DPF takes the moral highground

133 comments on “DPF takes the moral highground ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Prophet 1

   27 January 2008 at 8:23 am

   IrishBill says: comment deleted. I would suggest if you want your comments to stay up you don’t defame this blog’s owners Prophet.
2. AncientGeek 2

   27 January 2008 at 8:41 am

   I think that being ill is an acceptable reason. I’m sure that DPF will eventually offer an apology, since he was so keen on it for Bob Clarkson. About the standard’s little gaffe on Clarkson, he wrote…

   “I am sure they will do the decent thing, and do a prominent apology to Bob.”

   However I find it rather pointless apologizing in both cases. The net is an interactive media that is usually accessed via search engines. I think that in both cases adding to the original post with the updated details would have been sufficient. Apologies is overkill – there is simply too much information available to be accurate all of the time. Thats why having many people and viewpoints on many blogs searching is useful.

   I got it as 4th on google NZ after searching for “George Hawkins 2007”.

   I hope that George is getting better.
3. Outofbed 3

   27 January 2008 at 8:43 am

   The Prophet
   “Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgement wage war against passion and your appetite.

   Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.”
4. AncientGeek 4

   27 January 2008 at 9:01 am

   Ummm, I just did a read on the kiwiblog post. It is strangely narrow – concentrating just on what is said in the house. That is probably less than a tenth of the work that MP’s do. What about the select committee work, constituency work, speeches outside the house, turning up at schools, etc etc.

   Besides, the original post here was about Bob Clarkson standing again, and a reference BACK to an earlier post about what Bob Clarkson said.

   Looks like Dover Samuels is quitting parliament at the end of this term.
5. The Prophet 5

   27 January 2008 at 9:10 am

   Outofbed – I have ‘oneness’, my friend. My children are my melody. A sweet ditty it is too.

   For the record –

   I did not lie about who and what I am.

   I did not lie about where I got the wherewithal to make my opinions known.

   I did not make racist remarks about contributors here.

   Hope that clears things up for you.
6. the sprout 6

   27 January 2008 at 9:14 am

   DPF is a far more vicious and devious person than is often understood.
7. The Prophet 7

   27 January 2008 at 9:19 am

   Examples please Sprout.

   Or is it Bean?
8. the bean 8

   27 January 2008 at 9:54 am

   nope this is bean. I will give you a clue how to tell…we have our names written above our posts.

   if sprout is dumb enough not to sign in as himself he acknowledges it. when are you going to acknowledge your own stupidity Prophy?
9. Santi 9

   27 January 2008 at 10:06 am

   “DPF is a far more vicious and devious person than is often understood.”

   Do you care to enlighten us sprout? You seem to know, so share your facts with us.

   Otherwise, stop attributing DPF your own personal traits.
10. the bean 10

    27 January 2008 at 10:10 am

    oooo well that comment deserves a serious reply sprout! how about a “I’m rubber you’re glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you”
11. The Prophet 11

    27 January 2008 at 10:10 am

    So Bill –

    You didn’t make a racist comment about Craig R ?
    
    I suggest you read my comment: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=990#comment-15229

    You and your fellow travellers didn’t tell lies and mistruths to try and hide your Labour party funding?

    Again. No. And I’m not going to relitigate this issue again with you.

    Come on, you might not like what I wrote but it WAS factual.

    Facts are not defamation.

    Bit sad that you are deleting facts now. I am however, not surprised.
    
    And again you are using lies and innuendo to smear the authors of this blog. You’re on thin ice Prophet.

    Bean – What stupidity is that?

    Oh wait, let’s let Sprout get up all the recorded times that DPF has been “vicious and devious” shall we?

    In my opinion implying an MP has been lazy because he has not spoken in the house when in actual fact he has been too sick to be there, and not mentioning that fact, fits the bill for vicious and devious.

    Heh, catchpa – Craig will
12. Lisa 12

    27 January 2008 at 10:10 am

    Moral highground – in a land where the goal posts are only millimeters above ground.
13. AncientGeek 13

    27 January 2008 at 10:17 am

    Lisa: good comment or quote…

    Certainly a cut above the others done above.
14. Lisa 14

    27 January 2008 at 10:20 am

    I do not quote – just off the top of the head .
    Do have a good day .
15. Robinsod 15

    27 January 2008 at 10:20 am

    Here’s the full reply DPF gave Tane over the Bob Clarkson post:

    [DPF: I now understand why you don’t post under your full name. You would be unemployable. No one would ever hire people whose regard for accuracy is so scant. You posted that over a third of a year Clarkson hade made no contribution in the House except five interjections. You were absolutely wrong. But I am glad you didn’t do what 99% of the population would do, and say hey I should have checked the source data, and sorry it was wrong. Instead you display an arrogance which is just lethally offputting for people who are not ideological converts. Keep up the good work, and may you never learn that an honest apology for an honest mistake is the best policy. ]

    Now regarding DPF’s Hawkins post I’ll say my feelings on DPF are well known but I don’t think he would have deliberately made political capital out of an MP’s illness. I suspect he honestly forgot about it in his haste for a “gotcha”.

    It’s a simple (if unfortunate) mistake to make and I’m sure DPF will apologise for it.

    In the meantime I agree with geek in that for what it’s worth I wish Hawkins all the best in his recovery.
16. michaels 16

    27 January 2008 at 10:54 am

    Are you fucktards at the stranded only able to attack?
    Can you not come up with a post about politics?
    How about a comment on Bill Ralstons piece in todays paper on Cullen as an example?
    And anyway, how come your in the office on a Sunday? I thought we only paid you for Monday to Friday.
17. the bean 17

    27 January 2008 at 10:59 am

    wow, the irony of that first sentence “Are you fucktards at the stranded only able to attack?” obviously eludes ‘michaels’.
18. Chemist Peter 18

    27 January 2008 at 11:09 am

    If GH has cancer and is not able to do his job, maybe he should resign and let another high flying talent from the Labour list take over. After all Prebble has resigned for health reasons so maybe GH should take heed as it is obvious by his lack of speeches is hindering his performance as an MP.
19. The Prophet 19

    27 January 2008 at 11:13 am

    So Bill -Let me get this straight –

    You DID make a racist comment but because you withdrew it it’s like it never happened? (how very leftwing of you)

    NONE of the authors at The Standard told lies or mistruths about Labour party funding? (when have you and I ever ‘litigated’ this issue before?)

    Facts ARE defamation in your little world?

    DPF IS ‘vicious and devious’?

    Mate, maybe you should give it a rest for today as you seem to have things a little topsy turvey.

    Veiled threats to ban me just make you look like a dick. I’m just trying to sort out fact from fantasy. Wait, let me guess – I’m just spamming now right?

    shallow, hollow, invisible.
20. IrishBill 20

    27 January 2008 at 11:29 am

    CP, I don’t think a leave of absence for illness is unusual so I don’t see why he should resign.

    Prophet, I’m not going to indulge you in your slurs. If you continue to call me a racist and make false accusations about the Standard’s funding you will be banned.
21. AncientGeek 21

    27 January 2008 at 11:30 am

    Hey Chemist: Dis you actually READ the linked article in the herald. In particular the paragraph:-

    ‘At least two other present MPs have recovered from bowel cancer: Northland MP John Carter and new Cabinet minister Shane Jones.

    Mr Hawkins has had more than his share of ill-health, having suffered a stroke in 1992, two years after he was first elected. “I’ve had my fair share but what it does is make you a little more resolute and stronger and a bit more determined.”‘

    Bowel cancer is an illness, highly treatable these days, but does require time for recovery.
22. James Kearney 22

    27 January 2008 at 11:39 am

    Good work calling him on it Bill. That’s some pretty sick political opportunism from DPF.
23. AncientGeek 23

    27 January 2008 at 11:40 am

    The Prophet: It appears you selectively read articles on current politics. I certainily can’t remember you having any comment in any others. I also can’t remember you having any constructive comments, engaging in dialog, or doing anything but attack people commenting here and the site’s posters.

    In the last few days, there has been a post on the Japanese whalers, and on a early 20th century PM – Massey (enjoyed both of them – less attack trolls). I didn’t notice you there – probably because I never see you saying ANYTHING that has a single bit of thought involved. You don’t put in links and you don’t discuss.

    Basically I currently class you as an attack only troller with nothing of interest to say and only a few attack lines that you repeat ad infinitum.

    But go on – surprise me – show that you can have a dialogue. I await with interest on your keen insights.
24. AncientGeek 24

    27 January 2008 at 11:49 am

    Opps I meant to say:

    The Prophet: It appears you selectively read articles on current ATTACK politics.

    It is a trend that particularly seems to originate in a few of the blogs. Most notably WhaleOil’s. Seems like it is a blog site dedicated to pumping out attack troller lines only. Sure doesn’t seem to have anything else of interest there. I then see those lines popping up all over the blogsphere with people repeating them with little of no understanding of the ideas behind them.

    It is rather annoying, and I’ve taken as a habit to answer some of the dafter ones with a little sarcasm and fact to point out the lack of thought that the commenters display.
25. Historian 25

    27 January 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Hmm, the moral high ground. It has a great view, but if you’re planning on staying there, bring plenty of oxygen. Most of us have to make our way down eventually.

    The right-wingers currently planting their flag at the summit may want to reconsider. Their new best friend, wife-beater Tim Shadbolt, is going to be sharing his “thoughts” with Truth from now on. It’s classy stuff:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4375489a10.html

    Sounds like the Wishart-Tamihere rant, to be repeated every fortnight. Not exactly targeted at those nice moderate (and female) middle New Zealanders who John Key is busy smiling at.

    Watch National start backing away from their new buddy very, very soon.
26. AncientGeek 26

    27 January 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Historian: nice link.

    I remember Tim on campus is the late 70’s and speaking before a lunchtime audience. Can’t remember what he was talking on, mostly because he was playing it for laughs and any issues were just the framework for the jokes.

    Thought then that he was a featherweight at politics, but a quite funny comedian. He has never given me a reason to change my mind since.
27. Lisa 27

    27 January 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Yes a true comedian – however humour is powerful – because it is a unique attribute of human beings. A sense of humour and laughter transcends all.
28. The Prophet 28

    27 January 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Well Geek I’d love to talk with you about it but it seems I’ll be banned if I do.

    But –

    Lets take a hypothetical situation shall we?

    Say there was a blog, lets call it The Business Square Table blog. Now lets say the aforesaid blog purports to be an ‘independent’ voice.

    The authors of the BST have some very Rightwing views and proceed to try and belittle Leftwing blogs constantly, with facts that are at times shakey to say the least.

    The authors of the BST have some friends who are very, very rude. These friends do things like joke about gang raping the wife of a commentor they disagree with. They also like to belittle people by making rude jokes about their mother/wife/sexual preferences/standard of education etc instead of debating them.

    For some reason the authors of the BST do very little to reign their rude friends in but, jump on any commentor they disagree with and delete their comments or just straight out ban them.This lack of action by the BST authors causes their blog to sink into a cesspit of trolls on both sides.

    Some people out on the interwebs can see the hypocrisy in this behaviour, some can’t.

    Anyway, over time, somebody does a little digging into how the BST is funded. That person finds out that, shock, horror, the BST isn’t ‘independent’ like they have been claiming for the last 4 mths, they are actually being secretly funded by the National party of NZ.

    This strikes some people as a little hypocritcal when the BST have spent the previous 4 mths telling everyone how those damm Lefties are a corrupt lot secretly in cahoots with Athiest’s and Ultra rich, but working class, businessmen/women.

    To make matters worse the authors of the BST then try to wriggle their way out of the hole they are in by twisting the facts that have been uncovered and even outright lying. These mistruths are exposed when the President of the National party goes on t.v and confirms that the BST is indeed secretly funded by them and it may have to be included in their election year spend.

    Things are looking bad for the BST as you can see.

    They decide to just power on through and hope it will go away. Unfortunately for them though some people out on the interwebs aren’t prepared to just forget about it, some people out on the interwebs think that if you are in the pay of a political party you should declare it on your blog. The authors of the BST aren’t prepared to do that.

    To make matters worse, one of the more competent authors on the BST – lets call her TurkishBetty – makes an unfortunate remark and calls a commentor a ‘nigger’. TurkishBetty then realises that calling someone ‘nigger’ on your own blog isn’t such a good idea. They delete their comment and put up an excuse about how they had misread the commentors comment.

    TurkishBetty does NOT apologise for calling the commentor ‘nigger’ in the first place, TB only apologises for misreading the comment. When taken to task about her comment TB threatens to ban anyone who calls her a racist.

    Nice little story isn’t it Geek?

    Now, would you go and seriously try to debate issues with the authors of BST?

    Would you think that your views, which are diametrically opposed to that of the BST, are going to be received with honesty and respect?

    Would you support people that acted in such a way, or would you ridicule them for their hypocrisy apparent racism?

    The above is, of course, completely hypothetical, but you can see how the BST is now completely fucked, right?

    IrishBill says: let’s take another hypothetical situation: a commenter comes onto a blog in November and his first post is an attack on the blog owner. Over the next few months he posts nearly 100 other comments and every one is an attack on the blog owners or on other commenters. In none of these comments does he offer proof and at no time does he offer any contribution to the debate (well, once very early on he spends three words recommending an author). Wait a minute, that’s not a hypothetical situation, that’s a description of you Prophet. You’re banned for a week.
29. James Kearney 29

    27 January 2008 at 1:09 pm

    These friends do things like joke about gang raping the wife of a commentor they disagree with.

    No one ever threatened to do that to your wife Prophet and you’ve been called repeatedly on it. A commenter called Nih (who votes Act and has no association with the standard) joked about (consensually) shagging your missus. Now you’re coming on here every day and lying about it to try and smear the standard authors.

    I also saw the Irish Bill comment to Craig Ranapia. He never called Craig a nigger, he called him an Uncle Tom. The comment is explained in this link-
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=990#comment-15229

    The rest of your post is half-truths and slander.
30. burt 30

    27 January 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Half-truths are a breath of fresh air at the standard. If only the authors who flout the EFA and refuse to acknowledge they were using tax payer funded resources could step up to a ratio of half-truth this site would be substantially improved.

    IrishBill says: Care to prove your allegations Burt? Unlike Prophet you have made decent contributions to debate here. However if you continue to repeat baseless accusations and slurs you will also be banned.
31. Lisa 31

    27 January 2008 at 1:22 pm

    “A commenter called Nih (who votes Act and has no association with the standard)”

    Nih told me she is a Labour voter ? Can someone verify that please .
32. AncientGeek 32

    27 January 2008 at 1:29 pm

    I just had a peek at WhaleOil’s aka Cameron Slater site. Looks like he has sent a letter to the Electoral Commission. He is claiming that this site is an electoral advertisement under the EFA as in section 5.

    There a few things I found amusing in the letter.

    Firstly: About half of the posts that he linked to were before the EFA came into effect. Of course they are still visible on the web. So the electoral commission is going to have to rule on prior events.

    Secondly: In essense he argues that the standard is the work of more than one person.

    Section 5(2)(g) reads:

    (g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).

    What he is arguing in effect that the exemption under the act for blogs requires that only one person does the posts. That is not how I read the Act. For instance that definition would cause problems for ANY site that has posts from more than one author.

    If that view was upheld, there are a number of blog sites that would affect. For me the biggest casualty apart from this site would be Hardnews which also has a number of authors publishing blogs.

    The alternate view would be that each post is a publication in its own right. Therefore it has to be the work of one author, and not a cooperative. That is the view I’d take because otherwise you could argue that publishing a pro or anti news item on Scoop makes that site an election advertisement.

    Having a scan down the posts for January, the posts look like they are written by individuals. The writing style appears to be different, and even the types of topics handled are. In January:-

    John A largely does historical stuff.
    all_your_base appears to mainly focus on items from current media and humour.
    Tane looks mainly around the local blogosphere.
    IrishBill usually writes more indepth posts.
    Dancer – only one post in Jan

    That is probably going to have to go into looking at what parliaments intent was – I must dig out the select committee minutes.

    Thirdly: I had a look through the posts that he quoted. Since they do not actually say vote for or against. The electoral commission will have to look at section 5g (ii)

    (ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);

    Well this is a left leaning blog, so it is certainly does that. So I guess that the issue will be resolved on my second point. It pokes the mickey at the right in a big way – basically why I like being here.

    Anyway – this is going to be interesting to watch as a test. Hopefully it will not result in most of my favourite blogs disappearing of changing. The interesting blog sites have a number of people writing with differing viewpoints, and those are the ones I like to read. The sites with a single author and a bunch of sycophants are nowhere as interesting.
33. fred 33

    27 January 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Am I the only person that now scrolls past whatever “the Prophet posts ?
34. burt 34

    27 January 2008 at 1:35 pm

    As you will know National Party Blogger David Farrar …

    How do we know he’s a National party blogger – oh that right he has declared his political affiliations on his site. Kinda good that we at least know what perspective he has on things and who’s pulling his strings.

    Over here on the standard we don’t know such things – even just a few days ago the “about” page was blank and we don’t really know who’s been funding the standard for the last few months…

    To think DPF has full disclosure and didn’t support the EFA and you guys have no disclosure and did support the EFA. Bizarre how truth is stranger than fiction – although I have overlooked the possibility that this site might actually be a left wing parody site – no serious site would make such a mockery of itself and everything it apparently stands for as you guys do.

    Lisa: I don’t recall NIH saying he was an ACT voter, I would have picked Labour voter based on the way that if you reply to NIH – any disagreement may result in you being called racist, gay or homophobic.
35. burt 35

    27 January 2008 at 1:57 pm

    The Prophet

    The post you made with the quote of what NIH actually said has vanished. Must have been too much truth for the standard.
36. Robinsod 36

    27 January 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Burt – here’s Nih on his political affiliations:

    I’ve voted National and Act in every. Single. Election.

    http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/wilkinson-deserves-coal-for-christmas/#comment-1295

    Seeing as you’re so concerned about the moral state of the blogosphere Burt, How about you comment on the topic at hand? Do you think DPF should apologise to George Hawkins?
37. The Prophet 37

    27 January 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Ban this Bill

    FUCK YOU

    IrishBill says: that’s two weeks now Prophet.
38. Kimble 38

    27 January 2008 at 2:09 pm

    It was you lot that made a judgment on a politicians worth based on the number of times they spoke in the house.

    What DPF did was point out that 1) you were factually wrong (something for which you havent apologised), and then 2) applied your own rules and pointed out there are many other Labour MPs who have a worse record. He never bothered to say WHY they were absent or not talking, but you see, that is perfectly fair, because you never did either.

    Also, Uncle Tom is a racist taunt, so anyone that uses it as a form of abuse is a racist.

    You said it, you can’t un-say it.

    Kimble – I have made no attempt to disguise what I said. I was not using the remark in relation to race and I am not a racist. I also admitted it was an unfair comment and deleted it when I re-read Craig’s remark and realised I had the wrong end of the stick. I am surprised that given you deep sensitivity to issues of truth and fairness you are quite happy to defend DPF’s post. I suggest you check your moral compass. This is the last time I answer slurs of this nature unless Craig wishes to take this up with me himself.
39. AncientGeek 39

    27 January 2008 at 2:09 pm

    fred: I usually do.. But it looks like he has stopped sloganing and actually written a comment with an argument in.

    TP: As I understand it, The Standard wasn’t ‘funded’ by the NZLP – as in no money exchanged hands. But they did use a donation of some resources that had been donated to the NZLP because their server kept going down. They freely admitted that.

    Using resources from like minded groups is a common practice amongst all voluntary groups, from PTA’s to activist groups. When they are having resource problems they approach people and organizations that are likely to be sympathetic to them to get assistance. For instance schools often approach local businesses for old computers, PTA’s do the same for things like speakers for gala’s. Happens to me frequently.

    The right wing trollers (from their comments) have somehow decided that because there was a direct link between the NZLP and the standard’s hardware, that the site was run by the NZLP. That is just bullsh*t – it is like saying that a local car company donating their old computers to a school is doing so to get kids to buy their cars in 10 years time.

    As for the rest of it. Well the blogosphere is replete with examples of poor judgement, amended posts, deleted comments, and just about any other rubbish you want to name. WhaleOil’s site, just for instance, is a supreme example of false accusations. I’ve never seen a retraction or apology yet. There are a lot of instances of deleted comments on kiwiblog for pretty much the same reasons as they get deleted here (from those I’ve seen).

    One of the reasons I post comments here is precisely because that have that policy. It deters the worst offenders. In the case of most of the comments you are talking about – I don’t even see them. But I do like what appears to be a changed policy – they are now leaving comments in where the deleted comments were.

    Actually I think that the outrage from the right wing blogs that I;ve been scanning is simply a result of having a blog around that is effective in casting them and the ideas they espouse in a less than good looking light. Not that they usually need to – in a lot of cases the comments associated with a lot of posts are pretty inane and repetitive in my opinion. Some kind of herd instinct possibly. Anyway I think it is just an attempt by people like Cameron Slater aka WhaleOil to curtail opposing opinions.

    In my opinion, if you want to actually make a difference here – the stop simply making the same comments over and over again. At least try and do what you did in the comment above to put a coherent argument together rather than just dumping the same old cr*p over and over and over again.
40. Tane 40

    27 January 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Nih has stated in the past he’s voted ACT or National and had a libertarian leaning. Since entering the political blogosphere he said he’s become alienated from the right, but that’s about all I recall.

    In any case, it doesn’t really matter. Prophet has lied repeatedly to smear the blog owners with something none of them ever said, despite an email conversation I had with him where he was completely unable to provide any evidence to back up his assertions.

    There seems to be a certain modus operandi for the Kiwiblog Right whereby they repeat the same distortions over and over to the point where they’ve disrupt every thread and killed any possibility of discussion and debate. We’re not going to let that happen.
41. Kimble 41

    27 January 2008 at 2:16 pm

    “Honestly, National and the Chinese dictators have so much in common, I don’t see why they don’t get along better.”

    http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/wilkinson-deserves-coal-for-christmas/#comment-1263

    Yup, that sounds like a National or ACT supporter to me.
42. Kimble 42

    27 January 2008 at 2:18 pm

    “We’re not going to let that happen.”

    Even though you and yours have been doing it for over a year at Kiwiblog.
43. Kimble 43

    27 January 2008 at 2:26 pm

    What goes around comes around.

    For ages you lot have been hijacking threads, referencing Hollow Men, making snide accusations of corruption, deliberately lying, repeating lines of argument that are routinely destroyed, claiming that DPF is paid to blog for National.

    What you are seeing at The Standard now is your own tactics and style being used against you.
44. AncientGeek 44

    27 January 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Kimble: I read the post. What it actually said was that Clarkson was standing again for Tauranga, then referred to a previous post about his contributions to the house. It didn’t mention the number of times he’d spoken The tenor of the post was on the type of statements he was making – one liners.

    The rather anal obsession about numbers of contributions came from DPF and kiwiblog commentators. Go and check. I haven’t seen one word that the origional post back in november was incorrect.

    The problem was that the poster said that these were the statements since August. This was almost the same text as was in the original post. That was incorrect, and as soon as it was pointed out, a new post correcting the error, and commenting on how the error was discovered (poking fun at kiwiblog at the same time).

    What do you expect…. That a simple easily corrected error was a cause for erecting a vast conspiracy – get a life…
45. IrishBill 45

    27 January 2008 at 2:31 pm

    What you are seeing at The Standard now is your own tactics and style being used against you.

    Are you really so invested in this that you see your (now admitted) trolling as some kind of crusade? You need to get some perspective Kimble.
46. Kimble 46

    27 January 2008 at 2:48 pm

    “What a gift. For those who missed it last time, here’s Bob’s entire contribution to Parliament since August last year:”

    Yeah, who could read that and think that it was a judgment on his time as an MP?

    “That a simple easily corrected error was a cause for erecting a vast conspiracy ”

    There is no conspiracy, Tane got his facts wrong, got called on it, was completely unapologetic and acted like a petulant little girl.
    If Tane had simply admitted he got his facts wrong, made the EASY correction, then no problem. But he didnt.
47. AncientGeek 47

    27 January 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Kimble: so what you’re saying is that DPF should have started dumping people out for trolling earlier. I heartily agree.

    That is exactly why I have never bothered posting comments in KiwiBlog. My preliminary reads of the comments to DPF’s posts (which are often quite good) from both the left and right trollers saying the same thing over and over again, decided me against getting inside that maelstrom.

    I only got pulled in here because some of the topics were interesting. Why I’m now doing my best to encourage trollers away is because I’m tired of using the mousewheel to scroll past them. Gives me RSI or OOS or whatever the current name is. I can spend time on this lazy summer weekend to do it because I’m stuck inside.
48. Kimble 48

    27 January 2008 at 2:58 pm

    So Bill are you now admitting that your lot have been trolling over at Kiwiblog? It seems like you are.

    And AP, DPF didnt have to ban anyone until his was forced to by the people from Kiwiblogblog and The Standard.

    IrishBill says: the fact you are not being indulged in your slurs does not provide them with veracity. Your deliberately disingenuous comments are beginning to try my patience.
49. Tane 49

    27 January 2008 at 3:00 pm

    There is no conspiracy, Tane got his facts wrong, got called on it, was completely unapologetic

    Actually, as it happens if David had just done the decent thing and left a note in the comments section or via an email I’d have been happy to fix it, no questions asked. Instead he chose to try and score political capital out of it by highlighting the error in a gloating blog post and demanding public apologies. I corrected the error, and David got the sarcastic response he deserved.

    What I find really strange is that he then tried to respond by attacking a bowel cancer victim for not asking enough questions in the house. Truly remarkable behaviour from someone who usually has much better judgment. But of course, I don’t expect Kimble’s manufactured outrage to extend to DPF’s conduct.
50. Craig Ranapia 50

    27 January 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Ummm, I just did a read on the kiwiblog post. It is strangely narrow – concentrating just on what is said in the house.

    Well, Ancient Greek, I think there’s a very good reason why that would be the case. To give credit where credit is due, a lot of time, effort and money has gone in making Hansard, and other public documents relating to the proceedings of Parliament, accessible on-line. In fact, I don’t think its OTT to say they’re not only accessible but highly user-friendly, by international standards.

    There’s also very good reasons why MPs don’t publish (for example) how many people they see at constituency clinics, or the nature of business people bring to them.

    Anyway, I make precisely no apologies for criticising Ministers or MPs for their public performance of their duties — including Hawkins’ rather piss-poor tenure as Police Minister. But chipping at him because of a stroke-related speech impediment? Or being on leave for health reasons — and whether you folks believe it or not, I didn’t read the linked story? Go away.

    Anyway, when it comes to posturing on unstable moral high ground, I wonder if The Standard (yet again) is protesting and projecting on DPF too much.
51. Tane 51

    27 January 2008 at 3:13 pm

    And AP, DPF didnt have to ban anyone until his was forced to by the people from Kiwiblogblog and The Standard.

    No one from KBB or The Standard has ever been banned by Kiwiblog. There have been some heated discussions, but you’ll find the banning was of other left-leaning commentators.

    I do find it interesting you’ve admitted to a dedicated trolling campaign though.

    Anyway Kimble, I’m off to enjoy the rest of my Sunday, maybe catch up with some friends. Perhaps you should do the same.
52. Murray 52

    27 January 2008 at 3:15 pm

    IrishBill classic fucking labour, ban, ban, ban, fucking ban. You pricks have been caught out so admit it. This “donation of resources” excuse is wearing fucking thin. Is the standard a registered charity? Are the NZLP able to claim a tax rebate?
    Jesus wept, what a pack of bullshitters you are.

    IrishBill says: Murry, step back a little and imagine how your comment would be treated if you had directed it at DPF. Now consider how much freedom self-confessed trolls are given here. I’d say you have very little to complain about.
53. burt 53

    27 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Robinsod

    Do you think DPF should apologise to George Hawkins?

    No, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea for him to post an update pointing out that George Hawkins hasn’t spent a lot of time in the house because of health reasons.

    The worst thing he could do would be to do a “Tane” style apology where he spits ever move poison, but I guess as Tane was caught telling lies and DPF has just omitted a justifications it’s not really something we can compare – unless of course we think Labour good – National bad and use anything to justify the offensive behaviour of the Tane.
54. burt 54

    27 January 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Tane

    Anyway Kimble, I’m off to enjoy the rest of my Sunday, maybe catch up with some friends. Perhaps you should do the same.

    Got that Kimble, nanny Tane has told you to get out – he’s a Labour supporter and we all know that Labour supporters know what is good for you. Do as uncle Tane says now and stop pointing out to him what a filthy liar he is hiding behind an anonymous blog which has spent months being funded by Labour.
    
    IrishBill says: Burt, you were warned. Take a couple of days off (banned) to consider your comments.
55. Michele Cabiling 55

    27 January 2008 at 3:25 pm

    “Uncle Tom is a racist taunt, so anyone that uses it as a form of abuse is a racist.”

    Racism is often wrongly confused with simple racial prejudice.

    Racism is a political system of collective or group rights (aka “identity politics”) in which one group enjoys special government-sponsored privileges at the expense of another, e.g. apartheid in South Africa, treatyism in New Zealand). So only a government can be “racist.”

    Racial prejudice is where one person pre-judges another
    based on racial or ethnic origin. Only an individual can be racially prejudiced.

    So if we are going to slur others, surely we can get the terminology right.

    Expressions like “Uncle Tom” “baked potato” etc are used by the political and lifestyle left to slander anyone with a dark skin who refuses to buy into the prevailing leftard cult of collective victimhood attaching to being Maori, black, aboriginal etc.

    While I disagree with Craig Ranapia for being a sodomite, at least he is one of the good guys in terms of his intellectual and political affiliations.

    If Craig is an “Uncle Tom” we need more of them …
56. burt_2 56

    27 January 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Irishbill

    I hadn’t scrolled back up to see that warning, so the first I knew about it was you saying I had been warned – which I hadn’t.

    However it’s your blog so I’ll respect you banning and I’ll stay away for a few days. However in the absence of a statement from the anonymous authors of the standard about the last few months of sitting on “somebodies” brand spanking new server cluster – the questions will start again till such time as there is a disclosure statement on the standard of the same standard that the anonymous authors insist others to match. Have a nice day.

    IrishBill says: Thanks Burt, I will. Enjoy your afternoon.
57. michaels 57

    27 January 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Bill take a fucking chill pill for christs sake!!!
58. lprent 58

    27 January 2008 at 4:08 pm

    burt: “….the standard about the last few months of sitting on “somebodies” brand spanking new server cluster….”

    Good to see that you never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. For your information – try less than 3 weeks on some old donated hardware with confused ownership/control issues… You can probably check the dates on the posts to see when we said we’d moved to when I moved it elsewhere.

    But as you can see – The Standard carries on. Hopefully the link speed will increase shortly..

    Lynn
59. burt_2 59

    27 January 2008 at 4:29 pm

    IrishBill

    I’m sorry, I’m not going to sit back while that muppet of an administrator tells porkies like that. So it might have only been a few weeks, I’ll agree with the muppet on that – but….

    What’s this Lynn: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=926

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

    Either all_your_base or Lynn-I-can-pull-the-pin cause I’m a hero administrator is telling porkies. “try less than 3 weeks on some old donated hardware with confused ownership/control issues…”

    You guys need some level headed tech people who know when to STFU rather than dig bigger and bigger holes for the standard.
60. lprent 60

    27 January 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Looking at Cameron’s letter to the electoral commission reported above.

    I think I’ll get interested when the electoral commission contacts me. They will certainly need to look at the issue of multi-author blog sites.

    It can almost certainly be coded around if they come to a decision on the basis that Cameron is suggesting. Set it up as separate sites, one per poster, then link together as a series of anchors in an upper level site. Would be a bit of a pain having http://www.IrishBill.thestandard.org.nz or even http://www.thestandard.org.nz/all_your_base.

    I’m afraid that the legislation never really keeps up with the technology. Coming to think of it, that blog exemption for a electoral advertisement, must be about the first time that legislation has ever acknowledged the existence of websites? Actually I’m wrong – the word blog could also include other types of media.

    Lynn
61. lprent 61

    27 January 2008 at 4:38 pm

    burt: that was Jan 1. Guess what I did on new years eve, finished in the wee hours configuring everything.

    I moved it again monday night I think – the 21st.

    Ok – you are right – not less than 3 weeks – EXACTLY 21 days – ie 3 weeks.
62. lprent 62

    27 January 2008 at 4:42 pm

    I think that all_your_base was referring to it being a new server cluster for The Standard, ie not where it was running previously. Not that that the systems were new – because they weren’t.

    Beats me why you’re so determined to not believe simple statements.

    Captcha just came up with “down Rover” – appropiate
63. Whaleoil 63

    27 January 2008 at 6:22 pm

    We don’t believe simple statements because Tane and everyone else associated with this site were caught lying and when it was pointed out to them lied some more.

    This is nothing more than a Labour Party sponsored mouthpiece. Hollow. empty, hypocrites.
64. Robinsod 64

    27 January 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Hey Whale – You’re getting pretty dull now. How about you entertain us with the story of how you fiddled your stats and ripped your advertisers off?
65. Whaleoil 65

    27 January 2008 at 6:45 pm

    You’d know all about fiddling wouldn’t you Mick?

    Captcha yellow ston
66. Kimble 66

    27 January 2008 at 6:49 pm

    “I do find it interesting you’ve admitted to a dedicated trolling campaign though.”

    Call it what you will, and to be sure that is not all I do. But I do like making use of opportunities to give someone a dose of their own medicine.

    How many times has Tane be the first to respond to a Kiwiblog thread with only the barest connection to the main topic? How many times has he desperately tried to find a tenuous link to the National parties funding or campaign spending in a seemingly unrelated story?

    And it is a bit rich whining that the original error was only trifling, or was inconsequential, when Tane once complained about the KtB guys getting a $20 Bank Deposit! Remember that?

    “[DPF: My God I think Tane has descended to a new depth of pathetic. I mean seriously this is so sad. He is complaining because someone went to a BNZ branch and deposited $20, yes $20 in our account. Helen is legislating to keep her hundreds of thousands of anon donations and Tane is worried about our $20.”

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/court_date_set_for_electoral_finance_bill_judicial_review.html#comment-362208
67. Robinsod 67

    27 January 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Jeez, Whale are you insinuating something? If you were smart enought to insinuate it properly or brave enough to come out with it properly I might be able to figure it out.

    Perhaps if you don’t want to talk about your petty fraud you might want to entertain us with something else like maybe by telling us how the traffic for your Minto stalking page increased recently?

    Or even better how about telling us all why you’ve chickened out of the law suit you were blustering about?

    Y’know Whale you really are a waste of space mate. I can see why Davey is trying to cut you loose…
68. Lisa 68

    27 January 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Robinsod ; Law suits are always expensive -just ask my trailer trash ex lover ! You really do have your bee in a bonnet over Whale . Davey cut who loose ? Sounds sinister, but would I know.
69. Robinsod 69

    27 January 2008 at 7:37 pm

    Hmm, “Lisa” you punctuate a bit like dad…
70. Michele Cabiling 70

    27 January 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Robinsod aka Matthew [any] Porton [a storm] the waste of space is you. Go back to the Trades Hall and watch that grand old Union training video “Daddy and the Muscle Factory” a few more times …
71. Lisa 71

    27 January 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Robinsod – don’t be silly sausage – as I detest dad….
72. Santi 72

    27 January 2008 at 7:56 pm

    “Lawsuits are always expensive -just ask my trailer trash ex lover!”

    How old was she, LIsa?
73. Rich Prick 73

    27 January 2008 at 7:57 pm

    “It can almost certainly be coded around if they come to a decision on the basis that Cameron is suggesting. Set it up as separate sites, one per poster, then link together as a series of anchors in an upper level site. Would be a bit of a pain having http://www.IrishBill.thestandard.org.nz or even http://www.thestandard.org.nz/all_your_base.”

    Is that an admission that you are in breach of the EFA and are now looking at ways to get around it? I thought you guys were all for the EFA, that is really funny seeing, as you were all for the Bill and now you’re now talking about how to get around the Act’s provisions. Does that not strike you as more than slightly hypocritical? Oh that’s right, you’re Labour folk.
74. Deborah 74

    27 January 2008 at 8:00 pm

    While I disagree with XXXXX XXXXX for being a sodomite, at least he is one of the good guys in terms of his intellectual and political affiliations.

    Fuck off, Michele Cabiling. People’s personal lives are just that – personal – and no concern whatsoever of anyone else.

    Hypocrisy, legislating about what other people should do while not holding to that standard yourself – now that’s a matter for public debate. But on the grounds of hypocrisy. Not on any other grounds whatsoever.

    Take you priggish narrow-minded, prying morality somewhere else.
75. Rich Prick 75

    27 January 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Gosh, and I now can’t seem to find Irish Bill’s “Uncle Tom” retort to Craig, it seems to have been deleted. That is not the best way of dealing with history you don’t like. Perhaps a more publicly acceptable way of dealing with that would have been to leave the comment and apologise, you know, a “comment made in the heat of the moment kind of thing, I’m human and I accept that in this instance it was inappropriate”. Remember guys, the public may watching your behaviour and ascribing it to the New Zealand Labour Party.
76. Robinsod 76

    27 January 2008 at 8:17 pm

    You know RP – that comment is pretty much the smarmiest I’ve seen all week. Do you have to practice to be so creepy or does it just come naturally?
77. Robinsod 77

    27 January 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Oh and RP? If you’re gonna let someone do the thinking for you I suggest it’s not Whale – he has a talent for turning things to shit.
78. Billy 78

    27 January 2008 at 8:29 pm

    It does rather seem that the Standard’s much-touted “we don’t moderate” policy has come under a little pressure. Makes you guys look like you’re buckling under the strain.

    To make it worse, we now seem also to moderate ourselves when we’ve said something we wished we hadn’t.

    Oh, and Michele, doesn’t libertarianism require you to respect the choices two grown sovereign individuals make about their sexuality?
79. Rich Prick 79

    27 January 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Robinsod, I have no idea what you are on about. What was “creepy” about what I said?
80. Robinsod 80

    27 January 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Oh I just checked whaloil Rich Prick and I know who you are: “PDQ”

    The same person who liabled me and then threatened me all in the same comment:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/very-double-standard#comment-10787

    Oh and yes Michael, seeing as you asked, a plastic bag over the mouth and nose of the person who has indicated a desire to rape other commentator’s mother would be perfectly in order in my book. Oswald on the other hand would just shoot your balls off, but I think that is too harsh on the bullets, filthy work for them and all, bound to be laws against it and all. Does anyone round here have a different view? You really are one sick bastard

    Here’s a hint bro – when you get the guts up to post here don’t go running over to whale’s site to boast about it pretending to be someone else ‘cos nobody else thinks your creepy shit is worth repeating but you and you’re gonna get busted.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/labour-party-funded-site-advocates-rorting-efa#comment-10834

    Oh and I’m tempted to call the cops over your threat. Fuck off back to your shithole freak.
81. Leaning2tharite 81

    27 January 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Bill, Tane

    Are the labour party paying you overtime for working Sunday?
82. lprent 82

    27 January 2008 at 8:45 pm

    RP: you sound a lot like IP. But I’ll answer on my own behalf anyway (haven’t talked to the posters and moderators yet).

    “Is that an admission that you are in breach of the EFA and are now looking at ways to get around it?”

    It isn’t an admission of anything apart from a the reality of the situation, and the need to consider fallback positions. You can be sure that The Standard is not going away – which I’m sure you will be happy about (not).

    The act is unclear for the EFA section giving an exclusion for blog’s that Cameron is asking the electoral commission on. Now I don’t think Cameron’s interpretation of the sections of the EFA is correct with respect to a multi-author site like us, or say HardNews. But we’re probably going to have to let the electoral commission tell us.

    When they do, and if they uphold Cameron’s interpretation, we will conform to the requirements of the interpretation of the act by the electoral commission.

    I was thinking about possible ways to do that. What we do would depend on what the ruling was based on. For instance, as an extreme case, does it require that the multiple blog sites are not hosted on the same machines, or share the same domain name, or share the same IP. In some of those cases I suspect that there will be a number of ISP’s getting interested in the ruling as well.

    In the unlikely event that the electoral commission upholds Cameron’s view of the act and his complaint, we, and I’d expect probably a number of other blog sites, will probably appeal the decision as not reflecting the intent of parliament. If the electoral commission’s reasoning is too wide, then we can probably expect that there will be ISP’s appealing it as well.

    Lynn
83. Robinsod 83

    27 January 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Learning2write. Why don’t you join your creepy mate. Fuck I’ll be glad when the school holidays are over…
84. Peak Oil Conspiracy 84

    27 January 2008 at 8:50 pm

    *Sigh*

    I’ve just read through this thread – a complete waste of bandwidth for the most part.

    Not to pick on anyone, but “Sprout” didn’t exactly score points with: “DPF is a far more vicious and devious person than is often understood“. Seriously, how does that foster constructive debate?

    I’m not going to appoint myself umpire, but for what it’s worth, I’d say the most sensible post is Robinsod’s:

    “Now regarding DPF’s Hawkins post I’ll say my feelings on DPF are well known but I don’t think he would have deliberately made political capital out of an MP’s illness. I suspect he honestly forgot about it in his haste for a “gotcha”.

    It’s a simple (if unfortunate) mistake to make and I’m sure DPF will apologise for it.

    I know you guys are probably feeling staunch behind your anonymous keyboards, but seriously, you need to lift your game.
85. Billy 85

    27 January 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Jesus, Lynn. Sounds like a mess. Hopefully everyone understands that “law of common sense”.
86. Rich Prick 86

    27 January 2008 at 8:55 pm

    What? You are weird Robinsod. I have read PDQ’s comments on quite a few sites now and then, and whilst I might agree with the general thrust of them, I am not him/her. You have a treatable condition, get help 😉 PS, what threat are you talking about? … I wasn’t aware that posting comments on the now very sub-standard was a criminal offence.
87. Robinsod 87

    27 January 2008 at 9:01 pm

    RP/PDQ – anyone who checks the links and the comment times will see it’s you. Right down to the same smarmy tone. Again – why don’t you fuck off back to the creepy rock you crawled out from underneath. Freak.

    POC – Thanks, I don’t think anyone has ever called me sensible. The thing is DPF hasn’t apologised and given how wound up he got about the Tane not apologising about Clarkson his outrage is starting to sound a bit hollow.
88. Lisa 88

    27 January 2008 at 9:13 pm

    POC called robinsod “sensible” ? Unusual call – and without divulging details that are secretly delicious I am left wondering and astonished by this…
89. Rich Prick 89

    27 January 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Heh, just looked at what I think is the post at whaleoil’s that bothers you so and it seems that he/she lifted a quote including Lynn’s comment that included the link you refer to. Timing, maybe there are a few round that think watching what the standard gets up to, I can’t help it if we are around at the same time. So I still have no idea what you are talking about you paranoid socialist. Can you also help me out with my “threat” that you want to report to the Police?
90. Robinsod 90

    27 January 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Lisa – you’re dad. You’ve been banned for life. Give it a rest.

    RP – go on kidding yourself fool. You should probably think twice before you commit creepy threats of violence to the internet. I’m sure Whale will cough up your IP address at the first call from the cops. He’s not known for his bravery or his loyalty.
91. Santi 91

    27 January 2008 at 9:35 pm

    “Fuck off back to your shithole freak.” said robinsond

    Always the delicate and sensible Michael Porton. The virtues of such a loyal Labour supporter. A true gangster!
92. Robinsod 92

    27 January 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Yeah that’s right Santi – how dare I call someone a freak just because they threatened to suffocate me with a plastic bag? I just don’t know what I was thinking. Haven’t you got something better to do with you life?
93. Santi 93

    27 January 2008 at 9:46 pm

    “..call someone a freak just because they threatened to suffocate me with a plastic bag?”

    That would be a waste of a good plastic bag.

    [Tane: Santi, that’s too far. Given that all you do is abuse other commenters and have never made a single substantive comment in all your time here I don’t see any reason not to ban you. This is your final warning.]
94. Robinsod 94

    27 January 2008 at 9:50 pm

    I guess you don’t. You sad bastard.
95. Tane 95

    27 January 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Robinsod, I’ve just warned Santi about his last comment. While I’m at it, you might want to tone down your language too.
96. Robinsod 96

    27 January 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Yeah, fair enough. Lisa is Dad though, eh?
97. Tane 97

    27 January 2008 at 10:12 pm

    There’s a certain similarity in punctuation etc, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest it is the same person. So long as whoever it is doesn’t behave like Dad then I’m not too worried.
98. Rich Prick 98

    27 January 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Robinsod, you still have me confused with some one else. Again, what have I said here that warrants a complaint to to Police. You really do seem to be a deranged socialist. Perhaps a tin foil hat would help the meds.
99. Rich Prick 99

    27 January 2008 at 10:23 pm

    Tane: Santi, that’s too far. Given that all you do is abuse other commenters

    Gee, ever looked at Robinsod’s contribution to this site? Yes you added a postscript directed at him, but seeing as some get banned just for asking courteously couched questions (IP, as a case in point) why do you indulge your comrade with his tirades and personal abuse? Threatening to commit a crime against the wives of other commentators for goodness sake!

    By any measure Robinsod ought to have been banned some time ago. Unless you are hypocrites, which I suspect you are. Prove me wrong and ban him.
100. Tane 100

     27 January 2008 at 10:36 pm

     Robinsod has never threatened to commit a crime against anyone’s wife, that’s a lie started by The Prophet and continued by a series of right-wing trolls.

     Robinsod does not repeatedly lie and smear as some commenters here do, and he usually makes a valuable contribution to the discussion. He is, unlike you, actually here to discuss the issues rather than disrupt and hurl abuse.

     There are times when ‘sod oversteps the mark a little, but he hasn’t done anything recently that I can see is a banning offence. If you can’t handle the heat I suggest you go to Kiwiblog – Robinsod’s banned over there.
101. Inventory2 101

     27 January 2008 at 10:48 pm

     With all the warnings and bannings, you guys are going to have a very bland and sanitised blog shortly – there certainly won’t be many contrary opinions being expressed. Or is that the intention?
102. Tane 102

     27 January 2008 at 10:59 pm

     Na IV2, we like having contrary opinions here as it makes it a lot more interesting. That’s how it’s been all along and no one has been warned or banned for expressing contrary views. We’ve just got to a point where we can no longer tolerate every thread being dominated by abuse, repeated lies and intimidation of other commenters.

     It’s not a healthy environment and we didn’t set this site up to be a sandpit for trolls, so it’s required some action. It’s a pity it had to come to this – no moderation was a great experiment that worked for a while – but if people aren’t willing to treat the system and other commenters with the respect they deserve we have to look for other options.
103. outofbed 103

     27 January 2008 at 10:59 pm

     Meanwhile…
     Former United Future MP Gordon Copeland announced this morning he had stepped down as co-leader of the previously named Future New Zealand party, which is now the Kiwi Party. A former United Future colleague, Larry Baldock, has been confirmed as the sole leader.

     The announcement followed a meeting of the board today.
     http://www.stuff.co.nz/4373391a6160.html

     The Kiwi Party ? WTF ? at least they already have a popular blog 🙂
104. Barnsley Bill 104

     27 January 2008 at 11:01 pm

     Good evening.
     Tane, you wrote (about eleventy million comments higher up on this troll farm of a thread);
     “There seems to be a certain modus operandi for the Kiwiblog Right whereby they repeat the same distortions over and over to the point where they’ve disrupt every thread and killed any possibility of discussion and debate. We’re not going to let that happen.”

     Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say. I have only been reading the blogs for around 18 months but if we were to look at the initial cause of infection. The genesis troll if you like, I am sure you would agree his name is sonic. I feel a profound sense of irony that you are now bemoaning the type of infestation that a number of your fans/supporters have wrought upon Kiwiblog, or trollasic park as I refer to call it.
     CAPTCHA KRON COHON, no meaning that I can see but it does sound like somebody Conan would pray to..
105. Tane 105

     27 January 2008 at 11:17 pm

     Hey Bill, I’ve never quite understood why Sonic is seen as a troll. He always seemed pretty reasonable from what I saw, but then I don’t see everything. There’s definitely a distinction to be made though between someone you disagree with and someone who’s an abusive troll, and I think a credible moderation system needs to understand that.

     It’ll always be a controversial issue when it involves blogs as partisan as this one and Kiwiblog, but with comments like Santi’s last one I don’t think there’s much debate that it crosses the line.
106. Barnsley Bill 106

     27 January 2008 at 11:28 pm

     Agreed Tane, sonic as the genesis troll is more adept at diverting debate and infuriating the more feeble minded, thus starting a flame war. As the troll infection has mutated we have seen a new more virulent infection. The reigning champion in this category is robinsod who early on was extremely offensive but would then offer a weasel worded apology and get all mealy mouthed on it when his victims refused to calm down. Luckily Whaleoil applied an antibiotic to rob by naming him and he has become much more reasonable since, obviously the medicine was not to rob’s liking but he has become a better blogger for it.
     The trolls from the blue team are just very angry all the time and lack the vocabulary and wit to string together a decent argument or put down.
107. AncientGeek 107

     27 January 2008 at 11:45 pm

     The trolls from the blue team are just very angry all the time and lack the vocabulary and wit to string together a decent argument or put down.

     Hopefully that will give me a blockquote. I learn something every day. In this case after reading some old (as in a couple of days ago) elegant comments by Graeme E.

     It is the inane flame wars that annoy me. People doing nah/nah childish sequences saying the same thing over and over again. I wouldn’t mind, (or start waxing sarcastic) if there was anything new said.

     I was just back-reading on kiwiblog, and it looks like things are a bit calmer there as well.

     Wonder how long it will last…
108. Barnsley Bill 108

     27 January 2008 at 11:48 pm

     Until 9.15 on Tuesday morning probably, what with it being a long weekend in the productive part of the country.
109. AncientGeek 109

     28 January 2008 at 12:01 am

     outofbed:

     Former United Future MP Gordon Copeland announced this morning he had stepped down as co-leader of the previously named Future New Zealand party, which is now the Kiwi Party. A former United Future colleague, Larry Baldock, has been confirmed as the sole leader.

     I’ve been fascinated by a list of Political parties in New Zealand from the past over at wikipedia on another thread (origional thread here).

     Whoever is updating it is pretty fast – click on Future New Zealand, and you get Peter Dunnes “Future New Zealand” part of United Future. But there is a reference to the latest Future New Zealand party. Click on that and you’re redirected to The Kiwi Party.

     It is full of the convoluted history of the party complete to Jan 25 2008.
110. AncientGeek 110

     28 January 2008 at 12:10 am

     BB: Don’t remind me. I was just getting settled into the holidays when I had to go back to work. Now 3 days is getting me in the holiday feeling again. But it is back to work on Tuesday.
111. Peak Oil Conspiracy 111

     28 January 2008 at 1:04 am

     Lisa:

     POC called robinsod “sensible” ? Unusual call – and without divulging details that are secretly delicious I am left wondering and astonished by this…

     Please try quoting me in context. My exact words were “the most sensible post is Robinsod’s” – which isn’t necessarily the same thing as “Robinsod’s the most sensible poster“.

     Look, Robinsod and I will disagree on a whole range of subjects – that’s a foregone conclusion – but on this occasion he offered (in my view) a fair and balanced comment which I agreed with. I have no problem with saying so. But I disagreed with “Sprout’s” vitrolic comment above – which he/she has yet to substantiate.
112. Santi 112

     28 January 2008 at 6:47 am

     “Tane: Santi, that’s too far. Given that all you do is abuse other commenters”

     So my commens are offensive and beyond the pale put robinsond’s tirade of “why don’t you fuck off back to the creepy rock you crawled out from underneath. Freak.” is not.

     Can you explain your logic Tane?

     Is he the only one with a free reign to abuse, insult and demean other bloggers? Or because he’s a fellow socialist?
113. Tane 113

     28 January 2008 at 7:54 am

     I’ve explained my reasons above Santi. Try saying something of substance once – just once – instead of just coming here and abusing people and you’ll get a lot more credit. Then have a read over your previous comment and think about why it might not be appropriate to talk about suffocating another commenter with a plastic bag as “a waste of a good plastic bag.”
114. Simeon 114

     28 January 2008 at 8:13 am

     Deleted: stop spamming with cut and paste comments Simeon.
115. Santi 115

     28 January 2008 at 8:20 am

     Tane, you accuse of not contributing to the discussion in thias blog.

     Well, in your role of sel-appointed Robespierre can you answer the questions posed several times regarding who is behind the Standard?

     Are any Standard bloggers employees of the Labour Party, the EPMU or any other union?
116. Simeon 116

     28 January 2008 at 9:46 am

     “Deleted: stop spamming with cut and paste comments Simeon.”

     Where has the freedom of speech gone??? That is below standard.
117. Inventory2 117

     28 January 2008 at 10:08 am

     Any comments on this item gents?

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10489149

     When I saw the headline “Website first casualty of controversial election law” – I thought the Electoral Commission must have acted quick-smart on Lee Clark’s complaint, but it seems that the impartial EC is more interested in shutting down anti-government sentiment. I’m sure there’s a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment – can anyone help?

     PS – catcha = derelict out – rather describes the government up to election day!!!
118. Tane 118

     28 January 2008 at 10:16 am

     Hi IV2, as I understand it the website in question could have easily put an authorisation statement up. I think it’s kind of silly that an amateurish website like that one is not considered in the same way blogs are, but like Benodic said in the other thread I think it’s more a case of self-martyrdom than anything serious.
119. Inventory2 119

     28 January 2008 at 10:24 am

     Cheers Tane, but wouldn’t you agree that it’s not a good look when the government, via the Electoral Commission is seen to be beating up on a 20 year old who happens to disgree with the government? To me, it is totally contrary to the government’s protestations during the EFB debate that they were trying to limit the influence of “big money” and to “stop people like John Key and the EB rorting elections” – unless you are putting Andy Moore in the same league as John Key – both in terms of influence and wealth!

     Anyway – you’re welcome to read my take on it!

     http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/01/efa-gets-its-first-victim.html
120. IrishBill 120

     28 January 2008 at 10:26 am

     Here’s a comment. That website was set up to directly contravene the rules. This website is a blog and so is excluded under the Act. Andy whatshisname could have put his name and address on his site (or Cameron’s as he set it up – and he has no issue having his details on whois) or set it up as a blog and it would have been fine. He didn’t because he wanted to be a martyr for his ridiculous cause and he was very careful to engineer his site to ensure this. I’m sure if someone put a complaint to the EC about the dozens of rightwing blogs that carry the “don’t vote labour” logo their complaints would be dismissed. But just keep sticking to your lines about repression IV2.
121. Inventory2 121

     28 January 2008 at 10:32 am

     You’ve got to hand it to Andy Moore Bill – if what you say is correct, he’s going to be a good operator! He’s getting the same sort of media coverage as Shadbolt, and it’s hardly cost him a bean. And he’s not even supported by the Party!! (Sorry- couldn’t resist the last line he he!!)
122. Simeon 122

     28 January 2008 at 10:37 am

     The NZ Herald article says that “The Electoral Commission has sought advice about online advertising, as well as other issues, including whether the websites of political parties are considered electioneering if they do not specifically urge people to vote for them.”

     This shows that the Electoral Commission does not understand the law fully. And also shows that it is bad law.
123. Tane 123

     28 January 2008 at 10:46 am

     wouldn’t you agree that it’s not a good look when the government, via the Electoral Commission is seen to be beating up on a 20 year old who happens to disgree with the government?

     Yeah, but I put that perception down to shoddy reporting by a partisan newspaper. You can’t rely on the NZ Herald for the facts on electoral finance – they’ve admitted their bias themselves.
124. Inventory2 124

     28 January 2008 at 11:01 am

     But Tane – remember, perception is reality. At least that is what Robinsod was saying last week when he was making the “pig” allegations against IP last week. And for most people, the perception will be that the state is using its power and might to beat up on a citizen. That’s hardly the “relentlessly positive” image that the PM talked to the media about after Cabinet last week!
125. Tane 125

     28 January 2008 at 11:07 am

     Yeah, and I’ve never said Labour’s any good at selling its message have I? Quite the opposite in fact…
126. Brownie 126

     28 January 2008 at 11:50 am

     Hey all,

     Busy weekend and haven’t had a chance to post but……..

     Question. And this is in no way impugn GH as a bloke.

     So he is well enough to work and carry out all other duties but he can’t get up in the house and ask a question?

     If he is too crook to be able to ask a question in the house, surely the poor bugger should be at home resting up!
127. AncientGeek 127

     28 January 2008 at 1:26 pm

     The house is a bit of a madhouse at the best of times – just listen to it on radio some time.

     The focus of the house is on whoever is speaking. They are (depending on the rules applying at the time) subject to interjections, questions and points of order. All of these require an ability to think on your feet abd having your mind focused. I’m pretty sure that the house has no rules on going easy on a person who is ill.

     I wouldn’t like to stand up to speak if I had a head cold, let alone worrying about surgery or recovering from surgery.
128. Michele Cabiling 128

     28 January 2008 at 2:53 pm

     Billy said: “Oh, and Michele, doesn’t libertarianism require you to respect the choices two grown sovereign individuals make about their sexuality?”

     Absolutely. In a free society, everyone has the right to go to hell in their own way. The qualifier is that they have NO RIGHT to be insulated by Nanny State from having their feelings hurt should other sovereign individuals elect to express their opinion on those choices.

     And while we’re at it, let’s dispense with “sexuality” which implies something innate or predestined. The correct descriptor is “sexual preference” which refers to whom someone elects to engage in sexual activity with at some point in time.

     On all the evidence homosxuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development and a pathological sexual addiction. And Deborah, if gays want to keep that their business, fine. If they want to publicly advertise (as Craig Ranapia has), he also opens himself up to public comment in this regard.

     As well, homosexuality becomes public business when consenting adults engaging in promiscuous homosexual sodomy:

     [1] contract AID/HIV and demand the public pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical fees to treat what is a self-inflicted illness; and

     [2] the 85% of men (according to NZAF surveys) who sleep with men who are in primary relationships with women don’t tell their wives/girlfriends they also sleep with men — and bring HIV/AIDS home to their female partners and unborn children;

     [3] when homosexual males molest children. A number of studies have shown that the 1 – 3 % of the population that prefers its own gender sexually is responsible for 25 -40% of all child sexual abuse). While not all gays are child molesters it is clear that gay males are disproportionately implicated in child sexual abuse; and

     [4] when gay activists demanding to continue with the lifestyle of promiscuous anal sodomy lie to us that sex with a condom is “safe sex.” Undoubtedly it’s “safer” sex, but if a condom is only 85% effective in preventing pregnancy when a woman is only fertile 5 days a month, how effective is it in preventing HIV/AIDS transmission if you are engaging in anal sodomy 365 days a year?
129. Lisa 129

     28 January 2008 at 3:03 pm

     I see, one cannot ask Tane a question ?
130. Psycho Milt 130

     28 January 2008 at 3:39 pm

     The qualifier is that they have NO RIGHT to be insulated by Nanny State from having their feelings hurt should other sovereign individuals elect to express their opinion on those choices.

     And indeed they currently have no such right – as witnessed by your constant grotesque attacks on “sodomites” in this forum, which no-one at Nanny State has sought to prevent you from making, so far as I’m aware. Which leaves open the question, do you actually have some point you’re trying to make?

     PS – you’ll find that sodomy is, by definition, “anal sodomy.” But please don’t take this an invitation to start going on about rectums again.
131. Billy 131

     28 January 2008 at 3:40 pm

     “recta”, surely.
132. IrishBill 132

     28 January 2008 at 4:05 pm

     Oh this is great. I go away for the morning and when I come back Michele’s talking about anal sex again. I’m starting to think her first boyfriend left her for a man. I’m also starting to think I don’t blame him.

     On a more serious note Michele, please refrain from homophobia on this blog. We tolerate your crazy libertarianism we won’t tolerate you denigrating people for their sexuality.
133. Barnsley Bill 133

     28 January 2008 at 9:55 pm

     Billy I think the plural would be recti.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS