Cactus on Whale
January 6th, 2010 at 6:09 pm by David FarrarCactus Kate says far better than me, what my views are:
As I advise anyone who comes to Whaleoil’s attention, the best course of action is to be polite and either ignore what he has written or write to him in a manner which puts your side of the story and he will more often than not be reasonable enough to publish that. He has a short span of attention thanks to his depression and soon moves to a new target.
The worst course of action is to give Whaleoil opposition. He is mental. I mean this in a loving caring way to his friends, but to his foe he shows as much hatred as he does love for his friends. Whaleoil loves opposition, he loves conflict and more importantly will never back down.
Pinkos do not understand Whaleoil. They try to tar his friends with cries that we should control him and advise him not to do things. Well newsflash, we do and he doesn’t bloody listen. His actions are consistent with a mix of depression, medication and frontal lobe disfunction. There is no point in reasoning with him for after his depression and the medication he is on, there is limited reasoning. So what are we meant to do? Abandon him? That’s what a Pinko would do.
So we will all continue to support Whaleoil.
So say we all. Wonderfully said Cactus. From time to time I suggest alternate courses of action to the Whale. He always gives me a good hearing. Most of the time he ignores me, and very occasionally he agrees with me,. But mates don’t need to agree all the time, or even most of the time.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Hear hear. Cameron is one person guaranteed to never seek name suppression.
The best of luck to him in his battle against celebrity double standards.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Best of luck to Whale Oil for showing guts and the courage of his convictions. Good on him.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Everyone knows who Whaleoil is …
Wot about micketsavage et al who hide behind pseudonyms following the dictate of Trevor Mallard that all Labour Party Parliamentary Staffers should follow the advice of Mayor Daly and post (vote) early and often under assumed names.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Good luck Cam, and take it to them.
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Cam says it as it is, or as it should be said. Agree or disagree, that’s the way it is.
He hits some pretty borderline topics, but so what. much of the tme, he is right – or at least, has the right to say it.
Keep it up mate.
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
“From time to time I suggest alternate courses of action to the Whale”.
Understatement of the year already DPF!
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Surely Cactus Kate isn’t hinting Whaleoil should use an insanity defence?
Ahab was crazy, not the great white whale.
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I don’t do “hints”.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Cactus Kate
I like that, one click on the thumbs up isn’t enough to express how much I like that.
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Cam is most definitely mental, crazy and erratic – it is indisputable to say otherwise – but there is something loveable about him.
Anyone in Auckland who wants to toast the Whale should come to tomorrow night’s Auckland bloggers drinks – rumour has it that he’ll be there…
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I just watched the TV1 news item on it.
He looked normal and spoke eloquently.
What’s with hassling the guy for what he was wearing in the other thread?
Geez, close minded NZ.
Good luck mate.
Vote:January 6th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I don’t do hints either……
Vote:But who dropped him in????
COCK???
January 7th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Hey Cactus Kate have you ever spent any time in mainland China?
No offence, just wondered.
Vote:January 7th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Kate’s full post is a good read.
This is an issue of many parts. I agree with the campaign led by Whale to tidy up name suppressions. I don’t care about the attention seeking. But I don’t like the dishonesty – Whale is dropping strong clues on his blog as to who the Comedian is, despite what he claimed about respecting that suppression.
The main issue is not just about suppression, it is also about selection. If a name is suppressed and no media selects it for publishing then the public will know nothing about it. (We will know nothing about it if the name isn’t suppressed either).
If a name suppression is selected by media for publishing then it will have the reverse effect to what was legally intended, far more people will know about it (and who’s name was suppressed) than many non-suppressed cases. I’d never heard of the Entertainer and the Comedian before the suppression publicity – and I wouldn’t have recognised their names if they had been published.
The spotlight should be on the appropriateness of name suppressions especially in “celebrity” type cases.
But the spotlight should also be on all media – on how they all leak enough clues that they will lead to recognition, and the effect of their selection of what to publicise.
I think name suppression needs to be harder to get for some people, although perhaps it’s reasonable until they are found guilty.
And suppression needs to be adhered to much more rigidly when it is granted, which means no clues of any type allowed, and no video footage with claytons pixelation.
Vote: