Hilarious hypocrisy
John A has just blogged in favour of requiring people who chant “don’t vote for Helen Clark” to be forced to reveal their name and address. He thinks this is reasonable and anonymous advocacy is a bad thing.
And where does John A blog? At the Standard, where every single contributor is anonymous, including John A himself. I mean how stupid do you have to be that hypocritical? Seriously can we pay money to give him his own comedy show on TV?
Luckily I will remain staunch in my defence of the right of John A to remain anonymous. I’m all for disclosure of people who spend significant money on advocacy. But I think people should be able to express their views on a protest march or in Usenet without needing a name and address attached.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blogosphere, Electoral Act
November 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“I think people should be able to express their views on a protest march or in Usenet without needing a name and address attached.”
And who is proposing that they have to?
Buying into your own, partisan hysteria again David?
[DPF: Sonic - if you can't actually bother to read the detailed analysis, and point out flws in it, then why bother commenting. Go and find a way to prove my interpretation wrong]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I think this little man would prefer the anonymity of radio.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
<i>Luckily I will remain staunch in my defence of the right of John A to remain anonymous.</i>
No you don’t David, you regularly threaten to reveal people’s identities.
[DPF: Oh only to expose hypocrisy - oh wait - yes John may have problems. But generally I go out of my way to protect people's privacy - in fact I am being taken to court by one group of people for not handing over information on a group of commenters to them]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Testing testing testing
November 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Back that up Tane, I dont recall seeing that serious threat anywhere.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
You’ll also be aware that the purpose of requiring disclosure from someone on a megaphone is not to catch some crazy guy on a street corner, but rather to pin down groups who do it on a large scale, such as driving around neighbourhoods broadcasting political advertisements to the public. That seems fair to me.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
DPF:
” But I think people should be able to express their views on a protest march or in Usenet without needing a name and address attached.”
And they still will DPF – just as you can still tap your todler on the hand without going to jail, despite the National Party’s whipping up a hysteria over that issue.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Also David you talk about hypocrisy. But I KNOW for a fact that you have posted at the standard under a different name.(isn’t technology wonderful)
That is ok by me ,but you have emphatically denied you have.
So therefore how do we know when you are posting the truth and when it is porkies ?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I agree. Without voluntary anonymity, the democratic process would get rather scary. Of course, anonymity is a bit of a double-edged sword (as I experienced first-hand on Kiwiblog a while back).
Also, if the National Front decides to print and distribute leaflets promoting Labour in the next election, I really would like to know that. How do you draw the line between a reasonable case for and against anonymity?
you regularly threaten to reveal people’s identities.
Tane, I’ve never known DPF to do that.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Wow, perfect storm of stupid. And it only took fifteen minutes…
November 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Santas Double, I don’t know how you’d know that for a fact seeing as the only way you’d know that is through an IP trace, which you don’t have access to.
Just to set the record straight, there is no evidence that DPF has ever posted on The Standard under a name other than his own.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Tane,
Hows about all thestandard people post their full names and addresses from now on… you know, lead by example and all that?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
AB it is just another one of Tanes smear jobs. What he doesnt realise is that when you smear as much as he does, eventually you just ending up covered by and smelling of shit.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“you regularly threaten to reveal people’s identities.”
Tane, I’ve never known DPF to do that.
He’s threatened to reveal my IP address more than once in the past. I don’t have the time to trawl through the archives, but it’s in there if you can be bothered looking.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
John Arse always has splodged humungous amounts of verbal diarrhoea into the oxidation ponds at sub standard treatment plant .
robinsod cleans the smoko toilet when he not busy shoe tapping . I wonder if they talk about me over there at the standretard loonyville .
DON”T answer who cares, not me.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“eventually you just ending up covered by and smelling of shit.”
Cacofinix, take note.
I mean honestly!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sorry, Andrew, didn’t mean to include you in the general anathema.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
What about people at blogs, Tane? You ready for full disclosure, bro? After having a go at DPF earlier, why don’t you start now?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Tane once followed my car for a full 20 mins taking photos of my bumperstickers.
I have proof somewhere on the interweb, go find it yourself if you dont believe me.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
<p><i>No you don’t David, you regularly threaten to reveal people’s identities.</i></p>
<p>Evidence, please Tane.</p>
[DPF: Oh to be fair Tane is right. There have been a couple of times when I have in anger threatened to reveal identities. It annoys me that my decision to be open and transparent on my blog about who I am, my conflicts, my interests, is used as a political weapon against me, and the hypocrisy being that without exception it comes from people who abuse my openness yet expect me to protect their anonymity.
When the hypocrisy is as bad as that, I have been tempted sometimes. But I generally pull myself back. Tane probably won't believe this but I once even had a journalist ask me about who was behind The Standard and whether I thought it was an official project endorsed by Tane's employer. I actually said that I thought it was not, and that it would be unfair to make that assumption. Sure the employer probably doesn't mind some blogging in the spare time, but I actually defended Tane as doing it because he is interested in politics, not because he is paid to blog.
The irony is that on an almost daily basis Tane and others on his blog and here accuse me exactly of what I defended Tane from. It's a shame that they think character assassination is how politics should be fought. But I know they are just a few zealots. I have good enough relations with enough people across the political spectrum that it reminds me they are not representative of the majority of Labour supporters who are decent people]
November 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Sounds like another lefty ‘fake but accurate’ sob story.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
hinamanu – do you cook hinamoo cow pats for the dinner table ? Go get a life you mad snake !!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Yeah, thanks Craig.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“Craig Ranapia Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Wow, perfect storm of stupid. And it only took fifteen minutes…”
And without your input too, go figure?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
And still you Socialist supporters are OK for large anonymous donations to buy political favours.
And for the meagphone clause Tane and others Its called unintended consquences IF and its a big IF thats what was not intended.
Although in your case I dont trust your Crazy mistress and her Mad associates that they didnt fully intend to catch anyone who speaks up against them.
Why else would they require that information.
And why do I have to register with the Electoral Commission Bit 1984 isnt it.
Cant see a good reason other than ‘The Authorities; want to keep tabs on me. Bit 1984 isnt it
The paralells are getting greater and greater all the time.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Tane said “You’ll also be aware that the purpose of requiring disclosure from someone on a megaphone is not to catch some crazy guy on a street corner, but rather to pin down groups who do it on a large scale, such as driving around neighbourhoods broadcasting political advertisements to the public. That seems fair to me.”
So who gets to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t, Tane? You? Me? The Party? The Government?
Looks like a slippery road to Absolutism and dictatorship is being stepped upon here.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
MikeE, I would suggest the constant alluding to “outing” people that goes on at this blog makes this site look like it’s full of bullies. I would also suggest that if we want our views to be seen as credible we should argue the point and not the person. Leave “attacking the player” to the left as we on the right have the advantage of fact and logic. Remember if we argue the facts with them they have nowhere to go.
Tane, you’ve said that people will not have to authorize their placards. Can you show (preferably with a link) a legal opinion that demonstrates this?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Tane that is not the only way
There is a nifty bit of software that performs an analysis of tracts of text and compares them for writing styles/similarities
and DPF and the person who posted under the name
“Santa Claws over at the standard.
“88.5% certainty” they are same person
[DPF: Hmmn he refers to an unnamed piece of software that compared unspecified texts and produced a non quoted report which says I am 89% certain to be Santa. Wow why not just say "Waa waa waa".
I have stated several times that I have never posted as Santa, or indeed as under any name but my own on a political blog. You can keep accusing me of being a liar - but really it just makes you look desperate and pathetic.]
November 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
cacofanix,,
I just wanted to see if you were awake.
No need really, but you know, needs must.
I have a question for you.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Tane said:
“He’s threatened to reveal my IP address more than once in the past. I don’t have the time to trawl through the archives, but it’s in there if you can be bothered looking.”
Why don’t you just disclose who you are now and embarass DPF by doing so. You would be proving a point too by saying “there is nothing anonymous about the Labour Party or its supporters/staffers” Labour, the Party of Transparency! Would nicely ripost DPF’s disclosure statement.
(BTW, why does no one do the same on the Standard?)
November 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
So who gets to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t, Tane? You? Me? The Party? The Government?
No, the police, who are independent from the executive.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
No, the police have to investigate every complaint and prosecute where they find a breach.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
http://stuartparker.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/viva-el-presidente/
Just a friend of mine having a rant about this EFB nonsense.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“No, the police, who are independent from the executive.”
Tane demonstrates that he too has a sense of humour.!!
G
November 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“Luckily I will remain staunch in my defence of the [legal] right of John A to remain anonymous.”
No you don’t David, you regularly threaten to reveal people’s identities.
There you are, all fixed.
If we choose to blog anonymously, whilst at the same time pointing out to all in sundry “I wrote that and I am so proud” thus giving away our identities, we can be protected from the law, but not from our own stupidity
November 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Kimble, there’s also a thing called discretion. It’s the reason I don’t prosecuted every time I slap a mate on the back for doing a good job. I can see an argument that the bill may need a few minor changes to make this clear, but I don’t think it’s the attack on free speech and democracy you’re making it out to be.
And Santa, when did I say that? I can’t recall doing so but I’m happy to address your question if you provide me with the quote.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Tane are you proud of your real name ? Cheers from Peter Burns
November 20th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“It’s the reason I don’t prosecuted every time I slap a mate on the back for doing a good job.”
No, he didnt make a complaint. If he did, the Polic would try and talk him out of it, but if he insists you will be charged with assault.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Tane, you seem to have little idea of our justice system. If I make a complaint about you walking around with a placard, the Police MUST investigate. If even only technically I am correct in my assertion that you are breaking the law, the Police have No – I repeat, NO – discretion in the matter as this is not brought under the Crimes Act,1956 (and subsequent amendments). They must prosecute!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Tane, isn’t it odd though that over the last 3-4 years the Police’s “discretion” to prosecute or not has always sided with the Labour party’s interests.
You might think that the Police are independent of the Executive, but methinks your Masters view is that the Police reports to the Executive.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
My wife and I were having an argument last night about who was the more famous person in history, Helen of Troy (she who launched a thousand ships) or King John of England (he of Magna Carta fame). We could not agree so thought what if we had a vote but obviously being just the two of us there would be no result. So we thought why not open it up to the public. We will start the voting on January 1st 2008 and it will end on November 31st 2008. The result will be based on the number of times we see a poster or placad saying “Vote John” or “Vote Helen”. It can be on your house, your car, your back, your knapsack, anywhere. Who’s up for this vote?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Tane,
A crazy bastard with a megaphone on a street corner would be shut down as a nuisance and possibly under noise legislation.
It would indeed be a crazy bastard (or a profoundly ignorant one) who suggested that it should go to court as a breach of electoral legislation. In other words there is still no justifiable reason for this clause. Try again
November 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Sry, that was meant to be Crimes Act, 1961
November 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Maybe the new police recruitment song could be ; Auntie Helen told us this ?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“And they still will DPF – just as you can still tap your todler on the hand without going to jail, despite the National Party’s whipping up a hysteria over that issue.”
No, but the boys in blue will come to your house in 3 police cars and interview you “nicely”.
Funny, up to the last election the left would have screamed blue murder if anything remotely approaching this (restriction on free speech) was mooted.
It’s like someone turned off a tap or something…
November 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I should add of course that you make sure that at the top of your poster etc you state: The History Vote so as no one confuses it with any possible general election next year.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“No, the police have to investigate every complaint and prosecute where they find a breach.”
That’s not how it works Kimble. If the police prosecuted every minor infraction that was reported we would need 1 million police just to get through the work load. In reality the police have to prioritise what breaches warrant prosecution. So very minor and insubstantial breaches tend to not be prosecuted (often there will be a warning though) i.e. you will never find anyone who has been fined for driving 101 kmph in a 100 kmph zone.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Auntie Helen sold us this , sung the police while the riot squad was looking for grey power protesters .
November 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Nome, your youth belies your experience.
I have been fined for doing 102km per hour on the open road. It DOES happen. Wake up and smell the petunia’s.
If you are still unsure, I refer you to my previous posts.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“Maybe the new police recruitment song could be ; Auntie Helen told us this ?”
you’re behind the times. its soldiers now. Check Wanganui.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Tane
I’ve never seen DPF threaten to expose anon bloggers. Even when several people were deliberately posting under other peoples names he did not disclose who the fake people were.
You have overstepped the line here. Will you appologise or dig yourself deeper ?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Very minor, like grabbing a child and taking them off a trampoline?
See, we were all sold that line with S59 – small stuff will be ignored.
Then, with the first example, Sue Bradford turns around and calls the woman a violent abuser.
But feel free to use the same tatic again if you must.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
You guys really are grasping at straws here. No one outside of the Nats and your fring right-wing mates thinks the revised version of the Electoral Finance Bill is actually going to restrict speech in any meaningful way. The one rather dubious point you can find is the requirement to disclose your identity if you’re using a megaphone to electioneer, which even the CoG says is no big deal and can be fixed before the bill becomes legislation.
I maintain that your real motivation is and always has been to keep open National’s dodgy parallel campaigns and ability to spend like mad outside of the official election period. Now that the bill’s unsatisfactory elements have been fixed you’re focusing on trivia and blowing it out of all proportion. Anything to keep the scare campaign going and the attention away from the real issues, eh?
[DPF: Tane still awaiting your apology for lying. I mean if you are now stating the law needs to be changed, that would suggest I was right and you were wrong. But you know is it that hard to just say that one word "Sorry"]
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
So only the majority then?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Tane is in a tight spot , oh dear must go .
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Tane
Just one small issue that makes your comment look hollow.
It’s labour who have kept the provisions to allow anon donations – Not National.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Tane
Pehaps you can answer a question sonic seems keep to dodge.
What will happen to anon donations received after the threshold has been reached ? How will they be returned to their anon donor ?
Guess Labour must know who their ‘anon’ donors are so they didn’t think about this little technical detail. Hollow hollow hollow. What have they got to hide ?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“I maintain that your real motivation is and always has been to keep open National’s dodgy parallel campaigns and ability to spend like mad outside of the official election period.”
National did that before one election. Labour did it too – remember the “vote for us or the baby gets it” ad?
*I* maintain *your* real motivation is and always has been that you’re crap and need to cheat to win because you can’t do it on merit.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
scrubone
Labour say it’s OK if other parties are doing it when they get caught. But it’s OK because that’s Labour acting like a 5 year old.
You are correct, with a level playing field they are lost.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
burt – I’ve said repeatedly that I support a clampdown on anonymous donations and I’m glad Labour’s gone some way to doing that, even if it did need some help from the Greens.
My point stands – National’s opposition is to restrictions on parallel campaigns like they ran in 2005 with the Exclusive Brethren and the Fair Tax lobby, and to the move to count election spending from January 1 of an election year. Both restrict National’s ability to use its money to rort the system like it did in 2005.
This hysteria over the megaphones? Just another distraction from the real issues, because a campaign in support of the Hollow Men ain’t going to get much public sympathy. Frame it as a free speech issue and you’re away laughing. To his credit, DPF understands that.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“No one outside of the Nats and your fring right-wing …”
Obviously anyone that objects to the bill can simply be placed in this fring right wing, meaning Tane can simply ignore them.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Now this is interesting – more hypocrisy. As people may know someone posts over at The Standard as Santa – Robinson and co deluded themselves into thinking it was me. It wasn’t. I stated that categorically. I also stated that I did not and do not know who Santa posting at The Standard was.
Now in the last week or two a Santa has popped up here, posting. I assumed at first it was the same Santa, but this one seemed more left wing. He claimed to be right wing but it soon became clear he wasn’t.
Now today he claimed he had some program which proved I was the Santa who posted at The Standard. That got me suspicious enough to check his IP address out. And what do you know it is the same IP address as the former hard core leftie Robert Owen, who got banned a month or so ago.
He got banned incidentially for calling me something alone the lines of a fat ugly cunt, but even worse than that.
So Robert (prob not his real name) has been accusing me of posting under a false identity, when he himself has set up a new identity to flout the ban, and pretend to be the other Santa.
I mean the hypocrisy and lack of ethics is just incredible.
It goes without saying that Santa, and his other alias he also set up, have both been banned also.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Excuse us for being cynical of Labour’s motives Tane. Their staunch advocate Mr Trotter has claimed that rorting elections is acceptable if it keeps National out of power. We who understand nothing of the ways of the left are inclined to fear that that is a commonly held view on the self-important side of the spectrum.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Tutae: I don’t prosecuted every time I slap a mate on the back for doing a good job
Too busy backslapping to put a disclosure notice on the substandard? And be careful about calling anyone ‘mate’ around your Labour Party masters. They might think you’re a misogynist. I believe Comrade is the correct term.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
No Tane, what happened was DPF pointed out one of the small absurdities in the bill, your lot claimed he was lying, we all pointed out he wasnt and you dorks wouldnt let it go and admit you were wrong.
WE werent focussing on that section. It is YOU that has been stoking that particular fire.
It isnt hysteria about megaphones, at all.
The fact is that you think it is GOOD that Labour sets the limit on anonymous donations precisely where they need it to be.
Obviously they dont have any problem with anonymous donations. They have a problem with National getting more than them.
How is that NOT obvious?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Roger Nome
“If the police prosecuted every minor infraction that was reported we would need 1 million police just to get through the work load. ”
They do, just look at the ffort put into traffic policing. But then most people understand the need for the law. Some don’t like it but they still probably appreciate the need and would also appreciate a little more discretion.
Unfortunately, where this law falls down is when the courts (or police impose instant fines) and the little toe rags of society don’t pay their fines (100′s of $millions).
If complaints are made about the EFB you can bit dollars to knobs of goat excrement that they will be investigated as the police will not want to be seen interpreting electoral law (other than pledge cards and the involvement of very senior political figures).
Roger you really need to get out more often and take a little look at the real world that we all have to live in and not see everything through the rose (or is that red) tinted glasses of a minor political activist and policy analyst. I can’t believe you are anything more important because of the time you spend on this and many other blogs.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
This has been an amusing afternoon as I distract myself from the mountain of red tape facing my business, but I guess it’s time to go.
Here’s something for the Left to ponder that I’d appreciate: if you can reduce the level of business red tape to the level of your debate, that would be great.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
What is a fring? And has anyone else noticed that anything Tane doesn’t agree with habitually described as ‘hysteria’? Boy, I can understand why Labour acquaintances of mine who have (very moderate and well-reasoned) caveats about EFB, tell me they keep them very much on the downlow in party circles. I can imagine a spray of Tane-style bile is even less attractive in person than it is online.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“I can understand why Labour acquaintances of mine who have (very moderate and well-reasoned) caveats about EFB, tell me they keep them very much on the downlow in party circles.”
I doubt there will be a Christmas get together for the Labour stalwards this year. The Labour caucus wil not want to have to answer a raft of questions from their faithful about this wholly embarrassing bill.
All yo uLabourites prepare for an upsetting annoncement declaring a by the annual Labour Christmas do this year.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I’d always treated the lads from the Standard (ooops, and the ladettes) as although on the wrong side of the spectrum, pretty resonable guys who would debate logically and well.
Apparently, logic and reason have deserted them. Bugger, I still havn’t had a reply to my posts from nome who asserts to know the law. I wonder why.
As for the mud – slinging, c’mon Standard bearers – it’s only a blog. You don’t need to engage petty crooks like Owen to do your dirty work, do ya?
So you don’t believe democracy is under threat. Ok, we won’t be able to hear you protest when you guys are eventually gagged by your own party so, fair one.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
<i>[DPF: Firstly why do you post from the same IP address as Tane? Do you both work for the same union? ...]</i>
Here’s one example of DPF’s threats – in that thread he put out the dogwhistle and left it to his followers to do the rest.
He then, in a post not long after, noted that he’d moved his privacy policy to the frontpage and noted that:
<blockquote>When you browse this site, the following information is recorded and made available to me:
The pages you browse on my site
The referring page or link you came from
The search engine query you used to find the blog
Your IP adddress
Your machine name
Your web browser version
Your operating system
The e-mail address you used to register
Your IQ (okay not that one)
I reserve the right to use or publicise any of the above information.</blockquote>
From memory there’s more out there, but I haven’t got the time or the inclination to trawl through it all.
[DPF: how's the apology coming? Hell it must be a big one as it is taking you so long to write it]
November 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I would be happy to read all comments on blogs without any attribution by way of nom de plume even.
I am able to recognise good argument wherever it occurs, regardless of who wrote it.
The nom-de-plume does allow me to disregard some lengthy comments when I have less time, because I understand the writer’s perspective already.
Some easily recognised “stilted” writing I mostly don’t bother with because it is just too hard (and negative). And contrived.
Removal of identities would remove the personal attacks as well (yay!).
November 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
As for the mud – slinging, c’mon Standard bearers – it’s only a blog. You don’t need to engage petty crooks like Owen to do your dirty work, do ya?
What exactly are you accusing me of now? I’m supposed to be responsible for the actions over here of someone who merely comments on my blog?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
<i>[DPF: how’s the apology coming? Hell it must be a big one as it is taking you so long to write it]</i>
What am I supposed to be apologising for?
Have you apologised yet for deliberately misquoting the PM?
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=643
[DPF: You were factually wrong. Full stop. I cut and pasted a quote from a National press release without editing it in any way. And the PM was not misquoted - you can argue it was out of context, but that is an argument levelled everyday against people.
The apology is for claiming that you only need to put your name and address on election advertisements if they cost over $12,000. You said I was wrong. You stated an clear untruth. You have refused to admit the truth.]
November 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Tane
You would have been able to verify that “santa” was not DPF. You choose not to. So you have been deceiving all standard readers as well everytime ‘Santa’ is accused of being DPF.
You are not very smart are you?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Burt, I’ve never deceived anyone. In fact I’ve said in the past that I don’t think Santa is DPF. You are not very smart are you?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
When presented with evidence of this bill’s stupidity, Annette King comically replies “The law of common sense applies.” I damm nearly choked on my sarnie on hearing this. Ah dear, I wonder how much more damage this feral, desperate Govt. will do on its way out.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
A little aside but also an example of selective quotes and disingenuity. Labour in the house has has several shots recently at Nick Smith’s newsletter and particularly focussing on the phrase “Nick for Nelson” as an invitation to vote for him and that the newsletter is paid out of Parliamentary Funds.
Well the Ginga new Minister whatever-his-name-is let slip in debate a short time ago that it was actually part of an email address when he quoted the full bit “nickfornelson.co.nz”
A bit different from the way it has been claimed.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Tane:
Methinks you doth protest too much and like so many bullies you do love to play the victim when you get stood up to, don’t you?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Nah, mate. Sorry to give you the wrong idea. Just had a look over at the standard and saw that Santa/Claws isn’t a regular (not with that moniker anyway). Looks like Owen is a rogue agent with Red Stripes. Didn’t mean to tarnish you fellas with his brush.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Tane
You might be the subject of a book written by Nicky hager soon:
The Hollow bloggers.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
No worries Brownie. Cheers.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Owens pretty low though, wouldn’t you agree, Tane?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
It’s funny that Robert Owen calls DPF a “fat ugly c###”. Pots and kettles etc.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I’m not defending Robert’s actions in this instance, but I’ve actually found him to be pretty decent in my dealings with him. He says the comment about DPF was his kid or something, and I’m inclined to believe him. But it’s not really my place to judge.
Anyway, I’m off for the evening. Catch you fullas later, it’s been swell.
[DPF: Yes Robert is polite to those he agrees with and nasty and abusive to those he does not. ]
November 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Tane/Annette,,
Can you confirm whether the Labour faithful can expect a Christmas do this year or can they expect a communication deferring the event this year ??
November 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Sorry, I said I was off but I have to reply to this:
[DPF: You were factually wrong. Full stop. I cut and pasted a quote from a National press release without editing it in any way. And the PM was not misquoted - you can argue it was out of context, but that is an argument levelled everyday against people.
The apology is for claiming that you only need to put your name and address on election advertisements if they cost over $12,000. You said I was wrong. You stated an clear untruth. You have refused to admit the truth.]
David, I can’t recall saying that. Can you provide me with the actual quote so I can respond?
As for your claim of ignorance about the Clark quote – please, don’t try and kid me that you’re somehow separate from the National Party spin machine. You misquoted her and you were busted, and you’re yet to apologise. I don’t really care whether you do or not, but seeing as you’re so big on people saying sorry here’s your opportunity to lead by example.
Night, folks.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Well, we’ll just have to see about that won’t we. Which the same thing I said about the smacking legislation (so far no people have been prosecuted for giving their toddler a little smack).
November 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“so far no people have been prosecuted for giving their toddler a little smack).”
so far no ones been willing to inform
thats the only way parents will be snapped.
Of course the govt is hoping children will turn on their parents.
It’s soo bvious the division govt wants to bring to families.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Oh yes, let’s rely on police discretion. After all, it worked so well for SEDITION didn’t it?
I can’t believe the number of left leaning commentators lining up to say
- “Nothing wrong with being named if you’ve got nothing to hide”
- “The provisions of the bill won’t be applied”
- “We can trust the police to exercise discretion”
These half-arsed apologies are either phenomenally stupid or phenomenally dishonest. Passing legislation that is this flawed, and arguing the the flaws will be fixed by selective application, is incredibly undemocratic.
Those who claim the bill is fine ought to be ashamed of themselves. The bill is broken.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Interesting:
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2007/11/electoral-finance-bill-new-media-and.html
November 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Oh thats a funny post David; and this turkey gets to vote? If we had a competition for the best political hypocrisy story that one would surely have to be way up there, but as one of the dumbest. I’m feeling much happier now – laughter really is the best medicine.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Sorry to hijack but remember the protest tomorrow midday Wellington.
Lindsay reminded me that white ribbon day is coming up on the 25th to protest violence against women (very worthy).
It gave me an idea – not only wear a gag on the protest tomorrow, wear a black ribbon for the death of democracy as well.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Tutae said: Sorry, I said I was off but I have to reply…
Don’t be sorry. Just fuck off and troll somewhere else.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Tane
I’m smart enough to know that you haven’t provided a link and also smart enough to know that you have the ability to categorically state that “santa” was not DPF. You choose not to, and you choose to hide behind a “I’ve said I don’t think…” when you could have said “I know it’s not”.
You have done neither your credibility or the credibility of your blog any favours by allowing this to go unchecked.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Santa Claws over at the standard got tired of being faked over here, so started using a new nick, after registering it here first to prevent such childish behaviour.
“The Double Standard” was chosen. Note that I do realise there is an obvious pun on the initials, but that is part of the attraction.
It was pretty obvious that it was Robert doing the dirty deed, but I figured he’d get himself banned here soon enough.
No doubt he will continue his childish fantasy of equalling me with David Farrar, but it will be lies.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
It’s difficult to believe grown men and women are debating with, and arguing over, someone whose pseudonym is Santa.
I suppose on some intellectual level an argument about who Santa Claws is could be considered interesting. And I suppose there is some sort of forum where discussion and debate on the issue would be considered appealing.
Spending lots of time and energy on grappling with complex real-world issues can be an unrewarding business.
Bet the journos are having a laugh!
November 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The Labour Party of NZ is a fascist organization.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Burt, the reason I could not say categorically that it was not DPF is because there is such a thing as an anonymiser. He could also in theory have a separate connection where he only posted as Santa Claws or The Double Standard. But of course neither are likely. When DPF says he doesn’t post as either I’m inclined to believe him. We may have our political differences, but I don’t see why he’d lie to me about something like that.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Sort of off-topic, but what do you think John A will say about tonight’s Roy Morgan poll which shows National at 48% (up 3), 14 points ahead of Labour on 34% (down 6.5)? I’m sure he’ll find some way of spinning it, but the other thing to take into account is Gary Morgan’s commentary on issues affecting the poll:
“Gary Morgan says:
“The recent plunge in support for the Labour Party follows the mishandling of the domestic terrorism case with the October 15 arrests of Maori activists in Ruatoki.
“Solicitor-General David Collins’ ruling on November 8 that the Government’s anti-terrorism law couldn’t be used to prosecute the activists because the law was ‘confusing’ and ‘incoherent’ reflects badly on the Government’s competence.
“The referral of the Terrorism Suppression Act back to the Law Commission for major re-working — effectively scrapping the current legislation, has brought into question Helen Clark’s ability to protect New Zealanders from the scourge of terrorism. The National Party has strengthened their vote to lead Labour by a massive 14%.”
This latest Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted with a New Zealand-wide cross-section of 808 electors between October 29 — November 11, 2007.”
Oh dear – taken UP TO November 11 – so it DIDN’T take into account the Herald’s bold front page of November 12 – so it could get even messier for Labour. But of course John A, Robinsod, Tane, Eddie and Irish Bill will doubtless be able to explain it as a mere ‘blip’.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
By the way David, I think it’s time I let you in on the joke – John A was taking the piss.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
PS – IV2, we’ll be posting on Roy Morgan in the next 24 hours. We sort of have lives and jobs to hold down. Right now, I’m off to get drunk with Robinsod. Wish me luck.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Wish I could join you guys – but I have a business to run! Marching tomorrow?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
As I trolled thru the responses I came across this TUTAE name. Now – he seems to be a bit messed up, and then I recall that theres a river in Hawke Bay called Tutaekuri river – meaning dogshit river.
Tutae – shit
Kuri – dog.
Tutae – youve got a name to match your comments.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Tane
Like I posted over on the standard, if this is true then the defenders of the indefensible now look doubly stupid.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
After a thread like that Tane I’m not surprised that you have to go and get drunk.
Sir David – Thank fucken Christ that you have finally had a bit of a go at these dicks(Tane et al). I must say I have felt for several months that they were abusing your hospitality and good nature and was tempted to say something.
But, as we all know – this is your blog – and if you wish to have these people here, saying what they say, then so be it.
Finally you’ve fronted up and shown a bit of mongrel, which I am glad of.
I think KB is holding up well under the attack it has been subject to in the last few month’s. The Sonic days look like child’s play in comparison.
Isn’t The Standard turning out to be a double edged sword but?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Tane
You really should stop making stuff up on the fly without getting somebody with half a brain to check it out before you post it.
Sure I’ll agree you could not categorically say it wasn’t DPF – but DPF was able to categorically say it was Robert Owen, as it would appear you would have just as easily have been able to do.
So yep, you almost talked yourself out of a hole, just to reveal that you are spinning and digging yourself deeper.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hey Tane you weirdo creep – hows things at the standard you nutbar ~!!
November 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Robert Owen- liar, cheat coward, leftist. What despicable examples of humankind cluster at the sewer called Kiwiblogblog. Pathologically immoral, intolerant, shamelessly hypocritical to a degree that’s utterly gob smacking, and almost everyone of them ideological totalitarians who burn with the obsession to impose their sick religion upon every other NZer no matter what the cost.
Note well readers, what ruthless psychotic creeps you’re up against in the battle for freedom, and remember, those people at KBB are pretty much typical of those who today rule this country, who defile our Westminster parliamentary system, who pervert our democracy and who, in their latest example of crazed totalitarian ambition, want to completely shut down your opportunity to criticize them during any election campaign.
Some say I’m too harsh in my judgment of socialists, and sometimes I might think that criticism is justified, but then along comes someone like Robert Owen and reminds me that like most NZers, I’m in reality far too tolerant of these disgusting vermin.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
It would seem to me that any agencies that support the Labour propaganda line – or the channelling of Labour propaganda – would be perfectly legitimate targets for protest action.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Hey you snakes at the sub standard are you sewer rats drinking copious amounts of arsenic, you twisted vipers ?
Sod is up Tane and nih goes happy clapping while the gnome gets severely rogered in the corner as sam swims in the pool of socialist shit .
November 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
oh go and change your bloody panties already rabidbleater.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
rogered gnomer, how is the bottom dear ?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
D4J
You do have a unique way with words. These puppets from the standard are hardly worth the energy – but it is such fun to unravel their paper thin logic and weakly woven arguments of support for such a self serving govt.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
D4J:
I would be very careful when talking about pools of shit if I were you, considering the almost constant stream emanating from your mouth.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
D4J – but conservative family values shoe tappers have it that you’re a “bottom” or “sub”? Is it a position held by Republicans all around the world?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
burt ,
It is most interesting to note that all who support Helen Clark’s regime are as thick as pig shit , for example the socialist spittle spray that gets splattered around the sub standard retard refuge station .
Good night all . Another battle , another day .
November 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
D4J
I don’t agree they are all thick. Some are and so are some right wing activists. I get called thick over on the standard by the lefties all the time.
Many partisan and/or highly ideological people appear stupid. Partisan people will label anybody who challenges their views stupid to discredit them.
Unfortunately there are also some very thick (or very partisan) ones who can’t even recognise their own partisan blinkers and are un-relenting in their passion to defend the indefensible. These people it’s valid to call thick irrespective of their condition being lack of brain power or because of partisan myopia because they serve no useful function in political advocacy because they discredit the people they defend by defending the indefensible, justifying the ridiculous.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“the double standard” said…
“No doubt he will continue his childish fantasy of equalling me with David Farrar, but it will be lies.”
Funny – I’ve never seen “Santaclaws” make such an elementary grammatical error (using ‘equalling’ instead of “equating”). Something tells me our “double standard” isn’t all that they say they are.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Sure I’ll agree you could not categorically say it wasn’t DPF – but DPF was able to categorically say it was Robert Owen, as it would appear you would have just as easily have been able to do.
Burt, if someone’s using the same IP address for two handles that’s usually a pretty good indication it’s the same person. If two different usernames are being used from two different IP addresses then it’s anyone’s guess.
It’s pretty simple when you think about it.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Tane
Yes it is simple isn’t it. ( “if someone’s using the same IP address for two handles that’s usually a pretty good indication it’s the same person.”)
That’s why DPF could tell that Robert Owen (who also posted on your blog) was the same person as ‘santa’. So you could easily prove it wasn’t DPF because it would have been easily provable it was Robert Owen.
Very simple, stop spinning it trying to confuse the people slightly more “IP understanding challenged” that you couldn’t tell the difference between “I don’t think it is” and “I know it’s not”. Unless of course you take the defence that Robert Owen and DPF might have been one in tyhe same. I think that one fails the ‘reasonable person’ test.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Tane, hows that apology going.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Burt – I’m not sure how to explain this to you. The Santa who posts on The Standard is not the same Santa who posts on Kiwiblog. This has been made explicit earlier in the thread. I’m sick of doing your fuckin research for you bro.
Dave – If you look up the thread you’ll see I’m yet to be given the exact quote I’m supposed to be apologising for. Nice work picking up the line and running with it though – DPF might even invite you to the Kiwiblog Christmas party at this rate.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
OK, if Tutae says it’s not the same Santa then it must be because Tutae has been shown to be an inveterate liar. QED and off to ny-nys.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Tane: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/18062.html#comment-368946. Implication was that you thought DPF was wrong about the limit. You were wrong.
[DPF: Yes the link to John A's post on The Standard. Tane published the link here so obviously endorsed it. He has refused to acknowledge that John A was wrong, and inaccurate. There has also been no correction on The Standard. This is not a matter for debate such as is a comment out of context (which is arguable). The Standard has a post which is clearly inaccurate and factually wrong. Tane has promoted that post here. ]
November 21st, 2007 at 12:46 am
<blockquote>Tane published the link here so obviously endorsed it.</blockquote>
<blockquote>I cut and pasted a quote from a National press release without editing it in any way.</blockquote>
So by your own standards you very clearly endorsed the misquote.
And the misquote was only “out of context” because the context had been removed from the middle of the quote. I’d love to hear your argument that the quote was fair — it would take a masterpiece of spin to defend that, but I’m sure you’re up to it.
[DPF: It was not a misquote. Whether the middle part is vital context is highly debatable. If people want to complain about out of context I would say taking a quote John Key made about the Kyoto agreement, and continually stating it refers to his views on the far wider issues of climate change is 1000% more out of context]
November 21st, 2007 at 12:58 am
So David, that’s all you’ve got? After all your wailing and gnashing of teeth today demanding I apologise, you can’t even quote me saying what you accused me of? Here’s what you said:
As your response shows, I never said such a thing. I don’t expect you to apologise to me, but I’d appreciate it if you stopped calling me a liar.
And you’ve still yet to apologise for deliberately misquoting the PM on tax cuts.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:10 am
How is that debatable? “in today’s circumstances” completely negates the implied hypocracy.
You keep saying it’s debatable or arguable. So your argument is that it’s highly debatable?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
EXACTLY, Farrar. Actually, even if someone does spend HUGE on third party political issue campaigning, what does it matter provided its known who they are and why they’re doing it. The people of NZ can work out the underlying issues for themselves. There’s too much wimping out on this principle. It’s a RIGHT, Farrar. Wake up. So what about socialist ideology about “rich people”.