A claim that John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar have all been involved in the ‘dirty politics’ promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” has backfired after a failure to provide any proof. Lies, more lies and then resorting to abuse.
A post on Little’s leadership at The Standard quoted a ‘Rodney Hide penned the second piece’ and commented:
Now I know some are reading some Machiavellian “reverse psychology” intentions into Hide’s support, but I think they overestimate both his complexity and his influence. I take the comments at face value, that Andrew Little’s leadership is receiving broad-based support. And that’s good news, because that’s what we need for the Left (as a whole!) to win.
I agree with Anthony (Robins) here (except for ‘we need for the Left to win) but others took to the Machiavellian approach.
This led to a claim by ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ about the promotion of the meme ‘Angry Andy” by John Key, NZ Herald and David Farrar.
As I’ve researched the use of ‘Angry Andy’ it looked to me OAB was making things up so I challenged him to prove his claims. He made lame excuses, diverted, got more lame and ended up resorting to abuse, all common tactics of OAB.
It clearly looks like he lied and kept lying.
Here’s the thread (as it is at the moment):
I’ve searched Google and know that OAB doesn’t have some magic version that gives him results no one else can get. I’ve also searched NZ Herald and Kiwiblog, and have found nothing backs up OAB’s claim.
And neither has he found anything obviously. Nor has Incognito come back with anything.
OAB often plays dirty, lies and smears like this. And claims that the left don’t do dirty politics. OAB is worse than Cameron Slater in some ways, although shares his vindictiveness if caught out..
OAB claims to not belong to a party and there’s nothing to suggest he (if it’s a he) is acting for any party.
But OAB is allowed to act like this at The Standard, Lynn Prentice has defended and made excuses for what he does in the past, and let’s him lie and abuse with impunity, as do the other moderators.
This is typical of the worst of The Standard, and commonplace.
Normal blog etiquette is to back up claims with evidence. Standard Rules state this too:
We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so.
They’re only intolerant when it suits them.
Dirty politics is common like this on the left, and they are either blind to it – it’s only dirty if the other lot do it – or they are being deliberately malicious and hypocritical.
UPDATE: Here’s an ironic comment from OAB:
As an author you have more power than the rest of us. I like Lprent’s strategy of re-posing unanswered questions and giving the tr*ll the option of a citation, a retraction, or a ban.
I didn’t see lprent do that with unanswered questions from OAB today. Which is not surprising given lprent’s support of how OAB operates, like here:
OAB is a determined stirrer. It is often a bit like getting a accidental look into a mirror when I read their comments.
Except over the years OAB has been steadily paring down the number of words required to perform their effect.
And considering OAB’s efforts todazy this one from lprent is very ironic:
OAB expresses opinion, links to facts, and I can’t recall them ever putting a quote out of context. That you don’t like what he says doesn’t make it “dirty”. It just means that you don’t like it and rather than arguing (and having to work for an argu!entire), you prefer smearing. To me that is just lazy.
No links to facts and when called on it he went dirty. And for lprent to accuse me of preferring smearing when he allows OAB to smear at wil and he brags about smearing himself is extreme chutzpah.
A follow-up post here: OAB follow-up