Bad day for National’s favourite blogger yesterday:
So, Farrar condescends that – “It is well known you can not distribute pre-filled in or pretend ballot papers. We’ve had this law for decades.” – then promptly demonstrates his ignorance of that law by accusing Labour of breaking it when they aren’t. It only applies within 3 days of polling. Ooops. After being repeatedly called on it (I liked the take at Imperator Fish) he eventually added “NOT” to the title of the post. (He has subsequently also changed the text of “UPDATE2”.)
As one of the comments observes:
Clearly he’s too busy doing important stuff like, tweeting, to notice this.
Yup, sorry Kiwibloggers, it’s true, Farrar is busy playing with his cool new friends on Twitter instead of you. He shares jokes about you too behind your backs…
Serious point though – comment moderation at Kiwiblog is definitely needed.
What a week. First Hooten talks bullshit and now Farrar writes it.
Shock I am.
Another cup of tea and a lie down felix? 😛
I’m testing a new monitoring system this week. It just blecked at me (like a Weber treecat) because this post is being read by more people than the front page is right now and it thought it was suspicious.
Just the sewer rats I’d guess. They’ll get over the shock of criticism shortly. They have no memory for facts – just myths.
*shrugs && turns down the alarm sensitivity*
Somebody promoted this to front page – wasn’t me!
I did 😈
I’m observing it on analytics in real time because we’ll get a high number of a readers on this in a relatively short time.
Besides the top story was from yesterday and we haven’t turned over the sewer in a while.
@1prent
“Bleeked” surely? Though I can barely stand to read Weber nowadays; what with his diatribes against Haven’s “dolists”, and all the other right wing memes he embeds in his books (plus I find the treecats a bit twee). However, I do like the more recent Mesa/ genetic slavery stuff, especially the; Congo series with Eric Flint (same universe, different feel – though still a fair bit of tweeness).
Walter Jon Williams’; Praxis series, is pretty kick-arse space opera though, and unlike his; Metropolitan series, he actually finished it! Also, now that Iain Banks is gone from us; I find myself longing to fill in the gaps in my reading of the Culture series. But who has time for fiction these days?
Weber is like that. Sucks down a history like French politics and thinks about it shallowly – witness his obsession with aristocrats. He is better in something like thew safehold series.
I just read fast otherwise I couldn’t monitor this site. But I usually read a fiction book a day. Reading in bed on the nexus 7 in the middle of the night when I wake up seems to be my forte at present. Annoys Lyn.
“What a week. First Hooten talks bullshit and now Farrar writes it.
Shock I am.”
I’m not. It is par for the course for these right wing prats
And you are shocked ?? WHY??
Hootens horseshit is my weekly comedic reading. And Kiwislop only when I need to feel dirty, without playing in the mud with my 2 year old. Whaleslime only by mistake do go there.
‘
Heh! Nice to catch Farrar out in so obvious a lie. Usually, his manipulations are a little more subtle in that he uses a subtext to promote a meme then amplified by his slavering pack of KiwiBog poodles.
Oh, I dunno. Its kinda useful to have the thinking processes and internal dialogue that goes on amongst National Ltd™ voters out in the open.
Agree… Anybody reading through Kiwibogs comments would get a good idea of the type of person who supports right wing policies, which can only work to the lefts advantage.
And yet the Left wing seems to lose the argument almost always. And even when it does win an occasional argument it seems to be via a Right wing version of a Left wing argument.
Coming In From The Cold
(it’s you. it’s you I’m talking to).
Richard Sennett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sennett
Cities, Labour, Ethnography, Social Theory.
The Fall of Public Man
Together. The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation The Craftsman.
One of the challenges, only being able to cooperate with people like ourselves.
The skills to cooperate with those who are different requires more than a ‘good heart”, although they are teachable and can be promoted in the dense populations of cities.
There are short-comings to the ‘declarative’ statement, in contrast to the dialogical forms which occur when employing the ‘subjunctive’ and leaving a space for ambiguity; curiosity before aggression. The skills learnt in the physical crafts promote attention to that outside of the self.
“Too much emphasis in left-wing politics on ‘solidarity’, singing from the same hymn sheet; ‘the Party’ vs ‘the social left’. Exemplified in The Tea Party where it is a weakness to consider other points of view.”
A need for the social left not to abolish differences but work alongside. The US Communist Party tried to extinguish difference. Sennett argues for a dialogical openess by the social left.
Americans, apparently, know longer know how to cooperate with those who are different, seen in a revulsion towards the immigrant tradition. (see that fool Peters on Campbell Live; tax-payer pays for his salary and travel).
Gated community now the most popular form of housing in the world.
People have always been tribal. This tribal impulse is challenged by modrn economic, material reality, leading to indifference, eg, superficial forms of cooperation in work / labour, with each watching their own backs.(consider the ‘aesthetic attitude’, independent of any motivations due to utility, economic value, moral judgement. or particular personal emotion, i.e experiencing the ‘object’ for it’s own sake; a disinterested ‘distanced’ attitude, which alternately may produce an episode of exceptional elevation-Schopenhauer).
Reality is not transparent to us; there is a totally-other, non-identical that eludes our concepts. Everything immediate is mediated via the social preformation of contingent, individual experience.- Adorno.
Sennett contends that the ‘solution’ is not solidarity, eschews the notion of a fixed-point-of-view; prefers ‘wandering’, yet the rewards of wandering diminish with age; resolution is required.
“Another disturbing trend is the rising number of middle-class families coming to the Salvation Army for assistance”.
-Rhondda Middleton, Operations Manager, West Auckland Ministries.
“…when housing prices eventually crash, which they will”. -Bill English Q.3,QT, yesterday.
“You do it again, won’t you ever learn -Everclear
agree with Blip, you don’t filter sewage before it reaches the treatment plant. DPF has become quite the smug little taxpayer troughing ‘commentator’ with an ego that keeps on growing.
A bad day for DPF is one where he doesn’t get a mention/attention or manage to stir/spin something his backers way.
It would have been a mistake by DPF, not a deliberate lie.
There is a difference. A lie is a statement you make, knowing it to be false. A mistake is when you make a statement thinking it to be correct, but in fact it is not.
Of course both statements are incorrect, but the difference in motive is what matters.
DPF does not go about stating or writing deliberate mistruths. In this case his recollection of the law was wrong, which I thought at the time I read his post, since I have used similiar electoral advertising. And we did check the law at the time it was used.
As a general point most politicians make mistakes, they don’t lie. When they do they loose their job.
Think of the pressure of a radio interview, or a media conference. It is impossible to remember everything that you have previously said, or who you met, or what you have read (at least it is for me). So in answer to an unanticipated question you say what you think is true, but you are proven wrong in your recollection. Is that a lie or a mistake?
Mind you you don’t want to get a reputation for making these kinds of mistakes, so you need to be well briefed for media events.
‘
I take your point about mistakes vs lies. In his rush to take a pot shot at Labour, Farrar may well have made the mistake of not checking his facts prior to publication. While I can understand that error being made by commentators – goodness knows, I’ve made a mistake or two myself – its not a good look when (a) its a fact someone employed in this arena and even deemed to be something of an expert worthy of public consultation should know, and, (b) it appears as a post. Accordingly, I retract my assertion that Farrar was lying. This time.
Perhaps you could help me with a point in relation to your observation that . . .
. . . which of the following John Key statements could reasonably be described as mistakes as opposed to outright lies:
It’s a long and damning list Blip but I an sure Key and co are quite proud of it. It’s the sort of thing that needs to be got out to all NZ and not just us select few who have found our way here. (By few I mean in comparison to the population of NZ)
‘
Copyleft applies – please distribute far and wide.
Most of these are debatable propositions, where the govt will have one view and the opposition another.
Maybe a Navman could help you find your way.
and no matter how well briefed the PM is he still manages to lie, or is it make mistakes. he is very accident prone in that case dontcha think?
The filth on the comment section at Kiwiblog would compare favourably to some of the stuff posted here (although I do think the moderators do a decent job generally) and especially The Daily Blog. The Daily Blog has such a partisan moderating policy that posts accusing people of performing illegal behaviour with no evidence are allowed to stand so long as the person being attacked is seen as being an ‘enemy’ of the left (or at least the main moderator there).
The Daily Blog’s moderation is piss poor. I pointed out a glaring error which wasn’t approved (but the fawning was subsequently allow.)
I find some of the comments at Kiwiblog disturbing though.
thedailyblog is a great idea which will be destroyed by Martyn Bradbury.
I very much doubt it… The Daily Blog’s moderation process puts the onus on the authors of the posts to moderate. This is obviously done to ensure that comments are approved or unapproved as expediently as possible.
In this way, and considering that there’s around 43 contributors, The Daily Blog’s moderation process is probably one of the fastest of all major blogs in New Zealand, while ensuring that comments are lawful and retain integrity through proper moderation.
You’re clearly talking out your ass Sanctuary.
I call BS on that. I have had posts sitting awaiting moderation for hours before they eventually appear. On top of that I have had numerous posts not appearing even though they are both on topic and not abusive. The moderation policy of the Daily blog will slowly, but surely, kill the blog off just as it did Tumeke.
The filth on the comment section at Kiwiblog would compare favourably to some of the stuff posted here
Be honest Gossman, although there can be occasional stupid comments on any blog (so yes I’m sure you can find a few here), the sheer volume of vile comments on Kiwiblog and Whaleoil is appalling.
Depends on your political viewpoint.
I can understand why people on the left get upset with many comments on right leaning blogs bemoaning dole bludging layabouts or to poor people as somehow undeserving of sympathy. I too find these distasteful and frankly unhelpful when discussing possible solutions to political problems.
However there are plenty of nasty and vile comments directed towards wealthy or right leaning people here and on say The Daily Blog. Even moderate commentators who dare to disagree with the general thrust of an argument are pounced upon as somehow indicative of their lack of intellectual nous.
I can understand this is just part and parcel of the games people play on comments boards on political blog sites but it doesn’t meana siute like this is any less like a sewer than say Kiwiblog.
What I notice with Kiwiblog though is Farrar himself is fairly reasonable and moderate in tone.
Some of his posters though…
Oh yeah, much like your courtesy with Felix yesterday.
He gives as good as he gets.
Indeed.
So it’s never him being the rabid nutbar – he just provides a safe haven for them.
If I ran a blog (which I attempted but failed miserably at) I wouldn’t post half the shit some of those crazies post.
I personally don’t engage in guilt by association when it comes to Farrar and his commentators, but I often wonder what more influential people think of the comments.
Do they even read the comments section?
It’s not “guilt by association”, it’s “guilt by publication”. He’s not the cousin or long-suffering spouse/schoolmate of these folk, he simply refuses to moderate comments his site publishes online.
And he’s not leaving it there for the influential people, but the easily influenced. Folk who think that bigotry and stupidity is normal. He provides a safe haven for that community. I don’t care whether he does it intentionally or is under the impression that “freedom of speech” means “forced to publish other people’s drivel”. He provides a little corner of NZ to keep the bigots and bene-bashers safe. This keeps support for national, who are screwing over most of the country and (more importantly) chipping away at the thousand year old foundations of democracy and liberty.
So the penguin can get fucked.
+1000
@ McFlock
Actually, given his appearance and personality; I doubt that DPF can get fucked. That’s why he does what he does!
now, now, there’s someone for everyone.
Even if it is their sistercousinstepmum. (/satire – because Tories Need Tags)
@ Gosman,
Rubbish. You’re simply annoyed that your attempt to de-construct other people’s comments through inane, endless, rhetorical questions, fall flat because people no longer buy into your tactics.
I also note your vulgar remarks about certain bloggers on rightwing blogsites that you haven’t the gumption to make here or on TDB.
Frank, good of you to join us considering it was YOUR post that this comment appeared on. Perhaps you would care to explain why you felt it acceptable to allow someone to make unsubstantiated allegations about David Farrar and even to comment on them as if they were accepted as fact.
.
Considering I didn’t make the comment – no, I would not.
Best you address your question to the author of that comment.
And I didn’t “allow” any such comment. You seem to be labouring under a misconception.
Anyway, I thought you rightwingers supported the right of free speech? Are you now saying everyone’s comments should be vetted by some Authority for accuracy? How does that tie in with Nisbet’s racist cartoons? (Which you supported to be published.)
Did you ask Al Nisbet “why he felt it acceptable to allow someone to make unsubstantiated allegations about Pacifica people and even to comment on them as if they were accepted as fact”? Hmmm?
You are the moderator of your own posts are you not? That is what Jackal has implied on this thread.
I occassionally read Farrar’s posts – but not the comments that follow. In my opinion, the majority are written by poorly educated yokels who simply repeat bigotry ad nauseum.
There’s only so much ill-informed prejudice one can read before coming to the conclusion that the human race is doomed, and thank god talking apes will one day rule the planet…
I read Farrar’s post with the same frequency as I read posts here.
It isn’t intellectual to lock oneself in an ideological echo chamber but I only read and comment on particular threads.
As soon as I see Maori referred to as ‘stoneagers’ I know I have read too far…
Much like Selwyn Manning on The Daily Blog.
I was going to state the same of Martyn Bradbury but realised it would be completely wrong given he is a rabid nutbar.
lol
Took a few moments to skim through posts on each site (fully cloistered and wearing surfing rubbers on KB). The comments of “Lucia Maria” and Redbaiter alone are without comparison on DB, as far as I have seen. Don’t really do DB (and the beer sucks, too :)).
Got anything worse from Daily Blog than “You sound like a Muslim, blaming everything that is going wrong in New Zealand on women” (as LM said on KB)?
gladly anticipating your reply 🙂
I’ve already given you one example. There are also a bunch of commenters who express the view of sticking it to the rich and how evil they are.
You think accusations of vandalism are worse than outright racism?
And the latter argument is only bad if the rich are not, in fact, evil (or at the very least shameless profiteers from the injustices caused by capitalism).
Fascinating glimpse into the priorities of your mind, though.
@ Gosman,
Whoa there, sonny boy. Back up that goat you rode in on!
Al Nisbet recently posted a couple of rqacist cartoons and rightwingers like you were only too eager to jump up and down screaming “free speech! free speech!” Any criticism of his racist cartoons was labelled as an attack on “freedom of expreession” – without actually addressing the merits of the cartoons themselves.
In effect, resorting to the “free speech:” mantra is an attempt to nullify criticism and close down debate.
Now you’re bagging people who use free speech “who express the view of sticking it to the rich and how evil they are”?!
What about free speech?
Or does that count only if one is a racist?
You really don’t get it do you Frank. Noone is calling for people’s rights to express their vulgar views to be supporessed. We are discussing whether particular blogs have a tendency to sewer discussions. Thge Daily Blog meets this criteria for the reasons I have given.
+1
How come you never addressed any of my points I raised on that thread Frank? You replied to the person making the allegation though and even discussed the matter further.
Three possible reasons, Gos;
1. I didn’t see your “points”,
2. Your “points” were repetitive,
3. Your “points” were repetitive AND boring.
Hope that clarifies those issues that have occupied your daily thoughts since then…
Anyway. Time to get back to my own blogging. Feel free to drop by my blogsite and have a squizz… 😉
BS Frank.
I asked you why you allowed someone on a thread you started on The Daily Blog to make unsubstantiated allegations of illegal behaviour by someone else and why you even commented on them as if they were a fact.
These points are quite clear and are not boring. They might be repetitive but only because you fail to address them.
You are entitled to run away if you like.
I pop by from time to time Frank; headlines grab my attention. 😉
I’ll give you an example from the Daily Blog to illustrate this point R0b.
I have already mentioned the basics of it. On one of the threads at the Daily Blog they were discussing David Farrar’s comments about Martyn Bradbury, (seemingly ignoring the numerous times Mr Bradbury has disparaged David Farrar), being a paid consultant of Mana.
One of the comments on that thread stated that David Farrar and Cameron Slater went on a blogging tour together (Shock Horror!) during the 2008 election campaign. During this trip the commentator made the allegation that they deliberated damaged election signage of opposition parties and gleefully poster about it online.
Now this accusation of deliberate vandalism made against someone was allowed to pass the moderation standards of The Daily Blog. In fact the writer of the thread in question even followed up on the point without even asking for evidence of where the poster got his information from. I on the other hand had a number of posts asking for actual evidence of this action denied.
The question for you is which is the worse sewer?
erm, the one that’s quite regularly is filled with proto-fascist bile?
What you’re talking about is bias, and sure, that sucks. But it’s not the same thing that people talk about WRT kiwiblog.
No I’m not. I discussing nasty, abusive, and basIcally defamatory views expressed by people in the comments section. I gave you an example of one such comment on The Daily blog. Care to explain why making allegations about people’s behaviour without evidence is not deserving of being classed as being in the gutter?
Gos, there are those sorts of comments on KB as well. Endlessly.
But there are also long threads ernestly discussing what percentage of the population can be muslim before they start to take over, and they existential threat posed by the socialist leftists appeasers who reduse to accept that Muslims are all essentially in cahoots and planning to take ocer our precious freedoms.
Or take this comment:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/the_euro_problem.html#comment-1109909
We’ll just throw in a bit of support for Breivik. What’s the response from Farrar or the comment community? Two ticks up. that’s it.
And that’s not uncommon. There are numerous regular commenters who hang out there and spout this stuff.
It’s not the same as what goes on here. What goes on here, goes on there as well, but there’s another level going on over there as well. And it’s tolerated.
Oh my god. I have to correct you there, pb: the commenter did say that Breivik may not have acted on those concerns in the “best way” … fucksake.
Well this little interlude has reminded me why I don’t go there, in addition to the lsa cookie thing.
I need a shower.
I’m glad somebody remembered that… Farrar and Slater are using outdated LSO BTW. Dicks!
“It’s not the same as what goes on here. What goes on here, goes on there as well, but there’s another level going on over there as well. And it’s tolerated.”
That was a useful analysis. I haven’t read enough at KB to really get my head around the differences, but often when people say here is as bad as there it’s been hard to combat that idea.
How is this sentiment any different to the person here who expressed a view that the Mad Butcher should basically hurry up and die due to him having the temerity of saying he thought John Key was a good bloke?
Both are awful, but in different ways.
‘Hurry up and die’ isn’t saying ‘Good on that person for killing a swag of young people’.
In the latter case, the the guy didn’t see any need at all to wait for them to die, so he went out and started with the pop pop pop.
I can’t believe you are even trying to defend the ‘Hurry up and die’ comment made here. The point you seem to be missing is that there are commentators both on left leaning blogs and right leaning ones that express incredibly distasteful and vulgar views. Trying to act like they are more prevalent on Kiwiblog flies in the face of what I see.
“I can’t believe you are even trying to defend the ‘Hurry up and die’ comment made here.”
You don’t have to believe it, indeed please don’t, because I’m not.
I said:
“Both are awful, but in different ways”
I’ll be more explicit:
I codemn both these awful things, indeed I condemn all things that are awful, this is my position going forward, when I say something is awful, I thereby condemn it.
I condemn both the deliberate sale of rotten fruit and genocide, but I maintain that they are not the same.
A vulgar and distasteful comment is a vulgar and distasteful comment regardless of how vulgar or distasteful you think the topic it is related to is. That is my point. If I stated I hope your mother dies a horrible death that is just as out of order then if I said the same thing about your entire family or even your entire cultural group you belong to.
Are you saying there are bad things and good things, and that all bad things are equally bad?
No. I’m stating that vulgar and distasteful comments are pretty much the same. What they are about might vary in the degree of nastiness but that is not what we are discussing here. Calling you a douchebag is just as uncalled for than if I called you a Child molester. Trying to argue that it is somehow worse calling you a Child molester ignores the fact that it is gutter behaviour doing either.
But saying Brievik had the right idea, isn’t ‘calling someone names’.
It’s a totally different thing.
“Calling you a douchebag is just as uncalled for than if I called you a Child molester. Trying to argue that it is somehow worse calling you a Child molester ignores the fact that it is gutter behaviour doing either.”
Noted for future reference, douchebag.
Good to see you confirm the opinion that leftist blog’s are just as capable of descending to comments better suited to the sewer Felix.
I won’t even look at this thread, just going from the number of comments and the topic.
I wonder what it looks like? I wonder what the up and down votes look like?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/05/the_london_attack.html
Prepared to bet that Islam as a whole gets blamed a lot, and that it gets discussed in terms of an existential threat, and that liberal politics is what is to blame,and that ‘inevitably’ things are going to get worse as ‘patriots’ will be ‘forced’ to ‘sort it out’.
Btw would you expect any replies you made to someone spouting proto-fascist bile on Kiwiblog to be blocked? I would appreciate an honest answer to that question.
No, because Farrar doesn’t moderate unless someone on twitter points crap out to him. But like I said, so what? that’s about bias, which is not what we are talking about.
You’re arguing for the sake of it and in spite of evidence.
Not the cleverest debating strategy.
@ Paul
What do you expect; Gosman’s hardly the cleverest debater! His strategy seems to rely on his; refusal to shut up, until everyone who dares disagree loses the will to live. I find now my eyes just glaze over whenever I see his key-name, and then I skip to the next comment.
My guess is that he’s on auto-block on The Daily Blog, which is why he’s so pissed, and spewing his bile here. I’ve never had any problems making comments over there; though I do tend to rely on reasoned argument, and facts (plus the occasional bit of bitchiness). The quality of the posts can admittedly be a bit patchy at times; but it’s a site that presents views from many different authors and sources – if one isn’t to your taste, there’s always another.
Care to expand on that and explain what argument I am making without evidence?
@ Gosman
Too bored to.
Yet you wasted your time writing the initial nonsensical post. Go figure.
Gosman,
As far as I can tell, you have provided absolutely no evidence in this thread. None. You’ve made plenty of assertions about what folk have said on other threads or on other sites, and some people have apparently agreed that something along those lines was said. You might even have made a coherent argument as a consequence of all those assertions.
But where is a link, reference or citation so people can check the debates themselves? Others have linked to objectionable comments on, e.g., kiwiblog. But where is the evidence you have provided?
As far as I can tell (and please link to the comment that proves me wrong), if you have made a coherent argument here, you have had no evidence to back it up.
How do you know the accusations were unwarranted Gosman? Can you prove it?
What absolute BS Frank.
Can you imagine if I accused you of being a kiddy fiddler and then used that same argument – “How do you know the accusation is unwarranted? Can you prove it?”
Farrar blogged about defacing signs himself at the time. Self-defamation perhaps.
This is the allegation that was made and it is with out a basis in reality as far as I can tell. Unless you care to provide that evidence or are you simply going to repeat it here until you think people will accept it as fact.
I read the admission myself at the time and have no reason to make that up. Unless Farrar has deleted it, do some searching. You are the one who seems to be obsessed about it, after all.
I call BS on that. You have plenty of reason to make up the allegation (i.e. you don’t particularly like DPF’s politics) or you plainly are wrong about what you think you read. Nothing on the internet is truly deleted. If you can’t be arsed looking for the link don’t spread the disinformation then.
We do not all suffer lack of integrity and nor are you the arbiter of truth. You want to allege something me and at least someone else by the sounds of it have said is not true, go prove it.
You don’t seem to understand the burden of proof.
For your information I have already asked David Farrar about this and he denies it. I also went through the blog posts on both Whale oil and Kiwiblog related to the blogging tour in 2008 and there was no mention of either of them engaging in this sort of behaviour. The evidence (or lack there of) therefore points to this being made up.
i disagree. Kiwiblog comments are often vile and downright offensive. The language that is used ill behoves some of those who comment there.
Hah yeah…sorry bout it 🙂
Hah yeah…sorry bout it
it can be observed that days go by on The Standard at times without the need for moderator input.
Yeah. There are days when I have little time (like the last few days).
On those days I still usually manage to scan the comments (bloody pages upon pages of 50 comments) and only stop on a few egregious comments. The day that I scanned almost 25 pages of them after I’d worked really really hard on code most of the day remains burned in my memory as a fried neuron trauma day – it was only 8 hours worth!. I tend to hand out bans like confetti if I have to stop to deal with something.
I suspect that the other moderators notice when I’m not reading much because the spam queue mounts up towards 50 comments. I notice they start stepping in. I always know when it is time to make more time – Irish starts to moderate *evil grin*
And then there are other more balmy days when I nitpick, do lots of warnings and just simple harassment of near-newbies who catch my eye as requiring education in net dynamics.
No-one is ever too sure when the phases are going to flip (not even myself)… So people tend to stay well within the bounds.
The site tends to run itself a lot of the time provided the ISP doesn’t screw up..
hows that comment file coming along; was considering “Confessions of a Window Blogger” 😉
Spin that 45
Just put this little line in your /etc/hosts (or c:windowssystem32driversetchosts or summat for Windows users):
127.0.0.1 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
Edit: inadvertently linked to him. Fixed
I’ve had this for a year or more, haven’t been tempted to remove it.
What does that do?
Stops you seeing kiwibleargh ever again, even if inadvertently linked to it.
heh heh heh – useful 🙂
I only catch Kiwiblog when retrieving. Gun aye.
Has Farrar got a hot phone to Jim Moira, or does Moira invite him?
His appearance on the panel seems acutely timed ,to deal to negative coverage by the MSM of Nationals fuckups .
RNZ is effectively NACT Radio nowadays……Ryan’s a front for whatever her producers dish up, Mora’s show is braindead at best he just fills in between whoever is peddling whatever and the content quality overall has fallen badly. Morning report is toothless.
Take today, on Ryan’s show a TV reviewer was doing what Mora’s TV reviewer had done previously, same show with similar comments ‘reimagining’ etc etc… it’s another aussie tv show FFS.
Appears no overall production management just fill the air and keep Griffin happy (the nat installed chairman). If our f’n internet was better value I’d stream a decent service….datacaps’s a bitch and RNZ is freeviewed in……funny that as I can’t get CTV anymore !
I dunno. I quite enjoy Ryan and Mora but don’t like the way Hooting and the Torytubby are used so often and allowed to make unchallenged generalisations.
It’s amazing how someone can so quickly be accepted as an expert. Mind you I see it each day in my work, people who used to be plumbers becoming experts on weathertightness of buildings. With nary a single certificate behind them, they open a flash office, charge over $220 an hour and the courts seem to lap it up.
Imp Fish and David F’s side jokes are funnier than anything Fatwa has ever written.
Edit: realised Fatwa could be misconstrued. Not a jab at weight, but a play on the Islamic (righteously bs) pronouncement.
despite the commentors ‘Fatwa’ attracts, he is clever and influential.
Rather than continue to mount personality attacks on DPF and others, how about trying to address the issues that he has raised. The hypocrisy or stupidity (take your pick) surrounding the positions on Dunne and Sky City are breathtaking which I suppose is acknowledged by the silence here. I have no mistaken view that National are anything near the perfect party or govt. Labour’s opposition continues to flatter the Govt.
The rest of ts is filled with posts and comments addressing issues that DPF also raises. And this post isn’t a personality attack. It’s criticising something he did.
“personality attacks”?
Criticism of how he completely shot from the hip on his attack on Labour (I like his UPDATE ONE, especially well-researched) and his blog attracts completely unfettered, uncensored, abusive commenters (one “redbaiter” was mentioned earlier) are “personality attacks” on DPF.
Really?
You are confusing criticism and debate with personal attack – a speciality of NACT.
No hypocracy or stupidity on either, just doing their job, both as the largest party in the opposition and in standing up for principle and basic common sense.
For the Dunne saga and the NACT Sky City debacle, the stench of cronyism and corruption is overpowering – whether it is self-serving ambition or conflict of interest at the highest level – all with taxpayers money.
The only thing that is breathtaking is your continued support and cheerleading for its continuation.