I raised a minor issue yesterday about an attack on Patrick Gower at The Standard.
Gower was quoted tweeting about Laila Harre quitting the leadership of the Internet Party but this was turned into an attack on Gower by also quoting two diversionary tweets directed at Gower rather than the news he reported. See End of the Internet Party?
I made a minor point about the author of the post not using his own ID but posting under ‘Notices and Features’. Anthony Robins later admitted it was him, but he then turned that into an attack on me.
I put up this post Pete. Does it matter? Your obsession with The Standard is unhealthy, and frankly creepy.
An odd over-reaction to being called on something. But that seems to be the normal approach, here are more reactions from The Standars welcoming committee.
I guess your conservative spite blinded you into not reading the post.
Draco T Bastard:
You trolling already PG?
I see the trole is back then.
‘Troll’ is Standard vernacular for ‘I don’t want you posting comments here’. ‘Trole’ is a spelling variant to try and bypass auto-moderation.
It is all about pete. Isnt it?!?
It was obviously about something else, and some managed to discuss some aspects of what it was about.
Glen Jacobs (not a regular Standardista):
When and why did Pete George get his ban lifted?
Whilst I find his pathetic ways somewhat entertaining, I hope whoever was behind the amnesty does realise he’s just going to fuck the forum again
lprent responded as moderator:
[lprent: He doesn’t have one at present. They are generally time limited. His last one expired quite a while ago.
PG tends to ban himself to the great delight of most readers. I guess it helps with his usual senile victim routine as he routinely lies about why he got banned. But I believe he has recently been getting banned from other sites recently. So he is back to get his jollies here. ]
I’ve challenged him a number of times on his repeated claims that I lie about being banned from The Standard. And I’ve proven him wrong. And when facts are put to him he disappears.
“I don’t believe I lie about bans”
lolz at the senility of that statement.
Shall we start a book on how long it takes for Pete to either get a ban, or self-ban? His comments seem to be mostly about criticising ts, so I’m guessing he either goes quickly, or he’s trying out a new strategy for how long he can do this and stay just under the bannable level of offense.
felix (the king of the Standard jungle):
We all know how it ends.
Can’t someone just ban him in advance and be done with the stupid prick?
I responded to felix and weka:
I’ve no idea what ” just under the bannable level of offense” is weka. But I do know that when the usual suspects start to swarm it raises the prospects.
Thanks. And to you too felix. We know how it’s done, don’t we.
Yes we do. It starts with you raising stupid irrelevant points that no-one gives a fuck about (“omfg someone reposted a tweet”),
then you blow it out out of all proportion (have you written an OUTRAGED STANDARD DISGRACE post on your website about it yet?),
then you use this pretend issue to shoehorn your big issue (“why doesn’t the world take more notice of Pete George?”) into every thread on this site until one after another everyone here gets sick of you and, in one way or another tells you to fuck off,
and then you have a tanty because the web isn’t recognising your god-given right to post whatever you want on every site you stumble across as if you owned it,
and eventually a mod decides they’ve had enough of your passive-aggressive bullshit and bans you for something that, on its own, probably doesn’t rate as much of an offense without the context of the months of trooling that led to it,
and then you fuck off back to your site to write a martyrdom post that no-one except Lynn will ever read and spend the next three weeks reposting it at kiwiblog and whaleoil and having a big cry about the unfairness of it all.
Yes Pete, we know exactly how it works. And we know it’s going to work exactly the same this time too. Seriously, it would save everyone so much trouble if you just fucked off and started working on your martyrdom post now.
That’s a normal sort of manoeuvring from felix. He’s long practiced at trying to engineer bans for anyone he decides should not comment at The Standard. I responded:
You’re as funny as ever felix.
Wouldn’t the logical approach to comments or commenters “that no-one gives a fuck about” be to ignore them? /rhetorical
Yes Pete, the logical approach to things no-one gives a fuck about is to ignore them.
Your approach, however, is to take those things that no-one gives a fuck about, and mix them in a blender with your dog-shit of a personality, and spray the resulting filth all over this site,
and you’ll be doing it all day, every day, until someone bans you,
because that’s how it works.
I don’t intend to comment here anywhere near all day every day. I have a lot of other things I usually prefer to do, unlike you it seems, destined it seems to grump it out here trying to chase anyone away you don’t approve of.
“I don’t intend to comment here anywhere near all day every day.”
No-one intends that you do. But that hasn’t stopped you yet.
Why don’t you comment on whaleoil instead? Cameron’s getting desperate for attention, he could do with the page views.
And the thread has deteriorated to be about pg, not the topic of the post.
ITS ALL ABOUT PETE
You mean the title of the thread wasnt
What is pete george thinking about today?
have you written an OUTRAGED STANDARD DISGRACE post on your website about it yet?
Spoiler alert: he totally did, complete with pearl-clutching about the ~misuse~ of the “notices and features” handle.
Oh, dear George! Did he now? What a witnit!
Oh gawd. Is he banned from ontheleft?
Strangely enough he hasn’t graced many of our threads with his comments after the first few times I told him to stay on topic and cut the passive-aggressive BS.
I haven’t seen anything of interest to comment on there. Funny Stephanie talking about aggressiveness. She aggressively attacks people who stray off what she wants the topic to be confined to.
And the thread has deteriorated to be about pg, not the topic of the post.
ITS ALL ABOUT PETE
And when its not
ITS ALL ABOUT JOSIE
They don’t take kindly to Josie Pagani being critical of them either.
Such is the Standard of debate. And one of the next steps is for them to claim I am taking over threads and should be banned for it.
I don’t care if I’m banned again. It won’t stop me from criticising them when I see fit, and it won’t stop attacking me.
But this time it switched the bash wagon from one PG to another.
UPDATE: In a comment below lprent said:
I really don’t have time to deal with senile lying old gits with too much time on their hands who quote our policies for Notices and Features and then proceed to misrepresent what it says.
However he has found the time at The Standard, in response to me saying “I don’t believe I lie about bans. You keep claiming this, incorrectly. “
His response reasserts that I lie but again he doesn’t back it up with anything apart from a rant…
[lprent: You routinely do. I always give the reason why I ban someone based on what is in the policy. That could be anything from questioning the site rules, to diverting off a posts topic, to simply appearing to waste moderators time by initiating boring flamewars that are invariably about you and your behaviour.
Rather than deal with that and just modifying your own behavior, you invariably choose to interpret that as some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy rather than dealing with what is said. What you appear to not accept is that it is your own behaviour on our site that triggers the warnings and bans. Your behaviour in this post is absolutely characteristic. Your interpretation of our clear rules about the use of notices and features was just outright wrong and quite indefensible. But you managed to divert a large portion of the comments on the post completely off topic.
You also appear to be oblivious to your usual behaviour after you get a ban which is the basis of why I say that you routinely lie about it. Felix in a comment in this marathon comment scan (I’m currently on page 12 of 50 comments heading back to about 2pm yesterday) gave a pretty concise description of your usual behaviour.
If you’d just content yourself with actually addressing the topics of the post or the derived debate, and not making whole swathes of commentary being about you, it’d save me a whole lot of time. It’d take a while before the automatic responses by other commenters die down, but just ignore them or confine your responses to your own blog and stick to topics raised, and eventually you’d wind up commenting without the collective “FFS it is PG self-indulgently wanking again” response that you currently get.
Commenters automatically respond to you going off topic because they have seen you use your usual tactics far too many times. Instead of writing when you have something relevant to say, you seem to have an obsession with simply typing crap and asserting it is fact – because you think so. That isn’t debate. Then you complain that people don’t like it, disagree with you, and tell you why. That is the behaviour of someone who has a narcissistic need to be the centre of attention – not someone who is actually interested in discussion and debate.
BTW: If I have to ban you again, I have already decided that the date will be November 21 2017. I really don’t have time for this type of shit again. ]
I assume from this he doesn’t want me to debate, he makes baseless assertions, fails again to back them up, then threatens a ban. That’s very tough Lyn. You must love that power.