Open mike 28/02/2011

48 comments on “Open mike 28/02/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. joe90 1

   28 February 2011 at 6:24 am

   Peter Sinclair looks at how deniers distort and misrepresent the climatic evidence from Antarctic ice cores.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     28 February 2011 at 1:46 pm

     Looks like R.B. Alley needs to be doing some suing.
2. joe90 2

   28 February 2011 at 6:44 am

   Coal ash as the villain.

   About 250 million years ago, about 95 percent of life was wiped out in the sea and 70 percent on land. Researchers at the University of Calgary believe they have discovered evidence to support massive volcanic eruptions burnt significant volumes of coal, producing ash clouds that had broad impact on global oceans.

   Nature Geoscience abstract here.
   • oscar 2.1

     28 February 2011 at 9:05 am

     How do they figure 90%? Are there records around that categorise every species in existence 250MA? What life are we talking about? Plants? mammals? Reptiles?

     Also, seeing as we’re on the subject.
     Based on all the commentators here for whom CO2 is a personal thing, how is it that these ice cores managed to survive with records of far higher CO2 levels, yet are now starting to melt with much lower levels compared to historical records.
     After all, it takes years for glaciers and ice caps to melt.
     So surely, with the increasing CO2 levels, and corresponding increase in glacial growth over the past 10 years, if we really want to keep our ice caps, we need to increase CO2 levels.
     Not to mention my old drum of increased plant life = reduction in CO2 atmospheric levels.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       28 February 2011 at 10:12 am

       Thanks for your professional climate change denials oscar lol
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2

       28 February 2011 at 1:50 pm

       How do they figure 90%?

       It’s science, based on observed facts like how much bio-detritus was in the ground before, during, and after the period in question so you wouldn’t understand it.
       • oscar 2.1.2.1

         28 February 2011 at 1:56 pm

         except they’re talking about marine species….
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1.1

           28 February 2011 at 2:48 pm

           Yeah, like I said, you wouldn’t understand it.
           • mcflock 2.1.2.1.1.1

             28 February 2011 at 5:38 pm

             Silly DTB – there’s no “ground” in the oceans! That’s why ships sink. Therefore global warming wouldn’t harm anything even if it existed.

             [sadly, it behoves me to place a smiley face after those two lines, just to make it completely clear I was joking and am not actually a denier. Sigh. 🙂 . There, I did it.]
           • oscar 2.1.2.1.1.2

             28 February 2011 at 7:48 pm

             so how about explaining how it works then?
             After all, it’s not like monkeys didn’t come from outer space.
             • McFlock …

               28 February 2011 at 9:06 pm

               Funnily enough, there’s a thing on oil on sky atm.

               Anyway, from what little I’ve read up on it they look at uranium decay dating for the rocks they find fossils in and around specific strata such as the iridium layer, and examine the species diversity in fossil samples in different strata, and crap like that. An actual sciencey person might have a slightly deeper knowledge than that.

               The basic issue is that when you ask such fundamental questions like that, it can be a good thing, e.g. “will the sun really not come up if we don’t rip someone’s heart out and could we put it off for a few minutes to see, no I’m not just saying this because I’m the one tied to the altar”. But you’ll also be looking at doing battle with the consensus view of several disciplines, not just climatology – geology, paleontology and evolutionary theory as well (give that species evolve through different strata).

               Have fun with that.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               28 February 2011 at 10:06 pm

               So, in your opinion monkeys came from outer-space?

               Okaaay….
3. pollywog 3

   28 February 2011 at 8:44 am

   I hear and read of people getting evacuated in Christchurch and imagine them being bumrushed out of a damaged building to a marshalling area where they dutifully line up to get the shit sucked out of them.

   I’m still of the mind that buildings, suburbs etc get evacuated and so do peoples bowels, but people themselves ???
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     28 February 2011 at 8:51 am

     Truly disturbing, thanks for that.
   • Deborah Kean 3.2

     28 February 2011 at 4:14 pm

     Exactly right! That usage makes me cringe, as well!
     Deb
4. Rosy 4

   28 February 2011 at 8:51 am

   When the Ukraine government asks other governments to front up with a share of 750m Euros, on top of the 750m you’ve already spent to build a new cover over the Chernobyl reactor I guess this really is a case of no alternative, especially if you’re a Northern European government.

   captcha: covers – it does know what you’re writing!
5. William Joyce 5

   28 February 2011 at 10:40 am

   Bill O’Reilly shows why he makes the big bucks – becoming an internet meme and not a science teacher
6. todd 6

   28 February 2011 at 12:01 pm

   Could sonar cause whales to beach?

   http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/02/could-sonar-cause-whales-to-beach.html

   In fact the sea is full of noise pollution as well as all manner of other pollution, that human’s dump there. There’s lots of scientific papers published on this topic and many point to sonar interference as the main cause of whales beaching.
7. Colonial Viper 7

   28 February 2011 at 12:30 pm

   European Central Bank’s Trichet says to Desperate Irish: Pay up, our Billionaire Bond Holders will accept nothing less than 100% of the capital and interest owed to them

   The old European bankers took the young US hostage once upon a time. And they are still at their games. This man gives me chills, he is clearly acting as an agent of the most high powered aristocratic elite. They don’t want Ireland to repeat the road of debt restructuring (i.e. breaking existing repayment commitments) that Argentina found so successful.

   EUROPEAN CENTRAL Bank (ECB) chief Jean-Claude Trichet has reiterated his opposition to any debt restructuring by Ireland, saying the terms of the EU-IMF bailout plan for the State have been approved by “the entire world”.

   http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0208/1224289258019.html

   And this says it all – Who needs enemies when you have friends like the European Central Bank

   http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/who-needs-enemies-when-you-have-ecb-2557986.html

   Only days after the bailout deal was signed, former Justice Minister Dermot Ahern revealed how officials from the ECB had tried to force Ireland into seeking a bailout before it had even been discussed at Cabinet.

   Mr Ahern said “quite incredible pressure” was being applied to the country ahead of the IMF/EU meetings and the same thing was also happening to Portugal. “There were people from outside this country who were trying to bounce us in, as a sovereign state, into making an application — throwing in the towel — before we had even considered it as a government,” he said. Asked about who was pressuring Ireland, he said they were “quite obviously” people from the ECB.

   We also know that the ECB, fed up with lending so much money to broken Irish banks, decided to pull the plug and began briefing against Ireland to European media in the week before the request was made. That cynical move sent our borrowing rate to record highs, forcing us out of the market and into the arms of the ECB/IMF deal.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     28 February 2011 at 3:14 pm

     Best thing the entire world could do ATM is redesign the monetary system into government printed zero interest fiat money and then default on all debt.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       1 March 2011 at 12:22 am

       And I’m sure that billionaire senior bondholders, elite banking powerbrokers and major creditor nations like Japan, China, Abu Dhabi and Germany will all rush to sign off on that one, DTB. Pretty sure US Presidents have been done away with for much less 😉
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   28 February 2011 at 4:05 pm

   Just found out that you can get a heat pump for your home on lease and, if you have an office in the home, it’s 100% tax deductible.
9. todd 9

   28 February 2011 at 4:47 pm

   OK you lazy slob, on ya bike

   http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/02/ok-you-lazy-slob-on-ya-bike.html

   Biking burns around 500 calories an hour, obesity epidemic solved. You get a natural high with a burst of endorphins… It’s better than junk food, but not better than sex. Do you suffer from depression, stress or an attention deficit disorder? Well you read this far so the last one can’t be that bad. It’s been proven that riding a bike can help you. It’s also a good way to help with all those social ills in New Zealand. Ride a bike you gangster, or you’ll end up in jail or worse. Bike riding is good for our communities.
10. Deadly_NZ 10

    28 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

    How the Hell does he work this out????

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/4710982/Christchurch-earthquake-impact-bigger-than-Katrina
11. Campbell Larsen 11

    28 February 2011 at 9:42 pm

    A ‘National’ disaster?

    Let me be the first to call for an end to the ‘nationwide’ state of emergency and the draconian powers it affords the Govt. The recent earthquake has indeed caused damage and loss of life in Christchurch however walking down the main streets of Auckland I have not seen anything that even looks vaguely like an emergency, and I bet its the same in every other town in NZ apart from Christchurch
    Why?
    Because its NOT a National emergency (unless you mean the political party and its desperation to get milage from tragedy) it is in fact a Regional one – all damage or threat to property and all loss of life and danger was in Christchurch.
    Ripples flowing out from this geographically concise location such as emotional or monetary impact (which are important but aren’t going to crush anyone) are no justification for overuse of a sweeping set of emergency powers which have never before invoked in NZ. One or two days of it I could have accepted – just – but up to three weeks! The people of Christchurch may be scared and some of them are dead, it may take a while for them to recover BUT – There is no emergency in the rest of NZ – our flimsy, battered democracy and its processes need to be returned to normal scrutiny and not left in Greedy Gerrys sweaty hands until he says its OK
    • McFlock 11.1

      28 February 2011 at 11:22 pm

      There are blank spaces appearing on supermarkets shelves in Dunedin (not so many at this stage as in Sept) because the Earthquake fecked up logistics plans. So it at least affects the South Island. If not Auckland.

      [grumble grumble cut-the-fecking-Cook-Strait-cables grumble]
      • Campbell Larsen 11.1.1

        1 March 2011 at 10:03 am

        Spaces on shelves hardly constitutes an emergency now does it?
        You may want to sit idle and stay silent while the Govt sets un unwarrented precedent – but I will not.
        • mcflock 11.1.1.1

          1 March 2011 at 12:49 pm

          Spces on shelves transition form “inconvenience” to “emergency” depending on their size, location and duration.

          Oh, silly me – forgot to mention the influx of what can only be called refugees.

          Don’t get me wrong, NACTs are dirty bastards who need to be watched like hawks, but the chch quake is slightly bigger than a “regional” disaster. Just look at the deployment of national resources like defence personnel and police officers – something like 5-10% of all the police officers in nz deployed in addition to the police officers initially stationed in one of our larger cities. This will have flow-on effects in the ability to investigate and interdict crime all over the country, yes including in Auckland.

          Personally, I don’t regard a nationwide state of emergemncy as quite the exagerration you seem to.
          • Campbell Larsen 11.1.1.1.1

            2 March 2011 at 12:15 pm

            Emergency – ‘a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.’
            – from the Oxford dictionary.

            The lack of SOME products on shelves was not unexpected as it happened during the last quake as you kindly pointed out. If you are seriously saying that the supermarkets are empty or likely to become so in a way that endangers life then you should back it up with evidence (good luck)

            As for people who have left Christchurch temporarily to alleviate pressure on damaged services or to find respite from concerns about futher aftershocks – they are not in ANY danger – immediate or otherwise – nor is their presence in other centres likely to cause any.

            The flow on effects that you claim may occur as a result of police redistrubtion do not qualify as an emergency either – anticipation of this possibility is part of thier job and mitigation measures will have been employed – one thing is for sure – Greedy Gerry is not going to come to my rescue.

            You claim to not like the Nats yet you leap to their defence (like so many people on this site) – meanwhile they demolish Christchurch by stealth using the unjustified sweeping powers afforded them by the ‘National’ state of emergency.
            • mcflock 11.1.1.1.1.1

              2 March 2011 at 12:47 pm

              “Leap to their defence”? All I’m saying is that maybe the Chch earthquake might be regarded as a nationwide event with its flow on effects, and that resources might need to be drastically redeployed at a moment’s notice from right around the country, so emergency powers make this easier. And that maybe the FUJIMO attitude says more about you than it does about the nats.

              Emergency powers can be a good thing, they can also be a bad thing (e.g. the Phillipines or Egypt). I do think the nats will fuck things up over the next few months, like using the earthquake as an excuse for “welfare reforms” and shafting students. But so far they haven’t been shitheads in relation to the recent quake. Unlike the media.
12. Campbell Larsen 12

    2 March 2011 at 12:59 pm

    FUJIMO – Military acronym for Fuck U Jack I’m Movin’ Out

    Maybe your response is a little revealing too – Just who the hell are you anyway – GI Joe? Have the decency to post under your real name, if you won’t own your own comments then why should I give a damn about what you think?

    [lprent: …your real name.. That isn’t a criteria for arguing here. People claiming that it is a criteria often find that it is a factor for me to moderate them out of the discussion. You’ve used that that argument at least once before and that I commented on it (which you appear to have ignored).

    Consider that there is absolutely nothing visible to support your implied contention that the handle you’re using is even your real name. We’ve had many idiots using that exact argument when I knew damn well that they weren’t using their own name. I can make an educated guess using the information that you provide that is specified as being private in the policy. No one apart from other moderators can.

    Read the policy and the about. In particular the sections about trying to tell us what to do on our site. We make the rules here. You have no standing to even advise because you don’t do any of the work and haven’t been here long enough for us to consider your mana.

    Heed the warning or prepare to suffer the consequences. ]
    • Campbell Larsen 12.1

      2 March 2011 at 2:17 pm

      You claim to be a labour union movement website and yet the very basis of political change is the validity and mandate provided by an opinion linked to a vote/ voter, and hence a name.
      This sites apparent disinterest in encouraging people to own their own opinions is perverse to say the least – given that you claim to want to effect change.
      I am very surprised that my discourse with mcflock has attracted your attention – it wasnt me that started the personal slights – but then mcflock was beginning to look increasingly suspect – and now you are too. I will respond to your earlier comments in due course.

      [lprent:

      1. I didn’t even look at the discussion because I didn’t need to. You did a behavior that isn’t allowed here and crying about extenuating circumstances is something you can use in courts but is just ignored by me. I’m only interested in each persons personal behavior and how that impacts on the site.
      2. The site allows for a robust discussion. That means that we only moderate people who do pointless insults. mcflock’s behavior didn’t come to my attention, presumably because s/he made an accompanying point to go with the personal slight.
      3. Being a unionist has nothing to do with the role of a moderator. For that matter it has little to do with this site. As it happens, I have never been in a union and have only dealt with them from the other side of the negotiating table when I have been an employer. Read the about again and more carefully this time.
      4. Arguing with a moderator or a sysop who are all chronically short of time is defined as a [fill in the blank] offense – read the policy again because it is clear you haven’t understood the bounds of this site. When we are operating in those roles we really couldn’t give a pigs arse about what you think. We’re only interested in what you do on our site.
      5. There are literally thousands of comments through here in a week that we have to scan for behavior. We don’t have time to hand hold every newbie on the site because we want to use our time more constructively writing posts, our own comments, and killing trolls. The last thing we want to waste our time on is you. We expect you to moderate yourself and inform yourself of our rules. We will attempt to spare a bit of time to help you understand the rules. But if it becomes too much effort to deal with someone who doesn’t learn then we’re more likely to terminate the problem than waste time explaining to people who don’t read the guidelines.
      6. We provide a space for ourselves to write posts and for others to argue for and against the posts and each other. They can raise new topics in OpenMike. But we really have little time for pandering to people – we’d prefer to just read their ideas. I suggest that you reassess your ideas of how important you are to us and stop trying to set your rules because you are guest and we do all of the work…

      ]
      
    • McFlock 12.2

      2 March 2011 at 11:03 pm

      FUJIMO. Maybe a poor choice. Can you think of a better way of describing your belief that because you personally haven’t experienced a direct effect of the Christchurch earthquake it therefore cannot affect, directly or indirectly, anyone else in your locality?

      Apparently they’re reallocating national stocks of dust masks to Christchurch. Boxes are probably going from your local DHB. Your GP or hospital has probably lost staff to Christchurch, or patients have been transported to it. Maybe your fire station, probably your police station, maybe your ambulance depot (station? Where to ambos live?). Everyone is taking a bit of the strain in order to ease some of the pressure on Christchurch. Just because there are no flashing lights down the street doesn’t mean that systems from one end of the country to the other haven’t bee stretched a bit tighter.

      But you haven’t noticed anything, so nothing to see here.

      As for the suggestion that because I can’t really fault national yet (the shock doctrine threat is looming large, so that might change with short notice) I must love them – bit of a stretch, there. Try putting my handle in the search bar. I’ll be intrigued to see if you still hold that opinion. If so I might have to reassess myself 🙂
      • Campbell Larsen 12.2.1

        3 March 2011 at 4:05 pm

        You miss my point entirely. I have never claimed that no one is affected in my locality or in any other locality. I made the point to illustrate the fact that when a never before used emergency power is used we should as a matter of course examine the rationale behind the move and MINIMISE its use. So far I have only heard that the declaration of a national emergency was so that aircraft could be banned from flying over the CBD to allow listening devices to be used to rescue the trapped, and so that an emergency corden could be put in place. You have also mentioned supply issues as a rationale for the national emergency. My query is simply this: does the govt need to invoke powers which could see anyones property conficated anywhere in the country in order to resolve these issues or for that matter any of the ones that you have mentined? I think not. We have had events like this before and the county has coped quite well without the invokation of these powers. An interesting defination of ’emergency popped up in wikipedia which I did not qoute earlier as it lacked the validity of the Oxford – here it is abridged: “An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment””The precise definition of an emergency, the agencies involved and the procedures used, vary by jurisdiction, and this is usually set by the government” it seems reasonable until we apply a bit of logic – ie An apple is a red or green skinned fruit that grows on trees but the precise defination is set by government – still sound reasonable? No mentin of GOVT in the oxford – do I need to tell you why? Americas state of emergency after 9/11 lasted well beyond what many commentators considered justified, as far as I know its still an ’emergency’ over there!
        So lets have a look at what has been else has been done under the banner of this ’emergency’ –
        We have Austrailian police and foreign military to operating on our soverign soil (I have no beef with the presence of international rescue teams that are a normal feature of events like this)
        ‘They are helping us’ I hear people complaining already – Well Im never one to turn down assistance when its needed – but theres the jam – who defines when its required? It looks and is just rosy when its a natural disaster but its not much of a stretch to imagine that nationwide protests against unwelcome Govt policy might also attract the same international attention. Whenever the LOCAL military is pitted against a civilian population the people almost always win – after all the local military are comprosed of citizens and share their struggles and sentiments to a large degree. The same cannot be said of foreign armies/ police who have no sympathy for NZers. A second point to consider is that if we NEEDED them this time (with less than 200 dead so far) how would we cope in the event of a more widespread event such as a pacific tsunami in which the countries that we supposidy cant do without would be by and large busy looking after their own?

        [Heard of those new-fangly things called ‘paragraphs’? Quite the go apparently….RL]
        • Campbell Larsen 12.2.1.1

          3 March 2011 at 4:32 pm

          Is that all you have to say RL? its not the spaces that count – its the words.

          [IonlyintendedtoffersomehelpfuladvicetoimprovethereadabilityofyourcommentsnotstartanargumentRL]
        • mcflock 12.2.1.2

          3 March 2011 at 4:42 pm

          My query is simply this: does the govt need to invoke powers which could see anyones property conficated anywhere in the country in order to resolve these issues or for that matter any of the ones that you have mentined? I think not. We have had events like this before and the county has coped quite well without the invokation of these powers.

          And I think it’s in the realm of feasible contigency management in an emergency. To which other events do you refer?

          Anyway, as for the definition of emergency being set by the government: your apple analogy is not applicable. A better example would be that the government determines legally what may be described by a vendor as and “apple”, just so people aren’t fooled into buying a painted orange. The government definition of “emergency” describes the conditions at which civil officials can declare a state of emergency and the extra legal powers that they will then possess.

          I’m not sure about the last paragraph – are you seriously suggesting that the foreign police personnel have been brought in as part of a plan to enable Key to claim “evil dictator” status?
          • Campbell Larsen 12.2.1.2.1

            3 March 2011 at 5:07 pm

            Its a long road from feasable to to required – and required is what I insist upon if the Govt is removing my rights thank you very much.

            As for apples and oranges – I will trust my judgement over the governments any day – thats what being a citizen is all about.

            And what happened to your statement:

            ‘Don’t get me wrong, NACTs are dirty bastards who need to be watched like hawks’

            Now you think the Govt is a lovely protective figure (like Chairman Mao perhaps) preventing injustice?

            If we are on the same side why are you so desperate to prove me wrong?
            • mcflock 12.2.1.2.1.1

              3 March 2011 at 5:25 pm

              Now who’s obsessing over personal liberties like a right-wing pundit?

              All very well to insist on what the government should or shouldn’t do, but we’re living in the real world where a massive event has just royally stuffed one of our major urban centres. If your fears about the international aid presence come true and they start shooting protesters when Key indefinitely postpones the election you’ll have a point. But I don’t think that’s particularly bloody likely.

              When the cockmonkeys kick thousands off benefits and cut taxes for the wealthy again as part of their “earthquake package”, I’ll be turning up to the protests. And I DO think that’s likely, if seperate from the “declare a national emergency” issue.

              But in the meantime, I really want Christchurch to get all the assistance it can get. And at best you seem to think that because you can’t see what you define as an “emergency”, it’s not there. At worst you seem to think that the govt is using the earthquake as a cover for importing mercenaries to pull a Gaddafhi.
13. Campbell Larsen 13

    3 March 2011 at 6:06 pm

    It is neither right or left wing to insist on transparancy and personal liberties – it is just common sense and a feature of a healthy democracy.

    I thought this site was all about saying what the Govt should and shouldnt do – and just for the record there is no disaster which is going to stop me doing that – short of one that kills me.

    I never said anything about shooting of protesters, I mearly pointed out the dangers that are inherent in allowing ourselves to be policed by forigners.

    As for your protest about taxing the poor and cuts to welfare – you can be sure that I will argue against them as enthusiastically as I have here agaist you – but did it ever occur to you that it may be a smokescreen? – just because you cant see it doesnt mean its not happening. (a bit of your own wisdom back at you)

    I too want the best for Christchurch – but it need not cost us our rights to give it, nor should it.
    • mcflock 13.1

      3 March 2011 at 6:19 pm

      Whenever the LOCAL military is pitted against a civilian population the people almost always win – after all the local military are comprosed of citizens and share their struggles and sentiments to a large degree. The same cannot be said of foreign armies/ police who have no sympathy for NZers.

      Not too many ways a military can be “pitted against a civilian population”. You were perhaps suggesting that local soldiers would throw a game of social netball, but Australians would play to win?

      Obsession with one’s own personal liberties (and rights and their theoretical curtailment) to the detriment of centralised assistance for other people in real strife is a hallmark of the right wing. Like those folk who think that social welfare is theft from them personally.

      Deciding that the government has fraudulently imposed a national state of emergency simply because “walking down the main streets of Auckland I have not seen anything that even looks vaguely like an emergency” is pretty self-absorbed.
    • Colonial Viper 13.2

      3 March 2011 at 6:31 pm

      It is neither right or left wing to insist on transparancy and personal liberties – it is just common sense and a feature of a healthy democracy.

      Yeah its about the personal liberty of thousands of people not to have to shit in a plastic bag or walk a kilometre to get clean water.

      We need to stay vigilent on NACT’s actions, but get over yourself.
      • McFlock 13.2.1

        4 March 2011 at 1:25 am

        Hot damn, CV: the right words > my own verbosity.
      • Campbell Larsen 13.2.2

        6 March 2011 at 11:19 pm

        Not above a bit of rewriting of history eh CV? When you first wrote your last comment it read:

        “Get over yourself and stay vigilant” Now you have edited it to say:

        “We need to stay vigilant on NACT’s actions, but get over yourself.”

        Maybe it was because starting your rebuttal with ‘get over yourself’ sounds a little arrogant too…
        or perhaps it was because you would prefer that people did not stay vigilant about everything (like who may be posting on this site and why)

        The practice of dissent shepherding via ringers posing as dissenters in forums for the purpose of limiting or directing discourse is not new and this site displays its characteristics

        We are much more receptive towards an argument or a sentiment when we assume that the person delivering it is like us. It is far more effective to agree with someone a lot on the points that don’t matter as much to you and then disagree with them on the one point that you wish to change their mind on – you have already by then proved yourself ‘reasonable’ on so many points so then any debate on the last point is politely considered as you would the opinion of a friend or ally.

        Given that we cannot determine actual identities on this site discourse here is particularly vulnerable to this sort of manipulation. We cannot assume that just because someone has proclaimed themselves to be something that they are that something. Just because they agree with us a lot doesn’t mean that they are not working against us when it suits them.

        Long and the short of it is we need to be vigilant with everyone – not just those who plainly declare themselves to be in opposition to us – of all those who may oppose us the obvious ones are the easiest to deal with by far.

        Don’t try and rewrite history – people like me keep records. You had your 10mins to reconsider at the time – doing so later doesn’t help your credibility – it just makes you look contrived.

        [lprent: The comment system allows for editing and trashing comments for up to 8 minutes (I think*) by the person and machine that left them. Getting wound up about edits is a bit gauche. Everyone screws up whilst writing. Which is why we have a re-edit system.

        It is common on all sites that have large amounts of comments. Kiwiblog has it for instance, as does Red Alert. People are forever having typos or saying things that they didn’t intend (dropping a word while typing can be hilarious) or having second thoughts about what they said.

        Look at the time of the comment and reread for edits if you are responding within the edit timeframe – especially if you are on RSS feed. And please learn the systems here before throwing round accusations or building conspiracy theories. A simple query would have elicited this information from others without me having to expend time on it. For that matter observing what happens when you leave a comment yourself would have made it quite evident.

        If you complain about our policies on names again, then I will probably wind up relieving you of the horror. Rather than seeing the continual comedy of a wannabe Sheldon Cooper trying to impose their sense of order on the site, it’d be easier to exclude you.

        * the moderators can alter any comment at anytime, which by convention we do in bold. It means I usually don’t see the re-edit system with it’s countdown timer. But it is set to allow significant rewokingof the essays that frequently get written here. And CV isn’t a moderator. ]
        • Colonial Viper 13.2.2.1

          6 March 2011 at 11:36 pm

          Wait, you’re claiming that I somehow edited my comment after the time that The Standard’s systems normally allow? And how exactly would I do that?

          And to be clear, I don’t particularly care for what you think, the “records” you keep and I certainly don’t comment for your pleasure or satisfaction, bro.
          • Campbell Larsen 13.2.2.1.1

            7 March 2011 at 11:47 am

            Someone altered your comment yesterday – sometime between lunchtime and the evening – days after you first posted it – I had already printed out the original – If you didn’t change it a moderator must have (however the convention of noting so in bold appears to have been ignored in this instance. Are you not concerned about the potential for abuse of this power? People usually are worried when others can put words into their mouth. I find it more than slightly disingenuous that you refuse to acknowledge that it has happened.

            As for what you think of me or what I think of you that hardly matters now does it?

            [lprent: You are mistaken. We don’t alter comments without making it quite obvious what is changed or deleted. If we did then there would be outcries of outrage running through 250,000 blog comments on this site from the comment authors – something that hasn’t happened. I think that CV as the author of the comment has more of an interest in their comments being altered than you do, and he has already said that you’re mistaken.

            BTW: I can check the comments table because that shows the date time stamp of the last update and the website and database logs if CV thinks it was altered. But I’m the only person with access to those. For the moment I’m just going with the default hypothesis that you’re wrong. ]
            • The Voice of Reason 13.2.2.1.1.1

              7 March 2011 at 12:02 pm

              Paranoid, much? Lprent has outlined the process and why any mod would want to waste time to reverse the order of the words in CV’s sentence, I’m buggered if I’d know. It doesn’t alter the sentiment anyway, just tones it down a tad. Which seems far more likely to happen in the few minutes commenters have to edit, rather than anything other theory. I do it all the time, particularly for spelling, and in this case, it appears CV did it to take the heat out of the sentence. Big deal.

              I’m more worried about the fact that you record and even print out comments. That seems pretty sad to me.
14. Campbell Larsen 14

    9 March 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Cover up
    Lies
    Petty Insults

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 27 February 2011 at 5:09 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS