaring his $31 of shares (yes they did not know the amount, but the issue is McCully has acted entirely appropriately) yet they defended Winston time and time again over horrendous breaches of the conflicts of interest regime.

All Eddie asked was if there was a potential conflict of interest and a potential for corruption. Eddie who decided what tags and categories were on the post. ‘The Standard’ doesn’t put categories in. He didn’t ‘suggest’ that McCully was corrupt – you did.

But that pales against your other pathetic misrepresentations about this site. Now I don’t like Winston or NZ First – in fact I detest the whole party. The other authors seemed to have similar views. However unlike you we tend to believe that you have to have evidence before you lynch them. In other words that is the process of justice.

There were few (if any) posts ‘defending’ Winston. What there were was a number of posts by different authors commenting on various issues around the witch-hunt at the time. Frequently what they were commenting on was the content of the hysterical outpourings of posts attacking Winston that you managed. I remember seeing you pour out something like 20 factless posts in a few days on the subject. My comment during that period and later on the subject was that you and many of the other right wing bloggers were simply acting as inciters for a lynch mob.

What the various authors here said at the time both in posts and in comments can roughly be summarized as

  1. There wasn’t enough evidence against Winston to make any charges stick or even to show a significant conflict of interest
  2. That the charges appeared to be politically motivated especially by the Act and National parties
  3. The media were along for the ride because they didn’t like Winston much
  4. That the hysteria from the right wing blogs like Kiwiblog was completely overblown

In my opinion, all of those things have subsequently shown to be correct. There were no charges laid against either Winston or NZ First. The only proceedings against him was a obvious kangaroo court of the privileges committee that split straight down party lines. There was no evidence of corruption or even conflicts of interest apart from in your hysterical fantasies. In fact the whole thing ended as being a total non-event with virtually everything that you said over about a year proving to just be a mirage without substance. But that is your specialty…

David, over the years you have set a very low standard for political blogs in this country. Your wee outburst today appears to simply be because you don’t like a much milder questions of the same sort directed at your friends in your favored party. I’d suggest that you get used to it because asking questions of your friends is part of what this site was setup for.

In my opinion, you’re known as being a bit of a hypocrite, frequently a bit of an idiot, and I think that you should also do something about that hysterical streak you have. I also think that talking about The Standard as being an abstract entity is lazy cop-out for such a fearless political poseur as yourself. However if you care to do it in the future, then I’ll happy to help you understand the concept of a co-op.

Now is this anonymous smearing or an honest opinion?

Lynn Prentice

130 comments on “David Farrar – A known hypocrite and a bit of an idiot (in my opinion). ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    24 February 2010 at 4:31 pm

    I presume Farrar’s antagonism against anonymous writers applies also to every Editorial in the New Zealand Fox News Herald? Where, then, is the tirade about the hypocrisy so evident in that organ? Or the Listener, the DomPost, etc . . .

    By logic, his silence on that count makes him the hypocrite.

  2. ghostwhowalksnz 2
    24 February 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Kiwiblog has become the kiwi Pravdablog. The most common posts are slabs of cut and paste with the words ‘sounds reasonable’. Of course anything midly critical of te government is ignored

  3. r0b 3
    24 February 2010 at 4:41 pm

    I feel a bit sorry for DPF. Fomenting happy mischief must have been a lot more fun for him when he was the only game in town.

    • lprent 3.1
      24 February 2010 at 8:07 pm

      I think that some of the OpEd people in the MSM feel the same.

      I know that politicians do. It was a lot easier when you didn’t have bloggers eying your actions and words all of the time.

  4. mickysavage 4
    24 February 2010 at 4:43 pm

    On ya lprent.

    Good to see someone calling Farrer for what he is.

  5. tc 5
    24 February 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Yes lets wade ankle deep across the gene pool that such sycophants as DPF have risen from……or to put it another way the renaissance was something that happened to other people not the likes of DPF……oh well ignorance is bliss, so he’d be happy happy joy joy 24/7.

  6. big bruv 6
    24 February 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Farrar a Hypocrite?

    That may or may not be the case, however, the commentators here leave Farrar for dead when it comes to hypocrisy.

    He is also unfailingly polite on most issues, some of you would do well to take notice.

    • Lew 6.1
      24 February 2010 at 4:53 pm

      Because your love of politeness and civil discourse is so well-known, isn’t it BB?

      L

    • lprent 6.2
      24 February 2010 at 5:01 pm

      BB: In case you’ve failed to notice, I’m rather blunt in my opinions unless there is a good reason not to be. However I’m usually reasonably polite.

      But I never have shirked from offering my opinion when asked. By attacking the site as an entity, David addressed his opinion directly at me because I’m the sysop who protects this site.

      There is nothing impolite in my post apart from the opinion itself. So I guess you don’t like the opinion?

      • steven stevenson 6.2.1
        24 February 2010 at 5:43 pm

        Snore. Attacking the site as an entity. You truly are a twit Lyn.

        • lprent 6.2.1.1
          24 February 2010 at 6:25 pm

          And you are truly ignorant, at least of the laws about entity.

          But what else do you expect from someone from the sewer…

          • steven stevenson 6.2.1.1.1
            25 February 2010 at 5:10 pm

            [Ed: I can’t be bothered with this crap. Banned for life.]

            • IrishBill 6.2.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2010 at 5:17 pm

              We’ve had an unexpected increase in readership. We’d thought we’d get a small drop until people warmed to the new site.

              By the way, I’m banning you for trolling because you seem unable to engage in much more than childish taunts. Goodbye.

              • robby robertson …
                25 February 2010 at 9:16 pm

                You chaps are weak.

                [lprent: I’d suggest you read the policy – and learn to lift your standard. ]

              • Armchair Critic …
                25 February 2010 at 9:20 pm

                Won’t the real steven stevenson/robby robertson please stand up.
                I thought you were banned.

                [lprent: it isn’t from the same IP range. Just from the same intellectual fossil epoch. We’ll let it ride until we can see if it can evolve. ]

              • Armchair critic …
                25 February 2010 at 10:36 pm

                Fucking capitalists

              • Armchair Critic …
                25 February 2010 at 10:49 pm

                Imitator @ 10:36
                Hey dick, you are getting damn close to looking like you are usurping my identity. Get your own identity.
                And the post is not about capitalism – stick to the topic.

    • pollywog 6.3
      24 February 2010 at 5:55 pm

      theres only 2 types of people in this world…hypocrites and liars 🙂

    • Sam 6.4
      25 February 2010 at 6:01 pm

      Unsubstantiated claims are really your thing, huh?

  7. Julie 7
    24 February 2010 at 4:56 pm

    I feel your pain over people saying “The Standard” thinks this – we have similar problems at The Hand Mirror, with people ascribing to all of us the views of one poster. When we have decided to back a campaign, or suggest some action as a group, then we will write about it making it clear the group has made a decision. Otherwise every post is only the responsibility of it’s author. Sometimes many of us may write posts in agreement on a matter, and then it is fair enough to make an assumption, but this doesn’t happen very often.

    • lprent 7.1
      24 February 2010 at 5:09 pm

      There have frequently been posts here with authors disagreeing with each other.

      But there was a meme from a few years ago where people would attack the site as an abstract because they could ascribe made-up opinions to it. It was easier for them to make up bullshit than it was to find opinions by authors that supported their pre-conceptions.

      Eventually I got sick of it. These days if people do that, then I assume that they’re directly talking to me – and react accordingly. It happens in comments here and when people post on other sites and I become aware of of people treating the site as if it has a mind of its own.

      The response that I give varies directly with what the opinion offered is. I will point out that it is a multi-blog site if it just seems like a oversight (like Danyl on DimPost recently). I’ll react strongly if it appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation as David did in the post I’m responding to here.

  8. greenfly 8
    24 February 2010 at 5:14 pm

    You are entirely correct in your appraisal of Farrar.
    I’ve studied the man (using term loosely here)
    His hypocrisy is notable, his idiocy legendary (in my circles).

    Disclaimer: Farrar has banned me, ‘for life’, twice .
    I’m a polite guy. I call Key a liar when I hear him lie.
    Farrar covers Key’s arse and his own (voluminous).

  9. Bob 9
    24 February 2010 at 5:22 pm

    The biggest hypocrisy is that Farrar did the legwork for McCully’s smear campaign against Mark Thomas in 1996 to ensure Prebble got the seat and National had a coalition partner and he did it as anonymously as he could.

    David has specialised in smears and innuendo for a long time. IMHO he may have sown the seeds of his own demise in doing so.

    • IrishBill 9.1
      24 February 2010 at 10:37 pm

      Heh, now you mention it I remember him doing the rounds on that one. I’m amazed he didn’t get it in the neck for that or for some of his other shenanigans around that time, like his sacking from Shipley’s office. Has it really been a decade and a half? I must be getting old.

  10. Eric C. 10
    24 February 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Go, Lynn. Frankly, if Farrar is looking for double standards, he need look no further than those he polls for. The Nats went mad over Winston Peters and the trusts involved in that story, as you point out. They even wrote a privileges committee report that suggested that when in doubt MPs should declare interests rather than not.

    Then they got into power and the first thing they did was get Margaret Bazley to issue a revised direction about what MPs should declare in their interests declarations. The first explanatory note in December 2008 had the “when in doubt declare”. But, her clarification made in January 2009 said you don’t even have to declare all trusts.

    Now, MPs have always been able to hide things in trusts, if they declared the trust. But her ‘clarification’ made it even easier to hide interests.

    And, Mr English quickly changed his trust structure to meet the clarification and didn’t declare the trust that owned the ministerial house that we, as taxpayers, were paying for.

    Here is Vernon Small’s take on the changes:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/columnists/2921312/Patch-needed-for-hole-in-disclosure-regime

  11. Nick 11
    24 February 2010 at 5:41 pm

    I enjoy reading Kiwiblog for David Farrar’s take on the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and the ins and outs of the civil service. But I have a real problem with the shallowness of his views on anything else outside of this specialism. It is as though he knows he is wading in the learners end of the cultural swimming pool, but prefers not to go any deeper for fear of failing to appear the smartest man in the room.

    If Farrar is really as nice a man as he seems, he should feel damned ashamed to be running a blog with such a cesspit of a comments section. Any time a post is written about, say, a Maori issue, all the racists come out and bray. I have considered posting on the comments section myself, but each time, I am dissuaded by what I see written ‘below the line’ by other users.

    I am sure I am not the only one. Other Kiwis I have spoken to here in London, as well as back home have heard of Kiwiblog, but turned their noses up at it after reading the comments. It is certainly not a place where ideas are explored and issues fleshed out. It’s rather sad really, because a site which attracts such a large user base could be so much better.

    • lprent 11.1
      24 February 2010 at 5:54 pm

      One of the joys of running a multi-author blog, with a lot of comments (coming up on 150k at present) is that you can effectively moderate the comments section to discourage people from exhibiting bad behaviours. Quite simply if one of the moderators doesn’t see it, then an author will. If they don’t see it, then I wind up with a e-mail from a regular pointing it out.

      However on a single author blog with a large number of comments, that really isn’t feasible. It interferes directly with writing posts. Around here you’ll notice that that the active moderators tend to write a lot fewer posts. That is the reason why.

      That is why No Right Turn turned off comments, and David really doesn’t seem to moderate behaviour. The Kiwiblog comments section is pretty well an unreadable self-incestuous bully forum these days. That is why I bluntly call it the sewer.

      But it is a problem for any single-author site that gets popular.

      • Nick 11.1.1
        24 February 2010 at 6:13 pm

        That makes a lot of sense. I can imagine moderating comments at such a popular blog would be as big a job as writing the posts themselves.

        But I still find it really offputting. I see a blog as a compact between an author -or authors- and their users. It is never a one-sided relationship, which is why the internet is such a dynamic medium.

        To just write your posts and not care too much about the obscenity appearing below the line That just puts off users who want to contribute in a meaningful way. And there are probably more of us out there than David Farrar thinks.

      • The Baron 11.1.2
        24 February 2010 at 6:13 pm

        Its kind of the opposite of here really. Lynn, your comment sections are far more productive and managable. And while your standards for moderation sometimes says more about your politics than your sense of fairness, you do keep the place tidy. I’ve never commented on Kiwiblog, because the place is a f*cking nuthouse under the front page.

        On the flip side, David’s content is (at least in my opinion) consistently superior to the stuff from the standard writers. He is less prone to hyperbolic scaremongering than the likes of Eddie and Z; and doesn’t go too hard on the conspiracy stuff or petty sniping like yourself and Rob.

        So I read both – Farrar for his content, and Standard for the threads. Your all as bat-sh*t insane as each other, it just comes out in different ways.

        • lprent 11.1.2.1
          24 February 2010 at 6:39 pm

          Ummm, I suspect that you have to be a bit nuts to write a blog. One the otherhand, what does it say about the people, like yourself, who read them?

          Thats OK, lets all be nuts together…

      • Cnr Joe 11.1.3
        24 February 2010 at 10:28 pm

        rather than the sewer is it not the bog?

  12. Neil 12
    24 February 2010 at 5:47 pm

    good lord, still defending Winston Peters.

    “David, over the years you have set a very low standard for political blogs in this country.”

    said without the least sense of irony. Your site comes across as the very worst of any kiwiblog comment thread.

    • lprent 12.1
      24 February 2010 at 6:15 pm

      Who is ‘defending’ him. It is the same as I’ve said forever. I don’t like Peters. But I like arseholes like yourself who ignore the process of the law even less.

      There was literally no substance to almost any substantive allegation that was levelled against him in 2008. What you had instead was some morons like yourself who didn’t examine the actual evidence against the claims. Instead you preferred to simply sit in judgement based on nothing. The only thing that Winston was guilty of with the specific charges against him was that he was ‘sloppy’, almost as sloppy as John Key is about his share portfolio.

      You should be ashamed of yourself… Rather than getting Winston on something that he was legitimately guilty of – like his attitudes to race and immigration – in the correct forum – an election – you just became part of a mindless lynch mob. Having done the lynching you still don’t bother trying to justify your behaviour. That makes you an arsehole

      • Neil 12.1.1
        24 February 2010 at 6:37 pm

        “That makes you an arsehole”

        “The Kiwiblog comments section is pretty well an unreadable self-incestuous bully forum these days.”

        I think you make my point for me.

        • lprent 12.1.1.1
          24 February 2010 at 7:57 pm

          You’ve been here for a while. The standard we use in comments is that we really don’t give a stuff about colorful descriptions of other people. It actually helps the debate because it allows an emotional flow to the comments and frequently stimulates people to look at their assumptions. It isn’t meant to be a dry academic style of debate.

          What the moderators care about is that you have a point behind it explaining why you think that way and it doesn’t deteriorate into a flamewar slagging match. Great for the participants. Boring as hell to anyone reading it.

      • Neil 12.1.2
        24 February 2010 at 7:17 pm

        “you just became part of a mindless lynch mob. Having done the lynching you still don’t bother trying to justify your behaviour.”

        do you actually have any evidence for that? I don’t recall commenting much on the issue when it was happening.

        also, you might want to consider that there were a few Labour supporters that were rather more perplexed than you when such senior Labour politicians were perpared to spent a considerable amount of time and energy supporting Peters. But given their recent contrasting treament of the Maori Party it begins to make sense.

        • lprent 12.1.2.1
          24 February 2010 at 7:53 pm

          Ok, you’re right, under your current e-mail you’ve only been commenting here since late last year.

          Withdraw on the arsehole part. MY comment is more of a conditioned response to the type of statement

          good lord, still defending Winston Peters.

          To date people making that type of statement, when challenged, seem to drop into some kind of netherworld that seems to rely on a “wheres there is smoke there is fire” set of presumptions. Personally I work in evidence based systems all the time where you don’t assume anything until you can prove it.

          The rest of the comment stands on that. The presumptions in your statement clearly carried a lot of opinion, but I suspect very little thought.

          • Neil 12.1.2.1.1
            24 February 2010 at 9:18 pm

            I’ve given some thought as to how Labour treated Peters and how they treat the Maori Party.

            I’ve also given some thought to how whenever I’ve disagreed wirh DPF I’ve not been met with insults and unsubstantiated accusations.

            • lprent 12.1.2.1.1.1
              24 February 2010 at 10:01 pm

              I’ve given some thought…

              It doesn’t show. All I see is a throw-away comment that doesn’t explain what you think. It is very similar to fact-free or indeed unjustified opinion comments left by trolls in attack mode. If you write that way, then expect to be treated by me as a rogue program – see the policy.

              • Neil …
                24 February 2010 at 10:13 pm

                as I said, when I’ve disagreed with DPF I haven’t been insulted.

                I think my reference to how Labour treated Peters as compared to how they treat the Maori Party is pretty clear. I don’t think it neeeds spelling out.

                • lprent …
                  24 February 2010 at 10:21 pm

                  Neil: (looks like we ran out of replies)

                  I’m not DPF (and would have no wish to be him). Hell I don’t even think he knows how to write code.

                  Around here everything needs to be spelt out. How else can you get your argument chewed up and analyzed? The authors and commenters here have widely varying opinions and come at everything from every conceivable angle. The assumption that people are the same (as DPF! or anyone else) or even can read your mind when you don’t contribute your ideas is farcical in the extreme.

              • George D …
                26 February 2010 at 5:25 pm

                On both points:

                I read this article as a defence of Winston Peters, on matters which I consider hurt the left considerably. I’m upset to see that nothing was learned from the episode.

                The moderators here such as lprent are very happy to use the ban-hammer against those who exhibit contrary opinions. The use of insults against those who disagree with the posters from moderators including lprent is pretty widespread. I refrain from expressing my honest opinions an awful lot on this site because I’m pretty sure I would be banned.

                • lprent …
                  26 February 2010 at 5:39 pm

                  The post was mainly about David using “The Standard” as a term to which he could ascribe whatever “views” that he wished to. I always challenge that and usually with quite a lot of vehemence.

                  David specifically ascribed “The Standard” as defending Winston Peters and quoted two posts by Steve Pierson (a single author) as “proof”. In fact Steve wasn’t even defending Winston in those posts. All he was mainly doing was asking what in the hell all the fuss was about. So either David was in fact lying through his keyboard or he thinks that questioning should be regarded as ‘defence’. Either way, that really pissed me off.

                  So I had a go at David, because that is completely unacceptable behaviour. On the way through I commented about his behaviour on Winston. I probably exaggerated a wee bit in the title just make damn sure he got the message that exaggerating works both ways. However I didn’t make crap up like David did and I made it quite clear exactly who I was addressing.

                  On Winston, as I’ve stated many times, I think that the ‘evidence’ against him was poor and that the whole episode has a stink of a lynch mob about it (and DPF was one of the major inciters). Winston may have been guilty of a lot, but natural justice says that you should only convict people of things that they have knowingly done. That is the foundation of the legal system.

                  Basically I suspect that if the ‘left’ fails to consider equity and natural justice being part of their core traits, then I think that they have an even bigger problem than Winston. I’m uninterested in defending Winston. I am interested in defending the natural justice principles.

                  We seldom ban on opinions (usually if we do it is for simple bigotry). We frequently ban on behaviour

                  • Pete G …
                    27 February 2010 at 7:15 am

                    natural justice says that you should only convict people of things that they have knowingly done.

                    Fair point. There is a lot of tainting and smearing with no evidence on KB, in the MSM – and you only have to look at Heatley threads here to see it happening too. The comment that got me going here was worse than most.

                    25 February 2010 at 12:00 pm – We actually don’t ban a lot these days.

                    26 February 2010 at 5:39 pm – We frequently ban on behaviour

                    I’m not sure what you mean.

                    25 February 2010 at 2:13 am – BTW: I’m pretty sure that I didn’t refer to the media as hysterical. I did refer to some blog sites as that and especially kiwiblog.

                    26 February 2010 at 5:39 pm – I probably exaggerated a wee bit in the title just make damn sure he got the message that exaggerating works both ways.

                    Hmmmm.

                    25 February 2010 at 12:00 pm – all of my comments started to disappear

                    However most ‘lefties’ or ‘greenies’ get the same thing happening when they go onto the sewer

                    I’m frequently called a leftie (and worse) there. I’ve criticised National and I’ve criticised things DPF has posted and I often question and criticise other commenters (especially unsubstantiated shit) – and I have never been demerited or banned, and I don’t recall having any posts “disappear”. The second day I have posted here one of my posts disappeared.

                    From my experience if you call someone something like a hypocrite it won’t take long before it is thrown back at you (or me). And calling and labeling another blog a sewer can be risky, especially when the fan is blowing in your own direction. Or your fans.

                    Someone above referred to partisan parrying as passion. Sometimes it is. But from what I have seen on both KB and here, it is far more often petty point scoring, and too often it is just pissing on “the other side” hoping that some of the stink will stick. I think politics, and political blogs, and our society, would benefit immensely if participants started to mature a bit. But earning respect is harder than throwing shit.

  13. SHG 13
    24 February 2010 at 5:48 pm

    I suggest some editorial re-writing of the parent article – it veers from first person to second to third person and from singular to plural all over the place. It was really hard to understand whether the author was talking to the reader about DPF, or if the collective was talking to DPF, or something in between.

    • lprent 13.1
      24 February 2010 at 6:29 pm

      Hey, I wrote it during a 20 minute coffee break while I was also trying to get vs2008 to publish a ClickOnce application from a command line and drink coffee. What else do you expect.

      Plus I’m not a polished writer – english doesn’t have a compiler to help keep my syntax valid…

    • pollywog 13.2
      24 February 2010 at 8:42 pm

      It’s a rant and as farrars rants go, its a keeper 🙂

      • lprent 13.2.1
        24 February 2010 at 8:57 pm

        Oh yeah, it definitely was a rant. As SHG said (now that I’ve had time to read the post again), It veered around quite a lot. I also didn’t link it up the way I would have usually.

        No links to posts on the sewer, lynch-mobs, the posts from Steve P, some of the hysterical fact-free posts that DPF did during the Winston saga, etc.

        But in my defense, I’d have to say that figuring out a command line like…

        msbuild /t:publish /property:Configuration=Profile;Version=0.80.0.200;PublishUrl=... etc

        … (and cursing mikeysoft) was occupying somewhat more of the grey matter than the post was.

  14. reddy 14
    24 February 2010 at 6:06 pm

    errr… it says I throughout and then says “now we come to the crux” once…

    • SHG 14.1
      24 February 2010 at 6:24 pm

      David Farrar points to several posts from 2008 from The Standard during the Winston Peters stuff that year as examples of a ‘double standard’ by ‘The Standard’. He links to and quotes from two posts by the psuedonym Steve Pierson. But that pales against your other pathetic misrepresentations about this site.

      • lprent 14.1.1
        24 February 2010 at 6:36 pm

        Have you read the posts that he linked to?

        Both were from Clinton under his pseudonym. Both stated his opinions and stated that it was his opinion. Neither ‘defended’ Winston. What both posts did say was that there was a hell of a difference between the rhetoric of what people like DPF was claiming and what the evidence said.

        Nowhere did it say that this was “The Standard”‘s view.

        Basically David is being an idiot essentially saying that if you don’t agree with me you’re wrong. Of course he offers a factless opinion bearing in mind that none of the various claims he made against Winston ever amounted to anything.

        • SHG 14.1.1.1
          24 February 2010 at 6:46 pm

          No, you’re not following me. I’m not talking about Clinton’s article at all. I’m saying that the way the text of this page’s parent article goes from saying “David Farrar” to saying “your” is really hard to follow. It jumps from talking ABOUT David Farrar to talking TO David Farrar.

          As a reader when I got to that statement about “your pathetic misrepresentations” my instant reaction was something like “WTF? I haven’t said shit, why are you bringing me into this?”

    • lprent 14.2
      24 February 2010 at 7:58 pm

      Myself writing it, and you the reader.

  15. Nick 15
    24 February 2010 at 6:10 pm

    That makes a lot of sense. I can imagine moderating comments at such a popular blog would be as big a job as writing the posts themselves.

    But I still find it really offputting. I see a blog as a compact between an author -or authors- and their users. It is never a one-sided relationship, which is why the internet is such a dynamic medium.

    To just write your posts and not care too much about the obscenity appearing below the line – That just puts off users who want to contribute in a meaningful way. And there are probably more of us out there than David Farrar thinks.

  16. gitmo 16
    24 February 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Do you try to come across as an arrogant front bum or does it come naturally ?

    Oh and it can’t be anonymous smearing if you’ve put your real name to it.

    • lprent 16.1
      24 February 2010 at 6:43 pm

      Oh I am… I’m afraid that being arrogant is part of the job requirement for being a programmer (or being a manager, or doing an MBA for that matter). You have to be arrogant enough to force problems through to a workable solution.

      The same goes for being a sysop. Go and read the Bastard Operator From Hell….

      Just be grateful that you get the arrogance for free, while companies that employ me have to pay for it.

      • gitmo 16.1.1
        24 February 2010 at 6:53 pm

        Your clients and staff must hate you more then mine hate me .. something to be proud of I say.

        • lprent 16.1.1.1
          24 February 2010 at 8:04 pm

          I dropped out of management in the early 90’s because programming was more fun. It is really really hard to use the type of mental myopia that is required to program well, and manage people at the same time. I’m pretty good at both, but eventually you have to make a decision about what side you want to work on.

          I usually managed to successfully stay out of managing people most of the time. Where I haven’t, I use systems to separate the work types. But generally I get employed to write weird code that is around the bleeding edge of what is feasible.

          The arrogance is normally pretty much restricted to systems because you have to believe in your capability to find a solution in the absence of much else indicating that it is even feasible.

          I seldom interact with clients because I spend most of my time building deep library systems for other programmers to use.

      • mike 16.1.2
        24 February 2010 at 10:16 pm

        In your replies to this post you have encapsulated the very reason your beloved labour party were thrashed last election and why it will be a long while before they are back, and the fact you (or the labour party) don’t know it is a beautiful thing….

    • Margaret 16.2
      25 February 2010 at 10:19 am

      Ok…seriously? What the Fuck is with the “front bum” comment? Could someone edit this or kick the comment out? The term is disgusting enough but using it as an insult…(you are a woman aahahaha) is just unacceptable

      • gitmo 16.2.2
        25 February 2010 at 10:35 am

        I will endeavour to use ‘cockhole’ from now on.

        And for the record to call someone a “cunt” or a “frontbum” is not to suggest they are a woman much as calling someone a cock or a cockhole is not to suggest they are a man.

        I would also suggest that you may like to form a group.

        [I would suggest that you are rude, boring, and add nothing to discussion here. Carry on like this and you can have a holiday. Margaret, apologies for this little twerp, the likes of gitmo are the price we pay for free speech. — r0b]

  17. Pascal's bookie 17
    24 February 2010 at 7:29 pm

    Queen Bee.

    • Lew 17.1
      24 February 2010 at 8:10 pm

      But that’s different. Everyone* knew who Queen Bee was.

      L

      * For values of “everyone” equal to a large clique of Molesworth & Featherston insiders and a whole lot more people who claimed to know in order to represent as if they were members of said clique, but actually didn’t have a fucking clue.

  18. Sanctuary 18
    24 February 2010 at 8:42 pm

    Wow. Looks like some of the comments about lots of non-tendered $9,900 polling going on has created a fair dose of teh angst in Mr. Farrar. Must be some fire with that smoke!

    Ayway, when you find a bruise, keep pressing it.

    • The Voice of Reason 18.1
      24 February 2010 at 9:01 pm

      You’re on to it, Sanctuary! I’m looking forward to Dr Evil, sorry, David Farrar, explaining how he got the DIA contract. Of all the polling companies in NZ, how come Curia got the nod? Dartboard into a list of names pinned to the smoko room wall? Or sucking up to the new bosses pet parrot?

  19. D4J 19
    24 February 2010 at 8:50 pm

    IrishBill: If you’re dad you’re on a lifetime ban anyway and if you’re not then you’re banned for identity theft. Either way you’re banned. B-A-N-N-E-D.

    • toad 19.1
      25 February 2010 at 7:48 am

      The mad dad is on KB accusing me of impersonating him here. Presumably that relates to the above comment.

      If it wasn’t him who posted it (and it does look like his style), I just want to state for the record that it wasn’t me.

      • Pete G 19.1.1
        25 February 2010 at 7:57 am

        I don’t think that looks like D4J’s style at all. Doesn’t mean it isn’t him, just doesn’t add up to me.

        [lprent: I’ll have a look at first break. ]

        • HitchensFan 19.1.1.1
          25 February 2010 at 9:52 am

          definitely not ranting enough for D4J. Also, quite funny and accurate and contains punctuation.

          Definitely not D4J

        • PeteG 19.1.1.2
          25 February 2010 at 3:11 pm

          I think this is important. Amongst a bunch of blogs on Anonymous Smears and Hypocrisy and Idiots it looks like someone may have hijacked someone else’s well known moniker (he frequently identifies himself) to post something anonymously, smearing, idiotic and nasty and that post still stands unmoderated on a site that tries to make something of it’s standard.

          [lprent: I’m a bit busy today doing build scripts (ie don’t be a dickhead – I have a job) and my morning break was taken up with getting more RAM for the site to prevent it falling over as it did earlier in the day. It will get done when I have time. I have little sympathy for d4j because one of his trademarks here was to hijack other peoples identities. In any case whining about it doesn’t make it happen any faster. ]

          • PeteG 19.1.1.2.1
            25 February 2010 at 3:41 pm

            I wasn’t worried about d4j, but this isn’t really about him. I thought you might have had some interest based on your claims of how well this site is moderated. If you are too busy that’s your call, but you did have time to comment on and leave the original post.

      • big bruv 19.1.2
        25 February 2010 at 4:12 pm

        It is no secret that I think D4J is a complete nutbar but I also want to state for the record that I am not the person who posted the sick Mark Lundy comment despite D4J’s accusations.

  20. kiwiteen123 20
    24 February 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Eddie said that “the standard can now reveal”.

    [lprent: That is actually a good point (so I’ll let this through moderation). I’ll have a wee talk with Eddie about that. However I read that as informing readers that it was an exclusive or that several authors had checked it. However it was clearly labeled EDDIE, and that is who is responsible for the post. ]

    • QoT 20.1
      24 February 2010 at 9:26 pm

      Captcha: disagree, and that’s exactly what I’m doing.

      Mainstream newspapers and TV studios since time immemorial have had journos making statements about “20/20 can now reveal” and “The Herald can now reveal”. The source has leaked information to a writer they trust, but it’s delivered with the weight of the organisation behind it, not just “Duncan Garner can now reveal”.

      Which is a very different matter from trolls crying “The Standard says Winston Peters is made of sunshine and roses!” just because one poster back in the day … didn’t, but their critical reading skills are somewhat lacking.

  21. Andrew W 21
    24 February 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Good on you Iprent for distancing yourself and the other authors at The Standard from that shallow post by Eddie.

    [lprent: I’m not. It was a completely valid question to ask, and still is even though the current value of the shares is $31 odd. In fact I’d like ALL MP’s to open up the contents of their trusts so we can see who exactly they’re beholden to.

    What I don’t like is Eddie using “The Standard” unclearly. There are about 20 active authors here with a wide range of opinions. I don’t expect them all to agree on the same topic. So the easiest way is to make sure that they don’t argue amongst themselves is that they’re careful in their use of the site name.

    BTW: Putting words in my mouth is usually a banning level offense, so I’d suggest you don’t try it again. You can assume that most of the ACToid ‘argument’ techniques are a fast way to draw my vindictive moderating attention. So start learning how to write without them. ]

  22. vto 22
    24 February 2010 at 9:47 pm

    sheesh, just had a glance through comments above and then comments at Kiwiblog.

    Where is the love?

    I see lotsa hateness. Very bad. Its the sort of scrap nobody wins.

    How about a bit of grace and dignity? (don’t ask me where you find that stuff tho..)

    • lprent 22.1
      24 February 2010 at 9:54 pm

      vto: I have a particular aversion to people talking about “The Standard” as if it has a mind of its own. There is even a special section about it in the policy that has been there for years.

      Attacking the blog site or attributing a mind to a machine (ie talking about The Standard as if it had an opinion) is not allowed. See here for an explanation of who writes for the blog. You will often get the sysop answering you, because he considers that those are comments directed at him personally. He does like to point out in a humiliating manner that machines are not intelligent. Programmers know exactly how dumb machines are.

      That is what my post is about. I’ve written similar comments on other peoples blogs when they have been linked here at various levels of acerbity. It is a multi-author blog, so it does not have the one-to-one relationship that DPF has to Kiwiblog, so talking about The Standard as an entity implies a level of agreement that does not exist. The level of agreement between the authors is laid out in the about.

      David knows this. So he got one of my more obnoxious responses for what can only be a deliberate ploy. On most blogs I’d just leave it in the comments. But I don’t like the sewer

  23. Armchair Critic 23
    24 February 2010 at 9:56 pm

    Well it seems to have provided a distraction from the issue of McCully’s conflict of interest, and his clear failings as a minister. And it is entirely consistent with the government’s approach of suppressing discussion, dissent and individual expression across a broad range of fronts.
    I reckon it is time to replace the tagline at KB, too. There doesn’t seem to be much fomenting, or happy, or mischief over there any more.

  24. Robert Black 24
    24 February 2010 at 11:14 pm

    This thread and the comments in it smell of people jealous of DPF and his blogsite.

    I mean he is more famous than you and his blogsite is more famous than your blogsite.

    I had never heard of yours until I saw it mentioned on HIS blogsite.

    And I had never heard of you until I read this thread.

    It is a bit like Canadians saying they hate America yet living near the warm USA border and trying to get across it, permanently.

    I mean, you have even used a rather lame personal attack in your thread title.

    Maybe when your blogsite and your threads are as professional, thought provoking and objective as his, your blogsite may get some decent exposure too.

    Until then you may want to trim that chip on your shoulder back a little.

    [lprent: A inarticulate troll from the UK… *sigh*. With readers like this, what could DPF ever do wrong? Explains his lack of knowledge of NZ. ]

  25. Robert Black 25
    25 February 2010 at 12:17 am

    Big deal Armchair.

    Those links prove nothing except my point.

    Mainstream media in the goldfish bowl country fear and loathe DPF as he doesn’t buy into the sensationalist approach that most, if not all of mainstream NZ media do.

    Traditionally, Kiwis are spoon fed by the “media”.

    If the NZ Herald or TV1 says black is white a large population of New Zealanders believe it.

    At least DPF has the guts to openly question and criticize NZ media, NZ individuals and NZ politicians and facilitate objective discussion on such issues on his blogsite.

    A FIRST for New Zealand.

    PS. Judging by that reply from lprent (is that the “author”) I can see this blogsite is going places, real fast, down the toilet bowl.

    • lprent 25.1
      25 February 2010 at 1:28 am

      Been at the myth pills have we?

      Mainstream media in the goldfish bowl country fear and loathe DPF…

      He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in the media (or trying to get into the media), at least compared to anyone here. We tend more towards actively avoiding them.

      At least DPF has the guts to openly question and criticize NZ media, NZ individuals and NZ politicians and facilitate objective discussion on such issues on his blogsite.

      Who doesn’t. If you hunt around on the categories and tags here you’ll find that all of us have written opinions on the on various media and media

      The ‘objective’ part is a bit of a hoot. I cannot think of an objective blog in NZ – and especially not KiwiBlog. We’re all partisan to one degree or another. That is what blogs are for. In fact it is hard to think of much of the media or media personalities that aren’t partisan.

      Personally I think that you’re just some kind of nut to even think any of these things are true.

      But this a good comment to play with some of the editing formatting…. Ok that still works

  26. Ian Llewellyn 26
    25 February 2010 at 1:30 am

    Putting aside your highly amusing little tit for tat spat with Farrar.

    I thought I might try and add some facts when it comes to your dismissal of what Winston Peters did with electoral law and disclosure.

    You said: There wasn’t enough evidence against Winston to make any charges stick or even to show a significant conflict of interest

    The only reason NZ First wasn’t charged was because of a couple of loop holes, they failed to declare donations from a number of people, but the discovery of them came after the statutory limit for prosecutions, and the person who signed off the disclosure of no donations being received had no idea about the donations that were received.

    The Electoral Commission could not have pursued any other person beside the little old lady who had signed off the papers saying there were no donations despite the commission knowing in retrospect there had been large donations to NZ First from families associated with racing interests and other sources. She honestly did not know at the time, Those donations were declared afterwards of course when the media discovered them.

    Those failures to dislose donations were a clear breach of the law and unlike anonymous bloggers I am happy to defend that statement in the courts.

    The 1000 percent increase in Vote:Racing was probably totally justifiable for policy reasons and in the best interests of the country, but the hiding of donations was a clear breach of the law

    You said:. The only proceedings against him was a obvious kangaroo court of the privileges committee that split straight down party lines. There was no evidence of corruption or even conflicts of interest apart from in your hysterical fantasies.

    I don’t know about corruption but Winston denied ever getting money from Owen Glenn (remember the NO sign). Then when confronted of the facts that he had, tried to deny he knew about it happening. Then Glenn proved to any reasonable person based on evidence that Winston not only knew about it, but arranged it to pay for his legal expenses.

    I never felt particularly hysterical covering that story. It was just that he lied over and over again about it. While I kept remembering the man I fought alongside with against some of the most dubious tax rip offs ever by big business.

    I can’t even write about Winston’s most cynical actions during that time, but it is just wrong to say that period of news stories about NZ First was just based on bias reporting. Any political party should find such behaviour unacceptable.

    • lprent 26.1
      25 February 2010 at 2:13 am

      I like facts, and you’ve provided more than most of the trolls have.

      The impression that I got from the media reports and other material was that the internal systems inside NZ First were a total shambles. Quite simply no-one knew what anyone else was doing. The internal culture was more than a little secretive. Because the various activities were basically being done under the 1993 electoral laws using anonymous trust funds there was no proper accounting trails back to the donors. They had to do a through audit to even prove that the donations weren’t properly reported and it looks unlikely that any one person could have known what in the hell was going on.

      The same kind of issues existed in all of the political parties at the time and probably still do because the trusts are still in action. Those things are just about guaranteed to give an accountant an early grave. Quite simply I have a very strong suspicion that if you forced all of the majorish political parties to fully open their books I’m sure that we’d see much the same kinds of things in almost all of them prior to 2007 (I suspect that the greens would be squeaky clean). I’d really love to have a close look at the Act party in particular.

      Winston (as you pointed out) probably lied either deliberately or inadvertently (and I suspect we’d have a hard time finding out which). But in the event the electoral commission couldn’t do anything because of the limitations.

      There was a possibility that the police could have charged people in the party. However to do so they’d have had to show intent. From what I’ve heard the shambles of the party organization would have made it difficult to show that they intended to win seats in an election, let alone if they were compliant. Certainly the police were unable to show that there was any intent to either be corrupt or to intentionally have undisclosed conflicts of interest within the limits of the various laws. In other words they’d be unable to make a case within a court of law.

      Most of this was pretty evident from quite early in the play. So the question is why did it keep carrying on? Well there was an election due and it was going to be convenient to have a public lynching purely to keep NZ First out of parliament – that is my opinion then and still is now.

      Then Glenn proved to any reasonable person based on evidence that Winston not only knew about it, but arranged it to pay for his legal expenses.

      That was in my opinion was kind of weird from an evidence point of view. From memory there was circumstantial evidence based on (?) e-mails or phone logs. However there was no direct link that tied Winston to being the person on the other end. Anyway, the point was that if there was a presumption of innocence in the proceedings (ie innocent until proven guilty) then a real court operating real law would have a difficult time in convicting. It would have almost certainly been overturned on appeal if there was a court of appeal.

      That the privileges committee split straight down party lines, to me, says more about the type of justice in that ‘court’ than anything else. I don’t think that anyone there really bothered to look at the evidence.

      Winston was the one politician singled out for lousy accounting, a bad habit of grand-standing and abusing the media, and because he liked bullshitting. I’d really like to look at Act on exactly the same basis and see what washes out there. The pillory was largely done by the media, aided and abetted by the hysterical wingnut sites like kiwiblog, and encouraged by politicians looking for electoral advantage.

      That is what gets me riled up despite the fact that I really can’t stand the man or his politics. I despise people who think like a lynch-mob.

      BTW: I’m pretty sure that I didn’t refer to the media as hysterical. I did refer to some blog sites as that and especially kiwiblog. Of course as SHG pointed out my ‘persons’ were a bit confused in the post, mainly because I was doing other annoying and frustrating work at the time.

      • gitmo 26.1.1
        25 February 2010 at 8:01 am

        “That the privileges committee split straight down party lines, to me, says more about the type of justice in that ‘court’ than anything else.”

        Um what ?

  27. Robert Black 27
    25 February 2010 at 2:31 am

    “He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in the media (or trying to get into the media), at least compared to anyone here. We tend more towards actively avoiding them.”

    That is just hilarious.

    He is invited to comment on various television news shows/television shows on a regular basis despite and because of his respected objective approach.

    I just watched him on Breakfast a day or so ago.

    The reason being intelligent people actually KNOW who he is and they respect and want to listen to what he has to say.

    “We tend more towards actively avoiding them.”

    Haha!

    Blame Canada!

    So, I won’t hold my breath waiting for “the authors” here to be on TV any time soon?

    Because, YOU JUST DON’T WANT THE ATTENTION!

    Haha!

    Could you be more stupid Lizzie or whatever your name is?

    By the way, I came to New Zealand when I was eight years old in 1973.

    I am 44 now.

    But please keep going with the personal attacks.

    They are always a sign of intelligence and power.

    You are a winner here, oh yes you are!

    • The Voice of Reason 27.1
      25 February 2010 at 7:43 am

      “He is invited to comment on various television news shows/television shows on a regular basis despite and because of his respected objective approach.

      I just watched him on Breakfast a day or so ago.”

      I think I’ve spotted where you are going wrong, Robert!

  28. big bruv 28
    25 February 2010 at 6:32 am

    Some of the comments in this thread have hit a new low, and for this place that is saying something.

    I have often seen some of you call for DPF to censor or moderate his blog, well, before you ask him to do that you would be well to tidy up your own back yard, some of the crap that has been written about him on this thread is well below the belt.

    Given that none of it has been moderated I can only assume that the authors and moderators think this type of abuse is acceptable, the 8.50pm comment from somebody claiming to be D4J is a classic example and a sign of just how low you people are people will go and a indication of your appalling hypocrisy.

  29. Pete G 29
    25 February 2010 at 6:47 am

    “I have a particular aversion to people talking about “The Standard’ as if it has a mind of its own.”

    But you don’t have a problem with looking at other blogs like that? KB may be run by one person, but similar to what you claim here:
    “commenters here have widely varying opinions and come at everything from every conceivable angle.”

    There is crap, but there are also a lot of interesting and worthwhile discussions amongst reasonable commenters. To diss a whole entity as “the sewer” while you go to great lengths here to try and separate the views of authors from the blog seems a bit weird. Obviously you don’t have to like it (KB), but stoking inter-blog hissy fits doesn’t reflect well on the standard of the Standard.

    • lprent 29.1
      25 February 2010 at 8:59 am

      If you look at what that is about, it is to do with authors not comments. Quite different. We get about 10 people reading the authors posts to every one that reads comments regularly (and even fewer that write comments), and I’m sure that KB’s ratios are even higher.

      As far as the sewer goes. That is because whenever there is a interesting post that I look at the comments section there, the discussion is bloody terrible. People repeating the same mantras repetitiously. There also seems to be people running bullying ops against everyone that disagrees. I find it hard to find any new information because the noise to nugget ratio is far too high.

      That (plus the spam) was the same issue that eventually caused caused me to abandon anything apart from moderated newsgroups in usenet in the late 90’s

      • PeteG 29.1.1
        25 February 2010 at 9:17 am

        Something else with pros and cons – free speech versus moderation.

        The discussion can be bloody terrible, and it can be good. It is a mantra repeating outlet for some – free speech. There have been bullying ops, that doesn’t seem bad at the moment. The noise to nugget ration can be high, that’s free speech in play again. It also means you get some good stuff that may not happen in a more strictly moderated blog.

        I like the idea of personal responsibility, and community responsibility. If blogs learn to self moderate then they can encourage more of a free exchange of wide ranging ideas rather than the tendency to by guided a lot by a few. I guess it depends on whether the aim is for a pulpit or people’s pit.

        • lprent 29.1.1.1
          25 February 2010 at 12:00 pm

          We actually don’t ban a lot these days. But we tend to ban for a lot longer (especially IrishBill). Typically it is for stupid trolling (like Peter Black in this post) or because someone blathers on about the same things ad-infinitum boring the crap out of everyone (best example is probably burt) or they use their fingers in preference to their brains blathering about nothing much (kiwiteen123 twittering). The latter two just seem to become thread-jacking, but even there the threading seems to help a lot in making it hard for people to disrupt every part of a posts comment stream.

          Similarly, with the exception of posts like this that tend to make get everyone partisan, I don’t even leave that many notes. People are pretty much into self-moderating here and have been for some time.

          The banning is usually pretty much for behaviour rather than point of view with an exception of unbridled bigotry (which tends to ignite flames). The nett result is that there is quite a lot of extremely good discussion with a lot of argument from many different viewpoints. Most people seem to feel pretty comfortable with the boundaries…

          If you ask around here, you’ll find that many people have given up on KB for discussions. The most extreme example is what happens whenever I leave a comment. There is usually very little discussion on the content of the comment – just sniping and attacks.

          The last time was pretty classic – talking about polar bears when I was having a look at DPF’s comment hiding system. Bruv was just finishing telling me about how there was free speech and elevated discussion, and all of my comments started to disappear…. 😈

          However most ‘lefties’ or ‘greenies’ get the same thing happening when they go onto the sewer. So it has been quite noticeable over the last 3 years that the diversity of substantial commentators views has been diminishing there.

  30. The Voice of Reason 30
    25 February 2010 at 8:05 am

    There is one main reason I don’t comment on KB.

    Because of the sequential nature of the comments, it’s not possible to have any kind of linked debate on the threads. This seems to reduce most of the comments to ‘example @ 7.30′ Nah nuh nah nah’. Over and over again. The Standard wins hands down in it’s ability for commentors to have focussed mini debates within threads, which makes for a more robust and rewarding read without having to lower the site to pointless personal abuse, something I would never lower myself to do.

    Oh, plus the fact that Farrar is an odious, bullshitting creep who probably snacks on the babies of the poor.

    • PeteG 30.1
      25 February 2010 at 8:36 am

      Sequential versus linked debates – there are pros and cons. An advantage with sequential debates is you can more easily catch up with all the latest posts, and yes, grouping a debate can be useful too. Seems a minor reason not to post somewhere.

      “The Voice of Reason” says “without having to lower the site to pointless personal abuse, something I would never lower myself to do” and then “Oh, plus the fact that Farrar is an odious, bullshitting creep who probably snacks on the babies of the poor.” may get some applause from fellow hypocrites but it doesn’t do much for credibility from an outside view.

      The entrenched “we good, they bad” mentality prevalent in politics and political blogs make me wonder if we get the sort of governance we deserve.

      Common sense, common good anyone?

      • Pascal's bookie 30.1.1
        25 February 2010 at 8:51 am

        ummm. Firstly, I think your irony settings need a tweek.

        Secondly, saying that all the problems are caused by those awful partisans who refuse to agree with your own sensible common sense postions, is umm, just as much “we good, they bad” thinking as every other sort of partisanship.

        Certain types of partisanship can be bad for sure, but just saying that everyone should agree with the ‘common sense’ position misses the point that partisanship arises because there is no common view about what is sensible.

        People really really do disagree with each other. It’s not an act. Often those disagreements are such that compromise is impossible.

        • PeteG 30.1.1.1
          25 February 2010 at 8:58 am

          “just saying that everyone should agree with the ‘common sense’ position misses the point”

          – you missed my point, it probably wasn’t clear.

          Common sense doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with each other. Common sense is accepting there will always be differences. Respecting everyone’s right to hold their own opinion without resorting to petty point scoring.

          Standing on opposite sides having arrogant slanging matches doesn’t seem to be very successful.

          • Pascal's bookie 30.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2010 at 9:23 am

            Standing on opposite sides having arrogant slanging matches doesn’t seem to be very successful.

            Yet we have elections and peaceful transfers of power and policy changes to reflect the outcomes. Seems pretty successful to me.

            Being impolite or engaging in petty point scoring doesn’t mean you think your opponent is unentitled to their view. It just means that you are in some sort of confrontation with them and trying to win.

            It’s not so much that we get the politics we deserve, as that political styles are driven by what works politically. Pople vote for people that they agree with most out of the options. But they also vote for those that they think will be most effective at getting those things done. If tactics didn’t work, they wouldn’t be used.

            Poeple vote for those they think will ‘fight for them’. That’s not only legitimate, but necessary.

            Likewise with discssions between citizens, (like on blogs for example). If people don’t show that they are pasionate about an issue, how are the politicians supposed to know where they should compromise and where they shouldn’t?

            Partisanship is a feature, not a bug.

            • PeteG 30.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2010 at 9:31 am

              Passion is often confused with pissing on.

              “Partisanship is a feature, not a bug.”

              Like the US? Some is natural and useful. But the ship can also hit rocks.

  31. big bruv 31
    25 February 2010 at 8:14 am

    “Hell I don’t even think he knows how to write code.”

    So bloody what?

    Is that seriously how you judge a person’s worth?

    What a tosser you are.

    • lprent 31.1
      25 February 2010 at 8:45 am

      bb: Neil seemed to think that I should act like DPF. I suspect he was thinking about some triviality like being polite.

      I was pointing out that it wouldn’t work. I really enjoy computers and programming, and as far as I know David is pretty illiterate on most things that I’m interested in – including how to code.

      And bb – what do you really enjoy doing? Making yourself look like a fool on blogs?

      • big bruv 31.1.1
        25 February 2010 at 11:55 am

        I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of Labour and the Greens, I also enjoy educating you lefties as to the total failure of socialism.

    • IrishBill 31.2
      25 February 2010 at 9:59 am

      I suggest you try calling Farrar a tosser on his site and see if you’re treated with the same leniency you receive here.

      • Clint Heine 31.2.1
        27 February 2010 at 2:02 am

        I do already, and DPF is fine with it. I have met the guy on many occasions and I am staggered you actually belive all that nasty stuff you write about him as a person.

        That is the problem with you guys, it’s all nasty, name calling silliness. Why all the bitterness? I thought the rule was to ignore those that you think say stupid things? You spent all that time replying to it when you could have been the bigger person and ignored it.

  32. Cnr Joe 32
    25 February 2010 at 9:02 am

    why are Key and McCully dragging Keys son into the news? – trying to offload shares to him – usually children are not allowed to be used in the sport of politics.
    different rules now?

  33. randal 33
    25 February 2010 at 1:45 pm

    capacha; courts.
    dpf has no case against anonymity as he regularly contributes to twiedmeeopinions under the monikker of feeder.
    he is not very nice there when his alter ego lets rip in concert with the other mangled twisted bunch in that sewer.

  34. Robert Black 34
    25 February 2010 at 5:38 pm

    In this blogsite “trolling” means disagreeing or posting a different opinion to the “author”.

    [lprent: Most people disagree with the author on the majority of posts (especially mine..). What is interesting is where they disagree and by how much and that is what the comments pretty much sort out.

    Trolling is a behaviour pattern rather than a matter of agreement. It is anything that disrupts people having a discussion. There are some instances listed in the policy. But it is usually instantly recognisable.. ]

    • felix 34.1
      25 February 2010 at 5:46 pm

      I don’t think you’re a troll. I think you honestly mean what you’ve written.

    • The Voice of Reason 34.2
      25 February 2010 at 5:56 pm

      Not so, Robert. Have a look at the Policy. It’s on the third line down at the top of the page.

      Lots of contrary opinions get aired here and indeed, seem to be welcome. Trolling is a waste of everyone’s time and is ruthlessly dealt with so that the site doesn’t degenerate into a focus free cesspit. I read a lot of political blogs and The Standard is one of the best I’ve seen at allow genuine debate to flourish.

      I think what you’re feeling is the bitter sting of losing an argument because you came in underprepared. Sharpen up a bit next time and no doubt you’ll do better.

    • wtl 34.3
      25 February 2010 at 9:23 pm

      With respect Robert, you argument was basically:

      How dare you disagree with DPF? He’s really great, and his blog is popular and I really like DPF. And the media really like DPF and think he’s great too. And you guys suck. And I never heard of your blog before so obviously you aren’t popular. So you must be wrong. And you are all Canadians. Who are stupid because they live in the warm part of their country. And you must be a girl called Lizzie. Because girls have stupid opinions that I don’t care about. And real men like me all love DPF. So you are definitely wrong. And I don’t need to bother arguing about the actually points you raise. You all suck. And that’s all that counts.

      Any wonder why you aren’t taken seriously?

      • Armchair Critic 34.3.1
        25 February 2010 at 10:16 pm

        Yours is better written wtl.
        Robert, c’mon old chap, a nice cup of tea might help you put together a sensible argument today.
        Maybe you can read the transcript of question time today with your cuppa. The government were brave enough to hold a question time today, and Bill English wrote the answers for Anne Tolley for her question. And a reference was made to a blog, I won’t say which one. A hint, it’s in question 4. If you can’t find it just say so and I will post a link.

  35. robby robertson 35
    25 February 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Cripes you are unhinged Lyn.

  36. sk 36
    25 February 2010 at 10:34 pm

    I did not intend to comment on this post, but came across this comment from conservative Anatole Kaletsky in today’s Times, who put his finger on what troubles many of us about David Farrar, and his influence in NZ:

    “This contradictory polling brings us to the most alarming feature of all in politics today, not only in America but in most democratic countries: the way that cheap, ubiquitous and statistically accurate opinion polling has begun to subvert representative democracies and turn them into direct democracies, in which the views of “the voters’ are considered more politically legitimate than those of the representatives they elect.”

    it is through political creatures like DPF that our western democracies are going the way of the Weimar Republic. This is the real issue in 2010, and explains the unease evident here . ..

Links to post