A charming comment
June 17th, 2010 at 10:20 am by David FarrarA new commenter left the following comment:
Oh what a surprise! The National and ACT party’s long term plan of having Banks as Mayor of the so called ‘Super City’ kicks into action as soon as Len Brown shows up 11% ahead of failed MP Banks. Oh another surprise, the horrible geeky little man ( being generous there) Farrar is doing Keys and Hides dirty work for them, just like he did on Winston Peters in the election. Well Farrar, time to exercise a few skeletons out of your cupboard, as well as Banks, Key and Hide. Just wait and see what starts popping up on the internet in the next few weeks, maybe a long term trip to Rarotonga would be well timed, or would Thailand be a better choice for you Farrar?
I deleted the comment, but then decided maybe better to let people see it.
The Thailand suggestion is especially charming, as we know what he is really suggesting by this.
Now here is my dilemma. I know the identity of the person who made that comment, through their e-mail address and domain name, with his threats against me. Kiwiblog’s privacy policy says:
I reserve the right to use or publicise any of the above information. However, unless there is good reason, I intend to only publish information in summarised form …
So the bottom line in terms of privacy in browsing or commenting on this site, is that in 99.99% of all cases I will keep your personal information strictly confidential to me. However if you break the law, defame someone, or really piss me off, then you have been warned!
So should I name the person who made this comment? Does this qualify as the 0.01% exception?
Tags: Kiwiblog
June 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Sunlight is the best disinfectant DPF – name ‘im!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Fuck yes
Its a dull day
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Start with his pseudonym David. We may then get an idea if this is a brainfart or the guy/gal is seriously a suitable case for treatment.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Name and shame for sure.
What an odious little person.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:05 am
The rules are there for all of us to see David, and you’ve been threatened in a public forum. I say name him/her.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:05 am
With a comment like that you have no choice but to name them.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Seems like a reasonable exception. Maybe a right of retraction first.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Just wait and see what starts popping up on the internet in the next few weeks.
Did we not just do something on Pete Hodgson.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Apart from anything else the person is clearly from another universe, as he/she assumes DPFand/or un-named others stood over Len Brown and forced him to mis-use his council credit card. Presumably Brown was again acting under instructions from the Banksian conspiracy when he made his ‘mea culpa’ the other night.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am
@DPF
Publish the pseudonym – along with any others if it is in fact someone who posts under another, or multiple, names.
Personally insutling? Sure. Enough to name them? I think there are worse insults traded on the blog already.
If you named them for insulting you, wouldn’t you then have to apply the same litmus test when others insult people (both public and private figures)? You would end up with no pseudonyms at all in very short order. Mind you, not all of us use them anyway
[DPF: It is more the threat, than the insult]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am
He posted as A Real Kiwi.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:11 am
The name doesn’t matter a lot. Its the ideas that count. This is typical of the left, and the way they act against anyone who argues effectively against them.
Good that you put it up in a post. It will alert many more people to the utter animalistic viciousness of the left than if it had remained in the comments.
Does it really matter who wrote it? Perhaps a little but whoever it was, they’re just another leftist scumbag. They’re everywhere, and attempted ridicule or cowardly smears are their favourite weapon.
Write it off as just another example of what and who we are really fighting against here, and a reminder of what evil commonly exists on the left of the political spectrum.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
gee..!…he didn’t accuse you of being a ‘p’-cook or ”p’-dealer..?
or anything like that…?
did he..?
that’d be ‘beyond the pale’..eh..?
..worthy of ‘naming’..?
d’yareckon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
When a poster goes to that level I say publish. There is no excuse. As one of the originals under the gd non de plume I and everyone else knows the rules and what permitted.
As has been said before a blogger site is their site Its like their home. If you come into a home and then slag of the owner you deserve everything you get.
AND it will act as a deterrent for any others in the future
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am
For myself I still tend towards the “publish under your real name or shut up” line, except for people with genuine reasons to fear recriminations or harrassment.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Name and shame – I’ll pass it on to my private army at 4chan and then we’ll really see what pops up on the internet in the next few weeks
Just kidding, I don’t really have a private army, 4chan would never do anything like that and the interwebs never, ever, pops.
Seriously though – can’t these troughers and their hangers-on see that nobody but Len forced him to bring out his council credit card and whack $810 of personal spending on it, nobody but Len forced him to lie about repeatedly and nobody but Len forced himself to act like a complete cock at the council meeting. WTF is wrong with these people?
I say put their name up for all to see.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Do it! Phil is constantly advocating you to “clean up the sewers”, however I wondering if this only applies to commenters he disagrees with?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Name and shame. There is no place for such threatening suggestions without context.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“..cowardly smears are their favourite weapon. ..”
crikey..!
that’d be that ‘p’-cook-alledger…?
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Speaking of people who don’t use their real names, “utter animalistic viciousness of the left” equals ” cowardly smear”.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Actually, given this previous post and comment thread, the poster should have well known that DPF can’t go anywhere near Thailand!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/01/disgraceful-3.html
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Not yet…
Nothing but a vague threat at present. But the option remains open to you. COnsider the chilling effect a pre-emptive strike may have on others posting
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:20 am
No, don’t. Just because he is a dickhead doesn’t mean you have to be one as well. Don’t even give a bottom feeder the attention he so badly wants.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Considering the nature of the smear, and your privacy disclosure?
I say Name and Shame.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:22 am
If David names him and it turns out he is “James Smith” (sorry Jim) then what have we gained? Zip!
Unless of course, and this will get the droolglands working, he turns out to be either someone well known or someone with political connections deep inside the Labour Party. (he actually comes across as Pete Hodgson but that might be unfair to A Real Kiwi)
So the prospect of (possibly) embarrassing a political enemy may trump the disgust at such a pitiful and crude attempt at blackmail/mud throwing/insulting.
Leave the slimeball where he belongs – in the ooze – anonymous and quite irrelevant.
[DPF: His name identifies him, as he owns a small business associated to his domain name]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Sometimes people need to be reminded that there are certain standards that need to be maintained. Yes, name this person.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’d say the name of the person should be disclosed immediately.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Let me guess someone associated with Mayor Brown?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Throw him to the Whale.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:33 am
No appeasement, name him.
Obviously someone that someone on here will know .
Vote:The suggestion of pedophillia is way over the usual insult level you can cop on here.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:34 am
This person is all for more sunlight, so he surely won’t protest if you put him in it.
And to this person: I’m not a supporter of the current John Banks, and I rather wish Len Brown had remained squeaky clean. That’s not hard to do, just ask Darren Hughes for advice. I.e. men of integrity are not lacking in Labour, and I really regret Len Brown does not appear to be, what he publicly aspired to be.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:39 am
I’ve no problem with you naming him, but it doesn’t seem any worse than a lot of the statements that WhaleOil makes on his blog and I don’t recall any outrage from this site about those.
[DPF: People know Whale is Cameron Slater. Cameron is willing to stand by his words publicly]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:43 am
It seems quite clear that according to your own rules, he should be identified. He has threatened you with the release of ‘information’ he thinks will be damaging to you personally and to your reputation.
There’s no point in having rules if you ignore them.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Perhaps the person is an MP and DPF is going to warn him and if he continues he will be…. warned again.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Just one question: I must be missing something, but where exactly is the threat? As threats go, it hardly rates up there with – I’m gonna track you down, rip your gonads off and sautee them in red wine..
If he’s suggesting a holiday in Raro or Thailand, then just say “Well Phuket, if your paying….”
But if there is a threat that I’m not getting, then name and shame.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:45 am
DPF
Just out the scum… oh and send pictures from Thailand…
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:45 am
David,
I wouldn’t name him, though I wouldn’t blame you if you did.
These sorts of things can turn really nasty, and it would be better to just ban him from your blog.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Name him. Readers need to be able to evaluate his motives, and assess his reasons for writing as he does.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:47 am
“No appeasement, name him.”
Spot on. DPF should not behave like Key, the appeaser, and name this individual. He must.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:50 am
It’s Winston isn’t it ?????
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:50 am
I don’t think that you need name him, because you don’t name people. I log in under my own name, because I don’t resile from what I say, but some people do not have the courage of their convictions- I always regard such commentators as meaningless, because they refuse to be attributed.
Vote:So shithead- or whatever name he used- calls you names. Sticks and stones…
Check out his business, and tip off Fair Go. They’ll defame anyone.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Let the speculation begin. Is it a writer from The Standard? The vulgar prose is oddly familiar.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I think you should name the nasty little so and so.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
They don’t like it up ‘em. So they resort to dirty tricks. Give him room to hang himself ,then name,the fall will be all the greater!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
David – If I were you I would name them. Insults are one thing (I think most of us have insulted DPF here at some stage) but threats are another. Being threatened is pure thuggery and you should not stand for it.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Like many I post under a psuedenom because more people recognise that than my real name and know they can happily scan past without bothering to read the rubbish I post.
Hiding behind a psuedonym while posting threats and/or abuse is simply cowadice.
Name and shame.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Don’t stoop David. Just ban them.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:54 am
DPF – you note that previously you have only named or passed on info twice in 10 years. Where in the scale of those 2 events does this rank? I woud think that should be your guide. Merely pissing you off a bit is not a valid reason in my opinion. I do think you have more integrity than merely publishing the name for the sharks to feed on
[DPF: The two other times were both more serious. One was related to death threats against Sue Bradford and I contacted her office and helped the Police track the guy down. The other was in relation to the Clayton Weatherston case, which I also referred to the Police. I blogged about this after the trial was over]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Ermmm…. is he suggesting that you would join the Yellow Shirts in order to counter the unruly protests of the badly educated mobs of rural poor, DPF?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:56 am
The attempt at censorship is despicable, so I wouldn’t hold it against you to name him.
If there aren’t any skeletons, it’s not a threat, unless it’s a threat to defame you, at which case I’d make it clear that you’ll rigorously defend yourself through the courts, much like Sir Bob successfully did the other week.
One more thing, if you “exercise” your skeletons, would that put some flesh on them? Then they wouldn’t be skeletons any more!
===
Vote:BTW, much as I almost always disagree with Philu (when I can be bothered working through the confused poetry/prose formatting of his comments), he’s got a point about accusing him of P-cookery if there isn’t any evidence.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I disagree with some of you, so it appears. Insults are just sticks and stones stuff, but “Shut up or [insert threat] ” is what Islamic fascists do. It is attempting to silence discourse.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I’ve had many wonderful holidays in Thailand and I’m not ashamed to admit it. My preference is now the Philippines, I find the Filipinos a lot nicer natured than the Thais. David my two cents worth is just to ignore the moron, but at the end of the day you do what YOU think is right.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Interesting that the little slime hasn’t taken the opportunity to comment in his own defence here. It would suggest that he isn’t much of a scrapper and probably watches the same movies a Shane when away from home.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You’ve clearly got every right to “name and shame” in this situation. And I’m personally in favour of as much transparency in the blogosphere as possible. Yet I wonder if it’s not better to just keep this up your sleeve for the moment and retain that golden 0.01% threshold for worse cases than this, as pathetic as it is. Unless of course the individual is particularly prominent in politics or the blogosphere.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Damnit, 5 minutes too late — I was going to make that pun!
On a serious note: DPF, you’ve quoted someone insulting you, and then put the question to a group of (mostly) your supporters, so it should be no surprise that the majority support naming the person. I think you need to make your own decision, rather than abdicating responsibility to a group of (often anonymous) commenters.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
One more point – DPF – You would have to be sure the comment did really come from the person whose email address was used?
[DPF: You have to receive an e-mail at the registered address and click on a unique link, to be able to register, so yes pretty sure]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Name her !
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I assume it’s a Labour zealot and you would like them to STFU.
I’d start by leaking a little bit of information accompanied by a request that they email you and promise to stop making threats.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Haven’t you already achieved what you wanted with this post? The threat to expose him if he goes ahead with the threat?
Interesting example of game theory at work,
Question is, of course, whether it is the fact that he threatened you that pisses you off or that there might actually some basis to the threats?
If they are baseless, you are just toying with him here. And there is no reason to publish his name.
But then this begs the question why you are bringing out the big guns?
If there is any substance to his threat than you can’t really publish his name either, because that would mean you are playing your trump card before he does.
Besides, you cannot be sure that the person making the threat is also the one publishing it. He may merely have knowledge over it going to be published in the future by someone else.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Publish the email DPF. Add a disclaimer that the person using it may not have been the person who’s email it really is and we can take it from there.
Is the eamil; most_corrupt_mp_ever@free_scampi.con
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“As has been said before a blogger site is their site Its like their home. If you come into a home and then slag of the owner you deserve everything you get.”
I think it would not be good to publish for the above reason. It would set a bad precedent. However, i would fully support David publishing for making a threat. A threat does not have to be physical. Blackmail is a threat.
David you were very wise to publish the threat. If you had not and this creep published elsewhere later it might seem like you were worried about what he may disclose.
This guy must be pretty thick to think he could get away with such a threat and not be exposed.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Looking at it in terms of your T/Cs;
1. have you been defamed?
2. has the law been broken?
3. are you pissed off?
I think the answer to 1 is yes, 2 no and 3 no.
That being the case one of the boxes having been ticked you would be within your rights in terms of your T/C’s to name the individual in question.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
This commenter is accusing you of something. If they are incorrect or grossly misrepresenting the truth of yourself then I would have no problem in you naming them.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Well? are we going to piss or get off the pot?
David you asked for advice and you have it a resounding Yes name him.
[DPF: Not a popular vote. I am looking at the quality of the arguments.]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Reveal!! Reveal!! Reveal!!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I expect that the more than expected exposure already received should have given this poster pause to think about their stupidity. That and knowing that their identity is known should warn them off sufficiently, unless they are particularly dumb.
But…would greater good be done by making an example of them? Hard to know, you can better judge that knowing who it is and presumably what their associations are.
I wonder if they have also threatened any in the MSM? The Brown implosion is hardly an exclusive here.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
DPF, your blog has far exceeded 10,000 comments, so this 1 comment certainly falls into the 0.01% threshold. – Name them.
But, what could be more fun, is commenter’s guessing……. The speculation could be endless!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Well if you dont post the name now, everyone will just speculate on who it is.
Of course, I am above such things, given it was obviously Helen Clark.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Name the wanker DPF.
That is the thing about the left, it is always personal with them, one only has to witness the Labour females in the house to realise this.
On Tuesday I watched the house, any comments made by National MP’s were met by naked abuse from Beaumont and the drunk (Dyson), you could see by their body language and twisted faces that they genuinely hated the government.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Um – there’s a little too much mob glee in the ‘Hang {Him/Her/Gender Transposed, Absent or Unspecified} High!’ chant going on in the bar of the saloon on Main Street, for my liking.
Perhaps best to leave it to your own personal discretion, DPF. After all, you’re the Sheriff here, no?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
The person has coward;y defamed you DPF, do it
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
No doubt it will be some Len Brown lackey
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
My first thought was that it wasn’t too bad and was just part of the normal political discourse around here.
Then I read all the comments and went back and had another look.
It’s a nasty little piece and specifically lines you up for some very unpleasant treatment.
I’d front foot the tosser and name him.
Doubly so if it is a person of some prominence.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Unless of course the unnamed poster is in fact DPF, and he is engaging in some self-abuse.
[DPF: Nah I save that for when I watch porn
]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I advise making absolutely sure it is the person you believe it is. As the person you think it is has a business, naming and shaming could be detrimental to that.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Kitty
having it suggested that DPF may be going to Thailand with the concomitant insinuation that he is a pedophile can be bloody detrimental to him.
Why the fuck would you care about the writer or his business or anything about the odious little toad (sorry Toad)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
No doubt this germ thinks it is all a Key/Hide/Farrar conspiracy to expose:
1. That Trougher Brown had, by absolute conincidence, a birthday on the dayhe charged $800 on his ratepayedr’s card at Volare “in aid of local talent”. Local, Yes; Talent,No
2. That Carter’s wife, Kaiser, can bill a Waiheke rental car to Carter’s Ministerial card
3. That Carter/Kaiser can use his (Carter’s) card to spend approx $NZ1500 at a Piccadilly, London shop for a designer suit etc . His or Hers?
4. That Clark’s bed-fellow, H2Simpson, can order Parliamentary services to pay more than $800,00 (more than $900,00 in total) on Clark’s 2005 pledge card when she and Smith had PREVIOUSLY BEEN WARNED THAT SUCH ACTION WAS ILLEGAL – A finding subsequently confirmed by the AGen.
NO DPF , PUBLISHE AND TO HELL WITH THE GERM!!!
What a GERM. DPF – publish and tgo hell with it (him/her/inbetween) !
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Whats the problem David? traffic a bit light over the last day or two was it?
Vote:What a great way to send the needle into the red again.
The committee will be expecting a name when we kneel in the pentangle again this full moon.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
If you do not name him, are there any boundaries at all?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@Pauleastbay: I’ll clarify. I am all for naming and shaming where the identity is absolutely certain. If not absolutely certain then damage could be done where it is not warranted.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
just post their email address and let karma do the rest.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
given the wholesale-smearing that yr acolytesengage it..
you wd be setting a new benchmark in yr long policy of ‘selective-enforcement’…
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Did you realise that someone was pretending to be you on a couple of other blogs recently (with all…the…..stuff) Phil?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Fuck of Phool
Nobody gives a toss if you feel aggrieved at what some have to say about you, IMHO they are 99.9% correct anyway.
You are scum, you are a self confessed violent armed robber with a drug habit, you are also a parasite who is happy to tell us time and time again that you have no intention of ever working.
You see it as our job to pay for the upkeep of your kids because you cannot be bothered doing what a good parent should do by providing for them yourself.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I am with the name and shame brigade here as there is zero basis in fact for the allegations and as to the threats, IMO they take the attack on you, DPF to another lowpoint.
Vote:At times when the comments descend to somewhere near knee depth in excrement, I do what most of the more restrained among us do and walk away, but unchallenged in a meaningful way this will risk behavour that is universally acknowledged across the K B spectrum to be totally unacceptable, becoming tolerated, as your initial response to delete indicated .
A bonus will be to satisfy the more prurient, even though he/ she will be, in all probability, a total nonentity.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
C’mon DPF, we’re all here waiting to see the name of the alleged offender. Just release it.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Don’t publish the name but publish any known political association or political role so the comment can be put in context. Is this just invective or is there an agenda?.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I say this person deserves to be named, even if only for being stupid enough to post this from an identifiable name and address.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Not me by the way.
While I sympathise with the observation about KB going into National-HQ attack mode, the Thailand comment is very off.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Don’t keep us in suspense!
Vote:At least give us some clues.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
As a new commenter here, I wish to make it clear this is not my work.
But boy, don’t some of you go right over the top? I don’t see any real threat here, unless there are skeletons in closets. Then there is a threat to reveal said skeletons, but don’t you all carry on about “Right to know” and “sunshine is the best disinfectant”, why should David be treated any different, IF said skeletons exist?
Of course, if skeletons don’t exist, or are properly interred, where’s the beef?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
obese-sibling said:…”..That is the thing about the left, it is always personal with them,..”
hilarious..!
especially from one of the biggest liars/smearers here..
..one known for serially just-making-shit-up…
his indignation is guffaw-inducing…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
My opinion – and I stress only an opinion- is to name them.
People should be accountable for their actions, this individual made a threat to you in a public forum behind a pseudonym.
If their type of character is to make public threats then they deserve to be named
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“..[DPF: Nah I save that for when I watch porn
]..”
two unwanted self-abuse images..in such a short space of time…
..and both follicly-challenged round-people…
..(shudder..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
“..one known for serially just-making-shit-up…”
You mean like “I do not have the internet at home, I use the library” or ‘I have a degree”.
There is only one liar here Phool.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
“Just wait and see what starts popping up on the internet in the next few weeks” it said. Well, if you notice any extra noise above the usual bilious left-wing envy then certainly you know who to name.
Vote:You’ve already made it clear you can identify them, and they’d be foolish not to now keep a low profile, unless their business is already going down the tubes and they’re on a path of self destruction.
June 17th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
and then of course..the 1.17 from obese sibling…was a qed…of my 1.29..
brilliant..!
right on cue..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Name and shame. Cowardly snivelling hints without having the balls to come out and say it makes this person extremely low and vile. Fire away. Oh and register a “name” vote for Phool, based on his comments about anonymity ( when it was someone he disagreed with, of course… )
philu (8888) Says:
May 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am
how bout yours there..?..chicky..?
ready to reap the whirlwind of yr record of hatred..?
ready for friends and family to read yr words..?
..eh..?
and also farrar..?
when are you going to clean up this sewer..?
..and make commenters use their real names..?
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I wouldn’t name. It’s a random threat, there’s no reason to think this person has the ability or information to carry it out. Having said that, you know their identity and we don’t.
To me, this is like a whole range of moral issues that I sometimes think the right have lost their way on. I firmly believe that the ground we want to hold is the moral high ground. Irrespective of what others do, you should do what you think is right. If that means turning the other cheek, so be it. Torture is a classic example – to my mind it is never justified in any situation whatsoever. Trying to identify situations where it’s a good idea is a fools errand, and just gives your opposition ammunition to cover whatever stupidity they’re up to. Them being able to say “but DPF has taken to outing people he disagrees with” muddies the water, and you don’t need those waters muddied.
To put a different argument, what is going to change? If this person has no information that you find embarrassing, then whether you expose them or not won’t change that. If this person does have information that you find embarrassing, then exposing them won’t change that either, and in fact may make it more likely that they disclose it.
What you have done, I would say, is almost exactly the right choice. Make everyone aware that someone out there is about to attempt a smear on you. Let them bring it on, there are a hell of a lot of people in the blogosphere with respect for you, and I dare say a lot of people in the wider NZ population. You’ll get a fair hearing, probably a more than fair hearing – you’ve built up the trust with people over the years.
If whatever comes out is defamatory or otherwise really over the top, then reserve the right to name and shame at that point. If whatever comes out is some ho hum revelation “DPF once went to a strip club on his mate’s buck’s night”, or “DPF occasionally looks at dirty pictures on the internet”, then don’t even bother. If what comes out is some grossly defamatory and wrong statement like “DPF is a pedophile” then I’d go them with all guns blazing – at that point you’ve got opportunity to take them to court. And nobody would begrudge you exposing someone’s identity in that situation.
[DPF: And to save people time, I have been to a strip club - the last time was with several members of the Young Labour Executive in 2006 I think. And like 95% of men, I have looked at dirty pictures on the Internet - but personally the videos are more fun"]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
gee..!..farrar..!
what wd yr reaction be if some anonymous coward accused you …repeatedly..
..of being involved in the manufacture and distribution of ‘p’…?
now..that’s a smear..!
..eh..?
what is manolos’ real name..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“..“I do not have the internet at home, I use the library” or ‘I have a degree”.”
all true…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
“..at that point you’ve got opportunity to take them to court. And nobody would begrudge you exposing someone’s identity in that situation…”
does that apply to being repeatedly accused of being a ”p’-cook .. as well..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
As someone who always comments, here and in the media, under their real name and has copped some very nasty abuse as a result, I’m firmly on the side of naming.
Not because of the insult (which I consider borderline) but definitely because of the threat. “Don’t say x or else” is justified in only one instance – warning someone that what they intend to say is untrue and you intend to take legal action if they go ahead.
That doesn’t apply here. The threat is explicit – “publish x and I will publish y”, where y is untrue. But the nature of the internet is such that once something is out there, it’s almost impossible to clean up. As such, the threat can be extremely effective in shutting down competing views.
It’s an incredibly serious threat to make to anyone, but moreso to someone like DPF whose professional life relies to a degree upon their credibility and acceptability in circlers where even a hint of impropriety (well, certain impropriety… clearly wanking and troughing are okay) can spell professional death.
If you’re feeling like being noble, DPF, then do it for those of us who also comment under our own names and who may receive similar threats (or just have such action taken against us) by this person if we write or say something with which s/he disagrees.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Phil – only if they do it on your blog. When it’s on DPF’s blog, you have no way to identify them.
I’d also say that there’s quite a big difference between the random crap that you draw on here, most of which in my opinion is fully deserved given your complete disrespect for anyone else, and your general style, and a quite specific threat/attempt at blackmail such as this.
In short, the rantings of some anonymous commentor suggesting that you are a p-cook as well as the other acknowledged illegality you engage in such as smoking pot, are not really in the same league as someone suggesting an orchestrated campaign in specific retaliation for DPF’s political leanings.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
hearing someone ‘boast’(?) …of how they jerk off while watching porn..(wot..?..got no imagination..?..)
..is as fun as watching someone floss..or trim their nose-hairs…
all things … ‘private’…
..for too many reasons to list…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“..Phil – only if they do it on your blog. When it’s on DPF’s blog, you have no way to identify them…”
surely for such a gross slander…the name would be revealed..?
“..In short, the rantings of some anonymous commentor suggesting that you are a p-cook..
.. as well as the other acknowledged illegality you engage in such as smoking pot,..
..are not really in the same league as someone suggesting an orchestrated campaign in specific retaliation for DPF’s political leanings…”
in short..there is a country-mile between ‘smoking pot’..and being a ‘p’-cook..
(just in case you hadn’t noticed..)
they aren’t really ‘in the samre league’…are they..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
# David Farrar (1352) Says:
June 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am
He posted as A Real Kiwi.
David
I’m not sure I understand the Thailand comment, forgive me for being daft.
I have assumed it is sexual as that is the only thing I know Thailand for badly.
Is it the (alleged) who you went with or went to?
If it is not true then they should be named.
Name him as it draws a line in the sand for the future too.
[DPF: Thailand is generally known as a destination for people who want to purchase sex from 12 year olds]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Name him David.
Anyone stupid enough to come onto YOUR blog and throw their weight around deserves to get what ever’s coming to them.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
He needs ignoring not naming, ignoring will hurt him far more.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Anonymity is a very powerful weapon. Just talk to people trying tracking down the source of malicious gossip that is grossly defamatory. Those who, under the protection of anonymity, gleefully spread the word rarely have the guts to front up. Even intermediate messengers “don’t not want to get involved”.
Most defamation cases are based on written publications. In the case of oral comments, victims frequently have to suffer in silence without having the any recourse.
Why, therefore, would you allow cowards, because that is what they are, make reprehensible comments with the complete protection of anonymity? I said before, if you do not name the person, where are the boundaries? I do not mean the boundaries in the context of your own blog. What sort of misinformation is this person disseminating about other people elsewhere knowing that there is an inability or reluctance on the part of the victims to fight back?
Many of the commentators, myself included, use pseudonyms. In the case of some of the more belligerent, they are more in the nature of a nomme du guerre. The ability to continue to use an assumed name should be a privilege and not an unqualified right because of the ongoing responsibilities to ensure that people are not hurt, in this case deliberately, by irresponsible and malicious comment.
I suggest, David, that to preserve the dignity of your blog site (and I use that term reservedly given the extremity of the views and the manner in which they are expressed on this blogsite) and to minimise potential damage elsewhere, you are under a duty to disclose. Ask Whale if he would suppress this person’s name?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
In my opinion, it is the threat that is important. Insults are one thing – easily ignored. Threats are quite another. As a further suggestion, if you do post the name I would recommend turning comments off for that post. The purpose should be to ‘out’ the poster, to mark any future allegations he/she makes as suspect, and to deter the poster from attempting to do the same (or something more serious). Inevitably, the comments on such a post from the mostly right-wing commenters here would make you look more like the head of a lynch mob than a blogger using legitimate methods to protect himself.
In brief: Publish, comments off.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
What Rex said.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Phil, I understand annoyance at unsubstantiated deliberately untrue over-the-top accusations and threats, invariably from no-names. But this is bigger than any individual (besides, I doubt DPF feels like trying to referee every little clash here).
DPF has a national (as well as National) profile, including a media profile. He also runs one of the most used blogs in the country. A threat of posting crap in retaliation for running what many other media are also publicising is seriously twisted. Would this same person also threaten newspaper editors and TV producers?
DPF comes across to me as a straight up sort of dude. It’s clear where his associations and preferences are, and it’s usually quite obvious when he is having a dig in certain directions. It’s all quite open. Kiwiblog would suffer if DPF self-censored due to “anonymous” threats received.
Attempts at blackmail against free speech deserves this highlighting and open discussion, it’s a whole blog issue.. Threats against individuals would normally be best dealt with privately. DPF is open to reporting issues.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
phlu, if you really want to pursue defamation proceedings against someone who has upset you on this blog, the place to start is with your solicitor. They can best advise you about whether you have a legitimate case, and whether they can force the identity of the commenter(s) to be revealed to you.
I suspect you just like bitching about it though.
Seriously phlu, why don’t you start your own blog? You’d probably get a heck of a lot more traffic to your site than you do now.
Vote:You’d also get to vet the IP and email addresses of commenters.
June 17th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I wouldn’t name him/her… yet.
Their threat is just that, a threat, and is probably as vacuous as the bitter little worm that gave it airtime. If they have any intelligence (and some bitter, twisted people do) then this thread will be enough to silence them.
As for other outings, I recall one situation where you felt to let us know that a poster was posting from ‘over the office partition’ from the same IP address as another EPMU? commenter. Robinsod? Can’t recall.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I would assume that you must get threats about publishing something damning about you on a regular basis.
Goes with the territory of running a political blog, unfortunately.
What is so special about this one?
In both other previous cases that you named people, you actually referred them to the police. That sets a rather high threshold.
Vote:Would you refer this guy to the police?
June 17th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
If some anonymous lefty thug threatened to smear my good name, business, and high public profile, I would out them in a second DPF.
Your call but if you released it you would be doing the right thing in my humble opinion. It has crossed the line from a mere insult to you, which you have shown a remarkable restraint in dealing with in the past (mostly from lefty dropkicks like philu and the Standard egg heads).
Vote:However this has crossed the line into threats and defamatory behaviour. Blackmail is a criminal offence.
June 17th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“And in other news, Kiwiblog’s David Farrar is reportedly furious that a hacker has gained access to his system, stealing and then publishing the details of a number of commenter’s, including one who had published threats against him. “I will be reviewing my website security and taking additional steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again” Mr Farrar said this afternoon.
Sources close to Mr Farrar tell us that he has referred the matter to the police, and that the case will be picked up by the same team who investigated the Brash email thefts.”
ENDS
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Can you come up with any rationale why another person might be using an address on that domain? A family member? A friend? Can you be 100% sure that you are going to name someone and be right about it when you do? Because I’m fine with you naming him/her, but getting it wrong is unforgivable.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
If somebody is publishing this sort of shit from somebody else’s domain without their knowledge then might be high time that it was brought to the owner’s attention. Naming the owner of the domain might help.
[DPF: He is the owner of the domain]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
DPF – as much as I want to know.. i dont think you should name him.
its just some scumbag venting on the net. i dont think its bad enough to mess with his business/income.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I disagree with people who say that ignoring the commenter will hurt him more. That’s just trite nonsense.
Naming him will hurt him the most, ignoring him won’t hurt him at all. The comment isn’t typical trollish nastyness- it’s venal, calculated, threatening, and if untrue, damaging to DPF’s reputation.
Anonymity is a privelege, this prick does not deserve it. I say out him and let him be judged publicly for his deliberate smearing which verges on blackmail.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I feel like I have just taken part in a government referendum.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Paul – you mean a lot of comment but no outcome?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
@pauleastbay – lol.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Give him 250,000 demerits.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I say name them, if only for their crimes against the English language. They didn’t use Oxford commas either.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I say name the buggar
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
@pete – you have the most compelling argument in this thread.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
128 comments and rising.
So much heat, so little light.
Perhaps it would have been better to have left the post in situ and in context. I doubt it would have generated a fraction of the heat, the light would have been about the same.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Take him to court, then when the bugger gets name suppression, Whaleoil will name him for you!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Where was the original comment, gd, or…? I can’t seem to find it. Still inexcusable, of course, but I wanted to put it in context.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
It depends who it is David, i’m guessing it is not some internet basement dweller.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
DPF, what game are you playing here?
You asked for advice and an opinion this morning; an overwhelming majority said you should name the culprit; and hours later you’re still dithering and pondering what to do. Are you a National Party member by chance?
It’s your blog and your call, but what are you taking this long to make up your mind?
[DPF: Oh I have made my mind up. I just haven't implemented it]
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
He’s probably busy earning a crust Manolo, he is a National Party member after all.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“..I feel like I have just taken part in a government referendum…”
unconsummated…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Ah. A reserved decision.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
If it’s an MP or journalist go for it..!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
[DPF: Oh I have made my mind up. I just haven't implemented it]
I look forward to the implementation, then.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
So the next question is, which implement?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
so…the comment-generating exercise is now at an end…?
(anyone else feeling ‘used’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Phil, I’m only feeling used because you quoted from something I said to you. I’m OK with you quoting, but I have no idea why you felt the need to insert random ….. in the middle of it. Surely it’s more work to do that than it is to copy and paste it as I wrote it? Is there something loose in your brain that means you need to do that to everything, including to other people’s comments?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Wow! Talk about..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v16KFXa2njo&feature=related
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
[DPF: And to save people time, I have been to a strip club - the last time was with several members of the Young Labour Executive in 2006 I think. And like 95% of men,
Hopefully it want Mermaids in Wellington - that place is vile.
I have looked at dirty pictures on the Internet - but personally the videos are more fun"]
youporn
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
In a recent survey 95% of men admitted to having watched porn on the internet.
Vote:5% lied.
June 17th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
The art of conflict management is never to ratchet it up. Defend oneself always and with vigour, but never be the one to ratchet it up.
DPF, you appear to be on the horns of a dilemma. Can you isolate his/her name from the business? If you can isolate the two, then fine, naming is a neutral response. If you can’t, find some other way to deal with him because you’re too open to the accusation that you stepped over the line, even if you didn’t intend to, and I know you wouldn’t ever do that knowingly, but him and his mates will allege that and could make it stick amongst some. As you know.
I wouldn’t necessarily read into it the perspective you mentioned in your 2:03 sidebar comment. From the tone he’s a sneering, smug self-righteous little shit (a.k.a. a lefty at large). From my reading however that particular part of his execrable comment is open to a rather more general interpretation.
No doubt the little Silent-T will be reading all of these and grinning his fucked little grin. To him I say, precisely nothing.
Oh bugger, I was planning to go there on Friday.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
A lot of comments, even from those who do not comment often, justifying themselves.
Maybe look at who is not making a comment.
Good tactics DPF
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Last time a sheep tried to dob me in for unnatural practices I had it for dinner.
I suggest you do the same David.
Roast the bastard very thoroughly, season him well and put him back in the fridge.
Eat him slowly, savoring every bite, over a few days. (You have started well).
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Will we see an “interesting names” post tomorrow?
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
This person has obviously, yet mistakenly, thought that the anonimity of the internet would protect him or her. It may well be that a lesson in the mechanics of the internet is now due for this person, and that he is made to realise that a few well placed key strokes can often reveal much more about the poster than originally thought.
His threat is to release so called ‘information’ about you David, so I am reminded of the oft quoted saying, “What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.”
Bring on the sauce, and reveal the Source! But give it a few days, let the bastard squirm.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Quite a dilemma.
In circumstances such as these, I generally advise having another drink.
I’m certainly going to.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Alcoholoic arse youse Leonardo.. like the Grosser?
Fuck I hate fucken drunken bums!( unlike Chris who likes bumss)..fuck I fell off my seat.
Cheers!
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“The art of conflict management is never to ratchet it up. Defend oneself always and with vigour, but never be the one to ratchet it up”
tell that to your mates in hamas
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“This person has obviously, yet mistakenly, thought that the anonimity of the internet would protect him or her.”
It is established that ‘it’ is a him.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
“tell that to your mates in hamas”
Why is supporting a side in the right, wrong?
Sometimes they’re not right, but this time they are.
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Shame him
Vote:June 17th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Yes sooty, lest you mis-understand, I’m not supporting Hamas activities and never would cause they’re murdering scum, what I’m speaking in favour of is the aid flotilla that something happened to.
Vote:June 18th, 2010 at 1:39 am
He should be shot for his appalling grammar. Possessive apostrophes anyone?
Vote:June 18th, 2010 at 2:31 am
I have looked at dirty pictures on the Internet – but personally the videos are more fun”]
youporn
…or redtube…
Vote:June 18th, 2010 at 7:51 am
@Johnboy,
Alcoholoic arse youse Leonardo.. like the Grosser?
Fuck I hate fucken drunken bums!( unlike Chris who likes bumss)..fuck I fell off my seat.
Cheers!
WTF???????????
Vote:June 18th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Leonardo as in davincimode.
Not Leonidas.
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Im late to the thread – on the road travelling.
David – its your blog and you set out your terms and conditions pretty clearly. I’d name this prat – sends a signal. Oh and ignore phool – there seems to be no subject however low that he won’t try and be a troll about.
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Pffft…I want the 5 minutes of my life back it took to read thru this ego wank of a thread.
In reading the initial post, there is nothing to suggest that the author would be the one revealing the tidbits. How it appears, is that you’re not quite sure if the person you’d name would be the ‘deep throat ‘. It sounds rather like they’re playing whaleoil to your kiwblog with this person priming the fuse for someone else to light.
Besides, Im struggling to see the ‘threats against you’ they posted ? It’s more like a warning that soon, someone, somewhere is going to out you for something you did that maybe you shouldn’t have…
So Man up DPF!
Put up or shut up cos it seems like you’re too scared that they might actually fast trak dishing up the dirt on you if you do name them. Pre empting that you’re a porn freak to lessen the impact of whatever may come out just shows you’re in damage control mode already.
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Pollywog’s rant adds force to the disclosure argument. He has already concluded that there are facts to be concerned about. While there is much room for the argument that nobody really gives a tinker’s cuss about pollywog’s conclusions, it is a sad fact of life that New Zealand is blessed with fuckwits who are quick to draw the most adverse conclusions based on the flimsiest of facts in order to justify their bigoted ideology. Even if your charming commentor does nothing more, he has chalked one up with the impunity derived from his anonymity.
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 11:13 am
It is a sad fact of life that New Zealand is blessed with fuckwits who are quick to draw the most adverse conclusions based on the flimsiest of facts in order to justify their bigoted ideology.
Yeah, but blaming depression and a chemical imbalance caused by over medication is a bit of a copout…don’t you think ?
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Point me to the context so that I can comment.
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 11:28 am
GOVT STEALTH WARNING : DON’T FEED THE WHALE !
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2010/05/save-whale.html
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
We are getting off thread here. If you are saying that Whale is refusing to take responsibility for any of his actions — putting it down to medical misadventure — how do you reconcile that with his stance on name suppression, where, regardless of the rights or wrongs of his approach, he clearly takes full responsibility for what he is doing because he believes in it, says that it (suppression) is wrong and is openly fronting up to the criminal prosecution that follows? I am not a doctor. I am, however, in close contact with a number of people suffering from depression. I can see the extent to which medication fucks with their minds. Few of them “cop out”. Some do. Whale appears honest about his condition, open about his views and realistic about the repercussions. Are you in a position to make a rational judgement in this case? If so, what gives you the knowledge, medical expertise and insight that the likes of Cactus Cate lack?
How do you judge this thread by reference to someone who has not even commented on it?
Gotta go and meet a plane
Vote:June 19th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
too many questions…so many answers
have a nice flight
Vote: