Self inflicted injury

31 comments on “Self inflicted injury ”

• Comments are now closed

1. rainman 1

   31 December 2011 at 12:14 am

   I don’t see the issue tbh. Ms Coddington commenting on the failures of a product that, although it goes rather near one’s “bum crack”, ideally shouldn’t go up it, seems quite reasonable to me. If I were contemplating the purchase of a set of Glassons togs (which I am not, you may be pleased to hear), then I might be glad of her advice not to buy them. Kerre’s comments I take as being entirely tongue-in-cheek, although if she (or anyone else, for that matter) wanted to wander about the place naked I doubt anyone would die.

   All of us have “naughty bits” y’know. Talking about our bodies isn’t inherently bad or distasteful – this isn’t Victorian England (mercifully), after all.
   • fender 1.1

     31 December 2011 at 12:37 am

     Mental images can ruin a festive season.

     Banks will reinstate some victorian values and ban porn in south auckand while hes at it.
     • QoT 1.1.1

       31 December 2011 at 11:10 am

       Your “mental images” are your problem, fender. And given that the whole “ewwwwww Deborah Coddington is a girl with a butt!!!!” response is exactly the direction Whaleoil went in, you might like to reconsider aligning yourself with his level of immaturity.
       • fender 1.1.1.1

         31 December 2011 at 3:13 pm

         OK I concede it was a lame attempt at a bit of humour. I’m actually a big fan of the female form.

         But no you havn’t convinced me to follow the whailoil garbage blog. I’ll leave that to you Qot, thanks anyway.
         • Jackal 1.1.1.1.1

           31 December 2011 at 4:31 pm

           I very much doubt that QoT follows Slaters blog fender… however that’s not the point. Here we have a grown man acting like a little boy and using the female form in a sexist a derogatory way.

           The silly comments aside, the issue is with Slater taking private comments out of context and using them to denigrate people on a personal level. There is no political value in this type of commentary and anybody who undertakes such will lose credibility with anybody that matters.

           LPrent’s advice should be heeded… and not only in terms of Facebook’s annoying settings.
         • QoT 1.1.1.1.2

           1 January 2012 at 1:37 am

           Yeah, “convincing” you to follow Whaleoil was totes the point of my post. WTF?
2. Populuxe1 2

   31 December 2011 at 12:31 am

   I was, however, amused to read the post of one Nat MP who decided to tell all on his friends list that he had just cut through the power cord of his hedge trimmer. I couldn’t help but think he might have trimmed National’s slim majority at the same time, but then my better self reasserted itself…
3. lux 3

   31 December 2011 at 1:38 am

   It’s good make people aware of the risks involved in publishing anything on the almighty Internet, but hmm. *squints*… this post looks a bit too much like victim blaming. One thing should be absolutely clear: the low grade sociopaths are at fault here, not Kerry or Deborah.
4. Akldnut 4

   31 December 2011 at 11:59 am

   Not really caring about these two right leaning headline grabbers and would like to see them make more dickheadish (my new word) comments, but this is a good post hightlighting the stupidity of rash faceslapping comments made in an open forum.
5. Copra 5

   31 December 2011 at 12:10 pm

   Hmm .. these electronic public fora are inherently insecure.

   Unfortunately, I find lprents assurances that only the admins can read our IP numbers unconvincing.

   But why spoil a good thing ?

   [ There is no such thing as absolute security; but if you have reason to think that The Standard’s is not good enough, I think lprent would love to know… RL]

   [lprent: Admins and small group of ‘editors’. The editors are the moderators and have to be able to see IP’s.

   Only I and one other person have any access without going through wordpress. Potentially the sysops at the hosts could read the file system. But they’d have to figure out their way past the encryption of the relevant files and databases – and I would see them trying. I multilayered the defenses following the device hardening precepts – you can’t stop people. However you can make it both expensive and highly traceable.

   But knock yourself out… Try it out. ]
6. randal 6

   31 December 2011 at 4:07 pm

   time wounds all heels.
7. Ari 7

   31 December 2011 at 5:02 pm

   While this is good advice to protect yourself from friends of friends that have bad standards of behaviour, let’s be clear: The blame here lies solely on people with no sense of discretion or privacy like Cameron Slater, and we ought to live in a world where people can actually share annoyances or embarrassing moments without worrying about assholes publishing them to the wider internet.
   • lprent 7.1

     1 January 2012 at 2:10 am

     I’d agree. But you have to assume that there are people like Cameron out there. Just as you ‘d expend effort making sure no one gets your eftpos card and it’s pin, you should make an effort to prevent sociopaths access to your Facebook – unless you intend anything written there to be public.
     • QoT 7.1.1

       1 January 2012 at 12:52 pm

       I do agree, lprent, but at the same time looking at the petty, body-shaming stuff Slater has chosen to publish, I think the best response is to ridicule him for being a grown man who’s so pathetically afraid of girl-cooties.
8. Rob 8

   31 December 2011 at 5:55 pm

   geez wayne , get a life. You must have something more important to fret about than this.
9. Lostinsuburbia 9

   31 December 2011 at 10:49 pm

   Hmm the Facebook security settings can be a tad confusing but given that “celebrity” relies on pubilicity they can’t complain too much (if they are even upset).

   Personally, I got rid of my account. There is too much competition by everyone to out do each other with their status updates and photo posts. Besides I either call, email, or actually meet my real friends. Facebook can data mine someone else now.
   • CnrJoe 9.1

     2 January 2012 at 5:33 pm

     I joined so I could access other sites. limiting my friends to 50. I do other things and facebook just grinds on relentlessly connecting people. I see a bubble.
10. wetfootmammal 10

    1 January 2012 at 3:30 pm

    For some time now, I’ve been contemplating creating a blog purely to infuriate Whaleblubber. After reading through this, it’s now a done deal. I’m eagerly awaiting the obsessive stalker tactics Slater will undoubtedly employ in an attempt to silence me once he sees it.
11. Brooklyn 11

    1 January 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Nothing wrong with the posts public or not. The only thing to note is that Slater is a pathetic little tosspot who can’t keep his excitement about women’s jiggly bits to himself. Is that news to anyone? Move along. Nothing to see here.
    • QoT 11.1

      1 January 2012 at 10:29 pm

      It’s a good idea in principle, Brooklyn, but I don’t think bullies actually go away when they’re ignored. They just get viler and meaner until they get the attention they want.
12. Thomas Beagle 12

    2 January 2012 at 7:45 am

    What’s wrong with the content of those updates? Both of them are mildly amusing comments. Lprent’s scolding of them for publicly admitting to being human (something I’ve doubted about DC in the past) just makes her seem like a prude.

    Net result of this post:

    My opinion of Deborah Coddington: improved.
    My opinion of Kerre Woodham: improved.
    My opinion of Cameron Slater: unchanged, he’s still a scumbag.
    My opinion of lprent: reduced.
    • lprent 12.1

      2 January 2012 at 9:22 am

      That’s ok – it is all opinion.

      You may have not noticed, but I am an quite private person. I find the idea of some creep slithering around the rubbish bins or facebook looking for dirt that has nothing to do with the public interest for a story to be reprehensible. The only point for Cameron to hunt for it and to publish it appears to be titillation and for Cameron to stroke his wee ego.

      My purpose is simple. Facebook isn’t going to put in adequate basic security. It is up to people to actively decide what they want to put up there. Highlighting instances where stalking by Cameron walks well over the edge from vaguely public interest is always going to be the simplest and most effective way to highlight this.
      • Thomas Beagle 12.1.1

        2 January 2012 at 9:47 am

        If you were just commenting on Cameron Slater or Facebook I don’t think it was necessary to keep describing the actions of Deborah and Kerre as being “so damned stupid”.

        The thing is that in this case Cameron hasn’t found any “dirt”. You’re buying into his framing of the content of the updates and it’s completely wrong. Those updates are innocuous and it’s a huge stretch to see something inappropriate about them. It’s somewhat distasteful seeing you and Cameron conspiring to tell people what sort of material you’ll let them post to their Facebook.

        You’re in the position of someone reposting some scumbag photographer’s pictures of underwear drying on the line while telling off the person hanging it out, as if there was something wrong with it. Do you really want to be that person?
        • Jackal 12.1.1.1

          2 January 2012 at 10:48 am

          The last time I checked, Facebook doesn’t allow other people to moderate your personal timeline, and there’s no conspiracy between The Standard and Whaleoil… so what are you talking about Thomas Beagle?

          Slaters posts are disrespectful to woman and disregard peoples privacy… there is nothing wrong with highlighting that fact to try to reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences. In essence this post is a public health warning.

          You claim that Slaters posts are not designed to cause harm… when that’s obviously not the case.

          It’s highly inappropriate to troll people’s personal timelines for some private trivia and then publish it to the general public… it’s like stealing somebodies diary. Being that you’re obviously not an effected party, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant!

          As for your analogy… the main thing wrong with Coddington and Woodhams’ updates is that they thought them private. Calling “pervert” on a peeping tom is always the right thing to do.
13. M 13

    2 January 2012 at 11:01 am

    Timely reminder Lynn to guard your privacy.

    I have a facebook account but under an alias and there’s sod all on there about me as I don’t want someone tracking me – even though I’m just another Joe Schmo.

    What is frightening for me is the amount of bullying facebook allows, for example, teenagers telling each other they should kill themselves. Information posted by teenagers who may be unaware that future employers will use this as a means of checking someone out could well miss out on a job. As maybe one of the more fierce examples of a tigress who defends her cubs I urge my kids all the time to limit what they put on facebook.
14. SHG 14

    2 January 2012 at 12:45 pm

    In other news, Whale Oil Beef Hooked is New Zealand’s most visited blog.

    http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/december-11-nz-blogs-sitemeter-ranking/
    • Jackal 14.1

      2 January 2012 at 1:27 pm

      That is a surprise! I’ve been getting annoyed with Whaleoil when it comes up in searches when there’s nothing that relates to the search… I suspect a huge bank of Meta keywords.
      • SHG 14.1.1

        3 January 2012 at 3:14 pm

        “I suspect a huge bank of Meta keywords”

        Neither Google nor Bing (so that’s approx 99% of the search market covered) has used meta keywords as a positive search influencer for a long time.
        • Jackal 14.1.1.1

          7 January 2012 at 10:05 pm

          Google now uses the description attribute, which is pretty much the same thing. It doesn’t have a limitation and could explain why Whaleoil comes up in searches when there’s no content on the page related to the search. Whatever it is… it’s damn well annoying!
    • lprent 14.2

      2 January 2012 at 3:12 pm

      I am skeptical. There was a post I noticed this morning on Cam’s site that said his stats for the year were…

      From Google Analytics:

      2,011,017 Visits
      464,147 Unique Visitors
      6,011,458 Pageviews
      2.99 Pages/Visit
      00:18:02 Avg. Time on Site
      48.64% Bounce Rate
      22.21% % New Visits

      That means his average time for people who weren’t bouncers was something over 30 minutes. With essentially no comments? Yeah right!

      This site has about 6:20 average time and about 44% bounce with a hell of lot more comments. The last time I remember DPF putting up GA figures with those two numbers was at the start of 2010 for 2009. His GA was about 4:30 and 45%

      Only a few of our commentators (less than 5%) barely manage to hit a visit time of an hour at any time. But Whale must have something like 30% or more of his readers hitting that, and they don’t even write comments of more than a few lines.

      That average time makes the rest of his figure look interesting…. Quite simply I’d be interested in an explanation on how a site that gets less than 50 comments a day on average (including the posts) attracts thousands of people per day to stay online reading for such long periods of time.

      But I have just driven back to Invercargill for a wee event. So this will wait for while.

      SHG: I seem to remember yo know something about this stuff, perhaps you should start a discussion on it?
      • felix 14.2.1

        7 January 2012 at 11:46 pm

        No surprise that he gets so few comments. Who would ever trust him with their IP address?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS