Labour making it up
April 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pm by David FarrarGood God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things. Labour has put out the press release quoted below:
National begins dirty tricks campaign in Mt Albert
Press Release by New Zealand Labour at 5:37 pm, 28 Apr 2009
National’s dirty tricks have started even before Labour has selected a candidate for the Mt Albert by-election, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Annette King said today.
First of all don’t you enjoy the hypocrisy of the party that was behind the attempted H-Fee smear, to talk about dirty tricks. Did Annette never notice Mike Williams over in Melbourne?
National and John Key’s dishonest attempt to discredit one of eight potential Labour candidates shows the Government’s eyes are off the ball when they should be focusing on peoples jobs and the upcoming budget.
“National has trawled through research papers written by David Shearer dating back to 1998. The papers looked at the use of private security in war torn nations where innocent civilians, mostly women and children, were dying and there were no better alternatives.
“They’ve fed this information to their right wing blogging friends.
Amazing – she just invents this from thin air. Let there be no mistake, I got the material from no one in National, in Parliament or the Government. I would be very happy to swear an affidavit before a JP to this, or undertake a polygraph. No one in National even pointed me towards this, and the first John Key would have known about this I suspect is when the media asked him for comment.
It amazes me that Labour is so embarrassed by these revelations, that they feel the need to just invent whoppers.
“Instead of this, John Key should be getting his staff to tackle real problems like job losses and the struggling economy.
Again nothing to do with the PM or his staff. Annoys me when people always credit them for our work! I know Labour is anti private sector, but maybe they can not comprehend the idea of people doing stuff on their own initiative.
“Why are they trying to dig dirt on one of the nominees, I predict that by the weekend they would have gone through the whole eight. Unlike National, we don’t yet know who our candidate will be. We are having a competitive selection process which will not be completed until this weekend.
And I urge all Labour delegates to vote Shearer. Far from this being dirt on him, I think it is great he supports a role for the private sector in wars and the military. The problem of course is that his sensible views stand in stark opposition to Labour who are against the private sector being involved in most things.
And I am also bemused how it is considered “dirt” to re-publish an article Mr Shearer wrote in a publicly available journal. Does Labour think there is something wrong with people knowing the views of its candidates on important policy issues? This is not some personal private issue which is embarrassing to Shearer – it is not digging up share transactions – it is a public article on a matter of public policy.
“I hope it’s not a sign of the tactics National plans to adopt for the campaign. Labour is committed to fight a strong, clean and fair by-election
Insert Tui billboard – just like their general election campaign no doubt.
“John Key should stop spending his time on negative politicking and concentrate his efforts on how the budget can address the real problems facing New Zealand,” Annette King said.
Annette – nothing to do with John. Honest. Ask him. Ask me. Give us a polygraph test. Drug me with sodium pentothal. You’ll get the same answer.
The articles by Shearer were found almost by luck in fact. Someone mentioned something to Whale about something Shearer had once written. He mentioned something to me. I asked a couple of friends with access to academic databases to try and fnd something, and one of them found it on an academic database and sent it to me. Total time on it was around ten minutes.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
King you old slapper..remember when this stupid cowsbody blamed the full moon for a rash of murders in NZ…assume the position King….
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“Did Annette never notice Mike Williams over in Melbourne?”
Helen didn’t (apparently) so why should Annette?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Think that the failed socialists are very hurt and wounded.
Once Clark Helen’s old stomping ground turns vivid blue, they will be stunned.
And it will.
Nicey.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Polling results can’t be good. Excellent
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
What a crack up.
Poor old Netty, not much happening in her life then eh?
However, stupid old MSM will run with it just to try and smear JK.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
The Labour Party see plots everywhere because they spend half their life plotting and scheming. The funning thing is the Labour Party have launched their campaign without a candidate and with posters that do not even tell you to vote Labour. What are they scared of.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
They are afraid of the truth, and losing control of the MSM.
The reality check, is now kicking in.
Failed, doomed, and despondent.
Any port in a storm, I guess.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Dirt??
????????????????????????
Dirty tricks??????????????????????????????
???????
What the damn hell is this idiotic woman on about?
To think this semi-literate dumbarse was a Minister for all those years.
NZ- what were you thinking??
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hilarious. JK should endorse Shearer as obviously the best of a bad bunch – or preferably leave Brownlee and Hide to do so.
And suggest if this trend is encouraged Labour could develop a sane wing that could split off and reach an accommodation with the Government.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Annette King inventing stories and smearing National??? Geez – what SOE or UN post has she got in mind when she retires?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Glutae
I don’t mean to be pedantic but “Labour” never had control of the media or had the media in their back pocket.
It was Klark who “owned” the media and it was Klark who has them shaking in their boots to the extent that they would never dare go after her or her party directly.
Now that dear corrupt (ex) leader is safely off shore you can guarantee that one or two of the spineless bastards will all of a sudden find the guts to print the odd story that does not show dear corrupt (ex) leader in the best light.
This new found “bravery” and “journalistic integrity” will be their attempt to atone for nine years of gutless behaviour.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Oh this is just GREAT … I love this shit (cos you just could NOT make it up)
Tuesday night is usually the night I crack a vino and wait for my favourite nutter …
Dennnny Crane … might be a better idea to stick around and watch out my least favourite nutter …
Annnnney Kring.
Double dose of the mad cow methinks.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Who benefits from the David Shearer mercenary stories? Is it a National candidate?
Not likely. The person who benefits from the David Shearer mercenary story is another Labour nominee. Thats where the real battle lies.
So which Labour nominee or Labour supporter leaked – that is the more likely question…. and obviously someone who isn’t related to the Goff faction that Shearer purports to represent.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Oh my good lord, next thing we know King the mad maggot will be accusing National of giving contracts worth $50m to a mate without going through a tender process….
Like a lot of older politicians King has failed to relise that the world has changed with the advent of blogs. You simply can’t get away with making stuff up hoping that the public memory is too short to remember the facts.
WAKE UP KING – YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED AND THE BEST CHANCE YOU HAVE IS TO SHOW A LITTLE INTEGRITY RATHER THAN LIE LIKE A FLAT-FISH.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I don’t understand this. Up until today, Shearer and a 23 year old girl who listed a holiday to Venice as an achievement on her candidate’s web site were running neck and neck for the nomination. Now Shearer has differentiated himself with a sensible Cheney-like approach to foreign policy that is no doubt informed by his experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Experiences with UN peace keepers that were gained from his service in the UN. Rather than treating Shearer’s own views as some sort of self-inflicted smear, King and Goff would be wise to take advantage of Shearer’s experiences to change Labour’s own policies to be more pro-privatisation, especially in the sphere of foreign policy. Attacking Shearer’s views, as King has done, is just going to harm Shearer’s candidacy.
I think Brian Edwards is behind this. Bates’ Twitter notes that she was at “Brian and Judy’s” the other night, and he has helped her out with some videos. They probably cooked this up over a bottle of wine. And a glass of lemonade for Meg.
[DPF: No there was no one from Labour involved]
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Jenny “EDDIE” Michie has now placed me in moderation for calling her on this over at the standard. These clowns just don’t get it. They are paid spokesmongs being trumped by unpaid enthusiastic amateurs. Come up again anytime David, I have found my passion for blogging again.
Vote:Imagine how bad it could really get for them if we were all provided with salaries and nice offices to blog from like they are.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Well if Sushi Goblin has it right, one could assume it’d be coming from the Bates side of the field..
…and you know what they say about people in glass houses..
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Things must be bad for Labour if Helen would rather go and work with this happy bunch http://www.un.org/esa/officials.html
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
David, I hope you release your post to the press like NOW!!!
Vote:This may stop any bullshit coming from the media from a one off pr from a silly old tart.
After all, can’t always trust the right people behind the tele screens or radio waves coming here before running the story.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hilarious. “Someone” said “something” to Slater? That’s your cover-story? The same Cameron Slater who admitted to the Herald that you and he had been working with National’s research unit? Right.
[DPF: Actually Cameron never said any such thing - it has become urban legend. What he said back then was that parliamentary staff asked us if we recognised any of the people protesting at the conference, to try and work out who was the secret taper. A very reasonable thing to do. Asking for assistance on one isolated issue is not a partnership or a coalition. As to this case, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar and suggest you don't do so again. As I said I'll swear an affadavit and take a polygraph. While you won't even post under your own name? So please don't lecture on credibility]
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
God, NZ politics is embarrassing at times. Would it hurt politicians to engage brain before running to the media?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Ferdinand
I just had a read of your comment and you know I’m still thinking about the message even after you tried to shoot the messenger. Sorry you failed to distract me. But do try again, it’s great watching people prostrate themselves defending the indefensible. However I’ll give you a tip, the Labour approach is the 3 D’s
Deny, Delay, Denigrate.
You jumped directly to Denigrate – you missed two steps in your hurry to shoot the messenger.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
burt
Not forgetting the age old lefty tactic of accusing others of the very thing you are doing yourself.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Politicians are disingenuous – would never have guessed it.
I don’t think faux outrage on your part is very becoming tho – you should let it rest with your revelation.
As it is you are behaving just like those who you are mocking – which just undermines your previous post.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Ning/archive/archive/112/outsourcingwar.pdf
Found with a google search of “David Shearer+war” (he was in the UN). And from a computer a 12 hr flight from NZ. I know it takes a pinko 10 days and a flight to Australia to do that, but the VRWC are far more literate.
I took 5 seconds google searching Meg+Bates+Labour to find everything I needed to know about her.
How can this be a “smear” campaign from the right? We are saying he’s our kind of guy for heaven’s sake…….and that Labour should select him because his free market and privatisation values appear to be exactly the same as ours.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Annette King snapped here hard at work at another press release http://www.daylife.com/photo/09i2gNo5ZydzM
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
andrei… do you ever appreciate the fact that you can come here and post pretty much whatever you like?
Comments are NOT held in ‘moderation’ here.
Does that not tell you something???
How can you back the other side?
This alone encapsulates the difference between the left and right.
Give it up laddie, you’re are backing losers.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
“I know Labour is anti private sector”
Well, some of them…
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Oh and, TV3 clip here (thanks whale!): http://actoncampus.org.nz/blog/labour_support_private_armies
So why do Labour think the private sector is an acceptable solution when women and children are dying overseas in wars, but when women and children are dying here in New Zealand’s hospitals, only the state will do?
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Give it up laddie, you’re are backing losers.
Hah – you think I’m a labor shill? Little do you know me.
I am merely pointing out that this post makes the previous one look like mere political hackery and has totally undermined it in my eyes.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
BB; said; Jenny “EDDIE” Michie has now placed me in moderation for calling her on this over at the standard. These clowns just don’t get it. They are paid spokesmongs being trumped by unpaid enthusiastic amateurs. Come up again anytime David, I have found my passion for blogging again.
Imagine how bad it could really get for them if we were all provided with salaries and nice offices to blog from like they are.
Now probably if you were getting paid for doin this you would become a socialist to!!!!!!!!!
Heaven Forbid.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Once again we’re witnessing astute propaganda play.
Like the content or not, they know how to play the crowd like a violin.
Personally I’m just sitting back and watching them spin.
Liarbore are so much better than anyone else at it, right now, in NZ.
Man I wish the reef-fish could see them.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I don’t appreciate you calling me a liar
I didn’t call you a liar David. I pointed out that the “somebody” and the “something” were rather fudged terms, especially in light of the relationship that Cameron and yourself have with the research unit. And please don’t condescend to me about that “urban myth”, the research units of major political parties don’t just pick out random bloggers to ask favours of. How stupid do you think your readers are?
I’d also like to know what makes you think Ferdinand is not my real name. Have you had your dirty tricks team chasing down my IP address or some such? Because your comment didn’t make me feel very net-safe. Especially in light of your dirt-digging reputation.
[DPF: Easy solution then - fuck off and never post here again - then you will feel totally safe]
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
big bruv
Oh exactly. King starts right in on that immediately.
Labour haven’t selected a candidate and they are starting their dirty tricks campaign. Step one, tell big lies hoping the media are complicit and don’t question the hypocrisy.
King in opposition has become all after burner and no rudder. Clark obviously hand steered the woman, she should save herself a lot of embarrassment and resign forthwith.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Clark buggers off, Cullen is about to follow suit, and what does Labour have left? Goff, King and Mallard – the three remaining Rogernomes …
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Inventory2
Three that Roger Douglas probably wouldn’t have a bar of these days. The last 3 defenders claiming “The failed policies of the past” while taking no responsibility for the mess the country is in right now after being in recession before the global economic crisis broke out.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Reid, what we’re seeing (and have for some time) is a mainstream media being played as a propaganda machine. And when they’re not feeding us with that, they’ll fill pages with crap like this http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/2345697/Road-kill-counts-in-nature-studies.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Ferdinand you are so so sad.
Andrei, sorry if I jumped in without weighing up your comments, even so, I still don’t agree you but framing you are a Labour Shrill is just to horrible to bear… my apologies.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
While you infight, it’s already on the news!!
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Hiliarious. Saw this article on stuff. Cracked me up – although one thought the MSM might have bothered to ring King and say “oi what about H-Fee” and add that response into the article rather than just printing it.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
HMMMMMM…. Okay, I didn’t see the news and it’s done and dusted.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
My point exactly burt, which was why I left it hanging….
Labour was bad under Clark and Cullen, but under Goff and King the party is an irrelevance
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Of course, Mrs King could have just confirmed that it is not now, never has been, and never will be Labour Party policy to support the privatisation and outsourcing of UN peacekeeping to outfits like Haliburton.
Mr Shearer could have issued a statement that he was engaged in the kind of blue sky thinking policy wonks engage in every day, and that as a backbench MP he would support party policy.
Instead, Nettie models the new season’s tin-foil hats.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Oh, and another question: Are you seriously telling me that if Tim Grosser had put his name to a paper, published in a high profile and well-respected policy journal, arguing that there’s a case for the WTO, effectively, privatising and outsourcing its core functions it wouldn’t have come to light ahead of the 2005 elections? Pull the other one, and you know something — I think it would have been a legitimate matter of public interest, considering Tim had always been tipped for a senior trade/foreign affairs role in any National-lead government. It would also be quite legitimate to ask to what extent that reflected National Party policy.
Embarrasing? Certainly — but it would have been a damn sight more edifying than the salacious tittle-tattle around his religion and private life.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Labour must be getting some iffy fedback on Shearer. Farrars revelation will torpedo him.
This is just so funny.
Labour ARE more irrelevant than the Greens!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:11 am
This is getting desperate, National must be shitting themselves, losing by-election while holding such a majority in national opinion polls would certainly be egg on their face. Couldn’t have picked a better time for the super city debacle huh?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“I would be very happy to swear an affidavit before a JP to this, or undertake a polygraph. ”
So if i said take a polygraph then i would incur your wrath for calling you a liar
Which I would hope you are not
Why don’t you take one just to prove all those lefty bastards wrong who think some times you are economic with the truth
whilst fomenting happy mischief
BTW I lie all the time but its par for the course for lefties
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Lie detector and swearing infront of a jp, I guess we can take that as meaning this is the only time ever on this blog he has been honest?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Racer:
Why exactly would National be (as you so elegantly put it) “shitting themselves”? If anyone is having a watery bowel movement, it seems to be Labour folks who are outraged that the Greens are showing the unmitigated gall to stand a candidate at all. Where do they think they are – a democracy or something…
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Just shows how influentual the blogs are, keep up the good work DPF.
Vote:You would think Labour would have learnt their lesson, oh well, three terms to national it is then.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Spare a thought for phil goof tonight.
Vote:His carpet bagging chum is being torpedoed by the right AND by the clark faction, then Russel Norman wades in as well.
It is not looking good for Goff, even if he manages to thwart the tizards and gets shearer the nod he is still screwed, apparently shearer is a very smart man with a very boring style. he is going to make Norman look dynamic. No mean feat.
Let us not kid ourselves, this is a very safe Labour seat, but when Shearer gets voted in with a much reduced majority the clark faction will gut goff.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:48 am
“Craig Ranapia
Racer:
Why exactly would National be (as you so elegantly put it) “shitting themselves”? If anyone is having a watery bowel movement, it seems to be Labour folks who are outraged that the Greens are showing the unmitigated gall to stand a candidate at all. Where do they think they are – a democracy or something…”
Personally I think its neither here nor there who wins this, it’s not like it’s going to tip the balance of power in Parliament. If the Greens were to split the vote enough to lead to a National candidate winning the by-election, all they are going to do is leave a sour taste in the mouth of the left in general which will come back to bite them next general election when it actually matters for something.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Ahh barnsley, the kiwiblog resident Labour insider, what would we do without you?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Completely ignoring the content of this post, but on a related topic.
If you want to see someone making things up, then I’d suggest peeking at Michael Bassett on the origions of The Standard. I’d have to say that he even makes the residents of the sewer look sane by comparision.
I had a great deal of fun last night writing a post pointing out the deficiencies of the parts of his story about The Standard. He even managed to miss that my home address had moved into Auckland Central from Mt Albert in a boundary change prior to starting The Standard. This guy writes political histories and he doesn’t follow boundary changes?
Could someone who knows him and who is vaguely literate give him a hand on blogging, blogs, the blogging populations, and the minimal costs. Could they also withdraw his Whaledreck drip and see if he can survive on his own.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Why are they trying to dig dirt on one of the nominees, I predict that by the weekend they would have gone through the whole eight.
Now, theres a thought! Lets start with the candidate who is named after a Christian radio station: Rhema Vaithianathan. She’s written a journal on the Economics of Female Genital Cutting which you can download here. In the article she argues that female genital cutting is a pre-marital investment associated with better marital outcomes. Now, that’s got to be good for social and economic policy.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 2:37 am
As I remember is was two individuals D Farrar and C Slater who sat around last July making crap up about me, 08wire, and The Standard being all part of a massive dirty tricks conspiracy. And now they cry foul about people saying exactly the same kind of stuff about them.
Hypocrisy – ha! How about the hypocrisy of people who make up accusations about dirty tricks complaining about other people making up accusations about dirty tricks?
I’m still waiting for that electoral commission complaint, DPF…
[DPF: Your identity was the author of 08wire was secret Rob until we published it. Just as your involvement in KeepLeftNZ in 2005 was secret. I maintain that was in the public interest for people to know that this mystery site was run by the guy who was hired by Clark to advise on online comms. I have never said that Labour runs The Standard. I have maintained that a number of bloggers at The Standard were parliamentary and ministerial employees. To this day, this has never been denied. The denials have always been that it is not part of their jobs.]
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Ha, State of it.
SIR David Farrar is apparently some scheming Machiavellian prince playing with us all like putty to fit his evil needs. We are all to stupid to see it except for those special few, who also just happen to be his political opponents.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the lefties squeal like pigs with no flu as they attempt to pass of the complete ineptness and stupidity of their own leaders as the other sides fault. (hmmm where have I heard that before?).
To top that off we have lprent (sysop, chief banner, uncle of silly girl) either crying cause someone said he’s a paid Labour blogger or touting for readers as the Stranded slips further into well deserved obscurity. Its a little hard to work out the plaintive cry but it was defiantly a cry.
Next up rolls uncle Rob, No8 mate, salt of the earth. He’s crying too. WTF?
No8 guys don’t cry Rob. No8 guys sort out their problems with extreme violence. Haven’t you ever been to the Onga Onga pub? Maybe you’re not really a No8 guy Rob? Maybe you’re more high tensile kind of fella?
Anyway you fellas, lets just get over it shall we? (you can cry on your own blogs but not here)
I mean, lets just move on….
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:38 am
what would be even more amzing is if anyone actually winds up publishing this crap.
and highly amusing to see Mr Goof parroting some of the contents of Judith Kirk’s emailed call to a letter blitz
on the mega city.
“… now you get everyone to say this Jude, and then I’ll get up in parliament and make a complete twat of myself by parroting it in a really serious voice … I need to something going because Cunners is sounding sooooo important and has really got the whole deep voice indignation thing going really well …”
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:41 am
I think Inventory hit it on the head.
Back in 2006 Michael Bassett recognised that Labour was screwed, see http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articleview2.php?id=134&yh=2007&yl=2006
He could see that Clarke had surrounded herself with sycophants who were sure votes for her agenda and that there was no talent left behind her. The irrelevance of Labour since her defeat is now obvious to everyone. It should have been obvious to the MSM long ago as it certainly was to the bloggers. But the MSM have taken about two years to twig to what we have known for ages (remember how for a week after the election they were totally absorbed with upcoming leadership arrangement and scarcely mentioned the new government).
Another reason was well touched on earlier in these posts too. Labour still haven’t quite got to grips that the bloggers won’t let them get away with the BS as in the past. Go guys go!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:43 am
“nothing to do with John. Honest. ” Looks toward the heavens, eyes wide and innocent, butter just sits there in mouth, not melting at all….
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:49 am
now lets see. racer the dweeb, lyn the blouse and rob the pretender all whining at the end of this thread. looks like the much vaunted “strategy team”, if you can count a bunch of looosers as a “strategy team” are looosing again (much like Hels ’08 smear campaign, also strategised by looosers). arf arf arf.
Labour are digging the hole deeper by the month.
Vote Wussel!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am
“Good God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things.”
David… what Labour party have YOU been watching for the last decade?
And welcome to the “new” leftie troll gladstone. Ooo yeah fooled us with that new identity alright. One more leftist crapweasle will certainly change all our minds for sure. Flogging the dead horse isn’t working so flog it HARDER!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Well when David looks to the heaven God smiles, when Labour looks to the heaven God beats them with the Ugly tree.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Cheers for that Bogusnews. The loss of Clark and Cullen is going to leave a huge chasm in Labour. Clark’s control-freakery was legend, and Cullen was the loyal lieutenant. But where Clark & Cullen succeeded and where Goff and King will not is in the area of caucus discipline. Labour is now full of mini-caucuses, each with its own agenda. IMHO Goff and King don’t have the political skills, and perhaps even the will to manage these. It’s not inconceivable that Cullen’s departure today could mark the end of the Labour Party as we know it.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Wow …. just what Labour needs. An expert in Female Genital Cutting. Suspect Rhema Vaithianathan is being courted by the ‘Cunners’ Camp to help when they casterate Unctuous Phil.
Only question is sooner or later.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:14 am
DPF: What utter crap.
I have maintained that a number of bloggers at The Standard were parliamentary and ministerial employees. To this day, this has never been denied. The denials have always been that it is not part of their jobs.
To look at that as being the criteria is to deny government employees any private political life. For instance yourself when you were writing on nz.politics in the 90′s. As I remember your history for part of that time you were working at parliament. What you’re saying, in effect, is that you were being a minion doing the bidding of your masters when you were arguing with me and others from the left, because of your employment.
Should I dig around and publish a post documenting the times and comments with an analysis of what policies you were pushing at the time and for whom they would have been advantageous? That is the logical conclusion that can be taken from your stated reasons for wanting to know who writes for The Standard – when applied to you.
I can’t give you an absolute assurance that posts are not written by government employees. No-one can – none of us know all of the posters. It is largely done to prevent stalkers like Whale attempting to target the writers for discrimination in the best traditions of bigots and bullies everywhere. I can just imagine Whale being happy working with Joe McCarthy or the KKK in the US in the 50′s – he has that type of mentality. I had assumed that you would not be. Perhaps that was a incorrect assumption.
However I can assure you that no one is writing posts using parliamentary or ministerial or even departmental IP ranges. Most posts are in fact scheduled. As of this morning there were 9 posts in the queue from a variety of people including me.
Perhaps you should state exactly why you want the knowledge of who writes for the standard for so people reading this site know what you hope to achieve. It isn’t clear to me
[DPF: You miss my point. If you work in Parliament, I think you should blog under your own name. I have always posted to Usenet and blogged under my own name. That allows people to judge my comments in context. Or at least do it like Frog Blog - where they identify as working in Parliament, but not their names. That is fine. But I do believe if you are directly employed by a political party or their parliamentary wing, that you should be open about that fact - even if not revealing your name.
I've even tried to encourage Nat staffers to blog under a Frog Blgo type system. Parliamentary staffers have a lot to offer public dialogue]
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:45 am
lprent:
DPF has a disclaimer, states his political affiliations and any involvements with the party. The Standard? They have been hosted on servers owned by the Labour party, they have hidden their allegiances and the sources of their funding.
I’ll make it simpler for you.
DPF is open and honest.
The Standard obfuscates, hides and lies.
Easy enough?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Pascal 1; Lynn 0
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
[DPF: Your identity was the author of 08wire was secret Rob until we published it. Just as your involvement in KeepLeftNZ in 2005 was secret...
Actually David I announced the arrival of 08wire in a press release under my own name. And I told you so at the time (see your initial post on that topic, and my response).
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:09 am
labour = fail
get over it
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Pascal: I suspect your question is diversionary. It doesn’t answer mine about why DPF wants to know who writes for the standard. Is he a prurient stalker who wishes to prevent people from doing as they wish in their spare time? Yeah it is a stretch but in essense what the question is.
However I’d answer the your two implied questions, and ask you one as well..
It has been explained many times – if you know the story, then you would have seen the explanations. Essentially you’re simply saying that you do not believe what I’m saying.
The site was on a servers for 3 weeks which were in fact owned by an ISP, who had donated their use to Labour. Labour didn’t know what to do with them so passed their control to a labour activist. They then gave me space on them. I had no idea what the servers were – just that they had space.
So effectively you’re saying making assumptions about the site based on 3 weeks out of what – 130 weeks. It tends to indicate to me that you have no sense of proportion. As is your other statement indicates. We state exactly who we are on our About. Thne only things we don’t state are our identities (apart from mine) and our jobs.
I ask you the same question – tell me why you need to know these details? Are you asking them of Inventory2. Should I ask them of you? You write material as comments on the net not using your identity. Following DPF’s principle, you should be exposed as to your real identity – after all you may be a government employee.
Quite frankly the hypocrisy of your comment (and I2′s) is pretty appalling. It is also diversionary
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I2
I agree, Pascal speaks the truth about the standard.
I was banned for telling the truth. I stated that scientists have as recently as the 70′s predicted ice ages were upon us and that upset the reef-fish and I was banned for 2 months.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
noskire says at 8:57 pm:
“Things must be bad for Labour if Helen would rather go and work with this happy bunch ”
But noskire. You missed the point. Its the photo of THAT OTHER PERSON again.
Hilarious. I honestly never thought it was personal vanity. I just assumed it was the spinmeisters.
… and before you say it naysaying deadbeats, the usual protocol is that the new guy provides a photo or one is arranged when you start. those of you who have ever had a real job would know this.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
lprent
You are lucky DPF hasn’t banned you for being in disagreement with him. Still I guess he’s not an immature insecure moderator like some at the standard.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am
lprent
There were many denials about the standard ever being on a Labour party server at all until I linked back to the post that said the site had been moved to a brank new server cluster.
Then the dialogue moved to “it was only a few weeks”…. Would have been much easier to be honest from the start eh.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“So effectively you’re saying making assumptions about the site based on 3 weeks out of what – 130 weeks”
What utter bullshit, the “site” was only “on 3 weeks out of 130 weeks” because you were caught.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
burt: many people who comment here have been banned by the standard. That is why we call the comments section here “The Sewer”. It has rejects from most blogs who have been thrown out for abusing their access to write comments.
I don’t remember the exact details of your last banning, however it would have probably been because you started abusing someone or thread-jacking. It wasn’t for having a dissenting view, it was for how you chose to present it. Those are laid in the policy.
It never has been on a labour party server… See explanation above.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am
lprent (sysop, chief banner, uncle of silly girl), please go and cry and moan on your own blog.
We don’t want to hear it.
You boys just need to face the facts – DPF is much smarter than the whole pile of you. If you haven’t yet worked out HOW he beat you then I’d suggest a bit of Sun Tzu for you, old son.
From my POV (and I suspect many others here) – I don’t give one flying fu*k what your posters call the comments here, I don’t care in the slightest why you ban people at the drop of a hat. I am not at all interested in your policy.
What I do know is, as was said above – DPF is open and honest about his political affiliations. The Stranded has not been (batman anyone?). You have no credibility whatsoever. so please just piss off back to your little interwebs burrow and sleep for the winter.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
DPF is open and honest about his political affiliations.
So are we… It is in the about.
However effectively DPF is asking about financial affiliations when he is talking about jobs.
Perhaps David should disclose exactly how much of Curia’s revenue comes from the National Party. That would be open and honest in exactly the same way that he is asking that posters on The Standard to disclose their jobs. Once you have a name in teh public service, it is easy to find the salary..
It is noticeable that the comments on here do not care to answer the question about why DPF would want to know the identity of the posters on The Standard. I’ve offered a possible explanation, for harassment and discrimination purposes by the wingnuts and politicians of the right. Am I to assume that there is no other explanation is possible?
[DPF: You do me a dis-service. For example I have known the identities of several of the "Frogs" at Frog Blog. I have never published their names or revealed them. I said in another post why I think it should be revealed if you work in Parliament - not their names just that they do so.
You ask about Curia's clients. You can only do so because I willingly post under my own name. I willingly disclose my links to National. Obviously I am not going to breach the confidentiality of my clients but my links to National are well known and documented. So why don't you just answer this one question - how many of the Standard bloggers are (or were until the election) employed by Ministerial Services, the Parliamentary Service, Labour, or an affiliated union to Labour?]
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Completely ignoring the content of this post, but on a related topic.
If you want to see someone making things up, then I’d suggest peeking at Michael Bassett on the origions of The Standard. I’d have to say that he even makes the residents of the sewer look sane by comparision.
The only reason to visit the Standard is to print out some more toilet paper.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“I’ve offered a possible explanation, for harassment and discrimination purposes by the wingnuts and politicians of the right.”
Comrade lprent, go somewhere else with your filth, lies and deception. Your despicable methods are not welcome here.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
ROTFLMAO. Are things so sad at the stranded that all these loonies really have to come and troll on Kiwiblog?
Vote:The double standards are just nauseating. You ban and abuse anyone who posts contrary opinion over on your bog, but then you turn up here and start slinging your crapola. What a pack of sad little hypocrites. I haven’t even looked at your bog in months because of your revolting attitude and I won’t give you the benefit of my traffic, but it would be nice to think you could show some decency and not hijack the blogs I do like to read.
If you don’t like it here just piss off. That’s you lprent, and all the little baby trolls too.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Still interesting that people here are not willing to discuss a perfectly reasonable question.
Why does DPF think that he should know what peoples jobs are who post (or indeed comment) on the blogs? Is it to allow political discrimination? Does DPF consider that is a good thing?
Sadly this comment area also shows why we have active moderation on The Standard. We largely wish to discuss ideas rather than have comment sections that are simply about hurling abuse. For instance RightNow, Manolo, and Chicken Little would probably get fast bans at TS because that is all that they did, hurl abuse at another commentator. There is no content in their comments to ameliorate the offense.
Oh well it is David’s site and he can allow what he wishes…
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Yawn. I would ban lprent just for his thread jacking.
I know who DPF is, what he does, what he has done for the National Party. I have no idea who anyone at The Standard is. The only reason I would even know about their Labour party and Union affiliations is because of DPF, WhaleOil, and the others.
You cant claim it to be a virtue that you are open and transparent when the only reason you are currently open and transparent is because people found out who you were. DPF was open and transparent from the very start. You came to yours lately, and against your will.
Your site is shite and I fear in a year it will be said to be dead because Labour wont save ya.
Good-bye, Mr Standard.
PS.
The Standard was a site run by Labour,
Vote:Lie’s and deceit’s safe harbour,
They shut down all debate,
And fomented much hate,
Its demise was something to savour.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:39 am
lprent
I do however enjoy the role reversal between Kiwiblog and the standard.
Democracy under attack was a Kiwiblog theme before the election and the standard defended everything Labour did. Now your blog is riddled with democracy under attack posts. It’s OK when Labour do it eh…. the sky is falling when National do it. You are pathetic and a complete partisan hack.
Welcome to opposition, enjoy it – you could be there for a while.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“Why does DPF think that he should know what peoples jobs are who post (or indeed comment) on the blogs? Is it to allow political discrimination?”
No. It is about full disclosure. It has long been considered a virtue in public comment.
You must be an idiot to even ask the question.
When you moderate comments you open yourself to the suspicion abotu what you delete. You bring it on yourself. Get used to it. You think you are increasing the standard of the comments but all you are doing is destroying their worth.
Again, you bring it on yourself, stop whining about it.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Boo-hoo lprent, cry yourself a river. That you are here thread-jacking tells us that your standard is slipping.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
lprent (sysop, chief banner, uncle of ugly silly girl),
I’ll give you an answer to your question in one word: CREDIBILITY.
You have none. You will not allow dissenting views, there is no transparency on posters, no one admits to any affiliations other than the broad statements given in your about.
That is why no one other than labour shrills comes to your site.
Now rush off back there, and hold clinton smiths hand, whilst he gives us another one of his economic pearls of wisdom.
Edit: Fuck! I made a spelling mistake….. If that had been the stranded, I would have been banned!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Left leaning bloggers really don’t want to be stalked or ran out of their jobs for daring to support the wrong political party (Labour or the Greens), maybe they would be a bit more willing the publicize their details if these things did not happen?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Why does DPF think that he should know what peoples jobs are who post (or indeed comment) on the blogs? Is it to allow political discrimination? Does DPF consider that is a good thing?”
It’s his site. If you dont want to play by his rules don’t come here.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Kimble: Actually DPF raised the topic in this thread, as you’ll see from my first comment in here. Nice that you actually address the question I was asking though.
DPF said…
I have maintained that a number of bloggers at The Standard were parliamentary and ministerial employees. To this day, this has never been denied. The denials have always been that it is not part of their jobs.
What he is asking about are their jobs and incomes. What I’m asking is what relevance does that have – why does he think that it is a requirement to write on the net that these are required. We don’t ask it of our posters or commentators. What we ask is that they behave themselves on the site.
Full disclosure is something that is demanded of politicians, but none of us are. It is demanded of various people like directors, lawyers, etc for possible conflicts of interest. That doesn’t apply in this case as we make it very clear that we are a left labour movement blog, and there is no pecuniary interest.
It is not demanded of journalists or opinion pieces in newspapers or other MSM, which we most resemble. So it is hard to say that it is a virtue in public comment.
We don’t write as part of our jobs…
Vote:You yourself are doing public comment under a psuedonym – so you disapprove of your own actions? Seems weird to me.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“Left leaning bloggers really don’t want to be stalked or ran out of their jobs for daring to support the wrong political party (Labour or the Greens), maybe they would be a bit more willing the publicize their details if these things did not happen?”
You mean they don’t want to suffer the same treatment that those of us on the right suffered for the past nine years.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
big bruv
That’s probably part of it. The other part is the EFA. The muppet bloggers at the standard supported the EFA but didn’t want to be caught by it’s provisions so they needed to be a collective. Additionally they needed to appear like they were independent so that their “cost” was not added to an advertising budget.
It’s classic when you look at it – we support free speech – so much so that we need to hide who we are because supporting self serving corrupt political parties makes us tie ourselves in knots.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
BB: Unlikely. The nearest thing to it was probably the police commissioner in 1999. That was more about the never-ending INCIS project than anything else.
I think that you are just going for hyperbole unrelated to facts. But that is your particular forte as I remember.
burt: What cost? The highest cost I ever paid was $180 in a month.
Just more hyperbole and very few facts.
Ummm I suppose that I should translate hyperbole. It is a more precise way of saying that you are both talking bullshit
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“Left leaning bloggers really don’t want to be stalked or ran out of their jobs for daring to support the wrong political party ”
Maybe if the Left Leaning Bloggers didnt live in a world is fantasy, deception, and lies they wouldnt have a cartoonish view of their political opponents.
“Full disclosure is something that is demanded of politicians, but none of us are.”
We know that now, but no thanks to anyone at The Standard.
“It is not demanded of journalists or opinion pieces in newspapers or other MSM, which we most resemble.”
It is expected that if a newspaper runs an opinion piece by an interested party that they print that persons interest. It is fair and is hardly onerous to do so.
“You yourself are doing public comment under a psuedonym – so you disapprove of your own actions?”
I am a low profile commenter. I am not setting up a site called “Kimbles Unbiased Truths About The Labour Party” and spending all my time spinning every National press release in a concerted effort to sway public opinion.
There is an important point that hasnt been made yet, and I am going to write this is all capitals to make sure you see it:
THE WRITERS AT THE STANDARD CONSTANTLY ACCUSED DPF OF BEING ON THE NATIONAL PARTY PAYROLL.
IF THE PEOPLE WRITING THAT WERE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE LABOUR PARTY THEN THAT IS WHAT WE CALL GROSS HYPOCRISY WHICH NEGATES EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SAY.
Once again, you all brought it on yourselves, stop whining about it you hypocritical twats.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“I think that you are just going for hyperbole unrelated to facts.”
Are you talking to big bruv or racer?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Who gives a fuck about the standard?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
lprent
So you still support the EFA as being a good law and Winston as being honest then?
And as for the cost of the standard – it was high enough to make you move it off shore.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Kimble: You are confusing cause and effect in my recollection.
In response to DPF and Whale saying that the Standard was a dirty tricks division of labour, the question was raised if Kiwiblog and/or Whale wasn’t a dirty tricks department of National or Act. Bearing in mind the very close links between Curia and the National party, and DPF being the owner of Curia, it is a pretty interesting question. The sureness of Whale and DPF raised questions about why they thought this was the only way a political blog could be set up, was ‘interesting’.
In any case it is all pretty moot. The Standard runs on anonymity of people and Kiwiblog runs on an anonymity of income.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
lprent
Thinking about it, it wasn’t just the cost being attributed to a political party was it – it was also because your posters didn’t want to publish their full names and residential addresses on the blog. Funny they all though the EFA was great but didn’t want to comply with the odorous provisions it had…
Guess that’s part of being a Labour party supporter. The rules are for others to follow and don’t apply to you special folk eh.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Iprent
The EPMU and Labour party Standard has spent the last eighteen months ignoring the facts as well as the truth.
As I have said before, your site COULD be the place where healthy and vigorous debate takes place (like Kiwiblog) the real pity is that as soon as anybody says something you do not agree with you ban them and edit or delete their post.
For some reason you seem afraid of free speech.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“The Standard runs on anonymity of people and Kiwiblog runs on an anonymity of income.”
And that is exactly the type of comment that would see you banned at the EPMU and Labour party funded Standard.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
burt: The EFA was good law. Had some rough edges.
I’m pretty confident that National will bring in a law with much the same effect. The current 1993 act with its transparency extension simply doesn’t cover a MMP type election. That is what they intend according to their policy on a cross party basis. Of course they are starting to break promises – looks like the later tax-cuts are vapor.
BTW: the costs of The Standard don’t even get close to requiring us to put ourselves on. It was less than $1000 for the election period. That is assuming we fell under other 3rd party provisions because we don’t like National.
As you know, I don’t like Winston. However I think that the lynch mob last year was probably one of the most disgusting things that I’ve seen in politics. In the end all of the allegations about NZF and Winston have wound up as being vapor. No charges brought forward. Nothing proved apart from a bad sense of political timing and poor book-keeping.
Essentially you should feel ashamed of your part in it. So should the media and DPF.
[DPF: On the contrary I am more proud of my role in helping get Peters out of Parliament than anything else I have done in politics.]
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Funny though that the hosting provider (bluehost.com) doesn’t share their party colours. I wonder if they considered using redhost.com, whose mission statement is ‘dedicated hosting for adult-oriented businesses’.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
lprent and others, you’ve convinced me that the Standard does indeed serve a useful purpose – providing an outlet for pointless, incessant, uninformed opinions I can’t be bothered reading.
Now if you could all just run back to your playpen please ….
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
lprent
So the fact that your anon bloggers supported the EFA and it’s disclosure provisions is sitting comfortably with you then ?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
lprent “However I think that the lynch mob last year was probably one of the most disgusting things that I’ve seen in politics. In the end all of the allegations about NZF and Winston have wound up as being vapor.”
That’s an interesting (although dim) point of view. I doubt many others in NZ (certainly less than 5%) believe the allegations were vapor though.
edit: vapour (since kiwiblog isn’t hosted in the US)
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Also burt, there was a provision in the EFA excluding blogs. I seem to remember that was the result of submissions from DPF and Russell Brown. The Standard is a blog, a multi-author blog.
Reminds me I haven’t seen the results from any of the ‘complaints’ sent by Whale and others to the electoral commission about The Standard and no published judgments. I guess that they were too frivolous. I wonder what the letters back from the commission said.
The reason for shifting to bluehost was purely cost. A drop in costs to less than a tenth of the previous prices was too compelling to ignore.
bb: The debate at The Standard is fine. Posts, comments, and page views are nearly back at pre-election levels. Having standards for debate allowed us to discard trolls such as yourself and really improved the level of debate over that in 2007. Although I’d have to say that you’re more articulate than I remember. Been taking writing classes? Or just more practice?
Have to do some work. So I’ll pop back here later and see if DPF has answered my question. Looks like it’d be worth a post though asking that question.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
lprent
Winston could have saved all that trouble… all he had to do was not tell porkies and get caught doing so. Or do you still back Helen Clark’s position that she never knew about the donations from Owen Glenn… Oh hang on – she admitted she knew that… where is that vapor… it’s looking like substance but perhaps you just missed that because it would have made you look like the supporter of corruption and the apologist you are.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“In response to DPF and Whale saying that the Standard was a dirty tricks division of labour, the question was raised if Kiwiblog and/or Whale wasn’t a dirty tricks department of National or Act. ”
Nope, it was the other way round. Dont forget, your writers also commented here. And what they said here is just as attributable to The Standard as anything they wrote there. It was a dog whistle for you guys. All your tame commenters thought DPF was paid to blog by National, so your writers played to that.
“The Standard runs on anonymity of people and Kiwiblog runs on an anonymity of income.”
But we KNOW there are people, whereas the money is only in your imagination. You are full of shit, that you could still write this, “burt: The EFA was good law. Had some rough edges.” shows just how out of touch with reality you are. But then you follow it up with this in regards to the desire to hold Winston Peters accountable, “However I think that the lynch mob last year was probably one of the most disgusting things that I’ve seen in politics.”
That confirms you are a wingnut, lprent.
“Of course they are starting to break promises – looks like the later tax-cuts are vapor.”
You write infuriating bullshit like this and you wonder why you get so much vitriol? It would only take a few minutes reading of this site to understand how wrong that statement is. It has actually been countered more than a dozen times. So you are either an idiot or a troll.
You have to know the counter argument already so I am no longer going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are nothing more than a troll, lprent, and deserve all the vitriol a troll gets. So it is fair to tell you to fuck off and die of aids, troll boy.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Iprrent – if you don’t like what you read here then change the channel. You remind me of one of those people who complain about being exposed to the nudist beach if they climb on their roof with a pair of binoculars.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
lprent
Yes indeed – you were supporting it before that as well. When I commented that your blog would be illegal after 1st Jan 2008 anon bloggers told me I had rocks in my head… then the amendment went through…
Your memory is very poor lprent. Stop making shit up when you have forgotten the real time lines.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Wow… this thread is to leftie trolls what agar jelly is to bacteria!
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I guess it’s a bad week at the substandard what with:
* Failing to create a by-election issue out of the supercity aka ‘democracy under attack’ – wtf?.
(surely cleaning out the cardy wearing pinko’s and getting a bit more regional strategy implemented is a GOOD thing.)
* Bassett ‘outing’ Labours Clark-approved union-run mouth ‘organ’ the substandard.
* Shearer getting tanked in opinion polls.
Must be only a matter of time before Goff views the substandard as a media liability. Not too quickly I hope, theres a by-election coming up.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
burt: It didn’t matter if the blog provision was in or out. We weren’t going to hit $2000 for the year, let alone $12000 for the electoral period. Now I get a whole years site provision for less than $200.
Kimble: Perhaps you haven’t examined Whale’s inflated accounting from Jan 2008 (faithfully reported here and treated as fact by credulous commentators). That had me spending something like $20-30k on hosting a blog. Now there is a case of imaginary money. I really don’t care one way or the other about what your views on me.
Like many of the people commenting here, I’ve already expressed my view on your behaviour (childish), when you got booted from The Standard. Meanwhile I’d say that well over a third of the comments on TS are from right-wingers. It is just that we sent the chaff here. It rather shows in the your profound inability to maintain a coherent argument.
This seems like old troll week here. Like expat: As inarticulate as ever. I see that you didn’t link to those posts. If you had then everyone would have found that your interpretations are somewhat distorted. But I have to say that I do enjoy not having to do the 7am warnings on your strange comments.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
From all the squealing coming from the Right’s wingnut blogs I suspect the outbreak of swine flu in NZ is much worse than we’ve ben led to believe. Looks like Slater has kissed a few pigs in his time, (not the least the slanderous comments about Damian O’connor last election), but this latest effort will make the WHO very nervous.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
[DPF: ... I said in another post why I think it should be revealed if you work in Parliament - not their names just that they do so.
Why? Explain the rationale behind that. For instance if someone was part of the parliamentary car pool and doing this in their non-work time. How is that different from being a taxi-driver and doing the same thing. What you carefully do not explain is why you think you should intrude into someones private life. Some kind of prurience perhaps... You'd have to give a bloody good reason to anyone to intrude into peoples lives.
You ask about Curia's clients. You can only do so because I willingly post under my own name. I willingly disclose my links to National. Obviously I am not going to breach the confidentiality of my clients but my links to National are well known and documented.
As I also post under my own name, well a abbreviation login I got 28 years ago. I also do not breach the confidentiality of my paying or non-paying 'clients'. The posters on The Standard have been given my guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality that I will not breach. Just as I also don't breach the confidentiality of my various employers for whom I cut code, or the various voluntary and charitable organizations that I do work for.
If someone was doing the blog as part of their work - then they'd be off the site. If someone was doing it as part of the own time and in accordance with their own beliefs, then they can write their own opinions. They are acting as private citizens, and I see no reason to tell you peoples jobs even if I knew them.
But you know this - it is in the about.
So explain to me why you think that I should breach confidentiality? And also why you shouldn't with Curia's clients and income streams.
[DPF: I don't think you should breach confidentiality. I think any blogger who works at Parliament in a political role is best to disclose that they are. There is a difference between a fulltime political staffer and Joe Public. I actually think it would be beneficial to the individuals involved to do so. It makes you more careful and responsible about what you post. Keith Ng spoke at the Young Labour conference on why he thinks The Standard bloggers should blog under their names. I agree with him. I think Frog Blog is an excellent template as to how to do it, without giving away personal names. Now up to you what you do, but I think you would find things much better if each blogger had brief bio details. Apart from anything else people relate more to individuals than "blogs". You often complain people treat The Standard as one entity. But the reason is it is hard to differentiate between different authors when they are all anonymous. ]
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
why don’t you explain why you feel it is a good idea to come trolling on this blog when you ban others for similar activities on your own blog. It seems like a reflection of left wing ideology, do as I say not as I do.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
lprent, stop deflecting the real issue. The provision for blogs negated the requirement for the anon authors to publish their full name and address when publishing their opinions on political matters. IE: The same provision that you’re anon posters supported for dissenters but had no intention of following themselves.
So, if the amendment for blogs had not gone through then sure you wouldn’t have needed to register as a third party (because of the financial threshold) but you would still have needed to publish your full names and residential address to publish opinions. Just as I was required to do if I wanted to hold up an A4 sheet with “Don’t vote Labour” written on it during a protest… something you guys though was an excellent requirement.
As nobody from the standard has ever justified how a bunch of anon posters could support a law that required people to publish their name and residential address if they wanted to express political opinions, perhaps you could try and rescue the threads of your credibility and explain why the stance of the anon authors was not deeply hypocritical.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“If someone was doing the blog as part of their work – then they’d be off the site.”
Hilarious!..Clinton Smith is still blogging on your site under “Guest post” yet you claim that “they’d be off the site” if they did so.
See that the thing about telling lies Iprent, you have to have a very good memory, it seems that yours is failing you.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I wouldn’t get banned for my part in this conversation at The Standard, and it is unlikely that I would here, or on any blog I’ve been to.
Reasons for banning on The Standard are largely covered by policy. Essentially they come down to being aware that there are other people in the conversation and ensuring that your behavior doesn’t spoil it for them. Most people get taught this basic social custom as children. Some people seem to think that being online obviates the need. I don’t – so if you act like a child on my blog site you get treated like one.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“What we’re not prepared to accept are personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others.”
Unless it is one of your own doing the abusing.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
burt: If I’d had to have registered as a 3rd party, then it’d have been an organization. Therefore only I would have had to publish my name and address – as I already do.
bb: What part of on your-own-time don’t you understand. Sure Clint still writes guest stuff. That is probably why there are currently posts stacked a few days into the future. The point was that he doesn’t do it for his employer and based on the times the posts get written, in his employers time.
I know that abstract concepts are hard for you to understand. But being employed is not a full-time occupation. Mind you DPF seems to have difficulty with the concept as well.
The general rule is that just abuse without a point is unacceptable. With a point it is often acceptable. As far as anyone who reads The Standard comments section regularly is concerned, it is always justified on people who troll lines without understanding them.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
lprent
I didn’t think you would be able to defend the anon muppets. Great to know that you have published your real name. I guess unlike the rest of the anon authors at the standard you at least acted according to the law you supported.
I guess this confirms that you are not a Labour party employee because you didn’t apply the “do as I say and not as I do” rule.
Thanks for confirming that the other anon authors at the standard are deeply hypocritical people.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“The general rule is that just abuse without a point is unacceptable.”
And the definition of a piont is very clear. So when someone would respond to my thoughtful comment with “You must really hate poor people.” they were off the site within minutes. No…wait…. that never once happen.
What about when someone posts an insult to someone else? Like when they simply post to say “KiwiBlog comments section is a sewer.” What is their point? It is nothing but an insult, and simply because you like what they have to say you let it all slide.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
5 links to the stranded in this jacked thread so far lprent. trying to fudge your rankings by any chance?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
burt: you’ve missed the point or not thought it through – like so many knee-jerks on the EFA.
If the blog exemption wasn’t there, and we didn’t get into the media exemptions. I’d have registered as a trust or some kind of not-for-profit organisation. Then the only person that had to be on the authorising statement is the authoriser of the site, effectively treating the whole site as being a pamphlet.
In other words I’d comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law in a way that conformed to my purposes. The other posters on the site would not have been allowed to put in authorising statements to themselves because that was not the basis that we used when we set up the site. The site was set up to guarantee anonymity to both posters and commentators. This allows a free and frank discussion without having to worry about stalkers. In other words the anonymity that virtually every
Of course it’d be just as easy to move the site offshore (umm like it is now).
RN: With the exception of the 2 comments, every comment I have made has been in response to one of more people commenting on my comments. Hardly thread-jacking, especially since DPF raised the topic first.
If people ask about things that require a reference to about/policy/contact, then I put in a link to them. I do the same on The Standard and everywhere else. Why should I explain something if it is already written down somewhere. I suspect that your problem is probably that you don’t know how to put in a decent link. If that is the case then have a look here.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Lyns really going all out trying to justify something, god knows what it is, in his verbose egotistical ramblings.
Readership must be down at the Labour parties mouth ‘organ’.
Keep blowing Lyn, ka pai.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
TOPIC:
Labour making it up
Good God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
And I never realised that Labour doesnt think it is weird to assume the leader of the senior party in the coalition would spend time personally digging up “dirt” and feeding it to bloggers.
Then again, with the leadership of that party in the last decade, who can blame them for having a skewed idea of how a Prime Minister is actually supposed to act.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
“With the exception of the 2 comments, every comment I have made has been in response to one of more people commenting on my comments. Hardly thread-jacking, especially since DPF raised the topic first.”
WTF do you think threadjacking is, you tool?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Lynn Prentice:
You said (5:03 pm):
I wasn’t particularly impressed to read this. Let me explain why. I read Clinton Smith’s “final” post very carefully at the time. It is here, but the relevant passage is this:
So, by your own admission Lynn, Clinton is not writing posts in his own name. Moreover, I believe a fair-minded reader would regard some of Clinton’s “guest posts” as blatantly partisan stuff, which on 10 March he was supposedly wanting to “get away from”.
What to make of all this? One possible inference is that Clinton has decided he would like to voice his political opinions after all – hence the regular “guest post” from him.
Your thoughts, Lynn?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Threadjacking? is that when someone on the left dares to pull someone on the right up for telling lies?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Iprent
Just to make sure I have the right Clinton Smith, is this is the same Clinton Smith who says he is a Green voter and Green party member, and the same Clinton Smith who claims to have nothing to do with the Labour party yet hs still manages to regularly attend Labour party conferences and retreats?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
lprent, you are an absolute fucking waste of cranial enclousure.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
expat (2370) Vote: 0 0 Says:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
TOPIC:
Labour making it up
Good God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things.
Right – back on topic then, I’m prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt about this. I’d be surprised if they just sit around inventing things, I’d be inclined to think there might be some pacing about, perhaps standing akimbo, and I bet Goff does the standing by the desk with one foot on it to give him that aura of out and out sssssexy
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
DPF: I think any blogger who works at Parliament in a political role is best to disclose that they are.
Agreed. But I don’t know of any in a political role. There is a problem defining what a political role is. The people drafting law (crown law office) arguably could be defined as that. You could also argue that PR people from lobby or industry groups should be defined that way as well. They are employed in part to influence people doing policy. For that matter – political pollsters?
Keith Ng spoke at the Young Labour conference on why he thinks The Standard bloggers should blog under their names. I agree with him. …. but I think you would find things much better if each blogger had brief bio details.
I disagree. The essence about how The Standard operates is that it is there to poke opinions at topics and see what the comments show up. It uses interactive media (blog) to get a wider examination of policy and ideas than is easily possible otherwise.
It is a hell of lot better to have comments in a blog looking at topics than a pile of policy wonks in the beltway running in their incestuous relationships. Sometimes the opinions get shot down, sometimes they spark something totally new. But there is often a pretty thorough examination of whatever was put up.
In any kind of brainstorming or critical review, it is important to drop status and expectations. The blogs are great for that. With pseudonyms and no detail on the writers, the posts have to be read as they are without expectations based on who people are. Same for that matter with the commentators. Good example is how many holes we keep finding in government policy. It is better to find and fix before they get bound into legislation or into some politicians ego, and eventually wind up screwing our lives. For instance whatever National moron relaxed the building regs in the early 90′s, resulting in my apartments ongoing leaky building court case.
Besides with anonymity we drop a lot of the ego issues. Pretty easy to see them in the journo’s so we like doing ego deflations on periodically.
It’d work here, but usually it seems like the sewer is there to sample the lowest common denominator. Personally I find it difficult to read.
You often complain people treat The Standard as one entity. But the reason is it is hard to differentiate between different authors when they are all anonymous.
I don’t complain, I get sarcastic and in repeated cases I ban because it wastes my time to be sarcastic. If it is done on other sites, then I wax sarcastic there. They are talking to and about a program. As a programmer I find it ridiculous when people attribute intelligence to something that has less survival reflexes than paramecium. That really isn’t an issue anymore
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Actually lprent, your moderation comments are simply abusive in many cases. It is clear on your bog that if someone chooses to disagree with your opinions that you will moderate with caustic remarks, rather than approach the subject matter. In terms of lowest common denominator you have them all, and you’re welcome to keep them. It’s pathetic that you come and troll here. DPF treats you with respect, which in my eyes is big kudos for him, but more than that it is something you could learn from. Moderation comments in which you insult the commentor say a lot about you, and they are far from honourable, just like your bog.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
lprent
The point is this: Anonymous posters at the standard enjoy the luxury of being anonymous while supporting a law that makes people declare their name and residential address on material they produce to state their opinions. The technicalities of the blog exclusions are great, yeee ha – good for us who blog. BUT what about the 70 year old who just wants to wave his banner cause he’s got something he wants to say?
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Funny how Labour was rejected by the country on 8 November 2008 and no amount of posts or comments from the VDS could change that.
Labour couldn’t make up an election victory on election night.
Vote:April 29th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
big bruv
I believe it’s the same Clinton Smith who stood up at the anti EFB march in Wellington and addressed the crowd claiming the EFB would be a good law.
It seems he’s not an unintelligent man but he’s partisan through and through which by definition makes him a fool.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 5:33 am
This thread on the Stranded would have resulted in at least a dozen bannings.
On KB it results in ……?
lprent still doesn’t get it.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 5:38 am
lyns a jumped up OCD control freak and a borderline narcisist.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Ahem, the http://www.thestandard.org.nz taking another caning from the DimPost
sheesh
April 30, 2009 at 7:25 am
Sheesh Lynn,
You really are worried that Rob Salmond is coming down on you for fucking up the labour spin on Mt Albert arent you buddy? Imagine attacking someone of Bassetts calibre, a man inside the Mt Albert electorate who many in the area hold in high esteem.
You must be backed into a corner buddy!
The best of luck, you’ll need it!
Reply
lprent
April 30, 2009 at 7:35 am
Bassett, as you can see by the comments here, is not regarded highly. I simply pointed out that he is completely wrong in his facts – somehow he has dropped from being a historian to being a wingnut.
Reply
sheesh
April 30, 2009 at 7:41 am
Oh comer on Lynn, you are donkey deep with the Labour party and with Helens old regime in the Mt Albert electorate. Bassett knows it, you know it, we all know it. It’s really a matter of record now. Rob and his team are desperately trying to dig Labour out of your hole!
[lprent: Another troll - in this case someone who has bugger all idea about either the way this blog operates or how the NZLP operates. The Rob (Salmond) one is amusing - I think he is still in America.
Banned for attacking post writer and not the post content ie a wish for martyrdom ]
Reply
Danyl Mclauchlan
April 30, 2009 at 8:04 am
As I’ve been saying for ages, you guys bring this stuff on yourselves. When you have large number of anonymous bloggers posting fervently pro-Labour material it’s pretty easy to accuse you of being a Labour astro-turf outfit. The fact that you were closely linked to Mike Williams failed smear campaign didn’t help you much in that respect.
I know that some of you are Greens, some posts are critical of Labour, yadda yadda yadda, it’s just that you’ve gone out of your way to be opaque and unaccountable. Obviously that has it’s advantages for you guys or you wouldn’t have done it but it also has some costs, and one of them is that it makes you very vulnerable to this sort of criticism.
Vote:Reply
April 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
As Danyl says – the STANDARD and LYNN was closely associated with Williams & LABOURS FAILED smear campaign on Key.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Looks like Lynn has something to hide. He’s very defensive about Laobur’s poor showing at the last election.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
OECD
For Lynn it’s real easy. Labour = good, National = bad.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Lyn is real easy. An easy easy ride.
Vote: