The truth about The Standard

Written By: - Date published: 7:50 am, February 15th, 2015 - 258 comments
Categories: The Standard - Tags: , ,

Apart from lprent and Mike Smith, I am (I believe) the longest serving current Standard author, and by some margin the most published. I have some idea how the place works. Which is one of the reasons why I find external commentary on The Standard so utterly bizarre.

Right wingers (the Slaters and Farrars) like to say we’re run by the Labour Party – they know it isn’t true but it’s part of their relentless political attack. Disappointingly, some left wingers (Bradbury and O’Dea at TDB) spread the same lie – and try to spin the posts here in terms of their own hatred for Labour (and apparently for us). Some other political obsessives, who really should know better (Edwards, George) – do the same kind of factional entrail reading as part of the great game.

Lies, hatred or over-thinking – collectively it’s all bollocks, the whole lot.

The truth is really simple. The Standard is a bunch of people who write on the same blog. There is no central organisation, there often isn’t agreement, there is no control from Labour (the way we have disagreed on, disagreed with, and attacked various Labour leaders should be proof enough of that). Almost every current author, including myself, is someone who started out commenting on the site, and gravitated up to writing. We are the loosest possible collective, a group of lefties who care, and write, and respect each other’s opinions even when we disagree. I’m amazed that the whole thing works as well as it does. The fact that it does is largely because of the contributions of the other half of the community, the very diverse and committed group of readers / commenters that has built up over the years.

That’s all there is behind the curtain. And anyone trying to read The Standard tea leaves to tell you something about Labour is selling you an agenda.

Peace!
Anthony / r0b

258 comments on “The truth about The Standard ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    15 February 2015 at 8:48 am

    Stay on topic. I have already moved one comment to OpenMike.

    • travellerev 1.1
      15 February 2015 at 9:46 am

      I guess that was my comment. I content I was on topic. This is about the Standard writers and how people gravitate to become writers. Te Reo’s open demagogic and emotive leftie warmongering as his first come out piece as a writer on the Standard was a disgrace. If he is good enough to be a writer maybe you should consider Pete George next. And don’t worry no need to ban me, I won’t be visiting anytime soon.

      • Chooky 1.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 10:00 am

        I always enjoy your comments travellerev….and links…and often agree with them…so stay please

      • Lanthanide 1.1.2
        15 February 2015 at 10:11 am

        Pretty sure Te Reo has had 3-4 other posts on here before the most recent one.

        • lprent 1.1.2.1
          15 February 2015 at 11:01 am

          Indeed. At least 3 over a number of years. I didn’t even put him in contributor because he knows how to write opinions that elicit debate. I put him in as author.

        • te reo putake 1.1.2.2
          15 February 2015 at 11:14 am

          I’ve lost count, Lanth, but about a dozen over the years.

          The most recent were ‘A Little goes a Long Way’ in which I said AL would win the leadership if he stood (Tick!) and the pre-election ‘Our Friends in the North’ in which I asked ‘mana, do we need ’em?’ (Tick?).

          A quick search suggests my first appearance in a guest post was in 2009 and I shared that one with Jenny:

          http://thestandard.org.nz/reflections-on-aisling/

      • lprent 1.1.3
        15 February 2015 at 10:58 am

        Sorry about the delay. Been to muriwai for Lyn’s car after her 40th last night.

        The topic of the post was that the standard operates as set of individuals. Your comment was a opinion on a single author, without bothering to context the post at all.

        Diversion and OpenMike material.

  2. Pete George 2
    15 February 2015 at 8:59 am

    Right wingers (the Slaters and Farrars) like to say we’re run by the Labour Party – they know it isn’t true but it’s part of their relentless political attack.

    As some here keep claiming that Whale Oil and Kiwiblog are run by the National Party.

    Indignation however justified is diminished when others here keep saying “but other parties do it”.

    You can make it clear that The Standard isn’t run by Labour (and I believe that’s true) but claim and counter claim of party directives are likely to remain a part of the tit for tat game.

    Bradbury simply knows how to tweak a sensitive nerve. That’s a normal part of the political game.

    If you live by the sword you have to expect a few jabs back. The nature of political discourse (supported here) means factual support is optional and often omitted.

    Relentless political attacks are prevalent in all directions.

    • Enough is Enough 2.1
      15 February 2015 at 9:10 am

      Have you read a book called Dirty Politics?

      It is documentary evidence that Whaleoil is a National Party run attack blog.

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 9:19 am

        No it’s not evidence of that. It has some associations but Whale Oil has it’s own agendas that sometimes coincide with some of National’s objectives.

        There’s evidence that some in National used it sometimes for attack purposes. But there’s also evidence that Whale Oil also attacked National and National MPs.

        Dirty Politics also provided no evidence that Whale Oil was funded by National, but provided solid evidence that Whale Oil was funded by lobbyists and by individual MPs and candidates competing against other MPs and candidates.

        Some of The Standard’s attack posts and some of the attack activists at The Standard happen to coincide with some Labour objectives but that doesn’t mean it’s a Labour Party funded or run blog.

        Here’s good evidence that the Labour Party would be hopeless at running a blog:
        http://blog.labour.org.nz/

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 9:37 am

          More Dirty Politics apologism from Pete George.

          • Sacha 2.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:09 am

            Everything looks the same shade of beige to some folk. Most of them quietly ruminate; a rare few spread the crimplene joy far and wide.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 10:18 am

          I have read DP Pete, and your summary here is largely correct. But it’s also misleading, in that you fail to emphasise that the things that Slater does (a large amount, but not all of which, is posted on WO) are at a different level to what goes on with The Standard.

          WO is actively involved in political machinations, ranging from funded political and commercial campaigns for individuals through to relentless digging of dirt and mud-slinging. For a long time he was working with Jason Ede and working as a mouthpiece for National.

          Lynn has stated in the past that The Standard very seldom breaks news; largely it’s just reacting to current and political events. Anthony’s post highlights this – a bunch of left-wingers who write blog posts; a far cry from WO whose career revolves around his site and wielding his political influence.

          So, I think the reason a lot of people disagree with statements such as the comment I’m replying to, is because while you are factually correct, you’ll also (deliberately?) underplaying or ignoring the very significant differences between TS and WO which *should* be mentioned in any comparison between the websites such as the one you’re making, and the fact that you don’t just makes people suspicious of your motives.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:27 am

            Lying by omission is lying, racism is racism: it’s contempt, not suspicion.

            • Pete George 2.1.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:44 am

              OAB is most prominent in demonstrating that The Standard is far from devoid of Slater-type dirty attacks – and it’s behaviour that is largely unchallenged and uncriticised, suggesting either blatant hypocrisy or a fear of exposure to similar cowardly attacks.

              • r0b …
                15 February 2015 at 10:49 am

                OAB is most prominent in demonstrating that The Standard is far from devoid of Slater-type dirty attacks

                Oh please.

                In an open forum people say stuff that you can use to “prove” any theory. All you are proving is your own agenda, and that fact that it’s an open forum. (And until you read Dirty Politics you have no idea what you are talking about when you say “Slater-type dirty attacks”.)

                The comment you make attacking OAB is exactly the same kind of comment that many others make about you. But it’s an open forum. That is all.

                • weka …
                  15 February 2015 at 11:04 am

                  The irony there is that if OAB and the standard authors were doing DP, then Pete wouldn’t be allowed to run his ‘the standard does it too’ line.

                  Unless of course this is some kind of double blind thing to throw everyone off the scent?!? 😉

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    15 February 2015 at 11:08 am

                    Oh shit, you’re onto the conspiracy!

                  • lprent …
                    15 February 2015 at 11:09 am

                    Nope. He tends to survive here on my insistence that we moderate everyone on behaviour related to the purposes of the site rather than simple dislike or ideological divide.

                    I get a lot of complaints about that from all sides, authors and commenters alike….

                    • weka …
                      15 February 2015 at 11:25 am

                      Yeah I get that, but I don’t think the huge antipathy towards Pete (amongst commenters at least) is simply personal dislike or ideological differences. There are plenty of people here who don’t like each other, or who disagree on ideology. It is his behaviour. Yes he has learnt to stay within the bounds of policy, but nevertheless his behaviour is hugely disruptive (not to mention tedious).

                    • lprent []
                      15 February 2015 at 2:11 pm

                      I do tend to err on the side of caution. You may remember my outspoken slamming of the lynch mob mentality that was fostered pn Kiwiblog and designed to spread out through the media. For instance back in 2009 “I don’t give a shit about Hone. But the lynch mob is interesting“.

                      The same things I said about Hone Harawira and the formation of Mana also apply to silliness of Pete George. I react against lynch mobs or anything that looks like them. As a moderator I tend to overcompensate against them when I perceive that they are operating. It doesn’t mean they get a free pass. It just means I am more likely to warn than ban.

                  • r0b …
                    15 February 2015 at 11:14 am

                    Damnit weka – you’re on to us!

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 February 2015 at 11:28 am

                Similarly, pointing out Pete George’s racism is as simple as notlinking to his blog posts. Again, true, and therefore by definition, not a smear.

          • Pete George 2.1.1.2.2
            15 February 2015 at 10:37 am

            the things that Slater does (a large amount, but not all of which, is posted on WO) are at a different level to what goes on with The Standard.

            I agree with this and have been fairly vocal along similar lines. Slater and WO are at a different level (of dirtiness) to any other blog.

            And I’m well aware that Slater is driven in part by a need to earn money to sustain his blog.

            I’ve also said before that ‘not as bad as Whale Oil’ is not a great standard to claim.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.2.2.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:43 am

              Just because you’ve “said it before”, doesn’t mean people reading your comments TODAY, in ISOLATION, have seen you saying that.

              This is one of the reasons you get so much flack around here Pete, because you expect everyone else to 100% remember your position on everything, and read your new comments with that past knowledge in mind. Sorry to break it to you – but you’re just not that interesting.

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.2.3
            15 February 2015 at 10:41 am

            “…WO is actively involved in political machinations, ranging from funded political and commercial campaigns for individuals through to relentless digging of dirt and mud-slinging. For a long time he was working with Jason Ede and working as a mouthpiece for National…”

            The thing that really sets Slater apart from the rest isn’t all the above, which he undoubtably is, but the fact he is so entitled the he thinks he has a moral free pass to straight up lie about his financial relationships and his mouth for hire.

            Slater is an bona fide, proven, exposed liar. And it is that sort of mendacity from WO (and Farrar, who seeks to manipulate and dissemble at every opportunity) that sets this blog apart from the the PR speak of Farrar and the outright base lies of Slater. Sure, it is partisan and sometimes descends into shrill propaganda but it does not seek to manipulate, dissemble or hoodwink it’s audience. Mostly, it is just honest opinion and reaction.

          • Tracey 2.1.1.2.4
            15 February 2015 at 7:20 pm

            and much of slaters material was supplied by nat ministers who belong to the national party. then there is katherine rich supplying copy to appear in slaters name. That is a significant political point of difference pete appears to diminish.

            pg continues to deliberately count personal rudeness in the same category as, for example, a minister feeding slater personal details of a ps employee for public denegration.

    • marty mars 2.2
      15 February 2015 at 9:12 am

      peter have you read dirty politics yet?

      you are defending the indefensible and using gnaf lines – “they do it too” – it really is the lowest form of political debate imo

      anyone with a brain can see that The Standard is a left blog with many voices – the articles and posts prove that day after day after day – saying something different is just a direct right wing diversion.

      edit SNAP enough

    • Barfly 2.3
      15 February 2015 at 9:16 am

      PG

      “As some here keep claiming that Whale Oil and Kiwiblog are run by the National Party”

      let me fix it for you

      “As some here know that Whale Oil and Kiwiblog are run for the benefit of any and all RWNJ policies”

      • Redbaiter 2.3.1
        15 February 2015 at 12:48 pm

        Well you need to make your mind up.

        Are they for National, one of the biggest spending socialist governments in NZ’s history and run by Helen Key, or are they for the benefit of RWNJ policies?

        You actually can’t have it both ways.

    • freedom 2.4
      15 February 2015 at 9:38 am

      yeah Pete, you just keep polishing those blinkers until they sparkle like the twin moons you seem to live in front of. 🙄

      We know there is absolutely no way that National has ever had input into the content or operation of WhaleOil. It is all just an amazing series of coincidental alignments of operational objectives. Of course there is no possibility either that Kiwiblog, which just happens to be run by the owner of Curia Research, would have been subject to any possible influence by National. Ever. – sarc

    • Skinny 2.5
      15 February 2015 at 9:39 am

      And which Blogger did Key personally credit for helping the National Party win on election night?

      Labour has is own social media outlet Red Alert, that awesome website lol.

      I like it that Labour doesn’t own this blog site or it would suffer the same fate as Red Alert.

      • phillip ure 2.5.1
        15 February 2015 at 11:03 am

        or frogblog..

        ..that seems to have descended to a ‘scoop’ for green party mp press-releases..

        • lprent 2.5.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 11:12 am

          It is extremely difficult for a political party to run a workable blog. The National party blog goes a level further down. It mostly seems to be about MPs holidays and junkets.

    • Murray Rawshark 2.6
      15 February 2015 at 9:43 am

      Whalespew and Kiwi Bog may not be run by the NAct party, but they are heavily used and supported by it. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that TS is used or supported by Labour. Your post is another waste of bandwidth, full of white noise and mild disapproval, signifying nothing.

    • phillip ure 2.7
      15 February 2015 at 10:40 am

      p.g.. r u aware that what you do is pile non-sequitur upon non-sequitur..?

      ‘Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary.’

      ..and then you make the farcical claim that this is political-dialogue..

      ..it is not..it is just garbled-gobbledygook..

      ..a constant stream of non-sequiturs..

  3. Pete George 3
    15 February 2015 at 9:02 am

    Some other political obsessives, who really should know better (Edwards, George) – do the same kind of factional entrail reading as part of the great game.

    Chuztpah.

    Ditto political obsessives (some of whom do know better, others may just be ignorant obsessives) at The Standard.

    • weka 3.1
      15 February 2015 at 9:35 am

      Fantastic. Another day of Pete George derailing what should be a proactive conversation instead of a reactive one.

      It’s a good post r0b, I’m just sorry the comments are going to go the way they always do when Pete starts stirring the pot. IMO he’s worse than Bomber and O’Dea and on par with the DP crew (George is a DP apologist). At least with TDB the lies and mistruths are up front. With Pete, it’s all obfuscation and deception dressed up in sheep’s clothing, and it’s here on ts where it can do the most damage.

      • Pete George 3.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 9:40 am

        “Lies, hatred or over-thinking – collectively it’s all bollocks, the whole lot.”

      • Anne 3.1.2
        15 February 2015 at 9:43 am

        Okay, another good post I probably won’t bother to read or comment on (apart from this) because PG is being allowed to own it with his claptrap. I wonder how many others are turned off for the same reason?

        Get rid of him will you…. then you might find the people who have been driven away from this site will start drifting back.

    • lprent 3.2
      15 February 2015 at 9:39 am

      Authors? Commenters?

      If it is authors, then I would strongly suggest you point to specific examples. Otherwise you are just smearing all authors.

      Commenters are rather out of the sites control apart from their behaviour.

      • Pete George 3.2.1
        15 February 2015 at 9:50 am

        It’s not a smear on all authors. You’re probably the main offender as both an author and a commenter.

        It is also a false equivalence between the way that the blogs of right like Whaleoil and Kiwiblog operate, effectively as puppets of the National party, and the way that the blogs of the left largely operate, ours included.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-campaign-of-false-equivalences/

        If you keep dishing out stuff like this then you shouldn’t be surprised if you get similar back.

        Do you want more examples?

        • te reo putake 3.2.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 10:03 am

          Pete, one obvious difference between TS and Kiwiblog and Whaleoil is financial. Both those blogs get their funding from the right. Indirectly in the case of KB (via the income it’s founder receives as the National Party’s pollster) and directly in the case of keyboard for hire WO. Both profit from the success or failure of their masters.

          TS is genuinely independent. I assume the same of your blog, too.

          • Sacha 3.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:16 am

            There’s also the convenient timing of many KB or WO stories, just before media publish the same line from the govt. Haven’t seen anything like that on other blogs.

            So long as Mr George is allowed to derail this site, maybe he can offer us some concrete examples of dirty politics from the left. Or just stop with the false equivalences. That would be nice.

            • weka 3.2.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:42 am

              Problem is, PG thinks that DP is being mean to people. Or rude. He completely fails to comprehend that the two track nature of DP, or the organised sleaze, or the high level corruption, or even the fact that it’s organised are what make it distinct.

              Whether that failure on Pete’s part is genuine idiocy or whether it just suits his agenda, or both, hard to say. I change my mind about that frequently, but it’s hard to believe anyone can be so stupid, so I generally come down on the side of PG being a DP apologist. It suits his right wing agenda to publicly slap National with a wet bus ticket but secretly be pleased that they’re not going to upset his muddleNZ status quo (until it’s too late of course, but willing to bet muddleNZ still believe that they will be looked after).

              • Tracey …
                15 February 2015 at 7:25 pm

                much like wayne mapp keeps pretending lefties oppose all trade deals rather than addressing the real concern which is lack of sovereignty in law making. and he says it over and8 over

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1.2
            15 February 2015 at 10:34 am

            One obvious aspect of Lprent’s comment is that it’s true, and therefore by definition, not a “smear”.

        • lprent 3.2.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 10:44 am

          There is an entire book that concentrates on at least 3 blogs of the right operating political and for (two of them) commercial dirty tactics in concert – kiwiblog, whaleoil, and cactus kate. These activities were directly or indirectly paid for and coordinated by national party staffers or people closely associated with national.

          FFS I couldn’t give a pigs arse about plausible deniability – there is a clear line of money and control between Key/national party and their paid for bloggers. The hiding of such relationships mpoints directly to their awareness of their moral and possibly legal guilt.

          Part of that was an active attempt to enroll other right leaning blogs to repeat the same political messages. In particular Keeping Stock, Busted Blonde and a couple of other minor ones. You yourself tend to act like an unthinking parrot because you appear to have an aversion to thinking.

          My description was quite precise and accurate. It is also my opinion after watching this happen over the last 7 years.

          There is none of that shit on the left apart from the transparent relationships of Rob Salmond, and the mildly opaque consulting by Bomber.

          Perhaps you shjouild try again. That smear was clearly inadequete. You pompous old fool.

          • Pete George 3.2.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 1:14 pm

            ” You pompous old fool.”

            Still got your sense of humour. Or irony. Or obliviousness.

            “My description was quite precise and accurate.”

            As I said, If you keep dishing out stuff like this then you shouldn’t be surprised if The Standard keeps getting similar back. I wouldn’t be surprised if people claiming TS is a paid puppet of Labour also claim they are being “quite precise and accurate”.

            That doesn’t make any of you precise and accurate, no matter how pompously you try to put it.

            [Attempted self martyrdom? – MS]

            • lprent 3.2.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 2:25 pm

              I notice that you didn’t address any of the points in my comment apart from whining about those directed at you.

              Perhaps you should explain why my comment was not precise.

              It seems to have been precise in what I said about you… And I thought you liked being the victim – I was just trying to help out.

              😈

  4. adam 4
    15 February 2015 at 9:08 am

    I’d say a lot of labour people write here. But so do a lot of greens, lots of anarchists, and even Marxists. As some Marxist are sworn devotees to democratic centralism, and it’s their ideology or the highway – I’m not surprised some on the left attack The Standard. One has got to wonder if it’s thee ye old Trot trick of divided and poach.

    All that said, I find some of the authors so darn moderate, it does my head in. But guess what – that is what difference of opinion is all about. I find when I disagree with some one, I have to think, think rounder and think more fulsome to get a good argument going.

    And argument – that is the life blood of the standard. Also the left – the right portray us as divided – personally I just think of us more of acting like a family. You know the heated arguments, the occasional fisticuffs and the yelling. Families fight – but they stick together. Sometimes families stop talking altogether – This happens, when one part of the family becomes either ideologically blind, or as rabid as a dog with a bone. It’s life, and personally when ego, and ideology won’t allow people to talk. That’s your problem not mine. Sorry for you.

  5. weka 5
    15 February 2015 at 9:49 am

    Great post r0b, it actually made me feel like celebrating 🙂 Everytime I see ts explained by people who know what they are talking about, I am struck by two things. One is how cool the structure of ‘organisation’ is (I once described it as a mix of collective anarchism and benign dictatorship) and how well it works. I think that people who spend time here get to see what it is, that it works, and why it works.

    The other is that the people outside who either don’t understand how it works, and/or who tell lies about the place seem perturbed. This is a good thing! Both because ts rattles the cages of the establishment (and I’ll include liberal individuals who aren’t quite getting that there are a whole lot of people unhappy with the status quo), and it rattles the cages of the anti-establishment who need to up their game.

    It’s a privilege to take part, thanks.

    • Colonial Rawshark 5.1
      15 February 2015 at 9:57 am

      The foresight, ability and persistence of the people who originally structured and started The Standard is something that I am very grateful for.

    • Anne 5.2
      15 February 2015 at 10:04 am

      The problem is weka the likes of PG (in particular) are gradually destroying the site which is probably the intention. The most important people are the readers. TS needs to reach as many of those as is possible. But when they have to wade through reams of puerile PG nonsense I suspect they lose interest and stop coming here. Having said that I don’t include the likes of Wayne Mapp and Matthew Hooton who usually provide valuable ‘alternate’ view points that are worthy of discussion and debate.

      So there Wayne and Matthew… we don’t all hate you, just disagree with you.

      • Pete George 5.2.1
        15 February 2015 at 10:14 am

        I’d like to see The Standard be a more credible and more effective political forum.

        the most important people are the readers. TS needs to reach as many of those as is possible.

        So it puzzles me that so much abuse and intolerance is seemingly encouraged and seen as acceptable.

        • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 10:28 am

          It’s acceptable when it’s fucking well deserved mate.

          • Pete George 5.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:46 am

            “It’s acceptable when it’s fucking well deserved mate.”

            That encapsulates the problem here. Nothing but a sad and sorry excuse justifying crap.

            • marty mars 5.2.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:58 am

              “Nothing but a sad and sorry excuse justifying crap.”

              yes you are pete – even though so many people have tried to show you how to avoid that – you love it, it gives you cred with your right wing mates and content for your vanity blog.

            • tricledrown 5.2.1.1.1.2
              15 February 2015 at 11:35 am

              Pete you just keep complaining petty Garullus.
              Todays pathetic attempts by you to bully this site into bending to suit your agenda.
              Less is more Pete alot less in your case.
              You make yourself a target of ridicule.
              By claiming you are superior and your opinions are more relevant than anyone else’s.
              Give it away pete slow down and stop being a compulsive political obsessive! derailer!

          • phillip ure 5.2.1.1.2
            15 February 2015 at 6:35 pm

            “..It’s acceptable when it’s fucking well deserved mate…”

            +1..

        • lprent 5.2.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 10:47 am

          Read about and the policy. Then you won’t be confused. I can’t remember the number of times I have told you to do that. I can see why you have an issue with people clearly and fulmously expressing their opinions about you. You never seem to listen.

          Perhaps you should try listening and explaininf rather than trying to seek attention by being a screwed up rather stupid victim all of the time.

          • weka 5.2.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 11:09 am

            It’s Pete’s mission to help teh standard become a more credible and more effective political forum. Part of that is raising manners to match his beige tone, because we all know that deep down the only people that can be reasonable and do good are people who don’t swear or be rude to others. It’s all for our own good.

        • Rawsharkosaurus 5.2.1.3
          15 February 2015 at 11:08 am

          Why are you still here, then, if you hate it here so much? Is Comrade Dunne running his own little 50 Cent Army on behalf of Chairman Key?

      • weka 5.2.2
        15 February 2015 at 11:19 am

        The problem is weka the likes of PG (in particular) are gradually destroying the site which is probably the intention. The most important people are the readers. TS needs to reach as many of those as is possible. But when they have to wade through reams of puerile PG nonsense I suspect they lose interest and stop coming here. Having said that I don’t include the likes of Wayne Mapp and Matthew Hooton who usually provide valuable ‘alternate’ view points that are worthy of discussion and debate.

        So there Wayne and Matthew… we don’t all hate you, just disagree with you.

        I agree Anne. I don’t know why Pete isn’t getting more bolded warnings, or even a ban, given he tells lies about the place and even in this thread has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the policy. I guess it’s a fine line between banning people and not destroying the essential open robust debate ethos that makes the place.

        Also agree there is a huge difference between the Hooton/Mapp etc and troles like PG.

        • tricledrown 5.2.2.1
          15 February 2015 at 11:59 am

          Mapp and Hotton keep their opinions brief and to the point.
          They are busy and have a life as well.

          • Tracey 5.2.2.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 7:31 pm

            Mapp is more a mantra repeating mouthpiece. especially on tpp he has a meme and no matter what is being discussed he posts it.

            1. usual suspects oppose all free trades
            2. cant be transparent… today it is cos some of the parties arent open govts..

            Hooton occasionally deviates from party line to his credit.

      • Ecosse_Maidy 5.2.3
        15 February 2015 at 7:45 pm

        What are we going to do with The Height of Mediocrity Clown PG Trips?

        I agree with this post Anne and your previous one.
        On the one hand we are told that we can’t get rid of PGitis on the grounds of equality and because he lives just within the rules.
        In the meantime Beige Magpie, derails, denies, twists and we all have to live with it? I agree with free and open debate….yet why do we have to put up with the Beige Noise of PG? Why do i have too and others have to scroll past acres and acres of his nonsense and bile?

        I am pretty sure I am developing carpel tunnel to a degree and would love to sue the Dunedin Failure for causing it…yet I cant on my wages….

        My other concern…is are we just concerned with the amount of flak and posts from him and the debate that goes on or are we interested in the amount of people that lurk and are put off by his cak? Should it concern us how many people are put off from commenting by his non sensical rubbish? Also…..he stays just within the rules we are told….
        Yet I have seen others dispatch into the ether…..for apparently so much less…..

        On the whole I like TS and the insight, discussion etc etc….Yet PG is like one of those annoying pop up ads…..that in this case, the non combatant viewers, contributors have to put up with.

        Other sites would have banned him by now….not put up with him.
        If his I Love Myself NZ site is that good, banning him wont cause him that much hardship….Cant we cater for the many good people on this site and not for The Wannabe Failed Politician of Middle Beige Earth?

        Yours Had Enough…

        • Sacha 5.2.3.1
          15 February 2015 at 8:16 pm

          “Should it concern us how many people are put off from commenting by his non sensical rubbish? ”

          You’d think. And I’ll bet a disproportionate number of them are women, whose voices are light here at the best of times. Whereas we really do not need to hear the same opinion many times from one beige fool.

          “Other sites would have banned him by now”

          They have. For some reason this one’s moderators think he’s being hard-done-by when heaps of us complain about his behaviour.

        • left for deadshark 5.2.3.2
          15 February 2015 at 8:39 pm

          Thanks for this post today, Editor.Peter George has had the light well an truly cast on his antics, along with others.Tomorrow will be a new day,an hopefully you(that is commentators on this site) can learn to ignore this tedious git,just ignore him.Please.

    • Chooky 5.3
      15 February 2015 at 10:10 am

      +100…agree with Rob’s Post….imo it is an anarchist site …or true democracy site….even Posts you vehemently disagree with and find repelling…like Te Reo’s on war… you usually find others of a similar opinion….and if anything countering such Posts sharpens your arguments and wits….and this is what the Left needs….cogent sharp focused opposition to the Right’s arguments for their war agenda …this makes the site more interesting and compelling reading

      ….and the dialectic that goes on is truly participatory and revolutionary/ educational cf. Paulo Freire

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire

      http://infed.org/mobi/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/

      …we can’t afford complacency on the Left for the truth of our positions..they will be challenged and they might as well be thrashed out here….eg the erroneous, manipulative , even odious imo comparisons with sending NZ troops off to fight ISIS and the Spanish Civil War and the fight against fascism

      • greywarshark 5.3.1
        15 February 2015 at 11:28 am

        About PG dominating the discourse AGAIN. My old father enjoys being cheeky and direct. Sometimes he will say to visitors who stay too long “If I was at your place I would be going home now”. Could be good for PG. The commenters want it. He isn’t helpful to advancing informed discussion, seeming to criticise others without having any progressive thoughts and critiques of present systems himself. Perhaps the thoughtful ones can get traction? Others have some definite opinion, and they can be banned for a short time if repetitive. PG considers us as part of the animal kingdom, swine to spread his pearls before, a RW feature. I object to the approach.

        I think that in these fast-moving times, founding principles need to be reviewed to ensure that their application results in a satisfactory outcome. PG’s diatribes can’t be that.

        If PG can’t be ruled out, then the damage he does could be limited by threads being shortened. If wanting to continue on an opinion, a new point would have to be introduced with a new number If the subject was so interesting, then it would deserve being written as a post and submitted as such. That would stop the hijacking of Open Mike and make it easier to moderate posts and get wider discussion.

      • greywarshark 5.3.2
        15 February 2015 at 6:51 pm

        @ Chooky
        Paulo Freire – I haven’t seen or heard his name in a decade. Thanks for putting link up.

  6. NZSage 6
    15 February 2015 at 9:49 am

    Oddly enough I was think about this topic as I logged onto The Standard today.

    It does appear there is a co-ordinated attack on The Standard from the right wing. A clear sign that it’s getting up their noses! 🙂

    It is also irony and hypocrisy of the highest order when right wingers complain that an internet blog is under Labour control while MSM toe the National party line day in day out.

    An alternative view providing balance to right wing MSN is essential so long live The Standard!!

    • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1
      15 February 2015 at 10:01 am

      One of the first responses from the right to Dirty Politics was to start talking about The Standard a lot, usually in terms like “the leftwing equivalent of Whale Oil.”

      Of course it’s not true. The Standard isn’t run by one primary author who derives the vast majority of his income from one political party (unlike Kiwiblog) and The Standard’s authors aren’t part of a political party’s deliberate two-track strategy to appear all warm and fuzzy on the surface while ensuring smear attacks on their opponents get into the mainstream consciousness (unlike Whale Oil.)

      We didn’t even get a heads-up about the Sabin rumours so we could run a week’s worth of posts teasing that a resignation was coming …

      That’s what Dirty Politics means, and I really do hate to see people like Pete George above making excuses for it.

      • Pete George 6.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 10:09 am

        The Standard isn’t run by one primary author who derives the vast majority of his income from one political party (unlike Kiwiblog)

        From Farrar’s disclosure statement:

        Curia’s clients have included newspapers, political parties, Government Departments, corporates, lobby groups, local body candidates and non profits. Commercial and professional confidentiality prevents clients being listed without their permission, but a commercial relationship with Curia does not stop me from expressing my opinion on a client or issue should it be relevant.

        I can list clients that have on their own initiative revealed they use Curia. Curia never objects to such release – it is entirely up to clients. Clients who have used Curia publicly are the New Zealand National Party, The Parliamentary Office of the National Party Leader, Northern Advocate, the Wanganui Chronicle, Family First, Department of Internal Affairs, NZ Association of Convenience Stores, the Republican Movement, Hon John Banks, Exceltium, Olivier Lequeux, Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd, NZ Computer Society, Pfizer, the Bankers’ Association, Microsoft, Riverstone Holdings Ltd, Foodstuffs and The Nation.

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

        Can you substantiate your claim Stephanie?

        • mickysavage 6.1.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 10:16 am

          Two comments Pete:

          1. You did not address Stephanie’s comment about how the Standard does not smear people.

          2. It is well known that Farrar does National’s polling and the other clients are no doubt though National party links. Reinforces Stephanie’s comment don’t you think?

          • Pete George 6.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:27 am

            “and the other clients are no doubt though National party links”

            Can you substantiate that?

            I believe you’re on record as having done business with one Labour MP at least. That doesn’t mean ‘the other clients are no doubt’ through Labour party links, does it.

            “You did not address Stephanie’s comment about how the Standard does not smear people.”

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:31 am

              PG why do you insist that people need to provide you evidentiary proof of the bloody obvious? Your ludicrous condition that people need to have authoritarian type subpoena powers to get evidence to satisfy your silly requirements is nothing more than you discussion road blocking.

            • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1.2
              15 February 2015 at 10:48 am

              Pete the amount I have been paid directly or indirectly for blogging in the Standard is exactly precisely $0.

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 10:25 am

          “Can you substantiate your claim Stephanie?”

          Page 105-106 of Dirty Politics, Pete.

          • Pete George 6.1.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 10:30 am

            That’s not proof. Hager’s claims there are non-specific and seem biased.

            See DPF’s disclosure above.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 10:32 am

              Sorry mate Hager has 1000x your credibility, get used to it.

            • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2.1.2
              15 February 2015 at 10:41 am

              Fuck, was editing the comment and it timed out, so lost my other reference.

              Here’s what Hager says:
              “He then lists 16 of the organisations for which he has done polling, without clarifying that he has worked only once or occasionally for 15 of them, through all the years, and has worked for one, the National Party, week after week, year after year since 2004”. The reference note at the back of the book says “Ibid”, not sure what that means.

              Then there is John Key’s victory speech, in the excitement of winning the 2014 election, where he makes a special thanks to Farrar:
              “…whom I rang night after night, even though I was told not to, just to check. I didn’t tell Libby all that. But yeah, I know I shouldn’t have, but anyway. Whatever. It was our little secret.”

              http://www.thepaepae.com/dirty-politics-john-key-confesses-to-secret-relationship-with-campaign-worker/35360/

              Statement at 10 minutes 10 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZ9Maefm4Q

              • Sacha …
                15 February 2015 at 10:46 am

                Ibid means same as the immediately previous reference. Fancy for ‘ditto’. 🙂

              • weka …
                15 February 2015 at 10:50 am

                ibid means Hager already cited the source. In this case it refers to the next citation up,

                “32 David Farrar, ‘Disclosure Statement’, Kiwiblog, downloaded 27 June 2014.”

                • Lanthanide …
                  15 February 2015 at 12:06 pm

                  Right, so that’s an irrelevant reference in this case, then.

                  He’s put the reference right after he ‘explains’ the ‘truth’ behind Kiwiblog’s disclosure statement, with the disclosure statement itself as the reference. So Hager has no actual reference for his statements.

                  • lprent …
                    15 February 2015 at 12:55 pm

                    Of course that could simply be because David Farrar has never disclosed anything about Curia’s clients. The statement by Hager is quite simple and easily refutable by Farrar.

                    If it wasn’t true then it is quite actionable under defamation law. But I can’t see any action by either David Farrar or Curia in the last 6 months since the book was published. Nor have I seen anything where David Farrar denies that Curia’s only significiant client(s) out of the 16 ‘disclosed’ has either been the National party or government departments that the National party politicians have control on.

                    The only possible conclusion in my view, is that David Farrar is exactly what he appears to be – completely controlled and run by National as their own paid for and vaguely respectable blogger. They control the source of his income, are in regular contact with him, and he is in fact their pet poodle.

                    Cameron Slater at Whaleoil just had a more indirect National party subsidy programme.

                    The $262 per month that this site currently costs is paid for by donations and topped up by me when required. I maintain the equipment as part of my own development setup. I’ll be removing the advertising when I have time to rejig the theme. In the past it was paid for either by me, other activists, donations, or advertising via Scoop.

                    The Daily Blog appears to have a much larger financial footprint paid for by contributions from unions, advertising, and there is a strong reek that some money probably dropped over from the deluge of cash that was Internet Mana.

                    There is a pretty clear difference between these blogs. Mostly you just have to follow the money.

                    • wtl …
                      15 February 2015 at 12:59 pm

                      I think Hager also had a source who was someone who worked for Farrar, who would have been privy to at least some information about Curia’s clients (for example, based on the kind of polling questions asked).

                    • lprent []
                      15 February 2015 at 2:32 pm

                      Yes at least one. The one that David Farrar got so publically wound up about when he realised that some of the questions from his politically dirty push polling had been leaked.

                      I suspect that was as much about distracting from what other information that Hager had gathered about him as anything else.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      15 February 2015 at 4:44 pm

                      Hager refers to several Curia employees who told him about the company’s operations, including that for its first few years of operations it was run directly out of National Party headquarters, and that in the 2008 election year Curia did pretty much nothing *but* National Party polling.

              • Tracey …
                15 February 2015 at 7:38 pm

                I cant find pg response to this?

            • Skinny 6.1.1.2.1.3
              15 February 2015 at 11:08 am

              Pete rather than accusing the Standard of being a paid Labour Party pump and dump forum why don’t you attack the Daily Blog for being funded by Labour affiliates?

              • weka …
                15 February 2015 at 11:29 am

                I’m guessing TDB is one of the places he is not allowed to go anymore.

              • Pete George …
                15 February 2015 at 1:22 pm

                Skinny:
                a) I haven’t accused the Standard of being a paid Labour Party pump and dump forum
                b) I’ve discussed out TDB being funded by Labour affiliates before, and I’ve discussed Bradbury not disclosing that he’s been paid by political organisations that he has promoted in his posts.

                • Skinny …
                  15 February 2015 at 1:57 pm

                  The amount of funding Bradbury ‘gets’ would be nothing on Hoskings 50 k from SkyCity, loose change in the pocket.

                  Speaking of SkyCity looks like Nationals paid blogger DF’s polling is complete . Joyce is about to go into damage control by reopening the tender process, or more likely have reached a confidential agreement with them, appearing like the taxpayer won’t be stumping up any money, which of course is bullshit.

                • lprent …
                  15 February 2015 at 2:22 pm

                  Huh? Unions, even affiliated unions, have a life and responsibilities outside of the NZLP. You can tell when you are a delegate for the NZLP because of the support from the unions for things that benefit their members. What are you? A simpleton?

                  Not to mention that I think the amounts that TDB gets from unions are relatively trivial. From what I understand they come more from non-affiliated unions than affiliated, and come because TDB asked for them.

                  We would probably get a good response if we asked for support from various left wing bodies. However we prefer to not have any associations with anyone (apart from our advertising services from scoop). This minimizes the disclosures we have to make and means that we don’t have to weasel word it as David Farrar does, or outright lie the way Cameron Slater did.

                  Even that I’d prefer to get rid of by continuously cost cutting.

            • Naturesong 6.1.1.2.1.4
              15 February 2015 at 1:48 pm

              The authenticy of the material in Hagars book was confirmed when Slater took the newspapers to court.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.1.3
          15 February 2015 at 10:42 am

          Hager, N. Dirty Politics pp 105-106.

          When [Farrar] comes to the subject of who he works for, he is suddenly imprecise: ‘Curia’s clients have included newspapers, political parties, Government Departments, corporates, lobby groups, local body candidates and non profits.’ Notice newspapers come before political parties, although he has done vastly more polling work for one political party than for any newspapers. He then lists 16 of the organisations for which he has done polling, without clarifying that he has worked only once or occasionally for 15 of them, through all the years, and has worked for one, the National Party, week after week, year after year since 2004. It also says nothing about Farrar organising party canvassing work. Few readers would guess that Farrar is the chief pollster of the National Party and that the rest of the disclosure is mostly padding and camouflage.

      • ankerawshark 6.1.2
        15 February 2015 at 10:56 am

        Stephanie Rogers 100+

  7. marty mars 7
    15 February 2015 at 9:58 am

    Thanks for this r0b

    I think the way The Standard works can give the left hope and a model for working together in shared goals whilst accepting differences (even big ones).

    Too often our opponents push the line that the left cannot work together but the opposite is true – we do it all the time and that is our strength.

    As for the gnat spinners who come on here to disrupt and disturb us – yes it can be fun to expose their lies and disinformation but for me I’d much rather be debating and talking with like minded people and concentrating on how to get what we want.

    • tc 7.1
      15 February 2015 at 10:34 am

      Agreed and here yet again is PG running the DP spin and shonky john angle of not reading DP yet full of denials about its assertions which are all backed up and verified by hager.

      Hes like a child who has grasped enough logic and language for a chat but not matured to the point they see the holes and contradictions clinging to a few disproven themes that dont address the points he asked to respond to then sticking his fingers in the ears going la la la.

      TS threatens the flow of neo lib spin so well done everyone, PG’s continual wah wah is evidence of that and a great example of tolerance you never see from the right.

  8. Cancerman 8
    15 February 2015 at 9:58 am

    What are the Standard link and associations with the Labour Party though cause that is the actual critiscism.

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9
    15 February 2015 at 10:02 am

    If you ask me, Pat and Martyn have voice of the labour movement envy, Farrar and Slater’s motivation is obvious, and Pete George has delusions of relevance.

    • adam 9.1
      15 February 2015 at 10:51 am

      Pete is just putz gazing. Farrar and Slater are Tory scum. Martyn is a shit – but a likeable one. And Pat, well Pat, seems to be so ideologically rigid at this point, that he will cut off his nose despite his face.

      There are times when ideology is a useful pointer – and then there are times you just sound like the Tory scum, your suppose to oppose.

    • tc 9.2
      15 February 2015 at 10:57 am

      Petey looks after the disengagement aspect by derailing and muddying.

      A DP tactic to reduce folks participation in the excellent discourse presented by TS’s intelligent authors who do it without remuneration because they care about NZ and the sellout occuring under the likes of Dunne etc.

  10. sean kearney 10
    15 February 2015 at 10:37 am

    The MSM in NZ are as bent as a dogs hind leg. Really all that leaves are sights like The Standard. Keep up the good work and ignore the morons. We all know they are full of shit.

  11. Sacha 11
    15 February 2015 at 10:52 am

    And bingo, yet another thread is half PG tips. You guys really need to sort this out.

    • tc 11.1
      15 February 2015 at 11:17 am

      Scroll over him sacha, think of it like being at a party full of tax accountants that standout so are easily avoided.

      I saw the banner from anthony with teaser and thought that PG will be all over it defending his lonely corner, so predictable is the beige one and well described by LP above.

      Pointing to DPFs disclosure as proof thats farking priceless comedy.

      • Sacha 11.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 12:40 pm

        “Scroll over him”

        Someone created a Greasemonkey script for Public Address that enables hiding all comments by anyone you want to avoid. Hardly ever needed there, but something similar here for disruptors who moderators refuse to deal with would be handy. No scrolling needed.

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 1:04 pm

          Except someone like PG who can take over a whole thread essentially wrecks the thread for people that want to talk on topic but are now rendering all his comments invisible. When half the comments are replies to things you can’t see, it becomes pointless to be in the conversaion (I speak from experience in those long threads where I am auto-scrolling past phil’s illegible comments and mostly have to ignore all the replies to him as well).

    • lprent 11.2
      15 February 2015 at 11:26 am

      Apart from his diversion smear and his continued inability to read or understand our about and policy, it is more that Pete George appears to have obsessive need to feel he is a victim. That isn’t against policy, it just appears to be a sign of an inadequate and unconfident personality.

      If I and other sysops banned people for that and other personality flaws then there would be a semi transparent and rather colourless beige internet.

      • greywarshark 11.2.1
        15 February 2015 at 11:56 am

        TS showing charity to PG. Is this the point of having the blog or is it to have lively discussion on important political matters? Can it be successful also being a convalescent home for personalities bruised by the world and needing personal therapy? I try to be kind myself but have found that many can’t profit from such action.

        • Sacha 11.2.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 12:44 pm

          If the purpose of the site is actually therapy rather than productive conversation then that doesn’t seem to be working either. The widespread response to the beige badger across many blogs suggests it’s not our problem, it’s his.

          Destroying a discussion space by tolerating one person whose behaviour reduces other people’s willingness to contribute seems too close to some of the principled silliness of the left over the last 6 years that has kept this government in power.

          • English Breakfast 11.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 1:09 pm

            It seems you equate ‘principled silliness’ with not shutting down debate. Your attitudes are more worthy of the soviet union that a modern democratic discourse.

            • Sacha 11.2.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 1:47 pm

              Your understanding of collective behaviour is clear enough from previous comments.

              • English Breakfast …
                16 February 2015 at 9:58 am

                What has ‘collective behaviour’ got to do with it? Nothing. This is a blog that provides and solicits personal opinion. If you want to live by ‘group think’ I can suggest a nice hotel in North Korea.

            • greywarshark 11.2.1.1.1.2
              16 February 2015 at 10:23 am

              E Breakfast
              Advise and describe which “modern democratic discourse” you refer to please. With links to an example. One to use as a marker for quality.

              I think that merely throwing that term around implying that anything modern must be good, anything that can be called democratic must be of worth, and discourse being necessarily a useful argument rather than likely angry dissenting voices is a doubtful term more hopeful than real. We all live in hope though.

        • lprent 11.2.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 1:01 pm

          Oh, there is no real intent for it to be kind. Why would you think that?

          Having PG blathering away on his own blog wouldn’t help any of us. He’d just carry on the fantasyland ideas about his own omnipotence while bagging the entire cruel world that failed to listen to his ideas. All searchable via the google about the state of our country. Do you really want such a lot of foolish whining to be visible without refutation?

          Think about how much effort he instead wastes on decrying this site and others on this site, where he perforce has to link to and quote the opinions that are different. Face it his whining here is a small cost to pay for his searchable whining elsewhere.

          • Pete George 11.2.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 1:36 pm

            Funny.

            “Face it his whining here” is fairly beige compared to the cacophony of screeching going on here.

            If the Labour left can’t handle a bit of bland comment from an insignificant nobody I’m not sure it’s ready to take over the country yet.

            • weka 11.2.1.2.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 1:41 pm

              “a bit of bland comment” = sustained and knowing* trolebaiting, lying, derailing, and perverse entrenchment in the face of contempt.

              *and often disingenous, as evidenced by the comment above.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.2.1.2
              15 February 2015 at 1:43 pm

              The Labour left, eh. You must want a ban quite badly.

            • felix 11.2.1.2.1.3
              15 February 2015 at 7:13 pm

              I find Pete’s use of the use of the phrase “take over the country” both disturbing and revealing.

              Labour can govern when enough voters wish it so. No “take over” required.

              Mind you Pete has always had some fundamental problems with democracy. He’ll deny it now, but he spent months on end bleating about how much better the system would work if everyone in parliament would just support the biggest party instead of wasting time opposing things.

              • Pete George …
                15 February 2015 at 7:22 pm

                That’s a lame attempt at trying to get away with making things up felix, even by your standards.

                You seem to have some fundamental problems with your habit of lying.

              • greywarshark …
                16 February 2015 at 10:32 am

                That reminds me of my very nice good-living brother in law who liked an ACT suggestion that the country could be run by nine experienced people. Probably they thought that the country just needed more efficiency in politics and decision-making (cf recent quote from Aldous Huxley on the TS about this).

                Simple really. Why bother to have a contest of ideas when one side obviously knows best about everything important, and decides of course, on what is and isn’t. And truly that could be said by either Left or Right.

          • marty mars 11.2.1.2.2
            15 February 2015 at 3:43 pm

            “Do you really want such a lot of foolish whining to be visible without refutation?”

            So wise that. I learn a lot from others when they disassemble pete’s comments and some of those comments, like lprent’s one I’m quoting, are a big part of why I love this site.

            • Sacha 11.2.1.2.2.1
              15 February 2015 at 3:59 pm

              What, you seriously haven’t heard the same gambit from him enough times already? Maybe some of us have a lower boredom threshold.

              • marty mars …
                15 February 2015 at 4:35 pm

                Yes Sacha I have – how many sites have gone the other way and banned or whatevered him. Personally I have my issues with pete and I like it when he isn’t around. I put up with the inconvenience of having to scroll a bit and follow the arguments around his comments as a ready price I’m willing and pleased to pay for the ability to come and comment here. His aim is to disrupt and I’m fucked if I’ll let the likes of him win 🙂

                • Pete George …
                  15 February 2015 at 5:30 pm

                  Win what? An odd attitude. My aim isn’t to disrupt, it’s the persistent swarm of numpties who do most of that.

                  Some here including you at times seem to have the aim of trying to disrupt anything I do but you do more to defeat yourselves. If I disappeared you’d find others to be intolerant of and abusive towards (as happens anyway). Is it fulfilling fulminating in futile frenzy? Hard to see what you think you’ll achieve.

                  • marty mars …
                    15 February 2015 at 5:40 pm

                    ” My aim isn’t to disrupt”

                    Come on pete – that isn’t true all he time and you know it.

                    • Pete George …
                      15 February 2015 at 5:50 pm

                      Of course I’m aware some of my comments could end up being disruptive but that’s not my intent.

                      You could pretty much claim any comment on a political blog is disruptive because there’s sure to be people who strongly disagree.

                      Most of the disruption comes from people who choose to attack the messenger rather than debate the issues. There’s little to be gained from that and those on the offensive often just look offensive.

                      What none of us know is what most people think, because most people don’t say, they just observe.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 February 2015 at 6:00 pm

                      “Most of the disruption comes from people who choose to attack the messenger”

                      You never seem to get the ‘why’ though, over all the threads, a lot of the bloggs even, you never seem to get the why – it doesn’t happen for other people pete – do you even notice that?

                    • Pete George …
                      15 February 2015 at 6:08 pm

                      It happens to plenty of people mm, don’t you notice that? I just happen to persevere more. Most simply leave and go somewhere where they feel welcome, which rules out most political blogs.

                      I first came to The Standard thinking it could be a good place to discuss things like a Labour rebuild and recovery. Six years later Labour might finally be starting to turn things around and the main aim here still seems to be to burn off any alternative opinions.

                      Lack of political engagement and voting are major issues across the spectrum. I don’t blame many people from wanting nothing to do with our political culture.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 February 2015 at 6:09 pm

                      There are lots of clues: UF’s showing in Dunedin, the way politicheck crashed and burned. The racism at Yawns, the fact that your posts are unwelcome everywhere.

                      All these are pointers to the monumental mountain of contempt your behaviour elicits.

                      You can pretend there’s a silent majority who agree with you, if you want to look pathetic as well as mendacious. It won’t fool anyone though.

                      Now run along and whine about how mean I am, just don’t address anything in the first paragraph, pretend none of that exists. I’m sure there are some people who don’t despise you yet.

                    • Pete George …
                      15 February 2015 at 6:37 pm

                      OAB making things up again. I’m not pretending any majority agrees with me. But going by the numbers of links from here and elsewhere, and the fact that MPs and journalists ‘like’ and retweet and that posts are often linked to from other media and I’m sometimes quoted then I’m fairly confident that not everyone hates me.

                      Surprising to see you trying to have a popularity pissing contest. I don’t see anything of you outside of TS, and you’re not exactly universally respected or loved here are you?

                      It’s easy to write posts that will pander to a particular audience. But what would be the point of that?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 February 2015 at 6:47 pm

                      If OAB was meant to be popular, I’d give him different lines.

                      You see plenty of my comments outside The Standard, because you plagiarise them at Yawns.

                      Which do you think elicits more contempt? You weasel words or your racism. I think it’s your racism, and it’s a close call.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      15 February 2015 at 7:07 pm

                      “But going by the numbers of links from here and elsewhere, and the fact that MPs and journalists ‘like’ and retweet…”

                      https://twitter.com/PeteDGeorge

                      Indeed, look at all those RTs.

                      Other than that, I assume you talking about how Bryce puts you in his roundups.

                      Whoop! Bryce picks deliberately from all over the spectrum, and you’re it for ‘the centre’. So, yeah, it’s tokenism more than anything.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      15 February 2015 at 7:57 pm

                      Twitter must be broken Pete, I’ve been scrolling yonks and it’s showing you as getting fuck all RTs mate.

                      What’s the story? You implied you got a reasonable number of RTs from pollies and journos, I’ve seen a very few, mostly when you say something nice or quote someone they might RT it, but that’;s just promotional shit.

                      What’s going on here soc media guru? Is the machine not showing the love you get? Or were you just lying about it?

                    • felix …
                      16 February 2015 at 8:31 am

                      But Pb there’s also “the numbers of links from here and elsewhere” to consider.

                      I’m sure he wasn’t making that up too…

                • greywarshark …
                  15 February 2015 at 6:43 pm

                  If PG is a barrier to go around then perhaps we can call on some workmen to do the heavy lifting and shift the barrier. Voila a visible pathway, though sometimes akin to Fijian firewalking. But at least straight.

  12. vto 12
    15 February 2015 at 11:14 am

    The formula at TS is a good one that has now proved itself over a long period of time. Witless fools don’t last, highlighting their simply wrong politics and lack of brains. Those who ate their weetbix as a child and grew a brain can see what TS is, how it operates and the credibility and acknowledgment that flows therefrom…

    keep it up lprent and others – indestructible

  13. fisiani 13
    15 February 2015 at 11:25 am

    Many of the postings here would make the Labour Party wince. I do not believe they are endorsed by the Labour Party.They are so extreme and far Left that they appear to primarily fill the role of self pleasuring that the far Left obviously require.
    Most politicos check out the hot topics on Kiwiblog on a daily basis and may occasionally check out a scoop on Whale Oil. The Standard has failed to rise to this level of political importance. Why would anyone serious want to read yet another pathetic diatribe trying to smear John Key? What thrill do commenters get from constantly childishly and anally corrupting my noble African handle? Do they get their jollies?
    Overall C+ Could do better.

    • vto 13.1
      15 February 2015 at 11:31 am

      you still sucking key’s cock fisiani?

      [Stephanie: Okay, that’s unnecessary. fisiani is an insincere shit-stirrer but we don’t need to descend to homophobic personal abuse.]

      • vto 13.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 11:43 am

        Ok. I hadn’t actually intended any homophobia – it seemed quite natural.. McFlock made a very funny reference to the commenter and this activity quite recently which came to mind.

        Talking about the truth of the standard…. fisiani comes on here, fires around total bullshit to stir and then never answers to any replies it gets. To me that seems the definition of a troil. I don’t like the turd. At all. How does this particular commenter not get banned for trol1 activity?

        • Stephanie Rodgers 13.1.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 11:46 am

          There’s a lot of debate amongst the authors as to what constitutes bannable comments, as lprent has discussed on the topic of Pete George’s disruption. I tend to take a more stringent view but then I’m also the one who most frequently gets accused of being “the thought police”, so there you go.

          • lprent 13.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2015 at 1:26 pm

            There always is debate.

            The site started with an avowed intention from the authors at the time that they wouldn’t want to ban anyone and that ‘civilised’ debate would ensue if we simply treated everyone with respect.

            I was a dissenting voice, however I also knew what the result was going to be from similar past attempts like usenet and BBSes. This attitude lasted about as long as similar naive fantasies did in places like Haight-Ashbury in the late 60s – a spring and summer from August 2007 to February 2008.

            Then we had right-wing trolls coming in with very organised attempts to disrupt and destroy this site prior to the 2008 election. They did it by ladling out their Crosby Textor manufactured lying myths, legends, and memes. They attempted to drown out any argument with vast amounts of personal abuse and repetition.

            So we put in a policy to curb Slaters and Farrar’s minions. That was a long and arduous battle of wills between moderators and disruptive trolls. The basis of the policies we have today were laid down during that battle to distinguish between those who had points to make incoherent and unthought out as the were, and those who were just being deliberately disruptive.

            And in this case Pete George has a right to rebut and explain the statements made about him in the post. He winds up with more moderator leniency that he’d usually get. However instead he gets more attention querying is inept attempts to divert and bullshit his way around the allegations made in the post. None of which he attempted to address yet..

            This isn’t The Daily Blog here. We don’t write posts disparaging others and then make their comments disappear because we don’t like that they disagree. Such a Stalin era viewpoint by Bomber. Thank god he doesn’t have Siberia concentration camps available to him, because looking at how he operates, I’m sure that he would use it if he could.

            The exception to that are the people who are already banned for their previous bad behaviour like the numpty from Mana Pat O’Dea – he can whine at The Daily Blog. If he didn’t have that outlet on the net, I’d have to consider allowing him to place to respond here.

        • weka 13.1.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 11:52 am

          “How does this particular commenter not get banned for trol1 activity?”

          As I understand it, you can say what you want as long as you are making political comment. Which fisi was. Yes his posts are often intentionally inflammatory, but the moderators curb the worst of that, and most people just ignore him. I wouldn’t call him a trole so much as a flamer. Troling would have more strategy and effort going into it over time.

        • Lanthanide 13.1.1.3
          15 February 2015 at 12:07 pm

          Actually he recently replied to my comments. But he replied with more distorted reality shit where grey is actually white, no matter how dark it is.

        • English Breakfast 13.1.1.4
          15 February 2015 at 1:07 pm

          As a general observation, The Standard allows far more latitude than The Daily Blog when it comes to opposing viewpoints, and it seems to me that is a healthy attitude. Labelling someone a ‘troll’ or worse simply because you disagree with them is common at the Daily Blog; let’s not encourage the same behaviour here.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.4.1
            15 February 2015 at 1:14 pm

            One of the problems the evidence based community has with the right is that you find the argumentum ad nauseam so compelling, and this in turn leads to a chorous of parrots repeating tired zombie arguments.

            It’s boring, and rude.

            • English Breakfast 13.1.1.4.1.1
              16 February 2015 at 10:03 am

              The problem with that is that what you label ‘argumentum ad nauseam’ is most likely simply robust debate. Debate you don’t seem to welcome. I wonder why?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 February 2015 at 10:09 am

                Otherwise known as the Bellman fallacy – what I tell you three times is true – a consequence of the difficulty people have distinguishing between truth and familiarity.

                Right wing self-attribution bias, for example, or climate denial, or Objectivism.

        • Naki man 13.1.1.5
          15 February 2015 at 8:16 pm

          VTO some people might wonder how you don’t get banned for pointless personal attacks. Most of what Fasiani says is true.
          Even lefties get called trool if they have a different point of view.

          • greywarshark 13.1.1.5.1
            16 February 2015 at 9:46 am

            What I understand about the type of discussion that is wanted by TS commenters is mainly to air new ideas or criticism and get some balancing criticism and discussion for consideration. What is not wanted is just demolishing or deriding them.

            That’s different than being “called trool if they have a different point of view”.
            Just disagreeing and pressing for retaining an old status quo, or new but unsatisfactory approaches, because they suit the individual commenter doesn’t do it. And it is particularly time-wasting if this is accompanied by a superior attitude of rightness pressing for more formality of presentation rather than consideration about the idea, methods and results of change.

            We want to discuss what can be improved in our society, what can be done better, what is essential to foster, maintain, control or advance aspects of our culture for good results for us all. And to prepare now for a hard time adapting to limited fossil fuels and climate change.

            This is not a chat room. This is not an echo chamber for self-satisfied slogan
            repeaters. You need eventually to think about the subject. It is not just a place to moan about and vilify politicians and leaders, though identifying faults is important. Ultimately it is to push for improvement in behaviour, personnel, systems etc where they fail to deliver good outcomes for the country.

        • McFlock 13.1.1.6
          16 February 2015 at 12:10 pm

          To be fair, I was sailing pretty close to the wind with that one (and got a warning – so obviously I started my own blog on which to write 1500-word posts about how my freedom of speech had been violated, lol).

          Glad to know you liked it though 🙂

      • greywarshark 13.1.2
        15 February 2015 at 11:45 am

        @ vto
        I don’t know why we have to PC everything. You know that was dirty, vulgar, low-down abuse so call yourself out on that basis. You do much better than this, don’t drop The Standard.

      • joe90 13.1.3
        15 February 2015 at 11:51 am

        Nah, he’s a full moon motor boater.

    • sabine 13.2
      15 February 2015 at 11:39 am

      Shorter Fisiani: OMG where are my pearls…. what else could I clutch if not my pearls.

    • Skinny 13.3
      15 February 2015 at 12:14 pm

      Plently of flakey Key fans sitting in cafes round the country reading this mornings NZH opinion article by Rodders Hide.

      They will be scratching there heads thinking this looks shady, just like the SkyCity mucked up deal, hmm they say the wheels fall off a third term Government, I like that Mr Little certainly seem more trustworthy than John Key.

      You set your German Shepherd on anyone since ya migrated over from SA, you know just like back home ‘the good olé days’.

      Let us all know fisiani when and where your going away party is, when ya get your residency and then move to OZ.

      • Tracey 13.3.1
        15 February 2015 at 8:09 pm

        Does Rodders have an actual job, a real world one yet?

        • Skinny 13.3.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 8:52 pm

          Yes he is being employed by Media Works to join another new, old, recruit Paul Henry on radio live, they will be joining other National shills Plunket and Garner. Expect a 50 k ambassador role to be creating by SkyCity for the perk busting Hide.

    • stever 13.4
      15 February 2015 at 6:11 pm

      “Most politicos check out the hot topics on Kiwiblog on a daily basis and may occasionally check out a scoop on Whale Oil. ”

      You do know why all those “hot topics” appear there, don’t you?

      And why they, or similar topics, don’t appear here?

    • Tracey 13.5
      15 February 2015 at 8:07 pm

      what is your definition of a politico, and can you post your evidence that most of them check out the hot topics on KB every day?

  14. swordfish 14
    15 February 2015 at 11:36 am

    What thrill do commenters get…..

    Cheers for that, Fisticuffs. But ya know, with you, the thrill has gone, it’s gone away from me…..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXsusJ787sU

  15. sabine 15
    15 February 2015 at 11:38 am

    hmmm

    we could just donate a dollar or two every time PG or any of the other tedious once post to the Labour Party, I hear they are short of funds.

    I wonder how long it would take for these mopers to disapear when instead of answering them peeps would just post up the amount they have dontated to Phil Twyfords campaing to run a full add or maybe the Greens, or maybe Greenpeace, or maybe Seashepards etc etc.

    so many good causes that need money….come on PG post to your harts content you boring old twit.

  16. The Murphey 16
    15 February 2015 at 11:50 am

    Truth is mystical entity in the sense that human beings believe they are able to recite it which of course we cannot

    Truth exists in a universal realm only and is impossible to replicate from human thoughts and through human language

    • gsays 16.1
      15 February 2015 at 7:09 pm

      hi murphey,
      “Truth exists in a universal realm only and is impossible to replicate from human thoughts and through human language”

      spot on.
      truth is that which never changes.
      in my experience, it is only in experience that it exisits.
      however if we operate at the level of truth, then nothing else matters and things take care of themselves.

      • The Murphey 16.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 7:42 pm

        Indeed ‘Truth’ can only exist at the moment a given event or situation occurs be it temporal ethereal or otherwise and it remains perpetually

        That humanity has become wrapped up in language laws and frameworks of various markings which are sold as being truth only serves to illustrate the base level we are at as a species

        We have a long journey ahead should we not extinct ourselves

  17. tricledrown 17
    15 February 2015 at 11:51 am

    Fisianil a C+ from you thats like a huge compliment.
    Thats why you like posting here.
    As for far left policy their is a wide and varying opinion here on the standard.
    Not just far left.
    Thats you Fishy business trying to pigeon hole and tar every one here with the same brush.
    Fisianis butt kisser’s like you are pathetically boring.
    If you could put up rational factual arguments instead of obsessively stalking because you have an unhealthy crush on the PM.

  18. whateva next? 18
    15 February 2015 at 12:40 pm

    National and their masters, CT, have successfully shifted the fulcrum to the right, so that “muddle nuzilland” has akshully become a right wing, market driven capitalist culture.
    The result is ANYONE remotely left of this is grouped as “far left unionists”, and even implying that unions are a srurge on society, rather than a vital part to ensure we do not return to the 1940’s when workers were treated as expendable slaves.
    control of infrastructure, media, education etc ensures that right wing values have re-set societal values to become money, competition and acquisition.

    • freedom 18.1
      15 February 2015 at 1:04 pm

      ” to ensure we do not return to the 1940’s when workers were treated as expendable slaves”

      a rose by any other name ….. it’s 2015 and we have Zero Hour contracts 🙁

  19. coaster 19
    15 February 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Ive only started reading and posting here since a wee while before the last election, so im very new to here. Years ago i used to regularily comment on red alert, i can remember there being encouragment to move over to a relatively new site called the standard. This could be where the idea came from that the standard was a labour site, the red colour doesnt help either. From my very limited experience on here, i would say more people favour the greens than labour, but thats not based on anything other than gut feelings.

    I think pete goerge is correct that farrah and slater arnt part of national, but i would say its pretty clear that there beleifs and agendas line up with national a little too much to be coincidence, and therre clearly is back channel regular communication.

    i think the standard is a great place, and its very obvious that although most commenters here are on the left, the opinions on a huge range of topics vary wildly.
    this is very different to the right where everyone must follow line and sing from the same songsheet or else, right up to the point where they can advance themselves up the line by destroying people in front of them.

    • Sacha 19.1
      15 February 2015 at 3:36 pm

      “farrah and slater arnt part of national”

      Nonsense. They’ve both been very active party members for years. Others above have described Farrar’s cosy long-standing role as the party’s pollster and advisor.

      • Pete George 19.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 5:16 pm

        Slater has said he’s not a member of National and I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt it. I would expect the party are happy with that. He’s been very critical of the party president and there’s a number of MPs he doesn’t like and/or campaigns against, notably Bill English. He has more loyalty to Collins than to Key.

        Are you associated in any way with any party Sacha?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.2
          15 February 2015 at 6:33 pm

          🙄

          There’s no “reason to doubt” Cameron Slater’s word. Let’s just pause for a moment and reflect on what that comment says about Pete George.

          It says nothing whatsoever about Cameron Slater.

          • Tracey 19.1.1.2.1
            15 February 2015 at 8:12 pm

            Didnt a recent enquiry doubt Slater’s word and said he embellished his comments to mis reflect what Collins said? That amounts to doubting his word.

        • Sacha 19.1.1.3
          15 February 2015 at 7:09 pm

          Ask Slater when he stopped being a member.

          • Pete George 19.1.1.3.1
            15 February 2015 at 7:18 pm

            Why don’t you? You’re the one who started making claims about his supposed membership. Shouldn’t you know about what you claim?

            • Sacha 19.1.1.3.1.1
              15 February 2015 at 7:22 pm

              Most of us do, mate. Credulous numpties on the other hand give regular beigefolk a bad name.

              • Pete George …
                15 February 2015 at 7:29 pm

                You seem to have made things up this time. Doesn’t do much for your credibility.

                Why don’t you start your own blog? Then you could ban everyone you don’t like without having to bother mods on other blogs.

                • Sacha …
                  15 February 2015 at 7:38 pm

                  Pete, your lack of ability to deploy logic really is legendary. Slater saying he is not a party member now does not prove anything about his former status – which is well known and I do not need to ‘prove’ it to your satisfaction. How about you stop being quite so much of a useful idiot.

                  When someone turns up at party events, helps out with party work and takes instructions and blog content from party leaders and Ministers, what does that make them? No, don’t answer, you’re clearly incapable of understanding reason and I’m really not interested in whatever feeble gambit you’ll try out this time. Surely there’s a tiddlywinks game somewhere calling out for an umpire?

                  • Pete George …
                    15 February 2015 at 7:44 pm

                    ” Slater saying he is not a member now does not prove anything about his former status – which is well known and I do not need to ‘prove’ it to your satisfaction.”

                    So you don’t know. Maybe it isn’t so well known. His long standing connections with National via his family are well known but you made a specific claim.

                    • te reo putake …
                      15 February 2015 at 8:00 pm

                      Pete, Slater’s links, familial and financial, are undisputed. Move on.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 February 2015 at 1:37 pm

                      The national party voter/supporter strikes again…

                      Slater is intimately connected with the nats, and frequently regurgitates their spin, but nobody here has seen a currently-valid member ship certificate for him so that’s worthy of doggedly gnawing the technicality over four seperate comments.

                      Puts me in mind of a Futurama line:

                      Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct — the best kind of correct. I hereby promote you to grade 37.

                      I reckon you’re a grade 7 blue-tinged thread-puller, pete…

        • Stuart Munro 19.1.1.4
          15 February 2015 at 7:57 pm

          To be a subscribing member, and to be part of something, need not necessarily be the same thing. WO was certainly part of the Key smear machine. You can chop logic better than this PG.

        • Tracey 19.1.1.5
          15 February 2015 at 8:11 pm

          and got alot of his “scoops” and stroylines from a Minister int he Nat Govt (and nat party member) and even had a former Nat write an article which he put his name to (Rich).ets

    • sabine 19.2
      15 February 2015 at 4:25 pm

      so the pm when not wearing his pm hat is texting the fat one, and after elections is calling the bold one…but they are not linked at all to the party that the pm when wearing his pm or polititians hat is representing?
      okaithxbai

    • Colonial Rawshark 19.3
      15 February 2015 at 6:14 pm

      This could be where the idea came from that the standard was a labour site, the red colour doesnt help either.

      What red colour on The Standard are you referring to?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 19.4
      15 February 2015 at 6:52 pm

      Years ago i used to regularily comment on red alert, i can remember there being encouragment to move over to a relatively new site called the standard.

      Given that Red Alert was founded in May 2009 and The Standard was founded in November 2007, this doesn’t ring very true.

      • Murray Rawshark 19.4.1
        15 February 2015 at 10:09 pm

        To me, what you’ve just written shows up a real problem with the left in general, and the academic left in particular. You have just called coaster a liar and I don’t know if you realise it. Great way to put people off, and something I think we should be more careful about.

        • greywarshark 19.4.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 10:18 pm

          Here is a song for the left – vibrant and one we’ll have to adopt perhaps.
          Captain and Tenille – and she is lovely.
          Love will keep us together.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 19.4.1.2
          16 February 2015 at 10:05 am

          Unfortunately there was no way to highlight the obvious factual issues with coaster’s response without that implication. I went for the softest phrasing I could think of. If coaster misremembered, or just hadn’t heard of The Standard before reading Red Alert, those would be understandable explanations.

          But barring any elaboration from coaster, you can take your snide “academic left” “don’t know if you realised what you’re saying” bullshit and snort it.

          • Murray Rawshark 19.4.1.2.1
            16 February 2015 at 10:17 am

            Yeah, the sort of reply I expected. Much more of this, and I’ll be banning myself. I have a real problem with precious people.

  20. reason 20
    15 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

    I’d ban Pete George for being pig ignorant ( willful ).

    He then uses this pig ignorance to argue from a position of bad faith.

    I think its no coincidence he’s running with nationals disowning PR strategy towards their abuse of power, breaking of laws and other filth they got up to in their National Dirty Politics club.

    Regarding Farrar and Slater with their good cop bad cop bloggers routine on behalf of National……….

    To me Farrar is the worse of the two ………. Cameron Slater never tried to hide the fact he’s an arsehole …… he just hid the full extent of it

    Farrar on the other hand pretends to be the nice cop …………that dishonesty while earning a living from and taking part in the dirt those two got up to for national makes him a real sleazy slime ball in my opinion ………

  21. gsays 21
    15 February 2015 at 5:22 pm

    rightio, here is my tuppence worth.

    i have bemused of late with the squabbles and set tos going on amongst the ‘folk of the left’
    to be fair i read a post on redpress talking about how labour tends to not play nice with the parties to the left of them. and perhaps i am a hyper aware.

    this latest installment between tdb and ts makes me want to (as my nana used to say) knock your heads together.

    the way i see it is you either love money, the right, or you love people, the left.
    to love people you need a LOT of tolerance and patience.

    considering the left is made up of centrist folk all the way thru to full blown anarchists, perhaps we could try taking a breath or two before reacting, be kinder and give a more loving response.

    i love this community warts and all.
    cheers.

    • Weepus beard 21.1
      15 February 2015 at 8:20 pm

      Well said. I’m baffled at this latest round of infighting.

      It wasn’t necessary for newbie, Te Reo Putake to call veteran, Martyn Bradbury mindless in his debut post.

      • te reo putake 21.1.1
        15 February 2015 at 8:31 pm

        I agree. Thoughtless would have been more accurate. The ‘infighting’ as you call it predates that post though. And I’ve been writing guest posts here before Martyn started the Daily Blog, and been writing on labour issues before he was even born, so newbie is probably not the right term.

        • weka 21.1.1.1
          15 February 2015 at 9:42 pm

          Technically you called his actions mindless, not him as a person. But either way, it was a fairly mild criticism that hardly warrants a counter attack post from Bradbury (esp one that knowingly tells outright lies).

        • Weepus beard 21.1.1.2
          16 February 2015 at 9:18 pm

          I apologise.

          You had been promoted as the new author at The Standard so I assumed authoring posts was new to you.

          I’m aware the infighting goes back a way but that is no reason for you to contribute to it. That, was thoughtless.

  22. coaster 22
    15 February 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Given that Red Alert was founded in May 2009 and The Standard was founded in November 2007, 

    Its only from memory, im sure its before 2009 though as i became interested in politics after our first child was born in 2005. There was encouragement to look at the standard though.

    On a tablet this site is all red.

    • Colonial Rawshark 22.1
      15 February 2015 at 10:41 pm

      On a tablet this site is all red.

      Aaaah it is too, that could possibly do with a bit of a change…

    • Stephanie Rodgers 22.2
      16 February 2015 at 10:10 am

      The problem is if it was before 2009, Red Alert didn’t exist. Possibly you heard about The Standard on an older blog, but that still does nothing to explain why people persist in calling The Standard a “Labour-run” blog.

      The fact is, it’s a rightwing slur designed to minimise the awfulness of rightwing attack blogs like Whale Oil by creating the perception that “everyone does it”.

  23. Reddelusion 23
    15 February 2015 at 11:07 pm

    TS and its contributor need to get over themselves, like them or any blogs are important. As Michael laws once opined they are virtual w”nk for nobodies, entertaining, a release valve for ideological nut bars at both extremes but that’s about it

    • emergency mike 23.1
      15 February 2015 at 11:46 pm

      Some of them have been a bit more than that lately red. Have you read a book called Dirty Politics by Nick Hager?

    • ropata:rorschach 23.2
      15 February 2015 at 11:48 pm

      Quoting Michael Lhaws reveals much about your general stupidity (the constant grammar fails don’t help either).

      I wonder if Lhaws’ offensive radio show had the reach of the blogosphere, or analysed the news in depth, or provided expert opinions on anything with links to verifiable sources? Or was it just an echo chamber of boring old bigots?

    • greywarshark 23.3
      16 February 2015 at 9:56 am

      @ Reddelusion
      The reasonable answer to your opinion about blogs, is that while you (and Michael Lhaws) may think they are all equally for nutbars, some are more equal than others.
      And I bet you don’t know what I am referring to. I doubt your background knowledge and perspicacity.

  24. Naturesong 24
    16 February 2015 at 9:04 am

    The truth about the Standard … is that the feed on the right hand side has been static for the last six days.

    So, uh LPrent, will you fix it? Please?

    Oh yes, almost forgot. The site looks really clean, your coding elegant and [other nice things you say to programmers] 😉

    • Murray Rawshark 24.1
      16 February 2015 at 9:24 am

      You tell them that, with their great social skills, you never would have known they were a computer nerd if they hadn’t told you. In fact, you had taken them for a musician or some type of artist. And the stuff about elegant code as well.

      • Naturesong 24.1.1
        16 February 2015 at 9:36 am

        If I hadn’t known. and been asked to guess what LPrent did based on the tone of his posts, I’d have said Network Engineer; short, to the point, doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

        • Murray Rawshark 24.1.1.1
          16 February 2015 at 9:40 am

          Yep, you’ve got the hang of it 🙂

        • lprent 24.1.1.2
          16 February 2015 at 10:30 am

          My old man was a fitter and turner who became a production and operations manager, just as my sister is now. My mother was a nurse who wound up doing HR in factories. I started down the operations route as well and wound up running a smallish factory before getting tired of trying to talk to accountants and doing a MBA so I could argue with them. Then I jumped to programming. Running development teams of programmers is much the same thing.

          My mother tolerates timewasting fools who are incompetent at contributing a bit better than the rest of us do

    • lprent 24.2
      16 February 2015 at 10:34 am

      I finally noticed last night. I guess the cron job didn’t start after the SSDs were added last week.

      I will try to fix sometime during today. Busy setting up a vSphere server at work as a test platform at present.

      • Naturesong 24.2.1
        16 February 2015 at 10:50 am

        Thanks, I find the feed very useful.

        Enjoy the vSphere.
        I’ve set up a few lab environments, makes for a relaxing day (normally).

  25. grumpystilskin 25
    16 February 2015 at 10:13 am

    I just want to say thanks to all involved for making this site possible, I appreciate your hard work and tolerance with those that have less then popular views. After having posts modded out on other sites this is the only one I read/comment to on a regular basis. It seems pointing out truths before they are publicly acceptable is a worthy of deletion elsewhere..

  26. Trout 26
    16 February 2015 at 1:46 pm

    If you fly the Labour Party banner as your masthead but dont belong to them then what do you stand for?

    [lprent: Banned until you can come back with an example of what the Labour party ‘banner’ looks like, or point to when a flag was discontinued as a banner for the NZ Labour party. Or for 4 weeks.

    Even worse than inferring that we have ulterior motives is being stupid enough to use idiotic ‘evidence’. ]

  27. trout 27
    16 February 2015 at 2:53 pm

    you dont what?

    • McFlock 27.1
      16 February 2015 at 2:56 pm

      “you dont what?”

      It seems that a trout has the limited memory capacity of a goldfish…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.2
      16 February 2015 at 2:57 pm

      This English comprehension malarky is pretty strenuous, eh.

      Perhaps now would be a good time for you to reveal the source of your delusions about The Standard‘s masthead.

  28. te reo putake 28
    16 February 2015 at 3:01 pm

    TS does not fly the LP banner, nor does it belong to the LP.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.