Open mike 02/06/2011

50 comments on “Open mike 02/06/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   2 June 2011 at 8:14 am

   Key paying $300K for the Tupperwaka?
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10729608

   Interesting to see where he chose to throw his cash – something deep and long lasting, something that directly helped people (front line services anyone)? The freaking cycleway? No. A giant, plastic altar to worshipping money and sport. Figures.
   • Jim Nald 1.1

     2 June 2011 at 9:56 am

     Is shonkey turning DPMC into a slush fund to raid for his personal pet projects?
   • ianmac 1.2

     2 June 2011 at 9:58 am

     “Key paying $300K for the Tupperwaka?” What! Oh I see. Not Key really. He is spending taxpayers money on this strange homeless waka.
2. vto 2

   2 June 2011 at 8:25 am

   This is right now rapidly spinning through Chch emails…. it is long.

   “What is going on in Christchurch??

   Is this for real??

   “The Hotel Grand Chancellor is a story that needs to be told. Maybe a book someday! It was finally announced on Wednesday but it is the story behind the delay that is interesting. This story also applies to the rebuilding and repair of Christchurch which Fletcher Building are overseeing.

   The tender was to RCP (project managers for council) but was passed over to CERA once they arrived. CERA is staffed entirely by Fletchers employees.

   CERA delayed the announcement for a month to enable Fletchers to study the other tenderers info & submit a late bid. The day it was submitted CERA awarded them the tender. Fletchers price was 3 million higher than anyone else’s!

   Fletchers have no intention of doing the demolition, taking the risk, or putting up the bond to cover the risk. They are just appointing themselves as project managers to clip the ticket & then getting the original tender winners to do the work.

   How did they get away with it? Do a companies search on Fletchers. (No – don’t bother we’ve done it for you below).

   They just got bought by the Reserve bank! RBNZ owns 275 million Fletcher shares while Hugh Fletcher now only has 5000. Its a SOE. A Govt department!!

   They bought themselves an income stream. They direct all the profits from the recovery straight into their own pockets instead of allowing the people of ChCh to make a bit each to help them recover.

   You have to admit it is clever!!

   But how on earth did they keep it out of the media?: NZ’s largest Co gets bought by Govt & it doesnt make even the tiniest news report? Really???

   Something is rotten in the state of Denmark! (or in this case Canterbury!)

   Meanwhile still no start to the demo & recovery after 3 months.

   The books get fiddled while ChCh burns!

   Here are a few questions for you to think about (oh, I’ll make it easy: I will give you the answers as well)

   Q. Who appointed RCP (Resource Coordination Partnership Ltd) as Project Managers for the management of ‘critical buildings’ following the February
   22nd earthquake?
   A . Christchurch City Council under instructions of the NZ Government

   Q . Who appointed CERA?
   A . NZ Government.

   Q . Who appointed Fletcher Building to manage the demolition works and then, reconstruction works?
   A .. NZ Government firstly, then CERA

   Q . Who is the main single shareholder of Fletcher Building?
   A .. NZ Government.

   Q . Who called for the tenders for the demolition of the Grand Chancellor?
   A . RCP

   Q .. Who is to be the Principle to the demolition Contract (i.e. the Payer)
   A . The Crown (NZ Government).

   Q . Who assessed the Tenders for the Demolition of the Grand Chancellor?
   A . RCP

   Q . Who has been awarded the Grand Chancellor job (at whatever price and/or conditions)?
   A . Fletcher Building

   Q . Who will make the profits?
   A . Fletcher Building (and it’s Shareholders)

   Q . Who is the main shareholder of Fletcher Building? (I know, I already asked this one, but it could be a trick question)
   A . NZ Government as the Reserve Bank of New Zealand(no trick question, sorry)

   Q . Who has been blind-sided?
   A . Everyone involved in the (supposed) tender process firstly, but more importantly, the people of Christchurch and New Zealand who thought that
   they lived in a first-world economy.

   Q . What are the ramifications?
   A . Immediate loss of confidence by all independent Consultants and Contractors in the tender process if CERA, RCP or Fletcher Building are
   involved jointly or singularly in a government sanctioned role, for fear of a continued potential for a monopoly and huge profiteering there from.

   Q . Who are the winners?
   A . Fletcher Building and the NZ Government, along with the other Financial institutions that form the majority shareholders in Fletcher Building.

   Q. Who are the losers?
   A . The property owners, their tenants, clients and customers, along with everyone in New Zealand who believes in a ‘level playing field’, all the
   people of Christchurch, and all the people of New Zealand that have supported, volunteered their time and/or donated their hard earned, tax-paid
   monies to the recovery following the devastating events of February 22nd.”

   end

   I will just throw in a couple of my own further questions too…

   Q. Who owns the Grand Chancellor?
   A. Phillip Carter.

   Q. Who is a Minister in the government?
   A. Phillip Carter’s brother David Carter.

   Q. Who is a new Councillor prominent in the rebuild?
   A. Tim Carter, Phillip Carter’s son and David Carter’s nephew.

   The thoughts and potential accusations that spring to mind are obvious. I would be immensely curious to hear other views of the above…
   • Eddie 2.1

     2 June 2011 at 8:50 am

     The Carter link is interesting.

     The thing about the Reserve Bank owning Fletchers is a mis-understanding. The Reserve Bank has a kind of nominee company for nominee companies. It owns billions of dollars of shares but the beneficial owners are the nominee companies and other large traders who, in turn, own the shares on behalf of investors like people in Kiwisaver. The Reserve Bank’s company, NZClear, owns the shares but only in a technical sense, not a beneficial sense. It’s something to do with liquidity.
     • Adrian 2.1.1

       2 June 2011 at 9:47 am

       Thats what I thought when I read the email. But the main question is, who (the writers) do they think was capable of doing the job, Bob the Builder and his ute and dog?. Even if a whole new standalone authority was setup it would be still interviewing for the first job.
       • ianmac 2.1.1.1

         2 June 2011 at 10:10 am

         The point of Tendering is give all those with the ability to bid for the job. To say that Fletchers get priority defeats the purpose of the tendering. And I believe an American firm which has a long history of expertise in building demolition was a tenderer. Hardly Bob the builder and his dog.
       • vto 2.1.1.2

         2 June 2011 at 10:21 am

         Bob the builder… for heavens sake.

         There are stacks of organisations capable of doing this job. If you see how it is to be tackled you will see that it is not that difficult. It is simply a build in reverse – clear some space for a big crane and dismantle and lower to the ground. There is plenty of such capablity here for that.

         In fact, further, a knowledge of the process reveals what this anon email also states which is that the actual work is to be carried out by other firms anyway and not Fletchers.

         I don’t know the truth of everything in this email but I do admit that my eyebrows went up when I heard Fletchers had the job. Cronyism. Favours for the friends. There is a huge amount of inside knowledge being passed around at the moment… for the purposes of self-enrichment.

         Big huge sums involved. An election coming up. Conflicts of interest left right and centre. What do you expect?
         • Armchair Critic 2.1.1.2.1

           2 June 2011 at 11:14 am

           Big huge sums involved. An election coming up. Conflicts of interest left right and centre. What do you expect?
           I expect people to avoid the temptations of cronyism and disaster capitalism, for the sake of getting Christchurch rebuilt properly. I’m sick and tired of people who already have buckets of the stuff enriching themselves further by fucking my country over.
           FTR I don’t mind people making money and profits, it’s when they use underhand tactics to do so that I get angry.
           • prism 2.1.1.2.1.1

             2 June 2011 at 11:44 am

             I don’t think it can be called cronyism but it is another strange happening from one of the Christchurch parallel worlds. Complaint was made this morning by a business owner kept away from his premises (probably on the grounds it isn’t safe, something that can’t be controverted without expert and informed reports that I haven’t heard being available to ‘stakeholders’). But gardeners have been allowed into the red zone to tend the plants which I suppose are needing attention and would otherwise be dying off. Put ‘businesses’ where ‘plants’ are in the above sentence!
     • Ian Williams 2.1.2

       4 June 2011 at 2:43 pm

       The list of nominee companies make interesting reading, and the Carter link stinks to high heaven.

       The holding company which owns the 275 million or so shares has itself only 100 shares – being the minimum legal requirement for an incorporated company.

       From where I sit, this looks like yet another nail in the coffin of NZ democracy as Herr Key and his cronies sell the country down the river – but no matter who is in power, the panto of politics is just to distract the punters and every three years we get to exercise our prerogative – yeah right! Like it makes any difference already?

       We are just the most far flung colony of an evil empire – our forebears invaded this place and have screwed the Tangata Whenua ever since – and people bitch about welfare and seashore issues – for God’s sake we stole the bloody country with broken promises. So why should it be any different now – the bloody Crown still rule, and those who think otherwise are their fools….
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     2 June 2011 at 11:30 am

     http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1104175/shareholdings

     Not a single share held by the RBNZ.
     • Armchair Critic 2.2.1

       2 June 2011 at 11:59 am

       Not a single share held by the RBNZ.
       Someone is benefiting from what is happening. A lot of tax dollars are going into the rebuild – as such the citizens need clarity on where these tax dollars are going. Preferably not in retrospect, either.
       On a semi-related subject, discussed previously – perhaps the easiest way for a Ministry of Works to be recreated would be for the government to buy Fletchers.
       • McFlock 2.2.1.1

         2 June 2011 at 12:26 pm

         Not quite. While the email raises some interesting issues, the claim about Fletchers being an SOE was a key element in the conflict of interest suggestion. The fact that it might be incorrect (or a good example of teh interwebz not being an effective substitute for actual education in a particular area) makes me suspicious of everything else in it.
          
         That, and the unheard of possibility that an email  rumour might not be 100% true.
         • vto 2.2.1.1.1

           2 June 2011 at 1:15 pm

           Yes, all fair enough commentary above.. It could also be that it is in the interests of other interests to cloud and disturb the process for their own counter-enrichment!

           Onwards we go…

           On the positive side there is some incredible and determined energy to seriously create a new and exciting city. And I suspect the traction will be gained.

           … whistle while you work… diddly um de dum de dum…
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2

         2 June 2011 at 3:40 pm

         Oh, I’m all for more accountability and would like to see far more transparency as far as anything the government does but I’m not in favour of spreading what appear to be untruths which the referenced email is doing.
     • Ian Williams 2.2.2

       4 June 2011 at 2:49 pm

       http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/644859/detail?backurl=%2Fcompanies%2Fapp%2Fui%2Fpages%2Fcompanies%2F644859

       Solely owned by the Reserve Bank – you did not look closely enough.
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   2 June 2011 at 8:52 am

   Has this ‘message’ been made in public?

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/76756/company-believes-acc-competition-may-be-extended

   The general manager of insurance company Vero’s new ventures, Nigel Edmiston, told Morning Report the message he’s getting from the Government is that it will look at other areas of ACC, like the motor vehicle account.

   Mr Edmiston says they have not put a time frame on it, but he believes they will be up for discussion within the next 12 months.

   If so, was it before or after the discussions that seem to have been held with Vero, and I assume, others.

   Someone should ask Nick Smith what Edmiston is talking about.
   • ianmac 3.1

     2 June 2011 at 10:15 am

     Clearly Nick Smith issued the current privatisation plan as being sort of the gentle “don’t scare the horses” plan. Get the folk used to the idea that privatisation is OK but when/if the National get re-elected, they can say they have a MANDATE! This lets them widen it to include the motor vehicle account and….. Suckers we are!
     • Ian Williams 3.1.1

       4 June 2011 at 3:01 pm

       Amen Ian – Key is a salesman/hatchet-man – he spent two years on the Forex Board of the New York Fed being groomed for his assignment – the smiling assassin – he will sell us all down the river folks – but then the Fed is the greatest privatisation rort in history up until now – it is amazing the number of numb nuts who do not even realise that it is a private institution, wholly unaccountable to the US Govt and a power unto itself. This is why the marriage of banking and business in NZ is so dangerous – this is Fascism by stealth, you may not vote for it per se, but you will fall for it when your next meal depends upon it. Just think prewar Nazi Germany. The mere fact that the media is so compliant and complicit with this should have you shitting your pants….Goebbels and Bernays would be impressed. But let’s just bash a few beneficiaries or cry crocodile tears over kiwi kids dying when our soldiers and mercs are shooting up Afghanistan and Iraq – who cries for them? You cannot be a part of a global crime syndicate without incurring some accountability – but as long as there is petrol for the car we can all dine out at MacDeathalds….
4. prism 4

   2 June 2011 at 9:52 am

   $180 million loss to Australian apple growers when NZ enters the market – announcement on the
   radio. Then there is a comment that Chinese and USA apples are also going to be sold. So how much will NZ get out of this market after going to the WTO, and did those other countries pay some of the costs of the appeal to open the Australian market?
5. Carol 5

   2 June 2011 at 9:53 am

   So John Key says there’s nothing wrong with his ministers accepting Westpac hospitality:

   http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-says-nothing-wrong-westpac-hospitality-4202382

   But yet, immediately following the media coverage given to this issue, he is warning Ministers & MPs not to accept too much RWC hospitality:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5088675/MPs-told-cup-must-not-runneth-over

   Prime Minister John Key has laid down the law to his ministers over accepting too many corporate box invitations during the Rugby World Cup.

   His warning to be careful about the sort of hospitality ministers accept during the six-week tournament comes after the Greens questioned ministers and their staff accepting generous hospitality from Westpac Bank while the Government’s master banking contract is under review. Westpac holds the contract.

   Not a good look for you, John!
   • Jim Nald 5.1

     2 June 2011 at 10:34 am

     Labour & Greens: Public Interest

     National: Conflict of Interests
6. PeteG 6

   2 June 2011 at 10:10 am

   Further to a discussion with MS yesterday, I think the major parties need to develop and promote policies based on their ideologies, and so do some small parties.

   But I see a niche for a small party or parties that develop and promote policies, independent of any particular ideology, based on the majority wishes of it’s constituents. This would give some people an alternative, and more voice. And it would be complementary to the traditional type of party policy development.
   • Campbell Larsen 6.1

     2 June 2011 at 10:28 am

     You mean lobby groups dressed up in drag?

     This could led to some unfortunate outcomes:

     The MP for Benson and Hedges
     The MP for summary execution Darth McVicar
     The PM for foreign banks Shon-key, oh wait that has already happened
     • Morrissey 6.1.1

       2 June 2011 at 10:33 am

       Associate Minister for Whoring: Hillary Calvert.
       • Jim Nald 6.1.1.1

         2 June 2011 at 10:36 am

         Leader of Trash: Brash
     • PeteG 6.1.2

       2 June 2011 at 10:37 am

       You seem to have an unfortunate misunderstanding – I doubt you would find the majority of any electorate would support Benson and Hedges.

       Edit: or Calvert. And maybe not Brash but that one will be interesting.
       • Campbell Larsen 6.1.2.1

         2 June 2011 at 10:56 am

         Nope, no misunderstanding, but it certainly is unfortunate that people support Dark Side Darth and our lying thief of a PM.

         Single issue parties don’t usually do that well in the polls, because people rightfully expect a bit more than just one policy form those representing them. Which is why although I support the cause of ALCP I don’t vote for them, choosing instead to vote for the Greens who have a range of innovative and well considered policies backed up with a philosophy which also resonates with me.
   • RobC 6.2

     2 June 2011 at 10:52 am

     Don’t you mean “further to a discussion with MS who just doesn’t get it”?

     Good luck with your “Your NZ” party, PeteG
7. randal 7

   2 June 2011 at 11:23 am

   from left field I dont know why thy national party is cutting benefits when there is a general inflation and price rise going flat out at the moment. if it continues then the dollar wont be worth peanuts and all the monkeys will be wearing sh*t eating grins.
8. PeteG 8

   2 June 2011 at 11:45 am

   Raising age limit ‘key to tackling youth drinking’

   A report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser says raising the drinking age to 21 and increasing alcohol prices are two of the most effective ways to address youth drinking problems.

   Raising it further would adddress some adult drink problems (and probably create others). Is this a genuine target age for legislation change? Or a high suggestion so most will be happy to settle for 20 again?

   I know we have huge drinking issues in our society, but I’m not sure if this is the right approach.
   • McFlock 8.1

     2 June 2011 at 12:34 pm

     Can’t drag out supporting data now (I’d assume NMDS alcohol-related injury hospital admissions) , but the fact it comes from Gluckman (rather than a lobby group or whatever) suggests to me that he’s looking at the tail end of the risk-taking curve, rather than pulling a random number out of a focus group.
9. Jim Nald 9

   2 June 2011 at 11:58 am

   Dear Kiwis

   The time is nigh
   to kiss your assets goodbye

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5090908/No-guarantees-for-Kiwis-in-SOE-sell-off
   • Brett Dale 9.1

     2 June 2011 at 2:33 pm

     Oh please they are not going to do anything that will cost them an election.
     • wtl 9.1.1

       2 June 2011 at 2:36 pm

       The thing is they are so confident of winning that they don’t think anything they do will cost them the election.
     • felix 9.1.2

       2 June 2011 at 2:54 pm

       He already said it Brett.
   • the pink postman 9.2

     2 June 2011 at 3:28 pm

     I bet Lord Ashcroft will soon be having lunch with Key , Goodbye ACC,
   • Campbell Larsen 9.3

     2 June 2011 at 3:39 pm

     note the open ended – ‘…if our assets are sold off’.

     Not ‘partially sold’, sold off.

     The softening up has begun.
10. felix 10

    2 June 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Will Labour announce their intention to re-nationalize without compensation any of our assets lost by the Nats?

    If not, why not?
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      2 June 2011 at 3:04 pm

      To show we are not playing, lets get 50% of Contact and of Telecom back as well. Serious.
      • marsman 10.1.1

        2 June 2011 at 6:18 pm

        Get 100% of Conact and Telecom back. Serious.
11. vto 11

    2 June 2011 at 2:59 pm

    yeah, outa shakytown for the long w.e.

    hasta mananas bananas
12. randal 12

    2 June 2011 at 3:08 pm

    brett dale …I’m beginning to think they have already bought and paid for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13. jackal 13

    2 June 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Is Facebook Biased?

    http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-facebook-biased.html

    The world’s largest social networking website which is meant to connect people with friends has once again undertaken “upgrades” that are designed to remove what the administrators determine as groups without enough recent activity. But there’s something far more sinister going on.
14. logie97 14

    2 June 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Today’s Afternoons with Sir Bruce Slane and Stephen Franks.

    The ever-so-measured-I-sound-so-reasonable-and-clever-Franks dropped his guard today. He showed his true colours when discussing sporting events being influenced by Governments and boycotts. Must piss him off that his beloved National Party are making a stand against Fiji. He says it is counter productive and he said it won’t work, it didn’t work in South Africa. Sir Bruce Slane countered immediately that it did, and for one second Franks embarked on a “yes it did/no it didn’t” discussion. Sir Bruce very cleverly knocked an old scab that Franks thought might have healed with time. A different Franks was suddenly exposed.

    Previously in the programme Franks implied that his qualifications are far superior to any current graduates of our Universities. Franks claimed also that somehow students are taking out loans to finance their social life. What a bloody insult to middle income families whose children are working their butts off… families whose combined income puts them out of the student allowance eligibility. (Not like the impoverished farmers or even high powered business practices that can work the books so that their children’s education can be put down as expenses).
    • Carol 14.1

      2 June 2011 at 6:46 pm

      In my experience getting a student loan to cover anything other than fees is really difficult. I couldn’t get a cost of living loan for the last course I did in the 1st decade of this century, even though my student allowance didn’t cover my rent. I think cost of living loans are means tested.
      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1

        2 June 2011 at 10:00 pm

        Student Allowance or cost of living loan – you don’t get both (which is really quite stupid considering that you have to pay it back).
15. McFlock 15

    2 June 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Sigh.

    Woman drinks with friends, “collapsed drunk into bed”.
    “Soon after partygoer Jason (Paora) Ransfield went to her bedroom where he began to kiss her. When Horua went to the bedroom looking for a guest’s car keys, Ransfield left.
    Horua then attacked his partner, inflicting blows to her head and face. ”
    Killing her.

    Partner pleads down to manslaughter.

    So many wrongs there, both in the incident and the reporting thereof, that I don’t even know where one would start.
16. Penny Bright 16

    3 June 2011 at 12:10 am

    Thanks ‘Jackal’ and others!

    I was able to use information you helped to provide to counter an attack today from former Business Round Table heavyweight Lindsay Fergusson.

    An interesting little ‘case study’?

    “In response to Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:14pm

    Your comments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. It is time the NBR banned your posts. This last one borders on defamation. If you don’t have something intelligent to say why not just shut up?
    Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 9:21pm”

    THE NBR ARTICLE THAT KICKED THIS OFF!

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/treasury-drop-all-screening-foreign-investment-ck-94649#comment-134613

    Treasury: drop all screening of foreign investment

    Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf has hit out at critics of foreign investment in New Zealand, saying Treasury has consistently recommended removing all screening.

    The British civil servant who arrived in this country 15 months ago told the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs that lowering foreign investment would be counter-productive to growth ambitions.
    ……………….
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    MY COMMENT:

    Where is the ‘Register of Interests’ for Treasury staff – including Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf ?

    What are his connections, and whose interests is he serving?

    How can ‘conflicts of interest’ be avoided if interests are not declared ?

    Declared in a form which makes them readily available for public scrutiny – given NZ’s lack of an ‘Independent Commission Against Corruption’ or the like – who’s tasked with PREVENTING corruption and educating the public about corruption?

    (Unlike the Police or SFO whose focus is more upon investigation of corruption AFTER the event, rather than PREVENTION ?)

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    MY NEXT COMMENT WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE JAMMED LINDSAY FERGUSSON’S BUTTONS ON FULL?

    In response to Ross1
    T2 | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:26pm

    errr…. no.

    I have been raising the need for ‘disclosure’ of the interests of those responsible for property and procurement for some time.

    This is a continuation of the same theme…

    Where is the genuine ‘transparency’ if ‘interests’ are not publicly disclosed and available for public scrutiny?

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
    Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:42pm

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    LINDSAY FERGUSSON’S LITTLE ‘HISSY FIT’:

    Your comments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. It is time the NBR banned your posts. This last one borders on defamation. If you don’t have something intelligent to say why not just shut up?
    Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 9:21pm

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    In response to Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 9:21pm

    Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2,
    2011 – 9:21pm

    Your comments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. It is time the NBR banned your posts. This last one borders on defamation. If you don’t have something intelligent to say why not just shut up? ”
    ______________________________
    (grumpier) old man Lindsay?

    Thought you (used to?) support ‘freedom of expression Lindsay?

    Or – have you got something to hide perhaps?

    Wanting to have my posts ‘banned’?

    Goodness me – I MUST be on target to cop that sort of flak, from someone with your Business Round Table background.

    You and your mates ever seen this?

    Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

    by H. Michael Sweeney
    copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

    (Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
    ……………………..

    1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

    2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

    3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

    4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

    5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

    7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

    I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

    8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

    1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

    2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

    3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

    I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

    Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.
    Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 11:30pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS