Too far.

213 comments on “Too far. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dad4justice 1

   16 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

   Payback is sweet .
2. Robinsod 2

   16 January 2008 at 10:04 pm

   The funny thing is Whale’s been whinging about his details coming out on Public Address (after he put them up on the web himself!) What a fuckin munter.
3. dad4justice 3

   16 January 2008 at 10:07 pm

   Robinsod – I don’t think Andy Moore is in the same league as the communists’ like Minto bar and coward Russell Brown !!
4. Whaleoil 4

   16 January 2008 at 10:26 pm

   I’m not whinging about it dickhead, just showing up the utter holier than thou attitude of leftists.

   This post is a classic case in point.
5. Tane 5

   16 January 2008 at 10:36 pm

   No Whale, you’ve gone too far again. At this stage you’d have been wise to start backpeddling and disassociating yourself from ‘Steady Eddy’, but I see you’ve decided to endorse his post.

   Your creepy antics and foul behaviour are increasingly becoming a liability for the National Party, and it can hardly be doing wonders for the Free Speech Coalition’s already damaged credibility to have one of its founders stalking and menacing political opponents.
6. Robinsod 6

   16 January 2008 at 10:38 pm

   I’ve been reading the Harassment Act this evening Whale. I’d say you left yourself a bit open on this one.

   And by the way whinger, when are you gonna serve those papers? Oh and when are you gonna update your donors list? You’re full of bluster and bluff Whale and you’ve been stupid enough to give posting rights to a true-blue psycho. Well done mate.
7. Whaleoil 7

   16 January 2008 at 10:41 pm

   Michael, Michael, michael…..When are you going to learn I don’t work to your timetable.

   “psycho”, I think that better describes you.

   It is hardly stalking to collate public information.
8. Linda Axford 8

   16 January 2008 at 10:45 pm

   After umming and aahing for ages because I always posted annonymously, I finally posted under my real name in Public Address (even knowing D4J was lurking around), next minute D4J sees a woman to attack, writes something defamatory about me and gets banned. I could have done without the whole incident and I don’t see any good reason why anyone should have to post under their real name.

   aladin
9. Robinsod 9

   16 January 2008 at 10:50 pm

   You don’t have a timetable fatboy. You’re a coward who can’t back down from his own stupid behaviour – you’re an abject failure Whale and everything you do turns to shit because of your stupidity. I can only imagine how ashamed of you you father is. After all, he made something of himself – now you seem to achieve anything but humiliate yourself and denigrate your family name. Personally I’d disown you.
10. Whaleoil 10

    16 January 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Oh look Michael is working himself into a state….cry me a river…if what I do is so ineffective how come you guys monitor everything I do and post….now that is stalking!!!!!!
11. Daveo 11

    16 January 2008 at 11:01 pm

    I think the fact Whale is being so enthusiastically applauded by the possible even creepier dad4justice says something about his judgment.

    And if he doesn’t think posting a picture of John Minto’s house and going through his transactions records is stalking then he’s in some serious denial.

    My advice? Stop digging. Remove the post, apologise, and move on. You did that the time you superimposed 15 year old James Sleep’s face onto gay pornography, surely you can see the sense in doing it now?
12. Whaleoil 12

    16 January 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Except James has now taken to sending me emails in lame attempts at blackmail….oh dear…and it was me that called off the war….there was detente and then he up and started maligning me again, you have simply continued the slander so, maybe nah.
13. Robinsod 13

    16 January 2008 at 11:09 pm

    if what I do is so ineffective how come you guys monitor everything I do and post

    Because you’re a joke whale, everytime you open your fat mouth you remind us of how glad we are we’re not of your political ilk and watching you embarrass your mate Davey is hilarious. You’re like the David Brent of the blosgosphere – so painfully wrong we can hardly bear it but somehow compellingly funny.
14. Daveo 14

    16 January 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Except James has now taken to sending me emails in lame attempts at blackmail..oh dear.and it was me that called off the war..there was detente and then he up and started maligning me again, you have simply continued the slander so, maybe nah.

    Whale you’re talking about your dealings with a schoolkid, whose face you posted onto gay pornography, and who you seem to think is a worthy adversary for a grown man.

    For Christ’s sake, do you have any idea how pathetic you sound?
15. Whaleoil 15

    16 January 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Yeah we are so ineffective you just can’t stop linking to us and stalking us I think it is you folk hiding behind your pseudonyms poking borax like a bunch of frightened chickens.

    At least David and I are upfront about who we are.

    For such a couple of “liabilities” and in-effectual bloggers with falling visitors you sure do get all het up about us, taking and analysing every detail of what we post and do….talk about creepy…and you accuse me of stalking!!!
16. Robinsod 16

    16 January 2008 at 11:28 pm

    At least David and I are upfront about who we are.

    You don’t get it do you Whale? There is no “David and I” – you’re an embarrassment to him as you are to most other rightwingers. I do like the way every time you start taking heat you pull him into the mix – is that ‘cos you can’t stand up on your own two feet? I’m sure he’ll love that.

    Have you noticed how on the left we do welcome posts to new left blogs and bloggers? How about you try this – ask David if he’ll do a wee Kiwiblog post welcoming your new mate eddy into the sphere. Go on Whale – Davey’s your mate, surely it won’t be a problem.
17. Wayne 17

    16 January 2008 at 11:38 pm

    In my travels I’ve stumbled across Whaleoil’s blog more than a few times and every time I’ve been gobsmacked by what an angry, bigoted and abusive man he is. The James Sleep stuff was pretty bad and the Free Speech Coalition billboards were appalling, but this thuggish brownshirt behaviour towards his enemies on the left is just a step too far.

    It’s important we make it clear that this kind of intimidation is not welcome in the NZ blogosphere. I hope John Minto has been informed about this because he may want to take some further action. I know I would.
18. Idiot/Savant 18

    16 January 2008 at 11:53 pm

    It will be interesting to see how DPF responds to this: will he condemn Whale Oil, just as he condemned CYFSWatch, or will he remain silent?
19. Wayne 19

    17 January 2008 at 12:07 am

    Nice post on this over at your blog btw I/S. I’ve also watched the radicalisation of the NZ right with some concern. I do wonder though if it’ll become a liability for the moderate-branded John Key if this kind of filth starts hitting the mainstream closer to the election.
20. Santi 20

    17 January 2008 at 6:00 am

    “You’re a coward who can’t back down from his own stupid behaviour – you’re an abject failure Whale and everything you do turns to shit because of your stupidity.”

    Here we go again. The polite and well-mannered Michael Porton launches a tirade against Whale Oil.

    Tane, is that what you call a positive contribution to poltical debate?

    Porton, why don’t you debate the issues raised by Whale: the fees collected by Minto, his stance against anything that opposes socialism, his hatred of the United States, his regular column attacking the productive sectors of NZ society?
21. dad4justice 21

    17 January 2008 at 6:19 am

    “next minute D4J sees a woman to attack, writes something defamatory about me and gets banned”

    I can prove that is a lie you twisted lying aladin !!!

    Linda Axford, you bitch are a vicious low life liar . I have never attacked you on Wublic Dress .I can prove it Miss dog breathe !! What a cowardly snake as you are full of lies and venom . Russell Brown set me up by calling me more danger than Stan Graham. I reacted and banned me and it had nothing to do with you .I will see Mr Brown one day for a wee chat .Again I can prove that he set me up . Man I am so pissed that you would write such blatant and bizarre lies . You are a spineless creep .Have all you vipers had vinegar transfusions ?

    I am bloody sick of anonymous wacko’s on the internet dishonouring my name . Axford is sick unit and is your typical dishonest weakling who enjoys inflicting callous disrespect . She is your typical liarbour witch .

    Liar Axford !!! Liar Axford !!! Liar Axford !!! Liar Axford !!!
22. Robinsod 22

    17 January 2008 at 6:20 am

    Fuck off Santi- if you think there’s anything worth responding to in that creepy, stalking, piece of shit post then you’re even more of a fuckin idiot than I took you for.
23. dad4justice 23

    17 January 2008 at 6:52 am

    Linda Axford
    I challenge you to produce evidence that I attacked you on Russell Brown’s Public Address internet group ? Mission impossible eh darling !

    You have started something now Miss Minto !!!
24. Tane 24

    17 January 2008 at 7:54 am

    Dad, settle down eh?
25. Inventory2 25

    17 January 2008 at 8:02 am

    Bill – at the end of the day, is there actually a difference between WhaleOil’s post, and the one Tane did the other day on John Key’s holiday home?
26. dad4justice 26

    17 January 2008 at 8:06 am

    Tane,
    I will respect your blog and David F’s blog when I am allowed back , however I will not tolerate lies made against myself . I can prove that Linda is wrong and I will let the matter rest here now .
    Respectfully
    d4j
27. Tane 27

    17 January 2008 at 8:11 am

    IV2, that’s pretty desperate – Key’s holiday home was published in the Herald, presumably with Key’s consent, and the article on the standard was a lighthearted pisstake of his bad taste in architecture.

    Whale’s publishing of John Minto’s house was done without Minto’s approval and given the context of the article was an act of intimidation and harassment.

    So no, it’s nothing of the sort.

    Why DPF seems to think it’s fine for Whale to behave like this is beyond me – http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/whale_backs_the_sharks.html
28. dad4justice 28

    17 January 2008 at 8:16 am

    I am just pissed off Minto and Key both got houses as I live in a cave.
29. ragtag 29

    17 January 2008 at 8:29 am

    If this was about a National MP the standard would be calling it great investigative journalism and questioning why “grandma” wasn’t exposing the double standards between a persons rhetoric and their practice. Unfortunately in this case the messenger is being blurred into the message. Two thumbs up for partisanship.
30. Robinsod 30

    17 January 2008 at 8:36 am

    Ragtag – when the message is:

    “Socialist lickspittle and rent an outrage John Minto stained the pages of the NZ Herald earlier this month”

    I’d say the messenger is the issue at hand. Or do you not even recognise how normal people see this sort of bile?
31. Phil 31

    17 January 2008 at 9:03 am

    Erm, Robinsod, I don’t think anyone “normal” reads Whaleoils blog in the first place?

    This does raise a very complex issue though, which the blogging community has yet to really come to grips with; what exactly constitutes “public information” and where are the boundries between what you/or I can or can’t say that doesn’t breach privacy.

    I think Whale COULD say that he’s stimulating public debate about this issue, in much the same way as New Zealand debated the comments made about our early european ancestors being like the Teleban
32. rjs131 32

    17 January 2008 at 9:56 am

    I think Whale could have used different tactics with this. Publishing a picture of the house was probably a step too far, but when we have a columnist trying to diminish the role of property rights living in a property that most people cant afford then it is a matter of public interest. Rather he shoudl have made his point by saying he has investigatd this and had discovered that information.

    I dont think Minto has much ground for a police complaint for harassment. Section 8 of the harassment act which governs criminal harassment, states you have to show that they intended it to cause them to fear for their safety or that they knew it was likely to cause fears for their safety. There are then questions of proving that.

    The civil standard is far lower, but that woudl involve a laborious application in the district court.
33. Sam Dixon 33

    17 January 2008 at 9:58 am

    Phil – “I think Whale COULD say that he’s stimulating public debate about this issue,” – but what issue? What issue has anyhting to do with where John Minto lives? That’s John Minto’s private business and he has the right to feel safe and have privacy in his own home – Whaleoil is trying to deny him that, god knows why.
34. Sam Dixon 34

    17 January 2008 at 10:01 am

    You can’t compare this to the Key post.

    Key chose to go in an article in the Herald, glorifyig himself and his lifestyle, he was satirsed.

    John Minto wrote some columns in the paper and suddenly an unhinged, aggressive man is posting picutres of his home on the internet and implying violence agiainst him is appropriate.

    You’ve never seen The Standard or its allies calling for violence against their opponents, that’s the Right’s tool.
35. Billy 35

    17 January 2008 at 10:20 am

    Sam,

    Minto went on at great length (like Key, in an article in the Herald) about the evils of property rights. Turns out he has been using them to his advantage all along. To my way of thinking this makes him a hypocrite. It is right to point out that hypocracy.

    However, the point could have been made by giving the numbers, without the photograph. That was deliberately provocative. The point, no doubt.

    One of the reasons I was culturally inclined to be a right-winger was because I found all those angry young left-wing men so utterly and tiresomely self-important. I find the angry young man persona equally tiresome when it starts out on the right. But it is amusing that the left wing who invented it don’t like it being directed back at them.
36. Tane 36

    17 January 2008 at 10:38 am

    Billy, there’s a difference between an angry young political idealist and creepy stalking and intimidation of your political opponents.

    And Whale doesn’t even have the excuse of youth. He’s a grown man with a wife and a family.
37. Billy 37

    17 January 2008 at 10:42 am

    Tane,

    Ok, but we’re all agreed Minto’s a hypocrite, right?
38. Santi 38

    17 January 2008 at 10:52 am

    “Fuck off Santi- if you think there’s anything worth responding to in that creepy, stalking, piece of shit post then you’re even more of a fuckin idiot than I took you for.”

    Lame diversion Michael Porton.

    Why don’t you debate the issues raised by Whale: the fees collected by Minto, his stance against anything that opposes socialism, his hatred of the United States of America, his regular column attacking the productive sectors of NZ society?
39. Robinsod 39

    17 January 2008 at 10:56 am

    Tell you what santi – how about I publish a photo of your house and your details along with a threatening diatribe against you and then claim I’m merely trying to open debate about your political opinions?

    I’ve got a (reasonably well read) blog to write on now and I’m assuming that would be ok by you given your arguement?
40. Kimble 40

    17 January 2008 at 10:56 am

    Im with Billy on this. They obviously posted it to get a rise out of people like you.

    That said, as an architecture expert I find Minto’s (the freshmaker??) choice of colours and roofing material hysterically childish. Was he wanting to build the play school house?

    “implying violence agiainst him is appropriate.”

    It would be and example sof this abound… where? Oh, you mean that is what you INFERRED, not what he implied?

    “You’ve never seen The Standard or its allies calling for violence against their opponents”

    Lets see how things go if National gets enough of the vote to govern alone.

    “that’s the Right’s tool.”

    Yup. Violence as a means of political change is totally a right wing thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

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

    Speaking of left wing tools….
41. Mike 41

    17 January 2008 at 11:14 am

    So because John Minto lives in a house this makes him a hypocrite?
    Where’s he meant to live? Under a bridge?
42. the sprout 42

    17 January 2008 at 11:19 am

    “And Whale doesn’t even have the excuse of youth. He’s a grown man with a wife and a family”

    perhaps, but with the classic signature of a narcissistic personality. a spoilt little boy who’s forever trying, in vain, to win his father’s approval. ironically his father is embarassed and just wishes he’d get a real life.

    Nomination for Most Ironic Comment Award 2008
    “I am bloody sick of anonymous wacko’s on the internet”
    d4j
43. Billy 43

    17 January 2008 at 11:24 am

    Mike,

    If I am anti-oxygen, I should not breathe. Of course, were I sensible, I would not be anti-oxygen in the first place.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    17 January 2008 at 11:32 am

    Billy,

    Minto went on at great length (like Key, in an article in the Herald) about the evils of property rights. Turns out he has been using them to his advantage all along. To my way of thinking this makes him a hypocrite. It is right to point out that hypocracy.”

    This is the question of transformation or reformation. What you’re saying, by extention, is that someone who is against capitalism should withdraw themselves from the system and fight from the outside to transform it. Whether that is achievable is debatable – same with property – should Minto repudiate any personal property ownership in this case?

    You can not like a system but live within it while trying to reform it.

    A good example is the UN – many states don’t like it, so should they withdraw from it or try to change it from within? Not such an easy question, but both options are valid.

    I’d argue that at worst it’s pragmatic, not hypocritical.

    Best cap ever: rascals uncompromise
45. Phil 45

    17 January 2008 at 11:36 am

    Sam,

    After having struggled througn Minto’s rantings (the one on Kiwisaver being a prime example) I would suggest that he is as equally unhinged as Whaleoil. Also, if you look at the article you’ll note that they dont directly incite violence against him or his property at all… so claiming that thestandard wouldn’t call for violence against its opponents is somewhat spirious.

    As for “stimulating public debate around the issue” you’ll see that I explained what “the issue” COULD be, in the paragraph directly above it – Minto is simply being used as a tool (pun intended) to show that the boundries of privacy are blurred in an IT world.

    Of course, all this is just conjecture on my part, based on how I would defend myself if I were in Whaleoils situation and refusing to back down
46. Tane 46

    17 January 2008 at 11:41 am

    This whole argument is absurd. Of course Minto can live in a nice house while working on the behalf of the underpaid.

    It’s like libertarians who fret about whether they should drive on public roads or send their kids to a public school. If you want to change the system you have to live in it, it’s no good fleeing to the country and living in a cave.

    Engels was a factory owner remember, and provided a lot of information to Marx about the operation of capitalism. I don’t hear anyone questioning his socialist credentials.
47. Robinsod 47

    17 January 2008 at 11:42 am

    But Phil – you wouldn’t get yourself in this position to start with and if by some stroke of bad luck you did I would imagine you would back down and apologise. Fuck, even I would.
48. Kimble 48

    17 January 2008 at 11:50 am

    “Engels was a factory owner remember, and provided a lot of information to Marx about the operation of capitalism. I don’t hear anyone questioning his socialist credentials.”

    No, and Steddy isnt questioning Mintos socialist credentials either. But Engels was a hypocrit. So is Al Gore for travelling the world telling of the peril to the planet of other people… travelling the world.

    As an aside, I wonder if blogblog is YOUR albatross or the other way round.
49. the sprout 49

    17 January 2008 at 11:54 am

    “Engels was a factory owner remember, and provided a lot of information to Marx about the operation of capitalism”

    exactly. and you’d have to be a fucktard of slaterian order to think marx was anti-materialist. anti-inequality for sure, but you achieve equality through ignoring or eschewing the power of capital or the means of production.
50. the sprout 50

    17 January 2008 at 11:55 am

    umm… i mean you *don’t* achieve equality…
51. Billy 51

    17 January 2008 at 11:57 am

    “…and if by some stroke of bad luck you did I would imagine you would back down and apologise. Fuck, even I would.”

    I wondered exactly where that line was.

    Tane, it’s not the “working for the underpaid” which makes him a hypocrite. It’s the personally benefitting from something you claim to be repugnant.

    Oh, and by the way, Engels was a hypocrite for the same reason.
52. the sprout 52

    17 January 2008 at 12:07 pm

    “It’s the personally benefitting from something you claim to be repugnant”

    yeah me too, i really hate that about DPF.
53. Robinsod 53

    17 January 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Billy – the line is about taking things past a parody on the web and bringing them into the real world. That is to say, threatening people with violence and endangering their safety – taking the piss is fine, insulting people is fine and questioning their motives is fine but outright defamation and endangerment are not.
54. Kimble 54

    17 January 2008 at 12:16 pm

    ” threatening people with violence ”

    Again, where did they do this?
55. Robinsod 55

    17 January 2008 at 12:20 pm

    When I say threats of violence Kimble, I’m talking about the responses I’ve had from rightwingers. But calling someone scum on a (purportedly) high ranking website and putting up a picture of their house is also an implicit threat. How would you like it if I did it to you?
56. lemsip 56

    17 January 2008 at 12:21 pm

    “This whole argument is absurd. Of course Minto can live in a nice house while working on the behalf of the underpaid.”

    By that logic so can John Key so why do you forever denigrate him and question his motives when he states that he would like improve the incomes of New Zealanders? Oh thats right your a partisan jock whose just protecting one of their “own”
57. Kimble 57

    17 January 2008 at 12:26 pm

    “is also an implicit threat”

    Bullshit. You are being blinded by your own bigotry. You think right wingers are all about violence against the peace loving lefties. So obviously showing a picture of someones house means that they are offering directions to that persons house for other people to follow, wait outside and beat them up.

    But these guys are obviously not THREATENING violence against anyone. So just stop the hysteria.
58. Michele Cabiling 58

    17 January 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Daveo wrote: “You [Whaleoil ]did that the time you superimposed 15 year old James Sleep’s face onto gay pornography.”

    James is already doing a good job superimposing his face onto a portion of Tim Barnett’s body normally shown only to proctologists.

    Now THAT’S pornographic.
59. Michele Cabiling 59

    17 January 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Matthew Pillock wrote:

    “You can not like a system but live within it while trying to reform it.”

    John Minto has always been a Communist attempting to destroy our existing society and erect a model of his own choosing on its corpse. “Reformer” my ass!!!
60. Michele Cabiling 60

    17 January 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Neither Marx nor Engels was a hypocrite. Engels, the son of a wealthy industrialist, lived off his old man whilst attacking the capitalism that made his life of intellectual indolence possible. Marx lived off Engels.

    Leeching off the productive … SOP for socialists.
61. Whaleoil 61

    17 January 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Yep, a communist who likes all the trappings of capitalism like capital gain in a leafy inner city suburb.
62. Michele Cabiling 62

    17 January 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Here’s an unpublished article I sent to the New Zealand Herald on one of Minto’s anti-capitalist rants:

    John Minto (Dialogue, 10 January) is a classic example of an intellectual lightweight who has managed to synthesise a personally for himself out of being an angry social activist.

    For Minto, ideas outside his own narrow world view don’t exist, meaning he is not obliged to engage with them. They are ignored or smuggled away, in much the same manner as the former Soviet Union transformed its dissidents into “unpersons” by shipping them off to die in Siberian prison camps.

    Minto claims that 30 percent of Americans live in “poverty” and implies that New Zealand is similarly awash with the destitute. Such statements are meaningless unless we have first defined poverty in absolute, rather than relative terms. Even in a society of millionaires, we could draw an arbitrary line on an income distribution chart to “prove” that 30 percent of people are “poor.”

    In fact, the third world is beating a path to America , Europe, Australia and New Zealand precisely because even their poorest citizens enjoy lifestyles unimaginable by 90 percent of the third world. If Mr Minto wants to talk about “poor” I suggest he visit the Philippines where I was born and grew up.

    The average Filipino lives on $US1 a day, and many workers struggle to support their six or more dependants on what they receive. Most rural barangays (villages) have no running water, telephone lines or electricity, let alone refrigerators, colour televisions, DVD players, washing machines, clothes dryers CD players, cellular telephones and personal motor vehicles.

    Even if KFC or McDonalds had outlets outside the big cities, most Filipinos can’t afford to eat there once a year, let alone weekly. Sorry, John, in absolute terms an Otara beneficiary doesn’t even approach being “poor.”

    Minto decries the work of a UN Committee proposing secure property rights as the solution to third world poverty. In so doing, it is unlikely he has even read The Mystery of Capital, authored by Committee member, the well respected Peruvian economist, Hernando De Soto.

    De Soto charges that third world poverty is largely attributable to “crony capitalism” in which the “haves” prevent the democratisation of wealth to the “have nots” by restricting private property ownership to their group alone.

    Throughout the third world, the formal systems of property rights taken for granted in advanced nations simply don’t exist. Even after decades of family occupation, few people officially own the land or homes they occupy. The notion of holding legal title to property is unknown outside of rigged schemes serving a handful of elites.

    De Soto calculates that through “extralegal” businesses and home building, the world’s poor have accumulated assets worth $US9 trillion. This is 20 times the direct foreign investment in the third world since 1990 and more than 46 times what the World Bank has lent in the last three decades.

    But because these assets are not “paperised” in the formal documents and legal structures taken for granted in the West, they can’t function productively as capital. People are unable to use their homes as collateral for loans to expand businesses or buy additional property. It is this ability to borrow money for the process of capital accumulation that is the engine of first world wealth creation.

    John Minto needs to abandon the Marxist notion of economics as a zero sum game in which more for one group is less for another. Perhaps if he read a little more widely, he’d understand why some nations are wealthy, and the economies of others are lagging or falling behind.

    Wake up, John, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the authoritarian socialism you continue to defend and idolise has thankfully been consigned to the dustbin of history.
    ENDS
63. Sally 63

    17 January 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Ok, I’ve been reading this fucktard bitch for a while now and holding back but this is the last straw. Michele you are the stupidest bitch I have ever had the misfortune to read. I can only surmise you are a barren loveless creature who had some terrible childhood trauma. Why don’t you fuck off and crawl under some rock to die like the lizard you are. I can only guess that the bigoted lies you regularly post here is some kind of sick attempt to attract attention. You should try getting a life and start acting like a human being if you’re so desperate for human contact.
64. Michele Cabiling 64

    17 January 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Nice rant. I don’t notice you refuting with reasoned argument a single thing I’ve posted, let alone making such an attempt. That speaks volumes for the kind of unevolved lower life form you are.

    Back to the primordial ooze where you belong …
65. Robinsod 65

    17 January 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Here’s an unpublished article I sent to the New Zealand Herald on one of Minto’s anti-capitalist rants:

    Really? Unpublished? I wonder why?

    Hint: even the Herald thinks you’re a psycho M.
66. Santi 66

    17 January 2008 at 1:01 pm

    “Ok, I’ve been reading this fucktard bitch for a while now and holding back but this is the last straw. You are the stupidest bitch I have ever had the misfortune to read.”

    That’s Sally speaking to her mirror!
67. Tane 67

    17 January 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Lemsip:

    By that logic so can John Key so why do you forever denigrate him and question his motives when he states that he would like improve the incomes of New Zealanders?

    Because he constantly votes against measures to improve NZers’ incomes, wants to attack the union movement, and leads a party that has the same policies that last time led to wages falling for the majority of NZ workers?

    Have a look at this and tell me National have the answer on wages:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527

    Michele:

    No wonder they didn’t publish it.
68. Michele Cabiling 68

    17 January 2008 at 1:04 pm

    I suspect that you are a fat, ugly leftard feminist rather than a goddess babe like me, and that your vitriol springs from you inability to get a man, not just from not evolutionary retardation.

    Robinsodomite wonders why my article was not published by the NZH. Probably because editorial staff are leftards running interference for Minto, Use your brain, why else is this low-watt bulb provided with a regular soap box?
69. Russell Brown 69

    17 January 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Good grief. D4J, I think you have amply demonstrated why you are not welcome on my website. Get help.
70. the bean 70

    17 January 2008 at 1:12 pm

    ” suspect that you are a fat, ugly leftard feminist rather than a goddess babe like me, and that your vitriol springs from you inability to get a man, not just from not evolutionary retardation.

    Robinsodomite wonders why my article was not published by the NZH. Probably because editorial staff are leftards running interference for Minto, Use your brain, why else is this low-watt bulb provided with a regular soap box?”

    god i am not that up with the internet “lingo”. but what is that niffty little acronym number… something about rolling around on the floor laughing my arse off? and just to clarify michele, it’s not laughing my arse off “with” you…
71. Pablo 71

    17 January 2008 at 1:16 pm

    A hint for Michelle: write shorter comments in readable prose and you might get your point across better.

    Sally, ONZ for reading that garbage, I moved on after the word “unpublished”. (of the injustice of it)

    Linda, please don’t leave. People here would rather read your contribution than scroll past D4J’s any day
72. The PC Avenger 72

    17 January 2008 at 1:20 pm

    “I suspect that you are a fat, ugly leftard feminist rather than a goddess babe like me, and that your vitriol springs from you inability to get a man, not just from not evolutionary retardation.

    Robinsodomite wonders why my article was not published by the NZH. Probably because editorial staff are leftards running interference for Minto, Use your brain, why else is this low-watt bulb provided with a regular soap box?
    ”

    Michele, why you do you feel compelled to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks? Is it because your “reasoned arguments” cannot stand on their own merits?
73. Matthew Pilott 73

    17 January 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Do the Philippines have Big Government? I thought not, and they should therefore be enjoying a Libertarian Utopia, where the gaps between the haves and the have-nots is exacerbated by apathy in the name of “choice”. Funny, always looks good in theory, sucks in real life.

    “John Minto has always been a Communist attempting to destroy our existing society and erect a model of his own choosing on its corpse. “Reformer” my ass!!!”

    Michele, why the ass fixation? That aside, you clearly do not understand the difference between reformation and transformation. Look it up.
74. Kimble 74

    17 January 2008 at 1:31 pm

    “Because he constantly votes against measures to improve NZers’ incomes”

    No, he constantly votes against things that YOU think will increase peoples incomes. He would vote for things he thought would increase peoples incomes.

    This should be obvious to anyone. Except of course communists who think that someone earning a lot of money means that someone else has to live in poverty, and that the ‘rich prick’ will do anything to keep the other person in poverty so they themselves remain rich.
75. Billy 75

    17 January 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Sally, why you do you feel compelled to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks? Is it because your “reasoned arguments” cannot stand on their own merits?
76. Tane 76

    17 January 2008 at 1:37 pm

    No, he constantly votes against things that YOU think will increase peoples incomes. He would vote for things he thought would increase peoples incomes.

    Kimble, there’s empirical evidence that strengthening workers’ rights and removing obstacles to trade union organisation lifts incomes. I’ve shown you the graphs. There’s also evidence that National’s policies lead to a relative fall in incomes.
77. Paul Litterick 77

    17 January 2008 at 1:54 pm

    “John Minto has always been a Communist attempting to destroy our existing society and erect a model of his own choosing on its corpse. “Reformer” my ass!!!”

    “Michele, why the ass fixation? That aside, you clearly do not understand the difference between reformation and transformation. Look it up.”

    John Minto is a Transformer! That would explain so much. Perhaps he is the car in the photograph (a nice Le Corbusier touch by Mr Whaleoil, I might add).
78. andy 78

    17 January 2008 at 2:01 pm

    captcha: screaming composers

    nuff said…..
79. The PC Avenger 79

    17 January 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Billy,

    I don’t recall “Sally” making any claims of intellectual superiority, or any statements regarding the quality of her own arguments. Michele, on the other hand, has.
80. dad4justice 80

    17 January 2008 at 2:18 pm

    [Deleted – potentially defamatory. Dad, this is your final warning.]
81. dad4justice 81

    17 January 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Tane – Russell Brown has told lies and I can prove it .
    Fact or should the matter go to court ?
    Your call Mr Brown !!
82. Matthew Pilott 82

    17 January 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Sorry Paul, he’s a reformer – they’re not nearly so exciting 🙁 But I once saw a guy dress up as a box that turned into a robot with big guns, if that helps.
83. Billy 83

    17 January 2008 at 2:30 pm

    “I am dumb and my arguments are shit. PC Avenger, you wank badly.”

    No, still doesn’t seem right to me.
84. Kimble 84

    17 January 2008 at 2:31 pm

    “There’s also evidence that National’s policies lead to a relative fall in incomes.”

    Yup, because National is going to bring in all the same policies again. Just like when Labour gained power they continued with the deregulation and other economic policies they had back in the 1980’s.
85. dad4justice 85

    17 January 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Tane ,
    I whole reason I posted that comment was to lure Mr Brown into a confrontation that will see him on the receiving of litigation resulting from malicious lies on a public forum . I got some wacko posting over Ian Wishart’s site today as peter burns and I have had it with these internet creeps who continually attack my credibility .

    I want to make an example of Russell Brown . Fair call -I would have thought .
86. Michele Cabiling 86

    17 January 2008 at 2:52 pm

    The PC Avenger wrote:

    “Michele, why you do you feel compelled to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks? Is it because your ‘reasoned arguments’ cannot stand on their own merits?”

    No because I operate on two levels: reasoned argument (when confronted with attempts by opponents to do same) and petty name calling (when dealing with opponents doing same).

    Where is the “reasoned argument” from sad shrews like Sally and callow little apprentice pillow biters like James Sleep?
87. Jum 87

    17 January 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Paul Litterick

    John Minto is a transformer – very clever, dear. But, could you tell me what you meant by the car in the photograph being a nice Le Corbusier touch? I looked Le Corbusier up in the dictionary and it quotes ‘he is noted for his use of reinforced concrete and for his modular system, which used units of a standard size’.

    Do you mean a common or garden car against a spongebob squarepants house (meaning using the imagination)?
88. Tane 88

    17 January 2008 at 2:54 pm

    I whole reason I posted that comment was to lure Mr Brown into a confrontation… I want to make an example of Russell Brown . Fair call -I would have thought .

    Not on this blog. Grow up or piss off.
89. Sally 89

    17 January 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Billy, I’ve watched a lot of people refute Michelle’s arguments over the last few day only to be abused or ignored. Rationalizing with her gets people nowhere. She should pack up her rand-for-dummies and take her one-trick show elsewhere.
    Michelle, I can assure you I am perfectly good-looking and have no trouble in my relationships with men. I’m also in possession of a very good education. You, on the other hand seem to be starved for attention and carrying around a lot of unresolved issues.

    Perhaps Michelle, you would find more love in the world (and the respect you so desire) if you behaved more like a human being and less like a southpark character. Your unwarranted narcissism is founded in self-hate Michelle and I, like the editors of the Herald I suspect, find it repugnant. I’m sorry I responded with the outburst I did as you obviously have serious personal problems. For this I pity you.
90. Jum 90

    17 January 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Oh my goodness. Either I’m being ignored completely now or I’ve been allowed on the first step of the ladder to not being a sad shrew or a sour bitter old feminazi with a pussywhipped husband. Your words dearie. I would never have used them except in a quote.

    Sally’s post was full of energy and guts. You should at least be impressed by her passion, Michele. You expect that of others.
91. Michele Cabiling 91

    17 January 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Matthew Pillock wrote: “Do the Philippines have Big Government? I thought not, and they should therefore be enjoying a Libertarian Utopia, where the gaps between the haves and the have-nots is exacerbated by apathy in the name of ‘choice.’ Funny, always looks good in theory, sucks in real life.”

    Another straw man argument. Sheesh you leftards are good at those. Phils is a classic example, not of free markets, but of CRONY CAPITALISM. This is exactly the kind of corrupt third world oligarchy that de Soto is trying to reform by bringing formal private property rights to the masses who don’t have them (see post rebutting Minto’s crap further up the thread).

    They can then use these assets for the purpose of capital accumulation, and watch Phils streak ahead (the people are much more hard working and entrepreneurial, albeit in a small and hamstrung way, than most Kiwis).

    What Phils needs is not LESS but MORE capitalism …
92. dad4justice 92

    17 January 2008 at 3:01 pm

    I think Michelle speaks common sense and Tane I do not have to grow up thank you . At least you still allow me to post ,not like Public Dress, No Right Turn and kiwiblogblog !!!
93. Tane 93

    17 January 2008 at 3:05 pm

    At least you still allow me to post ,not like Public Dress, No Right Turn and kiwiblogblog !!!

    Not really. You were banned, then I went on holiday, came back and found you posting. You’re here because I’ve decided to give you a second chance. Don’t blow it. One more outburst and you’re gone.
94. dad4justice 94

    17 January 2008 at 3:10 pm

    You must of had a real nice holiday Tane .
    I hope you didn’t have to go too far for the sun tan ?
95. Matthew Pilott 95

    17 January 2008 at 3:12 pm

    michele, it wasn’t a strawman argument, it was a pisstake argument. Bit of a test, but never mind, wasn’t important 🙂

    “No because I operate on two levels: reasoned argument (when confronted with attempts by opponents to do same) and petty name calling (when dealing with opponents doing same).”

    You are lying here, you abuse people when they are trying to engage with you. You gave the excuse earlier that you find it ‘frustrating’. Presented with someone like you, I’d say a good number feel the same way but are capable of maintaining civility.

    It’s interesting, the majority of people here can aruge till they’re blue in the face (or fingers) without showing a hint of your style of irrational and childlike posting. Why do you think you are one of the few people here incapable of an adult style of discourse?

    Honestly, have a punt at an answer, I’m intrigued.
96. dad4justice 96

    17 January 2008 at 3:15 pm

    “Presented with someone like you, I’d say a good number feel the same way but are capable of maintaining civility.”

    Are you thinking of Trevor Mallard punching another politician in our beehive Matthew P ?
    Terrible thing wasn’t it .
97. Robinsod 97

    17 January 2008 at 3:17 pm

    So, Michele – how’s it going? Still pretending to be a chick I see? And still banging on with your homophobia and sodomy? Ah, I guess michele/mike that you have a secret desire to try it. I’ve got a new idea of you now – you’re an acned little 21 year old boy with a chip on your shoulder from all those years you were bullied, a faint smell of cheese on your breath and a predilection for masturbating to gay porn and afterwards trying to convince yourself that you really really like Pam Anderson – you may even partake in some kind of self mutilation.

    I suspect you have a part time job as a gofor in some company (perhaps an SOE – you must really resent that) and are regarded by your workmates as the one that’s most like to go on a killing rampage. No scratch that, you’re not even regarded at all.

    It must be a lonely life you’ve got there mate. I’d agree with Sally on one aspect of her analysis though – you don’t have much love going on and probably never have.

    In fact bro, I’ll venture the opinion that you never will. You poor bastard.
98. the sprout 98

    17 January 2008 at 3:17 pm

    big ups Sally and Jum.
    Michele is just another sad troll, and in reality probably some bored trucker called stan. after all, s/he is endorsed by d4j – need we say more?
99. The PC Avenger 99

    17 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

    “No, still doesn’t seem right to me.”

    Billy, that attempted burn doesn’t make sense in any context. Please try harder in future.

    Michele,

    “No because I operate on two levels: reasoned argument (when confronted with attempts by opponents to do same) and petty name calling (when dealing with opponents doing same).”

    I see. So why did, and do you insist on referring to anyone left of centre as “leftards”, when no one had yet engaged you in some kind of silly name calling match?

    No doubt an intelligent woman like yourself can understand that insulting people isn’t going to convince them to agree with you, no matter how good an argument you present.

    Perhaps if you acted in a more mature fashion, you might find people more receptive to your ideas, and less likely to insult you.

    “Where is the “reasoned argument” from sad shrews like Sally and callow little apprentice pillow biters like James Sleep?”

    See, this is what I’m talking about. Because you react to their comments in such a fashion, anyone that already disagrees with you is going to be less likely to consider your arguments objectively. The only people that will your lengthy posts will have any positive effect on will be those that already agree with you, and they’re not the people you need to change.

    In short: Stop being belligerent and people might take you seriously.
100. Michele Cabiling 100

     17 January 2008 at 3:18 pm

     Sally wrote: “unwarranted narcissism is founded in self-hate Michelle …”

     Oh I get it, I disagree with you. None of you leftards has succeeded in doing more than picking minor holes a single one of my contentions, so I must be mentally ill.

     A classic technique perfected in the former Soviet Union: stigmatise all dissenters as suffering from psychological disturbance. This justifies closing them down because unlike common or garden mental illness, this varierty tends to prove mysteriously communicable.

     The tactic was amplified by the Gramscian Marxists of the Frankfurt School, who migrated from Germany to the USA in the 1930s just in advance of the SS goons(who would have actually been doing the world a favour by putting these retards up a chimney). The most influential texts in this regard were Theodor Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” and Wilhelm Reich’s “The Mass Psychology of Fascism.”

     Again, it was proposed that opponents of the Marxist “race, gender, class” agenda were mentally ill, and needed to be reprogrammed by critical theorists.

     Pweeeee!
101. Robinsod 101

     17 January 2008 at 3:19 pm

     Nah sprout, mike isn’t a trucker [deleted]
102. Jum 102

     17 January 2008 at 3:21 pm

     Michele,

     What you will always fail to understand is that free markets, free societies, free anything, will never survive. They are gathered up by hungrier and stronger fish that change the purist makeup of the lamb to advantage the wolf.

     eg Pure islam (the lamb) may be essentially good, and also may have advantages (even for women in the days when they had rights in marriage, et cetera, whereas western women had none), and ‘that islam’ is always used to deflect blame from terrorists for any terrorist activities attributed to it, but that very pure kernel has in its mix the ingredients that allow the Bin Ladens and the Saudis (the wolves) to ‘transform’ the kernel into the sweetcorn of their intent. (or the winter of your discontent, Michele.

     Therefore the purist part (the freemarket) is itself responsible for its own end.
103. Tane 103

     17 January 2008 at 3:21 pm

     Hey Robinsod, settle down eh? There’s no need for that kind of thing.
104. Michele Cabiling 104

     17 January 2008 at 3:23 pm

     So Robinsodomite – invest in a breath freshener and anti-dandruff shampoo, get some better clothes (or at least brush the scurf off the shoulders of your khaki-coloured crimpylene safari suit), and stop putting your knob through glory holes in public toilets.

     Maybe then you will stand a chance with chicks …
105. Billy 105

     17 January 2008 at 3:24 pm

     Jum,

     Eh?
106. Santi 106

     17 January 2008 at 3:25 pm

     robinsond said “In fact bro, I’ll venture the opinion that you never will. You poor bastard.”

     Michael Porton, I know that Michelle pisses you off but you don’t need to resort to personal insult (as she does).

     Combat her arguments and see whose ideas are superior. As far as that contest is concerned, I can see you coming a long distant second.
107. the sprout 107

     17 January 2008 at 3:28 pm

     hehe. oh the wonderful psyches of people who dwell where they’re unwelcomed.
108. dad4justice 108

     17 January 2008 at 3:28 pm

     Jum

     What was that post all about ?
109. Billy 109

     17 January 2008 at 3:33 pm

     Jum,

     Your comment lost D4J and, were I running a book, I would have had him a short odds as the person most likely to follow.
110. Michele Cabiling 110

     17 January 2008 at 3:33 pm

     Hoi Jum, since you appear to be interested in Islam, here’s another lengthy post — nobody is compelled to read it I hasten to say – on the true nature of Islam:

     THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM & Michele A. Cabiling
     [Irish Bill] This is a blog Michele, not a forum for you to post essays. Please keep your posts to a sensible length or provide a link rather than disrupting the debate]
111. dad4justice 111

     17 January 2008 at 3:36 pm

     Billy I understand the sensational Michele – not mixed up Jum .
112. r0b 112

     17 January 2008 at 3:39 pm

     Oh I get it, I disagree with you. None of you leftards has succeeded in doing more than picking minor holes a single one of my contentions

     Starring Michele Cabiling as The Black Knight who always triumphs!
113. the bean 113

     17 January 2008 at 3:40 pm

     ohhhhh i get it now. michele is liz shaw
114. Michele Cabiling 114

     17 January 2008 at 3:41 pm

     “Starring Michele Cabiling as The Black Knight who always triumphs!”

     Hoi Rob I’m brown, not black.

     “Starring Rob as the knobspank who will be forever stroking himself in a very small corner …”
115. dad4justice 115

     17 January 2008 at 3:42 pm

     And the bean and sprout are part of the climbing family of runner beans
116. r0b 116

     17 January 2008 at 3:52 pm

     Hoi Rob I’m brown, not black.

     It seems that your education has a few gaps Michele.

     Anyway, at least you found a post of mine that you could respond to. How about responding to this one?

     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=945 17 June 1:22am
117. Jum 117

     17 January 2008 at 3:53 pm

     Billy and Dad4justice

     Do you mean my last post to Michele – read carefully, word by word. It took me ages to think it through MY tiny little brain, but I’m happy with it. It has the look of a profound truth about it. Come back if you still don’t get it and I’ll go through it with you.

     OR

     are you asking why I asked Paul Litterick about his statement on Le Corbusier?

     Both are serious posts.
     I’m on this blog to learn and try to understand society; what are you two here for?
118. Draco TB 118

     17 January 2008 at 3:53 pm

     Yup. Violence as a means of political change is totally a right wing thing.

     There has been examples of violence from the left. It is very compared to that of the right.

     http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

     And that’s only a little over a century of one country. It would get a lot worse if we included all the countries where right-wing violence was used to suppress people.
119. Billy 119

     17 January 2008 at 3:59 pm

     Jum,

     I did as you suggested. I re-read that fish-lamb-sweetcorn thing word by word. It made no sense: it just made me hungry.
120. ak 120

     17 January 2008 at 4:07 pm

     Good God. I underestimated the severity of her obsession – this is bordering on suicidal. In all seriousness, I think you guys should remove Michele’s last post for her own protection.
121. andy 121

     17 January 2008 at 4:22 pm

     Sally, nice apology/climb down, says alot in my book…

     Michelle, I don’t think branding people on an admitidly left wing web site “leftards” will get you too many supporters, just saying…
122. dad4justice 122

     17 January 2008 at 4:28 pm

     “It took me ages to think it through MY tiny little brain, but I’m happy with it.”

     Jum interesting that you mention brain size as that is one of reasons why I blog on this site .I am doing a study about the intelligence of the average kiwi blogger and the above comment is a beauty for records and any budding students .

     I am cooking a leg of lamb with mint sauce , new spuds ,accompanied with a 2005 Hawkes Bay Chardonnay…etc… and would invite you around, however I know you are stuck in level 9 , its a pity .
123. Jum 123

     17 January 2008 at 4:39 pm

     Billy,

     I think I’ve told you before, haven’t I, that you’re gorgeous.

     Dad4justice

     You and Billy are stealing my idea of using food to build a case. If you are intending to use any of my work, I have copyright, and the going rate for my writing is 40c a word. Which reminds me – why am I wasting this gold on you my boy?
124. Michele Cabiling 124

     17 January 2008 at 4:40 pm

     Draco TB wrote:

     “There has been examples of violence from the left. It is very [minimal?] compared to that of the right.”

     and:

     “It would get a lot worse if we included all the countries where right-wing violence was used to suppress people.”

     This, of course, glosses over the 120 million dead victims of Communism over the course of the 20th Century (Mao = 60 million; Stalin = 30 million; Pol Pot = 40 percent of the pre-Communist population of Cambodia, etc etc.
     Then there’s Hitler (another socialist) with his relatively paltry 8 million.

     In every instance, this has been a consequence of replacing the Judeo-Christian Enlightenment concept of individual rights with socialist group rights, leading to the mass extermination of classes deemed to be pathological to the body politic. But of course you can’t make a utopian omelette without breaking a few (like 120 million) eggs, right?

     If you want a history lesson on this I suggest: “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois et. al; and Rudolf Rummel’s “Death By Government.”

     Socialism in its various forms is simply a plague on humanity.
125. dad4justice 125

     17 January 2008 at 4:46 pm

     Jum – do you know what fools gold looks like ?
126. Tane 126

     17 January 2008 at 4:50 pm

     This, of course, glosses over the 120 million dead victims of Communism over the course of the 20th Century (Mao = 60 million; Stalin = 30 million; Pol Pot = 40 percent of the pre-Communist population of Cambodia, etc etc.
     Then there’s Hitler (another socialist) with his relatively paltry 8 million.

     God, you really are a bore. I’ve stopped reading you over the last 24 hours, come back and it’s still the same crap.
127. Sally 127

     17 January 2008 at 3:51 pm

     No Michele, many people here have picked holes in your argument, in fact they have ripped them to shreds. You just don’t can’t bring yourself to face it. I’m beginning to agree with Robinsod that you are, in fact, a man pretending to be a woman and that you’re only intention here is to disrupt. I guess I just don’t understand why you would spend so much time doing that rather than engaging with people properly.
128. Matthew Pilott 128

     17 January 2008 at 4:56 pm

     “God, you really are a bore. I’ve stopped reading you over the last 24 hours, come back and it’s still the same crap.”

     I know, people point out a dozen times that there are moderate forms of social democracy but no, it must be black and white – either there’s nothing but a limited government that lets the “free” market rampage as it wishes, or you’re as bad as Hitler himself.

     Then you point out a dozen times how the market is not a fair and just or democratic means of distributing wealth and these arguments get thoroughly ignored after she loses the argument, and suddenly it’s back to how wonderful the feee market and invisible hand, unfettered by government is. In one ear, outh the other.
129. Michele Cabiling 129

     17 January 2008 at 5:02 pm

     In response to my post:

     “This, of course, glosses over the 120 million dead victims of Communism over the course of the 20th Century (Mao = 60 million; Stalin = 30 million; Pol Pot = 40 percent of the pre-Communist population of Cambodia, etc etc.
     Then there’s Hitler (another socialist) with his relatively paltry 8 million.”

     Tane said:

     “God, you really are a bore. I’ve stopped reading you over the last 24 hours, come back and it’s still the same crap.”

     Is that all you can say?

     Wrong, bro. The “crap” is: [1] the murderous ideology behind this mass murder; [2] those ordering it and carrying it out; [3] the intellectual enablers of the socialist project in the west who have defended and idolised the worst butchers in human history, yet refuse to resile from the murderous ideology behind these massacres; and [4] the intellectual pygmies who continue to insist that socialism is a viable ideology despite its record of mass murder and economic penury.
130. Michele Cabiling 130

     17 January 2008 at 5:17 pm

     Matthew Pillock wrote:

     “people point out a dozen times that there are moderate forms of social democracy.”

     I’ve never said the free market is perfect, just that it’s a helluva lot better than its alternative, the command economy. It’s as good as it gets, in other words.

     Michele points out a dozen times that starvation has largely vanished from countries where private property and economic freedom are permitted, and that free markets have rescued more people from poverty than Big Gummint ever has.

     I’ve also pointed out that “social democracy” (as Ludwig von Mises has correctly identified, is a slippery slope of ever-increasing statism and government intervention.

     One intervention begets another, begets another, begets another … until full socialism is achieved.

     The reason when answerable to voters, social[ist] democrats won’t proceed too quickly with the project is because they would encounter too much political resistance. Their agenda is far more achievable using techniques dear to all tyrants: There’s less resistance if liberty is taken away a little bit at a time.

     All this is justified by populist pieties about “the poor” “the workers” etc based on the assertion that in a free market environment these groups would be “exploited.”

     But what gives these know betters the right to decide whats best for people? The poor have just as much right as the better-off to decide what trade-offs to make in life. No one forces them to make a particular economic decision.

     Allowing people to insulate themselved from corrective reality and socialise the consequences of poor decision-making is deleterious both to those being coddled, and those forced to support them.
131. Jum 131

     17 January 2008 at 5:25 pm

     d4k

     no, I do not know what fool’s gold is like – I haven’t met you. What I do know is that I was foolish to imagine that I could have any sort of inclusive conversation with you. End of post.
132. Pascal's bookie 132

     17 January 2008 at 5:26 pm

     I’ve also pointed out that “social democracy” (as Ludwig von Mises has correctly identified, is a slippery slope of ever-increasing statism and government intervention.

     One intervention begets another, begets another, begets another . until full socialism is achieved.

     Except that the mixed economy has been trucking along now for the better part of a century. The century that has seen the biggest explosion of wealth and knowledge in history, along with increasing life expectency, and more even wealth distribution than any system ever tried before, anywhere, ever.

     Fuck, get me off this slippery slope Herr Mises, we’re dyyyyyyying over here.
133. Insolent Prick 133

     17 January 2008 at 8:36 pm

     I think it’s fascinating how the Standard whips itself into an outrage over this, with Tane wading in with claims of stalking. Just a few weeks ago, when Robinsod was stalking me, Tane’s advice was for Robinsod and myself to chill out–as if I was responsible for Robinsod’s stalking.

     Funny how when Minto’s hypocrisy is exposed, Tane’s response is not for Whale and Minto to chill out, but to suddenly fake umbrage at somebody else’s stalking.

     One law for Labour’s friends, and one law for everybody else. How hollow of the Standard today.
134. Robinsod 134

     17 January 2008 at 8:49 pm

     Hey Prick, how’s it going? I found your streaming video-porn membership listing the other day. Doesn’t really fit with “theater, opera, [sic] and culture” now does it? Or is that just your shtick for the laydeez?

     Just in case you hadn’t noticed Prick – you’re still on my shitlist. It takes a lot to get on in but man does it ever take even more to get off it!
135. burt 135

     17 January 2008 at 9:20 pm

     IP

     Great to see you have made it onto Robinsod’s shitlist.

     Now lets just check I have the point of this thread. IrishBill justifies staying anonymous because there are stalkers that could be dangerous. He also supports electoral law that requires people to publish their name and residential address to express political opinions. The double standard at it’s finest.
136. Santi 136

     17 January 2008 at 9:36 pm

     “Just in case you hadn’t noticed Prick – you’re still on my shitlist.”

     Michael Porton you should hide better your gangster tendencies. Nothing but well crafted scum.

     It’s probably a badge of honour to be on your “shitlist’.
137. burt 137

     17 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

     I2

     Bill – at the end of the day, is there actually a difference between WhaleOil’s post, and the one Tane did the other day on John Key’s holiday home?

     I don’t think so, and you could also argue that Minto should have published his residential address anyway… Oh that’s right, Minto has the correct opinions and deserves to be excluded from such totalitarian legislation.
138. dad4justice 138

     17 January 2008 at 9:48 pm

     Hey robinsod – am I on your “shit list ” ? I couldn’t give a hoot so don’t answer me !! What a strange chap – odd ball type .

     I have seen it all now on the internet . I don’t think I like this place, as never have I seen such ludicrous rantings from a clearly not well person .
139. Benodic 139

     17 January 2008 at 9:49 pm

     Robinsod’s all bluster guys. I’ve been around this site since its early days and I’ve never seen him do more than threaten unlike the creeps on the right. Still, he shouldn’t be threatening anyone.
140. Robinsod 140

     17 January 2008 at 10:02 pm

     well crafted???

     Jeez Santi you just keep pouring the compliments on. Thanks bro!
141. Insolent Prick 141

     17 January 2008 at 10:36 pm

     Robinsod yet again makes everyone else look totally benign, through his creepiness. He also brings into sharp focus the hypocrisy of Tane calling somebody else a stalker, while Tane allows his own blog to be used for stalking.
142. Tane 142

     17 January 2008 at 10:56 pm

     Prick, you stalk people and I still let you comment on this blog. But you know, I can’t be held responsible for what you, Robinsod, or anyone else says when commenting on this blog. I censure people from time to time, and I’ve deleted the odd message. What I won’t do is post personal details of others on the main page like Whaleoil did. I don’t see any hypocrisy in this position, and nor does anyone else who’s reasonable, though I’ve no doubt you’ll keep on trying.
143. Insolent Prick 143

     18 January 2008 at 12:21 am

     Don’t lie, Tane. I do no such thing. I have never outed any blogger, and no amount of new smears from you will justify the fact that you make all kinds of demands of other people’s behaviour, including that they account for their friends, yet you allow Robinsod to use your blog as a forum to stalk others.
144. Tane 144

     18 January 2008 at 12:39 am

     You’ve repeatedly tried to guess at my place of employment and used people’s real life identities when addressing them, among other things. I didn’t ban you then and I won’t ban you now.

     I’ve also condemned Robinsod’s behaviour when he’s crossed the line, as others will attest. You’ll note I’ve come down on him more than even many on the right, simply because as a lefty I think he’s letting the team down when he behaves like that. He’s a smart and funny guy when he wants to be and I think he can do better.

     Having said that, I certainly wouldn’t involve myself in joint blogs or political movements with him like David Farrar has with Whaleoil. DPF covers for and encourages Whale’s behaviour – that’s a key difference.

     But you already know all this, you’re just here, as usual, to disrupt. I’m not going to humour you on this any more on this. All I can take from your comments is that you approve of Whaleoil’s stalking and intimidation of John Minto and are desperately trying to draw a tenuous moral equivalency in order to salvage what’s left of his reputation. I wouldn’t bother – Whale’s a liability to your cause and if you were smart you’d cut him loose.
145. Insolent Prick 145

     18 January 2008 at 8:28 am

     You’re lying again, Tane. I have not tried to guess your identity and your place of work. You will recall, since you endorsed it, some time ago that I said I did not approve of people outing others’ anonymous identities on the internet. I never have outed people, and your claim that I have is a lie. You are deliberately trying to obfuscate. Given that the Standard has consistently referred to Whale by his real name, it is rank hypocrisy on your part to claim that I do so.

     It is my view that the Standard bloggers are almost exclusively employed by Parliamentary Services, as Labour Party activists, or are paid union officials. This is a consensus view among both blogger on the Right, the media, and a number of center bloggers. Who you are individually, I don’t care.

     When Robinsod was stalking me, you did not “condemn” him. You instead chose to take a broad swipe at both stalker and stalkee, by saying you didn’t approve of such behaviour, and both parties should chill out. Blaming the stalkee for the stalking action hardly constitutes a condemnation. When Robinsod has depicted himself as a moderator of the Standard, you have responded: “You are a cheeky bastard, Robinsod, but that’s why we love you.” That is hardly a condemnation, either.

     Tane, you do not hold Robinsod to account for his behaviour. You continue to allow him to make objectionable posts. When you do censor his more defamatory claims, you end up deleting everybody’s messages, as if to suggest that a number of people were at fault. The Standard welcomed his first contribution at Newzblog.

     Now, that’s fine with me. You want to host him, encourage him, publish his comments, that’s fine with me. But you paint yourself a hypocrite when you fake outrage at DPF for not publicly distancing himself from Whale. DPF is no more responsible for Whale than you are for Robinsod.

     Stop smearing people, Tane. I don’t mind the fact that the Standard publishes anonymously, despite campaigning against anonymous contributions to political parties. I don’t mind that the Standard exercises the very kind of anonymous free speech that the Electoral Finance Act shuts down. I think you should have that free speech. But it says a lot more about your character that you can’t see the irony in it.
146. dad4justice 146

     18 January 2008 at 8:44 am

     Well said IP
147. James Kearney 147

     18 January 2008 at 9:16 am

     Nice selective quoting Prickman. I’ve seen you quote Tane’s infamous “You’re not a moderator. You can’t even moderate your own behaviour” quip to Robinsod when it suited you.

     When you’re that dishonest I can’t take a word of what you say seriously. No surprise then you also fail to mention that whereas Robinsod just comments on this place along with hundreds of others, Whale and Farrar are co-founders of the Free Speech Coalition. There is no comparison.

     Good to see you’ve got Dad4Justice on your side though man, that’s credibility.
148. Robinsod 148

     18 January 2008 at 9:34 am

     Jeez, IP – I really got under your skin, eh? All I’ve put up is publicly available information – it just happens I’m pretty good at finding it. You and you’re rightwing mates have happily published and re-published my real name across every political blog in the country even though I have repeatedly made it clear that, given the threats that have been made against me, doing so could potentially endanger my safety. Because of this I had to delist from directory services (thankfully I never had my name published in the actual book)and get transfered to the unpublished roll.

     So far I haven’t published your real name or the real names of any of anyone else from the right (don’t think you’re the only one I keep tabs on).

     I think I’ve been quite restrained.
149. Billy 149

     18 January 2008 at 9:39 am

     “You and you’re rightwing..” Oh, dear.

     “doing so could potentially endanger my safety.” Little bit dramatic.

     “(don’t think you’re the only one I keep tabs on)” Little bit creepy.
150. Daveo 150

     18 January 2008 at 9:40 am

     Yeah IP, the ninth floor is directing a website that says:

     “So that’s the main party choice this year – you can vote Labour for low wages and poor working conditions or you can vote National and see it all get even worse. Kinda makes all this talk from both parties about supporting families seem a bit hollow really.”

     … and then tells people to vote Green instead. Must mean the Greens are in on it too!

     Time for IP to whip out the old tin foil hat I think.

     [Captcha: Bombay Vampire – cool.]
151. r0b 151

     18 January 2008 at 9:41 am

     Happy New Year IP, welcome back.

     You raised your game last year by toning down your personal abuse. Why not try raising it again in 2008? Aim for some consistency, abandon the half truths…

     Jan 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am

     Tane, you do not hold Robinsod to account for his behaviour. You continue to allow him to make objectionable posts.

     Saturday, 8th December 07, 11:08 am

     Robinsod toned down his behaviour since Tane warned him, using the kind of mothering tactic which Tane seems to use very effectively.

     So which is it?

     Running a contentious political blog looks to me like bloody hard work – a continual tightrope act while half the audience hurls bottles. While I don’t agree with every action I think on the whole Tane and the crew at The Standard do an excellent job.
152. Insolent Prick 152

     18 January 2008 at 9:56 am

     Robinsod,

     I have never made reference to your real name, or your private details. I have said, and Tane commented on it and concurred with it, that I don’t approve of outing people on the internet. I warned you when you were in your most outrageous stalking mood, that I didn’t think the anonymous bloggers at the Standard wanted to engage in an outing war. Given their sensitive positions at Parliamentary Services, and in the employ of various unions, as even at least one Public Address blogger has noted, I didn’t think that would be constructive.

     You regularly make various defamatory and bizarre comments about me and others, and admit to stalking. I have said before I think that is creepy. It was only when Tane was asked whether he approved of his blog being used as a forum for your stalking that Tane said he didn’t agree with it.

     r0b, Robinsod certainly did tone down his conduct after Tane gave him a mild slap for it. I said at the time I suspected it had more to do with Tane wanting, quite rightly, to protect the identities of the anonymous bloggers at the Standard by not provoking an outing war. As recently as a day ago, Robinsod again claimed to be stalking me, among others. He may need another bout of Tane’s mothering.
153. Robinsod 153

     18 January 2008 at 9:56 am

     “You and you’re rightwing..” Oh, dear.

     I know as soon as I hit submit I realised what I’d done – I guess I was a bit wound up.

     “doing so could potentially endanger my safety.” Little bit dramatic.

     Billy I’ve had repeated threats made to my personal safety, threats made about finding out who I work for and fucking with me and defamatory statements made about me including false accusations I’m a paedophile and a rapist – I figure that is more than enough reason to want to keep people from being able to find out where I live.

     “(don’t think you’re the only one I keep tabs on)” Little bit creepy.

     Yeah it is but unfortunately it’s the only think I’ve found that works to encourage rightwing nutters to steer away from threatening/outing me. Frankly, tracking this shit down is a pain in the arse but short of giving up posting/commenting altogether I haven’t found a better way to stop the threats.
154. Robinsod 154

     18 January 2008 at 9:59 am

     Given their sensitive positions at Parliamentary Services, and in the employ of various unions,

     See Prick, what you’re doing here is lying again. I suggest you stop.
155. Billy 155

     18 January 2008 at 10:02 am

     So, upon whom are you keeping tabs? Given that keeping tabs on “rightwing nutters” is for the purpose of “steer[ing them] away from threatening/outing” you, naming the monitored can only aid in that goal.
156. Robinsod 156

     18 January 2008 at 10:07 am

     No Billy – it won’t. You’re certainly not on the list and neither is anybody else that hasn’t threatened (implicit or outrightly) or named me.
157. Matthew Pilott 157

     18 January 2008 at 10:10 am

     HIGH HORSE ALERT HIGH HORSE ALERT IP ON THE LOOSE

     Yeah IP is a blatant liar. I don’t use my name on many other blogs, whether there’s any point to that I’m not sure, but right when IP was having a cry over Robinsod trying to find out who he was, he started using my full name on other blogs, when I was using a loose pseudonym.

     He’s a hollow liar, and for him to complain about double standards is a joke – I’m not the only person to suffer his childish type of bullying. He only got on this high horse when ‘sod went after him.

     Tane, I’m impressed you aren’t banning this IP guy – he tries to out people and lies blatantly while attacking you personally. I think it’s a testament to how even handed you are, that you put up with shit like that from him. Ironic that he’s the right-wing counterpoint to the very behaviour he’s protesting about – but I doubt he sees it that way 😉
158. The Prophet 158

     18 January 2008 at 10:29 am

     So you’re not a [deleted] then [deleted]?

     [Tane: Let’s not start this again]
159. The Prophet 159

     18 January 2008 at 10:39 am

     Sod says they’re false Tane.

     The facts speak for themselves.

     Very interesting that you are protecting him at all costs but.

     What do you think 2 guys threatening to ‘do’ someones wife from ‘both ends’ means then Tane?
160. Tane 160

     18 January 2008 at 10:42 am

     As I said to you in our email exchange on the topic Prophet, while what he said was distasteful and out of line there was no evidence of the threats of illegal behaviour you’re suggesting. I offered to remove the post if I saw any evidence of that, but you haven’t provided any.

     You’re free to keep highlighting what Robinsod has said to you, maybe it’ll help him clean up his act. But please don’t post potentially defamatory content on this website.
161. Robinsod 161

     18 January 2008 at 10:52 am

     Hey Profit – I just read the thread and I can see I make a joking reference to having sex with your wife when she emails me to ask for it. Tasteless, I know but a joke about your wife cheating on you – not even close to the accusations you make. Come to think of it you bring stripclubs into the thread as a joke also…

     I’d suggest Profitless that when you put up evidence it holds up your argument not the other persons – it’s a little unusual an idea I know but I’m sure you’ll get your head around it in time.
162. The Prophet 162

     18 January 2008 at 10:55 am

     So I can make ‘joking’ references to you being a [deleted] then right [deleted]?

     Its all just good clean fun right?
163. Robinsod 163

     18 January 2008 at 11:08 am

     Man I’m Dumb! I only just clicked to who you are profit – I just had a bit of a play with the aggregator and it’s cohesion tool to be sure and yep – you’re [deleted].

     It all makes sense now – you appear on the standard at the same time as [deleted] (after both of you have been away for weeks) running the same arguments in the same way. And I checked Profit, you appeared on the standard only after I scared [deleted] off by threatening to [deleted].

     So that means:

     You have no wife.

     You don’t live in Wellington.

     You’re entire persona is a lie.

     Now [deleted]/TP – if you continue with this shit I’m gonna start [deleted] mate – hell I might even do a whole post over at newzblog (where it won’t be deleted).

     Oh, and I’d be very careful in what I said about treatment of women if I was you bro – nobody likes a hypocrite.

     [Tane: Robinsod, this is out of line and inflammatory. If you’re going to behave like this you can do it at your own blog.]
164. The Prophet 164

     18 January 2008 at 11:13 am

     You deleted his name?

     Is that offensive now Tane?

     What a joke you lot are.

     As I have said Mike – when you come around and apoligise to my wife in person I will stop calling you what you appear to be. Until then, by Zeus, I shall call you what you appear to be in any forum I find you.

     Now you can set your friend Justin to finding out who I am and try threatening to out me, but given his past attempts I don’t really think you will get far.
165. Robinsod 165

     18 January 2008 at 11:16 am

     TP/[deleted] – I already know who you are.
166. Matthew Pilott 166

     18 January 2008 at 11:19 am

     ‘sod – “It’s cohesion tool”.

     Back against the wall.
167. Robinsod 167

     18 January 2008 at 11:25 am

     ‘sod – “It’s cohesion tool”.

     Back against the wall.
     

     Yeah, for some reason my apostrophe’s have been slipping lately when I’m pissed off. Sorry about that.
168. Matthew Pilott 168

     18 January 2008 at 11:27 am

     Apostrophe’s?

     Now you’re just taking the piss 8)
169. Robinsod 169

     18 January 2008 at 11:34 am

     I wouldnt do that.
170. merl 170

     18 January 2008 at 11:47 am

     Erm, do you consider giving people 1 day bans as a ‘time-out’?

     Because some people here seem to need to learn some manners.
171. Matthew Pilott 171

     18 January 2008 at 11:51 am

     Na merl, we’re all for smacking over here, none of this ‘time out’ PC nonsense! 😉
172. The Prophet 172

     18 January 2008 at 12:21 pm

     Your paranoia gets the better of you again Mike.

     I was some guy called Tom in the thread where you threatened to [Deleted] my wife.

     Who am I supposed to be now?

     Put up a post about it on your new blog [deleted]
173. Insolent Prick 173

     18 January 2008 at 2:35 pm

     Crikey, Tane. This has to be a record for comments moderation from you. For a blog that has trumpeted itself as not moderating comments, and the civilised nature of your commenters, it does seem to be a final admission from you that your commenters are no cleaner than at kiwiblog. For all the bile that you’ve hiffed at DPF for needing to moderate his comments, you are no better. How many comments moderated so far, on this one thread? FIFTEEN?

     There is a majestic irony in the Standard’s post beginning as a justification for the Standard’s anonymous authors to remain anonymous, while the Standard’s most bilious supporter threatens to defame, stalk, and out people both at the Standard, and elsewhere.

     Seriously, Tane, as long as you endorse Robinsod by allowing him to comment here, and refuse to publicly distance yourself from his disgraceful behaviour, your call for DPF to do likewise to Whale does ring very hollow.

     Robinsod has turned this place into a cesspit, Tane. He’s your biggest liability.
174. Tane 174

     18 January 2008 at 2:48 pm

     Prick we’ve always had a policy of deleting potentially defamatory comments. This is nothing new to you – again, you’re just conducting another one of your dishonest personal attacks.

     Robinsod is not an author at The Standard. It’s been said enough times that he’s been told he’s not welcome to write for us because of the way he behaves. But, just like you, Whale and plenty of others, we allow him to comment here in spite of his behaviour because we believe in open discussion, even if it means moderating from time to time when people step too far out of line.

     You can’t complain about moderation then then tell us to ban people you don’t like Prick. It just doesn’t work that way.

     Right, I’m done with this. Now I’m going to make good on my promise not to humour you anymore on this topic.
175. r0b 175

     18 January 2008 at 2:48 pm

     Oh Puhlease.

     Seriously, Tane, as long as you endorse Robinsod by allowing him to comment here,

     It is ludicrous to claim that the owners of a blog endorse the views of those who post. They provide a forum (a “common carrier”). Should DPF be held as endorsing the insanity posted on his blog?

     and refuse to publicly distance yourself from his disgraceful behaviour,

     Tane has distanced himself on many occasions.

     For a blog that has trumpeted itself as not moderating comments

     In the early days perhaps, but the growing popularity of The Standard has made some moderation necessary. What The Standard doesn’t do is hand out “lifetime bans” to posters with opposing ideologies, while hypocritically championing the cause of “free speech”. That’s Kiwiblog’s territory.
176. Robinsod 176

     18 January 2008 at 3:00 pm

     Robinsod has turned this place into a cesspit, Tane. He’s your biggest liability.

     Y’see punter – you’re trying your hand at what’s called wedge politics. The thing is mate, you aren’t very good at it (kinda like everything else in this world).

     I suggest you go back to work and stop making transparent attempts to manipulate people (hint: when they know you’re a psycho it doesn’t work). Oh and I’d also suggest you stop inventing other commenters to back yourself up – you’re too stupid to make them sound any different to your own drivel and you only humiliate yourself more.
177. Insolent Prick 177

     18 January 2008 at 3:09 pm

     Come on, r0b. The Standard did trumpet the fact that it didn’t moderate comments, ostensibly because its commenters were more civilised, and moderation wasn’t therefore necessary.

     I’m not complaining that Robinsod’s extremism is moderated. I’m merely pointing out the difference between the Standard’s earlier assertions that moderation wasn’t necessary, and its current actions. You claim it is because the Standard is now a more popular blog. Now, that might be a reasonable explanation, if robinsod was a new commenter: a product of the Standard’s success. But he isn’t. He’s been consistently trawling the bottom of the barrel since the Standard began.

     Tane has at best given Robinsod a slap with a wet bus ticket. He has, on the other hand, gone so far as to ban dad4justice. I haven’t seen Tane even threaten Robinsod with similar.

     The Standard has every right to moderate its comments. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of originally saying it didn’t moderate, then doing so, while criticising DPF for doing the same.

     My personal opinion is that if you’re going to set up a blog, it’s naive to state you’re never going to moderate comments. Comments moderation, as I suppose the Standard has now found, is not actually about limiting debate: it’s about protecting yourself from litigation through other people’s irresponsible behaviour, and protecting other individuals from harm.

     Saying you’re not going to moderate comments simply invites both your friends and foes to dwell in the sewer with impunity. It is the Standard’s own friends–and robinsod is the most stark example–who have created the sewer that is now the Standard’s comments section.

     I think you would agree, rOb, that Robinsod’s behaviour has gone too far, and he’s made a mockery of this entire post (which justifies anonymous contributions online) by threatening to stalk and out other anonymous commenters. Offering Robinsod a ban to give him an opportunity to reflect on his conduct might be a very constructive act. The Standard’s already done likewise to dad4justice: if Tane wants to preserve credibility, he should do likewise to Robinsod.
178. James Kearney 178

     18 January 2008 at 3:19 pm

     The Standard has every right to moderate its comments. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of originally saying it didn’t moderate, then doing so, while criticising DPF for doing the same.

     IP you fool the standard does not moderate people it disagrees with, it moderates people for potential defamation or in the case of Michel Cabiling repeatedly and tastelessly pissing on Hone Tuwhare’s obituary.

     The contrast has always been that the standard welcomes debate while Farrar bans lefties he doesn’t like. It’s interesting to see you demanding robinsod be banned. Is it because he hands you your arse every time you try to pick a fight with him? You’re the most obnoxious poster here and I have to agree with others that you’re just here to disrupt. You’re a beneficiary of the standard’s light moderation, but you’re just too stupid and dishonest to see it.
179. burt 179

     18 January 2008 at 3:20 pm

     IP

     You shouldn’t expect the supporters of the standard to be rational about this. This thread is about how it’s justifiable for the authors to remain anonymous when posting their political opinions while they also support people being required to publish their full name an residential address if they want to express political opinions.

     These guys have shown very clearly that one standard is expected for them and another is expected for everybody else. Of course Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill expect you to behave differently to them, it’s how they operate.
180. burt 180

     18 January 2008 at 3:21 pm

     Sorry stuffed up that link, it was:

     Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill
181. James Kearney 181

     18 January 2008 at 3:23 pm

     Oh and just one more thing. It’s the Kiwiblog right who try to make things unpleasant here. Apart from the occasional outburst by Robinsod the left are very pleasant and reasonable people to deal with.

     You, IP, are the worst person on this site. Do you realise no one else wants you here?
182. James Kearney 182

     18 January 2008 at 3:27 pm

     Sorry stuffed up that link, it was:

     Tane, Robinsod & IrishBill

     I love how burt thinks he’s funny. He’s like my 65 year old uncle. He learns how to bold his text and all of a sudden everything’s bold!. Now he’s learned how to link to Wikipedia. What a smart old drunk you are burty boy.
183. Robinsod 183

     18 January 2008 at 3:28 pm

     Burt – what whale did to minto is like me picking a rightwinger at random (say, Jakie Blue) and then posting her financial details and a picture of her house. What I’ve done is make sure people who want to endanger me have something to lose by doing so. If Minto had repeatedly defamed and threatened Whale around the traps I’d be less outraged by Whale’s actions. But he didn’t.

     Tell me this Burt – do you think it’s fair that I’ve had to change my status on directory services and on the electoral role just because Whale and his psychopathic friends decided to out me?
184. Matthew Pilott 184

     18 January 2008 at 3:32 pm

     I have to laugh when IP gets on his High Horse aye. 99% of the time the comments here are enthusiastic, combative (in a good imntellectual sense), enlightening and entertaining.

     Prophet and Sobinsod continue a strange pissing-contest (I didn’t get it the first time around, but don’t care) and suddenly The Standard is a sewer.

     IP, when you write such comments, do you think there’s anyone out there apart from the usual sycophants who actually read your comments and think that what you have written holds a modicum of truth. I can tell you, IP, that a vast majority would read such comments and dismiss them as vile trolling.

     But please, tell me – do you think anyone reads what you say and agrees (apart from the obvious arse-kissers)?

     James, most people on the right are reasonable to debate with, if not, perhaps, a touch combative (as we all can be) – don’t tar them all with the same brush as IP, they’re much more rational, decent and honest.
185. merl 185

     18 January 2008 at 3:35 pm

     IP, I don’t understand where you are coming from. Perhaps theStandard did at one time congratulate themselves on not needing to moderate comments, but the fact that comments get moderated is caused by two things, objectionable posts and a moderator willing to moderate.

     From what I can see here all of the ‘moderation’ that has happened in this thread is entirely necessary to turn off the flamethrowers that seem to be the default mode in internet ‘discussions’.

     Dad4justice posted here today, so I’m not sure why you think he’s banned. Did he get a temp-ban a while back? Was it merited?

     It seems to me that Robinsod is being moderated in the same was as the flamers who are attacking him are, and in a reasonably consistent manner.

     You *have* to have good moderation in order to actually have discussion, otherwise the threads just become an exercise in trolling. Is that what you want?

     capatcha: droll snail
186. burt 186

     18 January 2008 at 3:43 pm

     Hi James Kearney, you like attacking the messenger as well I see.

     So what do you think about IrishBill defending being anonymous while also supporting the EFB? Do you see any double standard in that or are you simply not interested in that and all you can think about is the style of my post?
187. burt 187

     18 January 2008 at 3:53 pm

     Robinsod

     Tell me this Burt – do you think it’s fair that I’ve had to change my status on directory services and on the electoral role just because Whale and his psychopathic friends decided to out me?

     Not at all – nor would I like it if I had to move because my residential address was required to be printed on something I wanted to say and some nutta started stalking my house. You can hide from here on because you have removed yourself from the directory, not so if the nutta’s have a piece of paper with your residential address on it.
188. burt 188

     18 January 2008 at 4:09 pm

     Robinsod

     Also it could easily be argued that John Minto would be required to print his residential address on anything he has published this year anyway. So ignoring what Whaleoil has done to you for a moment, it’s a bit rich to be upset about a picture of Minto’s house given the way the authors of this blog support the requirement to print a residential address on political opinions.

     I know it’s hard defending the indefensible, but sometimes it pays to STFU rather than post threads like this which highlight the double standard of the being a Labour supporter.
189. r0b 189

     18 January 2008 at 4:15 pm

     IP: I’m merely pointing out the difference between the Standard’s earlier assertions that moderation wasn’t necessary, and its current actions. You claim it is because the Standard is now a more popular blog. Now, that might be a reasonable explanation …

     Well thank you. It is a reasonable explanation.

     … if robinsod was a new commenter: a product of the Standard’s success.

     I wasn’t suggesting that Robinsod is new, it is other newly arrived commenters and trolls that changed the tone here. And ‘sod has let himself be drawn into confrontations that lead him to occasionally post foolish things. Which is a pity, because most of the time he’s reasonable, and at his best he’s smart and funny. I definitely want him on my side when the glorious revolution comes. [Sadly, I probably have to label that comment as an explicit joke, for the sake of the humour impaired].

     I think you would agree, rOb, that Robinsod’s behaviour has gone too far, and he’s made a mockery of this entire post (which justifies anonymous contributions online) by threatening to stalk and out other anonymous commenters.

     If we’re trying to have a reasonable conversation, then yes, I do agree that Robinsod went too far here. I don’t like threats to out people. There are perfectly valid reasons why people might wish to post anonymously.
190. The Prophet 190

     18 January 2008 at 4:17 pm

     Why would anyone want to track you down Mike?

     What possible reason could anyone have for trying to find you after your name was mentioned on the interwebs?

     What could you have possibly done that would make YOU think someone was going to come and get you and that you had better get your details removed from areas of the public record?

     I’m scratching for reasons, help me out will ya Mike?
191. Matthew Pilott 191

     18 January 2008 at 4:25 pm

     So Burt, the guts of your comment is that Whale is in fact a nutter because of his stalking, that’s all you had to say.
192. Robinsod 192

     18 January 2008 at 4:33 pm

     Also it could easily be argued that John Minto would be required to print his residential address on anything he has published this year anyway

     Burt – You would be required to put your address on any election advert you publish this year. Does that mean Whale should put up a post with your financial details, name your suburb and post a picture of your house?

     Oh and burt – the law in the last election (and since 1993) already stated you needed to put your name and street address on advertisements.

     Section 221 of the Electoral Act 1993 (clause 2b) reads:

     “The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.”

     The only difference now is the definition of advertising has been extended to include some web-based stuff (a law change to keep up with technological change) and the period it covers has been extended to all of election year – this also reflects a changing political reality.
193. burt 193

     18 January 2008 at 4:35 pm

     Matthew Pilott

     No that is not the guts of it – only somebody trying to deflect the attention away from the double standard of posting anonymously while supporting legislation that requires people to disclose their name and address would say that.

     But however it’s reasonable to conclude that as I think anybody who stalks others is a nutta that I also think WhaleOil is a nutta as well.

     It’s easy for me to say that because I’m not myopically partisan and I can see faults where they exists, rather than just where I want them to be.
194. Matthew Pilott 194

     18 January 2008 at 4:42 pm

     I should stop trying to make light of things just because it’s Friday afternoon, sorry Burt!

     However as rOb mentioned I thought you already had to add those details.

     Have a good weekend all.
195. Robinsod 195

     18 January 2008 at 4:44 pm

     I’m scratching for reasons, help me out will ya Mike?

     y’know TP/IP – I ask myself that a lot. I mean, my behaviour although bad is considerably less abusive than a lot of Kiwiblog right wingers and yet I’ve never threatened them with physical violence and I haven’t seen anybody else do so either. And yet I get threatened reasonable frequently (your continual and deliberate use of my real name is an excellent example of such menacing behaviour). All I can really say is I guess the right is full of psychos who turn really really nasty when they get a taste of their own shit. You are a good example of that mate.
196. James Kearney 196

     18 January 2008 at 5:34 pm

     Interesting to see that when Robinsod changes gear and starts talking facts the right-wingers disappear. They’re only here for a fight because they have nothing meaningful to say. You should stick to commenting like this Robinsod: facts seem to scare them more than threats do.
197. Insolent Prick 197

     18 January 2008 at 5:56 pm

     Is it because he hands you your arse every time you try to pick a fight with him? You’re the most obnoxious poster here and I have to agree with others that you’re just here to disrupt.

     Actually, James, Robinsod hasn’t engaged in a debate with me for several months. After losing every argument, he descended to telling me I was a nobody, that he had no interest in debating with me, telling me to “fuck off”, then tarted threatening to stalk me, then actually stalking me. Strange behaviour to stalk a nobody.

     There are some people at the Standard who do debate. r0b certainly does. IrishBill does. Wqhile I have no doubt they have vested interests in their opinions (hell, I have a vested interest in lower taxes), I think they’re honestly held. Roger Gnome honestly believes his misguided views. Sometimes, as over the EFB when he was forced to back down from the standard Labour Party line that National was just as guilty as the Labour Party in stealing taxpayers’ money–he has the belated honesty to admit he’s wrong. I don’t credit Tane with the same intellectual honesty.

     Matthew Pilott used to engage in debate, but he got cranky some while back after losing argument after argument at kiwiblog. It appears he was offended my my reference to him as Matthew Pilott, instead of his pseudonym “Fighter Pilott” at Kiwiblog. This was an error on my part, and I didn’t intend it to be an outing. I would suggest that a reference to him as Matthew when he’s posting as Fighter Pilott at Kiwiblog, and simultaneously as Matthew Pilott at the Standard, is not an outing. I say again I didn’t mean to offend. If I did so, I apologise.

     I’m not sure where Robinsod’s ire comes from. I have never attempted to out him, or encouraged anybody else to do so. I’ve said at the Standard repeatedly that I don’t support outing anonymous bloggers. I’m quite comfortable with the Standard’s bloggers remaining anonymous. I accept that their may be sensitive issues relating to their employment, which would prejudice their future prospects if their actual identities were revealed.

     There is an outright hypocrisy between the Standard’s opposition to anonymous contributions to politics, however, and the Standard’s insistence that it remains anonymous. I don’t have a personal problem with either, but it is total hypocrisy to maintain that political campaigning needs to be public, yet political activism on blogs should not be.

     My personal view is that people are smart enough to make a judgement on the value of an anonymous contribution to either political life or political debate. Anonymity diminishes the value of the argument. Because the person making the argument cannot be personally held to account for the argument, the argument is less valuable than an argument made by a named person, whose real-life credibility is at stake when they make the argument. Let’s face it, you can say anything you like when you don’t have to account for it.

     On the other hand, a very good argument made anonymously beats a crappy argument made by a named person every time. And I think the audience is generally smart enough to draw that distinction.
198. IrishBill 198

     18 January 2008 at 6:55 pm

     It’s good to see you’re commenting reasonably Prick. I had a word with ‘Sod and he’s going to pull his head in. You are not at all blameless yourself however, and we have all noticed your tendency to use other commenters names instead of their handles and to imply you know biographical detail about them. We enjoy the fact that the standard is a forum for real debate and would appreciate it if you maintained the tenor you’ve shown in your last comment.

     Captcha: “truce the” I kid you not.
199. The Prophet 199

     18 January 2008 at 9:22 pm

     Yes, very good IP, I mean….me. 🙂
200. r0b 200

     19 January 2008 at 12:18 am

     IP Wqhile I have no doubt they have vested interests in their opinions (hell, I have a vested interest in lower taxes), I think they’re honestly held.

     Why is it that persons from the right so often see life only in terms of personal gain? I have no financial “vested interest” in supporting a Labour government. I would benefit enormously from some forms of lower taxes. The interest that I and many others have in supporting the political left is to support a fair society and a sustainable environment. Is that impossible to believe?

     but it is total hypocrisy to maintain that political campaigning needs to be public, yet political activism on blogs should not be.

     There are worlds of difference between campaigning and blogging, so it is not at all hypocritical to treat them differently. And the requirement that campaigning should not be anonymous is not new, as robinsod pointed out above it has been in place in NZ since 1993 (and it is also in place in other similar democracies such as Canada). Once again you are attacking a “strawman”.

     If you want to attack total hypocrisy, you should go challenge DPF for his lifetime banning of posters with opposing ideologies, while ostensibly championing the cause of “free speech”.
201. Jum 201

     19 January 2008 at 2:50 am

     Guys

     Is this your answer to boy racing – getting rid of that male aggro in a safe way?
202. r0b 202

     19 January 2008 at 8:54 am

     Guys

     Is this your answer to boy racing – getting rid of that male aggro in a safe way?

     Why would you assume that I’m a guy? Not that I’ll see your reply, I’m off for a week – byeeee
203. Jum 203

     19 January 2008 at 10:45 am

     rOb

     that’s cheating leaving after landing a punch, ineffectual as it may have been.

     Guys is a mixed gender term.

     Male aggro is in the systems of both men and women, just as love and sharing and caring are in the systems of both men and women.

     Don’t let the sharks bite.

Links to post

1. Farrar’s Albatross « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 17 January 2008 at 7:34 am
2. god is dead…we have killed him you and i « Thesproutandthebean: posted on 17 January 2008 at 12:41 pm
3. Anonymous blogging « 100 Word Blog: posted on 20 January 2008 at 1:37 pm
4. Scum at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 31 March 2008 at 9:54 pm
5. Pee Public Pee Public Pissing: posted on 29 April 2008 at 10:49 pm
6. Down the club at The Standard 2.01: posted on 26 May 2008 at 9:40 pm
7. Stalkathon « ‘SodBlog: posted on 15 September 2008 at 8:29 pm
8. National: targeting the victim at The Standard: posted on 10 June 2009 at 8:56 pm
9. Pacific Empire » Blog Archive » Common Sense at The Standard: posted on 6 August 2009 at 12:08 pm
10. southernsquall: posted on 11 January 2010 at 6:54 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS