Farrar back on the PS payroll?

Written By: all_your_base - Date published: 12:12 pm, December 6th, 2008 - 135 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags: dpf, farrar, ps, slater, whaleoil

A mate just pointed out that the metadata of David Farrar’s election analysis document suggests it was authored on a Parliamentary Service computer. With the document open in Microsoft Word go to the ‘File’ menu then down to ‘Properties’. You’ll see something like the image below:

Of course you’ll notice that the document title looks historical but Word is pretty aggressive when it comes to updating its metadata automatically (particularly when it comes to local user data on the machine in use).

A month or so ago, our own IrishBill pointed out Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) own admission to The Herald that he was working closely with the National Party research unit raking muck.

Perhaps his mate Davey is back in there too…

135 comments on “Farrar back on the PS payroll? ”

Comments are now closed

higherstandard 1

6 December 2008 at 12:23 pm

So ?

Are you expecting people to be surprised that Farra is partisan – he’s always been pretty open about where he stands and he does actually post under his own name.
John Dalley 2

6 December 2008 at 12:25 pm

Though he will always say otherwis, Davey has always been a paid “Lackey” of the National Party.
Maybe his and his companies should be included in National Electoral Expense Returns,
but as i say, he will always say “Not”
all_your_base 3

6 December 2008 at 12:34 pm

higherstandard – it’s as much about hypocrisy of the National Party digging dirt and running lines through the Whaleoils and the Farrars while their smiling front-man goes on relentlessly about running a “positive campaign”.
Steve Pierson 4

6 December 2008 at 12:39 pm

No-one is acting surprised that Farrar is partisan, HS. The point is this document was written on a Parliamentry Services computer. That means David, like Slater is actually working with the National Party research unit (they’re employed by Parliamentry Services).

What we’re beginning to see is a web of relationships, how the Nats get out spin to the media via supposedly independent sources.

It’s actually a useful docunment, but David, some graphs please, endess tables are very hard to interpret.
lprent 5

6 December 2008 at 12:47 pm

The last page is pretty weird in the comments. Looks like a different election to 2008.

captcha: keep Judging
Thank you machine. I will…
Graeme 6

6 December 2008 at 12:59 pm

I’d say this was fairly simple. The same thing has happened with my CV.

I created my first CV on a Victoria University computer. Every so often, I update it, and although it’s been worked on on half a dozen computers since uni, there’s still VUW meta-data in it – even in the PDF I then turn it into. The last time I updated it, the updating was over quicker than my efforts to clear the remnants of that data.

What has pretty obviously happened here is that DPF created an analysis of the election in 1999, when he worked in Parliament. And he has just been updating that file, instead of starting from scratch (because why would you?).
all_your_base 7

6 December 2008 at 1:24 pm

It may well be that simple Graeme, it’s just that the ‘Author’ data seems usually to be updated quite aggressively by Word.
vto 8

6 December 2008 at 1:36 pm

i don’t see what that has to do with the price of fish
Janet 9

6 December 2008 at 1:53 pm

VTO

Are you happy for your taxes to support Kiwiblog and Whaleoil while they are not admitting that they are part of the National Party parliamentary machine – in fact trying to disguise it? These days conflicts of interest, ethical business and political behaviour are quite a big deal. If they are on the payroll they should just say it and put a conflict of interest statement on their blogs.
NX 10

6 December 2008 at 2:26 pm

Graeme wrote:
I’d say this was fairly simple. The same thing has happened with my CV.

Yeah, I agree with Graeme.

If you recycle Word documents – the author field doesn’t seem to change. Which can be awkward if the document is from a previous employer.
rjs131 11

6 December 2008 at 2:32 pm

I think the National party “running lines” through Salter and Kiwiblog is about as likely as the Labour party “running lines” through this blog – something that has been repeatedly denied.
sux2bu 12

6 December 2008 at 2:40 pm

Feeblest dirt-digging attempt since Mike Williams. Did any of you geniuses look at Documents>Properties>’Last saved by’ ? Guess who last saved it – a user called David Farrar, not Parliamentary Services. Did you geniuses also try modifying the doc and saving it and see what happens ? “Author” is still Parliamentary Services, “last saved by” is now you…
Vonnie Boy 13

6 December 2008 at 2:41 pm

Har har har, metadata is hilarious.
Graeme 14

6 December 2008 at 2:45 pm

it’s just that the â€˜Author’ data seems usually to be updated quite aggressively by Word.

I wish!

My CV was created on a VUW PC on MS Word. The very first time I saved it, I’d typed my middle name incorrectly on the first line, and it borrowed that for the file name first time ’round. Naturally, I’d fixed it at the time in the document, and in the file name, but even now, opening and amending the document in Open Office, and then creating a PDFof that open office document, the author of the PDF (!) is still SCS (the VUW Student Computing Services or something like that) and the embedded title (the bit it shows in task bar) of that PDF still has my middle name spelt incorrectly. It seriously took me an hour to fix it last time – manually changing the properties in the pdf file wasn’t even close to enough.
Tim Ellis 15

6 December 2008 at 2:50 pm

ayb, while you’re going around outing people for working in parliamentary services, have you got any declarations to make of your own?
Madeleine 16

6 December 2008 at 2:51 pm

One might ask how you knew how to spot this.

What’s that saying about protesting too much?
Steve Pierson 17

6 December 2008 at 3:27 pm

Tim. No ayb doesn’t. don’t believe everything you read on whaleoil. what’s he up to now? About 20 names for 6 writers isn’t it?
Robinsod 18

6 December 2008 at 3:35 pm

I think the fact DPF is running his polling services call-outs from National party HQ is probably enough evidence of the fact he’s benefiting from the National party.

What I find more interesting than the no-brainer that Farrar works for National is the fact that there is an increasing amount of evidence that National were actively using Slater’s blog as an outlet for smear campaigns despite his lax security…
Robinsod 19

6 December 2008 at 3:36 pm

Hey Tim – I’ve got an admission to make…

I’m your dad. Say hi to your mum for me.
dave 20

6 December 2008 at 3:37 pm

Go back and have a look at the data creation – last printed in..2002. The document is at least 5 years old. What a weak allegation.

[lprent: I vaguely seem to remember you describing whale’s even more tenuous ‘evidence’ about photoshop jpegs as being good. Not exactly consistent in your opinions are you?]
Rex Widerstrom 21

6 December 2008 at 3:43 pm

Good grief.

I see Lynn’s commented here and I’m surprised he hasn’t weighed in with some technical knowledge (which in most areas is far superior to mine, but I’m not sure about Word, since, to be fair, he obviously doesn’t use much of the Evil Empire’s product).

As Graeme is trying to tell you, Word does not “aggressively” update metadata. It doesn’t even “effectively” update metadata. Especially when you open an older version document in 2007* and especially if you’re using Sharepoint, as I imagine a company like David’s would be doing.

And that’s what’s happened here, judging by the original title referring to 1999 figures but the template on which it’s based being normal.dotm (which is a 2007 extension).

You’re also looking at a document originally created on a Windows platform on a Mac platform. The number of differences (despite what Microsoft claim) between the way similarly named products behave on the two are the subject of many an erudite exposition, as they number in the bazillions.

You get upset – and rightly so – at accusations The Standard was “run from the 9th floor”, yet you endeavour to smear David with the same sort of innuendo based on a poor understanding of something as flimsy as Word metadata?

Shame on you, a_y_b – I think you owe David an apology.

* that refers to the date field… I don’t have time to find one specific to name, but it’s basically every field.
sux2bu 22

6 December 2008 at 3:45 pm

Not just an apology is owed, you should also praise his eco friendliness by not printing this doc since 2002 LOL
Rex Widerstrom 23

6 December 2008 at 3:56 pm

Oh, by the way Graeme et al, Microsoft claims it’s possible to easily remove metadata. I can’t vouch for the methods suggested as I’ve never tried any.

But isn’t the introduction hilarious?! They assume – and probably rightly so – that the only people devious enough, and with the sort of lies that need hiding, are lawyers:

Legal professionals are familiar with the concept of “discovery” and the requirements set out by the courts for complying with discovery demands. They also understand that they are only required to provide the documents and data set out in the discovery demand. Unfortunately, if you are providing electronic versions of your documents, you may “discover” that you are inadvertently supplying more information than you realize.

Like, say, in an anti-trust case before the US Supreme Court? Mwahahahaha!!
gingercrush 24

6 December 2008 at 4:05 pm

Hmm I would have thought that the Buy Kiwi campaign which National suspended would be more important than whatever the hell Farrar is up to.
Johnty Rhodes 25

6 December 2008 at 4:23 pm

4 weeks on & you are in denial about ‘who is running the show.’

I downloaded the offending doc and saved it, it still says Parliamentary Services.

GC – buy NZ made means high price for most people, but quality is there mostly. At least we will see the end of Oliver Driver in the TV ads. We do but a lot of NZ made, fruit/veges/meat/dairy etc. Clothes are too expensive if made in NZ.
Whaleoil 26

6 December 2008 at 4:53 pm

[deleted]

[lprent: You’re censored out of this site because you routinely lie about it, you lie about the people posting on it, you are technically incompetent, and essentially I think that you are a moronic troll who never says anything worth reading. I presume that answers your question – don’t come back]

[lprent: I see that you don’t learn. When I say don’t come back, that is exactly what I mean. Added you to the blacklist for the anti-spam engine to deal with]
lprent 27

6 December 2008 at 5:20 pm

Rex: I don’t think that a_y_b owes any apology based on Davids own standards. Rather I think that DPF probably owes an apology to a_y_b.

Think back a couple of months. That technical incompetent Slater at nationals smear unit used a similarity of installer names in the photoshop metadata data in jpegs to assert identities for IrishBill and Tane. It wasn’t even an exact match.

In the case of a_y_b, on basis of no proof at all he asserted that a_y_b was some guy on the 9th floor.

All of which DPF happily accepted as true and ran posts on. That was despite knowing (at least he should have known) that the evidence was technically about as tenuous as a wet paper bag. From my recollection, DPF ran with a post that asserted that all of these things were true, along with a whole pile of other wingnuts. Now that as ‘evidence’ is far more tenuous than what a_y_b put in his post today.

I’m afraid that if that is the standard of proof required for a post, then this one has more legs. In my opinion, DPF has delineated the standard or proof required for this type of dogwhistle post. I’m sure that he’d be happy with a_y_b applying a higher standard of proof, and asking a similar question.

So when I see DPF apologizing for that incident and others in his illustrious dogwhistle career, then I might agree with you. Somehow I doubt it.

BTW: You are correct, I seldom use MS Office these days. I prefer Open Office. But I have used MS Office or MS Word since ~1985.
sux2bu 28

6 December 2008 at 5:47 pm

If being technically incompetent and lying about people is basis for being banned, can we assume you’ve given All Your Base his marching orders for this lying, technically incompetent, post ?

[lprent: I was comparing a_y_b with DPF, who appears to like having a public perception of being better than cam. Cam is banned because he routinely makes crap up about this site that requires me to waste effort – so I’ll let a program deal with the idiot.]
sux2bu 29

6 December 2008 at 6:16 pm

Okayyyy…so you bring Whaleoil into this by casting aspersions on something he said previously, then he pops in for a a right-of-reply and you delete and ban him for it ? In the grand tradition of left wing “debate” down the ages…

[lprent: No I banned him because he persistently lies about this site on his site. I just can’t be bothered tidying up after the idiot, and he usually just comes here to try and stir up a flame session. Offhand I can’t think of an intelligent thing that he has ever said here that has actually invoked discussion about something more enlightening than the size of his ego.

There is no “right-of-reply” – have a look in our policy and try to find one. If he wants to ‘reply’ then he can do it elsewhere where I don’t have to read it in my role as sysop.

In my opinion he is spam – so thats where I’ve put him.]
Lew 30

6 December 2008 at 6:20 pm

C’mon, comparisons to WOBH aren’t merited … if this was his post the title would be `[person] sucking on Nanny State’s teat again.’ No question mark, nothing measured about it. And still no evidence.

L
higherstandard 31

6 December 2008 at 6:26 pm

Lew – isn’t the real point ‘who really gives a damn apart from a few obsessives on opposing blogs’

Clearly a no news day – although I must admit to being impressed by the Herald naming two fine people who are no longer as the NZers of the year.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10546746

Perhaps a post on that rather than ayb’s fixations may have been warranted.

Lynn – as an aside it might be prudent to leave people’s comments there for all to see why they were banned rather than just deleting.

[lprent: Normally I would unless they were too obnoxious. However in this case I can’t be bothered. It wasn’t what he said, it was the fact he was here at all. I have expended far to much time on cam and see no reason for him to have access to this site]
sux2bu 32

6 December 2008 at 6:37 pm

You don’t think that intellectual honesty obliges you to give someone a chance to reply on the same forum you criticise them ? Does that strike you as the sign of a rigorous debate where you have full confidence you can defend your position with your wits rather than your delete key ?
lprent 33

6 December 2008 at 6:42 pm

Don’t you think that intellectual honesty would require that Cam gives himself an immediate lobotomy?

After all this is the guy who said that r0b was running 08wire based on nothing more than a similarity of a first name and a psuedonym. (Rob Salmond was actually running 08wire)
Lew 34

6 December 2008 at 6:47 pm

HS: Fair comment. You have good standing here, maybe you could ask Lynn to put up a guest post rather than complaining about the things others feel like writing about – it’s a market, after all, and you’ve spied an opening. Be entrepreneurial!

L
sux2bu 35

6 December 2008 at 6:53 pm

So your answer to abusing someone without right of reply is more abuse ? Obviously it’s your site and you can run it anyway you like, but do you think you’re impressing anyone who cares about having a fair discussion ? This kind of behaviour means you’ll only attract people who already agree with you and happily turn a blind eye to the editorial Stalinism. If you want to set up an echo chamber where you’re preaching to the choir all the time, that’s your call.
lprent 36

6 December 2008 at 7:17 pm

Lew,hs: Actually you generally don’t ask me. I’m still a bit of an amateur at actually writing posts. Which is why I put my own non-admin posts up on the weekend (also that is when I have time to try them out).

The contact-us page has the general e-mail address that the posts for Guest Posts or ideas should be sent to. Which I don’t read…

Generally they advise me that I should try to keep the posts down to about 400 words if possible and to use lots of links for background info. Make your point concisely and make sure that there is a clear opinion. The reason is that this site values opinion and not statements, because that gets the discussion going. They will also not edit particularly because your opinion should be your own. If one of them feels that it is worth putting up then they will do so.

We will usually only put posts up as Guest Post and only identify with a psuedonym if at all. It is the ideas and opinion that are important and we prefer that the opinion is judged on its merits. That is why with the exception of myself and Clinton none of the posters have IRL identities.

It is a lot harder than it looks..
lprent 37

6 December 2008 at 7:34 pm

sux: I’m far more concerned with the smooth running of the site based on the guidelines in policy. I express my opinion of people and their behaviour pretty clearly in moderator/sysop role. Sometimes that consists of what you’d consider as ‘abuse’ because that is what I feel about their behavior.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there are probably as many people who lean right commenting here as who lean left. I seldom bother to intervene on opinion in moderator/sysop roles. Most of the time I’ll write a comment myself if I have time.

Problem is with Cam is that he doesn’t add anything to the discussion and only appears to come here for disruption. He uses other forums to lie about the site and the people on it. So I can’t see any reason to let him disrupt things here because he annoys the hell out of me with his mindless dog whistling. It isn’t like he ever says anything here of any particular value, and he isn’t even amusing.
sux2bu 38

6 December 2008 at 7:37 pm

I tried to read your policy but I couldn’t get past the first line without collapsing into laughter “We encourage robust debate and we’re tolerant of dissenting views”. You should do comedy…
When you want to ban a dissenting view, you declare it ‘spam’ and ban it. That way you kid yourselves that you’re not banning views. Does anyone buy that ?
illuminatedtiger 39

6 December 2008 at 7:42 pm

Good research. Farrar looks extremely dodgy on Farrar’s part.
lprent 40

6 December 2008 at 7:45 pm

sux: Obviously you don’t understand the concept of ‘debate’.

Anyway I have to get back to the code and preventing client side caching of the pages in dumb caching systems. IMO That is far more important to this site than your opinion
sux2bu 41

6 December 2008 at 7:47 pm

Yes i see now that the only opinions important to the site are the admins and those who agree with them .All else is ‘spam’
Janet 42

6 December 2008 at 9:08 pm

GC
Buy NZ made generally means supporting NZ workers so I am very sad but not surprised that the ideologues of the right have cancelled it.

But it will be back when we again have a govt that cares about NZ workers.
Dean 43

6 December 2008 at 9:43 pm

LP:

“So when I see DPF apologizing for that incident and others in his illustrious dogwhistle career, then I might agree with you. Somehow I doubt it.”

So, because he did it, it’s ok that you do it too?

Glad to see you’re not aspiring to be higher on any moral or intellectual ladder than those you choose to oppose.

Tit for tat is so droll. So was AYB’s completely fabricated assertion that Word “agressively” changes the metadata in documents. Honestly, a simple google search would have told him otherwise. But did he choose to do that? No way! There is dirt to be dished, right? I reckon he must have taken lessons from Mr Williams.

“We will usually only put posts up as Guest Post and only identify with a psuedonym if at all. It is the ideas and opinion that are important and we prefer that the opinion is judged on its merits. That is why with the exception of myself and Clinton none of the posters have IRL identities.”

That’d explain batman then.
Rex Widerstrom 44

6 December 2008 at 10:27 pm

I’ve been out all day and have just come back and read Lynn’s response so apologies for the delay. In any case I see Dean has said what I wanted to say. Interestingly enough,it’s exactly the same point as I made in response to infused implying it would be okay for National to ram through policy with minimal consultation because “Labour did exactly that”.

I said to him, as I say to you now – two wrongs don’t make a right. Like a lot of cliches, that one survives because it’s a succinct way of stating an irrefutable truth.

I know most of The Standard’s authors have their own reasons for anonymity, and I respect that. But I also respect David’s courage in posting under his own name. I knew when I started doing so I’d risk attracting the obvious smears… I’m pleased to note that hasn’t happened here but has at Kiwiblog (when DPF leapt on it quickly) and at Tim Blair (where no action was taken, so I never returned).

However, those who post under pseudonyms must expect that the “price” of that is speculation – often public speculation – as to their identities. I’ve seen it about Roar Prawn, about Poneke, about Queen Bee… and about the various contributors to The Standard.

Personally I wish David would sometimes require a higher standard of research goes into the information he chooses to impart – especially when he’s so detailed, and puts so much effort into, posts on statistical topics.

But simply because he chose to report someone else’s posts allegedly “outing” anonymous authors does not justify a_y_b’s implying that he is corrupt, and runs his blog as a front for someone else. Especially not when the “evidence” he offers is as much a piece of wishful thinking as was Slater’s.
lprent 45

6 December 2008 at 11:34 pm

Dean, Rex: We work with existing standards of political blogs, but with our own twist.

I’m afraid that while dog whistle tactics are the norm, then I have no problem with following them. I’d expect that over the next 3 years we will contribute to refining the meme. That is the price of using them in the first place, that they can be used against the perpetrators as well. I don’t particularly like them but that is largely irrelevant. They obviously work. To not use them gives the lowest denominator (ie NACT) an advantage which means that they will continue to be used until the cost of using them rises too much.

Of course they are a lot easier to use in ‘opposition’. I can testify that they are unpleasant to be on the receiving side. Perhaps after also being on the receiving side for 3 years or so, the current dog whistlers will find that out as well.
QoT 46

7 December 2008 at 12:31 am

The definition of comedy is someone whose handle is “sux2bu” arguing about fairness and balanced debate.
Dean 47

7 December 2008 at 1:10 am

LP:

“I’m afraid that while dog whistle tactics are the norm, then I have no problem with following them. I’d expect that over the next 3 years we will contribute to refining the meme. That is the price of using them in the first place, that they can be used against the perpetrators as well. I don’t particularly like them but that is largely irrelevant. They obviously work. To not use them gives the lowest denominator (ie NACT) an advantage which means that they will continue to be used until the cost of using them rises too much.”

That’s fair enough.

But meanwhile AYB is incorrect about Word and it’s suppiosedly agressive updating of metadata. I don’t expect an apology from him towards DPF. But at least he didn’t go off on a half cocked tirade about things he really didn’t know about – like Mr Smith did about OECD company tax rates or the catholic church and it’s involvement in the holocaust.

That really was a lolfest, LP. I understand the writers here have the right to free speech but it’s puzzling that they get so defensive when their assertions are questioned. Irishbill is the worst at this (yes, I still have the screenshots IB).

IrishBill: Get a life Dean.
Logie97 48

7 December 2008 at 2:11 am

I have looked back through this discussion and I cannot see what the sleeze Whaleoil is supposed to have said. From that I guess sux2bu also has no idea what Slater said either, yet appears to know that it was a quality comment. From the many statements that that creep (Slater) has made, and his disgusting photoshop antics, may I add my congratulations on your removing him. (In passing is it possible for Slater to have registered under another name?)
sux2bu 49

7 December 2008 at 8:43 am

Damn what would you guys have to write about if the term “dogwhistle” didn’t exist. Five uses on one page alone. It’s as monotonous as Peters’ “media conspiracy” line.
sux2bu 50

7 December 2008 at 9:00 am

QoT
The definition of comedy is someone whose handle is “sux2bu’ arguing about fairness and balanced debate.

I see you seem to be using the standard left-wing definintion of “fair and balanced”, meaning “everyone who agrees with me is o.k.”. I think it’s a totally appropriate handle. Labour ran the dirtiest, most negative campaign in living memory, tried to dredge up ridiculous smears that didn’t exist, even ( quelle horreur ! ) resorted to tax cuts, and still lost.
It does, indeed, …[dramatic pause]…suck to be you !

[lprent: I’ve just had a look through your comment history. You always act like you want to start flamewars rather than engage in debate. That isn’t acceptable here – read the policy. I’d suggest that you lift your standards to something other than flame provocation level. If you don’t then I will apply the Policy.

So far it is difficult to see that you contribute to debate – probably why you don’t understand what the term means. However at least you write your own lines so you aren’t a troll.

BTW: Note that this is a warning, and not an invitation for a debate. Read the section in the policy about the futility of arguing with a sysop.]
Chris G 51

7 December 2008 at 10:31 am

sux: “Yes i see now that the only opinions important to the site are the admins and those who agree with them .All else is ‘spam'”

Thats bullshit and you know it. There are regular comments from right leaning people on here who can comment with about being dumbasses. See: gingercrush, higherstandard et al.

I can read their points of view, naturally disagree, but we can all continue debating in a relatively civil manner… and there you have found it, the keyword is Civil. That is something I definately dont see on certain other blogs, because of that I dont comment there!

From what I’ve seen the stuff thats been censored has been the repeated lies, slander and general crap that comes out of some peoples – overwhelmingly large (perhaps the size of that very adverb?) – brains.
lprent 52

7 December 2008 at 10:45 am

Chris: That is pretty much the standard. The opinions don’t matter to the moderators unless they get too damn gross. We’re mainly looking to see if people get in the way of debate. We’re really not into wasting too much time either. Stick around the net for long enough, then you’ve seen all of the different types of personality and tactics. It is mainly a matter of seeing if they have potential to grow and contribute to the debate. sux appears to have the ability to debate and discuss. But sux also appears to lack the intent or willingness to engage as anything apart from as a firestarter.

Dean: Irish has been known to be a bit abrupt. But that is Irish’s style. It also shows in the style of posts. It is just one of those things that people around here have to get used to. It is like putting up with me talking about things that happened on the net before some commentators here were born.
sux2bu 53

7 December 2008 at 10:54 am

Chris G – “Civil” ? The comedy never ends on here. “you routinely lie”, “moronic troll”, “you are technically incompetent”, “idiot”, “persistently lies”, “far more important to this site than your opinion”, “you don’t understand what the term means”
Comments by the admins, just on this page alone. And you reckon you’ve got the moral high ground over other blogs ?
ianmac 54

7 December 2008 at 11:12 am

It always seemed possible to me that the promises that Key and others made and the responses geared to suit the audiences would come back to haunt him/them. “I expect a high standard from any one in my team.” Did the Auckland candidate who was accused of Immigration fraud become an MP? (Think Phillip Field.)
Think of “Nanny State” if the anti-smoking in cars takes off. ( A good call by the way but…”) Think of the calls that Farrar has made and how these should be used used to “haunt them.”
Gustavo Trellis 55

7 December 2008 at 11:15 am

I’ve never had any problems with TheStandard at all, I don’t particularly think anything I say on here would be agreeable and the admins and bloggers debate what you say, but I’ve never had an outright ban and I put that down to not being a troll.
Chris G 56

7 December 2008 at 11:31 am

and just my speculation, DPF gets some dough from the Nats one way or another.

The political propaganda machine is alive and has some serious $$$ in it… refer: Crosby/textor
sux2bu 57

7 December 2008 at 11:35 am

Iprent – “So far it is difficult to see that you contribute to debate”. Well, I was the one who asked if anyone had tried modifying and saving the doc to see if the ‘author’ field changes ? It doesn’t, only the ‘last saved by’ field is updated. This is exactly the state of the DPF doc – created by Parliamentary Services, last saved by David Farrar. My contribution kills ayb’s entire story stone dead. Does proving The Standard wrong not count ?
Chris G 58

7 December 2008 at 11:36 am

Im not going to respond to sux again (this doesnt count) because Gustavos comment above shows what I was getting at. Clearly sux doesnt understand.
sux2bu 59

7 December 2008 at 12:05 pm

After a few days being on here, I understand this blog completely now. I’m the one who made the most rational suggestion on testing ayb’s technical claims, and yet the admins don’t see how I contribute to the debate.
He calls me a firestarter. Ayb started the fire with his nonsensical made-up claims. I put the fire out with a simple logical test.
People talk about being civil, but the admin comments on this page contain as much abuse as the worst commentor on any other blog.
Admins and commenters used the term “dogwhistle” five times directed towards DPF, and yet this whole post is intended to whistle up commenters’ conspiracy theories about DPF and Parliamentary Services.
“Technically incompetent” and “lies” and “smear” are the admin’s favourite description for Whaleoil, and yet ayb’s entire post is a technically incompetent lie and smear. Any action taken or apology given ?

And after all this, they assert that this blog has a high standard of behaviour and encourages debate and dissenting view.
Horseshit. I’ve never seen a worse example of hipocrisy on a blog. I think I’ve seen enough of The Standard.

[lprent: Rational is in your mind I suspect. If you don’t come back then it would probably increase the level of debate]
vto 60

7 December 2008 at 12:48 pm

The problem with debating on The Standard is that too few people agree with me.
ianmac 61

7 December 2008 at 12:57 pm

Vto: Hard to debate with too few. A bit sad really. Reminds me of the man who stands on the footpath up town and invokes the bible in a loud monotone.
George Darroch 62

7 December 2008 at 1:00 pm

An anonymous poster here alleges that David Farrar is lying about working for Parliamentary Service. Lynn Prentice steps in and backs this person up. When alternative, simpler explanations are presented by Rex and Graeme (neither of whom are National Party hacks), they are dismissed, seemingly out of hand.

Given that Wellington is a small place, Parliament even smaller, and David a relatively open and public figure, if he was lying about his employment, I think we’d find out from a person (not MS Word) pretty quickly. A quick use of occam’s razor gives the answer with the least assumptions as DPF telling the truth.

Given that similar baseless allegations have been made against The Standard (all the posters), I’m disappointed to see them being repeated by people who are so outraged when they’re accused of the same things.
TimeWarp 63

7 December 2008 at 1:14 pm

You can win a battle but lose the war. Not sure of the point of this thread. It’s a non-story.

Using WOBH as a reference point for standards is akin to not having any. “The Standard” should surely be just that, in multiple dimensions of the term?
QoT 64

7 December 2008 at 1:50 pm

Wow, sux2bu, you got that whole psychological analysis of me out of a single off-the-cuff comment? Which made no mention of either supporting or opposing the decision to ban Whaleoil? You should be on Sensing Murder, mate.

Assuming I’m a Labour supporter – because we all know only two parties contested the last election, amirite? – is further evidence of your brilliance.

There is plenty of back-and-forth on The Standard. Fuck, I’ve disagreed with various posters here from time to time. The idea that “Just allowing civilized debate on the merits of political ideas” doesn’t count as “disagreement” unless you also let through the all-caps rants of people who think “Liarbour” is a cutting and witty neologism is just baffling.
sweeetdisorder 65

7 December 2008 at 1:52 pm

Hmmm, I think you owe Farrar a big apology AYB.
David Farrar 66

7 December 2008 at 1:55 pm

Thanks for this most amusing thread.

A few people brought up the allegations made about whether certain parliamentary staffers blogged at The Standard. I don’t want to provoke anything here as as far as I am concerned it is old news, but I do want to point out a key difference – I have always denied being a parliamentary staff member since I left,

I have always said that if the 9th floor staffer I named states in writing he has nothing to do with TS, does not blog there and/or does not produce material for others to blog there I would 100% take him at his word, and publish a retraction. That offer still stands. But note I would want a written statement.

As far as I know there has never been any written statement made that people on the parliamentary payroll don’t blog at TS or produce material for others to blog. There have been very careful statements that no one does it as part of their job duties, but that is not the same thing.

Again I don’t want to stir up a hornets nest here, but just did want to point out that as I said, I will accept someone’s word if they say I got it wrong about them, unless there is proof to the contrary.

[lprent: DPF, so what you’re saying is that someone should respond to your slander with a written statement. Well aren’t you a pompous git? A touch of hubris? Why exactly should someone respond to your claims – there isn’t a shred of evidence to back them up – they are just meaningless speculation.

Also parliamentary services wouldn’t be able to make that statement – they don’t know. I run this site and I don’t know. That is the design of the site – it is for pseudonymous posts. The mere fact you prefer to boost your name for media reasons doesn’t mean that others have to follow the same level of vanity. Not everyone has quite the same level of bloated ego that you do.]
George Darroch 67

7 December 2008 at 1:59 pm

I should also add, this ridiculous business of trying to smear political figures on the basis of their supposed shady dealings and dishonesty didn’t work very well for Labour and The Standard (The Standard did post the “batman” allegations) during the election campaign, and helped contribute to National’s highest vote in decades. I was embarrassed about them then as I am now, and see no lessons have been learned.

The great majority of the right are nice and upstanding people. They might have nasty policies and not reveal them for fear of “scaring the horses”, but you counter this by talking about the policies, not the people.

I’ve said it many times, this nasty smearing devalues the content on here. It’s your blog, so you can write what you want on it. But because The Standard is seen by journalists and others as representative of the left (and that is one of your stated ambitions), this type of attack blogging hurts the left’s credibility and ability to get through to the people.

And finally, by devaluing your credibility like this, the chances of The Standard actually being taken seriously when something does come up is lesser.
illuminatedtiger 68

7 December 2008 at 3:49 pm

David:

This sheds no light on the allegations being made in this post. Care to elaborate on why PS meta data was found in your Word document?
Daveski 69

7 December 2008 at 3:59 pm

IT – check KB.

Given how touchy the Standard has been about allegations of 9th floor involvement, this post reeks of desperation. I agree with George that it risks the credibility of the Standard.

I’m not questioning the right to challenge DPF – this is always a possibility – but I do question the level of evidence to used to justify the post.

When in doubt, I tend to check the views of people like Rex who are more impartial and more experienced than most here. Rex has IMO summed this up perfectly.
ianmac 70

7 December 2008 at 4:02 pm

David Farrar:
Are you given lines of information by Parliamentary Services?
Are you employed or financed in any way by them?
Are you employed or financed in any way by the National Party?
I ask because you seem to be shown on radio and TV as an independent commentator.
Nomestradamus 71

7 December 2008 at 4:08 pm

Illuminatedtiger:

You described this thread above as “good research”.

Didn’t it occur to you that “good research” might include checking over at Kiwiblog? There, in a thread amusingly titled Inspector Clouseau strikes again, DPF rebuts this non-story:

As I landed back in Auckland from Great Barrier Island, my e-mails started to hit the Blackberry. And one of them was from a National Researcher saying they are looking forward to me turning up to work at 8 am Monday.

I was initially bemused until I followed a link to discover an Inspector Clouseau has got excited at The Standard as the metadata in the election analysis I did has the document author as “Parliamentary Service’.

So am I a secret staffer for the National Parliamentary Research Unit? Did I somehow forget to disclose on my disclosure statement that I had been hired?

Alas no. As many commenters pointed out, the obvious answer is the correct one. I first did an election analysis for National in 1999 and every three years have saved a copy and used that as the template for the new analysis. This means the document still lists the original author and company. Some of my docs still show the author as Ministerial Services and that was a decade ago!

Good research indeed!
vto 72

7 December 2008 at 4:13 pm

egg on face it seems.

a recently common trait of many things left.
illuminatedtiger 73

7 December 2008 at 4:48 pm

Why is David Farrar asking for written statements from those at The Standard when there has been >= accusations about himself being an insider?

As for the Word template from 1999, forgive me, but I don’t completely buy that. I’ve got Word documents here from 1999 (most saved to 3.4 inch floppy disks) that I’ve had major issues with getting to run on the latest copy of Word (2007). Even if it loads I wouldn’t do any substantial work on it, I would start afresh.
Nomestradamus 74

7 December 2008 at 5:14 pm

Illuminatedtiger:

Why is David Farrar asking for written statements from those at The Standard when there has been >= accusations about himself being an insider?

I’m not DPF’s spokesperson, but I’d say he has one of the most – if not the most – extensive disclosure page in New Zealand’s political blogosphere. Now what do you mean by “insider” exactly? And what accusations (and, more to the point, what evidence) do you have to suggest he is an “insider”?

As to this latest “accusation” (you seem to regard All Your Base’s post as a heroic accusation), DPF has stated as clearly as one possibly can that he’s not on the PS payroll.

Even if it loads I wouldn’t do any substantial work on it, I would start afresh.

And that’s your basis for saying that DPF is telling porkies? That you would do something differently?

All Your Base:

Any chance of you retracting (or qualifying) this clanger:

Of course you’ll notice that the document title looks historical but Word is pretty aggressive when it comes to updating its metadata automatically (particularly when it comes to local user data on the machine in use).

It seems that a few commenters here (notably Graeme and Rex) strongly disagree. And I have to say, it hasn’t been my experience either.
sweeetdisorder 75

7 December 2008 at 5:26 pm

Illuminatedtiger

“As for the Word template from 1999, forgive me, but I don’t completely buy that. I’ve got Word documents here from 1999 (most saved to 3.4 inch floppy disks) that I’ve had major issues with getting to run on the latest copy of Word (2007). ”

After much investigation into your problem, it seems you are the only person on planet earth running a 3.4″ floppy disk. I can understand why you are having so many issues trying to get it to work. Suggest you upgrade to a 3.5″ floppy disk, you might find that a bit more compatible with most systems.
burt 76

7 December 2008 at 5:51 pm

Daveski

The rumors of Labour party involvement and the standard really started with this post also from all_your_base.

Happy New Year

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

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

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

We’re still secretly hoping for the pimped out Austin Aston Martin but this should tide us over in the meantime. Thanks M!

[lprent: Noone ever denied that some people on this blog are involved with the NZLP. I’m a member for instance (and that was made clear early on). What we denied was that we were setup by the NZLP (I set it up), that we received money or services from the NZLP (I’m the only person that has paid anything), or that we were paid by parliamentary services. We were on servers for 3 weeks that had been a donation to the NZLP (ie that the NZLP didn’t pay for), and that the NZLP had given control to a left-wing activist who I’d hit up for some server space.

Whale lied about all of those things and others. Face it the guy lies chronically, it is a lot harder to find him telling the truth. DPF then chose to dog-whistle on the whales lies despite their source in what is now a familiar pattern. Frankly I personally find it difficult to distinguish between them – they do the same thing at two levels, and it looks to me like they do it for the nats.]
Chris Auld 77

7 December 2008 at 5:55 pm

As for the Word template from 1999, forgive me, but I don’t completely buy that. I’ve got Word documents here from 1999 (most saved to 3.4 inch floppy disks) that I’ve had major issues with getting to run on the latest copy of Word (2007). Even if it loads I wouldn’t do any substantial work on it, I would start afresh

I’m someone intimately acquainted with both the Office legacy file format, as well as the new ECMA 376 OOXML file format, the final ISO 29500 file format as and the various versions of Microsoft office from 6.0 (1994 ish) through to Office 2007.

I can say with some authority that the document migration between version 6.0 and version 2007 is pretty good.

I would also note that it’s likely that PS would have been using Office 97 when DPF worked there in 1999. The office binary file format has remained consistent between version 1997 and version 2007. 2007 does support the ECMA 376 OOXML file format but it does not appear that DPF is using this- rather he is using the legacy Office 97-Occife 2007 binary file format.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the file down loadable from DPF’s blog is the same Office 97-07 binary file format that would have originally been used to save the file back in 1999.

If you would like some help getting your 1999 era word documents working in 2007 then please do feel free to drop me an email (I’m sure you can contact the mods to get my email address). If you want a more detailed forensic analysis of the file format then I’m happy to sort that out as well.

I don’t do Photoshop or other file formats, just Microsoft stuff.
Kimble 78

7 December 2008 at 6:14 pm

hahahaha. you guys are so pathetic!

The Standard gets self-pwned again!

Time to wind things up lads, there are only so many times you can jump the shark.
Rex Widerstrom 79

7 December 2008 at 6:14 pm

lprent

Dean, Rex: We work with existing standards of political blogs, but with our own twist.

I?m afraid that while dog whistle tactics are the norm, then I have no problem with following them.

Well call me naive then, but I thought you (the collective “you”, not just Lynn) were better than that. I don’t want to sound holier than thou – though I’m afraid I’m going to – but being half-assed “outed” as nothing more scandalous than a contributor to a blog isn’t even close to the filth I’ve had thrown at me, including in Parliament, under cover of privilege, by Ron Mark.

I could have chosen to have dived into the excrement and rolled around with him, but I didn’t. Partly because (I hope) I’m better than that, but also because, tactically, it would have been a stupid mistake.

When politics becomes personal, people lose their objectivity. Now I know you’re just itching to tell me this isn’t an objective blog… I understand that. I’m not talking political objectivity, however. I’m talking about being able to stand back and make a rational assessment of your own behaviour.

But thanks for clarifying the Standard’s standards, which seem to amount to “Where Whaleoil goes, we go”.
4884 80

7 December 2008 at 6:26 pm

I see you Standard wanks… [deleted]

[lprent: If you want to be an idiot, do it elsewhere. Setting it so you get moderated]
Kimble 81

7 December 2008 at 6:32 pm

4884 has never commented at kiwiblog

pwned again

PS, I see you changed your response so it doesnt tell 4884 to go back to Kiwiblog

are you going to apologise for saying it in the first place?

[lprent: I didn’t say that. It isn’t one of my standard phrases (could have been another moderator – we do overlap from time to time). Besides this idiot was worse than the KB sewer level, more like Whale or Heine. ]
lprent 82

7 December 2008 at 6:42 pm

Rex: “Well call me naive then, but I thought you (the collective “you’, not just Lynn) were better than that”

The others may be (they do their own thing), but I certainly am not. I’m of the general opinion that if you don’t stop bad behavior then it will increase. That is of course the underlying basis of the entire judicial system.

In the case of the blogs and their use in politics, it is quite clear that turning the other check just encourages people to attack you more. If you want an example, just look at the standard of the comments section back in November prior to moderation (or the KB comments sewer at almost anytime)

However there are two points to remember. It is unlikely to be in the same style.

After all Cam isn’t exactly that good at it – the ‘sod (whoever he is) is probably better. Certainly more humorous.

It is unlikely to be as stupid. A lot of the wingnuts I see that come here like 4884 seem to have a real inability to use their brains.
Kimble 83

7 December 2008 at 7:08 pm

A lot of the posters I see here like AYB seem to have a real inability to use their brains.

Seriously, the OP was a joke. No one but the most partisan DPF-hater would buy it for a second.

Then again, that WAS the intended audience, wasnt it?
Kimble 84

7 December 2008 at 7:14 pm

You need to redo the title:

“Farrar back on the PS payroll? No. No he isn’t, sorry.”
Kimble 85

7 December 2008 at 7:21 pm

You keep going on about the sewer in the comments section at Kiwiblog, and how moderation has improved the standard at The Standard.

But The Standards big problem has always been the sewerage in its posts, not the comments.
lprent 86

7 December 2008 at 7:23 pm

Daveski :

I agree with George that it risks the credibility of the Standard.

I’m not questioning the right to challenge DPF – this is always a possibility – but I do question the level of evidence to used to justify the post.

I think that the point of the post was to draw a comparison to the standard of evidence that DPF uses when writing smears.

For instance about this site DPF has written – this, this, this, and probably others that I didn’t google.

I don’t think that there is probably a fact in those posts that could be proved apart from the IP in the first link. Which had a simple explanation as I’ve explained many times.

For instance DPF says in the last link:

UPDATE: Rob Salmond has posted a comment admitting he worked last year for the PMs Office and is behind 08wire and that he does not produce all the material himself but receives it from others. He of course refutes some of my assertions – specifically any involvement setting up The Standard, and I have responded to his comments. What is not denied is that material for all three anonymous sites is produced by parliamentary staffers.

Now notice this. What he said was that someone who denies being involved in the standard couldn’t say that that a site with posts from psuedonymous authors, who the authors were. Basically that is lying without quite saying it (unlike Whale who just flat out lies).

The second link has

What is interesting is that on five occasions the Prime Minister’s chief press secretary has been asked by media to deny that Beehive staff blog at The Standard, and on every occasion they have chosen not to comment rather than deny it. I guess there is a reason they passed up the opportunity to say “Farrar fucked up and has it all wrong, none of our staff are involved’.

This is a classic dogwhistle. This is a site that guards the identity of its posters. So DPF is saying that the CPS was unable to confirm or deny because he didn’t know and was unable to find out. I don’t know and I run the site – all I can say is that posts weren’t written using parliamentary IP’s

Do you see a pattern here? In my opinion, the only difference between DPF and Cam is that DPF lies by implication and with more subtlety than Cam does. Apart from that it is hard to distinguish between them. Sure there is going to be speculation about the identity of posters on this site – but both Cam and DPF just make crap up and idiots swallow it whole. Of course that is just my opinion…

Perhaps you should look at the level of evidence used to justify DPF’s attacks on me that is implicit in all of those posts? Then look at his credibility and veracity?
burt 87

7 December 2008 at 7:46 pm

Chris Auld

DPF said he had re-used the same document as a template after each election. There is no retrieving from a floppy disk under an old version of word issues about this. 1999 – email was well in use so was burning CD’s?

Sure you can ignore what DPF said about how the document still exists and make a great story about the issues associated with retrieving a file in 2008 that was stored on a floppy since 1999 but that’s all you have done – told a story.
lprent 88

7 December 2008 at 8:05 pm

Burt: DPF’s explanation is probably correct – see my comment earlier. However since DPF has never appeared to accept my explanations in the past (or almost anyone else associated with blog sites from the left), I see no reason to accept his.

After all the only purpose of blogs is to do ‘mischief’. It is going to be interesting.
burt 89

7 December 2008 at 8:09 pm

lprent

If the purpose is to do ‘mischief’….

If I recall correctly you once admitted that the standard was running “for a short period” on a Labour party funded server, is that correct?

edit: I see you mention it above as well.
lprent 90

7 December 2008 at 8:23 pm

burt: No

We were running for 3 weeks on servers owned by an ISP and operated by that ISP. That service was donated for use by the Labour party. The labour party passed to an activist to run multiple left sites. We were one of them because we’d run out of capacity on my systems.

So you are wholly incorrect. We never ran on a “Labour party funded server”. That was just the smear that DPF and Whale put on it. Essentially a lie, which has been repeated frequently.

This was explained at the time, but wingnuts appear to prefer to believe lies rather than explanations.
Daveski 91

7 December 2008 at 8:31 pm

LP – acknowledging your point.

While I still believe in this case it was a long bow to draw, I will accept that there is mischief in blogland as you put it.

Perhaps my point should have been that the Standard does have an opportunity to redefine the blogging landscape while retaining its healthy partisan perspective.
lprent 92

7 December 2008 at 8:47 pm

Daveski: I was referring to the statement on the KB banner
“DPF’s Kiwiblog – Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003”

Sure we could try to set a new standard. The question is more why should we? As far as I can see, that would simply open us up to more malicious mischief of the type that we’ve seen this year from DPF (and Cam).

I think that a deterrence strategy is far more responsible despite its known problems. The only thing that I’d look for is that that mischief from this site has at least the same level of ‘evidence‘ as has been used to support posts at KB in the past. So there will be a place for dog-whistle posts on this site. David could probably be called responsible for this strategy, after all he pioneered the meme in NZ blogging.

It is of course a standard method used by people like Crosby Textor, and will probably be used again over the next 3 years. For instance look at the history of the dog whistle used in the Tampa Bay incident in the election in aussie some years ago.
burt 93

7 December 2008 at 9:01 pm

lprent

Are you saying that this post by all_your_base is a classic Crosby Textor style dog-whistle?

Given you comments in the past and even in this thread about how much you disapprove of the Crosby Textor style I’m surprised you are defending all_your_base.
Liar 94

7 December 2008 at 9:30 pm

[deleted]

[lprent: probably dad again who is banned. I must finish that banning plugin]
justthefacts 95

7 December 2008 at 9:32 pm

So let me get this right, those who you accuse of being at “sewer level” are guilty of nothing more than being anti Labour?

This could be a really good site if you just let people make valid points about the shoddy (and some might say corrupt) Labour party, the problem you have is that you ban anybody who dares speak out against Labour and against socialism.

No wonder people are on the opinion that the left want to control free speech.
lprent 96

7 December 2008 at 10:10 pm

burt: So you want to avoid the topic of the
“…the standard was running “for a short period’ on a Labour party funded server”

Does it raise too many questions about the type of campaign that NACT have been running for the past few years?
RedLogix 97

7 December 2008 at 10:16 pm

Attention rightie dolts.

YOUR beloved Party is now in power.

It is OUR turn to make up shit…. and your turn to eat it.

Anybody tell the truth on this blog?

All lefties are liars.
lprent 98

7 December 2008 at 10:16 pm

jtf:

you ban anybody who dares speak out against Labour and against socialism

Making comments that have a point and an argument is fine – there are a lot of anti-labour people who do exactly that on this site every day.

Repeating hackneyed lines repeatably (that are usually incorrect) isn’t – that is known as trolling and isn’t tolerated here. Since that is the bulk of what I usually see when I go into KB’s comments section, I describe it as the sewer. It is a site that appears to me to cater to close to the lowest common denominator in its comment section, and is usually pointless to read.

DPF, in my opinion, facilitates it by writing dog-whistle posts designed to elicite exactly that response.

In short, you have to engage your brain here, while I view it as being discouraged at KB.
sweeetdisorder 99

7 December 2008 at 10:16 pm

Oh, and another thing AYB, who the feck are you; just some anon blogger.

Farrar is known, has a face, a name and is sought after for his opinion on radio, tv and print. And you are again, mister anon.

You have some gall to call out Farrar when you stand behind your shield.

It might pay to remember about those in glass houses…………
lprent 100

7 December 2008 at 10:22 pm

Ah sd, if all else fails and you have nothing worth saying, then there are always the ultimate shields of the wingnut. Righteous indignation, implied threats, and meaningless phrases.

One of the main reasons to be pseudonymous here is to avoid being stalked by the media for quotes (as well as Cam’s crowd). From what I understand when the main posters decided that we had to have someone for the media to talk to, SP/Clinton lost. Not everyone has the ego problem that makes DPF want to do those things on the media.

BTW: for some reason it was considered that I wasn’t politically cautious enough – ie too blunt
burt 101

7 December 2008 at 10:27 pm

lprent

burt: So you want to avoid the topic of the
” the standard was running “for a short period’ on a Labour party funded server’

No not at all. I’m happy to discuss it further but you are splitting hairs and I’ve been over it in detail and been banned before for pursuing answers.

So I’ll ask another question and run the gauntlet again. Did Labour declare the donation and the gift to the activist? Is so then when? If not, why not?

Without a clean paper trail showing the monies received/gifted being openly accounted for all we can really say is the server resources were being paid for via a donation made to Labour.
burt 102

7 December 2008 at 10:35 pm

all_your_base/lprent

I also agree with George that this sort of post undermines the credibility of the standard.

With all due respect, there is always going to be more negative than positive consequences for the standard every time the “on the PS payroll” angle is trotted out.

Or have I misunderstood some grand trading places where DPF moves into the inner sanctum and denies it and you guys are now on the outside so you are going to take over DPF & Whaeloil’s position and sink to the level you describe as disgusting?
lprent 103

7 December 2008 at 10:38 pm

burt: I’d guess that it is/will be in Labours declaration, and probably the ISP’s accounts. Why are you asking me?

It isn’t a server that I have any control over. Therefore there is no paper trail. There isn’t even a e-mail trail because it was organized verbally when I was moaning about the server loads.

There is a link to an invoice for the server we’re currently on in the About. I put it up last month after ginger asked about the sites cost. Incidentally that was also the first time any person from the right had asked politely about this sites finances.

Usually it has just been accusations from the wingnuts – which is what you got banned for. If you’d asked politely then I would have provided. It is not as if I have a duty to disclose the finances of a privately held blog. For all of DPF’s ponticating in his comment above, he never bothered to simply ask – it would have probably interfered with his smear.

BTW: It isn’t hair-splitting – there was no transaction, and we were on a shared server for 3 weeks. Approximate costs – peanuts
sweeetdisorder 104

7 December 2008 at 10:38 pm

Lprent

“One of the main reasons to be pseudonymous here is to avoid being stalked by the media for quotes”

Weak, but never the less a plausible answer. You might want to ask other bloggers and see how much stalking they get. May be time to review that policy.

But you see that without real names to identities then you (not you personally) have created the question who are these guys and who they do work for. Until you (again, not you) name names, this question will always be present. Once you throw in alleged stories of 9th floor involvement then it becomes more and more difficult to show independence from any direct labour party associations.
lprent 105

7 December 2008 at 10:54 pm

sd: The point I’m making is all of those stories about 9th floor are alleged. There is and has been no proof.

The opinions of the posters here are what they write, done in their free time, and not on their employers behalf.

Of course there is always the edifying example of that obnoxious clown Cameron Slater with my previous employers to discourage anyone from considering doing the same. No doubt some similar stalking of employers would then ensue in exactly the way that arsehole did with me – see link, link and link

Tell me, would you feel comfortable with that happening to you? Of course the fuckwit was as usual wrong at almost every level and lying to boot. Oh and DPF as usual was along for the ride.
sweeetdisorder 106

7 December 2008 at 11:04 pm

Lprent

Well, that is the perception. Its up to the standard team if they want to change it, otherwise nothing else is going to change.
lprent 107

7 December 2008 at 11:08 pm

sd: Incidentally, that behavior by Cam with my previous employers are why I’d be extremely unhappy if anyone else here does want go public.

There would be virtually no remedy against the type of stalking behavior that Cam followed without going through a very long (and expensive) defamation court case. It would be a hell of an effort to probably get nothing more than an enforced apology. Which is of caurse why the pathetic idiot does it.

Hopefully that defamation case that he got caught in earlier this year will provide some case law.

I would even prefer the comments on here to be psuedonymous as a matter of policy. Stuff put on the net is liable to be around for a very long time. Which of course is why most people commenting here (and everywhere else), and most posters prefer to remain psuedonymous.

Besides in the end knowing who you are doesn’t really help much in evaluating the veracity of opinions.
Robinsod 108

7 December 2008 at 11:08 pm

I wouldn’t worry Lynn – the problem the right have is they think they own the internet. It was ticking along so nicely for so long with Farrar doing his wee thing and the various actoid losers abusing anyone posting from the left (or even the centre) into submission…

Problem is they don’t own the internet and the Standard drives them crazy by reminding them of this. Every. Single. Day. That’s why they have to pretend to themselves that the Standard is professionally run – because that’s the only way they can rationalise the fact that their nasty little blog-world could be taken off them…

They are essentially petty little bullies. I wouldn’t indulge them if I were you Lynn. In fact all of the ones I have identified – thanks to Cameron’s security breach – have been little nobodies…

There are two or three that work as National party staffers and there may be an interesting story behind how their salaries and/or living costs were funded – I’m still looking into that – but for the most part they are impotent punters as is demonstrated by how upsetting they find the Standard.

Oh and righties? I know a couple of the Standard guys and they ain’t on the payroll – they’re just smarter and better company than you bunch of festering sores and it shows in their posts…
Tim Ellis 109

7 December 2008 at 11:10 pm

Goodness me. What a slow news day it must have been. Storm in a teacup, and frankly I can see that people on both sides need to lighten up a bit. I understand that some of the Standard’s posters are sensitive about revealing their identities for whatever reason so it was a bit hypocritical for AYB to try and smear DPF in this way. From what I can gather DPF took the smear in good humour and AYB appears to have a bit of egg on his face. Trying to justify it based on “oh but he did it first” just looks lame.

Right, are we past the petty infighting from both sides now? Have we all got it off our chests?

Oh Robinsod, I suspect I’m a little old for you to be my father and my mother died many years ago, but that was an amusing response!

For those of you on the right who think that differing opinions aren’t accepted here, I manage to comment quite freely here by not being too obnoxious. Remember who owns this site. It’s their home. They seem to welcome genuine debate but really you wouldn’t go into somebody else’s home and start abusing them and expect them still to serve you a cup of tea.
illuminatedtiger 110

7 December 2008 at 11:18 pm

For what it’s worth Bomber’s NZ Blogosphere rankings hasn’t been kind to either of them. While Farrar may still have the top spot Whaleoil has slipped a number of points.
sweeetdisorder 111

7 December 2008 at 11:24 pm

Lprent

there are lots of left wing bloggers who use their real identities..Trotter, Jordon Carter, Tony Milne. Everyone knows who they are and what they are. They seem to live a normal life free of stalking. Same on the right side.

It seems to be only the standard gets this kind of attention.

“I would even prefer the comments on here to be psuedonymous as a matter of policy. Stuff put on the net is liable to be around for a very long time. Which of course is why most people commenting here (and everywhere else), and most posters prefer to remain psuedonymous.”

Yet, loads of other bloggers seem to be okay at having their identities out there. Granted, there are cases where people feel they have to vent, but are in a position that if their identity was known it may have consequences. This sort sort of answer leads us back, with regards to a left wing blog, to the bloggers at the standard, and alleged conenctions to the labour party.
lprent 112

7 December 2008 at 11:28 pm

TE: The short answer is no.

I realize that DPF would probably like to put this smear technique behind him. But personally it will take quite a while before I work the accumulated irritation about his appalling behavior out of my system.

In the spirit of mutual deterrence, I rather like the idea of turning the dog whistle tactic back on him. In the long run, it is only by having the tactic equally accessible to all sides that it will start being regarded as being unusable. I have to thank a_y_b for highlighting it again.

I doubt that it will ever be much of a site focus, if only because DPF has been around the nets almost as long as I have, but when the opportunity arises….

Cam of course is another matter. I consider that his particular brand of bile is something that should not be tolerated. I’ve seen that kind of crap help destroy usenet.
Robinsod 113

7 December 2008 at 11:33 pm

sweeetd – that’s ‘cos it’s only the standard that lays down the hits on the National party and its bloggers and ‘cos it’s only the standard that has gone to second biggest blog in its first year and a half. who are you?

But while we’re on the subject of identities – how about you tell me who you are? I mean it seems a bit rich to have you bleating on about everyone else when you’re also anonymous… So why not like – just tell us… After all there are plenty of other commenters who use their real names so why not you?
lprent 114

7 December 2008 at 11:35 pm

sd: The difference is that all of the people you’ve referenced have public profiles that they’re trying to enhance (as is DPF, Hooten, and maybe Clint Heine?).

The bloggers here are not trying to do so. This is something that we do in our spare time and is meant to be separate from RL. I’d have to ask the motivations about why people want to know the identities. It has bugger all to do with evaluating the opinions, they become pretty clear very fast. As far as I can see there is only one possible motivation and that is to do a Cam style stalk. But I guess that is what the national smear research unit want, so that is why there is this insatiable obession on the topic.

As I said, just look at Cam’s stalking of my previous employer.
Robinsod 115

7 December 2008 at 11:39 pm

I’ve gotta say Lynn – it’s got a bit dull around here lately. Even the trolls are being polite… At this rate I may have to go elsewhere to satiate my taste for ridiculing the right!
Tim Ellis 116

7 December 2008 at 11:45 pm

sd,

I think there are probably genuine reasons why some people don’t like posting under their own names. It gives them a degree of freedom to express what they would really like to say without having to be called on it, for sure. You would think that people who have the courage to post under their real names moderate their behaviour accordingly. DPF is pretty moderate and so are Tony Milne and Russell Brown, to name a few. I haven’t seen Matthew Pilott here for a while, but he’s a very thoughtful guy with some strong arguments who adds a lot to debate.

On the other had, exceptions to the rule appear to be Chris Trotter, who doesn’t seem to have a self-moderation setting in his brain, and Matthew Hooton. I liked the contrasting mix on that combined blog because they frequently came up with such preposterously extreme arguments. Perhaps I’m getting a bit conservative but Cam is a bit much for me, and not just his political opinions. It tends to be the little things that annoy me in his case. He did a post a while back with a photo of a triple-bunked room as a model for an ideal prison. When I saw that photo all I could think of was Auschwitz and I was just appalled.

Among the anonymous bloggers, I don’t have any idea who Dancer is, but s/he comes up with thoughtful, moderate posts that stir debate, often with new insights on issues that aren’t often covered. Lew is a highly intelligent, structured, logical debater who is a real challenge to talk through issues with. Gomango, on the other side, is also very interesting to read.

I enjoy the debate here. I think I’m coming to the view that anonymous or not, each commenter and poster has a certain identity, with various degrees of authenticity (some being more a projection rather than a reality), and what they contribute to debate has less to do with who they are or what their background is, but how seriously they engage others. It seems to me to be a bit of a cop-out to shout somebody down with “oh you would say that because you work in the Prime Minister’s office” or “yes that’s what we expected of a National Party stooge”. I don’t care what a person’s background is and from my observation it has little to do with the content of their argument. It’s just lazy to dismiss what people say by shouting CROSBY-TEXTOR! or COMMUNIST!

I think we can all judge who is here for serious discussion, and who isn’t. Those who come by throwing around allegations about other people and try to disrupt really say more about the weakness of their own argument than they do about the other person.
illuminatedtiger 117

7 December 2008 at 11:49 pm

Well you’re always welcome back with us ‘sod 🙂
sweeetdisorder 118

7 December 2008 at 11:57 pm

Lprent

I disagree with your conclusions as to why posters at the standard want to remain anon. But, I can see we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Robinsod

Firstly I think AYB can respond for himself, don’t you?

“But while we’re on the subject of identities – how about you tell me who you are?”

Sure, my name is Steve, I am a Sagittarius and I like long walks on the beach. I don’t belong to any political parties but have an interest in politics. I like 80’s music and have traveled extensively. Anything else you would like to know I am sure you can dig through my rubbish to find out.

“that’s â€˜cos it’s only the standard that lays down the hits on the National party and its bloggers and â€˜cos it’s only the standard that has gone to second biggest blog in its first year and a half.”

In my opinion the standard was, to a part responsible for labours loss; the constant theme of attacking Key. so, from my pov, keep on doing what you are doing, it is doing the opposite from what you desire.
lprent 119

8 December 2008 at 12:00 am

‘sod: I suppose that it is a problem. However I prefer to read comment that is readable. Of course you could post at your own blog?

TE: “I think I’m coming to the view that anonymous or not, each commenter and poster has a certain identity, with various degrees of authenticity (some being more a projection rather than a reality), and what they contribute to debate has less to do with who they are or what their background is, but how seriously they engage others”

Exactly. That is what has happened in every net comms channel I’ve ever been on from the fumbling attempts to get inter-university comms running in the early 1980’s (and the intra-university multi-player star trek games at 3am) to the current blogs.

I’m pretty harsh at moderating on some types of commentators purely because I’ve seen the cumulative effects of their behavior destroying some forums. Others get a lot of leeway (like the ‘sod or sweeetd or burt have in the past). While they often appear cranky and act very close to trolls, periodically, they contribute with ideas of value (like the ‘sods Guest post analysis of Wisharts book).

Besides I prefer not to moderate, it is a lot of persistent work.

Talking about persistent work, I’d better finish this caching plugin… (and the washing)
Tim Ellis 120

8 December 2008 at 12:01 am

I realize that DPF would probably like to put this smear technique behind him. But personally it will take quite a while before I work the accumulated irritation about his appalling behavior out of my system.

LP I realise this has hit a raw nerve for you and it is your blog so you can do whatever you like, but trying to use the blog to exercise your frustration just looks petty and it doesn’t do you justice. Mutual deterrence doesn’t work in blogging, because no matter what you do, there is always somebody out there crazier than you who will try to virtually mug you when you’re walking down the street and least expect it. Mutual deterrence might have been a good idea in the cold war when only two powers had a large nuclear arsenal where they could assure each others’ total annihilation. It made them careful. Blogging is much more democratic than that. It’s the equivalent of gifting nuclear warheads to everyone. When you do that you know that not everyone will behave appropriately. Some people will set the bugger off.

Turn the other cheek. If you need catharsis, go to the driving range and whack the cover off a golf ball. Evidently you have got very annoyed with Cam so you have two options. You can either dip into the sewer with him, or act like an adult. If you do the former you won’t be dignifying yourself. If you do the latter then he’ll get bored with winding you up and ignore you.

Moreover as much as this feud might be important to you (and granted it is your blog), I just don’t think it makes interesting reading for others. It just looks petty. You guys do a really good job filtering out the most obnoxious behaviour here by setting a good standard of debate. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t come here to read about what nasty things LP has to say about CS today in retaliation for what nasty things CS has said about LP the day before. I know you’re a reasonable person LP, and I listened to you on publicaddress radio a few weeks back and had a new level of respect for your contribution to the blogosphere. You’ve obviously done some fantastic work setting up this forum. Don’t undermine it by letting others get under your skin.
illuminatedtiger 121

8 December 2008 at 12:05 am

How the hell was The Standard responsible for Labour’s loss? I think you’re making blogs out to be a bigger influence than they are. If blogs had any real influence on elections National would be down to 25% on the count of Farrar alone.
Tim Ellis 122

8 December 2008 at 12:06 am

LP wrote:

Others get a lot of leeway (like the ‘sod or sweeetd or burt have in the past).

I agree. Sometimes they come off as a group of hecklers at a meeting. They generally aren’t very abusive (although sometimes are) and are often very amusing. I find them entertaining and a few times ‘sod has made a dig at me because I’ve been a bit pretentious or long-winded and he’s brought me down to earth and I’ve laughed out loud.
lprent 123

8 December 2008 at 12:22 am

TE: It is not so much of a feud as an obligation. If the type of behavior is not made costly. then it will result eventually in real problems as it escalates. I’ve seen it before in other forums and it is part of the inherent nature of the net.

This time it impacted on me and this site. Next time it could impact on someone who is less able to take care of themselves. It is better to stop it now with a controlled escalation. In this case it means turning the tactics on the perpetrators. The history of the net is replete with this type of conflict. Another area that this type of problem is being fought out is in places like the social networking sites, eg bebo. Previous examples are things like viruses, spam, denial of service attacks, RPC’s, usenet forums, etc

BTW: Do you have a link to the publicaddress radio thing – I don’t think I’ve ever heard myself on radio? Russell Brown was a bit short so I filled a gap. Found it… Here. That was interesting. Definitely not one of my major skillsets
r0b 124

8 December 2008 at 1:28 am

Definitely not one of my major skillsets

I thought you did just fine!
Rex Widerstrom 125

8 December 2008 at 1:32 am

Funny you should mention what happened to other fora, Lynn.

I saw nz.politics (to which I used to contribute) turn into an unusable flame pit, and thanked the dieties when blogs started appearing. No one who finds The Standard interesting and stimulating wants to see it meet that fate (and your moderating is the only thing standing between the blog and and a sewer outfall, I appreciate that, and commend you on the work you put in to keeping it usable).

So maybe it’d be a good idea if a_y_b didn’t set off exactly the sort of thing you claim to condemn by writing inflammatory, poorly researched, ad hominem posts, then.

What Whaleoil did in relation to yourself was totally unacceptable, IMHO. But as Tim Ellis says, choosing to go for a quick dip in the same sewer might make you feel better, but doesn’t do much for your overall standing. Having said that, I know how you feel – I’m probably lucky I’m several thousand miles away from Ron Mark and am not about to waste an air fare on him, or I’d have done something pretty undignified too (and probably ended up being shot by the DPS).

Tim Ellis: Since we’re trying to douse the fire with sugar water, I should mention I find you to be someone whose arguments are always worth reading and considering, and in particular your comments above are very apt, I think.
Tigger 126

8 December 2008 at 9:24 am

Farrar reminds me of one of those people who would love to be a politician but simply don’t have the skills – sort of like an uncle I had growing up who was always going on about how boobies and chicks but who was hopeless with the ladies.
relic 127

8 December 2008 at 2:19 pm

Spot on Tigger, reminds me of Trevor Louden on New Zeal sniffing his way through the underwear of the left, always outside looking in, destined never to know what it is really like at the centre of the action.
Kimble 128

8 December 2008 at 3:47 pm

So we are all in agreement then?

The evidence AYB presented is worthless and his entire post is nothing more than easily discredited speculation. It makes him and everyone who agrees with him look like fools.
Kimble 129

8 December 2008 at 3:59 pm

“In my opinion the standard was, to a part responsible for labours loss; the constant theme of attacking Key…”

Perhaps responsible isnt the right word. Certainly the attitude and character of The Standard is reminiscent of the attitude and character that caused people to turn away from Labour.

The muck-raking was a big part of it, and that is almost all that The Standard is; it is just one big muck raking group blog. It wasnt a pro-Labour site, it was always simply anti-National.

The Standard is just a gossipy little fart of a site that never provides any discussion of alternatives, it never takes a position that is the opposite of Labour policy (even on blatantly corrupt policy).

Labour was out of ideas mid way through their second term. The Standard started out with no ideas and regressed from there.

Its posters exhibit the sort of arrogant incompetence people associate with the last Labour government.

Eventually you have to stump up with more than “its all Nationals fault”. Labour didnt realise that and were doomed because of it. The Standard will never realise it and that is why it will remain nothing but an echo chamber.

[lprent: Curious, if you believe all of those things, why do you keep coming back, over and over again? Have a written flatulence problem perhaps? If you ask, I could assist in helping you to resist the temptation. It really is little effort (rather like the level of thought you put into your comments).]
Phil 130

8 December 2008 at 5:39 pm

…why do you keep coming back, over and over again?

Why do people slow down when going past traffic accidents?
lprent 131

8 December 2008 at 7:13 pm

Looks like we’re getting under the skin of a certain puerile blogger. As per normal he can’t resist lying

Lie: “The self rated best sysop in the world”
Never said it, never would. There are always going to be better sysops.

Lie: “You would think with the lack of blogging a_y_b would have had time to update the site since he managed to keep his job, albeit in a different office now that has a view that isn’t quite so appealing.”
a_y_b is still in his origional office that he has been working in since I’ve known him. He is one of the few authors on here that I do know. Of course if you lie the first time, then a liar has to keep following the same stupid line.

Ok I stand corrected – he does not lie all of the time.
Partial truth: “I have been banned from responding because Lynn (that surely is a girls name) thinks I am technically illiterate and because I am a creep.”
Yes I do think that he is technically incompetent and a creep. The latter appears to be a common perception. However he has been banned because he wastes my time and I don’t think he adds anything to this site. The mere fact I detest him helps admittedly.
Jum 132

8 December 2008 at 10:02 pm

David Farrar
December 7, 2008 at 1:55 pm

You just had to use the word ‘key’ didn’t you. Did you get paid for that?
Jum 133

8 December 2008 at 10:16 pm

burt re your need to know
December 7, 2008 at 10:27 pm

re my need to know

Tell me who donated money into National’s secret trusts. It was Key and NZBusiness Roundtable wasn’t it. He bought his Act-place in National.
Jum 134

9 December 2008 at 8:19 am

Phil
Re December 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

People go slow past traffic accidents out of respect and care for the injured, dead and dying.

Anyone not doing that are the very people who caused them. Which group are you in?