Open mike 15/06/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 15th, 2011 - 198 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

198 comments on “Open mike 15/06/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Big Bruv 1
    15 June 2011 at 6:24 am

    I wonder what today will bring us?…..

    1. More revelations about Labour stealing from the public purse.
    2. More diversionary tactics from Labour sycophants here at the Standard.
    3. And more impiortantly…the public further reinforce their belief that Labour could not run a shower let alone a government.

    Sort your act out guys, this nation needs a strong opposition, we simply cannot afford another term of Labour lite policies from Neville Key and the Nat’s.
    Force Neville back to the right, only then can we hope to build a strong economy, one strong enough to withstand another Labour government (in about nine years)

    • mickysavage 1.1
      15 June 2011 at 6:36 am

      I wonder what today will bring?

      More visits from well known RWNJs and new posters that we have never heard of before. More incessant chantings of slogans along the lines of “Labour Bad”. More claims that the taking of data from a crippled server was somehow authorised.

      No doubt the debate will be heated and no one’s opinions will be changed.

      Of course we could always DNFTT.

      • Big Bruv 1.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 8:29 am

        Is that all you have Micky?

        Normally you can put together a fairly reasoned (all be it wrong) argument, I guess even you have been forced to concede that Labour are as guilty as sin when it comes to stealing public funds.

        Tell me mate, why is it that you lot think you have the right to steal my money whenever you fancy?

        [Blatant trolling. A repeat will not be tolerated. Final warning…RL]

        • felix 1.1.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 8:37 am

          I can’t speak for “you lot” whoever that is, but I can think of a few good reasons to take what little money you have left.

          High on the list: to save prostitutes from having to endure your tedious company.

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.2
          15 June 2011 at 8:53 am

          If someone has been stealing your money you should lay a complaint with the cops bruv.

        • Big Bruv 1.1.1.3
          15 June 2011 at 9:05 am

          ha ha….feeling a bit caught out are you RL?

          Feeling a bit guilty on behalf of your Labour party sycophants?

    • Bored 1.2
      15 June 2011 at 6:54 am

      Earth calling Planet Bruv….any intellegent life there?????????????? Thought not.

  2. Bored 2
    15 June 2011 at 6:51 am

    If you ever had any doubts about the Casino nature of the economy as RWNJs want it try this headline from the NY Times this morning..Markets Turn Up Sharply After Release of Retail Data

    Apparently the markets gained 1% on news that data was bad BUT not as bad as expected. Go figure. It is the sort of mentality that drives Keys economic vision, pray and hope and talk up what is a very bad story.

    • infused 2.1
      15 June 2011 at 7:53 am

      Theres been interesting data coming out of everywhere. Seems to be a surge of demand in NZ in the last two months. I’ve definitely noticed it.

    • Lanthanide 2.2
      15 June 2011 at 10:09 am

      I don’t know why bad data, but not as bad as expected, somehow surprised you when the market rallies?
       
      They ‘price in’ what they expect the results of every report will be. Then, if the report comes out as expected, the market barely moves. If it comes out differently, the market will move towards the new position.
       
      Nothing casino-like at all. Simple rational behaviour of markets, really.

  3. PeteG 3
    15 June 2011 at 7:15 am

    Yesterday lprent said to me:

    Quite simply if I see niceness breaking out amongst political parties in a democracy, then I’d consider that it is time to depart that society.

    If the level of mudslinging, vitriol, hate and intolerance we have in our politics is seen as an essential part of a “healthy democracy” it’s no wonder our society has more than a few rough edges.

    It’s in part the example set by the Dogs of Blogs, Bitches of Parties.

    And part of the family of violence. (from Liberation”

    • Bored 3.1
      15 June 2011 at 8:12 am

      PeteG, we might want to consider that vitriol and extreme positions go hand in hand with a society under increasing stress. The party that was the last 30 years is over, the “economy”if you can call it that now faces the long slow decline that will parallel resouce depletion (energy in particular). There are no magic bullets, no immediate cure, or way back ever. Its gone. Bleak indeed.

      The cosy assumptions of the middle classes are crumbling before their eyes, no financial institution is to be trusted, no long term future based on what we are used to can be trusted. Those who own most are grasping to own more, those with least are getting less. So we will fight one another for the diminishing remains of what is left. Dont expect it to be “nice”, it is too visceral for that.

    • lprent 3.2
      15 June 2011 at 8:29 am

      You forgot to put in the reason why I said that. As I recall I described it quite vividly.

      Just think, there is very little conflict in the democracy in Fiji right now. Is that what you’re after?

      • felix 3.2.1
        15 June 2011 at 8:32 am

        Well he has indicated a desire that all parties get behind the government.

        • PeteG 3.2.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 8:45 am

          I guess it might sound a bit strange to some to expect that all our elected reprentatives should actually represent us and work together for the good of the country rather than ignore the people that voted for them, barricade themselves in party factions and try and bring each other down by any means they can think of, more foul than fair.

          Doesn’t it seem strange that we seem to accept a “democracy” where the main opposition party doesn’t accept the democrat vote of the election and instead devotes itself to trying to bring the government down?

          That sounds like actively encouraged desperate for power sedition to me, not democracy.

          • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 8:50 am

            Ya big galloon, the people that voted for the opposition deserve representation in parliament too.

          • felix 3.2.1.1.2
            15 June 2011 at 8:58 am

            Opposition to The Party is sedition now, Pete?

            • PeteG 3.2.1.1.2.1
              15 June 2011 at 9:02 am

              Continually trying to bring a government down is, isn’t it?

              You know very well I don’t support single party rule. That’s just another of your attempts at devious and blatant misrepresentation.

              I support multiple healthy parties who can work together for the good of the country (which they do at select committee level now anyway) but can still have differences and debates on issues.

              • felix …
                15 June 2011 at 9:25 am

                Have differences and debates and then get behind the government.

                You’re getting clearer.

              • felix …
                15 June 2011 at 9:34 am

                “You know very well I don’t support single party rule. “

                Actually I don’t, Pete. I know you say that, but every time we drill down through your ideas about representation we run into this brick wall that you just don’t seem to be able to see over.

                Here’s an example: http://thestandard.org.nz/drug-peddlers/#comment-330885

                Perhaps you’re ready to answer the question at the “end” of that interchange now, and we can find out once and for all what it is you believe.

                • PeteG …
                  15 June 2011 at 10:11 am

                  Who’s this “we” you are referring to? Who are you working with?

                  You don’t give me the impression you want to understand what I think.

                  You give me the impression you want to eliminate posts you don’t want here. Under favourable protection you try to exclude who you don’t want on the blog.

                  • felix …
                    15 June 2011 at 11:45 am

                    By “we” I just mean myself and the other commenters who have tried at length to get you to examine your ideas a little more closely. I’m only speaking for myself, but acknowledging that I’m not the only one who has put these questions to you.

                    Would you like to change the subject again or are you going to try to answer the question now?

                  • felix …
                    15 June 2011 at 2:34 pm

                    Awww, where’d you go Pete? (again)

                    Seems it’s always at this exact point in our conversations (the point where I ask you the question you can’t face) that you disappear for the day.

                    I’m beginning to have serious doubts about your level of commitment to an inclusive, open, consultative model of governance, Pete.

                    • PeteG …
                      15 June 2011 at 2:55 pm

                      I have other things to do sometimes felix, I’m not perpetually in thrall of your quaint manoeverings.

                      Politicians should be prepared to justify their actions to all voters.

                      I notice in that exchange that I made it clear (again) that I don’t support a one party state. Most of you “assumptions” there were incorrect, but that’s what you seem to like doing.

                      I support a multi party state where the parties don’t always try and destroy each other.

                      A question for you – do you accept that I don’t support a one party state?

                    • felix …
                      15 June 2011 at 4:56 pm

                      Pete, I won’t know until you answer the question at the bottom of that thread.

      • PeteG 3.2.2
        15 June 2011 at 8:41 am

        Just think, there is very little conflict in the democracy in Fiji right now.
        What democracy?

        • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.1
          15 June 2011 at 8:47 am

          Hey Pete, how come you keep comin round here tryin to start fights and bein all ornery about things?

          Usin words like ‘dogs’ and ‘bitches’ and stuff.

          • PeteG 3.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 8:53 am

            Robust democratic debate 🙂

            And because if I said things like “please can our politicians and their heavies behave a bit more civilly and set a better example” it tends to get ignored.

            Parties need jolting out of their self obsession with power at any price. Blogs aid and abet their charade of democracy, aka desparate clinging to power by any means.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.1.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 9:03 am

              Yeah everyone should just shut up and let you* make all the decisions then, for the good of democracy.

              *Yes yes, I know I heard you the last time. You have a new and improved method of politics where people you listen to will talk to you and you’ll do what they tell you. Sounds like something I’d hate, sorry.

              So what to do?

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 June 2011 at 11:49 am

                Don’t you know? PeteG is the one destined to bring balance back to the Force.

    • higherstandard 3.3
      15 June 2011 at 9:16 am

      Pete I have no great love or respect for our parliamentarians, however, in their defense our parliamentary system is set up and designed to be oppositional in nature so as to ensure a positive and negative position on all issues are vigorously debated while this can lead to the childish and hateful behaviour we often seen in parliament it is a reasonable price to pay for having a democracy.

      • PeteG 3.3.1
        15 June 2011 at 9:26 am

        Oppositional is fine, we need that. But I think our parties go much further than “oppositional”.

        We can have opposition and denbate without having to resort to the levels of mudslinging, blatant dishonesty and illegality (or stretching the rules to suit) that we get far too much of.

        Don’t you see the difference?

        • higherstandard 3.3.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 9:43 am

          Oh I agree with all that, I was pretty much backing up lprent’s view that if we suddenly had an outbreak of agreement on everything from the politicians we should all be very worried indeed.

          • PeteG 3.3.1.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 9:54 am

            No, we need to encourage diverse views.

            All I’m suggesting is we shouldn’t have to accept so much arsehole behaviour and nasty tactics.

            It’s no better than accepting kicking someone’s head in after the bar has closed because that’s what you do when you’re tanked up.

            • lprent 3.3.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 10:24 am

              …arsehole behaviour and nasty tactics.

              I consider that those would be where people are getting killed, tortured, jailed, disappeared or having the shit beaten out of them. When you look outside democracies that is what you see. When you look at sham ‘democracies’ like Fiji, that is what you see. In fact that appears to be the norm for the political process over the centuries.

              The penalty cost for having a vaguely democratic system like ours is that you allow minorities and dissidents room to have a voice without getting killed (etc) is that the process is noisy. The noisiness appears to be what you’re objecting to.

              I suspect you have lived a sheltered existence and could do to get out more amongst different cultures to see how they handle their political systems. You don’t even have to leave the country. I’d suggest that you do what I did at age 18 and go in the army. The culture was quite different to what I was used to, and soldiers there had a far far clearer appreciation of a free society looked like than you do.

        • prism 3.3.1.2
          15 June 2011 at 9:59 am

          PeteG – Denbate – is that some sort of rodent extermination material?

        • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.3
          15 June 2011 at 10:15 am

          Time to change from our Westminster system of parliament you say?

          • PeteG 3.3.1.3.1
            15 June 2011 at 10:52 am

            No. We just have to use the system we’ve got better.
            And not allow our politicians to abuse it so much.

            • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.3.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 10:55 am

              Its the Westminster system. Oppositional and adversarial is what it was founded on.

              But feel free to try and change the trimmings around the edges.

  4. Janice 4
    15 June 2011 at 8:17 am

    Why can’t Radio NZ leave the Darren Hughes affair alone? This morning they were trying (again) to make Phil Goff look bad over it. Are CT worried that Phil is increasingly like a better alternative than the donkey, et al. Move along.

    • infused 4.1
      15 June 2011 at 8:33 am

      [Deleted. Despicable smear-mongering. A repeat will earn a long ban…RL]

      • infused 4.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 8:54 am

        How is it smear mongering? He was under the influence of something, I didn’t say it was Darren that had anything to do with it. I’m merely pointing out the reason why charges were not laid. This was reported by the way.

        [lprent: Whatever it was, I’d guess that you just failed to put in the link. Silly you. But I suspect that you made up your own story and didn’t put in a link to something reputable because it didn’t support you interpretation – right?.

        Don’t be daft. If you want to make a statement of fact or insinuation of fact, then you need to support it. Otherwise we’ll treat it as trolling. ]

    • Gosman 4.2
      15 June 2011 at 8:57 am

      What is CT short for and how exactly is he, she, or it meant to be able to influence Radio NZ National editorial policy?

      • freedom 4.2.1
        15 June 2011 at 9:08 am

        Crosby Textor  – a hybrid organism that infects the brain stem of weak minded egoists who believe that some people are simply better than others because they own more shit.

      • marsman 4.2.2
        15 June 2011 at 9:16 am

        CT? Try Crosby Textor the hoodwink experts John Key and the rest of his nasty little crowd get their daily spin lines from. Read the Hollow Men.

        • Gosman 4.2.2.1
          15 June 2011 at 10:17 am

          Okay then, so how is an Australian PR agency meant to influence the editorial decisions of Radio NZ National?

          • freedom 4.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 10:29 am

            really, you are going with feigning ignorance?

            • Gosman 4.2.2.1.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 11:39 am

              …and you seem to be going with the ‘I don’t need to actually provide any evidence or even justify my position because I just know it is so’ approach.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.3
        15 June 2011 at 10:18 am

        One typical CT tactic is to provide news organisations with easy access to selective “facts”, specific framing/languaging and acceptable people to interview.

        And with news organisations having to do more on less and less, its a quick easy way for them to get some content out there without working too hard.

    • Vicky32 4.3
      15 June 2011 at 6:36 pm

      I just heardv on  3 News Fatty Garner putting his view on the Darren Hughes event  as if it were fact… pretty much as he usually does, in fact… 🙁

  5. Gosman 5
    15 June 2011 at 8:53 am

    mickeysavage, is it true that you sent a whiny missive to Peter Goodfellow of National complaining about Cameron Slater and worrying about whether he had your credit card details?

    Wouldn’t that be like someone on the right complaining to the Labour party about the antics of someone from The Standard? I’m sure you would agree that the Standard boys and girls cannot be dictated to by Labour Party head office yet you seem to think Cameron Slater can. Truly Bizarre.

    Anyway I thought the Labour party has already stated that the credit card information was on another properly protected server and nothing was compromised? Don’t you trust the Labour party hierarchy on this?

    • lprent 5.1
      15 June 2011 at 9:22 am

      People have done that a couple of times to us as well.

      However, the National party’s IP’s are all over the access logs long before Slater touched it. It would appear that the National party could have a copies of some Labour party data, and it looks highly likely that someone in the National Party tipped off their poodle. So yes you may know what you told your poodle to collect.

      But I suggest you look at the Privacy Act. It has some interesting provisions for organisations having to disclose any information that they hold on individuals.

      • higherstandard 5.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 9:40 am

        So is Cameron working for ACT or National ……….. or is he actually responsible for 9/11?

        Perhaps he’s just a political junkie who revels in poking opposing political junkies, politicians and political parties with a stick ……… seems to be good therapy for him.

        • felix 5.1.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 9:46 am

          None of those are necessarily mutually exclusive of course (just sayin is all…)

        • travellerev 5.1.1.2
          15 June 2011 at 10:55 am

          Now that was silly wasn’t it, HS? But you’re not alone. 48% of all New Yorkers are wondering the same thing.
           

          • Gosman 5.1.1.2.1
            15 June 2011 at 11:42 am

            Jeez Travellerev you can’t stop yourself can you? lol!

          • Lanthanide 5.1.1.2.2
            15 June 2011 at 1:23 pm

            I bet if the question was: “Would you support a new $400m investigation into WTC7 collapse?” the answer would have been a lot more negative.

            In other words, if you give stuff away for free, even if it’s stuff people don’t really care about, they’ll gladly accept it. If you charge them for it, you’ll get a low fewer takers.

            • travellerev 5.1.1.2.2.1
              15 June 2011 at 1:46 pm

              ROFL, Fuck, rare earth man talk about a warped argument.

              I’ll tell you what; if the choice is let’s get to the bottom of why a perfectly well build 47 story steel framed high rise collapsed after only minor office fires into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds breaking all Newtons laws of motion for a mere $400 million before we bankrupt ourselves attacking Afghanistan and Iraq considering the fact that they spend $ 40 million on the Lewinski/Clinton case (to find out whether he lied under oath about screwing the girl) I’m sure NYers would choose the investigation into the collapse of building 7 no problem.

              Here is the collapse for those of you who didn’t know about the third building collapsing.
              Even NIST had no explanation as to why this happened and let’s face it it never happened before or after 911.

              More than 1500 Architects and Engineers want to know why it happened too. If only to be able to prevent it from happening another time.
               
               

              • Gosman …
                15 June 2011 at 1:56 pm

                “More than 1500 Architects and Engineers…”

                To borrow your own text speak emotion

                ROFL!

                This would be round about the same number of supposed “Architects and Engineers”, (including a high number of students it must be stated), that has been claimed by that same website for the past few years.

                If you must use the appeal to authority and numbers logical fallacy to bolster your argument it would be better if you could actually show that the numbers supporting these wacky ideas are actually growing significantly over time rather than stagnating.

                • travellerev …
                  15 June 2011 at 2:07 pm

                  no Cowboy hat boy,
                  the figures are:
                  1,513 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 12,284 other supporters
                  have signed the petition demanding of Congress
                  a truly independent investigation.
                  If that many building professionals want to know why a perfectly well build steel framed twice reinforced to withstand nuclear blasts collapses after a couple of hours of minor carbon fires within 6.5 seconds into its own footprint breaking all the laws of motion I’m happy to second that request. That is not using authority to press a point that is pointing out that since I’m not a building professional but they are I’m inclined to support that demand. Especially since even NIST after eight years can not explain the collapse.
                   

                  • Gosman …
                    15 June 2011 at 2:13 pm

                    LOL.

                    I note you failed to answer the actual question that I raised, which was shouldn’t the numbers supporting this investigation be growing substationally rather than stagnating as seems to be the case?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    15 June 2011 at 3:31 pm

                    Eve, about the ‘small office fire in WTC7’ that you like to mention, here’s video you could link to in support of that:

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

                    and an interview with Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden, from early 02:

                    Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

                    Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

                    Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

                    Looks to me like a substantial fire that was left to burn for several hours because the firefighters were concerned about the integrity of the building. But opinions vary obviously.

                    • travellerev …
                      15 June 2011 at 3:58 pm

                      Hi PB,

                      Here is a fire in a steel framed building in Madrid. It was much hotter, the building much more fragile and it burned mush longer but the building was still there.

                      Here is a steel framed building in China which again burned far hotter ,longer and was build in a strange lopsided manner but it di not collapse.
                      According to NIST the building suffered not substantial damage, the fire only burned up office materials and furniture and no steel framed building other than the three WTC buildings have ever collapsed due to fires, let alone into their own foot prints in 6.5, 10 and 11 seconds. And the reaon for its collapse was because according to them one beam of the structure heated up and expanded a tiny bit more than the others causing the structure to collapse like a controlled ($ millions of dollars to pull off correctly) demolition. Come on PB, Come on.

                      Let me ask you something? Try to clap your hands 47 times in 6.5 seconds or a 180 in 10-11 seconds. That is the time it took for those buildings to “collapse”. If you can do that I concede that those buildings failed structurally into their own footprint towards the path of most resistance.
                       
                       

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      15 June 2011 at 4:43 pm

                      Still not small office fire. It was bloody big office fire left to burn for several hours because the fire crews thought the building was going to collapse.

                      According to NIST the building suffered not substantial damage, the fire only burned up office materials and furniture

                      Wikipedia mis-reports the NIST interim report then:

                      In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST’s interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[5][41] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure’s integrity.[42] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building’s east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[5] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

                      I know, I know, wikipedia. But still. The NIST report says something. It either says what wikipedia claims it says, or what you claim it says. Shall I check?

                      The madrid building wasn’t more fragile, it had a reinforced concrete central core, which survived, the steel shell around it collapsed though, about 2-3 hours in to the fire.

                    • travellerev …
                      16 June 2011 at 8:30 am

                      PB,
                      I take it you did not try to clap your hands 47 times in 6.5 seconds then.

                      Buildings do not collapse due to fire in freefall speed into their own foot print because of gravity.
                      The fire was comparatively cold and the explanation from NIST has been peer reviewed and found wanting.

                      Here is a link to the NY times archives explaining the reinforcement of the building in 1989.

                      It was reinforced again to house the emergency bunker of Giuliani. It was supposed to be able to withstand a nuclear impact.

                      Here is a video which shows the explosion initiation bringing down the building in the afternoon. NIST denies explosions occurred.
                      Here is a video of an interview with Barry Jennings. Barry Jennings was the Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. He died under mysterious circumstances just before the NIST report was released. He describes explosions in the building when none of the two towers had collapsed yet and He describes how the first 6 floors just disappeared leaving the outer walls standing.
                       
                       
                       

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 June 2011 at 8:57 am

                      All of which is fascinating eve.

                      however, all I’m pointing out is that you keep saying it was a small fire, when video shows that it wasn’t, and that there was structural damage when you claim there was none, and that the NIST report doesn’t say what you claimed it says.

                      Given this, I’m not really inclined to trust things you have to say. That’s not my fault, it’s your fault. You say things that when checked turn out to not be true, or at the very least , wildy misleading.

                      It really really really will help you to convince people if you sort that problem out.

                    • travellerev …
                      16 June 2011 at 9:20 am

                      If that many building professionals want to know why a perfectly well build steel framed twice reinforced to withstand nuclear blasts collapses after a couple of hours of minor carbon fires within 6.5 seconds into its own footprint breaking all the laws of motion I’m happy to second that request

                      Is what I said PC. Compared to the Spanish and Chinese fire they were minor.

                      If you choose to ignore evidence of explosions (You’re not alone, NIST refused to address this), the fact that the building reinforced to withstand a nuclear blast did collapse in free fall speed 6.5 seconds into its own foot print against all laws of motion and physics and unseen before and after 911 than that is your prerogative, mate.
                      Thanks a bunch for keeping the thread alive because unlike you there are always people who do want to know and they get to learn about it this way.

                      For those of you wanting to meet other people who want to know the truth here is the forum you might want to visit and become a member from and here is once again the link to Architects and engineers for 911 truth. Here is the site for the fire fighters for 911 truth and here is a list of prominent patriots who want a new and independent investigation.

                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

      • Gosman 5.1.2
        15 June 2011 at 10:22 am

        “So yes you may know what you told your poodle to collect.”

        WTF???

        I’m not even a member of the National Party so why would you try and suggest I had something to do with this.

        I think you are guilty of the very same problem you have when people equate members of The Standard with Labour.

        • lprent 5.1.2.1
          15 June 2011 at 10:27 am

          My apologies. That sort of deliberately slipped out. For some reason it felt right…..

          (it must have been all of the synchronized yapping I have been seeing for the last couple of days)

    • mickysavage 5.2
      15 June 2011 at 10:21 am

      Why does political discourse have to be so violent Gosman?
       
      And by the looks of your comment you will be aware that I have written expressing my concern that my private information may be held by the National Party and by Slater.  Cameron has responded in his usual manner.
       
      I am actually wondering about the benefit of debating some issues online.  I don’t care about abuse myself, but I know a number of others who feel very threatened by the overly intrusive and abusive behaviour of some.

      • Gosman 5.2.1
        15 June 2011 at 10:28 am

        Are you suggesting my comments to you constitutes abuse?

        All I have asked you is if you sent an e-mail to Peter Goodfellow about the credit card information that Cameron Slater might or might not have and the reason why you sent the e-mail to him when your issue seems to be with Cameron Slater and the Labour party has already stated that credit card information was not accessed.

        Yes I did say your e-mail was whiny but that is my personal opinion of it when reading it. That is hardly constitutes abuse on any major level in my book but if you were horribly offended I must apologise profusely to you.

        • mickysavage 5.2.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 10:45 am

          Sorry Gosman.  I agree your comment was mild in comparison to many.
           
          I was referring more to the stream of texts and emails I am currently receiving.
           
          I am pretty thick skinned about it but I just had breakfast with a few others who have been considerably affected by the application of the internet blowtorch on them.
           
          There has to be a better way.

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 10:56 am

            Sorry to hear that MS. Misuse of telecommunications including email is a crime.

          • Gosman 5.2.1.1.2
            15 June 2011 at 11:34 am

            I actually sympathise with you on this. I inwardly cringed when I saw you included your contact details on the e-mail as I could imagine certain people would most likely use that information in rather nasty ways. I might disagree with your political view point but there really is no excuse for that sort of stuff.

          • PeteG 5.2.1.1.3
            15 June 2011 at 2:04 pm

            Do you get what I mean then MS?

            I’m told (elsewhere on this thread) that a climate of political attack and abuse is essential for democracy to function, and to keep lprent in the country.

            • wtl 5.2.1.1.3.1
              15 June 2011 at 3:34 pm

              But (I presume) MS is not being abused by politicians or representatives of political parties. So how does your “new way of doing things” have anything to do with the current issues MS is having?

              • PeteG …
                15 June 2011 at 3:49 pm

                I was talking about my opinons I posted on and discussed here, about the example of political behaviour set by our so called leaders – that any tactics are fair game as long as you can get away with it. Behaviour that flows out, including to politically minded people who seem to think anything and anyone is fair game in the brawl for power.

                I think it’s incredibly sad to see the amount of resources that go into trying to abuse and destroy in political circles. It goes far beyond democratic debate, it’s an excuse to be a power seeking arsehole.

                • wtl …
                  15 June 2011 at 4:12 pm

                  I figured that would be your answer. But don’t you think they you are seriously exaggerating the potential benefits of your so-called ‘new way of doing things’? Obviously, behaviour of political minded people is influenced to some degree by our political leaders. But people aren’t suddenly going to start behaving like angels just because there is less dirt being thrown around at the top.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.2
          15 June 2011 at 10:49 am

          All I have asked you is if you sent an e-mail to Peter Goodfellow

          Is that the same guy that the movie Goodfellas was named after? 😉

          How do you threaten someone without threatening someone?

          “Hey Mickey, look, you’ve been causing trouble here and you know it. Why would you do that when you know your mum has just had a heart attack and is recovering down at St Vincent’s? And your wife, she’s got that new job at the store down the road hasn’t she? I heard that she likes it there. Now your little Matty he’s at such a sensitive age looking to start school next month. So Mickey, if I were you, I’d just focus on making sure that your family stays healthy and happy, and not worrying about all this other political stuff.

          Geddit?”

      • Pascal's bookie 5.2.2
        15 June 2011 at 10:42 am

        So you wrote to the National Party and now Slater knows about it?

        How does that work?

        • mickysavage 5.2.2.1
          15 June 2011 at 10:55 am

          Wrote to both to put them on notice and to ask for information they held concerning me.  Slater responded rather briefly saying “F@#$ off”.  His eloquence is mythical.  I am thinking of seeking clarification of his position but it is a bit like poking a bear with a stick …
           

          • Pascal's bookie 5.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 10:57 am

            Right.

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.1.2
            15 June 2011 at 10:59 am

            I suspect that Slater only understands or appreciates certain kinds of messages MS. A polite email is not one of them.

          • prism 5.2.2.1.3
            15 June 2011 at 11:08 am

            ms – Sounds like a new alien language? Perhaps he has out of planet connections which could explain Whale Oil’s peculiarities.

          • McFlock 5.2.2.1.4
            15 June 2011 at 2:26 pm

            Nah, don’t bother. Throw it to the Privacy Commissioner.

        • ianmac 5.2.2.2
          15 June 2011 at 10:57 am

          Wondering about that too. How does Gosman know? Has MS’s letter been published. Good on him by the way.

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.2.1
            15 June 2011 at 11:00 am

            The Righty Socialist Network. Seriously – they play and co-ordinate as a corporate team.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.2.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 1:39 pm

              Yep, possibly the biggest bunch of collectivists around. It’s a pity that the left doesn’t play together so nicely.

          • Gosman 5.2.2.2.2
            15 June 2011 at 11:37 am

            Slater has published the letter in it’s entirety on his blog.

            • felix 5.2.2.2.2.1
              15 June 2011 at 11:52 am

              So Cameron sees fit to publish the contact details of people who email him.

              Cool people you work with, National.

              • Gosman …
                15 June 2011 at 12:06 pm

                Who works with?

                • felix …
                  15 June 2011 at 2:30 pm

                  No-one Gos, it’s just some wacky zany conspiracy.

                  Nobody in their right mind would imagine for a moment that Slater has anything to do with the National Party.

                  What a preposterous idea.

                  • Gosman …
                    15 June 2011 at 3:15 pm

                    Finally some sense from you Felix on this whole Cameron Slater is a willing tool of the National Party conspiracy theory ;).

        • lprent 5.2.2.3
          15 June 2011 at 1:17 pm

          So you wrote to the National Party and now Slater knows about it?

          Poodle post ?

  6. PeteG 6
    15 June 2011 at 9:30 am

    Bizarre -with one hand typing damning accusations of dirty tricks from the opposing party, and with the other hand dissing me for suggesting our opposition model of democracy is a tad bent.

    • felix 6.1
      15 June 2011 at 9:44 am

      So it hasn’t crossed your mind that people aren’t actually dissing you for saying that you aren’t happy with the present model, but are actually calling bullshit on your alternative proposal?

      Interesting, Pete. That level of narcissism could take you a long way in your new career.

    • Pascal's bookie 6.2
      15 June 2011 at 9:52 am

      Pete, why must you resort to these filthy insinuations? Kumbaya mate! Remember?

      Let us talk closely know and reason together a way out of this mess, a mess caused by your sad and pathetic wallowing in the politics of personal denigration. First admit that your idea is fail, and then agree with us to move forward, together.

  7. prism 7
    15 June 2011 at 9:54 am

    Gerry the Butt is on air saying that he can’t say anything definite. It’s blindingly obvious he says that some people will have to shift. But he doesn’t want to state definite areas, ‘It is a big decision for people, it’s a lifetime investment, but the ducks have to be all lined up. Even after an announcement there will be a considerable time before people can move”.

    Every comment he makes shows that he understands the position and then refuses to answer the questions, to make decisions because he has to make decisions that are ‘very, very robust’. Everyone wanting simplistic approaches are being unreasonable. So much for all his powers. I imagine that the decision to appoint him went like this – Gerry is such a mouthy livewire. His family know about timber. He knows about practical working with timber. He is a teacher, (who often think they know everything) and is not a shy communicator. He won’t be happy with his other positions. This will give him something to get his teeth into, which are false, and get him out of our hair here at NACT headquarters where he is a bit of a nit.

    Last “It’s about fairness to the property owners”. By that he means, not making precipitate announcements, before all the possibilities have been gravely considered, chewed over like a cow’s cud, and finally excreted to the population. By all means they can’t be consulted with, have location meetings with management and engineers as they wish, who would explain the difficulties and possible and likely solutions and what the hold-ups are caused by. This is the authoritarian way.

    Excerpt from the song Show Me from My Fair Lady – sing along!
    Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words!
    I get words all day through;
    First from him, now from you!
    Is that all you blighters can do?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      15 June 2011 at 10:22 am

      Has anyone thought of a protest occupation at his place? You know, everyone bring one bucketful of liquefaction from their property to dump on his lawn, just to make a point.

      • prism 7.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 11:27 am

        cv That would be a newsworthy action. It seems we can otherwise only act like an army of primed mosquitoes buzzing and biting till he reacts. If we can inject some ideas viruses and set up an itch we might get action and move this organic pile for the benefit of all of Christchurch.

        Next idea is that the east side parts to be abandoned for housing should be bought by Landcorp from CERA or other body and then turned into dairy farms. These would use best practice and be models showing good environmental practices using present understanding of using effluent safely. I understand that if treated properly the gases produced can be utilised for energy. Landcorp would hold environmental field days similar to Hamilton and attract farmers and the general public for demonstrations. Landcorp would also develop, assisted by locals, corridors of vegetation for birds etc. Some of the people who had had to abandon their previous houses would have the option of living in hamlets of suitable, practical, low-cost houses on suitable higher ground with a passing grade from engineers. These would be served by buses morning, lunchtime and evening so that they wouldn’t be isolated from the city and wouldn’t need a car to get to work.

        • Jim Nald 7.1.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 11:37 am

          Have a listen to Minister Gerry Brownlee in all his glory, all embracing competence, omnipotence, and beneficence:

          http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110615-0930-minister_for_earthquake_recovery-048.mp3

          That should get more publicity. Knock me over, Gerry. Take my breath away. Quake me. And it’s all so blindingly obvious.

          The interview before that with Barry Tutt and Lianne Dalziel is at:

          http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110615-0909-chch_residents_in_limbo_awaiting_geotech_report-048.mp3

          These were on ‘9 to Noon’, Radio NZ, today.

          • Lord Zealand 7.1.1.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 7:55 pm

            I’ve never understood how in a country so full of cow shit, mushrooms can cost $12/kg! Using modern mycological methods we could drink the run off from dairy, but not while we assign more value to ipods than we do to chickens. They are just gaming it to see which way their corporations can make the most money from it and once they’ve been told what they are going to do,I’m sure they will let us all in on it. I thinking your all expecting a little too much from someone who obviously has someone else hand up his am I allowed to say that? I better go read more policy 🙂

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    15 June 2011 at 9:59 am

    Tough peeps of the day, (no really edition):

    Ali al-Ekri
    Rula al-Saffar
    Zahra al-Sammak
    Ayat al-Qurmezi

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/medicos-tortured-bahrain-trial-told-20110614-1g1vn.html

  9. freedom 9
    15 June 2011 at 10:01 am

    whilst the poodles were licking their wounds, and the journos were playing three card Monty with the truth,  it seems the Education Minister has been busy planning the destruction of one of the few programmes that has consistently helped thousands of POOR children recieve much needed assistance for over fifty years
    Tolley wants to close the Health Camps and is not saying what will replace them
    This is a very serious attack on one of our country’s most internationally applauded Child-assistance policies.  Does anyone have any detail?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/5140699/Letter-an-insult-to-board

    • ianmac 9.1
      15 June 2011 at 11:05 am

      I do know that Health Camps became a sort of mis-nomer years ago. Used to be just for kids who were sick.
      But now it is a respite for desperate kids suffering from abuse and learning difficulties and general needs. Kids are there for a limited time and get regular meals, regular recreation, and regular schooling. Suppose the problem is in what happens to those kids after the Camp.

      • Lord Zealand 9.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 8:07 pm

        No, my friend was raped by one of the ‘leaders’ at the health camp. I look back at those six weeks as a time that I learnd to harden my heart and really start to hate the world. If there ever was a FAIL in the states attempts to fix my broken family, then this camp was definitely one of them. I do not know of a single other kid who liked or benefited in their time there, far too much like a “getting you ready for prison” and “boot camp” to be anything other than a tool instilling repression in our youth. Good Riddance!

  10. travellerev 10
    15 June 2011 at 11:05 am

    George Carlin on who owns us. It just never get’s old.
     
     

    • ianmac 10.1
      15 June 2011 at 11:43 am

      Is that old or told? Pretty depressing stuff. And here in NZ? Maybe it is time for lobby groups to be made transparent before it is too late.

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    15 June 2011 at 11:32 am

    Stop the motor of NZ?

    Is that the same 1960’s motor we are using powered by milk, cheese and wool?

  12. Afewknowthetruth 12
    15 June 2011 at 12:32 pm

    ‘Lack of certainty is killing the spirit and economy of Christchurch’

    OK. Here is some certainties:

    1. Global extraction of conventioanl oil has peaked, so current economic arrangements will disintegrate over the next decade. The globalised, industrialised food system will collapse..

    2. Governments worldwide have done nothing to prevent severe overheating of the Earth via emissions: now that positive feedbacks have been triggered, substantial sea level rise that will cover much of Canterbury is more or less inevitable over coming decades. i.e. Christchurch doesn’t have a long term future.

    3. Politicians serve their own interests, and the interests of bankiers and corporations. Any ‘solutions’ they come up with will therefore primarily be for the benefit politicians, bankers and corporations. Since peak oil and abrupt climate change are taboo topics for them, their ‘solutions’ will be completely disconnected from reality.

    4. Most people are ignorant of the facts and don’t believe the truth when it is provided.

    5 The most important item on the agenda of politicians and the media at this stage in the game is to keep ‘the proles’ misinformed and believing in the system – a bit like Fukishima: ‘everything is under control’.

    It’s not quite time to run for the hills, but that time will come. (Of course, those who run early get the best spots.)

    [lprent: This sidetracked way to far from the post. Next time I see you do this, you will get a *long* ban. moving whole thread to OpenMike. ]

    • RedLogix 12.1
      15 June 2011 at 12:39 pm

      It’s not quite time to run for the hills, but that time will come.

      In the kind of apocolyptic scenario you are thinking of those who are isolated in the ‘hills’ will be the first to be picked off. It will be those who have strong communities around them who will survive.

      You should look at the post-Soviet experience in Russia during the 1990’s to get a better model of what is more likely to happen.

      Yeah and Fukushima is a worry. The cover up is worse than Chernobyl.

    • John D 12.2
      15 June 2011 at 1:37 pm

      “2. Governments worldwide have done nothing to prevent severe overheating of the Earth via emissions: now that positive feedbacks have been triggered,”

      Which positive feedbacks have been triggered? Last news I heard was that were potentially heading into a Maunder Minimum, giving us several decades of cold weather.

      • Lanthanide 12.2.1
        15 June 2011 at 2:24 pm

        “Last news I heard was that were potentially heading into a Maunder Minimum, giving us several decades of cold weather.”
         
        You must have been under a rock for a while, then.

        • John D 12.2.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 2:31 pm

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

          A little off-topic, I admit. But it might answer the question above

          • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 6:04 pm

            Could be interesting, bit early to bank on it though and this line at the end made me laugh:

            This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide.

            The threat of climate change hasn’t resulted in the governments making any radical shifts in policy yet.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.3
      15 June 2011 at 5:51 pm

      Yep, Chch is fucked with higher sea level rises than previously anticipated.

      “Global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 to 1.6m (2.95 to 5.25 ft) by 2100, and Arctic ice loss will make a substantial contribution to this.”

      Chch is going to be a salt water swamp by the end of the century.

    • U 4 United 12.4
      15 June 2011 at 6:15 pm

      How can the earth be at “peak oil” when we’re yet to reach peak exploration? Get a grip! I heard this sort of doomsday meanderings back in the 1970s. Why don’t you google “fracking” then re-phrase what you loosely call “known facts?” Idiot!

  13. Portion Control 13
    15 June 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Micky wrote to Goodfellow and ccd Slater on the email. It was a strange, rambling email that accused all sorts of high crimes on behalf of National for which Micky has no evidence while purportedly defending Labour’s unlawful and non-existent lack of security on its data.

    Micky then told Slater he was free to publish the email but only in its entirety. Is it any wonder that Slater did so, and included the contact details that Micky left which were on the email, following Micky’s request to publish in entirety?

    Micky if you are Labour’s legal counsel then Labour really is up shit creek. Cam Slater’s blog isn’t even subject to the Privacy Act, so good luck trying to shift that shit up a hill.

    • mickysavage 13.1
      15 June 2011 at 1:55 pm

      Strange?  Rambling?

      “Dear Peter
       
      There has been some recent publicity concerning the National Party’s downloading of information from a Labour Party server which regrettably was not as secure as it might be.
       
      From today’s National Business Review I note that you have confirmed that a National Party staff member “accessed” the data.  By this I anticipate that you mean “downloaded”.  The data has also regrettably found its way into the hands of Mr Cameron Slater.
       
      I am pretty sure that some of the data was mine.  I donated to the Labour Party to purchase some “Stop Asset Sales” signs as I considered this a worthy cause to support.  The idea of selling an interest in our power companies to essentially overseas interests is frankly insane.  I paid for the signs by credit card and I am concerned that the National Party now has my credit card’s details.
       
      You can imagine the worry that this has caused me.  It is bad enough that your party has my credit card details but there is the strong possibility that your organisation has also facilitated Cameron Slater aka Whaleoil to obtain the same information.  I cannot imagine what he will do with this information.
       
      So I seek the following from you:
       
      1. Advice on what data your organisation holds concerning me.
      2. Your organisation’s undertaking that it will not disclose any information that it holds concerning me to any third party.
      3. Details of information already supplied to Mr Slater concerning the security problems that the Labour Party server had.
      4. Details of information supplied to any third party which may include data that relates to me.
       
      Please note that if I suffer any monetary loss because of the actions of your organisation then I reserve the right to seek damages.
       
      I am sending a copy of this email to Mr Slater so that he is also placed on notice.  I also seek the same information from him.  If he does anything that causes me loss then I reserve the right to seek redress from him personally.
       
      I note that Mr Slater has chosen to print previous emails from Chris Flatt.  He is at liberty to print this email but only in full.
       
      Finally please note that I require a response within the next seven days. “

      • Gosman 13.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 2:06 pm

        Don’t you think you made a bit of a major assumption there that the National party organisation supplied Cameron Slater with this information.

        I’m not sure if people in the organisation had publically come out and denied they had when you wrote off to them but if they had what were you expecting them to say about this? Were you hoping you would catch them out with them stating ‘Well we didn’t give him any of your credit card details so you dont have to w…. D’oh!’?

        Also is this a formal legal request for your information back and if so did you formally direct a request to Cameron Slater as well? If not, why haven’t you made a formal legal request, you are after all a lawyer?

        • mickysavage 13.1.1.1
          15 June 2011 at 2:21 pm

          Also is this a formal legal request for your information back and if so did you formally direct a request to Cameron Slater as well?
           
          There is no prescribed form.  All that you have to do is ask in writing for the information.
           
           
           
           

      • higherstandard 13.1.2
        15 June 2011 at 2:11 pm

        Have you cancelled your credit card and informed the issuer of the same of the potential lack of security in relation to the card/s in question ?

        If not I’d suggest you should do so forthwith.

      • Portion Control 13.1.3
        15 June 2011 at 2:13 pm

        Micky you have no evidence that the Naitonal Party supplied anything to Slater. In fact you have denials from both the President and Slater himself that any such supply took place. The only pseudo-evidence you have is unsubstantiated allegations made by anonymous bloggers and commenters here at the Standard. Unless you’re preparing to have them appear as witnesses in Court to substantiate their claims which I don’t imagine would please them, then you are pushing shit up hill. I realise you are emotionally fraught at the moment but you would be better off blaming the Labour Party for publishing your personal details on the internet rather than trying to be a nuisance to the National Party who will just laugh your silly attention-seeking correspondence away.

        • lprent 13.1.3.1
          15 June 2011 at 2:22 pm

          Read Pagani’s blog for a human readable version. The logs are pretty clear if you (like we do) have a record of IP’s that access our site and you look at the back trace.

          Quite frankly I think that Goodfellow doesn’t know what people in his organization do. After all someone there has been feeding dirt on him to Whale for some time. You perhaps…

          Cameron Slater is a serial liar and completely untrustworthy. If he states something is a fact, then the highest probability is that is largely a fabrication. That is quite easy for me to prove, I’d just point to the various lies he has made about me and the organizations I worked for over the years.

          If someone wants to sue on that basis, then go right ahead.

          • Portion Control 13.1.3.1.1
            15 June 2011 at 2:27 pm

            Could be me, but I doubt it Lyn since I’m not actually part of the National Party organisation. But I tell you what, if you go and put a disclaimer about all the party associations that your bloggers have you will have a right to make snide remarks about right wing commenters here. But you might want to read your About policy first.

            • lprent 13.1.3.1.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 2:29 pm

              It is in the about.

              You have interesting IP’s and I have seen them before, which tends to make me suspicious. They are covered by the privacy provisions policy but I do scan them when I start putting people into moderation.

              BTW: Since we’re talking about accuracy. My name is Lynn, and my partners name is Lyn. I keep thinking that you’re talking to someone else. Use lprent or Lynn please.

              • Portion Control …
                15 June 2011 at 2:37 pm

                There is no disclaimer there of all the party associations of your bloggers Lyn and I wouldn’t expect them to be such, so if you want to go around insinuating party associations of commenters here that’s your choice because it’s your blog, but don’t expect me to think it’s an intellectually consistent approach to take.

                • felix …
                  15 June 2011 at 2:48 pm

                  What’s your point, PC?

                  You want readers to think you’re a disinterested neutral objective observer?

                • lprent …
                  15 June 2011 at 2:51 pm

                  Yes there is. They are of the labour movement. A couple of us are Labour party members. Some are union members. Some have no known memberships but will state who they will vote for. Some bemoan that there is no party they will vote for.

                  At last count there are 30 odd people who have author rights here. Some haven’t used them for some time but did so extensively in the past. Others have only written a couple of posts. If you want to know what there affiliations are – then stop being so damn lazy and read their posts.

                  1. Z K Muggletonspofin (22)
                  2. Eddie (890)
                  3. Ralph Malcolm (7)
                  4. John A (111)
                  5. Tane (409)
                  6. all_your_base (687)
                  7. Tillerman (12)
                  8. Sam Cash (28)
                  9. r0b (600)
                  10. Natwatch (4)
                  11. Dancer (174)
                  12. sparkie (2)
                  13. Mike Moore (actually an idiot satire) (1)
                  14. Steve Pierson (875)
                  15. Guest post (417)
                  16. irrigate (2)
                  17. Andy (5)
                  18. whenua (2)
                  19. RedLogix (17)
                  20. Julie Fairey (3)
                  21. the sprout (173)
                  22. The Standard (905)
                  23. Demeter (21)
                  24. Marty G (922)
                  25. Zetetic (302)
                  26. Dancr (82)
                  27. rocky (45)
                  28. Michael Foxglove (91)
                  29. Mike Smith (69)
                  30. mummybot (1)
                  31. James Henderson (5)
                  32. Campbell (6)
                  33. Bunji (152)
                  34. Strelnikov (2)
                  35. Ben Clark (22)

                  Oh and http://thestandard.org.nz/author/admin

                  • Portion Control …
                    15 June 2011 at 3:02 pm

                    You know I didn’t ask for their associations so stop putting up bloody straw men and then getting all pissy on it when I don’t bite. I said you do not publish the party associations of your bloggers. Saying they are of the “labour movement” is not a disclaimer. Write what you like, it’s your blog. You’ve accused me of being a National Party insider who might pass things onto Whale and I’ve said your wrong. Keep that in mind next time you ban somebody for saying one of your bloggers is a Labour Party apparatchik. In the meantime that is not the topic of this discussion and you know it.

                    • lprent …
                      15 June 2011 at 3:30 pm

                      I would say that is a pretty clear disclaimer. It covers everyone who authors here because apart from the small number of original authors, it has been there since just after the site started.

                      You’re not one of those silly buggers that thinks a site like this can be run out of a political organization are you? Bear in mind that the two Bills, the spout and some of the others are usually pretty trenchant critics of the Labour party. Also I don’t think much of the Greens or anyone left of the right of the Labour Party. That this site could be run by a political party that was always a bit of a jerk-off fantasy by the right bloggers losing readers.

                • travellerev …
                  15 June 2011 at 2:53 pm

                  Ah, here we go. The little abrasiveness remarks, ignoring requests for the right name use and the accusations of not being intellectually consistent. Yep.

                  Don’t let him get to you Iprent. He isn’t worth it.
                   

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.3.1.1.2
              15 June 2011 at 2:53 pm

              Could be me, but I doubt it Lyn since I’m not actually part of the National Party organisation.

              yeah mate you are pristine like Switzerland 😀

              what jokes you got in your next act?

              • TheGoonShow …
                19 June 2011 at 10:44 am

                Have you heard the one about faceless men, the banker, and Merrill Lynch ?

                … Umm, you probably have – by now.

          • Gosman 13.1.3.1.2
            15 June 2011 at 3:20 pm

            You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that because you have evidence of Cameron Slater lying in the past that must mean everything he states subsequently must also be a lie AND that the opposite position from what he has stated about something must be the truth. That is hardly a persuassive argument.

            • lprent 13.1.3.1.2.1
              15 June 2011 at 3:47 pm

              Let me put this another way.

              It is very hard to find posts where Slater does differentiate between what is his opinion and what is fact. I think that he doesn’t truly distinguish between them. I’ve even looked at a couple of his posts on weapons, checked the specs and found that his assertions of fact have no basis in reality.

              He is a entertaining storyteller for the credulous right, but you can’t rely on what he says because he routinely embellishes facts so they are unrecognizable.

              Some of that happens in some authors posts here as well. But generally they clearly distinguish between what is fact and what is their opinion. Apart from anything else we have a far more active comments section with a much wider range of people who comment. Someone from some viewpoint will tear loose statements of fact apart as embarrassingly as possible. Authors learn that pretty fast.

              And yes, you’re correct. I assume that anything that Whale says is wrong until proven otherwise. Why? Because my (and probably most peoples) experience of reading his stuff is that the more breathless his claims are, the more likely it is that he fabricated most of it.

              • Gosman …
                15 June 2011 at 3:53 pm

                I don’t rely on what Cameron Slater states however that doesn’t mean that the opposite must in fact be true. You should still weigh up the balance of probabilities and evidence.

              • PeteG …
                15 June 2011 at 4:00 pm

                It is very hard to find posts where Slater does differentiate between what is his opinion and what is fact.

                That can also apply to many of the posts here, laughably (or sadly) appearing as extreme propaganda. Just look at the headlines. Those that want them to be true will buy them, but they are hardly going to convince anyone else of a political alternative with any competence.

                I know this isn’t a Labour blog – I agree, a party couldn’t do something like this – but a notable proportion of the posts here do nothing to help make Labour look like it has anywhere near recovered from 2008.

                Whether the extreme posting comes from Labour or not the perceived link is there and it’s easy to think you wouldn’t want that lot anywhere near the liquor cabinet let alone cabinet in parliament.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 June 2011 at 4:03 pm

                  The quality of writing you should be concerned about as a budding young politician with 15 years of private sector R&D experience is not at The Standard, it is within the MSM.

        • felix 13.1.3.2
          15 June 2011 at 2:24 pm

          Where is this denial from the president?

          As I recall from his statement he specifically avoided making that particular denial. Gotta link?

          • Portion Control 13.1.3.2.1
            15 June 2011 at 2:33 pm

            Try this Felix. It’s been linked to here several times already: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/national-admits-labour-data-breach-denies-passing-names-whaleoil-ck-95242

            National’s president, Peter Goodfellow, confirmed a head office staffer accessed the data but denied it was passed on.

            Or maybe you missed this:
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10732187

            “National Party president Peter Goodfellow told NZPA a head office staffer had accessed the data but only out of concern that National’s own website had similar vulnerabilities.

            He said today National had written to Labour to say it had not passed on any information and did not intend to.”

            • lprent 13.1.3.2.1.1
              15 June 2011 at 2:40 pm

              That says that the data was not passed on.

              It does not say that they didn’t instruct Whale about how to get access to it himself. Which is what is being suggested by felix

              BTW: Looks like that took Whale some time to get right. The logs show him as being somewhat tentative. Whoever was doing it at the National part was better technically.

              • Portion Control …
                15 June 2011 at 2:46 pm

                You’re the accuser here lyn, you have to prove your case with evidence. You have made assumptions based on plausibility, not inspected evidence and weighed up probabilities. They aren’t the same thing.

                Goodfellow also didn’t deny that he was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Are you going to call the FBI to insist they make an arrest?

                So far I haven’t even seen any evidence that Slater has done, or will do, anything illegal with the data. If you or somebody else could enlighten me on that I would be very grateful.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 June 2011 at 4:04 pm

                  Portion Control telling lprent what he has or hasn’t done.

                  Thankfully we’re not writing here to satisfy you are we mate?

            • felix 13.1.3.2.1.2
              15 June 2011 at 2:43 pm

              So he did, my mistake.

              But what Lynn says is very interesting and a far more likely way for an organisation wanting to keep the dogs at arm’s length to operate.

              • Portion Control …
                15 June 2011 at 2:52 pm

                What Lynn says (I apologise I’ve been calling him Lyn accidentally) on this is diversion and not backed up by evidence. If you want examples of third party attacks then you only have to look at the attacks that Pagani and Micky did on Simon Lusk and Whale a few weeks back before Trevor got in on the act. And if you are talking about third party attacks on political opponents by proxy then it would be very rich for that allegation to be coming from bloggers here at the Standard.

                As for the plausibility of Lynn’s claim of an association between Whale and the National Party, are you fucking serious? Whale fucking hates the National Party, has as far as I know never said anything nice about Goodfellow (in fact he waged a no-holds barred campaign against him) and would quite happily see them stomped into the ground with Act taking their place.

                • felix …
                  15 June 2011 at 4:45 pm

                  Wow, you’re very much “in the loop” politically, aren’t you?

                  Amazing that I haven’t ever seen your handle before. lolz.

                • mickysavage …
                  15 June 2011 at 5:00 pm

                  Hmmm
                   
                  Simon Lusk is someone whose name I did not know until recently.  He is implicated in the take over of the ACT party and also the anti MMP campaign.  He is high up in the National Party and has significant links to the Beehive and Joyce.  His name starts getting mentioned and then PC shows up and takes umbrage at this.  Why the sensitivity?
                   
                  I would not describe comments about Lusk as being “attacks”.  He appears to me to be very competent at what he does.
                   
                  Of course I could speculate at PC’s links to Lusk but lprent would not like it …
                   

                  • Portion Control …
                    15 June 2011 at 5:17 pm

                    You can speculate all you like Micky, just as you speculated on Lusk and his so called high up connections in the Beehive which sound more like more fantasy from you of the kind that had you send the silliest lawyer’s letter to Peter Goodfellow that I have seen in a very long time. I’ve never met the guy and I tend to think if he was such a mover and shaker in the National Party more people would have heard of him.

            • Bored 13.1.3.2.1.3
              15 June 2011 at 2:52 pm

              “National Party president Peter Goodfellow told NZPA a head office staffer had accessed the data but only out of concern that National’s own website had similar vulnerabilities.”

              Love it, I have a possible vulnerability on my computer so I take the liberty of testing it on somebody elses without their permission. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

        • McFlock 13.1.3.3
          15 June 2011 at 2:31 pm

          so much for “rambling”. Comprehension problem, Perception Control?

          • seeker 13.1.3.3.1
            15 June 2011 at 3:19 pm

            Well said McFlock

            I would say definite comprehension and logical deductive reasoning problems. Have just commented on such to PC on “Silence of the Poodles” .Potty Control would seem to be a more appropriate moniker as a constant self reminder. “Must control pottiness, must control pottiness…….’

  14. prism 14
    15 June 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Reading about Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker stating he would not continue if he couldn’t have his choice of City Manager struck warning bells in my mind. It sounds like a step along the path to American cronyism.

    There a leader (mayor) gets elected, and can sack the administration and bureaucrats of the previous leader and instal his own handpicked people. Our idea has been that the bureaucrats are largely servants of the government working under the law for the people and serving whichever party gets into power in parliament. But they are supposed to be able to offer free and frank advice that is not partial to the leader’s whims and bents. It’s a good idea and it shouldn’t be countenanced to have it subverted.

  15. felix 15
    15 June 2011 at 2:39 pm

    I don’t trust this new “Portion Control” person. He/she has made some very sideways and very weasely statements in the last couple of days.

    Looks like someone sent here on a very specific mission.

    • travellerev 15.1
      15 June 2011 at 2:41 pm

      I reckon he thinks he’s smart and he actually wants to call himself politically correct but I think it’s about damage control.
       

    • Portion Control 15.2
      15 June 2011 at 3:04 pm

      Your labour party handlers told you to say that when you ran out of lies to distract from Labour breaking the law by not protecting personal data didn’t they felix?

      • wtl 15.2.1
        15 June 2011 at 3:24 pm

        LOL, the problem is you have been far too obvious and many people here are thinking exactly what felix is.

      • travellerev 15.2.2
        15 June 2011 at 3:25 pm

        Congrats PC,
        You managed posting here for the first time to end up with only cowboy hat boy Gosman as your mate.

        Handler??? Wow how’s that for thinking that people need to be handled in order to be able to see through you. So Cosby and Textor. LOL.

        • Portion Control 15.2.2.1
          15 June 2011 at 3:37 pm

          Travellerev if I can go to the effort of correcting myself when I spell Lynn’s name wrong then you can at least go to the effort of spelling my uncle Lynton’s name right. It’s CROSBY.

      • McFlock 15.2.3
        15 June 2011 at 4:26 pm

        Did you just pull the “I know you are, but what am I?” card, Percussion Cap?

        Don’t be asking for a pay rise just yet, is my advice….

      • felix 15.2.4
        15 June 2011 at 4:48 pm

        Yeah, these Labour party handlers are driving me nuts actually Codpiece Potion. I just want to do beat poetry but they’re holding me back and stifling my creativity.

      • Lanthanide 15.2.5
        15 June 2011 at 5:05 pm

        Not everyone has handlers, you know. Or maybe you don’t.

        • McFlock 15.2.5.1
          15 June 2011 at 5:39 pm

          but if we don’t have handlers, how do we know what to say? It’s not like we’d just like honestly believe that the governments objective is just to favour the rich and fuck the country…

  16. Carol 16
    15 June 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Why is Simon Power giving a speech in the General Debate, that focuses on attacking Goff’s leadership?
    Oh and Finlayson is accusing Labour MPs of engaging in trivialities like flame wars & cycle races.

    • felix 16.1
      15 June 2011 at 4:51 pm

      Yeah, did it seem like it was the exact same speech that half a dozen Nat MPs have read out every Wednesday for the last 3 years?

      • Carol 16.1.1
        15 June 2011 at 5:22 pm

        Yes, it seems to be a constant diversionary activity for National to bash Goff.

        Surely Finlayson can’t be serious, accusing Labour of not being serious about the important and urgent politics because they do blogging stuff, and cycle rides. Meanwhile, where is JonKey? Dancing awkwardly down a fashion runway? Joking his way from one photo op to the next? And as for his stand-up routine that he used to deliver his budget speech?

    • Treetop 16.2
      16 June 2011 at 1:49 pm

      Carol, the problem with mud slinging from the Nats regarding Goff is that mud just may be slung back. What a dirty tricks election it is going to be. The Nats have to watch their back as they never know when a blogger will pull them up for a similar thing they are accusing a Labour MP about.

  17. Vicky32 17
    15 June 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Since about 21.00 last night, I have been reading newspaper clippings  I had put in a big envelope dated from 1989 to 1996. I am very depressed to see that everything NACT are doing has been done before – in 1984-99. some changes are so long standing that I had forgotten things were ever different. Yellow Buses for instance – have been owned by the international company Stagecoach since at least 1993, yet I had forgotten that they were ever Government (or Council) owned until among my clippings I found a heap of objections to Jenny Schippelfat selling Yellow Buses off….  It is mega-depressing that it’s all deja vu all over again – the same anti-bemeficiary letters to the Ed., the same replies – the same think tanks putting their ideas forward. It’s all worse now though – in 1991-2, there was great indignation about DPB women being work-tested when their youngest child was 7 years old. Good grief, that was bad enough…. One thing I have noticed – I came across only one reference to DPB women ‘breeding for a living”. Maybe that meme hadn’t got started then, or it wasn’t widespread? Or maybe I just didn’t save in this inadvertent time capsule, any reference to it?

    • ianmac 17.1
      15 June 2011 at 5:13 pm

      The more we change the more we stay the same. Your research is a bit depressing isn’t it Vicky. Sad to think that the population isn’t outraged by the thought of “making” mothers go back to work when the child is 12 months. Remember when Key suggested 6 years last year? He got away with that and so they seem hell bent on getting away with the sooner.
      Wonder how many mothers (fathers?) on DPB would be affected and how many kids?

  18. Vicky32 18
    15 June 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Oh yes, it’s deeply depressing! (I still have more clippings to go through, I am deciding what to get rid of, as I will one way or another, possibly, I hope, be moving soon!) It’s amazing how much rubbish one accumulates over 15 years in the same dump!) The scary thing is that in all those years, nothing has permanently changed…, (From 1999 to 2008, it did, but the changes didn’t stick..)

    Boiling of frogs springs to mind. People now accept things they would have argued against in the 90s…

  19. jackal 19
    15 June 2011 at 9:42 pm

    Fluff and a Jab

    Green Party MP Metiria Turei asked some very important questions of John Key in Parliament today. Once again, the Prime Minister wasn’t there so Bill English tried to answer for the absentee leader.

    In one particular answer given by the flailing Bill English, he said that the Government was helping to reduce the huge divide between the haves and have-nots ie disparity by improving immunisation and the Green’s inspired home insulation scheme. He must be joking!

  20. illuminatedtiger 20
    15 June 2011 at 10:07 pm

    Anyone watching Back Benchers? Simon Bridges seems to be having a hard time tonight, he looks tired and all of his yelling and talking over of others is quite telling. Big ups to Wallace Chapman who’s done an excellent job in tolerating his behaviour all night.

Links to post