Lauda Finem – from the absurd to the ridiculous

The number of ironies, hypocrisies and absurdities with Lauda Finem have reached new heights in their latest post.

They take aim at many people in New Zealand IRD – The Blomfield frauds, the liquidators, the lawyers, the police and the media collaborators. Including me, where they make some ridiculous claims.

The main target seems to be Matthew Blomfield, who they have attacked many times before. Whale Oil has had an ongoing feud with Blomfield too but I doubt Cameron Slater will welcome Lauda Finem being closely associating themselves with him and his ongoing legal issues.

As aforesaid we here at LF have no such limitations when it comes to who we can name. We also have the benefit of knowing every detail in the whole sorry saga from start to finish. We’ll therefore go through Stephen Cooks article’s above and name those involved. LF is obviously well aware of where this case is going.

They still think they have no limitations in who they can smear and defame? I’m not sure whether that’s plain stupidity, but I can’tt think what else it would be.

They are far from knowing “every detail in the whole sorry saga from start to finish” and have made some serious false assumptions.

We are also confident that it will eventually have a number of particularly malicious and politically motivated people seriously concerned, having played a supporting role in Blomfield’s ongoing criminal behaviour. Key among those who have been hell-bent on concealing some pretty serious criminal offending by the individuals named below are political bloggers Pete George, Lynn Prentice and Greg Presland. All have fallen for the scams and lies that Blomfield’s criminal cabal have employed over the past three years in an attempt cover their tracks.

Anyone who has followed Your NZ over the past few months will have seen exactly what I have done here in relation to Blomfield, which is little and no more or less than I’d do for anyone else. To depict that as “hell-bent on concealing some pretty serious criminal offending” is ludicrous.

Every detail is already in the open here. To accuse me of being part of a “criminal cabal” is so nonsensical it must be a joke, but I think they are serious. Seriously nuts.

Interestingly, once again APN’s New Zealand HeraldHerald on Sunday and the independently owned Otago Daily Times have been implicated in a conspiracy to conduct a smear campaign against the victims on behalf of both Martin Honey and New Zealand’s master franchise holder for Ray White.

Again, somewhat interestingly, the CEO of Ray White New Zealand, Carey Smith was caught out on national television following a TV3 sting operation, an investigation into the fraudulent and rorting behaviour of New Zealand’s real estate agents, including Rat White (NZ) franchise operators.

None of which I have anything to do with.

LF’s investigations into these two particular cases over the past four years has now been expanded. We’re now also looking very closely at the behaviour of at least two political blogs, the New Zealand Labour Party aligned The Standard and another Dunedin based publication, Your NZ.

Political bloggers Pete George, Lynn Prentice and Greg Presland are also being investigated in relation to at least four instances of contempt of court and in addition false and misleading material they have on the face of it also been party to publishing.

When this all comes out in the open – and note that despite them claiming they are under no limitation about what they can say they don’t provide any details. They are relying on bluster, innuendo and insinuation.

That investigation surrounds allegations of another smear campaign, conducted by these bloggers in collusion with Matthew John Blomfield, retired civil servant turned leftist political activist Graeme Wislang, ex-cops turned private investigators Daniel Toresen and his father Danny Thompson.

As already stated, the few things i have done involving Blomfield have been very open here on Your NZ. I haven’t heard of the other people named and have no known communication with any of them.

Peter George, aka “the grey Badger”, failed Dunedin right-wing political candidate, complete fuckwit and ne’er–do–wel blogger

They can’t even get that right. It was ‘beige badger’, and it shows their ignorance describing me as ‘right-wing’,.

The claims and smears against me are ridiculous, as I am sure regular readers here will recognise.

Unlike ‘Lauda Finem’ everything I’ve done has been in the open under my own name.

And what they don’t mention is their now legal problems – and that’s likely to just be the beginning of the unraveling. They are under serious pressure and reacting very badly.

Leave a comment

73 Comments

  1. Jeeves

     /  18th August 2015

    You don’t know Lynne Prentice??

    Reply
  2. Mike C

     /  18th August 2015

    @George

    Look at how rude and demeaning Lauda Finem are towards you … and yet heaven help you or any of us commenter’s if we say anything along the same lines about them.

    It’s a case of “Do as I Say … Not as I Do”, because they have never cared one iota about who they have defamed and whose reputation they have harmed in their Blog, but when someone responds, they become bunch of girls blouses, and litigate til the cows come home. LOL.

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  18th August 2015

      Basic actions of bullies and cowards. If they are so sure they are right they wouldn’t be trying to censor other people.

      Reply
    • BUCK WIT

       /  18th August 2015

      has anyone actually sued them? and what i mean is if anyone was defamed then why not have a go?? i saw when Blomfield took on Slater that Blomfield was the only one suing – none of the others have joined the action, and most of the alledged co-conspiritors are lawyers based on the various stories written on WO – and i would have thought that would have given an advantage over Slater being self represented. Not that the case seems to have done much other than go around in circles, but it did make me wonder if perhaps it was all true what Slater wrote and they ignored it hoping it would go away.

      Reply
  3. Maureen W

     /  18th August 2015

    Looks like a big dose of blog-bullying to me, I wonder why that would be?

    Reply
  4. Maureen W

     /  18th August 2015

    I tried to read the article – should have been subtitled EVERYONE WOT WE HATE”. Never mind, it has all the makings of a good country and western song.

    Reply
    • Really suggest you go right back and look at the old LF articles on the subject, and there were a lot in WO, but I think they have been taken down due to the gaging order! They all paint the same picture over and over many times!

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  18th August 2015

        Hardly a surprise that a small group of people trying to push a particular version of events into the public consciousness would all tell the same story over and over many times. It doesn’t lend their story any credence though, in fact if anything it makes them look a bit desperate.

        Reply
      • Mike C

         /  18th August 2015

        @DaveG

        What “picture” is that?

        Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  20th August 2015

      EVERYONE WOT WE HATE (for Maureen W)

      Well, now, these here are.most of the folks wot we hate-
      There’s ninety-nine hundred
      And seventy-eight,
      And we do hate ’em all, cos that’s just wot we do;
      And if you’re on the list-
      well, you’re in the poo.

      We ain’t rich in heart and we ain’t rich in brain,
      But we’re rich in our want to cause anger and pain
      And we sit at our keyboards and chuckle and snort
      Cos when hate comes to hate-well, we’re just the right sort.

      Everyone wot we hate, everyone wot we hate,
      Poor ol’ Pete’s on the list (number 78)
      He don’t think like wot we think, don’t talk like we talk,
      He won’t hate like wot we do-won’t stalk like we stalk.

      We’re proud to be stupid, we’re proud to be thick,
      We’re proud to be haters, cos that makes us tick,
      And the thing that we love is what makes us all great-
      It’s that there are so many of folks wot we hate.

      Everyone wot we hate-everyone wot we hate…..(fade)

      Reply
  5. Kind of amusing that LF no longer accepts comments for their articles, have their supporters abandoned them?

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  18th August 2015

      @Ugly

      I thought Lauda Finem have never allowed people to comment. When did they cut off commenter input?

      Reply
      • From a quick search the most recent article that I could find that had commenting enabled was from June 5. I’ve been an occasional commenter for maybe 12 months or so and I believe that they always used to have commenting enabled – maybe someone can correct me if this isn’t correct.

        Reply
        • Mike C

           /  18th August 2015

          @Ugly

          Maybe Lauda Finem shut down the commenting because they were scared some anonymous gits were going to start writing caustic comments over in Lauda Finem, like they’ve been doing in here recently 🙂

          Reply
  6. Missy

     /  18th August 2015

    I haven’t read the article, (due to not getting it on my work computer and having issues with internet at home), however, from what is put here it looks like an attempt on the part of LF to try and censor views they disagree with. It also sounds very personal, not at all objective.

    I always believed that in NZ everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law – not thought to be guilty by a mob on the internet, or a blog that appears to believe it is above the law – whoever you are! Also, I believe that everyone should have the right of reply, even those they appear to personally dislike.

    Reply
  7. DaveG

     /  18th August 2015

    I agree almost entirely with what LF writes about the “businessman” and his enablers, even the Journo’s for hire. The entire story fits, especially if one has read the entire story of Hell Pizza, and virtually everything else the Businessman has been involved in. I worked in an allied industry , the businessman had a reputation back then, so surprise surprise! For those who think it’s the [edit] or slater please read the reports on how the [edit] conducted themselves in court over the Honey deal. Same with c Slater, totally different writing style, the LF articles have a legal perspective and go into detail, if I had to pick I would suggest someone with legal and journalistic skills but a but of bastedrey thrown in as well.

    Nb: Pete I don’t think you deserve the singling out LF gives you! Unless of course the businessman has you on his corner pocket which I don’t think is the case.

    Can wait did more and more to come out! I for one want to see the businessman go down there is too much smoke coming from his direction and where there is that much smoke smoke there is fire. Another example – the assault, remember some blamed Slater, but is wasn’t and it’s gone very very quiet, why?????

    Thoughts to you Pete G

    Ps excuse any typos please typing on an iPhone in the Nth QLD bush.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  18th August 2015

      Just this morning I noted that no-one would be falling for the nonsense that LF peddles. I guess I was wrong.

      “Too much smoke” is an interesting observation. Apparently you don’t know how to recognise when someone is blowing it toward your digestive system through their many and various proxies.

      Reply
    • Mike C

       /  18th August 2015

      @DaveG

      So you are saying your spelling and grammar mistakes were caused by the North Queensland bush 🙂

      You’re kidding right ???

      LOL.

      Reply
    • Dave – I’ve some of what LF have done has been worthwhile, and some way over the boundary. On that specific issue I don’t firm views one way or they other, not knowing much detail.

      But having now had a close encounter with this group of people I have no confidence in anything they claim unless there’s good evidence to back it up. I did nothing more than a bit of responsible moderating and allowing someone to have a say that they took exception to.

      From that they have made some ridiculous claims about me and have taken extreme action that looks simply vindictive. Some of what they say and do is just nuts. So I can’t take anything they say about anyone or anything seriously unless well backed by facts, which most of the time with them are absent.

      Reply
    • Kevin

       /  19th August 2015

      “Pete I don’t think you deserve the singling out LF gives you! Unless of course the businessman has you on his corner pocket which I don’t think is the case.”

      I don’t think any of the three bloggers mentioned are involved in anything dodgy. PG certainly isn’t. And Smaug is too thick to be involved in any kind of coverup and for him it’s all about taking down Slater.

      Reply
      • Still smarting over that last ban are we?

        Don’t play such stupid tactics again, especially when I’m tight for time at work and clearly getting irritated for such transparent and obvious game playing. Just state what you think and I’ll notice you less than when I see tactical patterns.

        Reply
        • Mike C

           /  19th August 2015

          @Prentice

          @Prentice

          For someone who is “tight for time” … you have managed to find the time to write 3 lengthy replies to commenters here in this post tonight 🙂

          You’re full of shit. LOL.

          Reply
        • Kevin

           /  19th August 2015

          You mean like how you banned me and then put a warning on one of my previous posts to make it look like you were being reasonable? That game playing? Or the fact that you made out I said something I didn’t and deleted my post so others couldn’t read what I really said? Anyway I had gotten bored with the Corbyn thread as I had gotten all the answers I wanted (Daily Mail is full of shit according to you and the resident trolls / Corbyn was being diplomatic according to the slightly more intelligent trolls).

          BTW thanks for the explanation about the abuse thing. I wasn’t actually looking to get you to admit that TS officially allows personal abuse but there you go. I was actually trying to get you to at least issue a warning to one of your resident trolls or else been seen as hypocrite. But never mind. And I see Gormless hasn’t posted since he played you for a fool. Have you banned him without notice? I can see why you wouldn’t let anyone know as you’d be admitting defeat. Too early to tell though.

          Reply
  8. grumpy

     /  18th August 2015

    Defend yourself by all means but perhaps choose your words more carefully lest you give the impression you are also defending others.

    Reply
    • Unfortunately because of an idiot taking a private prosecution that may relate to that Lauda Finem post, I’m a little constrained about what I can say about it.

      However if they don’t pay their filing charges and serve me with the charges in the manner laid down by the Act, then I’ll be requesting that the judge who allowed the prosecution reverse that decision for reasons of gross incompetence of the private prosecutor.

      But I have September 15th bookmarked when I should be able to write an explanatory post to make the background to the LF post clear.

      Reply
      • GregM

         /  18th August 2015

        Where to start.
        I find you completely unreasonable, quite objectionable, and I think you are actually damaging the Labour movement, but…
        In your attempts to kill off whaleoil the blog, and the person, you have allowed yourself to be taken advantage of by people who have now turned on you now that you are of no further use to them. You’re a clever man, but you didn’t see it coming.

        One person needs to be stopped, we all know who it is, surely this is one thing we can all agree on.

        I wish you the best and look forward to your updates on TS, Sept 15th.

        Regards Greg.

        Reply
        • DaveG

           /  19th August 2015

          Very very well said Greg!

          Reply
        • Who cares what you think. I certainly don’t.

          I think that Cameron and the nutters who congregate around him are dangerous for the process of workable politics in NZ. I make that judgement after 2.5 decades of active productive involvement in base level politics here, and a decade of observation before that. So yes, I want to see him off the blogs and preferably in prison.

          And I always investigate whoever I get involved with directly or indirectly extremely thoroughly. So I’m very confident that you haven’t.

          Reply
          • Mike C

             /  19th August 2015

            @Prentice

            If you were really keen to discuss this topic … then you wouldn’t have banned George.

            Whenever your back is at the wall in the debating chamber … you ban them.

            That is a cowards way of “winning” 🙂

            Reply
            • Kevin

               /  19th August 2015

              Or just bans them and then adds a retrospective warning to make it look like he gave the person a chance.

            • I ban people for their lousy behaviour according to our rules. Obey them and heed warnings and there are seldom problems. Deliberately ignore them and you will get the consequences.

              For instance you must offer your own opinions and be prepared to discuss them (in other words being a parrot means we treat you as a birdbrain). If you express ideas as opinions then people can argue, but if you state them as facts then you are responsible to substantiate that they actually are. Just going around astroturfing or doing pointless abuse might get your dick hormones rising, but it is just someone wanting to crap on my site to me. Attacking authors or the site – well that is just stupid. So is leaving comment in a post that are completely off-topic – like you did here.

              None of those things are “debating”.

              Since I can’t remember you particularly, that probably means that you never did manage to “debate”, you were just culled because of your behaviour. The ones above are the most likely reasons.

              We have a lot of people commenting and a lot of comments. So we cull the people with lousy behaviours that impact on other peoples enjoyment of the discussion.

              Kevin: I left you several warnings the day and night before about some of your behaviours. You dived in first thing in the morning and wrote a pile of messages doing exactly the same things you’d been warned about.

              I also work for a living, and I work pretty hard. That means that I do moderation scans before work, sometimes when I have a coffee at 1030ish, and give up much of my lunch to a moderation sweep around lunchtime. Then sweeps in the evening. If I am doing a large compile or shifting large blocks of data around, or in a particularly boring meeting, then I might wind up doing some smaller sweeps.

              You left comments just after I’d done the morning sweep and before I did a lunchtime one on a particularly busy day. So you got caught at lunchtime. It isn’t “retrospective”, it is an operational requirement. But I’m sure that you will continue to lie about it to salve your injured ego.

              I’m not going to be ‘fair’ to a someone who obviously didn’t read the large number of responses, including my warnings, to his previous comments across several posts.

              Before pulling his dick our and spraying again without checking out the competitions work might work for deranged tomcats – which is what your behaviour looked like. It doesn’t on TS, people learn to check responses to their comments because to debate you have to not be simply astroturfing a meme and ignoring responses.

            • Kevin

               /  21st August 2015

              @prent

              For the record I didn’t see your “warnings” until hours after I made the posts on the Corbyn thread and most of those were in replies to the personal attacks by your resident trolls (yes, I know, personal attacks are allowed so long as they are not pointless). What you did is put the warning on an earlier post and then the ban on a latter one, after I had posted them. Whether you did it intentionally or not I don’t know, but that’s what you did.

              I have to say your responses on the thread were, well, strange. You accused me of not stating an opinion when on my first post a clearly did – it was one sentence yes, and you had to click on the link I provided to get what it was, but it was still there. I suspect if I had provided a link supporting the author you wouldn’t have had a problem.

              BTW, you seem to have an obsession with commenters and their penises. Maybe you need to see a psychologist? Also maybe you should go and visit WO more often. They don’t allow any personal abuse and it’s a much nicer place to be. Just yesterday they has someone new who made a reference to this. Seriously, if you continue to allow personal abuse on your site it will continue to become just a circle jerk of left wing trolls. I know you want TS to be a place of intelligent discourse but seriously, I mean seriously, have you seen the crap your resident trolls put? Actually don’t bother answering.

          • Missy

             /  19th August 2015

            “I think that Cameron and the nutters who congregate around him are dangerous for the process of workable politics in NZ. …. So yes, I want to see him off the blogs and preferably in prison.”

            This is a very interesting comment to me, mainly due to the fact that today in the local English language edition of the China Daily is an article around the Government censorship of Social Media reports relating to the Tianjin blast. What strikes me is the similarities in the reasoning you and the Chinese Govt have for wanting to shut down Social Media sites (or in your case one blog), basically because you think it is dangerous to the process of politics in NZ, them because they think it is dangerous to society for rumours to be spread via Social Media. The difference? They have the power to do it immediately and permanently, they have no culture of freedom of speech and no sense that they have to think of their constituents.

            Have you ever stopped to think that your single minded mission to shut down Cameron Slater and his blog is nothing more than an attempt to shut down a form of debate you don’t like, and it very much looks like an attempt at unofficial censorship. You, essentially in this, are no better than the Government of China – you have no respect for the ideals of freedom of speech.

            I am no fan of Cameron’s, I am no fan of yours, but I don’t see that it is right that anyway goes out of their way, and makes it their mission, to shut either of your blogs down, nor do I think either of you belong in prison for what you write, or who you hang out with.

            Reply
            • Dirty politics where Cameron was not only attacking politicians, but was taking pay to attack (without attribution or the payments) other civilian groups and people, was so far beyond the pale of any moral behaviour that I consider him to be worth getting his kind of arsehole behaviour off the air.

              Trying to pay someone to break into my servers was just criminal.

              If you want to talk about equivalences, try and find any equivalent behaviour in what we do. Then your comparison would make sense.

              Since we don’t do anything even in the same order except in the fevered paranoia of some nutters. It does not.

            • Missy

               /  21st August 2015

              “Dirty politics where Cameron was not only attacking politicians, but was taking pay to attack (without attribution or the payments) other civilian groups and people, was so far beyond the pale of any moral behaviour that I consider him to be worth getting his kind of arsehole behaviour off the air.”

              So, because you are morally opposed to what he was doing you want to shut down his blog? If you were to succeed in shutting down Cameron’s blog who would be next on your hit list? Pete George? David Farrar? This looks very much like you attempting unofficial censorship, no matter how you try to act like you are coming from some sort of moral high ground.

              On the issue of Cameron allegedly paying someone to try and break into your servers, in this country people are still innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, and if he committed a criminal act and there is enough evidence he will be prosecuted and found guilty – but that hasn’t happened. Hacking is illegal, but it is interesting that in the case of someone hacking private correspondence and then passing it on to a third party to profit from it (ie make money) you were not so outraged, you didn’t call it criminal. Your inconsistency in your stance regarding hacking is hypocritical and shows that your stand on this is more about trying to get at your political opponents than it is about any kind of moral outrage. Until you condemn Rawshark and Nicky Hager, you have no right to condemn anyone else you may or may not be hacking for political purposes. It stinks that you seem to think it is okay when it is done by someone on the Left of politics, but it is criminal when done by someone on the Right of politics. For the record, I think it criminal no matter who does it, and anyone who hacks or profits from hacking (that includes authors writing books based on the hacked information) private information and communication for political purposes is a criminal.

              “If you want to talk about equivalences, try and find any equivalent behaviour in what we do. Then your comparison would make sense. ”

              First, what equivalences did I talk about? I mentioned a similarity, and as someone with your self-professed intelligence would know, equivalence and similarities are different, and my comparison would make sense to anyone who understands the basic differences, the fact that you don’t think my comparison makes sense shows the following:

              1. you do not understand the difference between equivalent and similar or
              2. you lack self-awareness and do not understand how you are perceived or
              3. you are so arrogant you believe that you and your point of view are all that is important, and no-one should be allowed a dissenting voice or
              4. you are so fanatical about bringing down Cameron Slater you are blind to what your actions and wishes actually are and the long term implication of censorship of the Right by the Left or
              5. all of the above.

            • Missy

               /  21st August 2015

              oops, noticed (another) typo,

              the sentence ” Until you condemn Rawshark and Nicky Hager, you have no right to condemn anyone else you may or may not be hacking for political purposes.” Should read:

              ” Until you condemn Rawshark and Nicky Hager, you have no right to condemn anyone else who may or may not be hacking for political purposes.” – just to clear up any confusion.

          • GregM

             /  19th August 2015

            You have just proved my point. Free speech is a good thing as long as it only applies to the hard left, Everyone else needs to be shut down or imprisoned.
            If you did investigate the people you get involved with you wouldn’t be in the situation you now find yourself in, would you?
            Pull your your head out of where it’s stuck up and have a look at what is obvious to all except you. You’ve backed the wrong horse to suit your own agenda and it’s now going to bite you on the arse. Good luck.

            Reply
            • Yes of course I did. In my informed opinion, the fantasy that Cameron, [Edited as per court order], and other nutters made up bears about as much relationship to reality as the idiocies about the twin towers and chemtrails.

              But I think it has less to do with their demented view of the world, and more to do with prosaic motivations like revenge and money.

          • kittycatkin

             /  20th August 2015

            ‘Who cares what you think ? I certainly don’t.’

            You forgot to add ‘nyeh, nyeh, ne-nyeh, nyeh !’ And a question mark in the first sentence.

            You obviously do care, or you wouldn’t be here.

            Reply
            • GregM

               /  21st August 2015

              In reply to lprent above kitty ( reply button not there )
              I reckon you’ve got it wrong. Of course there are two sides to any story, but this “businessman” who you seem to trust has left an absolute trail of destruction everywhere he has been.
              You have also got me wrong. I voted Labour 1984 – 2008. I didn’t leave the Labour movement, they moved away from me, and what the working men like us started on the west coast, where I still own a small bit of land where I intend to retire to. I was a member and union delegate of the “printing and related trades industrial union of workers” for 22 years before it morphed into the EPMU.
              I’m a coaster, I was a union delegate, and I still believe in the Labour movement. At the moment we have no credible alternative to the status quo, so to keep the green nutters away from our cheque book I’m voting National.

        • Kevin

           /  19th August 2015

          Smaug has said a few times that TS doesn’t represent the Labour party but represents the Labour movement. If I was the Labour party I’d be hoping that he’s right because they’re is no way I’d want such a blog representing me. And why is it TS has never done an anti Labour-party piece? Compare that to WO which has done a few anti John Key posts.

          Reply
          • Obviously you can’t read. It is the labour movement. The Labour party is one of the political expressions that came out of it, along with unions, various cooperative movements, and much of the impetus towards a fairer society. Clearly you are rather deficient in understanding the history of this country.

            We have done many posts that the Labour party and its MPs and party members consider have attacked it. That you don’t think so probably means that you were incapable of understanding what they said.

            Was that your reading difficulty? Or you never actually read the site and are just being a mindless parrot of someone else’s words? The latter in my opinion.

            Reply
            • Kevin

               /  21st August 2015

              “We have done many posts that the Labour party and its MPs and party members consider have attacked it. That you don’t think so probably means that you were incapable of understanding what they said.”

              Careful choice of words there. Has TS ever done a post purposefully and intentionally attacking the Labour Party and or it’s MPs? I mean afterall TS allows for personal abuse, so long as it’s not pointless.

            • TS is a machine. It doesn’t think. Only a fool would think that it did. And we don’t have an editorial policy.

              You would be better off asking about particular authors.

              For instance you could look up a scathing post I wrote about Clayton Cosgrove after the last election. There was a considerable amount of pointed commentary about how he conducted his campaign in his old Christchurch seat.

              But if you were less of a lazy freeloader in your approach to researching, you could search for them in the TS archives or search engine. Or for that matter here. PG usually documents every minor criticism our authors make of any leftish party.

              BTW: I am always careful in my wording. This is known as being precise. For instance you appear to have a problem understanding the precision in our restrictions on “pointless abuse”. Or “astroturfing” or any of the other behaviours that get people bans at TS.

            • Missy

               /  21st August 2015

              “I am always careful in my wording.”

              So, were you careful in your wording above when you referred to equivalences in reply to my post when I had not made any reference to equivalences? or do you just not know the difference between equivalences and similarities? or is it more that you were trying to dodge the issue of the similarities between you wanting a blog shut down because you don’t agree with it, and the Chinese Government wanting social media sites and users shut down because they don’t agree with them?

              Since you are so careful in your wording I will know that any reply will have been carefully thought out and considered so you can be precise.

          • Kevin

             /  21st August 2015

            @lprent.

            Yes, TS is a machine, or more accurately it’s a series of scripts interpreted by a web server and then rendered by client side web browser. However like businesses every blog has a community and every blog community has it’s own culture – what it sees as acceptable behaviour etc. That’s what people mean when they talk about TS as if it’s a person. And quite frankly the culture at TS is toxic.

            Any reasonable person would have interpreted the phrase “pointless personal abuse” in the context as meaning that all personal abuse is pointless. Otherwise why not just put “personal abuse that is pointless” or “personal abuse that is otherwise pointless”? Anyway and I can’t emphasise it enough, the fact that you allow personal abuse (when it suits you of course, hence the “pointless”) is the reason TS is toxic and will never be the blog of intelligent discourse that you obviously are trying hard to make it. Look at it this way. If personal abuse wasn’t allowed would it have lessened the Corbyn thread any? No. Posters would have still been allowed to argue that the Daily Mail has no credibility and it wouldn’t have affected the strength of their argument.

            And you should really visit WO more often. No personal abuse. Much friendlier environment. And when moderators tell people off they do it without calling them names.

            Reply
      • get Blomfields brother to school you in shower time in a prison. be a valuable education into “soap on a rope” and “thats a nice hurt”

        Reply
        • I have heard that you idiot RWNJ’s consider that brothers are identical and clearly responsible for each other does.

          Tell me more about this pitiful psychosis you have about brothers. Was it sexually derived?

          For those who aren’t aware, many of the horror stories about Matthew Blomfield are actually distorted versions about what is brother did or is alleged to have done.

          Reply
  9. You claimed you were a former soldier Iprent

    I say you are a liar

    Reply
    • I say that you are the arse end of cow with very bad bloat and a urinary infection. It is just as meaningless.

      But I joined the TF in 1977, was in the 1st field amb and very active in whatever duty I could pull until 1982/3. Work pressures of running a small factory for Ceramco and a disgust at the use of the EME’s in the 1981 Springbok tour caused me to leave. I wasn’t a particularly good soldier (wrong personality), but I was a very enthusiastic (and in those days) fit soldier.

      Any one who knows me well also knows how formative that was in the way that I think and act. It carries through to several aspect of my life these days, including how I deal with dickheads being idiotic fools on our site – probably including you. Does it bring up bad memories for you of the CSM or RSM?

      But I suspect you lack both the intelligence or the contacts to check any of that.

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  19th August 2015

        @Prentice

        You are such an arse-hole …

        Reply
      • DaveG

         /  19th August 2015

        Yes. That background explains a lot! Suggest you pop over to WO occasionally and read the comments carefully You might not agree with the political views, but the comments are mostly positive and non abusive Then pick any day at the Stranded, it’s the vipers pit of blogs, with a heavy content of negativity and abuse. This is driven by the commie heavy union influence and is straight reflection of those who operate the blog. Sorry guys, time for a look in the mirror, and a hit tip to Pete George for running a good blog.

        Reply
        • Budgieboy

           /  19th August 2015

          Well said DaveG, every word of it.

          Reply
        • Kevin

           /  19th August 2015

          Personal abuse is official sanctioned over at TS, so long as it’s not *pointless* personal abuse. This means that the resident left wing trolls can personally attack anyone they disagree with. That’s one reason it’s such a cesspit.

          Reply
      • I was not a particularly good soldier – so your a fucking coward

        Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  21st August 2015

        What a virago Ms Prentice is. Her blood pressure must be a worry.

        Reply
  10. Well you took your sweet ass time answering a simple ass question bud

    Reply
    • I don’t spend much time on other sites. Between working all day and operating a blog, I really don’t have the spare time. Answering within a few days is pretty good performance.

      But you didn’t answer my question? CSM or RSM problems – you do look the type.

      Reply
      • Excuses are like assholes….Everybody’s got one.I been asking for months on end and been patiently waiting bud, and I go to school and work night shifts part-time and run a website on top of that.

        CSM or RSM problems??? I wouldn’t know, was only a lance crack

        Reply
        • Excuses are like assholes ! Love it.

          Reply
          • I’ll leave this comment to show what an arsewhoe you are. I’ve trashed another comment that was totally unacceptable, and I believe deliberately trying to create major mischief. If you don’t desist I’ll take more drastic action – you’re abusing this forum.

            Reply
        • For me to see it, you have had to have put in a post that I came back to read. I don’t spend much time on YourNZ.

          Or have done it in reply to me so I’d see it on the wordpress notifications. Problem is that there are only about 10 visible items on that, and I seldom go into the Archive, and it sees replies to me and comment that is on a post in TS as well. So that amounts to a lot of comments – probably a hundred to one.

          It does mean that the best place to ask those kinds of questions is in OpenMike on TS. Or better still use the search function on TS, becasue I have actually answered that question or variants of it many times.

          Reply
          • Right-o will keep that in mind

            Reply
          • DaveG

             /  21st August 2015

            @nzblogger, no thanks to your blog. 1) its not appropriate to advertise your blog on anothers blog, and 2) it looks worse than the Standard. and thats pretty bad.

            Reply
            • I’ve said beffore I don’t mind if people link to their blog from here, or to any other sort of media. Some blogs don’t like linking, especially self promotion, some don’t mind, and I’m happy about it, the more crosslinkung the better (to a sensible limit).

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

%d bloggers like this: