Whale shit

Bigger than bull at Whale Oil.

The campaign against Golriz Ghahraman is still rambling on at WO. Yesterday was quieter, with ‘just’ a lame cartoon plus another dirty Photoshop posted by Juana Atkins.

But they are back at it with two posts already today, with some Whale sized shit from Slater.

With all of the revelations we’ve seen about Golriz Ghahraman over the last week, I had expected the story to be picked up by the mainstream media.  That’s their job right? To report on facts and raise issues of concern about the current government, particularly when it comes to lies and deception peddled by our Members of Parliament.  Yet it’s been strangely quiet.

Media were all over it when the story broke, and for a day or two afterwards, and then it subsided, as is the norm for stories. What I think Slater means is that the media are quiet now while he is trying to beat a dead horse story.

So far, the mainstream media have stayed away from this story in droves.  They seem unwilling to publish anything that might make this Government look bad.  Stories the previous Government would have been castigated about for weeks seem to slip quietly under the rug.

From the 26th November (Tuesday) all the main media outlets covered the story. Therre is even a new opinion piece on Stuff today by Damien Grant: ‘Why I admire Golriz Ghahraman’:

We like to hold our elected representatives to an impossible moral standard. The few who can achieve such purity are so devoid of drive and ambition that they are ineffective in the blood-spattered arena that is modern politics.

Fudging your CV, embellishing the past and periodic acts of bastardy while appearing angelic – even as the viscera of your opponents taint the edges of your apparel –  are prerequisites for a successful life in politics.

John Key was called the smiling assassin. Jacinda Ardern’s first act as leader was to nudge Metiria Turei under a recycling truck while empathetically embracing the nation’s  impoverished children in a Kate Sylvester dress.

Ghahraman can have no complaint that Quin has brought these issues into the light. When you stand for office such scrutiny is expected but I do not care if Ghahraman fudged her CV or had photos taken with war criminals.

We vote for people because we want them to get things done. There isn’t any point in marrying a eunuch or voting for a saint.

Slater does not seem to favour the saintly style of blogging, but seems to expect unblemished politicians (except ones he is shilling for) and media.

He closes his post wanly:

We are long overdue some real balance by the mainstream media.

Unwittingly witty. He wants ‘real balance’ from other media. That’s kinda cute given his own degrees of imbalance.

Like this:

Photoshop of the day

by SB on December 2, 2017 at 1:00pm

Slater seems to have approved of this, he has commented in the thread.

This is whale sized shit.

And he wonders why media don’t continue his political attack campaigns any more.

109 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  December 3, 2017

    ever thought of just ignoring W.O….he really wants..attention..these days.

    • Corky

       /  December 3, 2017

      And he seems to be getting it. The Whaler is where ”it’s at ” for many people, Blazer. You should have ignored this thread and finished your Instant Coffee.

      • PDB

         /  December 3, 2017

        I think you’re in denial Corky – I’d suggest most people wanting a right-wing blogging slant are more likely to visit Kiwiblog nowadays. Quite often Slater picks up on stories from a post Farrar has made.

        • Gezza

           /  December 3, 2017

          Cam’s depressing. Even the Court staff probably all go & sob in the toilets when they get the notifications he’s heading there again.

        • Corky

           /  December 3, 2017

          I think it’s how you present a blog. Whaleoil is a well set out . Kiwiblog would be more my style, but I once took a look and moved on. It’s like a circuit diagram for a sociopaths mind. What can I say, I like Whaleoil, warts and all.

          • PDB

             /  December 3, 2017

            Since ‘dirty politics’ Slater comes across as even more bitter and washed up, even more so in his attacks on Bill English. The Len Brown affair was his peak and its all been downhill since.

            If Farrar posted to the extent Whaleoil does his blog would easily be the main right-wing blogging voice in this country.

            • Corky

               /  December 3, 2017

              ”I’d suggest most people wanting a right-wing blogging slant are more likely to visit Kiwiblog nowadays.”

              That’s a moot point, but probably correct. However, Whale Oil also runs some good general articles and threads that aren’t Rightie specific. They would also attract more of the Right who aren’t ”politics obsessed.”

      • Blazer

         /  December 3, 2017

        the irony is that Bin Laden,was not charged with any crime,was not convicted of any crime,and was merely executed because he was the ‘bogeyman’ construct of an imperialistic regime.

        • PDB

           /  December 3, 2017

          I’m sure he would have had an interesting tale to tell if he was given the opportunity…

        • phantom snowflake

           /  December 3, 2017

          “Buried At Sea” lol. He’s probably still sipping single malts at George W. Bush’s ranch, growing fat on the royalties for usage of his name and image. Hey! That would a great short film!

        • Trevors_elbow

           /  December 3, 2017

          Apologist for a mass murdering thug. You’re a wonder Blazer…. inbelievable

    • adamsmith1922

       /  December 3, 2017

      Agree

  2. Expect more of this Pete.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 3, 2017

      Correct, there is a contagious epidemic of Rightie rabies going around … transferred by pathobloggery [new word # 106] … and frequently fatal to emotellectual contemplation, consideration and understanding … assuming the ‘infected’ sufferer hasn’t already had their emotellect surgically lobotomized by the school system and general acculturation.

  3. Bad on you for making me look over there.

    However, that said, if he’s right on his position that the UN doesn’t actually have a paid intern programme, then she’s in for more trouble.

    • Blazer

       /  December 3, 2017

      a witch hunt based on semantics any fair minded person would reject…

      • wackAmole

         /  December 3, 2017

        “Slater does not seem to favour the saintly style of blogging, but seems to expect unblemished politicians (except ones he is shilling for) and media”

        There is a world of difference between a blogging “career” and a public official position on 6 figures of tax payer money when it comes to expectations of standard of conduct.

        • PartisanZ

           /  December 3, 2017

          That’s Right wackAmole, you gotta be able to shit WHALE SIZED to hold down a blogging “career” like Slater’s …

          I agree with Blazer’s first comment, why give it oxygen?

      • She’s a BSer blazer – come on. She’s the worst sort of a Look at Me gal, she’s so consumed by conceit, so lacking in self-awareness that she is unable to admit to her deception. She can’t even apologise and she will never live it down.
        As Chris Trotter says,

        “Describing her fairly modest role in the massive UN exercises known as the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and the Special Tribunal for Cambodia (ICTs) in terms that made her sound like Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Alamuddin Clooney all rolled into one, really was asking for, if not trouble, then most certainly some pretty close enemy scrutiny.”

        • Blazer

           /  December 3, 2017

          dear oh dear,you are letting your politics blind you from reality.A young woman who has made a career path for herself,seeking out opportunities to hone her craft,should be applauded ,not denigrated by the mundane,mediocre,lazy,and inept commentators who pose as…journalists to be taken seriously.

          • She has absolutely lied by omission. She had ample occasion to alter many false narratives about her and to correct a false perception of her and she didn’t. People like you don’t care as it an end justifies the means scenario.

            • Gezza

               /  December 3, 2017

              It’s Blazer you’re talking to. Why even bother with debating with him? Ain’t nuttin but frustration goan come from dat!

            • Blazer

               /  December 3, 2017

              that is totally not true.She has supplied journalists with a completely accurate C.V.It just suits rabid,disappointed right supporters to vent and rant.

            • PDB

               /  December 3, 2017

              Pity she didn’t provide James Shaw with one then.

            • Why do you hate influential left-wing women so, traveller?

            • Your reductionism verges on triteness.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 3, 2017

              Fender said:
              “One only has to view her maiden speech to notice that this very talented beautiful woman has more intellectual and moral grunt than the entire history of the National Party. She also expressed a desire to see conduct in the house become more mature and respectful, something National are incapable of. They are very scared her approach and respect for human rights will gain traction as this will highlight the contrast with their nasty party ethos.”

            • PDB

               /  December 3, 2017

              Where have the National party, or any of its MP’s publically said anything negative on the Ghahraman deception? Is this just a case of further diversion from the issue?

  4. David

     /  December 3, 2017

    Given the Herald has a hit job article and editorial on of all people Todd Barclay the disparity is glaring. I am with the whale on this one if iy was say Judith Collins it would be non stop.

  5. unitedtribes2

     /  December 3, 2017

    Or in WO’s next post
    “If only she had just told the truth, but then that was never a really sexy story that would have elevated her so high on the Greens list. Then again, having the close personal support of the leader always helps in that regard.”
    Wonder what he means by this then.

  6. Ray

     /  December 3, 2017

    Well it was noticeable that the media were slow off the mark with this story and some lead with the strawman rebuttal regarding everyone deserves a defence lawyer.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 3, 2017

      Ray, if you make ‘due process of Law’, which absolutely includes “everyone deserves a defense lawyer”, into a strawman … think of the implications … You may kill someone in self-defense, be charged with homocide (meaning to kill someone) and be denied legal defense counsel … and frankly, that chap in your avatar image may have served, fought and possibly died for nothing …

  7. Blazer

     /  December 3, 2017

    it is quite noticeable that so called trained journalists do not understand the context of the word…’prosecution’.

  8. David

     /  December 3, 2017

    I would quite like an explanation on the hiding from bombs when she was 1600kms away from the action, all those school friends of hers sheltering while the sirens went off…1600kms away.
    The Greens would have won votes because of the “refugee” candidate and her embellished story which to me is an outright fraud, if you lie on your CV to get a job say running Maori TV then the next step is court and a jail sentence, at the least she should resign and Shaw should profusely apologise.

    • Blazer

       /  December 3, 2017

      a plausible explanation has been put forward.Using the barometers you judged the Key and English govt by…it is…gold standard.

    • PDB

       /  December 3, 2017

      It’s like saying you live in Cape Reinga and were right in the midst of the Christchurch earthquakes when they happened! (1600kms).

      • Blazer

         /  December 3, 2017

        if you travelled to see your relatives in Chch,and there was an earthquake ,surely it is not hard to understand.

      • PDB

         /  December 3, 2017

        That is her ‘new’ story – why should we believe someone who has clearly embellished her work history?

        Her ‘new’ story is that her parents sent her from her home city that lay well outside the war zone for holidays to a city, which according to Golriz, was basically hell on earth.

  9. Conspiratoor

     /  December 3, 2017

    Agreed …it is a very poor photoshop, shame on slater for allowing it to sully his fine blog. Some edge feather, blur and a little noise would have enhanced it immeasurably.
    Interesting to see Wayne’s missus, the one who got booted off this blog for being a bit naughty, has resurfaced on the WO

    [“Interesting to see Wayne’s missus, the one who got booted off this blog”

    That’s not correct. She chose to not comment here any more – she chose to not comply with some fairly liberal requirements here. PG]

    • Gezza

       /  December 3, 2017

      I imagine Kitty will be emotionally stirred in some fashion when she hears this news.

      • Blazer

         /  December 3, 2017

        you and Kitty are a good pair….she is always in your..thoughts..good luck.

        • Gezza

           /  December 3, 2017

          Garn. You devil you! Reckon she’s on your mind far more often than she’s on mine.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 3, 2017

      She’s kept her claws sharp on NBR I’ve noticed.

  10. Corky

     /  December 3, 2017

    ”Unwittingly witty. He wants ‘real balance’ from other media. That’s kinda cute given his own degrees of imbalance.”

    To be fair Pete, the Whaler doesn’t need to be balanced, as we have already discussed. But you expect more from MSM. MSM are cunning. They cover a story, but only in the confines of certain protocols. Nothing too pointed, or shocking when it comes to ‘sacred cows.’

    Muslims are a classic example.

    In my time of watching media, I have only come across two commentators who stuck to a story, and did in depth coverage for an extended time – Sir Paul Holmes and John Campbell.

  11. Alan Wilkinson

     /  December 3, 2017

    Is the photoshop is any worse than or different from the virulently anti-Key Emmerson cartoons the Herald published relentlessly?

    Strewth, defending WO better not become a habit. But honesty compels.

    • Corky

       /  December 3, 2017

      Kia Kaha, Alan.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 3, 2017

      But Alan … are you aware of your honest intentions for defending WO …?

    • That doesn’t excuse the Whale shit.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 3, 2017

        There is always a place for satire, PG. It may not excuse it but it does put it in perspective. Political satire is notoriously unfair but is a necessary part of free speech.

        • I think you may be confusing satire with dirty attack politics. What is satirical about the photoshop pics?

          Trying to excuse dirty attacks as satire doesn’t make them any less dirty.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 3, 2017

            “What is satirical about the photoshop pics?”

            satire
            noun
            the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
            synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature

            Exaggerating Golriz’s photographs with war criminals to criticise her heroic portrayal as a human rights crusader.

            • Once, maybe. But daily, with some of the worst people in the world? It looks like a concerted dirty attack to me. Some obviously won’t and don’t see it that way, but I think that many others will.

            • Do you think the daily photoshop posts at WO are humorous Alan? Do you think they are aimed at being largely humour?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 3, 2017

              I don’t find them funny but I am fairly sure WO’s target audience would. (I am taking your word that they exist and are similar to the one posted because I never read WO.)

              They are aimed at ridiculing a political opponent which is the usual purpose of political satire. And I think you are beating a dead horse here.

              They are normal attack politics in action. You may call it dirty if you wish but unfortunately it is proven effective and is therefore universal. It seems no different in purpose and ruthlessness from the written words that appear on most political blogs and campaigns every day.

            • It isn’t proving effective going by whining from WO that MSM aren’t picking up and spreading their dirt any more.

          • Kimbo

             /  December 3, 2017

            Basic reading comprehension, Pete. Alan didn’t “excuse it”, he asked you to refrain from clutching your pearls for a minute and put it into perspective. And no, Alan didn’t confuse satire with dirty attack politics. Indeed he made a cogent case that it is often both/and, not either/or. So you are pushing a false dichotomy. And what is satirical about it? I appreciate that, based on your response that your sense of humour is as poorly attuned as your sense of courtesy and respect in reading accurately what people who take the time to write on your blog, but maybe this will help: did Whale Oil expect anyone to think it was anything other than a photoshop?

            Having said that, fair call on Whale Oil flogging a dead horse. The legitimate news cycle for the story has long since expired.

            • For goodness sake Kimbo. It’s hard to comprehend what you’re trying to achieve – do you think a daily diss associating Ghahraman with some of the most notorious people in the world is simply satire?

              You think it’s acceptable humour?

              “did Whale Oil expect anyone to think it was anything other than a photoshop”

              It was obviously photoshopped, that’s how it was headed. I’m sure even you noticed that.

              Maybe this will help you – did Whale Oil think it was anything other than a continuation of a sustained line of attack on Ghahraman?

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              I didn’t say it was “acceptable humour” and neither did I say it was unacceptable. Humour being what it is – in the eye of the beholder- it is a pointless question. But what am I trying to achieve. Endorse Alan’s assessment that it is satire, and highlight that your arrogant self-righteousness in failing to appreciate that point is a discourtesy to your guests. Maybe not a cyber sin as great as Whale Oil’s (and I note in the aforesaid burst of high dudgeon you ignored the fact that I agreed the Ghahraman story has done its dash)

              …but nonetheless you are too quick to write, and too slow to consider reasonable criticism. Or is it only Whale Oil who gets the blow torch of scrutiny?

            • “too slow to consider reasonable criticism”

              Funny. I think I’ve put myself before the blow torch of scrutiny plenty enough. It’s kind of a common thing on blogs.

              While you and Alan may see satire in the photoshop posts I think that is at least not the primary aim of them. In the context of the number and nature of posts at WO attacking Ghahraman I think it is part of the strategy of trying to harm her political career and harm the Greens.

              I think it’s dirty. You’re free to disagree.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              From where did you conjure up the intellectually dishonest “primary aim” distinction? I think Alan will agree with me it was both 100% satire and 100% attack politics – call that dirty if you wish.

              The fact that, yet again you’ve failed to read properly and comprehend that point highlights both your arrogance, and also – given the context of your criticism of another blogger with a four letter epithet – your hypocrisy.

              All to ignore Alan’s initial indisputable point that puts your complaints and failure to comprehend the “point” others who disagree with you in part are making: in all cases satire is legitimate free speech.

            • “All to ignore Alan’s initial indisputable point”

              Yes, no one ever disputes Alan’s points here, they are indisputable.

              “yet again you’ve failed to read properly and comprehend t”

              You mean I fail to thank you for pointing out my failings and concede you’re indisputable point of view, as confused as it is?

              “both your arrogance” “your hypocrisy”

              Now that is funny. Was that deliberate?

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              Is or is not satire a legitimate and acceptable form of free speech? Just deal with that and let’s see if it is a matter of opinion (and therefore disputable) or fact (and therefore indisputable).

              No Pete, not wanting your thanks. Just kindly, yet again, don’t misrepresent what others write. It is (to quote you) “shit”.

              Hence , no, in the context of your stinging and not altogether unjustified criticism of another blogger, I wasn’t joking about your arrogance and hypocrisy.

            • “Is or is not satire a legitimate and acceptable form of free speech? ”

              It can be. Like any ‘free speech’ it depends on how it’s used as to whether it’s generally acceptable or not.

              Is or is not being critical of what some see as satire and others see as dirty politics an acceptable form of free speech?

            • “I wasn’t joking about your arrogance and hypocrisy.”

              You missed my point – I was referring to your apparent arrogance and therefore hypocrisy.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              “Is or is not being critical of what some see as satire and others see as dirty politics an acceptable form of free speech?”

              Yes, indeed. It is also…inaccurate free speech, or at least free speech of an inaccurate opinion. As Alan has pointed out, and as you’ve continued to ignore/failed to engage with/misrepresented others…satire of its very nature is always a necessary part of free speech, including when it is…unfair and/or dirty politics.

              “You missed my point – I was referring to your apparent arrogance and therefore hypocrisy.”.

              Call me obtuse and confused as I’ve spent so much time having to clarify where you’ve misrepresented my words, or addressed them with red herrings, but I’m all ears as to how I’ve been “arrogant” and “hypocritical”. Examples. please…

            • “It is also…inaccurate free speech, or at least free speech of an inaccurate opinion.”

              That’s your opinion.

              The series of photoshopped images at WO are clearly inaccurate ‘free speech’, which you seem to excuse as satire.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              ““It is also…inaccurate free speech, or at least free speech of an inaccurate opinion.”

              That’s your opinion”

              Er, no. it’s also a fact, which I’ll confirm shortly…

              “The series of photoshopped images at WO are clearly inaccurate ‘free speech’, which you seem to excuse as satire.”

              What part of Alan Wilkinson’s dictionary definition didn’t explain that satire is, of its very nature in some way…inaccurate. That’s the thing, Pete. I don’t think your are dishonest in the first instance – you believe what you do, but in the face of facts that challenge and contradict your prejudices,, instead of facing up to that you resort to defensive and intellectually dishonest rationalising:

              “satire
              noun
              the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
              synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature

              Exaggerating Golriz’s photographs with war criminals to criticise her heroic portrayal as a human rights crusader”

            • Conspiratoor

               /  December 3, 2017

              Have to agree kimbo. Those of us who have a nose for satire see this as something other than dirty. My view for what it’s worth is there is bad blood here and what we are seeing in these WO posts is simply a manifestation.

              It is what it is

            • Gezza

               /  December 4, 2017

              Last line – I see your point, but – is it where it’s at?

      • robertguyton

         /  December 3, 2017

        How many posts, Pet, have you done on Golriz Ghahraman?

        • robertguyton

           /  December 3, 2017

          Sorry, Pete, Pete !

          • Gezza

             /  December 3, 2017

            Phew! 👍🏼 Was gonna say, coming over all smooth & debonair wasn’t likely to win PG over.

  12. Zedd

     /  December 3, 2017

    looks like some folks want Golriz to join Metiria, regardless of the facts ? 😦

  13. Today’s dirty photoshop links her to Kim Jong-il, with no connection whatsoever as far as I’m aware.

    I can imagine what Juana’s reaction might be if someone photoshopped her with someone in a provocative pose, she seems as thin skinned as Slater when on the receiving end. I wouldn’t do that and join their gutter standards, but they tend to whine given a dose of their own medicine.

    • Conspiratoor

       /  December 3, 2017

      I’m not sure I go along with you there. Slaters been the subject of some very dirty cartoons. He enjoys them immensely and i understand has had some of the grubbiest framed

      • Gezza

         /  December 3, 2017

        😮 The cartoonists?
        Jesus! That’s evil. 😕
        What crimes has he successfully had pinned on the blighters?
        Do you know? 😳

        • Conspiratoor

           /  December 3, 2017

          Very good G! I can hear als missus chuckling from here

    • Kimbo

       /  December 3, 2017

      They make a fuss about alleged personal attacks for the same reason you occasionally highlight some of his many offenses – to generate traffic off the notoriety and controversy. He has his brand, you have yours and whatever is deemed suitable material to enhance them gets reported with a suitable angle. Is how media, old or new, mainstream or via blogs has always worked…

      • I provide a forum and I comment on what I want to, and don’t back down when people try to shut down lines of discussion. I don’t aim to generate traffic, that’s not something that’s important to me. I don’t need revenue and I don’t want an unmanageable size.

        It is curious when particular people who rarely front up wade into something with an apparent motive.

        • Kimbo

           /  December 3, 2017

          Whether you blog for money or not is irrelevant. You do so for some form of reward, be it intrinsic or personal. And no, that’s not something you need to justify much less apologise for.

          And no, I’m no supporter of Whale Oil. Was suspended for a month years ago and decided not to bother with reinstatement. And yesterday I pointed out on Kiwiblog the dishonest omission in a story he ran on December 1 of 24 “legal experts” who had criticised NZ’s role in UNSC2334. With typical Whale Oil style he failed to advise they were pro-Israeli/Zionist shills, and in the light of his continued banging on about about Ghahramam’s failure to be upfront about her legal clients and associations, it was hypocritical.

          But then that’s the point- a reader should always be discerning and take responsibility for reading carefully and researching. Especially in the presence of pious claims by the blogger that they are always upfront, entirely virtuous, and without an axe to grind…

          • “a reader should always be discerning and take responsibility for reading carefully and researching”

            Like that happens all the time with everyone at KB? WO? TS? TDB? What planet are you from?

            I frequently post and comment on the fly here amongst a fairly busy life offline. Sometimes I read carefully, sometimes I research, often don’t.

            You come here and try piling into me, but leave a lot of stuff alone at KB – seems like a fairly selective crusade.

            Interested to know why you have chosen this particular barrow to push.

          • Kimbo

             /  December 3, 2017

            Your hypocrisy and unctuous sanctimony took my attention. “Who watches the watchmen?”, especially when they don a cape of piety and righteousness. You’ve got your hobbies- including this blog- I’ve got mine. 😀

            But again, I note that, yet again in an attempt to rebut you misrepresented my words, I said that a reader “should” be discerning and take responsibility, not that “everyone” does so. Seems you make a habit of misrepresenting others to push the idea you are better and have higher standards than Whale Oil. In some respects, yes, but as I’ve pointed out with examples in this very thread, in others, no.

            • “I said that a reader “should” be discerning and take responsibility”

              Why? There’s a wide variety of readers of blogs. They should do what suits them, not what one person suggests they should do.

              Have you tried suggesting that at Kiwiblog?

              “especially when they don a cape of piety and righteousness”

              There’s that humour again.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              ““I said that a reader “should” be discerning and take responsibility”

              Why?”

              So we’ve agree I didn’t say it happens “all the time with everyone”? Can I have that retraction in writing from you, thanks very much?

              Um, for the same reason it is advisable to treat any form of media with discernment. If not, one runs the risk of being misinformed, and suffering negative consequences they could have avoided. It isn’t cryptic. But whether one does is up to them…but then that is a red herring when it comes to the matter of placing a bog post like this one under scrutiny…

              “Have you tried suggesting that at Kiwiblog?”

              At times, yeah. generates interesting discussion with…some. But then “most” aren’t owners of a blogsite…taking shots at other bloggers, and misrepresenting those who respond. Do that, and you’ll be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

              ““especially when they don a cape of piety and righteousness”

              There’s that humour again.”

              Again, I’m all ears with examples from this thread, thanks very much…

            • That’s how you come across to me. There’s examples in most of your comments.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              So…nothing specific you can copy and paste? More a vibe? OK. Fair enough. That’s your…opinion.

            • Just as you expressed your’s.

            • Kimbo

               /  December 3, 2017

              …but at least one of us tried to post facts, engage and not misrepresent what the other said. Again, am open to specific examples, rather than bullshit bluster and bluff such as, “That’s how you come across to me. There’s examples in most of your comments”.

            • “at least one of us tried to post facts”

              It’s a fact that SB at WO has posted a series of what appears to me to be attempts to smear and discredit Ghahraman. Call it satire if you like – I don’t think whether something is satire or not is factual.

              Particularly in context of multiple posts (sometimes many a day) over several days on WO targeting Ghahraman it suggests to me to be a dirty political agenda, whether or not individual posts can be called satire or not.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  December 4, 2017

              “It’s a fact that SB at WO has posted a series of what appears to me to be attempts to smear and discredit Ghahraman. ”

              In other words we have something that appears to be a fact

            • It’s a fact that she has posted three Photoshop images.

              Each of those posts/images are quite uncomplimentary towards Ghahraman- would you agree?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  December 4, 2017

              That may well be a fact. I haven’t counted. On much reflection yes I would have to agree also, these images do not appear to be complimentary towards Ghahraman

  14. Tipene

     /  December 3, 2017

    Slater has a very simple modus operandi:

    “Whether it is true or not, I will publish it, and if it turns out that what I publish isn’t true, I will just claim honest opinion”.

    In the pending release of Craig v Slater, we will soon learn as to whether this approach is appropriate, because if Slater wins the case, then NZ case-law will have determined that such an approach to journalism is appropriate, and then it will be all on for young and old in terms of what gets published about whom.

  15. Corky

     /  December 3, 2017

    I wonder if people posting on this blog have died and gone to hell? I say that because this blog hits the Whaler time and again. He really gets rubbished. But he never replies or does a hit job on us ( to my knowledge). Damn, surely we are important? Surely we deserve respect from the enemy?

    No, just silence…like we don’t seem to exist.

    Fill us in, Parti. Make us cognisant of our reality?

    • Gezza

       /  December 3, 2017

      Hard to say Corks. I even used to wonder if you had shares in WO, or were his Best Man or something, tbh.
      I don’t really think of him as the enemy. Nor even the enema.
      He just strikes me as a spent force, in a way, something of a tragi-comedian.
      I’m sure he doesn’t spend much time pondering & worrying about what’s being said here, & I reckon you shouldn’t even give it another thought yourself.
      It is what it is. You know?

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 3, 2017

      @Corky – “I wonder if people posting on this blog have died and gone to hell?”

      Nah mate, its DIY here, create your own hell!

      Perhaps being non-existent to the Whaler is a compliment? It just may be too intelligent for him over here …?

    • “But he never replies or does a hit job on us…”
      Cam refers to YourNZ as “Blog of the Damned” due to a number of commenters who have been banned from WO and participate here. It’s not often, but it happens.

      • He and/or Spanish Bride have also referred to thisw as ‘the tumbleweed blog’.

        Slater has been involved in at least two attempts to attack me and shut the blog down through the courts. You couldn’t get more of a hit job than that.

  16. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  December 3, 2017

    Perhaps the whale might poop out a valuable piece of whale shit.
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gkd7q/sperm-whale-shit-will-literally-make-you-rich

    • Pickled Possum

       /  December 3, 2017

      Ambergris is so smelly when it washes up on the beach on the east coast. A loaf size piece of smelly dead cuttlefish is disgusting!, but it can be worth 3 thousand dollars!.
      Hmm can never see WO being worth too much.

  17. Gerrit

     /  December 3, 2017

    Question: is Whaleoil and worse or better than The Daily Blog?

    The “shite” thrown up against Whaleoil can equally be thrown at The Daily Blog.

    Both attract like minded individuals and, depending upon ones view point, are equally obnoxious.

    The Standard is a lost cause whilst KiwiBlog and this blog are OK. In my humble personal opinion. Each have their foibles but we can accept those

    • PDB

       /  December 3, 2017

      Bradbury set up the Daily Blog to be the left’s version of Whaleoil therefore it is no better or worse but it’s way behind readership in comparison to Whaleoil.

  18. robertguyton

     /  December 3, 2017

    “Muttonbird 17
    3 December 2017 at 7:08 pm
    Those exhibiting this fevered hatred of Ghahraman are white, conservative, and hate socially conscious women with power, especially brown ones.

    They’ll say in unguarded moments that they don’t like being ‘talked down to’, as if what Ghahraman stands for is a direct attack on them personally. This betrays guilt for what they themselves stand for.

    In more guarded moments they’ll say she’s a hypocrite for ‘taking the moral high ground’ having acting in the defence of those involved in genocide.

    They are the same thing though – a hatred that a high profile brown woman in a position of power is able to speak against the traditions conservative white men have held so dear for so long.

    It’s certainly got bugger all to do with the Tutsis.”

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 3, 2017

      We are waiting to see if she is representing anyone but herself, Robert. Or misrepresenting.

  19. Going softly softly on Golly G was written
    by Deb ( please check the byline in future)

  20. duperez

     /  December 4, 2017

    Dirty attack politics? Political satire? Ridiculing a political opponent?
    Normal attack politics in action? Personal attacks? Gutter standards? Humour?

    Seems that interpretation and meaning is in the eye of the beholder. This beholder has a combination of all with a prime cause nastiness from a base of complex complexes.