For Lynn it’s real easy. Labour = good, National = bad.

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.
Reply

On KB it results in ……?

lprent still doesn’t get it.

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.

Labour couldn’t make up an election victory on election night.

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?

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

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

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?

You said (5:03 pm):

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 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, I’m taking a break from it. This is Steve Pierson’s [ie Clinton Smith's] last post. I want to get away from the partisan stuff for a while and I’ve accepted a contract that means it will be inappropriate to publicly voice my political opinions. Any posts I write in the future will be guest posts in my own name, and confined to the big issues I’m trying to get my head around, not partisan politics.

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?

WTF do you think threadjacking is, you tool?

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.

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.