All posts tagged lprent

Bizarre morphs to positive

Something that I guess is inevitable is if you have a prolific presence across the blosophere you will sometimes be talked about, sometimes in unexpected places and unexpected ways. It’s weird to see my name mentioned on forums I don’t participate on, and bemusing but not surprising to see it mostly being criticism, and sometimes abuse.

Yesteday was one of the more bizarre examples, at my old friend and foe forum, The Standard. ‘bad12′ is not one of the most astute regulars there, as they demonstrate when accusing a new commenter ‘Mark’ of being me:

Lolz, are you not PG by another name back here too shy to use your ‘other’ handle…

That was in response to a comment by Mark…

Yeah, I remember a whole lot of apparently overwhelming evidence for catastrophic cooling back in the 70′s. Must have been sorted by all the hot air spouted by lefties when blogs were invented..”

…so bad12 proves ignorance of my views on climate change, ignorance of my writing style, and ignorance of my practice of commenting under my own name. I have never commented using another person’s name.

bad12 repeated:

Lolz, PG you naughty little child stop trying to inflame the conversation with such rude references…

Apart from being blatantly wrong that accusation is ironic coming from bad12 who often resorts to rudeness and attempts to inflame. Like this comment, on the Amnesty thread where The Standard was trying to encourage banned commenters to return:

Yeah true as far as the fun of using such overblown egotistical wankers as PG for sport, but, it can become pretty tedious when as befor a situation develops where half of the comments in ‘Open Mike’ on any given day are taken up with such circular arguments which go no place in particular.

bad12 is one of those who jumps on the bashwagon for ‘sport’ and then blames others for taking over threads with tedium. The Standard allows this sort of behaviour, and then they wonder why they have to try and attract back commenters they have thrown out to boost their blog statistics.

And bad12 had another go on a different thread…

Aw PG when are you going to drop the charade and revert back to the usual handle, yes the trying of all the illicit substances will explain nicely the apparent brain damage inherent in your comments.

…again in response to a comment from Mark:

I’m a heavily addicted smoker, have been for 30 years..

I have also tried (used) pretty much every illicit substance.. none of which have had anything like the addictive effect of nicotine on me.. except possibly pot when I was a teenager which I severely regret using then.

This also demonstrates bad12′s ignorance. I have never been a smoker – my smoker parents successfully discouraged me from taking up the habit. My father died from fag fucked lungs (emphysema), my mother died of esophageal cancer.

I have tried pretty much no illicit substances apart from underage drinking, and have never smoked pot.

This is typical of the extreme ignorance often displayed arround the political blogosphere where it’s common for people to make up shit because they can – through ignorance and/or nastiness – and to throw it because they can get away with it.

Cowards can. But their dishonesty reflects far more on themselves than their targets.

If you are open about your identity in the political blogosphere you will inevitably attract the attention of ignorant try-hard-bullies like ‘bad12′. Something they can’t deal with well is staring them down with decency. A handful of blog bitches tried for a couple of years to get under my skin at The Standard. They are still scratching their own rash rants, aren’t they lprent.

If you get involved in politics and if you get involved in blogs you will get abused and falsely accused , it’s the nature of some who think being an attack dog somehow achieves something they can be liked for. The sort of people who like these behaviours are not those I have any inclination to be liked by.

Why keep commenting when there is so much crap being thrown?

Occasionally I get compliments.

But in particular I often get readers, some of whom I presume quietly appreciate my contribution to debate and information. Thanks, that makes this worth doing.

Much of my activity is elsewhere on blogs and other social media forums, but Your NZ has been an anchor of information, where I can expand on what topics of interest with what would be too much for other people’s places.

Nevertheless it’s gratifying and encouraging to see the the numbers visiting here increasing – threefold this year. This will be partly due to becoming known more, but I hope partly becasue I am increasiong and improving the content as I work out what my wee niche is on New Zealand’s political scene.

I’m only a small player but many small players can add up – so thanks for those who play your part by visiting here. You won’t always agree with me, you won’t always like what I say, but I hope you sometimes gert something out of my modest contribution.

This post has evolved from bemusement at bad assumptions and accusations by ‘bad12′, to musing about my social media participation. I usually try and turn to positive.

Because that’s how positive change can best be achieved.

Thanks to all of you who support me by coming here.

 

by Pete George on March 19, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 19, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/19/bizarre-morphs-to-positive/

Response to Treetop

‘Treetop’ posted a comment at Amnesty! Shamnesty, responding on a fresh thread.

Pete George nothing is unconditional in life.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

On 5 March 2013 I asked the following questions.

Sorry, I thought I’d responded to you at some stage but may have missed one.

1. Is a comment on a blog site a serious matter?

Some can be, many aren’t. Depends on the blog, depends on the topic, and it depends on who is commenting.

I generally take blogging seriously with a purpose in mind, but not always, sometimes some light relief and humour is worthwhile (I’m sure some don’t always pick my humour or they don’t get it).

2. Is it not up to those who visit the site to decide the content for themself?

Again it depends on the blog. Sometimes staying on topic is expected, so the content is guided by the authors. Open Mic/General Debate threads allow for those who visit to decide, but it’s not uncommon for others to try and shut down or shout over someone’s choice of content.

3. Is backing off a sign of weakness or a sign of strength?

It can be either depending on the circumstances and common sense. Not sure exactly what yoiu are getting at with that question.

In relation to the topic of the day, I’m not backing off. I had persevered and stood my ground at TS for so long, often if the face of extensive harrassment and abuse, simply to not back down. lprent eventually pushed me off.

And I’m not backing off now, I’m carrrying on doing what I’ve been doing for some time. In fact I’m making significant progress on a numbers of things.

I am pleased that there is an amnesty at the Standard because I am not in favour of a permanent ban being given, (I stated this previously).

I’m pleased to see them give it a go too, but we’ll have to see how it works. Redbaiter didn’t exactly kick it off to an auspicious start, but if you look beyond his grandstanding there were signs that the lprent education may be better directed at some of the regulars, going by their comments. But I don’t expect that to happen.

Any blog or forum needs to have a permanent ban as an option, but it should be only used in extreme situations. Some of the permanent bans at TS were ridiculous over-reactions. My own was expected because I was staring lprent down, but even while the moderators were considering the amnesty there were pathetic permenent bans, a recent one being a prime example – The Standard – yawning is banned.

I will leave you to think about why you would take the oppertunity to return to the Standard as you are no longer banned due to the amnesty?

I have no inclination to return to The Standard at this stage.  I think the culture there is toxic, and Lynn Prentice seems to be most responsible for that. Here is a typical example from one of the main culprits, Te Reo Putake:

Anyhoo, with rare exceptions, I’m not keen on bans, because it removes some of the sport from the site. Puncturing the egos of pompous righties is always tremendous fun.

Shitting in the nest is fun for some. And bad12 followed that with:

Yeah true as far as the fun of using such overblown egotistical wankers as PG for sport, but, it can become pretty tedious when as befor a situation develops where half of the comments in ‘Open Mike’ on any given day are taken up with such circular arguments which go no place in particular,

Plus, i have forgotten how to make the ‘rolls eyes’ icon which seemed the best means of addressing that particular commenter…

That’s an entrenched culture, and what does the master moderator think of that? An lprent comment followed, with no concern shown for their intent to disrupt threads and harrass again. lprent not only allows it, he leads by example.

It’s been interesting to see TRP taken to task by others recently, but that won’t stop him, and obviously lprent won’t stop him. But some are brave enough (or don’t care if they are banned) by criticising this, like Jenny…

If you enjoy that sort of sport TRP you should go to their sites.

…and Colonial Weka:

I agree. The poking at the righties sport that goes on here is one of the downsides of ts. It’s ok within limits, but when it goes on at length in multiple threads, it’s just boring, distracting and most likely puts off new people getting involved. I’ll take new blood over returning tr*lls and spoilsports any day

I think there are plenty of commmenters at TS who would prefer a more civil and less abusive, bullying culture, but Prentice obviously leads and rules the culture.

He obviously has no intention of listening or changing, so I have no intention of returning to comment at his whim. And as Prentice seems to be a fixture there I don’t see any prospect of this situation changing.

I think forums, particularly political blogs, should be level playing fields. The Standard is far from that. A pity, it could be a far more effective left wing forum but for a few selfish bullies dominate the culture with impunity.

by Pete George on March 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/16/response-to-treetop/

IrishBill’s instincts

Lynn Prentice commented about IrishBill’s instincts at The Standard:

Kind of amusing that Irish picked your reaction so neatly though. His instincts are too damn good about silly reactions and I now owe him a beer..

I had thought IrishBill’s instincts were quite good too, although his The right’s fear of democracy post suggested he could get a bit rattled.

And today his instincts are way off the mark.

To be honest I didn’t pick he’d have such a big sulk and self-ban.

He doesn’t seem to be able to tell the difference between sulking and making a sensible choice – it’s not a self ban, I have simply chosen not to return. Seems like common sense, I can be more effective not getting petty harrassment at The Standard.

In fact I was already to keep a firm hand on other commenters’ reactions to him to give him a fair go.

Instead he let lprent loose emphasising same old – promising “a fair go” was clearly not on his agenda.

His instincts seem to display another likeness to the Labour caucus, or at least to a certain strategic genius therein. Quack.

Not sulking Irish, more bemusement and amusement.

And lprent’s claim seems to be completely wrong about IrishBill again, similar to he did on his flight off the handle at The Daily Blog.

How can “Irish picked your reaction so neatly” when Irish “was already to keep a firm hand on other commenters’ reactions to him to give him a fair go” – that sounds like he was expecting me to comment, and I’m not. So his instinct was wrong. I think I deserve the drink.

by Pete George on March 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/16/irishbills-instincts/

Amnesty! Shamnesty

Out of the blue (or maybe out of the red) The Standard is offering a ban amnesty.

Amnesty!

Ah yes, we’ve banned a few folks in the many years we’ve been in the blogosphere. Some with damn good reason and some in the heat of the moment. But now we’re all older and wiser it’s time to open the comments to all of you ratbags and see if we can’t work it out somehow.

With that in mind we’re cleaning the slate and welcoming back any and all that feel the urge to put their two cents here.

But just to be clear, the moderation rules still rule so please, take a deep breath and have a think before you commit your splendid thoughts to the comments box and hit “submit”…

[UPDATE: lprent added this:

lprent: And for those newly unbanned, please read the policy. Especially the bit about wasting the time of moderators.]

The post is obviously not lprent’s writing style.

“We’ve banned a few folks” is a bit of an understatement. Recent bans have been to an extent business as usual, but some  particularly have surprised me, not just for the petty reasons given for banning but some intelligent and usually reasonable lefties have been caught up in the purges – see The Standard – yawning is banned.

I’m sure there is some good intent behind this move, I think some of The Standard collective are probably a genuinely initiating something they hope will be positive for The Standard beyond it possibly being in part a reaction to the loss of quantity and quality of discussion to competition – see 100 000 pageviews.

But there are some signs that make it seem a bit like Stalin welcoming people home from the gulag, escorted by his secret police.

The Amnesty! post was preceeded by a signal something may be in the wind, last night lprent commented:

We run periodic general amnesties on the banned to find out if the idiots have figured out how to behave here. That would be his next chance.

That seemed an odd comment, I have never seen another “periodic amnesty” in several years of following what goes on at The Standard. Not so odd was “to find out if the idiots have figured out how to behave here” – that’s a typical lprent putdown with a message that his famous attempts at behaviour modification still apply.

And after the Amnesty! post lprent commented again:

Unusually this time around wasn’t me initiating it. It had been discussed by a number of mods over the past weeks. I didn’t disagree now that I have time to engage as a cleanup moderator again. In the past, I’ve usually the one who has just quietly done it when:-

I have had time to do some concentrated moderation
and
After we’ve accumulated a year or so of permanent bans.

Then we let people back on and see if they have improved their behaviour. If they repeat the things that got them banned last time then they wind up with a short sharp bounce.

It isn’t the concern trolls we tend not to give permanent bans for. It is usually the people who attack authors personally, the ones who tell us how to run this site, and the ones who go for a consistent pattern of firestarting and high level diversion in posts outside of OpenMike.

This is a non-subtle hint that although the banned are allowed to return as far as lprent is concerned nothing has changed. There are some significant problems with this.

  1. lprent apparently still intends to continue his huffing and haranguing, with a finger hovering over the ban button.
  2. The rulings against those who “attack authors personally” have been used to protect authors from criticism and responses to the authors attacking people personally.
  3. “The ones who tell us how to run this site” -  a political blog can’t take a bit of criticism and advice? I can understand MPs at Red Alert desperately wanting to protect their mana and message no matter how manic, but if political bloggers can’t take a bit of advice and stick they need to grow up and grow a pair.
  4. This does nothing to address the pack attack behaviour of the resident protected species, allowed and encouraged by moderators directly and by example.

According to lprent’s conditions writing this post pretty much means I would not be welcome back at The Standard.

And I’m not interested in commenting again at The Standard – at least not until they do far more than allow the banned to return.

There is no indication in the Amnesty! post or in lprent’s comments that anything fundamental has changed. When commenting at The Standard I made frequent attempts to contribute positively to discussion but was repeatedly harrassed – and then blamed for disrupting the threads. I was warned and banned for disrupting the threads. And most of the disrupting was deliberate attempts to drive me away and to get me banned.

That’s what some of the residents continually do there, I have seen it repeated over and over since my departure. I have seen it again in the last few days, new commenters attacked and abused.

I was subjected to much abuse, sometimes to extreme levels, and some of that has continued since my exit. As have others. And that is allowed as part of the culture of The Standard.

Sure I challenged and criticised and provoked comment. What the fuck is a political forum supposed to be for?

I’d like to note that I rarely abused or personally attacked despite much provocation, some of that fairly extreme. I think the failure of the resident bullies to claim another scalp is what infuriated them so much, and made their attacks and disruptions so repetitive – and often childish, like their eye rolling campaign. <eyes roll>

I was sometimes too persistent and too frequent – often that was simply to not give in to the attacks. I only hung in for so long at The Standard to stand up to the numpties, I knew I would be banned and persisted until lprent blinked.

And there is no indication any of this is being addressed. They have simply offered a ban amnesty accompanied by the same old warnings, and the same moderator supported attacks – there are already signs of that before anyone returns.

I won’t return to commenting at The Standard (at this stage) for several related reasons.

  1. As detailed above nothing seems to have changed.
  2. Because nothing has changed my return is likely to attract the same old disruption, that’s not good for the blog and I can’t be bothered with it.
  3. I won’t participate in a forum that is such an uneven playing field, where some are can get away with any level of attack and abuse they like while others are under continual threat of “moderation”.

If The Standard wants to rebuild as a serious political forum I think they have to get serious about addressing their resident troll culture and they have to allow robust but fair debate – for all.

Obviously this criticism and advice rules out my return.

And frankly, I don’t think the lprent culture and I are compatible, I don’t see lprent changing and I won’t bow to his conditions.

UPDATE: lprent has modified his original comment as quoted above:

It isn’t the concern trolls that are a problem because we tend not to give them permanent bans. It is usually the people who attack authors personally, the ones who tell us how to run this site, and the ones who go for a consistent pattern of firestarting and high level diversion in posts outside of OpenMike. The people who fall into the areas covered by our long-standing policies and indulge in behaviour that is deemed to be disruptive or anti-social on this site. Mostly we don’t care about peoples opinions – we care about how they act.

Unusually this time around wasn’t me initiating it (which I like). It had been discussed by a number of mods since last year. I have been holding it up because of my lack of moderating time. I didn’t disagree now that I have time to engage as a cleanup moderator again.

In the past, I’ve usually the one who has just quietly done it when I have had time to do some concentrated moderation and after we’ve accumulated a year or so of permanent bans. In this case we have almost three years of accumulated bans to clear out because that is how long my work project ran for (and I had a heart attack in the middle that didn’t help much either).

Then we let people back on and see if they have improved their behaviour. If they repeat the behaviour(s) that got them banned last time then they wind up with a short sharp and preferably quite humiliating bounce. Of course there will be a few fools who take it as a badge of honour to be banned from TS – the ones who congregate at whaleoil or the sewer to display their badge of stupid behaviour and lie about why they banned. But many will have learnt to not repeat dumb behaviours. The key to doing it is when there is time to have a moderator solidly available to deal with the usual idiots who fail to learn from their past foolishness.

Obviously nothing has changed at The Standard as lprent obviously hasn’t changed. Including making accusations (again) that are downright nasty.

the ones who congregate at whaleoil or the sewer to display their badge of stupid behaviour and lie about why they banned

I’m not sure if that is directed at me or not, but if so I call bullshit on it. Of course I have joked about being banned, but I have deliberately documented how my last (permanent) ban happened on this blog so it was on record, and it is also on record at The Standard.

This further indicates that a fair and honest forum is not what lprent wants. The Standard may be a collective but it only takes one control freak power crazy strutting rooster to fowl the nest.

That’s a shame, the Labour left badly needs to rebuild and a part of that is having an open and robust forum. The Daily Blog is new and different, it provides something extra but a Standard type blog, if done well, would be invaluable.

Bit lprent has just shat in the Amnesty! nest, poking his authoritave finger at the collective attempt to regain some credibility.

The Standard amnesty is like Shearer’s amnesty for Cunliffe, you can crawl back onto the back bench if you behave but the resident attack trolls will keep trying to force you into retirement.

Sad to see such an opportunity wasted by one person’s ego.

Amnesty? Shamnesty.

UPDATE: lprent added this to the Amnesty! post:

lprent: And for those newly unbanned, please read the policy. Especially the bit about wasting the time of moderators.

Translated into lspeak that means if lprent wastes his time writing a long lecture about not complying with his behaviour modification he will ban you.

He has also commented:

However, you have to assume that periodically people have been known to grow up on the net…

I assume not in this instant. lprent has made it clear that he sees The Standard as his toy and if any of the collective boys and girls try to play the game how they want he will throw a tanty.

lnapoleon rules at The Standard Farm, the collective has a snowball’s chance in hell.

by Pete George on March 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/16/amnesty-shamnesty/

Lynn Prentice – another cowardly accusation

At the Standard lprent (Lynn Prentice) has made an  accusation that is totally without foundation and is cowardly and despicable.

(Sorry to those who don’t like this being done here, but when Prentice makes accusations at his own blog he knows he has protected himself from being held to account, I have no right of reply there).

Ironically it came as a result of common criticism of Prentice and The Standard. Populuxe1 said:

Problem is that your authors have no real accountability for their assertions because if anyone dares to question the veracity of their claims they get banned for their temerity.

There would seem to be something slightly ironic in trying to discuss transparency and accountability in the MSM or criticising Clare Curran for her attempts at censoring and bullying the party in a forum which isn’t much better and sometimes is actually worse. I mean really what’s to stop a pro-Shearer author from banning all the pro-Cunliffe dissenters on a whim and the usual arbitrary interpretation of the guidelines?

Prentice replied:

Not exactly. They can question them here or at any other blog site. What they cannot do is personally criticize them here. They tend to wind up with me or one of the other moderators sharing our view on them (and them getting upset because you know – that isn’t “fair”). But that is done to reduce our time and effort in the future. One thing trolls seldom do is change their behaviour without considerable encouragement.

That’s just his standard spiels of “don’t question us” and references to changing behaviour which is code for “don’t criticise us or else”.

But I think you’ve been seduced by our apparent competences to forget who we are.. We don’t exactly do this for pay (there is none) and as most of us write under pseudonyms and keep them private (to prevent cowardly attacks on our work and family by arseholes like Whale or PG) – little glory either.

That is a cowardly attack on me and is highly hypocritical.

Prentice often brags about being nasty, attacking people and banning them (so they can’t defend themselves).

Sometimes he’s just nasty, but as in his recent Daily Blog post he also makes up accusations that have nothing to substantiate them.

I have never attacked anyone’s work or family.

My guess is this is just a continuation of his recent habit of trying to associate me with Whale, which is another blatant lie he is trying to perpetuate.

I could retaliate by associating Prentice with a blog bastard, but I can’t think of anyone in the New Zealand blogosphere who is worse than him, so that would be pointless.

After his recent accusations made at The Daily Blog and also at Public Address (where he repeated accusations after he had admitted elsewhere they were wrong) he avoided answering questions (having accused me of not answering questions).

Instead he retreats to his own protected fiefdom at The Standard to make another nasty unsubstantiated attack.

That’s despicable and cowardly.

by Pete George on March 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 8, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/08/lynn-prentice-another-cowardly-accusation/

Now the bluster and bull has subsided…

…Lynn Prentice has admitted he was wrong about claims he made about one of The Standard authors in trying to prove “falsehoods”.

Of course he hasn’t admitted he was wrong perpetuating Chauvel’s accusation about Kiwiblog and Whale Oil, he hasn’t admitted maybe I’m not a right winger, he hasn’t admitted he was wrong when he said he “ found Pete George acting as a parrot for Whaleoil”.

But he didn’t have any choice admitting he was wrong over one of his author claims.

In Blogs and party connections I had simply included this in a list:

Irish Bill – Labour party member

Prentice in Pete George – an example of right wing blogging falsehoods:

“Labour party member”.In the words of a Tui ad – “Yeah right!”

He did write a tongue in cheek post about why others should join the Labour party late last year.

IrishBill in a comment on that post:

I am a Labour party member (and have been on and off for a long long time) and my call for joining up certainly wasn’t tongue in cheek.

Prentice has responded, admitting…

Just looking at what you have said in the past. I did mean to put in the point that authors should tell me when I was wrong. But the damn post just kept growing and I had to start trimming it somewhere.

So he was either sloppy or making things up accusing me of falsehoods. My observations on his blog are more accurate than his own.

But he’s still a great programmer:

I’m afraid that what comes out of my fingers when I write text is no-where as disciplined as what happens when I code.

What else has he claimed that isn’t as disciplined as his coding?

Not only was his post at The Daily Blog an insult to the credibility of a startup venture, he was wrong on a number of counts, which when accusing me of falsehoods is ironic.

In addition saying that he will vote Green next year is dubious. And there has to be doubts about the  accuracy and honesty of his claims about the other authors – and I note that again he has failed to answer questions about whether multiple people use single pseudonyms at The Standard.

An apology is justified but I won’t be holding my breath.

by Pete George on March 5, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 5, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/05/now-the-bluster-and-bull-has-subsided/

Another kill for pack of blog bitches

Another victim of The Standard pack of blog bitches has announced they can’t be bothered with the mob mentals and says they won’t be back.

addison

I gave up on whaleoil to many biggots and rednecks. Sadly giving up here to many socialist facist thugs who are left overs from from the 30s in Germany, and think socialism is about having the power to ban opposition.
Goodby and good luck I am sure you will do wonders for the political LEFT IN nz

The unwelcoming pack must feel satisfied with another successful hounding.

Addison posted a few comments through February and didn’t attract much attention until late in the month. Commenting icreaswed markedly and normal exchanges developed. Nothing untoward. Familiar signs began from here with a common diss intriduced into the exchanges -  1 March 2013 at 12:01 am – “Great Tory import from UK”.

The prey was identified and attacked severfely and repeatedly on Saturday – that was what the Millsy meltdown was about. Millsy was given a one week enforced rest (once the damage was done) but the prey was bleeding. The niggling continued through Sunday.

Addison had another attempt today but with the usual suspects circling he gave up and departed. This is a relatively mild example but has a familiar look.

Who are the usual suspects? These names were involved to varying degrees as they always seem to be when harrassment of newcomers (and those longwer stayers determined not to be bullied) is involved.

  • millsy
  • Colonial Viper
  • Te Reo Putake
  • McFlock
  • mickysavage
  • felix

Anyone familiar with the attack pack mentality at The Standard will recognise those names. I had them all snarling at me, often as a pack, for over a year. So what of The Standard management? Is it aware of what goes on?

lprent …

I looked at the comment, including the misspelling of Laila’s name and the required incorrect fact every sentence. I was considering writing a reply or a note to point this out preemptively. But then I thought that people would be in wanting to play at squashing this guy’s ego soon enough. Why should I spoil the fun? :twisted:

Management not only allows it, it encourages it. And often brags about doing similar itself.

So if you are an extreme leftie who likes joining in with pack attacks on anyone deemed unwelcome then The Standard may interest you.

But if you want wide ranging debate with a wide variety of views from the left you may be disappointed. And if you give the impression you may have any political inclinations towards the centre or worse, you will be labelled as a rightie, Tory, RWNJ , you’re likley top be continually attacked and harrassed until you can’t be othered any more and flag it. Or until lprent bans you with some concocted excuse.

Note to lprent, Te Reo Putake (‘Voice of Reason’ yeah, right): I’m not complaining, I’m not whining (that seems to be your current line of diss lp), I just think it’s good to have incidents like this on easily searchable record so people can find out that it’s not just them, that it’s all happened before, over and over. The Standard probably won’t be your happy place, unless you are an unhappy frustrated old hard leftie activist.

 

 

by Pete George on March 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on March 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/04/another-kill-for-pack-of-blog-bitches/

Prentice falsehood claims proven false

Apart from the ludicrous right wing claim there have been a number of falsehoods proven Lynn Prentice’s The Daily Post debut in Pete George – an example of right wing blogging falsehoods (and he says “Looks like they toned down my title” – I wonder what he actually accused me of).

Prentice has been full of bluster and bull. And the falsehoods grow.

He repeated Charles Chauvel implications of Minister’s offices feeding right wing blogs, no evidence has been evident and it has been categorically denied by David Farrar.

In trying address criticism and defend his extraordinary claims Prentice has commented at Public Address:

…and found Pete George acting as a parrot for Whaleoil

That’s another blatant falsehood. There is no evidence of this and I have often said I blog independently, and I do.

And in trying to downplay the extent of his Standard blog’s connections with Labour Prentice claimed:

IrishBill – 17 posts. “Labour party member”.In the words of a Tui ad – “Yeah right!”At the last election he saying that he was most likely to vote Mana. And I seem to remember that in 2008, he was planning on voting microscopic Workers party.

He did write a tongue in cheek post about why others should join the Labour party late last year. He’d dearly love to swing the party left and being a member allows a vote on decisions that would help that. It’d be logical for him to follow his own advice. However it’d be hard to find anywhere where he has said he did.

I’ve already shown that Standard comments show this is a very dubious claim, and now IrishBill has confirmed it is incorrect.
IrishBill says:

March 3, 2013 at 8:47 pm

We’re a loose collective at TS. I’ve a policy of keeping myself to myself outside of what I write there but would like to correct a couple of things here. I am a Labour party member (and have been on and off for a long long time) and my call for joining up certainly wasn’t tongue in cheek – having seen what happens when the broader left walks away from the party I’m very keen to see as many lefties as possible sign up now – it’s more important for us to be in the party now than it has been since the dark days of the 80s.

Prentice has also just accused me of avoiding answering questions (which I also dispute):

Spent a lot of time on various blogs avoiding answering questions about his own positions…

Prentice has notably avoided answering questions I’ve put to him in the past, he typicaly launches a blustering attack and then when challenged he disappears.

IrishBill is the straightshooter at The Standard, tough but usually fair. I trust his word on his Labour membershiop.

Lynn, how can I take any of your other claims seriously?

And you said:

“various people believed to have used this pseudonym, all with obvious Labour connections, sometimes used for blatant political attacks, has been proven wrong”.Interesting that Pete George simply repeats dreck from Whaleoil. Well I guess it beats thinking. And I suspect that he edited something out of that statement because it makes little sense as written.

I’ve already said I don’t repeat anything from Whale Oil.

You know very well I have asked you more than once already – do you know of multiple people using a single pseudonym at The Standard?

I think that’s an important question, it affects the credibility of the use of pseudonyms.

Will you answer that?

Or will you be what you have accused me of being – “a liar by omission”?

by Pete George on March 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/04/prentice-falsehood-claims-proven-false/

lprent makes excuses for Millsy favoritism

Chief Standard moderator lprint (Lynn Prentice) has responded to my post - see Millsy meltdown – pointing out the weak action taken against the abuse and threats of violence by Millsy at The Standard .

“millsy” has made hundreds (probably thousands) of comments with few warnings. I acted accordingly for a known commentator who appeared to be having a bad day.

“snodgrass” had made something like 5 or 6 comments, none of which provided any content that looked authentic, and which looked increasingly like a flame troll. It resulted in a ban.

“melli” has made exactly one comment from a mobile phone. They got a direct answer to their question. I suspected they were a sockpuppet of snodgrass and pointed them to the policy.

This simply highlights the favouritism towards a blog regular, and shows how new commenters can be harrassed and banned if they don’t fit with lprent’s preferences. His blog and all that, but it shows why The Standard is so biased towards particular points of views and why it has the culture of abuse and molb mentality it is renowned for.

Saying snodgrass “looked increasingly like a flame troll” while describing the eight attacks by Millsy directed at one person clearly trying to provoke them over several hours as”appeared to be having a bad day” is, well, it speaks for itself.

Claiming “millsy” has made hundreds (probably thousands) of comments with few warnings” may be an accurate comment, not becasue Millsy hasn’t been abuisve – he has -  but simply because he has not been warned for it.

As shown in Disgraceful, double Standard in late January Millsy was not warned for saying:

NO MONIQUE THEY WANT TO TAX RICH BITCHES LIKE YOU SO PEOPLE WHO ARENT RICH BITCHES LIKE YOU CAN HAVE SCHOOLS, HOUISING AND HOSPITALS SO FUCK OFF BACK TO THE FILTHY STICKING DIRTY SHITHOLE YOU CAME FROM

SHE MUST BE DESTORYED AT ALL COSTS, ALONG WITH HER NATIONAL/ACT

FUCKING FILTHY BITCH WHY DOES SHE WANT TO ROB THE EARTH FROM OUR CHILDREN, PERHAPS SHE SHOULD DUMP TOXIC WASTE IN HER BACK YARD

Any ladies on here want to beat the crap out of Monique? Needs a good slapping that bitch.

Millsy has a history of being extremely abusive, but lprent is right, with few warnings. Even though Millsy expected to be taken to task for that – “Calmed down now. I think I’m going to exiled for a bit for that particular outburst.” – there was a soft moderator comment but no action taken – [B: – Glad to hear it. Was just in the process of moderating you then. Caps? nah. Bold caps? Definately no. And the level of abuse…]

Not just extreme abuse but also again suggestions of violence.

“pete george” – a rather pathetic figure who would like recognition. Spent a lot of time on various blogs avoiding answering questions about his own positions, Prefers criticising others and thelling them how they should act. Increasingly ignored by me except when I want to point out things not to do when blogging.

A standard political tactic of trying to discredit the messenger, I’ll let readers decide for themselves who is discredited by this tone.

I usually make attempts to answer questions about my positions, that others don’t like my answers is not me avoiding.

And more hyp;oscrisy from lprent, he has avoided answering questions I have repeated, for example – is he aware of multiple people using a single pseudonym at The Standard?

Incidentally, the reasons for the sluggish responses this weekend were many and varied because moderators were scattered off tramping, involved with family, or in my case at a wedding in a different city surrounded by my partners family and a few bottles of Merlot. We’re not exactly professionals making a living off it. You should ask Whaleoil what that is like.

And do you ever stop being a carping old fossil with limited ability to think about others? Or can we expect you to continue being a whining dipshit speaking to whiners?

I’ll also leave that last comment speak for itself.

by Pete George on March 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/04/lprent-makes-excuses-for-millsy-favoritism/

Millsy meltdown

Millsy is a regular commenter at The Standard (when Clare Curran is not trying to gag him). He went ballistic at The Standard today, resulting in some remarkably meek moderation.

Responding to this…

Addison 6.3.1

Who sailed to NZ started work at 54 on minimum wage. And the started my own business. Now retired with a nice house on 5 acres two yachts etc Not bad for a thick aging failed pom from the UK.

…Millsy began:

millsy 6.3.1.5

Just wait till Labour gets back into power you dirty filthy pommy cunt. We are going to tax the fucking shit out of you to pay for schools and hospitals for the poor.

We are going to tax you out of your flash house and we are going to leave you on the street, just like where you want the poor to be.

AND JOINING A UNION IS A HUMAN RIGHT. YOU FILTHY FASCIST CUNT.

[lprent: Pull your head in. That, while you did make a point, was excessive. It is simply stupid and repitition will be dangerous. ]

The moderator warning isn’t timestamped so I don’t know how much later that happened. Calling that comment “simply stupid” is remarkable, a meek rebuke reserved for a protected species at The Standard.

Millsy continued:

Do you want unions banned Addison. Do you want union leaders thrown in jail and tortured? Yes or no?

Why dont you piss off to some dictatorship where unions are banned.

If you tried to sack me for joining a union I would kick the shit out of you where you stand, And I would take plesuare in it

I’ve added the bolding to highlight the threats of violence.

Addison, if you even think about banning unions and Americanising our health care, I will, come for you.

With wankers like you employing them, then they will join in droves.

By the way Thatcher was a horrible bitch who got off on destroying people living standards.

Without working for families there would be people having to live on the street. Why dont you go to a WFF recipeienct and tell them that they should have all their money taken off them and live on the street. Im sure you will be finding your teeth.

Do you want to Americanise heath care. I am warning you, I will come for you if you do. I will come for you. I will kick the shit out of you 10 times over you mean nasty horrible person. All those poor and working people and unionists you denigrate will cheer me on and probably join in.

‘Addison’ did not rise to the abusive bait throughout this sustained stalking attack:

Addison …

Milsey what hollow threats, that’s all ou have . No argument so threats of voiolence and thuggery. You would have fitted in well in the socialist party of Germany in the 30s. Thank god most of the human race has become a bit more civilized since then.

Other commenters criticised what ‘Addision’ was saying. Millsy continued a free run, including blatant blanket accusations.

ADDISON:

Do you support publily funded health care?
How much do you pay your workers?
Would you sack your workers if they took a sick day?
Would you sack your workers if they joined a union? I bet you would. You nasty fascist cunt. You should have your head kicked in for that.

Im sick of people who want to lock up unionists and bring back slavery. They derserve to be strung up with piano wire.

JOINING. A. UNION. IS. A. DEMOCRATIC. HUMAN. RIGHT.

UNION. MEMBERS. GET. BETTER. PAY. AND. CONDITIONS. THAN. OTHER. WORKERS.

WHY. DO. YOU. WANT. WORKERS. TO. HAVE. LESS. WAGES?

The best thing to happen to Thatcher is for a gunman to splatter her brains over the 10 Downing Street door.

Pity those IRA guys didnt succed is blowing her to bits. Would have saved a lot of UKers from the misery you wanted imposed on them.

How many hospitals would you close to cut taxes?

We need to tax rich cunts like you (who are taking food out of childrens mouth) to give people a standard of health care that the best of the world.

NOW SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR TAXES..

[lprent: shut up and have a week off to collect your thoughts. The idea when you have a warning is to hide it. ]

Now the moderator has stepped in with another meek rebuke and this time a minimal one week ban. The time of the ban can’t be determined. It may have been after subsequent comments by Millsy.

The inaction by moderators was remarkable, but why did no one else criticise what was happening? Someone eventually did, a pseudonym I don’t recall having seen before so not a regular.

Melli

Now wait one cotton picking minute… I have seen people who have been banned ( for life in one recent case) for using far less threatening language than Millsy has in this thread. Where hell is Millsys ban moderator? Or is it only right wingers who get banned on here, for even the feeblest reasons…

[lprent: The reasons are listed in the policy. The section that applies is about “pointless abuse” because he offered no *direct* abuse. So he got warned rather than banned. You of course are buying into the into a. of being a lawyer b. telling moderators what to do. Care to comment?

Multiple highly abusive comments and threats of violence are allowed (by some, until eventually given the smallest of bans). Questioning moderation, or lack of moderation, is a cardinal sin. Here a ban for doing that is implied.

"because he offered no *direct* abuse" is laughably pathetic. The very first sentence of abuse - "Just wait till Labour gets back into power you dirty filthy pommy cunt." - seems very direct to me, as do others, including threats of violence.

Millsy made several milder comments on a similar theme but directed at others, and they have been posted before the ban. The last one:

You want to get rid of unions, privatise health, scrap benefits and bring back slavery.

This will impose misery on thousands of people.

Yeah, everyone who is repelled by abusive violence threatening unionists  wants to bring back slavery.

This string of abusive and threatening comments was targeting one new commenter at The Standard over several hours (2.14 pm - 5.50 pm) - eight comments in all. It was disgraceful.

And the meek response by moderators was also disgraceful, as was the threat to someone who queried the lack of control.

Later two commenters did later comment:

Foreign Waka 13.3.1.2

Whoo Millsy, don’t o this, curb your aggro speeches. Two wrongs don’t make one right. Yes, there is something rotten with the politics of this country but I doubt that Addison has anything to do with it. NZ needs hardworking people and it is OK that those people get rewarded.

Murray Olsen 30

I find Millsy’s internet threats quite repugnant. As much as I loathe capitalism and despise its advocates, physically threatening them on an internet blog is ridiculous. That sort of empty crap is best left to WhaleSpew’s vile army of malcontents and viagra users. My first instinct whenever I see these sorts of threats in a left wing environment is to wonder if we have an agent provocateur and who is paying them. We don’t need it.

I've seen nothing like this level of sustained abuse and threats at Whale Oil.

What was the permanent ban that 'melli' referred to? Probably this one:

Rupert Snodgrass (stupid banned troll)

We marched to save it from Trade Union treason, you Trotskyite buffoon.

What shall we march for next? Actually, I’d be keen for us to march to abolish your right to vote.

A tragedy of the Kiwi condition is universal suffrage. Only those who contribute to society should have a voice in how it is run

And you, Irish, most certainly would not qualify. So suck back on that welfare some more, and tell decent Kiwis how we should run an industry that you know nothing about..

[lprent: It is hard to find anything that you have "contributed" over the past few days that could be considered to be informative or worthwhile. Indeed you don't appear to have any actual knowledge of the film industry in NZ after looking through your comments

FYI: my partner is a director, producer, and has been around the local film industry for years. I'm a programmer and I've worked around the digital arts enough to consider you to be a complete blowhard fuckwit. Basically it sounds to me like you're more of a wannabe than someone who does anything.

But I'm taking your "advice" - you don't contribute here at all.

You appear to be a simple and quite stupid troll. You are permanently banned. ]

Note the moderator modified pseudonym, lprent does that because he thinks it humiliates. Apart from the grossly over the top ban for relatively mild language, this example is also remarkable because ‘Rupert Snodgrass’ was actually having a discussion with another blog moderator IrishBill, who said after the ban:

I liked having him here. I thought he was a fine example of Peter Jackson’s supporters.

Too bad. If lprent decides it’s “hard to find anything that you have “contributed” over the past few days that could be considered to be informative or worthwhile” that overides anything and anyone.

The contrast between the two examples of ‘moderation’ is considerable.

This illustrates the culture of The Standard, where extreme behaviour is ok if you are a member of the Labour Party (as Millsy appears to be) or from a union (as Millsy may be going his comments). But outsiders who don’t meet with the approval of the head of the committee of the co-operative are free targets for extreme harrassment and abuse, or permanent bans.

Commenters at The Standard have been criticising the Labour caucus  for a climate of division, abuse and ostracising of MPs deemed enemies of the leadership cabal.

The Standard culture seems to be of a similar nature and toxicity as the Labour caucus culture.

Nothing seems to have changed since I made my last comment at The Standard last August:

by Pete George on March 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/03/millsy-meltdown/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers