Lying liar caught lying again

194 comments on “Lying liar caught lying again ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Cactus Kate 1

   27 March 2012 at 7:38 pm

   So now you saying Whale did speak to Phil Kitchin about ACC matters and fed him this story?
   A bit of context would help.

   Actually given the other day you accused Whale of feeding the Herald this makes Whale somewhat of a media conductor, feeding both sides of a story to fuel a Ministers resignation.

   Russell Brown may need another show to talk about that.

   [lprent: Who are you talking to? The machine (in which case I will educate you about the stupidity of thinking machines have brains), or Zet who has seemed to think that Collins is the leak http://thestandard.org.nz/author/zetitic/ Either way make up your vague mind so I can take the appropiate action. See the policy. ]
   • Cactus Kate 1.1

     27 March 2012 at 8:13 pm

     You? We aren’t in Parliament here and you (Lynn) are not the speaker. The Standard is a collective that much is clear. It’s often very hard to differentiate just who “you” is on this site. I use “you” collectively as in all honesty I can’t be bothered working out who precisely is abusing me at any one point in time.
     I shall summarize – there’s so many conspiracy theories going around about Whaleoil and the ACC information that The Standard (all the authors) seem more confused than anyone about what Whaleoil is being accused of.

     [lprent: Different authors have different opinions. We are a cooperative – not a collective. This is quite clear on our about. I realize this may be too subtle for you to understand without an example, but think of the differing opinions in something like the owners of Fonterra. Talk to the people you wish to talk to.

     Don’t talk to me by using the ambiguous “you”. My tolerance drops off sharply when people waste my time by acting like they have a prefrontal lobotomy. ]
     • Harry 1.1.1

       27 March 2012 at 8:19 pm

       Funny shrill drunk.
       • Cactus Kate 1.1.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 8:21 pm

         And you are an anonymous pussy who couldn’t argue properly sober.
         • Harry 1.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2012 at 8:23 pm

           Have another drink darling. It’ll make you feel better about yourself.
           • Cactus Kate 1.1.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

             It didn’t do it for your mother when she was pregnant with you now did it?
             • Harry …

               27 March 2012 at 8:32 pm

               Better make that two. You’ve a lot to feel bad about.
               • Cactus Kate …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:36 pm

                 Your mother downed twenty in an afternoon while carrying you to term. Best we all learn from that.
                 • Slap Shot …

                   28 March 2012 at 11:27 am

                   One can only imagine the constant mortification experienced by your parents (or so I am told).
                 • Rosemary …

                   28 March 2012 at 9:07 pm

                   You are filth, now fuck off.

                   [lprent: No point in that comment. Read the policy about our views on pointless abuse. Simple assertions don’t constitute a point.. ]
                   • Rosemary …

                     29 March 2012 at 6:43 pm

                     So are you saying that what the filthy hateful Odgers says here isn’t pointless abuse:

                     “Your mother downed twenty in an afternoon while carrying you to term. Best we all learn from that.”

                     [You have a point. But equally the moderators will react to shutdown a thread that is degenerating into mindless abuse… and it’s usually the last person in the queue who cops the warning. A polite one in this instance. RL]
       • mickysavage 1.1.1.2

         27 March 2012 at 8:25 pm

         This particular issue (ACC) has attracted more comments by Cactus and Slater than any issue I can think of.  Sensitive are they?
         • Cactus Kate 1.1.1.2.1

           27 March 2012 at 8:26 pm

           And there you go. We don’t comment, get accused of being this and that and 200 comments here of abuse later you all wear yourselves out. We do comment and we get that old chestnut.
           • mickysavage 1.1.1.2.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 8:30 pm

             Well you have to admit that you guys are the subject to all sorts of negative comments here most days.  But on this particular issue there is this really heightened sensitivity?

             What gives?

             I guess being responsible for the destruction of two cabinet ministers’ careers could be sufficient reason. 
             • Cactus Kate …

               27 March 2012 at 8:35 pm

               I liked zetetics post because by being a smart arse he actually contradicted the previous claims made by “people” here (as opposed to computers). I ask, do we need permission to comment here without being accused of heightened sensitivity? What is the procedure?
             • Whaleoil …

               27 March 2012 at 8:35 pm

               Mickey, Nick Smith destroyed his own career.
               • mickysavage …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:38 pm

                 He laid the seeds but someone else found them, photocopied them and sent them around the MSM.  Causation is an interesting concept.  
                 • Whaleoil …

                   27 March 2012 at 8:47 pm

                   Wow that is precise detail…from a lawyer no less…got any proof?

                   It is certainly more information than I have.
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 8:52 pm

                     I have no idea who photocopied the letters but were you given a copy?

                     AND were you given a copy of the Boag email to Collins in any form?

                     Yes or no? 
                   • burt …

                     27 March 2012 at 8:54 pm

                     Whaleoil

                     Did you find them sitting around on a web server somewhere ?
                   • felix …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:13 pm

                     Here Cam, I’ll show you how it’s done:

                     I definitely didn’t receive copies of any of those docs you mention in any form.

                     Your turn.
                   • Whaleoil …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:43 pm

                     I have not been given a copy of anything.
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:44 pm

                     OK were you given an original print of the email?
                   • Whaleoil …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:51 pm

                     No Mickey I was not.

                     No means No.
                   • Slap Shot …

                     28 March 2012 at 11:24 am

                     Note that the claim that one was not “given” anything excludes the possibilities that it was found, stolen or taken.
           • felix 1.1.1.2.1.2

             27 March 2012 at 8:37 pm

             Nah, you get accused of being “this and that” when you stink up the place. Most of the time you hardly warrant a mention.

             micky has touched a nerve though, you two have been jumping in whenever this issue comes up and it’s always to deflect and divert.

             It’s a bit bloody obvious frankly.
             • Cactus Kate …

               27 March 2012 at 8:44 pm

               As is the opposition every time. Whaleoil is a frequent topic of many posts and comments on The Standard (www.thestandard.org.nz). If he went on holiday for a month then http://www.thestandard.org.nz would look much like http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz

               [lprent: Wasting my time again? We do about 6 posts per day on average because of the damn weekends. Posts mentioning blubber aka cameron are infrequent.

               http://thestandard.org.nz/tag/cameron-slater/
               http://thestandard.org.nz/tag/whaleoil/

               Even an illiterate like yourself should be able to hit a tag link. Unlike Brownlee I don’t think he has rated a category yet. ]
               
               • felix …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:49 pm

                 Only if he took his sockpuppets with him.
               • IrishBill …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:49 pm

                 To be fair, Cameron has been very helpful in the PoAL dispute. In fact so much of what he touches turns to shit for the right so often, I think I’d miss him if he left the webs.
                 • David H …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:43 pm

                   Well he is becoming the latest foot in the mouth star. If he could ever lift a foot that high..
               • Cactus Kate …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:39 pm

                 Now go through the comments and search likewise.
               • Tom Gould …

                 28 March 2012 at 3:48 pm

                 @ Cactus, hasn’t blubber boy been on holiday for years now, since his insurer cut him off and he went on the benefit … which he used to brag about?
             • Whaleoil …

               27 March 2012 at 8:48 pm

               Heh, and if we say nothing then some commenter usually say…Slater is still silent on….whatever smear they want to leave out there.

               Damned both ways.
               • felix …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:50 pm

                 There’s a third way. You could try telling the truth now and then.
               • IrishBill …

                 27 March 2012 at 8:50 pm

                 I think you overestimate your importance, Cameron. If you weren’t such a liability to the right I don’t think we’d give you any airtime at all.
               • lprent …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:14 pm

                 Yessss… I can see you have a strong grasp of the tactics. It is your speciality being a complete arsehole devoid of either intelligence or understanding …

                 I am bit constrained here. My colleagues here tend to disapprove of my more personal posts using the tactics you love.
                 • infused …

                   28 March 2012 at 9:04 am

                   Your double standards are so subtle lprent.

                   No personal attacks? Yet you lay personal attacks all the time.
                   • lprent …

                     28 March 2012 at 9:24 am

                     Sure – I am known for a low tolerance for fools and I usually spare little effort in being civil about it. Civility to the socially stupid in my opinion is a false kindness that just encourages the fool to repeat the stupidity.

                     But if you look at the comments I do you’ll always find there is a point expressed forcefully. The actual standard in the policy is that there will be robust debate but no pointless abuse.

                     For abuse to be acceptable on this site there has to be a point behind it, and it can’t just be an assertion that appears to be made up. Hawk asserted one which wasn’t clearly wasn’t correct. Most people writing comments know the bound and act accordingly

                     Of course in my other role as a moderator it is different. For me that is a required task and part of the task is to encourage people not to require me to waste my time. Otherwise I’d get overwhelmed with the amount of time I have to spend on moderating and it’d cut into work and recreation time.

                     So I actively discourage people from repeating their mistakes by being pretty damn nasty. It works pretty well and surprise surprise, it really doesn’t diminish the audience despite all of the predictions to the contrary. Having a malevolent sysop lurking around prepared to be a total arsehole when required actually encourages many more people to comment. The old security cornumbrum appears again.
                   • infused …

                     28 March 2012 at 2:09 pm

                     I think that’s a pretty shit response to justify yourself. But do go on. I don’t actually care, just point this out. It is becoming more frequent.
       • David H 1.1.1.3

         27 March 2012 at 10:38 pm

         The prickly one protecting the slimey one HAHAHAHA
2. Whaleoil 2

   27 March 2012 at 7:45 pm

   So let me get this straight…According to you and various commenters here over the past few days I have leaked Story A (Pullar’s terrible injustices at the hands of the evil ACC) to Phil Kitchin….

   and Story B (The flip side of Pullar’s story, that of a blackmailing, grasping claimant) to David Fisher at the Herald on Sunday…

   to do what?….Make Michelle Boag looks bad…or is it good, or perhaps just to get Nick Smith…oh I’m confused…

   Now it looks like I have leaked another story (let’s call it Story C) to NBR about Bronwyn Pullar miraculously recovering from having a tonne of kiwifruit on a pallet dropped on her foot.

   I think Cactus is right and Russell is certainly going to have to explore this fully, as is Mediawatch…again…

   Crack me up you guys have made my night.

   [lprent: As I pointed out to your erstwhile partner above, Zet seems to be inclined towards a Collins leak. You’re not going to suggest that the site has a mind are you? Read the policy about how I feel about dumbarses who think that. You really need to tighten up who you’re referring to. Generalized stuff against the site involves wasting my time… Bad idea.. ]
   • IrishBill 2.1

     27 March 2012 at 7:54 pm

     It looks to me like you either lied to the people emailing you in 2008 or you lied here. Frankly I don’t care what dirty little trick you get up to (although your single handed discrediting of the PoAL anti-union campaign has been greatly appreciated).

     I would say, however, that despite your blustering, and the blustering of your girlfriend, Zet does seem to have caught you saying two distinctly different things. Which indicates you have lied in 2008 or now and have been stupid enough to get caught doing so publicly.
     • Whaleoil 2.1.1

       27 March 2012 at 8:02 pm

       Oh rubbish…I was accused of shopping the Pullar story to Kitchin…I said I haven’t spoken to him about that…I may have been sloppy in explaining that..but it is true.

       The last time I spoke to Phil Kitchin would have been back then, certainly not since…but since you guys raised the issue that was when your own team shamelessly tried to set me up by lying about Damien o’Connor, throwing him under the bus to get at me…So glad you raised it again.

       If I recall correctly even Russell Brown was aghast that someone on your own team would do that. Oh yes there it is right there on the page Zet linked.

       “It was a pretty dumb stunt, if only because it could easily have gone badly wrong.”

       Still very funny guys…to think you have spent hours searching Google for statements about me and Phil Kitchin just warms the cockles of my heart.
       • Harry 2.1.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 8:20 pm

         You said ” I have spoken to Phil kitchin”. You weren’t accused of it, you were claiming it yourself. It’s there in black and white. What kind of a deluded moron are you?
       • mickysavage 2.1.1.2

         27 March 2012 at 8:26 pm

         Well Cameron did you shop the Boag email to Fisher?

         Simple yes or no would be good. 
         • Whaleoil 2.1.1.2.1

           27 March 2012 at 8:42 pm

           Why would I shop emails from Boag to anyone in the media? If I had them then I would bloody run them myself.

           I certainly wouldn’t wait for a Sunday paper to grind thru the motions.

           Hell, you all think I did it anyway so why wouldn’t I just take the credit for doing it in the first place?
           • mickysavage 2.1.1.2.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 8:45 pm

             Simple yes or no will suffice.  

             BTW can you confirm that Collins gave you a copy of the email?  Word on the street is …

             And how does it feel to be responsible for her leadership aspirations ending? 
             • Whaleoil …

               27 March 2012 at 9:47 pm

               Judith Collins has not given me, or anyone else for that matter, a copy of the email. She has said so, I have said so. Nothing has been received by me from Judith Collins.

               What do I have to do take a lie detector? You’d probably accuse me of faking that too.
               • mickysavage …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:49 pm

                 OK how did Fisher get the email?  You obviously know.

                 EDIT: So who gave the email to you?
                 • Whaleoil …

                   27 March 2012 at 9:52 pm

                   I have no idea how Fisher got the email. He clearly has one though because he keeps writing about it.

                   No one gave me an email. No means no.
                   • burt …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:54 pm

                     Winston “NO” or real “No” ?
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:54 pm

                     You have not been given a copy of the email?

                     You mean the most important email sent in NZ politics since the last election and you have not been given a copy one way or another?  Are you being real? 
                   • Whaleoil …

                     27 March 2012 at 10:07 pm

                     The most important email sent in NZ politics…surely you mean the one where Grant swapped sides and took Mallard with him to run the numbers for Shearer.

                     Yes I am being real. I don’t have a copy of the email.

                     Obviously you have a copy, I feel left out, sad even, what does it say?
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 10:10 pm

                     So Cameron

                     Have you ever told a fib for political advantage? 
           • felix 2.1.1.2.1.2

             27 March 2012 at 8:45 pm

             So no denial then?
           • lprent 2.1.1.2.1.3

             27 March 2012 at 9:23 pm

             He has a point…
       • Jackal 2.1.1.3

         27 March 2012 at 8:36 pm

         There is something seriously wrong with you having anything to do with a story about thousands of sensitive ACC claims being leaked Slater… and now you’re waffling about nothing as an explanation.

         You say you were “sloppy in explaining” and that you “never spoke to Phil Kitchin”. However there can be no other interpretation to what you said. Not ever means never… to think otherwise is an absurdity.

         And what about your defamation of a completely innocent person… let’s see some accountability that you’ve previously advocated for and justification for those lies?

         There is nothing funny about it. The problem is that your commentary is now so debunked that only the equally insane believes anything you write on face value. Your repeated lies Slater do a diservice to the New Zealand blogosphere.
         • Whaleoil 2.1.1.3.1

           27 March 2012 at 8:45 pm

           So says the Plumber.
           • Cactus Kate 2.1.1.3.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 8:58 pm

             He’s not a plumber who lives in his car anymore, his internet schizophrenia means he now plays another mysterious character, probably Garry Parsloe’s pageboy.
             • burt …

               27 March 2012 at 9:03 pm

               Hey Gary Parsloe still has a job – so he’s doing better than the people he represents…. Dooh!
             • mickysavage …

               27 March 2012 at 9:06 pm

               You guys answer the effing question.  Did Slater shop the Boag email to Fisher?  Your continued avoidance of the question suggests there is only one possible answer.
           • Jackal 2.1.1.3.1.2

             27 March 2012 at 9:01 pm

             That’s right, scurry of into your lies cowards! God forbid you actually own up to being wrong… how would your egos deal with it? Poor RWNJ’s, I’m starting to feel sorry for you again.
       • David H 2.1.1.4

         27 March 2012 at 10:47 pm

         Open mouth
         insert both feet
         type
         engage brain.
         OOoopps

         Hmmmm sounds about right for the latest liability for the NATS.. Whaleblubber.
   • Lanthanide 2.2

     27 March 2012 at 7:55 pm

     Glad to see the commenting problems have been worked out and you can comment here, Whale. And yes, I’m being genuinely sincere when I say that, too.
   • McFlock 2.3

     27 March 2012 at 7:57 pm

     In one link you claimed to have spoken to someone. In another link you subsequently claimed to have never spoken with the same person. Two mutually exclusive statements.
            
     Personally, I don’t give too much of a damn about nat infighting (just as long as everyone involved inflicts serious damage on their opponents’ credibility and political prospects). But I am a little curious as to which of the mutually exclusive statements was an outright lie, and which was in happy coincidence with fact. 
        
     No big deal. 
   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.4

     28 March 2012 at 8:35 am

     lprent: look up “estwhile”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. I only mention this because your go-to form of abuse seems to be to accuse other people of being stupid.
     • Pascal's bookie 2.4.1

       28 March 2012 at 8:41 am

       I’m guessing it was a dig at the dynamic duo’s long running, but now sadly defunct co-blogging adventure. It filled a much needed hole in the blogosphere during its existence.

       I think it lasted something less than twenty posts, but I could be wrong about that.
       • felix 2.4.1.1

         28 March 2012 at 8:53 am

         Where did they do that?
         • Pascal's bookie 2.4.1.1.1

           28 March 2012 at 9:00 am

           I think it was when “Whaleoil” became “Gotcha”.

           launched with a whispery hiss and roar, then some staring at shoes and a mutual agreement that perhaps this wasn’t a particularly good idea.

           Not sure though, second hand info, like I care.
           • felix 2.4.1.1.1.1

             28 March 2012 at 9:10 am

             Ah yeah I remember now, the one blog to rule them all.
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.4.1.2

         28 March 2012 at 9:01 am

         Oh. In that case, don’t I look silly.
         • Lanthanide 2.4.1.2.1

           28 March 2012 at 9:49 am

           Figured you’d be used to that by now.
           • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.4.1.2.1.1

             28 March 2012 at 9:56 am

             Good one.
     • lprent 2.4.2

       28 March 2012 at 10:00 am

       Huh? It refers to their past association. In this case to the startup of the Gotcha site where Whale and Cactus were going blog together on the same site. Lasted a few weeks before the inevitable breakup happened.

       Yep. Checked a dictionary with the correct spelling and it means exactly what I intended to say.

       What did you think that I meant? Perhaps you should review your own knowledge of the word.
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.4.2.1

         28 March 2012 at 10:46 am

         Too late. I beat you to it by an hour.

         I was wrong. Sorry.
         • lprent 2.4.2.1.1

           28 March 2012 at 11:03 am

           No problem. I picked it up while moderating so I don’t particularly ‘see’ context in that mode. In that mode I’m actually reading comments backwards in time and doing the frogs eye trick. There are particular things that I scan for and I don’t really engage the brain until I ‘see’ something of interest. Then I may look at context.

           So in this case I walked over your later comment as of little ‘interest’ and then hit one referring to me. Since it was addressed to me and not a reply, I didn’t look at context – just answered it.

           Guess you missed that enormously influential period when Whale and Cactus were demonstrating why there is a dearth of multi-author right wing blogs around. Too many bloated ego’s in too small an area. Funny thing is that we don’t see that problem here despite the strong personalities and ego’s. We just cooperate and do what is required in our various areas. You could almost write a whole politics paper on the implications 😈
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   27 March 2012 at 7:55 pm

   “I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any manner.”

   Maybe there is some arcane translation of ‘not ever’ in the law that renders it specific to a point in time or context.

   That would be pretty daft though, but if it is the case, then I for one think we should abandon that practice in favour of plain english.

   Because as it is, a plain english reading of the phrase ‘not ever’, would see it as meaning that the speaker had never, not once, not, well, ‘ever’ done the thing in question.

   I’d think that people would use it to rhetorically strengthen the claim that they had not done the thing in the particular case under discussion. They are saying not only did I not do it here, in this specific case, I’ve not done it ever in the general case. As it were

   If it turns out they have in fact done it on some previous occasion, then yep, that makes them a liar about the general case.

   Pointing that lie out doesn’t mean you are saying they did it in the specific case.
   • felix 3.1

     27 March 2012 at 8:01 pm

     Oh P, that’s cruel. You know he won’t be able to read all of that.
4. felix 4

   27 March 2012 at 7:56 pm

   The Slater child and his drunk old lady friend seem keen to discuss anything but the post.

   lolz. Not even a good liar either.
   • Whaleoil 4.1

     27 March 2012 at 8:04 pm

     Fill yer boots…it is yet another post talking about me for some strange reason…clearly you guys have got a thaang going there.
     • Blighty 4.1.1

       27 March 2012 at 8:23 pm

       You get mentioned sometimes. Not because you’re the goose that lays the golden eggs, as you think Slater. It’s because you’re the goose that shits all over his masters – eg PoAL – and it’s great to watch.
   • Cactus Kate 4.2

     27 March 2012 at 8:08 pm

     I wish I had some of the whacky weed you take cat man. What’s actually to discuss here?
     • vto 4.2.1

       27 March 2012 at 8:12 pm

       That’s right, what is to discuss? Lying bastards with no brains? I can go over to sewertown for that.
     • felix 4.2.2

       27 March 2012 at 8:25 pm

       Whether or not the Slater child is a lying sack of shit, mainly.
   • Cactus Kate 4.3

     27 March 2012 at 8:25 pm

     Copy of your birth certificate old tomcat so we can judge that for ourselves, given Lynn’s comments about machines, I suspect we are commenting to one now and you are making up your youth, among other things.

     Lolz went out with Vanilla Ice.
     • felix 4.3.1

       27 March 2012 at 8:28 pm

       Huh? I don’t think I’ve mentioned my youth lately except in terms of my fond memories.

       Have another drink and try again, dear.

       ps yes, I am a machine.
       • Cactus Kate 4.3.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 8:32 pm

         You are also commenting as Harry or perhaps you shared the same mother hence your anger at women who drink? You need to get over it.
         • felix 4.3.1.1.1

           27 March 2012 at 8:42 pm

           Sorry gran, but I only comment as felix. You’re having a bit of a spin out there, thinking everyone’s out to get you, thinking people are machines, imagining that people are saying things they’re not.

           Maybe you should think about having a wee break from the high life, eh?

           And I assure you all my favourite women drink, as do I. We just know how to hold onto our shit.

           And thank you for the compliment Lynn, that’s very kind 😀
           • Cactus Kate 4.3.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 8:49 pm

             Yes I will create a fake animal name, fake internet identity and pretend I’m say an 18 year old leftie as well so I can abuse other people who can be identified on Blogs.

             “we just know how…” so you are a woman today then if read in that context?
             • felix …

               27 March 2012 at 8:56 pm

               Lol where have I said I’m a teenager? I’m probably older than you, silly goose.

               “so you are a woman today then if read in that context?”

               No, “we” refers to “my favourite women” and “I”. You’ve failed to understand the straightforward use of your first language. It’s ok, it happens to all of us now and then.
               • Cactus Kate …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

                 So Felix if you are probably older than me, we can take it you probably drink more than me as well and are definitely telling lies,
                 I mean really the quality of commenting has dropped here. You have the benefit of a faux persona and can’t even make up the details to your own advantage.
                 • felix …

                   27 March 2012 at 9:07 pm

                   You’re going to feel a bit silly reading these comments in the morning Kate.
                   • Cactus Kate …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:32 pm

                     Why? I voted for a party that polled 1.2%. I couldn’t give a stuff about commenting on any blog.
             • Jackal …

               27 March 2012 at 9:02 pm

               Have another drink Catcus… perhaps then you can come up with some proper insults.
               • Cactus Kate …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:11 pm

                 Another faceless nameless child in need of $1 a day sponsorship.
                 • mickysavage …

                   27 March 2012 at 9:12 pm

                   Kate can you answer the question?

                   Did Slater shop the Boag email to Fisher?  The continued avoidance of the question suggests there is only one possible answer. 
                   • Cactus Kate …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:29 pm

                     Of course I can’t answer it as I am not David Fisher.
                     I would add though if Slater had anything that good, i would expect that he would have stuck it on his own blog first and not given it to anyone else.
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 9:34 pm

                     Well can you ask Cameron to reply?  You know the story Kate, your antennae goes wild when people continuously avoid the question and talk about something else.  It makes you think that they are not being up front.  

                     So can you ask Cameron if he shopped the email to Fisher?  My repeated asking of this question will cause many to think that this may be the case.  A simple no would be good if Cameron wishes to reply in this way.
                 • Jackal …

                   27 March 2012 at 9:16 pm

                   Wow! Sixteen comments so far and not one based in reality. Tell me Catcus, why have you come to the defence of the lying bastard Slater… are you implicated in the scandal as well perhaps?
       • lprent 4.3.1.2

         27 March 2012 at 8:33 pm

         Unlikely you’re a machine. I couldn’t write such a program, and I don’t know of anyone who could..

         I’d have to rate that as bullshit….. 😈
5. vto 5

   27 March 2012 at 8:29 pm

   .
   Fight!

   She’s all go ..
   • Cactus Kate 5.1

     27 March 2012 at 8:38 pm

     And you love it. Slater and Cactus versus 20 trolls. Not fair odds really, where are your reinforcements?
     • felix 5.1.1

       27 March 2012 at 9:02 pm

       How are you counting 20? Seeing double, are we?

       Anyway, I thought we were all the same person? Must be hard work keeping up with all your delusions.
       • burt 5.1.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

         Meooooow
         • felix 5.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2012 at 9:09 pm

           WOOF! 😀

           (Speaking of, haven’t seen WOOF or swimmer here for ages…)
           • burt 5.1.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 9:15 pm

             K ?

             WOOF or swimmer…. any more clues ?
             • felix …

               27 March 2012 at 9:19 pm

               Oh someone called “swimmer” used to comment here, and sometimes his/her dog “WOOF” would get access to the keyboard.
               • lprent …

                 27 March 2012 at 9:51 pm

                 I rather liked woof. The way that it could always make everything doglike was rather endearing.
                 • felix …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:21 pm

                   Me too, most dogs have no idea about puns.
       • Cactus Kate 5.1.1.2

         27 March 2012 at 9:23 pm

         Everyone knows this site has core anonymous regulars and then add ons. I shall name them
         Harry, VTO, Burt, Felix, Irish Bill, jackal, Lanthanide, mcFlock, pascals bookie, blights, Eddie, bunji, james henderson, Anthony robbins, rob, ianmac, ghost who walks, colonial viper. I would include Mickey and Lynn but credit to them, we actually know who they are. That’s 20 who will all consistent argue with you here when you may say even the slightest thing they disagree with.
         • vto 5.1.1.2.1

           27 March 2012 at 9:30 pm

           Ok, I will no longer argue with you if you say something that I disagree with.

           Not that I have ever done that before, so why have you named me? And in capitals. Hope you’re not fantasising.
         • Jackal 5.1.1.2.2

           27 March 2012 at 9:34 pm

           Some of those you’ve named as anonymous aren’t and most of the aliases you’ve mentioned haven’t commented on this post. Don’t try to discredit The Standard just because you lack information, can’t count and won’t argue the topic up for discussion.
           • Cactus Kate 5.1.1.2.2.1

             27 March 2012 at 9:43 pm

             I cant discredit a machine,
             • Jackal …

               27 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

               Your jargon can’t discredit The Standard or it’s regular commentators… nice to see you accept the weakness of argument then Catcus.
           • Whaleoil 5.1.1.2.2.2

             27 March 2012 at 10:03 pm

             Clearly the oxygen in the car is getting a little thin Jackal, might I suggest you wind down the window to clear the condensation and get some fresh oxygen in.

             Everyone knows that you can’t discredit a machine and the collection of scripts and programs running on the multiple threaded processes across multiple sites to enhance the serving speed of “the machine”.
             • Jackal …

               27 March 2012 at 10:21 pm

               Looks like the blood is rushing to your head in an attempt to suppress the truth leaking out to protect mistress Collins and you completely missed the point Slater.

               Besides, the internet and websites are not specifically “machines”… they are programs. A machine has a physical working structure such as a computer or a car. These can most definitely be discredited.

               Catcus must be pretty fucked up to think commentators on The Standard are “machines” ie programs. Good god man are you guys insane or what?

               As an aside, could you tell me why all the traces I put on your IP address end up in Mt Eden jail Slater?
               • lprent …

                 27 March 2012 at 10:30 pm

                 They all do for auckland city. It is the centre of the area covered by the ‘district’. NZ doesn’t provide good geographical information unless you look at DSLAM’s at exchange level.
                 • Jackal …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:44 pm

                   Thanks for that 1prent. I’m still wondering why they think I’m a plumber from Ruakaka when even a rudimentary trace would show my IP isn’t from that district.
                   • lprent …

                     27 March 2012 at 11:22 pm

                     Whale’s ego tends to outweigh his actual technical ability by a few orders of magnitude. It shows whenever he uses his friends technical means.

                     But most likely in your case he swallowed someone’s email bullshit whole. As you can see on the second link in the post he tends to be a complete sucker for a tall story told well. There have been quite a few other complete cockups over the years that have been forwarded to us that we haven’t pursued because there wasn’t enough backing or where we weren’t sure that the hatred wasn’t overwhelming the judgement.

                     This one just has some actual links.
             • lprent …

               27 March 2012 at 10:24 pm

               You did have a technical background once. Lost to idling about?
         • felix 5.1.1.2.3

           27 March 2012 at 9:36 pm

           Seriously Kate, take a nap. I don’t particularly like you but that doesn’t mean I want to see you make a fool of yourself. We’ve both had a bit of fun trading insults but it’s getting a bit silly now.

           Come back after a sleep and we’ll have a proper talk about what Slater knew, when he knew it, where he heard it, and who he passed it on to.
         • lprent 5.1.1.2.4

           27 March 2012 at 9:43 pm

           I have published the list of top commentators and posters often enough.

           You missed BLiP and a few other of the regular commentators over the years* Who is ‘Harry’ and ‘blights’ – different blog? Antony/r0b are the same person and the former is his actual name.

           You’re going to seriously piss burt off. 😈

           None of them are exactly anonymous to anyone who reads the blog. Their personalities lurge though just as much as yours does. They certainly argue with each other a lot. None of them has contributed more than 0.5% of the comments and that is only because of CV’s rather extreme 14,180 comments out of our 391,499 comments

           Your point is?

           You should really focus on something that you aren’t quite such a newbie at…
           • Cactus Kate 5.1.1.2.4.1

             27 March 2012 at 9:55 pm

             Of course they are anonymous to the public, of which I am one because I don’t know the secret handshakes that go on here. Happy to stay a newbie on that.
             • lprent …

               27 March 2012 at 10:14 pm

               Most are “anonymous” to me as well. Unlike you I see their e-mails – many of which are invalid, and their IP’s which to me are pretty solid about who people aren’t. Even the people who use TOR or one of the VPN exit points are as identifiable as hell – mostly because they use such known gateways (less than 3% of our comment traffic comes from overseas IP ranges, and half of those are TOR or VON gateway). If you wanted to be anonymous then there are some easier things to do for anonymity against a sysop. use Ihug or Vodafone is a good start. Their IP ranges move like greased lightning.

               But you ‘identified’ maybe 3% of the commentators and a few of the non commenting authors. Commentators are a fraction of the readers.

               But it is hard to conceal personality in comments. Irish can detect alomost anyone from writing style alone. I can detect most people. It is the most precise technique…. You literally cannot conceal your writing style without looking forced.

               But I suspect you don’t have the required patience or skills to apply the techniques. Few who are too full of themselves are….
             • Lanthanide …

               28 March 2012 at 9:56 am

               I have no clue who any of the others are, except for those who have revealed their identities.

               I also don’t really track personal details. Seems most people live in the North Island, a few in the smaller cities but most in Auckland (no surprise).
         • burt 5.1.1.2.5

           27 March 2012 at 9:49 pm

           Cactus

           I take exception to being lumped in with the lefty apologists. OK sure I’m a regular with an alias…. But I’m not a troll “for” the standard (*1).

           *1) The standard being in this context intended to refer to the collective of bloggers who fight hard out to get self serving Labour govt’s elected to implement policies that always fail.

           [lprent: 😈 That took longer than I thought.

           BTW: Some of the authors want a green government. At least two would probably prefer that there wasn’t a government at all and that we’d all just get along without one. ]
           • felix 5.1.1.2.5.1

             27 March 2012 at 9:56 pm

             Too late burt, you’re well and truly lumped in now. Gooble gobble gooble gobble 😀
             • Akldnut …

               28 March 2012 at 1:24 pm

               Billiant felix, you got a camera into Act’s Caucus and Kates acceptance into the party.
               I note she had a bit to drink there too!
         • David H 5.1.1.2.6

           27 March 2012 at 10:52 pm

           Damn I’m disappointed I didn’t make the top 20. There again I’m new here. Only been here a coupla years. and only banned once. Oh well something to work for, to be on someones top 20 list, wowweeeeee.

           [lprent: The system shows you as being well down in the top 100 in terms of comments. Hard to tell with the crap searches in safari on a iPad. Having been banned on a moderated site is pretty normal. How else do you learn the edges. I have been booted a few times over the years on various forums. ]
     • Rob 5.1.2

       27 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

       Now thats a keeper…..
       • lprent 5.1.2.1

         27 March 2012 at 9:56 pm

         I think she meant r0b. Which is a bit hilarious on its own…
     • vto 5.1.3

       27 March 2012 at 9:12 pm

       Reinforcements? I don’t think I have any. It’s just me luvvy.
       • felix 5.1.3.1

         27 March 2012 at 9:15 pm

         Not sure why she thinks you’d need any either…
       • lprent 5.1.3.2

         27 March 2012 at 9:55 pm

         Yep. vto is definitely a agin the government force of one. Any government.

         I thought he was Act prior to 2010 and ECan.
         • grumpy 5.1.3.2.1

           28 March 2012 at 10:25 am

           Stockholm Syndrome……
           • lprent 5.1.3.2.1.1

             28 March 2012 at 11:09 am

             Don’t think so. One of the characteristics of the blogs is that there is no confinement. Anyone can walk off to another blog at any time. Definitely not the conditions for Stockholm syndrome to arise.

             I think he is just swinging voter…
     • deuto 5.1.4

       27 March 2012 at 9:30 pm

       Well there is probably a lot of us. In terms of animal names, particularly cats, if you are looking for one CK, Felix is gone as is Deuto.

       But lets not divert – how about you and WO actually answer MS’ very direct yes or no questions…………

       PS – as an aside, micky – looked up the correct quotation for my comment last night “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” But don’t think either CK or WO rate as a ‘lady’ but interesting that both have deemed to honour us with their presence tonight.
6. vto 6

   27 March 2012 at 8:41 pm

   How do cactuses get close? Or are they solitary veges?
7. fender 7

   27 March 2012 at 9:12 pm

   Does seem to be a waste of bandwidth to point out something that surely everyone including the midwife could tell from his first cry. But it’s worth being reminded from time to time, that these foul people who support companies that seek a helping hand to spread their bs are not very straight-up and have a rotten core and radiate evilness.

   But at least the whaleslime runs in the gutter where it can be monitored for signs of vigilante behaviour or cult activity.
8. tsmithfield 8

   27 March 2012 at 9:21 pm

   The point I would make here is that it is very easy to accuse someone of lying when comparative phrases are taken completely out of their context.

   In the situation cited above, it is clear that the conversations referred to were completely different matters. Here is what I mean:

   Example 1:

   Person A: You told X about Y.

   Person B: I have never spoken to X.

   Example 2:

   Person A: You told X about Z.

   Person B: I have spoken to X.

   Comparing the two statements from person B apart from the context, it seems that person B has completely contradicted themselves. However, what is not considered is the implication contained in the statements when referring back to the context:

   “I have never spoken to X” in the first example includes the implication [about Y].

   “I have spoken to X” in the second example includes the implication [about X].

   In both the examples above, I am fairly certain that the individuals concerned wouldn’t be scanning back over several years when having these conversations. Rather, they would be addressing the point immediately before them, and would understand completely what they were talking about.

   In the article above accusing Whale Oil of lying, the statements have been stripped of their context in the article. However, by following the links back, it is clear that they are referring to conversations (or lack of conversations) that relate to completely different subject matter. When the context of the differing subject matter is taken into account, the apparent contradiction is fairly easily resolved.
   • felix 8.1

     27 March 2012 at 9:24 pm

     Nah. http://thestandard.org.nz/lying-liar-caught-lying-again/comment-page-1/#comment-451813
   • mickysavage 8.2

     27 March 2012 at 9:25 pm

     TS to the rescue.

     What I would really like someone to do, preferably Slater is to answer this very simple question, did he somehow transmit the Boag email to the Herald’s Fisher?

     I am dying to know … 
     • Cactus Kate 8.2.1

       27 March 2012 at 9:37 pm

       Oh for heavens sake refer to 2.1.1.2.1 and stop yourself from dying.
       You aren’t going to accept the answer whatever it is anyway.
       • felix 8.2.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 9:41 pm

         I think micky has been very clear that he’d accept a “yes” or a “no”.
         • Cactus Kate 8.2.1.1.1

           27 March 2012 at 9:44 pm

           No he won’t. Because he’s already been given it.
           • mickysavage 8.2.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 9:47 pm

             Already been given what?
             • Cactus Kate …

               27 March 2012 at 9:49 pm

               2.1.1.2.1
       • mickysavage 8.2.1.2

         27 March 2012 at 9:43 pm

         Aye, Y/N?
         • Cactus Kate 8.2.1.2.1

           27 March 2012 at 9:48 pm

           It’s a bit like asking “will David Cunliffe plot a coup” around the time of the Labour leadership rumours pre election, and I’m sure you got sick of denying that Mickey, everyone wanted a yes and kept asking and asking and asking many different ways, but the answer was still a no and that turned out to be the unfortunate truth for the sensationalists.
     • Whaleoil 8.2.2

       27 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

       FFS the answer is No, I did not send the Boag email to Fisher.
       • mickysavage 8.2.2.1

         27 March 2012 at 10:00 pm

         So who did?  Was it someone in Collins’ office?
         • Cactus Kate 8.2.2.1.1

           27 March 2012 at 10:14 pm

           Is David Cunliffe currently plotting a coup? And if your answer is no is Grant Robertson? And if your answer is still no we will think of someone else to blame for the current coup rumours and ask you about that too.
           • mickysavage 8.2.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2012 at 10:16 pm

             DC is not planning a coup.  

             So did someone in Collins’ office release the email?

             Good attempted diversion …
             • Cactus Kate …

               27 March 2012 at 10:19 pm

               Not planning? So Nanaia is doing the planning? Didn’t seem very happy on The nation Sunday.
               • mickysavage …

                 27 March 2012 at 10:24 pm

                 You are such a crack up Kate.  You and Cameron are using all the classic diversion tactics.  Open up.  Let us know what is happening in the National Party.  Is Civil war erupting?  Is the Brat Pack gunning for Collins because she took out Smith?  Did she leak a private email from Boag for political advantage?

                 On the other hand if you do not want to answer that is fine.  I suspect us lefties will sit back and watch this unfold over the next couple of weeks.  Whatever happens I am sure that this Government will not be the same.  

                 And for the people of New Zealand this will be a good thing … 
                 • Cactus Kate …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:34 pm

                   No the question has been answered and you are using classic tactics of relitigating what has already been answered.

                   I’ve got no interest or idea about what is going on in the National Party. Contrary to idiot reporters I am neither a member or have I ever voted for them. Despite almost certain electoral annihilation remember, I still voted for ACT.
               • lprent …

                 27 March 2012 at 10:31 pm

                 Have you ever seen Nanaia happy? I never have ever… I think that she’d crack if those muscles were ever exercised. Politicians come in all types.

                 Just ask David Garrett – ex Act MP. How could you have voted for him?
                 • Cactus Kate …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:40 pm

                   Nanaia looked pretty happy when she thought she was going to be Deputy leader.
                   Her comments about Labour were as guarded as Charles Chauvel’s.

                   Although Im sure she would be equally as unhappy to hear her used to justify bringing up Dabid Garrett again in comparison.
                   • lprent …

                     27 March 2012 at 10:56 pm

                     Labour has learned over the decades to simply put up with me. The benefits tend to significantly outweigh the costs when calculated as a whole. I don’t really spend a lot of time worrying about politician’s fragile egos. They are pretty tough if they are pros, and if they are not then I help with their education. And I suspect that Nanaia would be somewhat outspoken if she got pissed off.

                     So you are ashamed of the party that brought Garratt to parliament? He has to be one of the weakest candidates I have seen. Shows that the party members were pretty useless at doing their job….
           • Whaleoil 8.2.2.1.1.2

             27 March 2012 at 10:17 pm

             Didn’t Grant do well today gazzumping Jacinda in the welfare debate?

             Real leadership potential there, the only question is really, who will be his deputy? Will be David C?
           • lprent 8.2.2.1.1.3

             27 March 2012 at 10:21 pm

             Coups happen in caucus. Why are you asking a Auckland regional for news about them? The party has bugger all to do with them – worse luck…

             But it is unlikely. The party membership can vote with their feet. Not a lot of point having a nice mid or late term caucus coup and then finding that the new leader can’t win the following election. That is the message that would be coup makers get when they ask.
         • Whaleoil 8.2.2.1.2

           27 March 2012 at 10:15 pm

           Michelle Boag?
           • Cactus Kate 8.2.2.1.2.1

             27 March 2012 at 10:17 pm

             Andrew Williams
             Expert in leaks.
             • felix …

               27 March 2012 at 10:27 pm

               lol, nice one
           • mickysavage 8.2.2.1.2.2

             27 March 2012 at 10:19 pm

             That is a good one.  So Michelle Boag opened herself up to ridicule and allegations that she participated in an attempt to extort by sending a private email to the Herald.

             Good one Cameron …

             Did you clear it with her before making this suggestion? 
             • Whaleoil …

               27 March 2012 at 10:29 pm

               An email to a minister can never be private because it is subject to OIA.

               So Michelle, the strategic genius she is writes an email which you describe as extortion to a minister in her capacity as the minister of the department she, as you said, tried to extort….and now is livid that it is public?

               The email is searchable under the OIA so can never be private.
               • mickysavage …

                 27 March 2012 at 10:34 pm

                 Haha

                 If the email was sent to a private address and preceded by a telephone call to make sure it is private but the Minister then decides to treat it as public then it is subject to the OIA but not otherwise.

                 Do you mean that every email to Key and Joyce is subject to the OIA??  I hope you are right.  I can hardly wait …

                 And Boag’s email was definitely not an attempt to extort.  You should be more careful before making such allegations. 
                 • Whaleoil …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:41 pm

                   Very precise information there Mickey…

                   You seem to be in the know, certainly more than me. Phone calls in advance…private email addresses…what are you Michelle’s bitch?

                   You state Boag’s email was “definitely” not an attempt to extort…how could you know that? Do you have a copy of it? Definitely is very precise language…and you are a lawyer, you know all about precision with words, don’t you Mickey?

                   You made the allegation…I simply confirmed what you said above. Anyway it matters not because it is a matter of public record that ACC thinks it was an attempt to blackmail or extort and so have laid a complaint with the Police.
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 10:44 pm

                     Ha Cameron

                     The last time I saw you so animated was  when I mentioned Simon Lusk.  Was he involved in writing any of your ACC and post Smith-resignation analysis?

                     Just a stab in the dark sort of question … 
                 • Whaleoil …

                   27 March 2012 at 10:59 pm

                   Whoops…quick diversion there Mickey…seems you do have a copy of the email.

                   Who sent you the email?
                   Was it someone in ACC?
                   What does it actually say, since you have stated it “definitely” wasn’t an extortion email?
                   Why do you have a “private email”, as you have described it, sent to a minister, one that allegedly talks about an ACC claimant?
                   Is that a breach of privacy that you seem to have the email?

                   Many questions, how about some direct answers?
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 11:02 pm

                     Don’t ask me Cameron.  I have no friends in power right now.

                     But could you at least answer the question about Simon Lusk? 
                   • Whaleoil …

                     27 March 2012 at 11:11 pm

                     Oh that’s right David Cunliffe missed out didn’t he….pity.

                     The answer is no to the Lusk question.
                   • mickysavage …

                     27 March 2012 at 11:23 pm

                     So has Simon Lusk written anything for you lately?
         • hawk 8.2.2.1.3

           27 March 2012 at 11:50 pm

           You got your answer so shut the fuck up.

           You do sound like a stupid old cunt you really do.

           [lprent: That is at the edge of a pointless abuse since I haven’t seen an definite answer and you didn’t link or point one out. It’d pay you to read the notes in the policy about that style of comment. I tend to regard them as giving me fresh meat to educate about how to insult others in a less stupid and boring way. Then I give them time to contemplate the lesson. ]
           • hawk 8.2.2.1.3.1

             28 March 2012 at 10:23 am

             Lprent after i had posted it I realised the foolishness in my post.

             I did try to edit and delete I thought I had changed it however it dod not work.

             Point noted.

             [lprent: No problem – you just catch a warning and I’ll bear the dysfunction on the site in mind.

             Unfortunately I’ve been out of available time for my third role as sysop due to work pressures. So there are some repairs that haven’t been done on the site. One of them is the irritating botchup that the new owners of the re-editing plugin have been doing. ]
9. tsmithfield 9

   27 March 2012 at 9:30 pm

   Felix: “Nah. http://thestandard.org.nz/lying-liar-caught-lying-again/comment-page-1/#comment-451813”

   Doesn’t matter. If you include the implication [about Pullar], which was the subject of the post he was responding to, then what he said makes perfect sense, and doesn’t contradict his 2008 statement in the slightest.

   When people are responding to these sorts of things, it is often in a very conversational sort of manner, and responding to the immediate issue. Personally, I don’t expect people to scan through the last decade of their lives before posting. I can also read between the lines to know infer what may have been left out in the course of a reasonably rapid reply.
   • felix 9.1

     27 March 2012 at 9:39 pm

     Yeah that’s true. If you pretend he didn’t say what he actually said, it’d mean something else.
     • tsmithfield 9.1.1

       27 March 2012 at 9:48 pm

       Felix “Yeah that’s true. If you pretend he didn’t say what he actually said, it’d mean something else.”

       Are you acting thick or is it for real? As you should well know, context is vital for understanding what is being said.

       If Whale was responding to:

       “You have communicated with Kitchen on various occasions in the past”

       Then asserting that he had never previously communicated with that person would either be forgetfulness or lying.

       However, that wasn’t what he was responding to. It was about his communication with Kitchen about very specific subject matter. Whale’s response, in this context was clearly that he had never communicated with Kitchen about that matter. (implied)

       In my opinion, the accusation against Whale is based on a very cheap trick that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
       • felix 9.1.1.1

         27 March 2012 at 9:51 pm

         Oh goodo, let’s see the full convo in context then if you have it to hand.
10. tsmithfield 10

    27 March 2012 at 10:00 pm

    You can follow the link as well as I can.
    • felix 10.1

      27 March 2012 at 10:13 pm

      The link in the post? To Cameron’s comment? Yep I can, Cameron was replying to this comment from js, quoted in full:

      js 7
      23 March 2012 at 1:37 pm

      I heard it was part of an ongoing battle between Michelle Boag and Cameron Slater (National Party chairperson grievance politics) and he leaked the whole story to the Dominion Post. Phil Kitchin has mentioned before how he gets a lot of information from him.

      See that last sentence? “Phil Kitchin has mentioned before how he gets a lot of information from him.”

      To which Cameron replied (again, quoted in full):

      Whaleoil 7.3
      23 March 2012 at 2:54 pm

      I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any manner.

      Kitchin has been running this story from information provided to him directly by Pullar, he has said that and now so has Pullar.

      So the context was not limited to this specific matter at all, it was very general about an ongoing relationship between Kitchen and Slater.

      Pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.
      • tsmithfield 10.1.1

        28 March 2012 at 7:23 am

        I disagree. You need to look at the wider context of the article and how Slater himself qualifies what he said. The article was: “Who leaked Pullar’s name?”

        So, to start with, the article was clearly about how Pullar’s name got out.

        Now look at Slater’s post:

        I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any manner.

        Kitchin has been running this story from information provided to him directly by Pullar, he has said that and now so has Pullar.

        See how Slater has qualified his first sentence with the second. Clearly, due to the second sentence, the inference could be added to his first sentence [about Pullar].

        About the most you could accuse Slater of is being slightly lazy with his language. Accusing him of lying is absurd. Context is everything.
        • felix 10.1.1.1

          28 March 2012 at 7:46 am

          That’s not a qualification of what he said. It’s additional to what he said.

          In case you missed it, here ’tis again:

          js: “I heard it was part of an ongoing battle between Michelle Boag and Cameron Slater (National Party chairperson grievance politics) and he leaked the whole story to the Dominion Post. Phil Kitchin has mentioned before how he gets a lot of information from him.”

          Whaleoil: “I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any manner.
          Kitchin has been running this story from information provided to him directly by Pullar, he has said that and now so has Pullar.”

          To make your hypothesis work you have to ignore the question and the answer and focus entirely on something else instead. Very weak, smitty.
          • tsmithfield 10.1.1.1.1

            28 March 2012 at 7:54 am

            As I mentioned above, you need to also consider the wider context as to what JS might have been talking about. The wider context was the article: “Who leaked Pullar’s name?” If the article had been titled: “Conversations Slater has had with Kitchin”, you would have a much stronger point.

            Slater’s statement could have been constructed as follows:

            I have not ever spoken to Phil Kitchin, nor emailed him or corresponded in any
            manner: Kitchin has been running this story from information provided to him directly by Pullar, he has said that and now so has Pullar.

            Then the inference would have been very clear. So, in my opinion, it is only a slight inaccuracy in the way Slater has structured his post that gives you any ammunition for accusing him of lying. So far as I am concerned, the implication is very clear that he was limiting the scope of what he was saying. In the end, we both look at things the way we want to, so there probably isn’t a lot more I can say about this point.
            • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1.1.1

              28 March 2012 at 8:15 am

              You’re still ignoring the actual question that Slater was responding to. An allegation that he has worked with Kitchin, that he has a relationship with him. That is what his statement was in immediate response to.

              In that context, he was denying the relationship exists, that it has ‘ever’ existed, thus strengthening the idea that he could not have been working with him in this instance.

              Your new formulation does nothing to make his claim specific only to this case.

              It’s a trivial lie, of little consequence, but one that is revealing if you like. Slater could easily have just said that he isn’t working with Hitchins on this.

              Instead, he decided, at whatever level of consciousness, to deny that he had ever worked with him. That served a rhetorical purpose that suited him. That the truth was different to what he wrote, perhaps didn’t just bother him, in that case you could say that he was bullshitting about it rather than lying.

              But good lord you say some ridiculous shit, I have to say.
            • felix 10.1.1.1.1.2

              28 March 2012 at 8:31 am

              “you need to also consider the wider context as to what JS might have been talking about.

              I did. S/He is talking about an ongoing relationship between Slater and Kitchin, not restricted or limited to this particular case. You’re trying to narrow the context to exclude that fact.

              “Slater’s statement could have been constructed as follows”

              It could have been phrased as a lunch order, but it wasn’t. It was phrased as a black and white denial of the previous statement.

              You’re looking at things you think might have happened (but can’t show) and things you wish happened (but definitely didn’t) and completely ignoring what did happen (which we can all see for ourselves).

              Smitty, do you mind awfully if we discuss what was actually said instead?

              Thanks.

              edit- Shorter felix: what P’s b said.
11. Puddleglum 11

    27 March 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what went on with the 2008 ‘stunt’ linked to in the post – but it seems to me that Cameron Slater had a very juicy story but didn’t post it ‘first’ on his blog, and didn’t intend to do so (limiting himself to ‘tid-bits’).

    Instead, (if I’m correct?) he contacted Phil Kitchin to try to get it first reported in a mainstream newspaper.

    If that is the case, then clearly having a juicy story does not necessarily mean that Mr Slater would first put it on his blog but that, in some circumstances at least, he would try to get it reported in the mainstream press first.

    Doesn’t it?

    So the defence, in the present case, that if he’d had the information he would have put it on his own blog first is not necessarily a ‘clincher’, in terms of clear denial that he ‘leaked’ the email. 

    But perhaps I’m missing something. 
    • hawk 11.1

      28 March 2012 at 12:00 am

      No think your thinking on the matter mkes perfect sense, however that does not allow the commentators in here to have a good old bun fight.

      So they should thank you for not posting your sensible comments until they had their fun.
    • Colonial Viper 11.2

      28 March 2012 at 1:18 am

      If that is the case, then clearly having a juicy story does not necessarily mean that Mr Slater would first put it on his blog but that, in some circumstances at least, he would try to get it reported in the mainstream press first.

      Slater knows that for an important story, the MSM would be able to reach a far wider audience far more credibly.

      Then post MSM release he would add his 2c worth of spin.

      Which therefore suggests that Slater acts as an unofficial (arms’ length) distribution channel to the MSM, as one of his primary roles for his right wing paymasters.
12. Pete George 12

    28 March 2012 at 6:46 am

    Lying liar caught lying again
    Written By: Zetetic

    It’s good to see such a strong line in the sand here against bloggers telling lies. Perhaps this may set a benchmark for all bloggers to stick to facts and truths. That could also encompass a stand against mistruths and statements of “opinion” designed to dishonestly smear and discredit.

    Will you lead the way in a campaign for blog truthfullness? This post could be a permanent reminder.
13. Fortran 13

    28 March 2012 at 1:34 pm

    When I saw the heading I wondered what Len had been up to this time.
14. KevinH 14

    28 March 2012 at 1:42 pm

    Pullar was totally aggrieved with her negotiations with ACC and dragged in a number of political heavyweights, including Michele Boag, to help out with ther case. This would of got tongues wagging down on the beltway including media in the loop ie bloggers.
    This story was hushed up from the start but couldn’t be contained because of the alleged speculation from NZ First that made it so juicy that eventually it blew. Who sent the emails is irrelevant, the story was out and it was just a matter of time before it went public.
15. Treetop 15

    28 March 2012 at 7:06 pm

    I still want to know if Pullar gave permission for Boag to email Collins?
16. randal 16

    29 March 2012 at 7:24 pm

    I want to know if God is really on Slaters side?
    or is it just another fib.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS