Karol is an an author at The Standard and claims to be a Green supporter. She promotes her researching ability and has been critical of my researching. Putting oneself on a pedestal is risky, especially in social media.
She recently posted The politics of private dinners where she promoted a ‘National bad, Labour/Green good’ meme, which she summed up as:
a) the Nats secretive practices that support the profit-making, self -serving power of corporate elites, by exploiting their networks with backroom deals in private place (for the ultimate benefit of the few), and
b) Labour and the Greens very highly publicised acceptance of corporate wealth to publicly support policies to combat climate change (for the ultimate benefit of everyone).
I questioned this, and I asked her to substantiate some of her claims as her post didn’t stack up. She bollocksed me a number of times for “not reading” and “ignoring” her post…
Did you read the post, PG? A major difference is between National Party’s exclusive, and secretive fundraising practices, often seemingly arranged privately and without any verifiable rational organisation other than cronyism, and union activities and Labour Party practices that are transparent and open to public scrutiny.
PG, for goodness sake, you keep making statements that ignore the content of my post.
I tried to find out what Cabinet Clubs are and presented the evidence I’d found in my post. Go read.
Obviously she saw her research differently to me. What was her evidence? She had used photos to back up her primary points of National’s privacy.
Karol’s comment after this:
However, a distinctive thing about Cabinet Club is the values embedded in the practices, and seen in the exclusive and private nature of the events. These mostly seem to be focused around cosy private dinners, targeting wealthy donors.
That was a world wide publicised photo showing the Prime Minister’s of New Zealand, Australia and Canada having a discussion over a meal:
No sign of Barack buddy David Cameron, but here are three of the Queen’s other prime ministers – Australia’s Tony Abbott, Canada’s Stephen Harper, New Zealand’s John Key – having a working lunch ahead of the memorial service.
But what I like about the photo is its ordinariness, right down to the restaurant decor, the wall print of wine bottles, and the spare chair.
The ‘three Prime Ministers’ picture was a very public meeting. And the next example:
This was shown graphically on the 3 News report on the Chinese Cabinet Club event at which immigration minister Michael Woodhouse was a guest speaker. 3 News had obtained a slideshow with images of the event, including this one:
Here mainstream politics meet private activities, within someone’s home. Woodhouse is set up to speak, with the cosy little dinner table seen in the background; the after-glow of a friendly bit of exclusive networking on a very personal scale.
I queried this a number of times because I wasn’t seeing what karol saw.
Great, PG, so you really haven’t read my post. @ 2.46pm. You said:
Did 3 News show a photo of a secret fundraiser in a private home? I didn’t see it.
head desk – if you want to continue commenting about my post, please make an effort to read (and understand) the post and stop wasting my time & discussion space.
PS; I don’t know how secret it was. I used the term “secretive” – ie that it’s kept pretty well away from public scrutiny.
I pressed her:
karol, the photo you posted didn’t look like a private home setting to me.
I’ve just viewed the news item you linked to again:
This looks nothing like your description. 3 News makes no mention of a home.
So my question stands – can you show any 3 News photo of a ‘cabinet club’ meeting in a private home? That would support your claim…
a) the Nats secretive practices that support the profit-making, self -serving power of corporate elites, by exploiting their networks with backroom deals in private place (for the ultimate benefit of the few),
…but I don’t think the coverage you posted and linked to does.
karol has now accepted that. She conceded:
Fair enough. It wasn’t stated as a private home in the vid. But to me the photo looks like it is in a private home.
The slide show in the link shows what is obviously not a private home. There’s sign writing on the windows and doors (in Chinese). There are toilet signs.
Karol seems to have been intent on pushing a “National bad, private meetings, secerecy” meme and was blind to what the evidence she presented actually showed. She insisted I was not taking any notice of her evidence but i saw what she didn’t – her kock up.
No one likes being proved wrong. As is standard at The Standard karol didn’t take this very well, as advised by lprent:
I would strongly suggest that you limit your comments on karol's posts. She is rather pissed off with you. She really doesn't like wasting the time that she could expend on research for another post simply saying "you're wrong and here is why" on her posts without some actual useful discussion ensuing. For that matter neither do I, her posts are invariably interesting because of the research she puts into them (even though I seldom agree fully).
I think she was of the opinion that it was simple deliberate diversion trolling. I was of the opinion that you were being your usual crass and rather unthinking self. However she didn't offer the fateful words taht would cause me to just accept her opinion as fact. But whatever it was, I suspect that you will be a short shift next time and I will have the pleasure of seeing karol do her very first ban. ]
karol was pissed off because she was hoist by her own petard. “Diversion trolling” is Standard-speak for challenging authors who might not always be correct.
And there was a Standard outcome. As has happened before this initiated a campaign to hound me off the blog and initially resulted in me being put into auto-moderation (Standard-speak “the ban sword hovering to enforce meek compliance”). lprent took me back off moderation long enough to use a lame excuse to ban me – not ironically this was over pointing out evidence he provided proved a point I was making.
[That is a deliberate repeated lie and one that there is no absolutely basis in any fact for.
Standard-speak for "don't debate with head censor".
Banned for four weeks so we can talk without an idiot astroturfing. ]
Standard-speak for message control and protecting their bull from being challenged.
This just proves the obvious and resulted in the inevitable. Such is the level of debate at The Standard, where their resident trolls deliberately and repeatedly lie without any restriction to enforce message control.
I used to think karol was more reasonable and research and fact based, but she seems to have been sucked in to the Standard system. Unlike some of the others I put her kock-up down to sloppiness rather than the deliberate disingenuous messages of some of their other authors, but her reaction was part of the Standard regime.
Their blog, their rules, but I think debate on the left is the worse for it.