lprent is right

Lynn Prentice is right, in a ‘Labour left’ sort of way.  No conspiracy, in an ironic sequence of comments at The Standard, showing how ‘lprent is right’.

  • tracey

    Well, in the context of the person you and I responded to, who was speaking of “one term wonder”, there is an argument they must have been referring to all mayors.

    I have lived in Auckland for over 45 years and they have always been colloquially known as the mayor of Auckland. Auckland’s mayor and so on…

    But, so as not to sit on the fence, lprent is right cos he runs the show ;)

    [lprent: Argggh don’t say that. I saw some obvious shit while moderating and made a comment about it (that doesn’t happen that often). Now look what you’ve done. I’m pretty sure that PG will have invented a conspiracy out of it by morning. After all it is his forte – making something out of nothing. Kind of like United Future – he was natural fit.

    Hmmmm I’d better stop scanning and go to bed. ]

    • felix

      “they have always been colloquially known as the mayor of Auckland. Auckland’s mayor and so on…”

      It’s all context. And it depends what part of Auckland.

    • alwyn

      “lprent is right cos he runs the show”.
      That is a reason that is totally impossible to argue with.

      It reminds me of the story of when Henry Ford II, the chairman of Ford sacked Lee Iacocca, who was at the time the President of the company.
      When Lee Iacocca tried to argue with him Henry simply told him that I can sack you because “My name is on the building”.

      I was probably only being rather pedantically picky anyway because I’ve finished all the Telegraph and Cryptic crosswords in last weeks Dom/Post issues and was a bit bored.

  • What you demonstrated was that you simply aren’t a native Aucklander, a resident immigrant from elsewhere in NZ or the world, or even someone who actually thinks about their bullshit outside of your little world.

    The old Auckland City council was a teeny area and a teeny population compared to whole of the Auckland city. It was dominated by a couple of pretty rich suburbs where some people voted. They often voted twice or more if they had businesses in the CBD, which is why the Epsom/Parnell and external business cliques tended to dominate it. Which was why we got some pretty damn flakey idiots from the right on the council, including the ever manipulable John Banks.

    Until the late influx of apartment housing and the growth of 50-60k in population in the late 90s and 00s, I think it was one of smaller people populated cities in Auckland.

    Perhaps you were thinking about the old Auckland Regional Council, which ran the cross region services.

    The Auckland Council is larger than the ARC.

    What you did was try to state something that was false to fact, and quite apparent to the Aucklanders uncomfortable enough already with this daft unworkable supershitty that bloody Act foisted on us – ignoring almost everything sensible that was in the Royal Commission’s report.

    You then proceeded to play daft semantic games. The usual response to obvious stupidity ensued. Because you pissed around, ignoring the valid arguments put to you about how daft you were, I’d expect that this will keep popping up as an example whenever you make an unthinking assertion from here on out.

    • felix

      Um, Auckland City was a small geographic area but it actually had a population larger than either Manukau or Waitakere.

      Hardly teeny.

And in fact hardly teeny in area either.

Prentice was in one of his less abusive moods, with some careful tiptoeing by others pointing out that he was wrong. Without backing up their telling him he’s wrong with any links to facts which for some is a ban-able offence 🙂 – but felix is likely to get away with it, he’s one of the usually protected resident attackers.

This final sentence from lprent could be worth remembering:

I’d expect that this will keep popping up as an example whenever you make an unthinking assertion from here on out.

I doubt many will be game to keep popping it up at The Standard.

The facts of the matter – populations as at 30 June 2010 (before Auckland was merged into a super city):

And the Auckland City area doesn’t look ‘teeny’ in comparison either:

The orange area is urban Auckland City (2010) (which includes Waiheke). The urban parts of the other three cities are grey. Areas as at 30 June 2010:

Source: Wikipedia

Further irony considering lprent’s recent accusations:

For anyone interested, Pete George announces proof of a moderator violating the policy with Eddie imposing a ban after PG made an assertion of fact without bothering to back it up with anything.

As usual the lazy fool doesn’t provide it where specified and he clearly hasn’t ‘read’ the policy.


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).

Despite having a track record of making things up and avoiding providing proof of his assertions “lprent is right cos he runs the show”. Classic.

UPDATE: I’ve added links to number sources, it was slack to leave those out, I’d meant to but forgot to add them.

In the meantime lprent has posted on this at The Standard:

I see that PG raised the same point in his usual snide fashion, and as usual not linking to his source – which means that it is useless. He also lied with numbers on the geographic area calcs by carefully removing Franklin District, Rodney District and probably a few others. I guess that was why he left out the source.

I don’t expect him to apologise for accusing me of lying, again. He seems to have a habit of accusing people of lying if he doesn’t like what they say or when he is held to account – when he can’t ban them. When show up his natural inclination seems to be to go dirty/abusive, and then waffle.

He also tried a lame excuse for getting things so wrong:

I was exaggerating a bit for effect, but Auckland city has been falling below a third of the Auckland region population for about as long as I have been around.

“Exaggerating a bit for effect” is lspeak for getting it wrong. He had said “The old Auckland City council was a teeny area and a teeny population compared to whole of the Auckland city.”

He then shows it was 33.7% (1986) to 30.6% (2006) of the greater Auckland population, nothing like ‘teeny’ even allowing for exaggeration, and still the largest of the four component cities in 2010.

Leave a comment


  1. I see you are lying with numbers again, no sources and you seem to have excluded the districts that became part of the supercity. I guess you were just ranting rather than thinking. It is your usual bullshit style.

    Have a look at some census data looking at the Auckland region (close to the bounds of the Auckland super city). The old Auckland city has been falling from a third of the population in 1986 to 2006 censuses. If we’d had the 2011 census it’d have been less than 30% of the regions population.

    BTW: Look fast. I see from the spam folder that you haven’t found a valid example yet of us banning you outside of our behavioural policies. So you’re due to get excluded from the site tonight.

    • I’ve just update with the links I had intended to include, and have also addressed your stock claim I lied – you can apologise here if you have any integrity.

      Can it be assumed that whenever you make claims that are unsupported by facts that you could be “exaggerating a bit for effect”?

      • The specific bit that I pointed to was looking at the land areas of Auckland city without referencing the vast swathes of area that came into the new Auckland city from Rodney district, Franklin district, and probably others.

        Your map showed just the the city portion and looked like it came from 1980. For instance the north is pretty well urbanised through to Owera in Rodney District (down the road from the farm when I was growing up) and it ignored the urbanisation in Waiheke Island..

        Looks like you were only looking at a antique wikipage page

        Urbanised area of Auckland circa 2009

        Even that is wrong because it ignores the strip urbanisation that ran a long way up SH20 northwards, and along the old SH1 northwards (the one that was left behind when SH1 became a northwards motorway motorway)

        Now lets have a look at the map of the current city – the one off the top of google search images.

        As you can see, your area numbers were pure crap in the context of the actual city size. FFS it goes all the way out to Great Barrier, adds in Hunua, South head of the Manukau…. Why bother. Try finding the bit of the map you showed.

        Similarly your population analysis ignored the urban and town populations inside the city in Rodney, Franklin and god knows where else.

        For someone else I’d call this simple sloppy work. But you have a track record of writing bullshit like this.

        It is called lying by omission and is something that you seem to share with Nick Smith who also routinely lies in a very similar way. Don’t show the source of the material and carefully drop a few inconvenient facts that counter your arguments.

        The key sign is to see that the source link isn’t there. Why in the hell do you think that we have it listed in the damn policy. It is a technique common to trolls, grifters, dirty politicians and simple liars.

        “exaggerating a bit for effect”?

        Sigh…. You don’t think that 30% is a smaller portion than 70% in population. I haven’t bothered looking it up, but the old Auckland City area is probably less than 10% of the land area of the new Auckland City.

        I really wish people like you and Alwyn would damn well get off your lazy arses and use your fingers to do some searching before making such complete dorks of yourselves claiming facts that are just complete bullshit…

    • BTW: Look fast. I see from the spam folder that you haven’t found a valid example yet of us banning you outside of our behavioural policies. So you’re due to get excluded from the site tonight.

      The rules you claim I have broken (and you are the sole arbiter of whether they are deemed broken) would appear to be broken frequently by various people at The Standard, including yourself.

      Doesn’t that make your claims that you ban me on the basis of breaking rules a bit nonsensical? Very selective banning for frequently broken rules would suggest at least the impression of some targeting wouldn’t it?

  1. Ultimate ironies | Your NZ

Leave a Reply to lprent Cancel 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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: