I can’t follow up on The Standard so will try from here. After I was banned you bravely commented:
What questions? I tried to answer any reasonable questions. I’m happy to address them here, whatever they are.
By the way, when you said…
-
Vicky the thing is that Petey does not “happen to attract some of it”, he sets out with the intent of, if at all possible, getting negative comments.
…you’re wrong, I didn’t set out “with the intent of, if at all possible, getting negative comments”. I frequently had deliberate postive intent, I tried to initiate discussions on what I thought were relevant issues.You and others had the deliberate intent of abusing me and disrupting threads. This was frequent and over a period of years.
Or do you mean posting positive comments abour David Shearer and Labour got up your nose?
It is a real wankfest for him. The rest of us hate it, we would prefer to debate the issues.
You hardly ever tried to debate issues – probably because you are hopeless at debating. So you – and others – resort to attacking the messenger. The same thing happened to others, including the Paganis this week. The Standard is famous for it.
You used to deliberately initiate and encourage mob hate. This was openly supported by moderators.
He then does this passive aggressive stuff and suggests he is the victim. He is not.
What is passive aggressive stuff? Are you confusing that with arguments that can have pros and cons, that not everything is black or white, right or wrong?
I have been a victiom of a lot of abuse. Another thing The Standard is famous for – and onesided, with the abusers knowing they have the protection of the blog moderators. You admitted it yourself a few weeks ago when you said Te Reo Putake would never be banned – one of the most persistent resident trolls and abusers.
He is a silly person who does not realise that if he wants a debate he will get one…
Rubbish, you rarely tried to debate. And I often engaged in debates with those who were willing to do it reasonably. But you know as well as I do (or you should do) debate wasn’t the usual intent of some, it was harassment.
but if he wants to tr0ll he will get dumped on.
That’s the biggest joke of the lot. You were a resident troll who often tried to disrupt threads simply because I was involved. Same with Te Reo Putake and a number of others.
You wanted to shut down discussion with people you wanted to harrass.
Perhaps I’m wrong and you really believe what you say – which would mean you are even thicker than I thought.
And have you noticed that the hate, the abuse, the personal attacks have all continued since I was banned. The same old shit, juts different targets and different excuses. It’s ingrained culture, it’s how a hard core of regulars and moderators are at The Standard.
You can’t blame any of that on me. I was permanently banned simply for pointing it out.
And a final question – are you still Chair of the Labour Party’s Auckland-Northland Regional Council?
walawnz
/ August 19, 2012Ok Pete
I sense a desire to debate and not score political points so I will respond.
Firstly I agree that you became something of a whipping boy in the Standard and I was part of this. I actually reflected on this and you may or may not have noticed that more recently I did not take part in these attacks and I do acknowledge that you always gave as good as you got. Something of a mob mentality had sent in though. In blogs as in school yards a mob mentality can quickly develop.
You did not help things IMHO by some of the matters that you posted about. In particular on the day of your banning you posted about the John Ansell campaign. The response to the campaign from a bunch of leftys is utterly predictable and I thought it was not a subject that was worth discussing.
My question to you was to challenge you and suggest that maybe your approach may have been less likely to start flame wars. If you had catholic style made some sort of acknowledgment I am sure things would have been fine but Lprent obviously thought otherwise.
A few have made the comment that your treatment was excessive and I am coming around to that view as well.
Although this should not be interpreted as a concession that you are right and they are wrong …
As in pretty well all things nothing is black and white and there are only many shades of grey.
And no I am no longer the chair of the ANRC, just a loyal foot soldier trying to make NZ a better place.
Pete George
/ August 19, 2012That’s clearly a comment from Greg Presland aka micksavage.
You did not help things IMHO by some of the matters that you posted about. In particular on the day of your banning you posted about the John Ansell campaign. The response to the campaign from a bunch of leftys is utterly predictable and I thought it was not a subject that was worth discussing.
You thought it was “not a subject that was worth discussing” so that justifies personal attacks?
In my opinion that highlights one of the biggest issues with The Standard.
Are you aware that the exact same topic was posted by ‘Eddie’ the following day – Privileged try to turn Kiwis against each other – to date there have been 213 comments on it.
Did you (or anyone) attack ”Eddie’ with personal abuse for posting it? Or Callum Fredric at Critic. Or all the MSM who publicised it? Or just me?
When I posted it they ignored the message and attacked the messenger, as they frequently did. As you did too. It’s hard to see it as anything other than a continuation of a campaign of abuse directed at me.
gregpresland
/ August 19, 2012That’s clearly a comment from Greg Presland aka micksavage.
Yep it is. The mysteries of wordpress identities are something I obviously do not understand.
Clearly I and a number of others became convinced that you were trying to muck up threads rather than contribute to them. There were two basic reasons for this, the number of comments you made and the particular arguments that you ran. A number of commentators became frustrated because they perceived that you were not addressing the argument.
It is also a feature of the three main political blogs. It is a bit like an English Soccer game where everyone turns up for a stoush on a Saturday afternoon. Most other blogs are entirely different. For instance on my own site I will attack politicians or operatives of either variety without fear but I leave private persons alone.
So perhaps there needs to be a rethink. But it is wrong to suggest that this is agreement that the left is somehow more vicious than the right because IMHO the contrary is clearly true.
Pete George
/ August 19, 2012Clearly I and a number of others became convinced that you were trying to muck up threads rather than contribute to them.
So you set out to muck up threads I started or commented on. Helloooo.
If you had bothered to listen to me my intent would have been clear, I explained a number of times.
There were two basic reasons for this, the number of comments you made…
Many of which were defending myself from prolific attacks.
…and the particular arguments that you ran.
I know things like praising Shearer weren’t popular but who chooses what topics are acceptable? In any case, most people ignore topics they don’t like. That’s what I did.
It’s hard to see much of the attacking as simply for the sake of attacking. It was rarely disguised as anything else.
But it is wrong to suggest that this is agreement that the left is somehow more vicious than the right because IMHO the contrary is clearly true.
I’ve found it less vicious in righter blogs, but overall it’s impossible to measure and a pointless exercise anyway. Whoever does it is discrediting their arguments or position. And blaming the other lot is a very poor excuse for something that shouldn’t be happening in a civil society.
And, you didn’t respond to this – do you admit that a lot of the behaviour at The Standard is a bad look for the blog and for the Labour Party?
Pete George
/ August 19, 2012I sense a desire to debate and not score political points
I have most often tried to debate in a number of forums with less political pointscoring intent than most – it can’t be absent from political discussions.
One of my bans at The Standard (two actually but one was revoked) were for standing up to blatant pointscoring lies/misinformation in a blog post. Demands made of me then were embarrasingly unreasonable.
Talking of embarrassing – can you really not see the damage the prevalent attack culture (primarily presumably to try and score political points) does to the reputation of The Standard, and to the Labour Party? Yes, I know The Standard is not the Labour Party, but there are clear close associations.
gregpresland
/ August 19, 2012[D]o you admit that a lot of the behaviour at The Standard is a bad look for the blog and for the Labour Party?
Um no.
Blogs are there for stirring up the activists and honing the arguments. And the Standard, kiwiblog and wobh have a disproportionate effect on an increasingly resource starved MSM which look to them for news and ideas.
I would actually prefer that the MSM did its job. But I think this is just a pipe dream.