Multiple orgasms

28 comments on “Multiple orgasms ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Higherstandard 1

   1 August 2008 at 12:40 pm

   Ouch trainwreck – good on him for having a laugh about it afterwards.
2. Felix 2

   1 August 2008 at 12:44 pm

   Jesus, that guy could give Key a run for his money in the jibbering monkey olympics.
3. Higherstandard 3

   1 August 2008 at 12:52 pm

   The interesting thing Felix is that he’s completely coherent after the fact – think it shows that once a speech turns to cak it can go downhill very fast – I like how he realised he’d said orgasm and knew he had to correct himself and then said the same thing again – poor sod and it’s there for posterity now.

   Reminds me of the time I was delivering a presentation in Australia went beautifully for 30 minutes until the first question from the audience…… did you know your fly was undone ?

   Doh !
4. Anita 4

   1 August 2008 at 1:01 pm

   I love the fact that he could say “orgasm” afterwards without blushing – that speaks volumes about him.
5. randal 5

   1 August 2008 at 2:40 pm

   orgasm orgasm orgasm orgasm orgasm…doh!
6. dad4justice 6

   1 August 2008 at 3:12 pm

   in your case randal, i suggest it would be more like a micro;
   organism orgasm organism orgasm organism……
7. Felix 7

   1 August 2008 at 3:48 pm

   HS, yeah he seemed really comfortable talking to the camera, just not to the room…

   BTW how did your speech go after that?
8. J Mex 8

   1 August 2008 at 11:24 pm

   Over on the Dim Post we’ve got Lynn Prentice calling Danyl a “tasteless little lynch-mob moron who really doesn’t seem to think before they write”.

   I look forward to Lynn applying the same venom to Jasper’s 1:50pm comment.

   [lprent: this is Danyl who described the writers here as “The worthless little hobgoblins over at Labour Party agitprop outlet The Standard” in the post I commented on. So you think this is a person worthy of respect? Tell me why? When they referred to us as “One doesn’t know whether to laugh in their faces or vomit on their laps;”. Friend of yours? Does he regurgitate for you? And so on…

   Do you think I should maintain a double standard for a dipshit like that, and turn the other cheek? I don’t. If someone hits me in the cheek then I tend to see if I can make sure that they don’t want to do it again. Personally I think I was too moderate.

   You also selectively quoted. I was describing his ability to ignore “the presumption of innocence” principle and wanting writer here to convict NZF and Winston without any evidence of illegality. ]
9. J Mex 9

   2 August 2008 at 9:57 am

   “You also selectively quoted. I was describing his ability to ignore “the presumption of innocence” principle and wanting writer here to convict NZF and Winston without any evidence of illegality. ]”

   No – That is my point. Jasper wants to to push the alledged rape angle. No presumption of innocence favours there.
10. dad4justice 10

    2 August 2008 at 10:08 am

    If we are throwing historical sexual abuse allegations about on this thread what about Dover S and his involvement with underage girls?

    Remember well, you throw shit then d4j will crucify you with the cold steel of truth. I hope we are all VERY clear on that pre election lock and load promise.
11. Felix 11

    2 August 2008 at 10:47 am

    Morning Dad, good sleep?
12. dad4justice 12

    2 August 2008 at 10:54 am

    Felix, as a crusader of the truth I can assure you sleep is good. I do feel many allegations are going to surface as we get closer to the election and I feel it’s not a good time to be sitting on a closet fill of haunting skeletons. The dirt will fly until the ultimate objective is achieved. I won’t say a few will fall from grace, as the scum I speak of do not own grace in any shape or form. Absolute power and grace are an impossible combination, but you already know that.
    Bring it on girls.
13. lprent 13

    2 August 2008 at 11:28 am

    Jasper can put what he/she likes in the comments. If it goes too far then it will get chopped, same as everyone else. In this case she/he didn’t ‘push’ it, they simply raised it and in the context of the thread.

    I suspect you misunderstand why I was annoyed by danyl’s post.

    What I was getting into danyl about what his abusive post trying to say what the writers here should believe. That is simply mob action – and I replied exactly in kind to their post about The Standard’s writers. What was asserted (amidst the verbiage) was that the writers here approved on Winston’s, Bob Jones, Owen Glenns and NZF actions in having anonymous donations.

    The posters here are pretty much in same abeyance state that I am (from what I can see). They don’t particularly approve of the donations system from the Electoral Act 1993 – most would probably consider that part of the Act to be immoral. The donations were done under that act. At present there is nothing shown to be illegal under that Act.

    There are far worse moral abuses of that donation system – for instance the actions of Act and National.

    This is all obvious when you read the posts, and even more so when you read the comments. This little dipshit ignored all of that and wrote what is a straight attack post on this site. When I have time I usually take appropriate responses to that type of action. It goes far beyond any type of fair comment.
14. randal 14

    2 August 2008 at 11:39 am

    dont worry lprent…d4juice has one every time he presses the submit button
15. Felix 15

    2 August 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Dad, I think it’s done you a world of good – I’ve never seen you so lucid.
16. Anita 16

    2 August 2008 at 12:16 pm

    lprent,

    Why don’t you consider than Jasper’s comments went too far?

    I could tell you where I would draw the line, but I don’t think it matters.

    I say that if I wrote [equivalent comment about Labour MP/candidates/party officials] I reckon it would be gone in a flurry of bolded letters and threats of banning, but then I’d just sound like a rightie.

    Honestly I saw it and was appalled, I assumed it would be gone the moment a moderator saw it. I don’t believe this is how anyone who hopes The Standard might make a difference would like to see the media describe The Standard. I don’t believe this is how 99% of the the left, or the labour movement, or social democrats, or, or, or would like “our side” to behave.

    I am genuinely surprised that it’s still there, I am genuinely upset that anyone whose opinions I respect would defend it.
17. Anita 17

    2 August 2008 at 12:19 pm

    humpf! Now the mean computer won’t let me edit that to put the word “could” in the third paragraph so that I sound coherent 🙂

    Oh, and turn a comma into a semicolon in the fourth para.

    I am too used to post fact proofing *sigh*
18. Daveo 18

    2 August 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Question – are you sure it was the same Jasper who posts here? There’s no grey box around it.
19. Tane 19

    2 August 2008 at 12:32 pm

    I’ve just deleted the comment from ‘Jasper’. Like Daveo suggests (how’s it going comrade?) the Jasper in this comment appears to be posting from a different IP than the Jasper who posts here. I’ll email our Jasper to make sure.

    In any case, it’s unacceptable.
20. Joel 20

    2 August 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Dad4Justice: Not sure how Dover Samuel’s is relevant. As it turned out Dover was in his early twenties, the girl was 17, and he was separated from his wife at the time.

    Definitely rape.
21. Anita 21

    2 August 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Tane,

    Thanks, my faith is a little restored. Lprent’s defence of it still disturbs me tho.

    I’m assuming you’re not saying it would’ve been ok if it had been your Jasper.
22. lprent 22

    2 August 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Anita: I’m not defending it. I have no idea if the fact (that there was an allegation or not) is true. At present it is just a statement from a ‘Jasper’. I don’t check those sorts of facts – not my sort of moderation.

    If it is incorrect then I’d expect someone would find out and demonstrate it. Then I’d start killing repetitions of something that is untrue. If it is true, then I’d start killing it only if it become repititous (ie trolling), or used in a manner likely to start flamewars. Of course if another moderator bans it or kills it, then I’ll follow suit.

    I’m afraid I agree with the courts on the subject. That people entering public life have a diminished right to privacy. When they seek publicity for their benefit, then they also can expect to get bad publicity based on past actions. Ask Benson-Pope… You can also see this in my handling of the allegations against Winston over the last week or so.

    You’d also note that the same standard does not apply to people who are not seeking public life. They have a reasonable expectation of privacy, both here and in the courts.

    But I don’t initiate the checking of facts in comments – I’m simply not that interested in keeping up with all of that stuff. I simply enforce what the other moderators decide.

    Does that clarify my position?
23. higherstandard 23

    2 August 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Agreed Anita – well done Tane the less garbage like that the better – sadly I think we’re likely to see more of the same heading into the election on all the blogs and in the MSM.
24. lprent 24

    2 August 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Oh I see Tane has checked and zapped. That is my bad – I should have checked the identicons. But I can’t remember ever seeing Jaspers icon.
25. lprent 25

    2 August 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Anita: I probably haven’t explained this all that clearly. I usually only moderate behaviour.

    I’m a total libertarian in a lot of ways, and I look at structure rather than detail. Thats why Tane and the other moderators determine content questions. Same kind of reason that I don’t write many posts – I don’t bother keeping up with current politics.

    However I’m a good BOFH and decent sysop – site stays running, gets upgraded, the comments section isn’t cesspool, and the writers and commentators don’t get attacked and shouted down all of the time.

    BTW: people like hs and ALL of the regular commentators here should get an Gravator. It makes it a lot easier to do identity fraud checking for me. I do check it – but really only on people I know. For instance hs regularly mistypes his e-mail *sigh*
26. Anita 26

    2 August 2008 at 1:13 pm

    lprent,

    No problem that you only moderate some kinds of behaviour and did nothing about this. But you actually defended the comment:

    Jasper can put what he/she likes in the comments. If it goes too far then it will get chopped, same as everyone else. In this case she/he didn’t ‘push’ it, they simply raised it and in the context of the thread.

    Would you think it was ok if someone wrote:

    I don’t know how [insert name here] is hoping to hold onto their seat given the rumours that they regularly sit in a ministerial car outside their local kindy wanking

    Would it be enough if it was related the thread somehow and not “pushed”? Would it matter that it was not yet disproven?

    Just in case anyone gets excited, that allegation is entirely made up – I’m hoping that its obvious unlikeliness was enough of flag, but I thought perhaps I should be clear.
27. Felix 27

    2 August 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Hold onto their seat? Depends entirely on what sort of car they’re in.
28. lprent 28

    2 August 2008 at 1:38 pm

    In that case I would probably kill it. The keyword is ‘rumor’. That is a flamewar starter.

    If someone said that:-

    “Lynn has a criminal conviction for using illegal drugs and pushing them to children”

    Then it’d technically be correct. I have a conviction for underage drinking at the Puhio when I was 18 and serving minors (my sister and brother) drinks by buying them at the bar for them. The drug alcohol was and still is illegal if served in a bar to minors.

    It is a verifiable fact – similar to what “Jasper” said. I’d let that one through if someone asserted it to be true because it can be checked. I’d keep an eye out for whatever comes of it. (actually in this case I’d respond with some facts myself)

    If after checking it was shown to be false, then I’d treat it as rumor and its use as a deliberate flamewar starter. I’d probably treat it as false if the target or almost anyone else said that it was false. It becomes up to the accuser to provide evidence.

    If it was true, but if it was repeated over and over again as simple assertion with little discussion. Then I’d treat it as a flamewar starter or a trolling behavior.

    If someone started demanding that the writers *must* write a post on the topic then I start getting heavy handed. Because I value the independence of the writers to usually post what they like or consider important here.

    If someone starts saying that “The Standard” needs to do something. Then I’ll remind them that they’re trying to talk to a machine and getting me instead (and I’m irritated because they’re trying to treat me as a damn program).

    If Tane or IB or one of the other moderators banned or moderated someone because they considered that they judged the comment to be offensive. Then I’d make sure that the ban or moderations stuck.

    Think of me as a medieval sheriff with low justice powers. I usually don’t judge matters of fact. What I usually judge are matters of behavior against an established ruleset. It is a rough justice system, but probably the only one that is all that effective in a political blog attacked as often as this one.

    Is that clearer?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS