Proof that Prentice is wrong

This post provides evidence that Lynn Prentice is wrong in his challenge to me on 1 April 2015:

[lprent: Ok, since you appealed. In effect you are appealing previous judgements. Jurisprudence indicates that an appeal has to find that the laws and process were improperly followed.

I didn’t appeal, he’s either misinterpreted or is fibbing some more. I told him “You’ve pretty much just proved my point. And haven’t got the guts to back up your bull. Have a happy year abusing anyone else you disagree with”.

Instead of posting my response he edited his own lecture adding a number of things including claiming “since you appealed”, which is clearly misleading and looks dishonest to me.

So lets see you find evidence to the contrary in previous bans. Go and find any instance on this site where you have been banned where this site got upset at “…being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”, as opposed to being kicked off for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked.

“This site got upset” breaks one of Prentice’s own rules – “Attacking the blog site, or attributing a mind to a machine (ie talking about The Standard as if it had an opinion), or trying to imply that the computer that runs the site has some kind of mind control over authors and commentators is not allowed”.

I already checked while writing the post and there are none. I have provided explanations each time for why you were banned framed in terms of OUR policy. So show me one where that isn’t the case.

You have consistently lied here and on other blogs about why you were banned. You have been banned from other blogs and then lied about why you were banned. In my opinion, you are a toxic blogger who seems to lie. In all cases you appeared to lie to play the victim.

To give you an incentive – you are banned for a year for lying about this site – unless you can provide one by the end of easter. Then I remove as much access as I can to this site from you.

So he has asked me to prove something but has already found me guilty and sentenced me. One example follows a similar line of attack – threaten a ban unless I can prove them wrong.

who pointed out he’s voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support.

I’m calling bullshit on that, it’s been shown many times that Dunne’s (and UF’s) position was clear to anyone who cared to take any notice prior to the election.

Repeating this accusation is either blatant ignorance, or…

It’s not Dunne who’s angry, it’s a handful of unionists who keep trying to overturn the election result because they failed in November.

[three choices. Present evidence Dunne explicitly said he would support the partial sale of the energy companies and air nz, withdraw your comment, or face a three month ban. You know perfectly well the UF strategy was to never explicitly endorse any sales but, rather, to rule out sales that aren’t on the table, thereby misleading the public on your position on the actual asset sales. You did it yourself here. If Dunne accidentally revealed the truth even once I didn’t see it and nor did anyone in Ohariu. Eddie]

I knew the UF strategy better than Eddie nor Zetetic as I stood for UF in the 2011 election. We did not oppose National’s asset sales policy. I campaigned on that basis. I remember clearly that media also accepted this position and I remember getting that confirmed from at least one journalist..

Eddie nor Zetetic were wrong so I challenged that. Rather than them prove they were right I was threatened with a ban. And later that day Eddie banned me.

Eddie 1.1.2.3

I told you to show Dunne explicitly said he would support asset sales. You have failed.

Your links do not show Dunne saying he would support National’s asset sales. Some mention asset sales that he wouldn’t support selling, but none that he would vote for. Indeed, the comments you link to are exactly the underhand muddying of the waters I mentioned above.

Allegations by Dunne’s critics that he would support asset sales are not Dunne explicitly supporting asset sales.

See you in three months.

So I was banned for nor being quick or thorough enough in proving an incorrect claim had been made. Now it was evening I had time to find proof.

People’s Power Ohariu acknowledge Dunne campaigning on accepting asset sales:

“A lot of voters have told us since the election they believed he was opposed to state assets, although during the election campaign he did say provided there were particular safeguards he would support the sale of state assets, so there appeared to be a transition in his position coming up to the election,” says John Maynard, spokesman for People’s Power Ohariu

http://www.3news.co.nz/Ohariu-concerned-about-Peter-Dunnes-stance-on-asset-sales/tabid/1607/articleID/251883/Default.aspx

Eddie’s retraction of the ban:

[Pete, congrats on tracking down the one time Dunne’s strategy slipped and he admitted he would support National’s asset sales. It took you along time and no-one else had been able to find such a quote. So, congratulations, you’ve proved that Dunne accidentally told the truth once in a forum that no-one noticed. Ban rescinded. Eddie]

Repeating lprent’s challenge:

Go and find any instance on this site where you have been banned where this site got upset at “…being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”, as opposed to being kicked off for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked.

There was no rule violation mentioned and I don’t think I broke a rule. That the ban was rescinded suggests no rule was broken.

I didn’t personally attack an author, I didn’t abuse anyone, I didn’t accuse Eddie or Zetetic of representing Labour in any way, I simply challenged something I knew from close personal involvement was incorrect. I think it’s clear here that I was banned because Eddie disliked me challenging Zetetic’s message.

If lprent’s memory needs refreshed read the whole post and thread, it was not one of The Standard’s better moments – Dunne angry.

If lprent won’t accept one clear example that proves him wrong and proves I wasn’t lying then I can come up with more.

I’m not asking for the current ban to be rescinded, I don’t care about that.

I think a retraction and apology is appropriate from lprent in the same manner he accused me of lying, via a post at The Standard. In particular address this:

You have consistently lied here and on other blogs about why you were banned. You have been banned from other blogs and then lied about why you were banned.

And if he can’t prove I have lied about why I was banned on all other blogs (I mean actually why or reasonable perceptions of why, taking the whole context into account) then apologise for purporting to speak for other bloggers as well.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

9 Comments

  1. Sponge

     /  3rd April 2015

    I can see why you feel like you are owed an apology but the chances of that knob jockey apologising for anything are less than zero. He has his head so for up his own arse he can see his own tonsils.

    The Standard is the Mos Eisley Spaceport of New Zealand political comment.

    Reply
  2. Do you ever read our policy to the point where you understand it? Perhaps you should have read it before writing this post.

    The policy clearly states (and has been in there since about late 2008 or early 2009):-

    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. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

    So you made an assertion of fact and a moderator called you to provide proof on it. This is explicitly defined as being an offense in the rules of our site.

    Because of your track record of avoiding providing proof of your assertions (a tactic that we call avoidance), Eddie imposed a time limit and a penalty in advance (just as I did here). It took you a day to find anything that fitted your assertion, and that was in an online forum that most people wouldn’t have had any access to. However the ban was lifted after you provided the required standard of evidence.

    So no, if you’d put this in front of me on our site as was specified, then I’d have rejected it because it was a moderation based purely on policy.

    BTW: You did “appeal”. After I wrote a post saying that you were a liar on this site about our site, you said…

    Lynn, you’ve accused me of lying in:

    While Chris Trotter at Bowalley is prepared to debate, and Red Alert (the Labour Party blog) is defunct, there’s something in common with a number of the other lefty blogs – they all seem to have an intolerance of views different to their own. That’s not just a lefty blogroll, it’s also a list that contains all the blogs who have banned me (but not No Right Turn bans where all comment except from it’s author is blocked).

    Whale Oil, The Standard, The Daily Blog, Dim-Post and Public Address have all had hissy fits at being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.

    Where is the lie in that?

    Since I’d explained already where the lie was – that we don’t do that. I imposed a ban forcing you to prove your assertion that we banned you because outside of our clearly stated rules.

    Now for wasting my time and being stupid enough to point to a ‘banning example’ where a moderator forced you to provide proof of a similar unsubstantiated assertion of fact, I will have to think about doubling the penalty for wasting my time by making your plea here rather than where it was specified.

    I have to say that you rather remind me of that lazy git Cameron Slater who is currently having to plead for a chance to put an appeal to the Appeals court because he didn’t put in the paperwork in on time last year.

    You have until Monday

    Reply
    • You’ve made a bad start with “So you made an assertion of fact and a moderator called you to provide proof on it. ”

      You’ve got that fairly wrong. Zetetic made an assertion ‘as fact’ – “He lashed out that those who pointed out he’s voting for asset sales he never told his electorate he would support.”

      I challenged that with “I’m calling bullshit on that, it’s been shown many times that Dunne’s (and UF’s) position was clear to anyone who cared to take any notice prior to the election.”

      Zetetic didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim. I was in a far better position to know the facts than him obviously, and was able to prove him and Eddie wrong, which I later did.

      Yet I had been banned for not providing proof.

      And assertions are frequently made ‘as facts’ at The Standard that are not not threatened with bans if supporting evidence isn’t provided – or as in your latest case bans are imposed straight up.

      So you can’t credibly claim that the behaviour is what the ban is for. So what is it other than challenging the author’s message?

      Reply
    • “”Because of your track record of avoiding providing proof of your assertions (a tactic that we call avoidance), Eddie imposed a time limit and a penalty in advance (just as I did here).”

      It looked like Eddie smacked a threat and then a ban on me simply to try and smack me down and shut me up. That was widely commented on at the time, even on that thread if you care to look through it again. Here, I’ll back up my claim:

      I just want to say that I found the attack on Pete disgusting-so disgusting, this could’ve almost been a kiwiblog comments section.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/dunne-angry/#comment-473707

      You have made an assertion as fact without providing any evidence, particularly ironic considering the frequent use of assertions without facts that you and others make at The Standard.

      I won’t threaten a ban, and I won’t give you a time limit (that would be childish), but unless you can substantially back this up with facts then you’ll look like all bluster and no substance.

      And in any case I’ll be able to provide numerous examples of me backing up my comments with facts and links at The Standard. I’m fairly well known for operating that way outside your wee bubble.

      Reply
    • Now for wasting my time and being stupid enough to point to a ‘banning example’ where a moderator forced you to provide proof of a similar unsubstantiated assertion of fact, I will have to think about doubling the penalty for wasting my time by making your plea here rather than where it was specified.

      Lynn, this isn’t a very good look, threatening a double ban if I don’t provide more evidence.

      It’s a bit like Stalin threatening to use double the bullets in the firing squad.

      Surely you can debate something here without resorting to abuse of power tactics.

      Oh, by the way, I thought you would realise by now I don’t care about your ban threats, I’m prepared to stand up to your bluster. You banning hurts you and The Standard more than me (zero).

      Reply
    • BTW: You did “appeal”. </blockquote.
      That isn't an appeal for anything, I simply stated my point of view. You seem to be obsessed with thinking you hold some sort of ban power or something over me.

      I'm not grovelling to you. Get it?
      <blockquote.Now for wasting my time…

      And I’m not wasting your time, I have no control over what you choose to do with your time.

      If you are concerned about time try sticking to facts and try some brevity.

      On second thoughts it could take too long for you to learn that.

      Reply
  1. Prentice proves himself wrong, and more | Your NZ
  2. lprent is right | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s