Belt faked ‘Dodgy Unions’ review?

Whenever there is fund raising on Whale Oil some of the endorsements look like promotional jack ups. They can do what they like on their own blog regardless of ethics or credibility.

But faking reviews on Amazon is a different story – and it appears that the suspiciously prompt review on Cameron Slater’s book was posted by Whale Oil moderator/banner/message controller Pete Belt. This is very dodgy.

The review was under the name of B Edwards:

Didn’t want to like it, but it is unique both in New Zealand politics and political books, and for that alone it needs to exist. Although Cam Slater’s personal distaste of unions is clear and provided as a rider from page 1, the actual content appears factual. The main take-away point for me is that Labour allow themselves to be controlled by the union movement but are actually getting very little in return. If the book achieves anything, I would hope it makes the Labour Party take note and change its direction in proportion.

Brian Edwards, Brent Edwards and Bryce Edwards all denied it was them.

As posted at The Standard – Dodgy reviews by Natwatch – someone did a bit of simple investigating on the ‘B Edwards’. Clicking  on the profile of ‘B Edwards’ profile and then on the Public Wish List (1) link:

dodgy3

‘Keep track of Pete Belt’s Wish Lists’ is a bit of a give-away.

Deceit on Whale Oil is one thing, but deceit on Amazon is a very poor look. Apart from the deceit Amazon states in their ‘Conditions of Use’ under REVIEWS, COMMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER CONTENT:

You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of a card or other content.

Fake reviews and self promotions are a major problem on sites like Amazon (Trip Advisor has also had major problems with fake reviews). It was recently reported that Amazon was trying hard to deal with fake reviews:

Computer says no: Amazon uses AI to combat fake reviews

Amazon is using artificial intelligence to combat fake product reviews and inflated star ratings.

It is employing a new AI machine-learning system that the online retailer built in-house to boost the prominence and weight of verified customer purchase reviews, those marked as helpful by other users and newer, more up-to-date critiques on its site.

Can you trust that five-star review?

That means marketers have taken to attempting to influence star ratings, especially in the initial stages of a product going on sale on any particular site. They post fake, inflationary reviews or pay users to do so on their behalf.

The practice known as “astroturfing” – fake grassroots campaigns – is widespread across a variety of sites and services. Amazon, as one of the world’s largest online retailers, is a significant target.

Belt may have achieved what he wanted – a lot of attention to Slater’s book on Amazon.

But it appears that he is trying to cover his tracks (too late, once outed online it’s out).  Since Belt was outed the reviewer name has been changed:

DodgyUnionsGotchaChanging a fake and misleading name to ‘GOTCHA!’ is as dumb as the fake review. If he had any sense he would take down the review, but sense is obviously in short supply with him.

The user (Belt) had previously posted one review in April 2013, and another two reviews yesterday which looks like a lame attempt to cover his intent.

Now Belt has blocked access to the identifying Wish List – “This customer has chosen to hide some activity” –  but too late.

This is a sad sideshow that won’t help credibility of Slater’s first book – and any promotion or review of the book or any of his subsequent (promised) books will be looked on with suspicion.

Spanish Bride, I know you will be checking this post – taking down the review and publicly acknowledging the stupidity and apologising may repair some of the damage. Otherwise this will hover over any Whale Oil related promotion. The Internet doesn’t forget.

And a side issue – why was ‘Dodgy reviews’ posted under the occasional ‘author’ NATWATCH at The Standard? It’s fairly well known that Slater is now like a fart in a National lift.

Lastly a bit of irony – The Daily Proverb on Whale Oil today:

Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed.

Leave a comment

111 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  13th October 2015

    Oh, the stupidity! Nice exposé, PG.

    Reply
  2. Mike C

     /  13th October 2015

    @George

    Great Detective work !!! 🙂

    It occurred to me last night, that it’s possible that Pete Belt put the dodgy book together all by himself, and that Slater did not have much to do with it at all.

    All of the information contained in the book was available to Belt in the Whale archives, so all he needed was for Slater to sign off on using his name on the front cover.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  13th October 2015

      Don Quixote and his Sancho Panza ride again.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  13th October 2015

        Poor Don Quixote ! He and Sancho Panza were totally misguided but they were honest and well-meaning-unlike Slater and Belt.

        Reply
  3. 4077th

     /  13th October 2015

    Yet another example of how Pete Belt has turned WO into an ever decreasing circle jerk in an equally decreasing echo chamber. If you’re reading the SB take heed. If Nelt is the all singing all dancing “expert” he says he is then this latest move is internet stupidity 101

    Reply
    • Maureen

       /  13th October 2015

      You hit.the nail right on the head …..”an ever decreasing circle jerk in an equally decreasing echo chamber..?

      Reply
  4. Thor

     /  13th October 2015

    Not the only dodgy aspect.
    Simon Lusk wrote the bulk of the book with Slater just adding a bit of juiced up anecdotal nonsense and usual hyperbole.

    Reply
  5. Loki

     /  13th October 2015

    Pete Belt must quit in shame or be sacked. But that would mean Slater might have to actually write some posts..

    Reply
    • An important question – did belt do it with or without Slater’s knowledge and approval.

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  13th October 2015

        @George

        Given that yesterday SpanishBride was desperately trying to drum up interest in the dodgy booklet … I would say that the Slaters were part of the Amazon equation, as opposed to being left out of it 🙂

        Reply
      • FarmerPete

         /  13th October 2015

        Something I learned early in my corporate career is that it doesn’t really matter if they knew or not. Belt is an officer of the organisation and presumably has the authority to take actions on their behalf. Ergo, the WO organisation is caught by what ever he did, on their behalf.
        The whole place appears rotten to me.

        Reply
      • Loki

         /  13th October 2015

        Many years of close proximity to our hero.
        Lazy and stupid. And now cut off from all wise heads that once tried to guide him.
        Only his part time bedmate Lusk left plus a pair of morons

        Reply
  6. Hulk

     /  13th October 2015

    Hilarious..
    What political consultancy business?
    Who would pay this clown show for advice?
    Lusk writes the post that feature reasonable Grammar and Slater wraps them with a few big words that are usually out of context.
    So of course Lusk wrote this pamphlet.
    Slater would struggle to write anything without a crayon

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  13th October 2015

      @Hulk

      What on earth does Slater do with his time these days if he has got people like Belt and Lusk and Cook and his Wife writing all of his posts for him?

      It doesn’t make any sense … unless he is ill or something?

      Reply
  7. FarmerPete

     /  13th October 2015

    I lost all respect for WO and Slater when it emerged that their opinion was for sale and that many of their posts were paid character/corporate assassinations. Absolutely zero journalistic integrity.
    It does not surprise me given the above that they would stoop to this tactic. What does surprise me is how inept Belt was. An own goal of the ‘highest quality’!
    I can think of no reason to read the book, let alone buy it. If you look at the totality of the murk WO has been surrounded by, you would have to conclude they might be in the early stages of ‘circling the drain’.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  13th October 2015

      @FarmerPete

      Slater’n’Co stopped circling the drain a while ago … and I reckon that they are halfway down the pipe now. LOL.

      Reply
  8. rayinnz

     /  13th October 2015

    Talk about amateur hour…….pathetic doesn’t cover it

    Reply
  9. With the Whale Oil thing we apparently get journalism, from (we’re told) at least one journalist. We get the torrents of criticism and causticity about the MSM. There is implied integrity and ethics with lashings of righteousness. It is not some boutique specialist store or salon, it is like the Warehouse, one store for all, for everything. It is a shop all over the shop along with healthy doses of psychopathy.

    Media for information, media for entertainment, media becomes entertainment.

    Reply
  10. Rob

     /  13th October 2015

    Fancy being dumb enough to use the name B Edwards. That alone is more than enough to tweak peoples interest. The 5 stars was a bit over the top as well. Read the free sample and can’t see even the beginnings of a 5 star. “Sources told me” yeah well…..
    What’s the bet Belt falls on the sword and says it was done without the Slaters knowledge. I’m most definitely not a fan but never thought they would stoop that low.

    ‘So low they could parachute from a snakes ass and still freefall’. Sir Les Patterson

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  13th October 2015

      what’s the bet Belt does nothing of the sort… no falling on any swords, or falling from snake’s arses… He’ll just suck it up and continue doing what he’s always done… running interference for Slater and co…

      Reply
  11. Nick Fury

     /  13th October 2015

    The one Journalist is a p head who is milking Slater. Honestly, that series of posts on the Indian conman could have been dealt with in a couple of posts. He managed to spread that out over weeks.
    His jihad on John a Key is like a spoilt little girl having a tanty because she has to go to bed.
    He only has his occasional bed mate Lusk left. Everybody else had been burnt and fled.

    Reply
  12. Guest

     /  13th October 2015

    It appears the review has been removed/deleted. You can still see the cached version but there are now no reviews on the Amazon.com page for the Dodgy book.

    Reply
  13. Mike C

     /  13th October 2015

    After having a high profile in here last night whilst seeking attention and free advertising for the Slater’n’Co booklet, SpanishBride is certainly very conspicuous by her absence in here this morning 🙂

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  13th October 2015

      She’s busy posting out all the books. Special signed copies with a personal message today.
      ‘Dear suckers, thanks for the extra $10’. Cam Slater (Author).

      Reply
    • She’s busy at a meeting today, involved in a project developing a curriculum and programme for charter schools – “Ethics and Honesty”. With that other great expert in those fields, J A Banks. 😊

      Reply
  14. 4077th

     /  13th October 2015

    Seems the review has been taken down.

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  13th October 2015

      …aaaand replaced with another reviewer’s comments ‘outing’ the ‘Dodgy Reviews’ scandal

      Reply
      • 4077th

         /  13th October 2015

        SB has left a comment about the “review” being defamatory. No hint of what happened to the first “review”! I don’t wish her any ill will but she should not have commented at all and reported the review…It just looks ugly.

        Reply
        • jaspa

           /  13th October 2015

          And now she has edited that comment, removing the word defamatory and rendering Blair Mulholland’s comment a bit meaningless and confusing. More bad form.

          Reply
        • Kevin

           /  13th October 2015

          The review is defamatory and goes beyond honest opinion. The reviewer even admits that he hasn’t even read the book.

          Reply
          • It isn’t a good look from him either. It’s a shame to see Amazon reviews misused used like that.

            Reply
          • Guest

             /  13th October 2015

            @Kevin
            It’s not defamatory! And even if it was, ‘truth’ is the ultimate defence.

            Reply
          • Rob

             /  13th October 2015

            You seem determined to keep your head firmly buried in the sand Kevin. You also seem determined to defend these people no matter what. Do you agree with their actions in this case (if true)? Why don’t you go to WO and ask if the allegations about the original review are true. I’m sure you’ll get a very quick response.

            Reply
  15. Not Gotcha

     /  13th October 2015

    Thick as two short planks… the both of them

    Reply
  16. Maureen W

     /  13th October 2015

    Surely Belt’s work is now done?

    Reply
  17. spanish fool

     /  13th October 2015

    the dodge review was mirrored to amazon.co.uk,… and is still up…

    Reply
    • Maureen W

       /  13th October 2015

      @ spanish fool – good to see 11 of 19 people found the review helpful

      Reply
  18. Kevin

     /  13th October 2015

    Despite what’s been said I wouldn’t call it a dodgy review. From what I’ve read of the book so far it’s quite accurate. Also, over on The Standard most of the posts are attack the messenger type. There’s not one which criticises the actual content. The closest are these:

    “Smilin 4
    13 October 2015 at 12:40 am
    Slater and his crying wolf, the Unions pay tax dont they, is the rate anywhere near the corporate welfare rate disclosed away back by Bruce Jesson’s in Behind the Mirrored Glass?
    I wouldnt think that has increased
    Does he really think anyone cares about his point of view after reading Dirty Politics”

    “Pascals bookie 9.2
    13 October 2015 at 10:43 am
    “Why then do they not finance more of the party?”

    Coz it isn’t a pay for play system probably, unlike Slater’s silly blog.”

    The former is strawman and the latter doesn’t make sense.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  13th October 2015

      It’s not a dodgy review, it is a puff piece posing as a review and pretending to be written by an independent columnist. In short, fraud.

      Reply
    • 4077th

       /  13th October 2015

      @Kevin
      That “wooooosh” sound you hear is the whole story going over your head 🙂

      Reply
    • It is a foolish thing and misleading – and can easily be described as dodgy…

      What is interest as well there is smilin 4’s comments about Unions paying tax….. hahaahaha ask Matt McCarten about that!

      Reply
    • Rob

       /  13th October 2015

      “Despite what’s been said I wouldn’t call it a dodgy review.”
      Do you know what a shill is Kevin?
      How would you know how accurate it is. Do you have access to the same sources as Slater?
      It’s ‘a source here told me, a source there told me’. How much of that is truth and how much is fiction. Something none of us can know. Sure some of the info is accurate. It’s publically available and I’d assume his personal feelings are accurate, but who knows if his desciption of certain people (unionists) is accurate. Sounds more like anecdotes to me.

      Reply
    • Maureen W

       /  13th October 2015

      @ Kevin
      ..”Despite what’s been said I wouldn’t call it a dodgy review”..
      Put down the Koolaid Kevin, it’s a dodgy review because it’s been placed by an “interested” party using a fake id to “trick” people that it’s an unbiased review of the book. The deceit was exposed quickly, leaving a sense of try-hard amateurism.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  13th October 2015

        I’m not talking about the way it was done but the content of review. As far as reviews go it’s good, but it doesn’t exactly rave about the book and really pump it up.

        Reply
        • Mike C

           /  13th October 2015

          @Kev

          Your comments in here, in response to criticism of the Slaters reminds me of the saying:-

          “There are none so blind … as those who do not wish to see”

          Reply
        • jaspa

           /  13th October 2015

          @Kevin

          The “review” is completely fraudulent. In whose world could that be called good?

          I wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon took it down themselves when apprised of the situation.

          Reply
        • Maureen W

           /  13th October 2015

          @Kev
          As far as the review you’re referring to is concerned, it’s now been removed, and replaced by a more accurate commentary. With regard to the second part of your comment “..As far as reviews go it’s good, but it doesn’t exactly rave about the book and really pump it up…, you’re still swilling the Kool Aid. The review was rated 5*****, and starts off with “Didn’t want to like it, but …” and is written by someone with a financial interest in the book. Which part of sad and pathetic don’t your understand?

          Reply
  19. traveller

     /  13th October 2015

    Is this the same Pete Belt, the IT hero who failed to secure Slater’s system and archives from cyber attack and who then went on to oversee a forum he dumbed down to a sycophantic echo chamber?

    Reply
    • Maureen W

       /  13th October 2015

      @traveller
      As I asked earlier traveller, “surely Belt’s work at Whaleoil is now done?” What else is there left for him to do, call the remaining audience “sychophants”?

      Reply
    • 4077th

       /  13th October 2015

      @Traveller

      Yes the same Pete Belt asleep at the wheel leaving Hager and Rawshark to slip one up WO’s blow hole. The same Pete Belt that has turned away revenue with his flaky mood driven ban hammer and yes, the very same Pete Belt who single handedly sucked all the life out of WOBH with cat video’s, no changing your avatar to sympathise with a cause, no swearing in case we upset “screw loose, god botherer” Lesley but continue to perpetuate the hypocrisy prefixed with “caution, bad language”…Yep, that’s him!

      Reply
      • Loki

         /  13th October 2015

        To be fair to Belt.
        You cannot tell slater anything and having whaleoil0 as your password on everything didn’t exactly make it hard for whoever opened him up.
        As our hero is a retard we are probably at whaleoil12 by now

        Reply
      • Maureen W

         /  13th October 2015

        @4077th – All Belt now needs to do, is bring out his ban hammer and send to the naughty-corner based on low-cal comments that don’t challenge the blog posts nor add anything new to the blog. I would think that should just about finish it off. Mission Accomplished!

        Reply
    • jaspa

       /  13th October 2015

      The same IT hero that faked a review on Amazon using his own account? XD

      Reply
  20. Rob

     /  13th October 2015

    1 review, well more of a comment than a review. Juana has replied, calling it defamatory.
    Not a peep about it on WO. Probably all scared they’ll get banned if they mention it.

    Reply
    • Maureen W

       /  13th October 2015

      @ Rob
      Another elephant in the room. Must be getting tight for space now, they have more elephants than Africa

      Reply
    • Rob – how would you know if someone had commented on it at WOBH?

      Comments just go into moderation and don’t appear… question that with moderators and you can cop a ban…

      Reply
      • 4077th

         /  13th October 2015

        @Dave1924

        Yup, there is is right there! The dictatorship in action. Anyone even mildly alluding to it would be gone in nanoseconds. That is why the place is over sterilised like a hospital. I hope Cam wakes the fuck up and gives Belt the arse card.

        Reply
  21. 100 pages?! I’ve read longer children’s books to my daughters. Reminds me of those large print policy books that ACT MPs used to write when Prebble was leader, except at least they had some substance and new information in them.

    Cut the crap Slater, where’s this magical book on Dirty Politics that was supposed to put Laila Harre in prison?

    Reply
    • traveller

       /  13th October 2015

      Feel I have to resort to our old friend Machiavelli again here Blair.

      The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.
      Niccolo Machiavelli

      Reply
    • Rob

       /  13th October 2015

      @blairmulholland
      C’mon Blair, give the man a chance. There are rubes bank accounts to be massaged here.

      Reply
      • traveller

         /  13th October 2015

        Giving reviews of a product you have a pecuniary interest in has character implications. Using a traceable profile to do so has intelligence implications. Did the circle of trust (CS,JS and PB) discuss giving an own review or did Tonto do it of his own accord?
        Most kids have more of the IT smarts about them in Primary School.

        Reply
    • 4077th

       /  13th October 2015

      That will be the sound of crickets and tumbleweeds…

      Reply
  22. Joe Bloggs

     /  13th October 2015

    This is a sad state of affairs.

    That a once-promising voice-of-reality should be reduced to spruiking his own mental meanderings under assumed names says a lot for what Whaleoil has sunk to… talk about a blog that has passed its prime…

    Reply
    • traveller

       /  13th October 2015

      “mental meanderings” :mrgreen:

      Reply
    • Mike C

       /  13th October 2015

      @JoeBloggs

      There were at least a couple of usernames that were not familiar to me, who were here in Georges blog last night espousing the merits of the Dodgy Booklet, that I now wonder if they also belonged to Belt and the Slaters 🙂

      Reply
  23. traveller

     /  13th October 2015

    Don’t hold back ladies and gentleman. Slater will appreciate the sledging after all he’s the man who said this on NBR in 2013.

    “What people don’t get is that politics is a game, the best game in town, there are no rules, and the squeamish don’t survive.

    I am just being a realist…if people don’t like that then stand by all means but know that you are coming unarmed to a knife fight, and people like me have brought shotguns to the fight.”

    Reply
  24. Who is Owain Glyndwyr apart from a dead Welsh Prince of late 1300’s early 1400’s….. and why is he posting comments on Mr Slaters book on Amazon….

    Any relation to Dr David Menkes?

    Reply
    • Maureen W

       /  13th October 2015

      Don’t know who Owain Glyndwyr is, but he’s certainly putting a cat among the pigeons on Amazon.com for the “Author’s” book.

      Reply
    • 4077th

       /  13th October 2015

      Probably Bummer Bradbury getting the boot in. He’s copped a constant kicking from WO for years and not had a lot of return fire capability. How clever of Belt to just hand him the bullets! It’s a delicious irony if true 🙂

      NB: Bradbury is a twonk and deserves no political oxygen IMHO of course.

      Reply
      • Well that user name links to a different name when you follow it through and click on their wish list… doesn’t means its that person I suppose but….

        Reply
        • Loki

           /  13th October 2015

          Dave 1924 is Juana. Hi Juana, you are a textbook case of Stockholm syndrome.
          We shouldnt mock you, but you are making it increasingly hard not too with your blind slavish devotion to him in the face of the tsunami of mocking that he is getting over the way you have all handled the launch of simon lusks pamphlet.
          I hope you get out one day.

          Reply
          • Mike C

             /  13th October 2015

            @Loki

            What !?! 🙂

            Reply
          • Mike C

             /  13th October 2015

            @Loki

            What makes you think that Dave1924 is Spanish Bride?

            I don’t think they are the same person 🙂

            Reply
          • Mischief making as per your name. No i am a complete separate person and sex. You though are an odd and unknown entity…. take your meds ; )

            Reply
          • Guest

             /  13th October 2015

            I’m beginning to think Pete Kane is the same person…

            Reply
            • Please don’t speculate or accuse of the identification of people using pseudonyms. And I think you are wrong.

  25. A little boy caught red handed is likely to rip the legs off his younger sister’s doll merely to get revenge on the world or to get at her because she is untroubled and doesn’t deserve to be like that.
    With this stuff on here what is the reaction to be?

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  13th October 2015

      @Duperez

      Could you please translate the language with which you wrote your above comment … from “Analogy into English” 🙂

      Reply
      • You mean write it in Slaterspeak? You don’t have to be an Einstein to work it out of course. Which nicely brings me right into context, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters” ― Albert Einstein. 😊

        Reply
  26. Rob

     /  13th October 2015

    Juana is now saying that what “Dodgy Auckland academic, Dr David Menkes” posted is dirty politics from the left. LOL She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I’ll give her 1 thing, she has bigger balls than the cowards Slater and Belt who appear to be hiding behind the womans skirt.

    Reply
    • Sponge

       /  13th October 2015

      It is not inconceivable to me that this could be a set up from the dirty politics crew on the left. I mean it is easy to set up an Amazon account and a review and then “expose” it. Say what you will about WO but they are not complete morons. Which you would have to be to do something as mind numbingly stupid as this.

      Reply
      • jaspa

         /  13th October 2015

        Someone from the left set up an Amazon account prior to 2013 in Pete Belt’s name, in preparation for this day? Hmmm, no, I think it is more likely that WO are complete morons.

        Reply
        • Sponge

           /  13th October 2015

          I stand corrected jaspa – I was not aware the account was set up that long ago.

          Reply
          • Mike C

             /  13th October 2015

            @Sponge

            It is very refreshing to see someone from the Whale admit that they’re wrong.

            Thanks for that 🙂

            Reply
            • Sponge

               /  13th October 2015

              Mike – I have not “been from the Whale” for about a year. I left after becoming disillusioned with the treatment of the commenters on the site.

              I will always admit it when I am wrong.

      • Maureen

         /  13th October 2015

        No, Whaleoil would have run the story as advertising if that were the case. There’s nothing about the book on WO today, just every other political website and Twitter.

        Reply
        • There’s a post on it now: SOMEONE ON THE STANDARD GETS IT

          But someone at Whale Oil doesn’t get what a mess they have made of their Amazon launch.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  13th October 2015

            From Slater
            “The Standard has attacked Dodgy Unions, shooting the messenger and not even bothering with the message.”
            They,ve done nothing of the sort, the article is about the dodgy review and that’s it. Nothing about the content of the book. Typical Slater attempt to twist the truth. And the dunces lap it up without even blinking.

            Reply
      • Rob

         /  13th October 2015

        They’re not denying it and to leave a comment it seems you have to have made a purchase from Amazon. “The user (Belt) had previously posted one review in April 2013…” which is well before the shit hit the fan with Dirty Politics so the account is obviously real. Only other possibility is someone has his password or Amazon has been hacked (highly unlikely). In other words, they’re morons.

        Reply
  27. Pete Kane

     /  13th October 2015

    Look forward to the review of Mr Slater’s debut novel on National Radio’s Nine to Noon show.

    Reply
  28. Brown

     /  13th October 2015

    Nearly 100 comments Pete. You’ll get a telegram from the Queen.

    Reply
  29. John W

     /  13th October 2015

    I took the plunge purchased it, read it and reviewed it. It’s up on the Amazon page. It’s a disappointing short book, short on new info, short on analysis.

    Reply
    • Guest

       /  13th October 2015

      @John W
      I read it. You were generous with your stars. Seems CS over-promised and under-delivered. Do you feel embarrassed for him?

      Reply
      • John W

         /  13th October 2015

        I just feel like I wasted my time reading it. It’s a coherent read and some numbers are compiled. If this is a way to monetize readership I doubt it’ll succeed.
        I wouldn’t say embarrassed, just dissatisfied.

        Reply
  30. RightOfGenghis

     /  13th October 2015

    Pleased to say I’ve had the dubious pleasure of meeting the man in the flesh as it were. Besides possessing a foreign accent and being somewhat overweight, I’m pleased to report contrary to popular belief he only has one head and doesn’t have the wild eyed stare of a serial axe murderer. Boringly normal really.
    BTW Pete I want to enjoy my trim milk latte with one of my two surviving friends unmolested, I honestly don’t give a flying you know what why you banned me. Explaining is losing.
    Cheers RoG

    Reply
    • DaveG

       /  16th October 2015

      Good on you for standing your ground ROG, I’m over the Slater hatred on here, any opportunity it’s attack attack attack, like a bunch of kids iN a schoolyard fight, or Tiso’s Twitter terror gang. I suggest a read of the stranded, and look at the venom of. The comments, and also the calibre, very similar. To the comment or above, Loki stating Dave1924 is Juana, well how wrong you are once again, or is that Lynne?? Can you provide any evidance, anything, it’s the second time you have said this commentor is someone else, and been wrong.

      Reply
  1. Dodgy Unions – review | 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