Prentice right of reply on Ben Guerin post

On Thursday I posted Prentice actions “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ.

This related to an lprent post at The Standard: Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit

Lynn Prentice has chose to respond in comments but I think it’s fair to give it equal exposure so here it is in full:

So rather than being a useless lazy critic, lay a complaint with InternetNZ.

I didn’t incite anyone. I wrote an opinion about a domain owner deliberately misusing their domain by non-transparently masquerading as someone else. To do so, I used and published the chain of evidence that showed who owned the domain and what their affiliations were. There was nothing in my post that was a ” ….attempt a targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation…”

This is exactly what the whois is intended for. Now about of strawman arguments that you, Duncan Brown or any other idiot craphouse lawyers invent.

Bearing in mind the gutless wonders that you and other people are about acting on your words, which in this case should be to make a complaint, I’ll write to InternetNZ – firstly asking them to inform me of any complaints (I anticipate none to date), and secondly asking for a ruling on what you fuckwits should be asking them based on your idiotic allegations.

And

BTW: I posted your Open Letter link into the internal forums. I have no idea why you think that we act as a collective (apart from annoying over optimistic statement in the about from 2007 that we have never gotten rid of). We never agree on anything. We operate as a cooperative as has been stated many times and is inherent is the statement about using a trust further in on the about.

So I’d think that your appeal is likely to be pretty useless, even excluding your strange ideas and that I actually run the plant…. But hey, if an author missed reading it – they now have their chance.

I’ve responded in part on that post but will do so in more detail here soon in comments.

Leave a comment

16 Comments

  1. I didn’t incite anyone. I wrote an opinion about a domain owner deliberately misusing their domain by non-transparently masquerading as someone else. To do so, I used and published the chain of evidence that showed who owned the domain and what their affiliations were. There was nothing in my post that was a ” ….attempt a targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation…”

    I think there’s a high likelihood you posted person contact details knowing that some people would probably contact Ben and abuse him like you abused him in your post.

    When Atiawa posted a comment saying they had done just that and encouraged others to do likewise you let that comment through your tightly controlled moderation, which suggests to me you approved of that action and inciting. So that makes you a willing party to that abuse and incitement.

    Reply
    • I wasn’t asking for a right of reply – I really just think you are being a stupid idiot. I was merely informing you of the steps I’d be taking to shut the internet morons like yourself up by exposing exactly how little you understood about why the whois is there.

      I think there’s a high likelihood you posted person contact details knowing that some people would probably contact Ben and abuse him like you abused him in your post.

      And how exactly would you know that? Scraping the opinion out of your burnt in and unthinking assumptions rather than any actual evidence – just as you you usually do? You are rather notorious for being able to have an opinion that bears absolutely no relationship to reality, and then avoiding dealing with anything that contradicts your innate and uncomprehending bigotry.

      The reason that the section from the whois is there, like the screen shot of the youngnats link, was to ensure that readers knew exactly where I got the information from and that it was valid. To do otherwise would have had you and the other idiots around the net doing your craphouse lawyer thing – such as saying that I couldn’t be sure I had the right person.

      There were other checks that I ran making sure that I had the right “Ben Guerin” that weren’t in the post. He was the only person of that name visible in Wellington. His linked-in showed him to be a tech for the young nats, which matched up with the code in his site that linked to the young nats copy of the Labour logo.

      And finally he was working in parliamentary services, which was something that was extremely suspect at best after having Jason Ede running as a puppet master for most of the right wing blogs for many years.

      But as usual, rather than dealing with the issue that was in my post, you chose to make a big deal about publishing the information. Including the identifying information that is specifically public to allow the identification of the owners and operators of domains. You appear to have been too lazy to look at why that detail was actually published in my post. It was there to make it quite specific exactly who I was talking about. That is something that is typically done with addresses, emails addresses and phone numbers.

      I would have done the same for a Mike Smith, of whom there are many in Wellington alone. Or a Lynn Prentice, my few handfuls of namesakes are scattered all over the world.

      Instead you have constructed your own fantasy to fit your personal bigotries despite there not being a word in my post or comments suggesting what you are alleging.

      Pretty typical of the way you operate eh? Make a lie and then ignore anything that contradicts it. But I have explained this to you before….. Might help others reading your bullshit waffle though.

      Reply
      • I was merely informing you of the steps I’d be taking to shut the internet morons like yourself up

        You haven’t been exactly successful at shutting me up yet, as much as you’ve tried. Bullies tend to get annoyed when people stand up to them and call them on their dirty behaviour.

        But you can only censor your own sites like The Standard. The Internet is far bigger than any one person.

        Reply
      • You are rather notorious for being able to have an opinion that bears absolutely no relationship to reality, and then avoiding dealing with anything that contradicts your innate and uncomprehending bigotry.

        Charmingly unaware of the irony again I presume?

        Reply
        • Actually I suspect that you are too rigidly cast into your unthinking attitudes to actually look at any evidence.

          But others who still operate their intelligence may actually read the whois policies amd why they are formed. That is useful for the ongoing debate.

          Reply
          • Actually I suspect that you are too rigidly cast into your unthinking attitudes to actually look at any evidence.

            Not at all, I’m open to any reasonable argument, but all I’ve heard from you so far is abuse and bombast plus a bunch of non specific claims..

            I’m interested in knowing what InternetNZ would have to say about what you did. Whatever they say if it is public information then I’ll learn from it and post it. What about you?

            Reply
      • Pretty typical of the way you operate eh? Make a lie and then ignore anything that contradicts it. But I have explained this to you before….. Might help others reading your bullshit waffle though.

        A serious accusation – can you specify exactly where you think I’ve lied?

        Reply
        • Here. You have directly and deliberately lied about why I put the clip from the whois in my post.

          You have absolutely no way of knowing what my thinking was when I wrote the post. You lied about why I did it.

          Reply
          • “Here” is about as non-specific as you could get, it doesn’t tell me anything.

            Reply
          • Lynn… Pete didn’t lie. He offered an OPINION on what he believed was your motive. Muddying the waters with “You lied about why I did it”, is a deflection tactic.

            And given you said you were heavily monitoring the comments on your post why did you let Atiawa say he had sent a serve to Mr Guerin be posted on the comments thread? What was you intention by allowing that through? I would think you did so to act as a sign post to others to do the same, well that’s my opinion anyway….

            Reply
          • jaspa

             /  19th July 2015

            Whether or not your primary intention was to incite a targeted contact campaign, you still have a responsibility to consider any consequences your posts may have, especially when addressing an audience known for abusive online behaviour.

            Reply
  2. This is exactly what the whois is intended for. Now about of strawman arguments that you, Duncan Brown or any other idiot craphouse lawyers invent.

    I would be very surprised if what you did and how you did it is “exactly what the whois is intended for”.

    Bearing in mind the gutless wonders that you and other people are about acting on your words, which in this case should be to make a complaint, I’ll write to InternetNZ – firstly asking them to inform me of any complaints (I anticipate none to date), and secondly asking for a ruling on what you fuckwits should be asking them based on your idiotic allegations.

    As I posted on the other thread, I have intended putting a complaint to InternetNZ and letting them judge it.

    I chose to delay to give you a chance to respond to my post. That’s something you didn’t allow Ben, you ripped into attacking him and posting his personal contact details and address, acting as accuser, prosecution, jury and judge – but it came across as a vigilante acting on rage rather than common decency and reasonable process.

    I have no idea how InternetNZ might rule but think it will be interesting.

    Your abusive approach doesn’t bother me, I’m well used to it, but I don’t think it helps your arguments, in fact I think it detracts from them.

    And I note that you have very strict rules at The Standard on attacking authors but don’t seem to care about applying your own standards to your own behaviour. That seems like a hypocritical double standard to me. But it’s your choice of behaviour.

    Reply
    • Tell me, have you ever read anything about the whois arguments about being public?

      They have been going on at least since the later 1980s when I first ran across the side debates about them on usenet. InternetNZ does have a PDF somewhere that does explain some of the reasoning around why they are still public 30 years later.

      I’d bet that you never even heard about this debate, and still have no frigging idea why they are public. And yet you opine on it. Pompous fool..

      Reply
  3. Missy

     /  18th July 2015

    There seems to be a lot of anger in this, and subsequent, comments from lprent, name calling is unnecessary in debate, and is often used by those who have no response, lack the ability or knowledge of language to express their response or who want to shut the argument down because they don’t like what is being said. Based on my observations of what I have read at TS I would, at a guess, say that lprent is trying to shut the argument down.

    Reply
  4. Hi Lynn, thanks for the responses. Here’s my take on it:

    1. I have no problem with you identifying Ben Guerin as the author of the spoof site. It was a nice bit of detective work. However, the post would have been just as an effective without publishing his phone number and email address.

    2. Obviously any decision on a complaint to the DNC would be based on your apparent intent (or not) “to attempt a targeted contact campaign”.

    So:
    Why didn’t you just take a screenshot and redact the contact details?

    In a heavily moderated comments section, why did you allow this one to stand: Ataiawa: “I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.” I note your own comment that, “If you put up a website or mail server or anything else under a domain, then you are responsible for the content published under it.”

    It may well be that it wasn’t your intention for your readers to contact Guerin, but neither did you discourage them. And when other commenters objected to the publication of the contact details, you defended it.

    How much responsibility would you take for Ben experiencing, “a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.”?

    Given that you have in the last 7 years “amassed a very large collection [of vitriol] myself,” why would you wish that on anyone else?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  19th July 2015

      “Given that you have in the last 7 years “amassed a very large collection [of vitriol] myself,” why would you wish that on anyone else?”

      He’s trying to get rid of it?

      Seriously, if you have anything to do with Lefties you will get splattered with it. It’s something they emit continuously – like a bad smell. If you want to turn them over, or even just pull them out from under their rocks, you need to wear protective clothing.

      Reply

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