Latest Cosmopolitician on shelves now

91 comments on “Latest Cosmopolitician on shelves now ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Insolent Prick 1

   13 November 2007 at 7:45 pm

   It’s a shame that kind of humour would be illegal under Labour’s Electoral Finance Bill. The anonymous publishers of it would be forced to register with a government agency and sign statutory declarations.
2. Tane 2

   13 November 2007 at 7:54 pm

   No it won’t, Prick, because that’s being sorted out in select committee. You’re not an editor at the Herald are you?

   (Oh, and you forgot to call me ‘hollow’. Try to stay on message bro.)
3. the sprout 3

   13 November 2007 at 8:08 pm

   i hollow National Men think hollow National Men it’s hollow National men an hollow National Men excellent hollow National Men cover, well hollow National Men done to hollow National Men its hollow National Men creator. i’m hollow National Men guessing hollow National Men Cosmopolitician hollow National Men isn’t hollow National Men an hollow National Men APN hollow National Men production?

   infantile as he is you know IP is right though, we aren’t reminding people of the hollow National Men nearly often enough. maybe it should be a daily ritual?
4. Lee C 4

   13 November 2007 at 8:09 pm

   I made this link from The Herald. I shudder to think how many ‘ordinary folks’ have clicked on the Herald’s link to the Very Double Standard’ and seen the ‘attack-politics’ of the Labour poodles for themselves.

   Keep up the good work, boys and girls.
5. Robinsod (moderator) 5

   13 November 2007 at 8:15 pm

   Hey Lee – I read your EFB submission. “Egregious” eh? Hilarious more like…
6. Insolent Prick 6

   13 November 2007 at 8:25 pm

   I think it’s just delightful that you have so much faith in Lynne Pillay, Tane. For a woman who can’t even give the House an idea on when the Bill will report back, you have a remarkable belief in her ability to take instructions from the new minister of Justice, after the last one was sacked for the mismanagement of the EFB.
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   13 November 2007 at 8:44 pm

   Lee, just in case you only engage your frontal lobes when on this site (judging by that comment I consider it unlikely) try reading what some of the rabid hordes spew forth on KB. It’s not pretty…

   Couple of questions: to whom does ‘ordinary folks’ refer? Are you calling the ladies and gents at The Standard extraordinary? Why thank you, so nice to see. Bit of a change in tone from your normal “oh why oh why won’t National do (insert action here)?” – I have a hint – they have no policies that they’d care to share with those ‘ordinary folk’ out there…

   “The Very Double Standard” – Robinsod commented you made a submission on the EFB – I hope you got it proof-read, that’s not the best grammar; you’re tending towards the lame end of the scale, but keep up the ‘good’ work boy.
8. illuminatedtiger 8

   13 November 2007 at 8:50 pm

   Tane and co: Why do you put up with these insolent pricks day in day out and even respect them? If you came onto Kiwiblog and stuck up for Labour you would be abused for days!
9. Robinsod 9

   13 November 2007 at 8:55 pm

   And then banned Tiger. I guess the standard just has a greater respect for freedom of expression than DPF does.
10. illuminatedtiger 10

    13 November 2007 at 9:01 pm

    I too am all for freedom of expression but perhaps the introduction of an ignore option? I’m getting tired of these blimps coming in and venting their verbal diarrhea while contributing absolutely nothing.
11. Lee C 11

    13 November 2007 at 9:23 pm

    Robinsod
    I was trying to work out why you had taken exception to my thoughts, and why you seem to think that I am linked to the KtB movement. Then it struck me. You had stumbled on the word ‘Egregious’, and the vocabulary frightened you because you didn’t know what it meant! You silly boy, you must have read it and thought it meant ‘a word used by someone who is defending the abusive comments of some other, totally unrelated people in a different time and place.!!

    So, anyway, I looked it up for you:

    ‘Egregious’ It describes something as: Extremely or remarkably bad; flagrant, behavior.

    adjective
    conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible; “a crying shame”; “an egregious lie”; “flagrant violation of human rights”; “a glaring error”; “gross ineptitude”; “gross injustice”; “rank treachery”….

    Apologies for the confusion, Robinsod. It certainly describes the EFB to me.

    I humbly apologise on the other hand to Matthew Pilott for my many lapses of grammar, I’m just a working class boy, probably not fit to shine your posh, well-educated shoes.

    Oh, clever me! I’ve stumbled on a ‘double standard’ by mistake! How ironic a defender of the left chastising someone for ‘bad grammar’, while pretending to be a champion of the down-trodden, under-represented and oppressed!

    The ‘ordinary folks’ to my mind are the everyday types who read the Herald, who apparently in your strange fantasy world are apparently part of a right-wing conspiracy to buy the next election.

    Yes I do regard the people who put the ‘Very Double Standard’ together as ‘extraordinary:

    “Beyond or out of the common order or method; not usual, customary, regular, or ordinary; as, extraordinary evils; extraordinary remedies.

    Employed or sent upon an unusual or special service; as, an ambassador extraordinary.”

    I certainly feel yo belive you have been ‘sent’ to do Helen’s work. Minions rushing out from under your leader’s skirts to do battle with the ‘Dark Side’.
    Like little Jesuits – the Pope’s shock-troops if you will.

    I cherry picked the definitions for your benefit.

    Pilott – vidently you have such a shallow pool of self-esteem you had to go fishing for the compliment – so there it is.

    Ps can one be ‘tending towards the lame end of the scale’?

    Show me a scale with ‘lame’ written on it- is it a way to test animals for their tramping ability?

    It sounds – so – nonsensical, but then I don’t have your extraordinary command of the language.

    Ooh, how witty of me, I’ve just stumbled on another ‘double-standard’ A person who berates someone’s grammar who then illustrates that he does not know the difference between an analogy and an anomoly! How precious! And I did it while blogging on -wait for it ‘The Very Double Standard! – I crack myself up sometimes.

    Wankers.
12. Lee C 12

    13 November 2007 at 9:31 pm

    Is that what you had in mind, illuminated?
13. Robinsod 13

    13 November 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Lee – I was actually taking the piss out of your highfalutin register. You’ve tried so hard to sound clever you barely make sense. But to be fair I’ll post the link and let people make up their own minds:
    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E43F5842-676B-4671-BEF9-D0E65CFAE702/64880/LeeClark1.pdf

    Oh and Lee, egregious can also mean eminent.
14. illuminatedtiger 14

    13 November 2007 at 10:02 pm

    Words cannot describe how utterly shocking that is. That piece of shit you call a submission wouldn’t even be passable even under year 12 English.
15. illuminatedtiger 15

    13 November 2007 at 10:11 pm

    But seriously if you can’t form a spell or form a grammatically correct sentence you should either a) get someone to proof read or b) give your submission orally.
16. illuminatedtiger 16

    13 November 2007 at 10:12 pm

    And I do apologize. The above should read:

    *spell or form
17. ak 17

    13 November 2007 at 10:17 pm

    “…the introduction of an ignore option?”

    No, no, let them diarrhea to their bowels’ content Illtige: I’ve never seen anything so hilarious!

    The poor desperate luvvies think they’re on to another Orewa One – over at the bog they’re even talking about protest marches, imagine the placards – “Young Nats for Social Justice”!! Almost as good as “Christians for beating kids”!

    Once again their noisy desperation plays straight into Labour’s hands. This is no more than a continuation of the “corrupt, liar, nanny state” name-calling that they are reduced to; intensified because it touches the mass of raw nerves in the tory hip pocket and threatens their core measure of superiority – material wealth, with which they hoped to carry the next election.

    When the noise dies down Joe Public will remember nothing more than the Hollow Men/Exclusive Bretheren/Big money/National connections that the bill is aimed at. By gleefully flogging themselves into an orgasmic frenzy, our friends are cementing their own achilles heel firmly in the voting psyche.

    So encourage them, I say. Next year they’ll have to produce the goods, and voters will want more than overblown piss and wind. Where will they find the “thousands of good parents made criminals”? How will they counter the respected international studies showing NZ to be a world leader in health, welfare, lack of corruption – even ease of doing business for Hel’s sake!

    Relax, brothers and sisters: kiwis have a good nose over-amped bullshit. The Herald and the Listener are doing a good job of destroying any last vestige of impartiality they once had with every issue. The more the public sees of these turkeys and their limp organs the better. Bring on the tory protest march! Individualists Unite!
18. illuminatedtiger 18

    13 November 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Yes there are only so many times these degenerates can call the PM a bitch, a slut, a whore, a Stalinist, a man, a fascist, a criminals, a rapist, a murderer, a child molester. The right sure are an ugly bunch.
19. William Tell 19

    13 November 2007 at 10:39 pm

    I see that creep WhaleOil has got it wrong again. Like some kind of schoolyard chump he’s attacking the standard’s photoshopping skills and claiming he’s much better at it, and his evidence is the magazine cover on this post. Not that he seems to have actually read the bit where it says “Thanks to the reader who sent us the latest edition…” What a moron – http://whaleoil.co.nz/?q=node/5289

    I’ve been watching his blog for some time and he’s really got a grudge against the standard. Must have something to do with him not being mentioned in the Herald today while you guys were. Sorry bud, but no one cares what you think, they just regard you as an angry creep who thinks it’s funny to sexually harass teenagers like James Sleep. Tragic, really.
20. illuminatedtiger 20

    13 November 2007 at 10:43 pm

    What was the story behind this James Sleep thing?
21. William Tell 21

    13 November 2007 at 10:58 pm

    He photoshopped James Sleep’s head onto gay pornography. James is only 15 years old and he’s asked WhaleOil to remove it but he’s refused. I won’t link to it here but go have a look in WhaleOil’s galleries and you’ll find it, as well as plenty more besides.

    WhaleOil is truly a disgrace and he’s best mates with David Farrar who seems to tolerate and even encourage his behaviour.
22. illuminatedtiger 22

    13 November 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Right I’ve spent the last 20 or so minutes looking into this. Has a police complaint been laid?
23. William Tell 23

    13 November 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Not that I’m aware of, though I understand James was talking to a lawyer at one stage. I don’t know if that went anywhere.
24. Benodic 24

    13 November 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Just looking through this guy’s gallery. Wow. Child porn aside, has he no shame? Take this one of Helen Clark –
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046

    There are plenty more too.
25. Barnsley Bill 25

    13 November 2007 at 11:23 pm

    robinnome, that is a truly awful pic, I had only just erased it from my memory from the first time I saw it. At least put links in for pics that are funny
26. illuminatedtiger 26

    13 November 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Only a matter of time until he fucks with the wrong person and he finds himself in court defending himself against slander. If that was me in the James Sleep picture I will ruin him!
27. Barnsley Bill 27

    13 November 2007 at 11:26 pm

    whaleoil has welcomed the threat of court action robinnome, I think his words were “bring it on”. However you cannot get legal aid for slander cases so I guess you would struggle to bring a case, and what with all your different user names I think you would struggle to find the time.
28. William Tell 28

    13 November 2007 at 11:38 pm

    Bill you really are obnoxious. Do you think WhaleOil’s behaviour towards James Sleep is appropriate for a middle-aged man and a father of two?
29. illuminatedtiger 29

    13 November 2007 at 11:39 pm

    One has to question the sanity of the sick fuck who posted the pedophile picture and furthermore the sanity of the people who posted the comments following it. Did they just release half the country’s mental patients?
30. mardypants 30

    13 November 2007 at 11:41 pm

    I’ve directly commented on his blog to suggest he remove the offending image but have not got very far. I’ve thought about what more I could do but figure it is now a matter for James Sleep. I’d happily put my hand in my pocket if money is an issue for him or his family.
31. illuminatedtiger 31

    13 November 2007 at 11:45 pm

    I would chuck him a few hundred if there was a good chance this [deleted – sorry Tiger but that’s getting a little KBish. There is some irony in the fact that the first comment deletion in the standard’s short history is done to defend what little honour Whale has (IrishBill)] could be taken down. Just remember though that police complaints can be bought by anyone who can see the law has been broken.
32. William Tell 32

    13 November 2007 at 11:47 pm

    I think all we can do to help James is to continue to shame WhaleOil every time he posts somewhere or David Farrar links to work. Make his name dirt for what he’s done and keep on pushing until he takes it down. I’ve watched in silence for too long.

    Does anyone know if Cameron Slater (that’s his real name) holds any office in the National Party?
33. illuminatedtiger 33

    13 November 2007 at 11:52 pm

    Google seems to say Cameron Slater is the son of a former National Party leader by the name of John? http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19070&cid=39&cname= Same guy? I’ve ghosted the page so if he decides to take it down I’ve at least got a copy of it. I suggest others do the same.
34. Insolent Prick 34

    13 November 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Wow, Tiger. You’ve just allowed the Standard to defame WhaleOil, by identifying him, and calling him a paedophile.

    Looks like it won’t just be the Standard’s servers that cause problems for this blog.
35. illuminatedtiger 35

    14 November 2007 at 12:01 am

    Ok just done some more digging. The 1998-2001 president of the NZ National Party was John Slater. Might we be onto something here?
36. illuminatedtiger 36

    14 November 2007 at 12:08 am

    Of course Whaleoil isn’t a pedophile and I’m sorry if I got too passionate but come on people! The kid is 15!
37. Lee C 37

    14 November 2007 at 6:52 am

    So let me et this straight:

    FFS this is supposed to be the ‘humour’ page, and you guys have turned it into a smear campaign about some guy by asserting he may be a paedophile (by the way, it’s spelled with a f*n ‘a’)

    “He photoshopped James Sleep’s head onto gay pornography.”

    and by implication, you have insinuated that David Farrar defends paedophilia.

    Then you have linked someone called Cameron and John Slater to the smear and by implication suggested that a former Leader of the Nats and his son are somehow implicated in ‘paedophilia’?

    Look at this priceless input:

    “I think all we can do to help James is to continue to shame WhaleOil every time he posts somewhere or David Farrar links to work. Make his name dirt for what he’s done and keep on pushing until he takes it down. I’ve watched in silence for too long.

    Does anyone know if Cameron Slater (that’s his real name) holds any office in the National Party?”

    I just think this is beyond the usual argy-bargy of political argument and invective. At lest on kiwiblog the moderators and Farrar are very firm on their stance about accusing people of stuff like paedophilia.

    And it directly links to the first point I made yesterday:
    “I made this link from The Herald. I shudder to think how many ‘ordinary folks’ have clicked on the Herald’s link to the Very Double Standard’ and seen the ‘attack-politics’ of the Labour poodles for themselves.”

    If this is what you call humour or political debate you have a long way to go. If I was one of the people accused or smeared by this garbage, I’d be seeing my lawyer this morning.
38. Barnsley Bill 38

    14 November 2007 at 7:18 am

    robinnome, what an evening you had with yourself. I too know how to mirror a page… Ha ha
39. Robinsod 39

    14 November 2007 at 7:37 am

    Bill you psychopath – I’ve been getting a good night’s sleep. You should try it some time. It may reduce your psychosis.
40. Whaleoil 40

    14 November 2007 at 7:42 am

    Gidday folks, nice smearing, calling me a kiddie fiddler and trying to smear my father as well, good-oh.

    Well I have been dealing with Union thugs like you guys since I was, well, younger than James Sleep. You and him need to harden up.

    I welcome any and all attempts to sue me, most are simply bluster, piss and wind.
41. Lee C 41

    14 November 2007 at 7:49 am

    “Lee – I was actually taking the piss out of your highfalutin register. You’ve tried so hard to sound clever you barely make sense. But to be fair I’ll post the link and let people make up their own minds:

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E43F5842-676B-4671-BEF9-D0E65CFAE702/64880/LeeClark1.pdf

    Oh and Lee, egregious can also mean eminent.”

    So, Robinsod, I can see by this that you are plainly in favour of transparency and openness, would you do me and the rest of these good people the courtesy of showing us your submission the the Select Committee?

    Tell you what, it’s Wednesday, and we usually put our garbage out on Wednesdays – 89 Laingholm Drive, Waitakere.

    Would you like to go through that as well?
    In fact if you got the cahones – publish your address, and I’ll save you a trip and send you an unopened bag of it.
42. Robinsod 42

    14 November 2007 at 7:54 am

    Lee – your submission is a public document. I didn’t make a submission to the Select committee because I figured I didn’t need to. When I do make submissions I tend to back them up with some research and make sure they are appropriately worded because I know they will appear in the public domain.
43. IrishBill 43

    14 November 2007 at 8:02 am

    Whale, I agree the comments got out of hand last night. You will note I have deleted the offending reference. This is the first time we have deleted anything other than spam from our comments section. I would suggest that that’s somewhat ironic that it was invective directed at you.

    Lee, please do not post personal information about yourself or others on the standard. It’s not safe surfing practice. We may have to add a safe-surf section for commenter’s information.
44. illuminatedtiger 44

    14 November 2007 at 8:18 am

    Yeah sorry about that IrishBill. Things did get a bit out of hand although I still stick to my guns when describing that picture for what it is. Just got to be a bit careful I guess as we shouldn’t lower ourselves to the levels of the cesspit website of which name shall not be spoken.
45. Barnsley Bill 45

    14 November 2007 at 9:13 am

    Just as well I mirrored the comments then isn’t it. Copy on it’s way to whale………..
46. Robinsod 46

    14 November 2007 at 9:21 am

    Yes Bil, just as well. I’m sure Whale’s respect for you will increase now – he may even acknowledge you on the street. When you act like Whale’s sycophant you really show how much you are on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe, Bill.
47. Insolent Prick 47

    14 November 2007 at 9:27 am

    Really, tiger, after the way you and William Tell engaged in the worst defamation I have ever seen on a blog–stating that you were going to engage in the most malicious pressure against Whale Oil, calling him a paedophile, stating that his name would be dirt, and identifying him by name–you’ve got one hell of a nerve to state that you don’t want to bring the Standard to the level of kiwiblog.

    You, and the Standard, should hang your heads in shame at the disgusting, filthy way you have brought the comments section of this blog into a dire cesspit. Instead of engaging in debate, the Standard’s MO is to attack and defame people.

    The Standard has cultivated an environment in which Labour Party supporters can come on here and say the most disgusting, hollow, and vile things about people in lieu of actual debate. And you have the gall to claim the bannerhead of a proud tradition of the labour movement.

    It was only a matter of time before one of the Standard’s supporters brought the Standard to this miserable, wallowing state. Shame on you, you hollow, filthy people.
48. Matthew Pilott 48

    14 November 2007 at 9:31 am

    Lee C,

    “while pretending to be a champion of the down-trodden, under-represented and oppressed!”

    – this doesn’t mean I won’t mock a right-wing idiot when I see one.

    And can you point out where I said that ‘ordinary people’ are part of a right-wing conspiracy? Making shit up doesn’t strike me as bright on a blog – people can read what’s been put down pretty easily. Keep that in mind, kid.

    I won’t bother responding to the rest of your post, it actually makes no sense. “an analogy and an anomoly”?? There is nothing in the english language that explains what you’ve written!

    P.S. ‘Lame’, while sometimes used to describe an animal that cannot walk, also has another meaning, one that describes everything you’ve said. Fuck off and read a dictionary, learn to string a sentence together and try again.

    P.P.S here’s a start for you:

    definitions (lame):
    verb: deprive of the use of a limb, especially a leg
    adjective: pathetically lacking in force or effectiveness

    Funnily enough, both of these apply to you – no force or effectiveness, and also lacking a limb (if one uses a loose description and considers your head a limb, something’s depriving you the use of it 😉 )
49. Lee C 49

    14 November 2007 at 9:38 am

    Irish Bill – what would I have to hide?
    I figure if I was that much of a threat to the state, the SIS would have me pegged already. Just cutting out the middle man.

    As much as I appreciate your desire to protect my safety I would like to also sugget you get some kind of moderation up and running.

    Some of the stuff on this thread was just plain ignorant.

    As for the public domain, stuff robinsod: I stuck my neck out and wrote a (first ever) submission to the Select Committee one morning before I buggered off to work. It was about something I feel deeply about – the defence of free speech. I actually did not realise that it would go into the ‘public domain’ Even then, I stand by every word, grammar, spelling or whatever.
    You stated;
    “I didn’t make a submission to the Select committee because I figured I didn’t need to. ”

    Ok then, I know where you stand on the EFB, you are happy to lap up whatever BS foisted on you by the government. I don’t share your optimism. No need to thank me.

    I think it speaks as much about your contempt for free speech as my belief in it, that you would want to hold that up to ridicule.

    But isn’t that completely in keeping with the spririt of the EFB?

    You once asked me when my sense of humour deserted me? It was about the time Very Double Standard came online.

    But then, when I look at the crap you guys post under ‘humour’ I can only take it as a compliment if you think my sense of humour is somehow lacking.
50. Tane 50

    14 November 2007 at 9:41 am

    Prick, you seem pretty angry. IrishBill’s deleted the offending comment and made it clear where the line is drawn. As much as I’m sure my comrades would love to hang around this site all night moderating comments it’s just not practical. We can’t control every comment on this site, and nor would we want to.

    But let’s make one thing clear – Whaleoil deserves no sympathy. The man behaves in a repugnant and abusive fashion and deserves to be treated as such. Stop crying about vicious smear campaigns and take a look at what he does on his blog. Calling him to account for his conduct is no smear.

    You can talk about shame and hollowness all you like, but frankly it’s getting a little tiring.
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    14 November 2007 at 9:46 am

    The Standard is not responsible for what is posted under humour. I wonder if Whale Oil’s pseudo-pornographic picture is also posted under Humour.

    IP, glad you support the photoshopping of your opponents onto gay porn. Says more about you than The Standard.

    There is a line, a fucking obvious one at that, and 99.99% of decent people would believe Whale oil has crossed it. He has not denied his actions, so I don’t think there will be any head-hanging here – it’s not a smear when the action in dispute is there for all to see.

    So piss off with your pathetic rhetoric, and take a look at yourself, before I start to think you’re a kiddie-porn apologist.
52. Insolent Prick 52

    14 November 2007 at 9:51 am

    Tane,

    Any credibility the Standard had in holding DPF to account for the comments on his blog, who his friends are, and what Whale puts on his blog went out the window last night with that defamation.

    As long as you create an environment where the toxic left can say what they like about anyone, Tane, you are facilitating that mud-throwing. It’s shameful and hollow, and you are a total hypocrite for allowing it.

    Look, I realise things have got pretty bad for the Standard, and Labour Party supporters generally, over the last couple of weeks. But you are allowing this place to turn into an utter cesspit. Some of us with different points of view come here to debate, and are almost universally shouted down with personal abuse. Irish Bill, and to an extent, you, Tane, normally do engage in constructive debate.

    I expect you to be less hollow, Tane, and lead the Standard into a less toxic environment. Because if the Standard’s posts and comments are a true reflection of the Labour movement, you’ve got way too much hatred and self-disgust inside you to ever win an election.
53. Tane 53

    14 November 2007 at 10:01 am

    Prick, I’m not sure how it’s toxic to post a light-hearted piss take of John Key. We’re very reluctant to moderate comments other than for legal reasons, and the occasional flare-up is the price you pay. We didn’t start the discussion about Whaleoil but neither are we going to stop legitimate criticism of the man’s repugnant behaviour.

    As for your other point, The Standard has tried to create a more constructive environment than Kiwiblog and I think we’ve largely succeeded. The reality is our comments section will always maintain some fluidity with the one over at Kiwiblog, and unfortunately the culture has already been set over there. My suggestion is this – if you want a more constructive comments section then try to be the change you want to see. Sticking up for Whaleoil’s bad behaviour, calling people hollow and telling them to hang their heads in shame every five minutes is most certainly not the way to go about it.
54. Insolent Prick 54

    14 November 2007 at 10:01 am

    See, Tane. Matthew’s comment is exactly the kind of bile that has become the MO of the Standard’s left-wing commentary.

    This is not a matter of legitimate debate. If the Standard continues to encourage its left-wing commenters to engage in that kind of filth, then you can expect the Standard to get a reputation accordingly. I really don’t think the Labour Party would be at all pleased to have, as the most pro-Labour blog in the country, a comments section that disgraces itself.
55. Benodic 55

    14 November 2007 at 10:03 am

    IP- if you’re so concerned about the standard of commentary why don’t you go over to Kiwiblog and have a word with them?

    And you’re harldy the best example of calm and moderate discussion yourself. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
56. Robinsod 56

    14 November 2007 at 10:06 am

    Lee – if you felt so strongly about the EFB I’d’ve thought you’d put aside some of the copious time you spend commenting on blogs to make sure you made a proper job of it. Given the lack of effort you’ve put into your submission and the obvious amount of time you have on your hands I’d say your protestations about the bill ring a little hollow.

    IP – Don’t be a fool, the comments at the standard are generally of a much higher caliber than those at KB. I guess when right-minded people are confronted with behaviour like Whale’s things get a little heated. And you don’t come here to debate because when you are confronted with facts you don’t like you revert to calling the person you’re debating with a liar. And y’see the thing is Prick, when you make the debate personal like that you can expect to be attacked back.
57. Matthew Pilott 57

    14 November 2007 at 10:10 am

    IP, that comment is not standard – it’s not common for people to appear as apologists for what appears to be photoshopped child porn. You are aware that this isn’t the only thread on The Standard?

    Would you like to state unequivocally that you support Whale Oil’s actions, and that you are against those who are clearly not supportive?

    Also, I’m getting that you’re pro-regulation, pro-censorship and pro-moderation? Is that right?
58. Lee C 58

    14 November 2007 at 10:13 am

    Pilott

    “while pretending to be a champion of the down-trodden, under-represented and oppressed!”

    – this doesn’t mean I won’t mock a right-wing idiot when I see one.”

    So you admit you are only pretending?
    Still if it gives you a licence to mock, then whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    The difference I feel is I’ve worked on the evidence you have presented to me, while you are basing your whole premise on an assumption.
    About my intellegence and my politics. What because I had the temerity to challenge (gosh) ‘The Government’?!!

    Oh the audacity of the man.

    But also based on – oh yes, jumping in on what robinsod said, because you can’t form opinions of your own.

    Still, thanks for the clarification.
    It’s funny how I only meet the real snobs when I come over the the ‘voice of the Labour movement’ (except for one or two ‘egregious’ exceptions who appear to be emotionally dependent on the kiwiblog)
    Why is that?
59. Insolent Prick 59

    14 November 2007 at 10:14 am

    That simply isn’t true, Tane. The original post from WO was months ago. It is the Standard that consistently raises the issue again. It is the Standard and Kiwiblogblog that continue to demand that DPF hold himself accountable for what other people put on other blogs.

    I have never defended WO’s picture. For the record, I thought it was excessive and unnecessary. This is not a defence of WO, but it is fair to say that there was a fair degree of fairly dirty banter going on between WO and JS for some time. Neither of them particularly distinguished themselves. I don’t really think you can credit JS’s age as a mitigating factor in JS’s behaviour: he may only be 16, but he is old enough to attend Labour Party conferences, and old enough hang out with Labour Party functionaries. If he’s going to become involved in adult politics, then he should expect to be held to account as an adult. This does not mean to say I defend WO’s posting of that picture in question, or that I even found it funny.

    Frankly, I struggle to see how the “Standard has tried to create a more constructive environment than kiwiblog”. Nobody, with the exception of Irishbill, and perhaps Sam Dixon, actually engages in debate. The MO is to tell non-left supporters to either fuck off, or accuse them of criminal behaviour and defaming them.

    I think your only reasonable response to the gutter behaviour of the Standard’s supporters, Tane, is to write a post apologising for the bile of the Standard’s commenters, and setting out a proper comments policy. It’s all very well for the Standard to label DPF’s regime as censorship, but he doesn’t allow that kind of defamation to stand on his blog.

    As an aside, my captcha phrase is “nationals strong”. That’s the most un-hollow thing I’ve read on the Standard all week.
60. Insolent Prick 60

    14 November 2007 at 10:19 am

    Matthew,

    You’re hardly improving the standard of debate by calling me an apologist for child porn. For somebody who is quite so pedantic about other people’s grammar, I would be much more careful about the substance of my comments, if I were you. What you’ve written is utterly defamatory, and is exactly the kind of smear that occurred last night.
61. Benodic 61

    14 November 2007 at 10:27 am

    IP- you’re boring me to tears. Why are you so angry? And why do you hold such double standards?

    Let me make it clear- last night Whaleoil’s behaviour was dicussed by a couple of left-wing commenters on a blog, and now you’re claiming the Standard should apologise for it? Wtf???

    You’ve obviously got some kind of mission to try and discredit the work these guys are doing because they’re a threat to the monopoly of Kiwibog. But you’re just making yourself look like an angry loner.
62. Robinsod 62

    14 November 2007 at 10:28 am

    IP – less than an hour ago you stated: If the claim about you identified you by name, and accompanied an action-plan to smear your name through mud along with the claim you were a molester and a rapist, as was effectively included in the Standard last night, I would be the first to defend you.

    This was after I pointed out I had been described as a molester and rapist on kiwiblog (DPF has left the comments up by the way).

    The implication is that if there’s no name attached and no plan to smear you don’t see the need to defend reputation. Well guess what prick, that rationale makes your complaint about Matthew seem a bit hollow. And it show you can’t even run a consistent argument over a period of 36 minutes – perhaps that’s why nobody bothers to debate with you.
63. the sprout 63

    14 November 2007 at 10:29 am

    “like” an angry loner?
64. Matthew Pilott 64

    14 November 2007 at 10:33 am

    IP, if you really want to be pedantic, don’t forget you’ve omitted the word appear, that I used twice. I then gave you an opportunity to state whether you were supportive or not. I note you didn’t take up that offer – people will read into that what they wish I guess.

    However as you have clearly mis-interpreted me, I’d be almost tempted to call it defamation, but I think it’s too often used as an equivalent of hiding behind mummy’s skirt.

    Lee – if by ‘evidence’ you mean you making up me saying ‘ordinary folks are part of a right wing conspiracy’ then by all means you are right, and a breathtaking intellect at that. Please point to the line where I said that and I’ll take it all back.

    You were also clearly wrong in your assumption that I was using the noun ‘lame’ and not the adjective. I also have made no assumptions about your politics – you might have assumed I was calling you a right wing idiot, but if you think the label fits then by all means wear it. Not my call to make. I’m not being a snob, but I’m having a lot of trouble actually deciphering your points.
65. Insolent Prick 65

    14 November 2007 at 10:36 am

    Robinsod,

    Let me leave you in no doubt. Matthew’s statement was utterly defamatory as well. If he had identified me by name, I’d have worded my response much more strongly. Robinsod isn’t actually your name. If you were identified by name, I would certainly support you.

    There is, however, a clear difference between a throw-away line and a concerted attempt to defame a person’s character, as appeared in the Standard last night.

    Tane, you might want to warn Matthew not to go around defaming people on your blog. I take a fairly robust approach to defamation, but others don’t.
66. r0b 66

    14 November 2007 at 10:38 am

    We are getting a lecture on morality from Insolent Prick. Well that sure pegs my irony meter!
67. Insolent Prick 67

    14 November 2007 at 10:41 am

    With all due respect, Matthew, which, given your propensity to defame people isn’t much, the word “appear” does not materially affect whether or not your comment is defamatory.

    Tane, I am surprised that given the disgraceful nature of what took place last night, you continue to allow Matthew to defame other people on this blog by continuing to infer that somebody is supportive of child pornography.
68. Matthew Pilott 68

    14 November 2007 at 10:43 am

    IP, Tane doesn’t need to warn me, but you need to learn to read and interpret what is put before you before tossing about baseless claims of defamation.

    Qoute me and tell me how my statement was “utterly defamatory” before I get all huffy like you are. And use the actual quote, you can’t pick & mix 😉
69. Robinsod 69

    14 November 2007 at 10:46 am

    IP – the allegations made against me weren’t “a throwaway line” they were systematically repeated. Stop trying to renegotiate your position just because you have been caught out in another double standard.
70. Tane 70

    14 November 2007 at 10:51 am

    Prick, I think it’s time to let it go. Whale got pulled up for his disgraceful behaviour, and in the process one of the comments went too far. We’ve since deleted it.

    While I sincerely appreciate your concern for the standards of our comments section, I can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s such a big deal to you.

    (Captcha is ‘Perot Government’ – now there’s an alternative history we were better without)
71. Insolent Prick 71

    14 November 2007 at 10:55 am

    Robinsod, I didn’t see the statement made about you, and I’m not defending it.

    It may be you would get a better audience from DPF in addressing it if you didn’t try to hijack threads at kiwiblog and get yourself banned so often.

    Since Matthew is continuing to defame me, by insinuating and stating that I am a supporter of child pornography, and you have done nothing to admonish him, Robinsod, I hardly see how there is a double standard going on. Tane is legally responsible, and liable, for the content of blog posts and comments on this blog. I am holding him to account for what have been clearly defamatory statements made by Illuminated Tiger, and Matthew Pilott, about WO and myself.

    Tane doesn’t seem to mind that his commenters have gone haywire, Robinsod. I think that’s shameful and hollow.
72. Insolent Prick 72

    14 November 2007 at 10:58 am

    This is not an isolated case, Tane. Matthew Pilott continues to defame people subsequent to last night. Unless you crack down on it, it will continue to cause problems for the Standard.

    My captcha is “HOLLOW Labour”.

    No, I jest. But it’s almost as good: “Soviet almost”.
73. Tane 73

    14 November 2007 at 11:00 am

    Prick, nothing that has been said to you is, in my opinion, defamatory. I’m not going to go delete comments every time someone says something you don’t like. For a guy who calls himself ‘Insolent Prick’ you sure are mighty sensitive to criticism.

    As I said before, you’re getting tiring and you’re adding nothing new to the discussion. If you want to be constructive then I’d suggest you give it a rest for a while.
74. Robinsod 74

    14 November 2007 at 11:05 am

    Prick – I don’t think Mathew was out of line. I think you’ve got on your moral highhorse and are milking it for attention. If you are so concerned I suggest you take a legal action against the standard and boycott it (please, for all our sake’s, boycott it). As for me being banned at kiwiblog? That’s not at all relevant to the claims made about me there. I explained what a non sequitur was earlier. You’re doing it again with that argument.

    I could equally say you can’t complain about “defamation” because you have repeatedly called me a liar but as one statement does not follow the other (that’s the literal translation of “non sequitur” by the way) I would not do so. It seems you have no such qualms about making spurious arguments Prick. Again, that’s why nobody wants to debate with you – it’s ‘cos you can’t debate.
75. Red Bus 75

    14 November 2007 at 11:08 am

    Well, if I were to comment strictly on topic then I would say that I enjoyed the picture. I have forwarded it on to people as I know it will appeal to them.

    However, I find myself inclined to speak off topic and in sync with what many are speaking about in their comments. I found the picture of James Sleep (unless there is more than one) offensive. However, the suggestion that his face was photoshopped on to “gay porn” is not relative to my findings.

    It is however, thoroughly disgusting and should be removed. It does not prove in anyway that Whaleoil (his name escapes me) is a “kiddie fiddler”, but it does exhibit his immaturity and basic lack of ethics. This is a grown man slandering a boy for a misguided blog posted months ago. That is an insight to how shallow Whaleoil is – that he would actually post something like that in a response to a blog that was utterly pointless and virtually ignored!

    If anything needs to be said, it is this:
    “Grow up, Whaleoil.”
76. Lee C 76

    14 November 2007 at 11:42 am

    Robinsod – “Lee – if you felt so strongly about the EFB I’d’ve thought you’d put aside some of the copious time you spend commenting on blogs to make sure you made a proper job of it. Given the lack of effort you’ve put into your submission and the obvious amount of time you have on your hands I’d say your protestations about the bill ring a little hollow.”

    You know when yo put it like that, I can really see where you are coming from.

    I am a hollow man.

    Thanks for the lesson in ethics.

    It really is people like me who are responsible for the erosion of the democratic principle that I see in the EFB. – I’m just not trying hard enough.

    And there I was thinking it was the Labour Party trying to rig the next election in its favour.
77. Robinsod 77

    14 November 2007 at 11:53 am

    Nah Lee – my point is if you’re gonna whinge about it so much (and you really really do) I’d expect you to put a real effort into changing it. Your submission and you description of how you wrote it show that you didn’t put a real effort into changing anything. You just want to complain. When you do so little to change what you’re complaining about why should we take you seriously?
78. Insolent Prick 78

    14 November 2007 at 11:59 am

    Great point, Robinsod. The Human Rights Commission just didn’t put in enough effort either. Nor did the EPMU. Nor did the Law Society. Nor did the thousand other organisations that vehemently opposed the EFB. The reason the Labour Party is rail-roading the EFB is that none of the organisations that called on the Government to kill the bill were trying hard enough.

    As for the Law Commission, the fact that they didn’t put in a submission, because they disapproved of the entire process the Government used to introduce the Bill, shows they weren’t trying hard enough, either.
79. the sprout 79

    14 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

    nice to see you’ve finally been thinking about your posts IP. well done and do keep trying.
80. Robinsod 80

    14 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Nah IP – you’ve missed the point (again) the HRC did put in an effort and because they offered a well researched and well though out submission (as did the EPMU and the Law Soc) they have the credibility to complain as much as they like. It’s about putting your effort where your mouth is, Prick. Lee hasn’t done that. You just can’t run a straight argument can you Prick? Oh and you still haven’t apologised for calling me a liar across multiple threads and multiple arguments. Come to think of it you can’t argue straight, you attack me for lying every time I prove you wrong (which is most of the time) and you’re ungracious and banal in both your punditry and your manner: why the fuck am I bothering to engage with you? Fuck off back to kiwiblog you fool.
81. Insolent Prick 81

    14 November 2007 at 12:58 pm

    So, Robinsod, do you agree with the “well thought out and well researched submissions” of the Law Society and the HRC?

    And since when in a democracy does a person have to make a select committee submission on an issue to have an opinion on it? You seem to have pretty strong opinions in favour of the EFB, Robinsod. Where is your submission?
82. Lee C 82

    14 November 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Robinsod what would you have me do, petrol-bomb an MP’s office?

    You really haven’t got a clue about the efforts I have made to oppose this Bill.
    You are flailing to justify your support of the unsupportable by trying to reduce it to a personal attack on me, just an ordinary everyday citizen who is concerned about his democratic rights and priviledges.

    But you want your cake and to eat it as well.
    If you want to watch the Bill go through undetected all you need do, is nothing.

    But do you seriously expect me to justify to you why I feel freedom of speech is under threat, on an individual level, when all you have to do is buy a newspaper?

    Or read the Select Committee submissions with an open mind?

    But what’s the point of addressing a closed mind?

    Because then when anyone does complain you denigrate and belittle their efforts.

    Again this is in line with the Government’s view of public opinion. It is only valid if it agrees with them. Woe betide anyone who disagrees.

    I am of the opinion that one person alone can do little to change anything, but many together may. It is on that basis I do what I do. I’m also of the Socratic school – you can’t simply accept what a state does without complaint, and then cry foul when the state bites you. That is why I complain.

    It is easy to come up with reasons not to act, if you see something wrong happening. But that is the recourse of a moral coward.

    I can even excuse people not acting because they might be oppressed or frightened. I can understand that.

    But to stand by and watch abuse of democracy from a position of power and priviledge, then use that platform as a place from which you may condemn those who complain, that is the lowest moral positon anyone can adopt.

    So robinsod. Answer truthfully. Does your attempt to belittle my efforts betray own lack of conviction, because you have no moral or logical arguments to draw on?

    Or, is the desire to belittle people into silence a cowardly act, based on the bully-principle that the victim should never retaliate?
83. Robinsod 83

    14 November 2007 at 1:03 pm

    IP – I don’t need to agree with something to think it’s well thought out and researched. If you can’t get your partisan little head around that you’ll never understand the slightly more subtle point I was making about Lee. Oh and Prick? Show me where I’ve shown strong opinions in favour of the EFB. I think you might be lying again…
84. Robinsod 84

    14 November 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Lee – whatever love, you whinged, you had a chance to do something about it, you couldn’t be arsed doing a proper job of it, you whinged some more, you got caught out. Now you’re blaming me for calling you on your own lack of commitment to the cause. Take some personal responsibility, FFS.
85. Lee C 85

    14 November 2007 at 1:16 pm

    I mean FFS you spend all your time defending the EFB as a blow against ‘big business buying elections’.

    But you are not really intrerested in the average citizen having a say either, are you?

    Because then when someone without the proper training, experience or money for legal advice puts forward a view, you disagree with, you shoot it down in flames because it isn’t well-researched enough.
    And God-forbid his spelling or grammar is not right either.

    Or as you put it ‘Trying to sound clever”?

    But others who belong to the ‘club’ “they have the credibility to complain as much as they like.”

    Is this how you respond to complaints from those with ESOL, or those lacking in education? Ordinary people, in fact?

    Voice of the Labour movement?

    The Very Double Standard.
86. Robinsod 86

    14 November 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Lee -you said yourself you dashed it off before work and I know from reading your posts you’re a smart cookie (though you seem to be getting less smart lately) you and I know you could’ve done a lot better than you did so don’t play the “just a poor working class boy” card with me. I see now DPF may be starting his own anti EFB party – you could get active in that if you’re feeling a little guilty about dropping the ball on this one.
87. deemac 87

    14 November 2007 at 2:36 pm

    surely it’s time for a word limit – and frequency limit – on comments? IP is posting so often he sometimes seems to be arguing with himself (a singularly pointless exercise)
88. all_your_base 88

    15 November 2007 at 10:32 am

    Whaleoil is threatening legal action against the person who helped us get The Standard up and running.

    You can read his “charges” over at his blog. He seems to have taken issue with a user’s comment that was almost immediately deleted as inappropriate by us.

    Whaleoil’s posted personal details of the tech who helps us with the site. That person, Lynn, responds to Whaleoil:

    —

    An interesting stretch of legal principles.

    FYI: I am not an employee of Smartsims and haven’t been since last year.

    The site is not hosted by Smartsims, and isn’t in the DNS servers.

    Looks like ak3.netmike.com is at the registry – from when I did the original site setup. However if you have a look using nslookup, you’ll find that there are no entries at that DNS.

    Since you’ve been looking around the DNS registry, you should have also found my e-mail address and phone numbers. Standard net practice would be to talk to me about whatever the offending items are.

    Since you haven’t done this then I don’t even know where the items are on the site, so it gets hard for me to judge if they are fair comment, true, false or otherwise.

    It looks to me like you are more interested in grandstanding than actually fixing a issue.

    I’ll get this posted at The Standard as well in case someone can point me at the items.

    Cheers

    Lynn Prentice
89. lprent 89

    15 November 2007 at 10:40 am

    WhaleOil is apparently going to sue me (and my old company). Looks like the site admins have done the correct things in an appropiate time frame. Basically removing an over-the line comment. I’ll have to find out what the actual comment was.

    I posted this at WhaleOil’s site – so I’ll post it here as well.

    It is interesting reading the flame war here – reminds me of the old days on Usenet. I’m afraid I never normally read the humour posts. I would urge people to comment more on the issues rather than personalities. There seems to be more than enough of that at WhaleOil’s site.

    //—- snip —-

    An interesting stretch of legal principles.

    FYI: I am not an employee of Smartsims and haven’t been since last year.

    The site is not hosted by Smartsims, and isn’t in the DNS servers.

    Looks like ak3.netmike.com is at the registry – from when I did the origional site setup. However if you have a look using nslookup, you’ll find that there are no entries at that DNS.

    Since you’ve been looking around the DNS registry, you should have also found my e-mail address and phone numbers. Standard net practice would be to talk to me about whatever the offending items are.

    Since you haven’t done this then I don’t even know where the items are on the site, so it gets hard for me to judge if they are fair comment, true, false or otherwise.

    It looks to me like you are more interested in grandstanding than actually fixing a issue.

    I’ll get this posted at TheStandard as well in case someone can point me at the items.

    Cheers

    Lynn Prentice
90. mardypants 90

    15 November 2007 at 12:21 pm

    This has turned utterly ridiculous. There’s clearly nothing to be gained by dealing with this guy, he’s too well advanced in his conspiracy delusion and obsessed by his own infamy – I’m sure his family are very proud.

    The genuine misdeed must surely be WhaleOils and I hope he’s held to account – if anyone knows James and can find out whether he wishes to take matters further please let me know. If there’s going to be a whip-around for any costs associated with Whale’s threat (and frankly, anyone with any legal background would attest to the weakness of his claim) count kiwiblogblog in.

    I’m only sorry that anyone at the Standard has been inconvenienced but please be assured you’ve got support.
91. lprent 91

    15 November 2007 at 1:02 pm

    I had to suffer learning law through my ex when she was doing her law degree (not to mention the business law I had to do). I think he has zero case under NZ defamation laws against anyone he has mentioned. It is likely that any case would be thrown out by his lawyers or in the first status hearings.

    It did intrigue me where he got the info about my association with my old previous employer. But I google searched, and it appears to be from a application by the IT community to set up the geek.nz domain. That was from 2001 or 2002 from memory. The company office info wouyld have been from 2002 or 2003.

    It would appear that whoever WhaleOil got the info from (because he doesn’t look like he has the required data mining skills) is pretty incompetent. They should have looked at the date and then looked for more recent data. Not that there is a lot because I’m not net-visible – I code for the net, but I’m not an egomaniac that wants my name everywhere.

    Personally if the lad whose face has been plastered onto the porn image wants to make a case, I’d prefer support to go to help him. As has been previously mentioned in this area – he could lay a criminal complaint or start a civil action.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS