Kiwiblog loses the plot

79 comments on “Kiwiblog loses the plot ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robert Owen 1

   5 November 2007 at 10:55 pm

   Well I can’t get moderated I have an indefinite ban
   I wear it with pride
2. Insolent Prick 2

   5 November 2007 at 10:59 pm

   You’re just cranky, Tane, that your desperate attempt to hijack a thread was foiled. The last thing you want is people actually talking about the insane attempts of this torrid government to abuse its power to buy another election with taxpayers’ money.
3. Santa Claws 3

   5 November 2007 at 11:03 pm

   Ho Ho Ho

   Tane – if you are going to defend the biggest attack on free speech ever in NZ then its a bit lame about complaining about having your comments deleted.

   As for Robespierre, well, what would you expect from someone who lives in the gutter?

   No doubt your pals at KBB would ever do such a thing eh?

   At least its good to see you admit that this is a labour-funded website run by labour activists. After your whining about KTB I’m sure you won’t mind opening the books here.

   Losers.

   And were you not threatening to moderate me a couple of days ago.

   Honestly, your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
4. Tane 4

   5 November 2007 at 11:04 pm

   Why did you get banned Robert? You’re always so polite!
5. r0b 5

   5 November 2007 at 11:08 pm

   I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m actually worried about DPF’s health. The man should take a holiday. Somehwere far from politics for a couple of weeks. Get some fresh air.
6. illuminatedtiger 6

   5 November 2007 at 11:10 pm

   Yes I had two posts deleted in reply to DPF’s despicable accusations that Labour was a party of violence. I stated that if Labour is a party of violence then by DPF’s logic National is a party of corruption (a business he was involved in was investigated by the serious fraud office). Rakaunui didn’t take kindly to this and deleted my posts saying I was “off topic”. So the only way you can be on topic now apparently is if you are slagging off Labour or making personal comments about the Prime Minister.
7. Tane 7

   5 November 2007 at 11:10 pm

   Ah Santa, we’ve been through all of this before.

   1) The EFB is about restricting spending, not speech. There’s a big difference.

   2) I’m not sure what you’re on about regarding Labour. Many of the contributors are Labour Party members, others are not. We’re all labour activists with a small l, though. A blog costs nothing to run.

   3) Yes, when you were repeatedly spouting vile homophobia I said I’d rather not have to introduce moderation. I didn’t. Not that there’s anything wrong with moderation when it’s fair and non-partisan. David’s isn’t – he’s fighting for his reputation within the party.

   Remember when my comment about the Bell Gully Trust Fund’s donations to National made it onto Newstalk ZB and DPF was stupid enough to give it further oxygen by vanity posting about it? Being called on his shit ain’t good for business.
8. illuminatedtiger 8

   5 November 2007 at 11:18 pm

   In my post above when I refer to “he” I refer to John Key.
9. Santa Claws 9

   5 November 2007 at 11:27 pm

   Well Tane, if you call getting an irrelevant smear onto ZB good for Labour then I guess you won a point there.

   I don’t see why you expect David to provide you and Robespierre a forum for outright lies and personal attacks. There is plenty of dissent tolerated there, but it needs to be reasonably expressed. Other seems to manage OK. I wonder if you think the Public Address would permit the sort of comments that you and Robespierre prefer?

   DPF puts his name and reputation behind his site – you don’t.

   Ans vile homophobia – I suppose you can justify anything with that label. Next you’ll be calling me a racist.
10. Robert Owen 10

    5 November 2007 at 11:33 pm

    I think I got banned because someone here ( my sons and/or his scarfie mates apparently
    Typed a similar message to this
    ” you are a Short fat ugly Tory
    unfortunately you can only change two of the above ”

    Which I feel deserved to get banned
    The bastards, Green supporters too
    Youth of today eh ?
    If only I had smacked him as a child
11. illuminatedtiger 11

    5 November 2007 at 11:52 pm

    If you don’t have anything positive to contribute Santa than may I make the suggestion that you leave?
12. Benodic 12

    5 November 2007 at 11:55 pm

    Santa is a genuine troll. He very rarely has anything constructive to offer and is frequently off-topic. Yet the guys (and girls, I presume) at The Standard tolerate him. Shows you which side really stands for free speech, eh?
13. Benodic 13

    5 November 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Oh, and I don’t even bother commenting on sewerblog. Frankly I think it’s only the remaining lefties who are keeping it alive.

    How long do you think before the media catch on to what everyone else in the blogosphere already knows?
14. Robert Owen 14

    5 November 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Santa claws is DPF
    Same writing style
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=614#comment-2953

    “Kudos for Chris on being up-front though, and it is a good tune.”

    “Kudos” he uses it all the time
15. illuminatedtiger 15

    6 November 2007 at 12:02 am

    Exactly. He is tolerated, I’m sure he could be banned but thats not what this place is all about. Perhaps some sort of Digg-style moderation system could be used. If someone writes a good constructive post then they get a vote and if they are a troll like Santa is then they get a vote deducted. The posts with the most votes are the most visible on the page.
16. Benodic 16

    6 November 2007 at 12:03 am

    I’m not so sure. DPF calls kill the bill ‘KtB’ with a small t. Santa uses a large T. But it wouldn’t surprise me. Robinsod had a theory that DPF was Redbaiter for a while, and the lunatics on Kiwiblog seem to be under the impression that the standard and blogblog are both run out of the ninth floor by Helen’s paid advisors.
17. Benodic 17

    6 November 2007 at 12:06 am

    Deborah – You mean the Tories I’m guessing?
18. illuminatedtiger 18

    6 November 2007 at 12:06 am

    Well of course. It’s impossible to support Labour these days without being labeled a party member.
19. Robinsod 19

    6 November 2007 at 7:44 am

    I can’t believe I missed it – Claws is DPF! Well welcome DPF, I’m glad you’re visiting the standard. Just one question though: if you bang on about people hiding behind anonymity over there then why not come clean here – are you afraid? Oh and I’ve no problem with anonymity it’s just you make such a big issue of it…
20. Robert Owen 20

    6 November 2007 at 8:18 am

    Robinsod
    Yeah I’m pretty sure it is
    To many similarities
21. Deborah 21

    6 November 2007 at 9:12 am

    Ooops – that ‘post’ up there under my name is not actually from me. My partner accidentally posted while our computer was logged into my own wordpress blog, so his post on The Standard came up under my name. If you have a look at my blog (inastrangeland.wordpress.com), you will see that the post really is NOT the sort of thing I would say.

    Umm… is anyone able to delete the post? Please?

    As you might imagine, we have some interesting conversations in our house at times.

    [Tane: Done.]
22. Margaret 22

    6 November 2007 at 10:39 am

    That happens to me from time to time too Deborah! You would think having different log-ins under Windows would deal with it but sadly not.

    On the issue of moderation at Kiwiblog, I am quite surprised at the way Farrar has decided to impose it. On forums I have experienced that have a team of moderators it is usual for a moderator to be someone already active in the forum, and therefore someone with some credibility with the readership. I don’t read the comment threads at Kiwiblog much but I don’t remember ever coming across Rakaunui before moderation started?
23. Deborah 23

    6 November 2007 at 11:18 am

    Thank you, Tane. And Margaret.
24. Robinsod 24

    6 November 2007 at 11:19 am

    Margaret – Rakaunui is a fake. As far as I can tell he’s been made up by DPF to give the blog some “bro” creds (I suspect this is a reaction to Tane)
25. slightlyrighty 25

    6 November 2007 at 11:52 am

    Tane.

    You are arguing semantics. At face value restricting spending may not be the same as restricting speech, but the reality is far different. What the EFB will do is allow the New Zealand government to conduct “public information” campaigns to promote the benefits of legislation passed into law such as WFF, and 20 “free” hours. Although Labour would not be specifically mentioned, (although the recent 0800 service launched by the health ministry would have done exactly that until John Key brought that to the attention of parliament) you would have to have been living under a rock not to make the connection given that Labour is the government.

    The EFB would dramatically reduce the ability of genuine interest groups to respond. Yes they can openly criticise the government, but in the face of a well funded, multimedia campaign, would that criticism be effective if limited to a $60,000 cap?

    Or to put it philisophically, If a group criticises the government, and no one is able to listen to it, does that group make a noise?
26. Robinsod 26

    6 November 2007 at 12:15 pm

    SR – A centre govt increases public service and support. These public services and supports are advertised in order to make people aware of their eligibility of them. What a conspiracy. The only reason the right whinge about this is that they know that when they are in govt they can’t do the same thing? Why? Because ads like – we’ve cut your benefit, you’re gonna have to pay more for health/education etc don’t really appeal to voters. They just don’t like having the light shone on them, those righties…
27. Insolent Prick 27

    6 November 2007 at 12:37 pm

    You are making inroads in your quest to write the most facile comment of the day, Robinsod.

    The Government spends far more on “public information campaigns”, which just happen to advocate its policies, such as kiwisaver, WFF, 20 free hours, subsidised primary healthcare, environmental sustainability, etc etc than ever before. You simply cannot turn on the television without seeing a government advertisement. The entire New Zealand media industry is now dependent on government advertising to sustain itself.

    No amount of spending by private individuals can ever counter the massive spending by government advertising government services. Government advertising gives incumbency a vast benefit. You could put together twenty of your much-hated Exclusive Brethren organisations, and they would still have zero impact on the political debate compared to the masses of propaganda coming in every direction from government departments.

    Now, the fact is, Robinsod, Labour will lose the next election. It will lose the next election really rather heavily. Now, if the EFB goes through and has this kind of effect on political opposition, and this level of state-sponsored advertising enforcing the policies of the Government of the day, would you be comfortable with this outrageous political advantage keeping Labour out of office for fifteen years?

    Because that’s what will happen.

    Be honest now, Robinsod. If National in Government used anything like the resources that Labour is using now to stay elected, you would riot in the streets. Have a smidgeon of integrity about you, Robinsod. Admit that it’s wrong for any political party to raid the taxpayer’s money and trust for those purposes.
28. roger nome 28

    6 November 2007 at 2:01 pm

    “actually worried about DPF’s health. The man should take a holiday. Somehwere far from politics for a couple of weeks. Get some fresh air.”

    Agree whole heartedly. When I saw DPF a couple of weeks ago he looked over-worked and under-exercised. Like many on the right he seems to prioritise work, money and status over nearly everything else. At his present rate I can’t see DPF living past the age of 60, which is a shame.
29. mardypants 29

    6 November 2007 at 2:10 pm

    We’ve noticed the same thing – in response to some of our/your regulars, we’ve opened a thread for people to repost anything deleted or edited by the moderators. We’ve done this for two reasons. One, ’cause it’ll be fun and boost our traffic. Two, because the whole point of our existence is to question Farrar’s bona fides – by deleting comments from the left (which largely confirms our suspicions) he silences the very commenters who’re regularly and eloquently pointing out his spin.
30. Robinsod 30

    6 November 2007 at 2:10 pm

    You are making inroads in your quest to write the most facile comment of the day

    Ha! Delusions of grandeur again Prick? No one care what you think mate because you never back it up with anything but snide nerdyness. You’re a punter mate and I get the feeling it probably really frustrates you that you’re not taken seriously. Get back to work.
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    6 November 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Interestingly lucid comment from Ralston – now I admit I read sweet F.A of his work and have no idea as to his slant, but I am generally amazed that someone from the MSM has noticed that the tide in virtually all forums is strongly against National.

    Now, are all the pro-National bloggers/commentors/letter writers “National Activists”?

    I am strongly pro-Labour (capital ‘L’ as I am referring to the party, although it clearly follows I will be a supporter of the wider movement) but don’t see myself as a Labour Party Activist. The reason that I note this is that it galls me somewhat to be ctaegorised as such, as it will for many people. Must one be a Labour Party wmember/activist to support them and their policies?

    Many people like their policies if not their politics and philosophy.

    Others hate them for a variety of reasons but pragmatically support them due to an even greater dislike for the right.

    Yet you’ve got to be a “Labour Party activist” to be a supporter of their policies, or to critique those of National and the comments of its supporters…I think not.
32. the sprout 32

    6 November 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Grasshopper, what is the sound of Kiwibog’s wheels coming off?
33. Robinsod 33

    6 November 2007 at 5:46 pm

    It’s kind of a mixture of a high pitched whine and the gnashing of teeth I suspect.
34. Insolent Prick 34

    6 November 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Well done, Robinsod. You’ve proven your intellectual dishonesty and inability to engage in debate, because you consistently lose. Feel free to prove me wrong by beating me with an actual argument.
35. the sprout 35

    6 November 2007 at 5:54 pm

    yeah. sort of squeely and crunchy.
36. Robinsod 36

    6 November 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Prick – you’re a punter. That’s why you’ve attached yourself to DPF – he represents the closest thing you have to a real insider. It’s also why you bandy naive phrases like “intellectual dishonesty” about. I’m not gonna waste my time with a hack like you. Honestly? It was kind fun winding you lot up for a while but bro? There’s more important stuff for me to be doing. Go back to punter-lad where you belong.
37. Santa Claws 37

    6 November 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Ho Ho Ho

    Wot a larf!
38. the sprout 38

    6 November 2007 at 6:46 pm

    that belly makes a good resonator dave
39. Benodic 39

    6 November 2007 at 6:52 pm

    Sprouty you crack me up.
40. Santa Claws 40

    6 November 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Typical lefties, just attack the messenger.

    It was obvious to anyone with half a brain (which you obviously lack) that Robespierre was going to get a ban. Nice to see that it is indefinite. If you behave like the arse you obviously are, then what do you expect?

    Carry on calling me DPF if it gives you a thrill. You are totally wrong though. I’m sure the site owners will have been recording my IP address already and would be making plenty of noise if it was resolving to Curia or InternetNZ.

    How about it Tane – am I DPF?
41. Tane 41

    6 November 2007 at 7:13 pm

    Typical lefties, just attack the messenger.

    That’s exactly what rakaunui/dpf said today!

    And Santy bro, unlike the censors over at kiwibog we don’t track IP addresses or threaten to reveal people’s names or place of employment. It’s all good bro – relax.
42. Robinsod 42

    6 November 2007 at 7:18 pm

    Methinks the DPF Claws protests too much. I’d be very surprised (and a little disappointed) if DPF didn’t have the good sense to use an anonymiser (here’s a tip: hidemyass.com – and there’s hundreds more). And Like Tane says Claws “attack the messenger” is verbatim Rakaunui/DPF. Do you miss me David? Oh and just for old time’s sake? Fuck off.
43. the sprout 43

    6 November 2007 at 7:57 pm

    for dave, and people with a sense of humour
44. Insolent Prick 44

    6 November 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Don’t lie, Robinsod. The truth is that you’ve disengaged from the argument because you keep getting beaten.

    Crikey, you lefties are an ill-tempered lot. As soon as you fail to win debates you do all sorts of kicking and tantrum-throwing to avoid debating.

    Why don’t you just shut down the comments section entirely, Robinsod, if you can’t handle people with better arguments confronting your narrow view of the world?
45. burt 45

    6 November 2007 at 10:31 pm

    the sprout.

    You said over here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=544#comment-1957

    “oh and by the way bertie, the surplus was 2.9bn, not 8.”

    Interestingly that was in a thread where you were telling me I had much to learn about propaganda over surplus analysis.

    So how are Labour going to pay for tax cuts? National was o so nasty and needing to borrow for tax cuts but Labour seem to have it waxed? How so?
46. r0b 46

    6 November 2007 at 11:15 pm

    “So how are Labour going to pay for tax cuts?”

    Out of ongoing surpluses, which Treasury now advises them are structural. No borrowing, no cuts, those were Dr Cullen’s criteria.
47. burt 47

    6 November 2007 at 11:40 pm

    But it’s only a $2.9b surplus, we have previously had “an $8b surplus and not tax custs – wot’s the cunnection?” so just how much more is it predicted to rise.
48. Insolent Prick 48

    6 November 2007 at 11:41 pm

    Perhaps, Robinsod, you don’t see the irony yourself, and need it pointed out to you. You really are a parody of yourself when, in a post claiming that kiwiblog is losing the post because it is cracking down on commenters who try to hijack threads, you resort to hurling abuse instead of engaging in debate. So you lost the debate, Robinsod. Grow up. You’re not going to win any arguments if you descend to shit-flinging when you run out of debating points.
49. burt 49

    6 November 2007 at 11:45 pm

    IP

    Robinsod descents to shit-flinging at the first opportunity to comment. It’s the Labour way – come out punching.

    Jordan nails it here: Jordan Carter on Benson-Pope

    “I am glad that David Benson-Pope has come out punching.”

    Quite the visionary on Labour tactics our Jordan.
50. Benodic 50

    6 November 2007 at 11:46 pm

    Burt I understand Labour’s tax cuts are going to be paid for out of cash surpluses. That’s closer to the $2b figure.
51. burt 51

    6 November 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Benodic

    So gullible… OK I’ll spell it out. The (cough cough) $2.9b surplus in 2007 will be used to fund $about $2b of tax cuts from 2009 on wards…. Treasury forecasts an even bigger surplus next year (2008) and one must asume for 2009 as well. About which time the $2b from 2007 will start to be spent throwing tax cut crumbs to working class scabs.

    You think this is an acceptable way to fleece a country?
52. Robinsod 52

    7 November 2007 at 7:07 am

    Working class scabs, Burt? You sicken me.
53. Robinsod 53

    7 November 2007 at 8:28 am

    Why don’t you just shut down the comments section entirely, Robinsod,

    Prick – I can’t shut down the comments because I’m not a part of the standard. I make comments. Now, if I said to you – “if you don’t like me posting at KB then shut me out” you’d (rightly) find it absurd.

    Y’see prick – this is why I can’t be bothered debating with you. You don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument. It’s a credibility thing bro.
54. r0b 54

    7 November 2007 at 8:29 am

    “Working class scabs, Burt? You sicken me.”

    I’ll second that. Come on Burt, you can make your case without govelling in the gutter.
55. Santa Claws 55

    7 November 2007 at 9:35 am

    Tane: “And Santy bro, unlike the censors over at kiwibog we don’t track IP addresses or threaten to reveal people’s names or place of employment.”

    You know Tane, I have a really hard time believing that this policy will always apply. After all there doesn’t appear to be any such policy stated on the blog at the top level, and y’all are running this anonymously. Not confidence-inspiring I’m afraid.

    And Robespierre keeps throwing that ‘SIS files’ line around, or is that just another lie?
56. Insolent Prick 56

    7 November 2007 at 11:05 am

    Clearly, robinsod, you’re too ignorant to recognise that “working class scabs” was a reference to a phrase used by Michael Cullen in the House to describe a group of people he didn’t like.

    The phrase sickens you? Complain to Michael Cullen.
57. Robinsod (moderator) 57

    7 November 2007 at 11:29 am

    DPF Claws – it’s a joke based on the fact you righties are constantly accusing me of professional trolling from the 9th floor. D’ya geddit?

    Prick – yes, yes, I’m ignorant and you’re smart. I had a look at your blog for the first time today bro and I’ve gotta say if you’re gonna take this highfalutin attitude you should either make sure you can walk the talk or just take it down. Oh and yeah – the phrase sickens me whether it’s Cullen or Burt using it. Though now you’ve elucidated its origin I might just pop across the Hall and have a talk to Mike about it (I’ve got to drop him off a new batch of SIS files anyway…)
58. Tane 58

    7 November 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Santa, Robinsod doesn’t write for the standard. He’s a commenter and he’s a mate of mine, but he doesn’t have access to your details, let alone your SIS files. We don’t have a comments policy, but we’re working on one. As yet, I’ve only deleted one comment and that was on the request of the person responsible for it.
59. dave 59

    7 November 2007 at 5:43 pm

    can someone tell me why the commentors and authors of the blog spend more time writing irrelvant comments on KiwiBlog than on their own little blog? It’s people like you who make the political blogosphere BORING………
60. Benodic 60

    7 November 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Which ones would those be? Of the authors of this blog I’ve only seen Tane over at Kiwiblog and he leaves you lot for dog tucker. And hey, someone’s gotta do it. I’m just glad it’s not me.
61. r0b 61

    7 November 2007 at 6:00 pm

    ” It’s people like you who make the political blogosphere BORING…”

    Yeah right. The Standard has been a breath of fresh air in NZ political blogging. Thanks to the team with the time and the energy to make it happen!
62. dave 62

    7 November 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Thanks Robin Sod. Why, could it be that Robinsod and R0b the same person – is posts under two names? Perhaps he does that over at Kiwi BLog as well…
63. Tane 63

    7 November 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Dave, I thought we were over this game. I can assure you that r0b and ‘sod are not the same person. Anyone barely literate would be able to tell that from their writing styles.
64. r0b 64

    7 November 2007 at 6:31 pm

    “Thanks Robin Sod. Why, could it be that Robinsod and R0b the same person – is posts under two names? Perhaps he does that over at Kiwi BLog as well.”

    Not the same person I promise you. And I have never posted at Kiwibog.
65. dave 65

    7 November 2007 at 7:19 pm

    well that sorts that out, thanks Tane for emailing ROb to ask him to do a post on your blog…
66. Tane 66

    7 November 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Dave, pathetic. Is that really all you’ve got?
67. r0b 67

    7 November 2007 at 7:32 pm

    I’m sorry dave

    Really, I’m not interesting enough for a conspiracy theory. I’ve never met or communicated with any of the fine people who host The Standard. I’m just a big fan of their work.

    Cheers eh. R0b.
68. burt 68

    7 November 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Oh

    Here is a link where the phrase “working class scab” was referenced from.

    http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20061024.htm

    John Key: In the Minister’s forthcoming speech to the Labour Party conference this weekend, will he be explaining why, after 7 years of healthy and, particularly lately, bumper surpluses, after 7 years of fiscal drag, and after 7 years of seeing tax increase as a proportion of national income, he has finally come to the realisation that tax cuts might make sense; can he also understand why the workers in his audience listening to his speech on Saturday or Sunday— whenever he delivers it—who look across the Tasman will feel a 7-year itch when they see an Australian Labor Party that is arguing for tax cuts and has been doing so for quite some time?

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When it comes to 7-year itches, the Labour Party members know a working-class scab when they see one.

    Some things never change … that is till an election year!
69. r0b 69

    7 November 2007 at 9:33 pm

    I won’t defend Cullen’s use of the phrase – in my opinion it’s the most distasteful thing that he’s said – it’s awful. But it’s a rare lapse from a man who is usually intelligent, compassionate, and witty.

    You Burt, do not appear to have any of Cullen’s redeeming features. You used the line “working class scabs” to refer to everyone getting a tax cut. It might have been a subtle play on Cullen, or it might express your your true belief, I don’t know. But either way it was gutter stuff. Hope you’re proud.
70. Insolent Prick 70

    8 November 2007 at 9:12 am

    Amusing how rOb feigns indignant when he drops the ball and misses an ironic reference to a line from Michael Cullen.

    rOb, I’ll try another one for you. Do you wake up every morning concerned that the rest of the world is so against you because you’re just so popular and competent?

    Let me guess. The idea of being popular and competent offends you and sickens you now, doesn’t it?
71. r0b 71

    8 November 2007 at 9:30 am

    “Amusing how rOb feigns indignant when he drops the ball and misses an ironic reference to a line from Michael Cullen.”

    Yup – larfs all round! If it was an ironic reference that is, and not Burt’s view of the world. Kinda hard to tell.

    Here, I’ll let you in to a secret or two IP. I don’t know everything, I’m sometimes wrong, when I’m wrong I admit it, I don’t agree with everything Labour says and does, I don’t attack individuals, and if it’s ever necessary for me to apologise for something then I’ll apologise.

    And you, IP, are very predictable. I was expecting you to come after me after I smacked you so hard here:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=618

    And here you are! Out for vengeance! Yee hah.
72. Robinsod (moderator) 72

    8 November 2007 at 9:33 am

    IP – Damn yeas popular and competent sickens me big time. That’s why I’m gonna vote tory next year…
73. Robinsod (moderator) 73

    8 November 2007 at 9:40 am

    See – I’m already spelling like one.
74. santa claws 74

    8 November 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Hi Santa here
    Does anyone know how long it takes to get cleared for moderation on Kiwiblog
    for some reason it taken a while
    I can’t possibly think why

    I know its pretty instant here, to your credit

    # Santa Claws Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    November 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am

    # Santa Claws Says: Your comment is
    awaiting moderation.
    November 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am
75. santa claws 75

    8 November 2007 at 12:09 pm

    Maybe they have to check my IP address
76. Tane 76

    8 November 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Hi Santa, a mate of mine tried the other day and I’m not even sure he’s been approved yet. Seems to take some time.
77. Robinsod 77

    8 November 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Tane, I’m not sure this is santa. The tone is way wrong. I know you don’t check IP’s but it might be worth doing so here to make sure DPF Claws isn’t being misrepresented.
78. santa claws 78

    8 November 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Don’t bother I was taking the piss
    I reckon if Santa wasn’t dpf he wouldnot be able to log on to KB and if he was he wouldn’t be able too
    I will now dissapear
79. ANGUS 79

    9 November 2007 at 7:05 pm

    I used to be able to comment about the ridiculous videos posted to YouTube by the National Party’s highly paid online worker. But, due to being one of the people who are eager to point out the flaws in Nationals ideology, speeches, and MP’s I was blocked due to quote, “trolling”.

    It seems to me that the National party is more than eager to moderate their sites (johnkey.co.nz; billenglish.co.nz; etc. are all moderated) to filter through only Right-wing dribble. It would be a jaw-dropping day if Labour ever chose to censor their sites.

    If the National party is prepared to connect with the constituents via the internet then they must be prepared to put up with some bloody opposition. Nothing annoys me more than MP’s actively IGNORING the public – so a political party that chooses to censor public opinion does not deserve to be a political party. Politics is people, Labour is people, National is censorship!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS