WHOIS and Prentice’s misuse and motives

Lynn Prentice (lprent) has tried to defend his abusive attack on a young person who was involved in a spoof political site, Kiwi-O-Meter, which has since been taken down by the site owner.

I think his excuses are disingenuous bull.

But there’s another thing that he hasn’t defended. I don’t think he can credibly defend it.

The title of Prentice’s post at The Standard shows it’s attacking and abusive intent – Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit.

Personal abuse from Prentice is normal, as is over-reacting. Less common is his use of a post to attack someone like this.But what stood out was his posting the personal contact details – email address, phone number and home address – of the target of his apparent anger.

While his intent in doing this could be argued Prentice applied strict moderation, personally clearing all comments, banning some commenters and admitting to trashing about 25% of comments. But Prentice passed this comment from Atiawa:

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

So Prentice approved of the contact details he posted being used to abuse Guerin, and he approved the comment “Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same”.

Prentice claims to be a Internet expert so he must have been aware of the possibility, even probability, that his publishing personal details would result in personal abuse.

And when challenged on his actions by ‘Izzy’…

I think it’s disappointing that you saw fit to publish his contact information, which apparently commentators here have now used to send him abusive messages.

He said something about your team that you didn’t like, which pissed you off, and that’s chill. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to like his politics, you’re allowed to question whether the site was made in a work capacity or done independently (which he has answered). But he doesn’t deserve the level of vitriol in this post, and he doesn’t deserve texts and emails telling him he’s a piece of shit. Being a Nat doesn’t make him immune to being hurt by this kind of thing. Be kind.

One of Prentice’s excuses was:

The “voitrol” was because he didn’t provide any information on the site to identify who was responsible for it.

That’s an interesting accusation.

If a person wanted to find out who was responsible for The Standard what would they find? Their about page specifically says they won’t identify themselves.

Why don’t you say who you are?

Some of the authors here use their real names, but others choose to blog anonymously for a variety of reasons. Some of us have professional reasons for doing so, others of us are reluctant to expose ourselves to the kind of personal threats sometimes made online. Those of us using pseudonyms discussed this issue long and hard before we began and came down on the side of anonymity. We hope you can see why. You might also want to contemplate the implications of this link.

If you want to get hold of us, have a look on the Contact Page.

The contact page also doesn’t identify who is responsible for the site. It gives two email addresses, but when i emailed one of them last week on a serious matter I didn’t get a reply.

So it appears that Prentice is applying one standard to Guerin, using it as an excuse to reveal personal contact details, but  ignoring that standard himself.

What Prentice has done looks like it could be a breach of conditions of use of the WHOIS look up – I detailed this in Prentice actions “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ.

% Users are advised that the following activities are strictly forbidden.
%
% Using any information contained in the WHOIS query output to attempt a
% targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation, using any
% medium.

Prentice’s response to this:

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

If he thinks that the correct way to deal with misuse is to submit a complaint to InternetNZ why didn’t he do that regarding his complaint about Guerin rather than launching an online attack on him and not only deliberately or recklessly exposing him to abuse but also personally allowing abusive comments including a comment encouraging more abuse using the contact details posted.

Another double standard.

Prentice has defended his use of WHOIS contact information.

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

This is exactly what the whois is intended for.

His post is more than ‘an opinion’, it is a vindictive looking attack on Guerin and it encouraged others to attack Guerin using publicised contact information.

Prentice has also stated:

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

Prentice has previously complained about phone numbers and addresses being published on Whale Oil. He is well aware of what can happen when details like that are promoted on attack blogs. Another double standard.

He has also stated:

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

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

I frequently look for evidence, I think I do this more than most in political forums.

Here are excerpts the Terms of Service from WHOIS:

1. Acceptance of Terms

By using http://www.who.is (“Who.is”) you agree that you are over 18 years of age and have the ability to enter into a binding agreement. Any access to or use of Who.is constitutes acceptance of the following Terms of Service (“TOS”).

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ANY PROVISION IN THE FOLLOWING TOS OR IF ANY SECTION OF THE TOS IS BREACHED BY YOU; YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO, AND SHALL NOT USE OR CONTINUE TO USE, OUR SERVICES.

2. Responsibilities and Regulations

Use of our services requires that you agree to uphold the following responsibilities and abide by the following regulations. Failure to do so in any constitutes immediate breach of this TOS.

You may not use our site to engage in any behavior that violates any local law or any law or regulation that is applicable to the venue created in this agreement. This prohibition includes, but is in no way limited to, use of our products or services in any way associated with activities that:

(b) attack, harass, threaten, defame, or otherwise infringe on the legal rights of any other individual or entity including but not limited to protection afforded to them via applicable criminal or privacy regulations.

Prentice’s post certainly looks like an attack on Guerin. It also enables harassment in the comments by allowing more abuse to be published. And by posting contact details and allowing a comment that admits using those details to abuse and harass Guerin and encourage further abuse Prentice appears to be a willing party to this.

(c) violate or would cause Who.is to violate any law, regulation or ethical standard. Who.is reserves the right to determine and establish what constitutes both what qualifies as a violation or ethical standard in our sole discretion at any time.

Prentice violates ethical standards he himself writes and complains about and imposes on others. I don’t know specifically what current WHOIS ethical standards are.

Prentice also wrote:

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

This is what WHOIS suggests it’s information is for:

What is WHOIS data used for?

WHOIS is indispensable to the smooth operation of the DNS and is used for many legitimate purposes, including:

  • To determine whether or not a given domain is available.
  • To contact network administrators for resolution of technical matters related to networks associated with a domain name (e.g., DNS or routing matter, origin and path analysis of DoS and other network-based attacks).
  • To diagnose registration difficulties. WHOIS queries provide information that is often useful in resolving a registration ownership issue, such as the creation and expiration dates and the identity of the registrar.
  • To contact web administrators for resolution of technical matters associated with a domain name.
  • To obtain the real world identity, business location and contact information of an online merchant or business, or generally, any organization that has an online presence.
  • To associate a company, organization, or individual with a domain name, and to identify the party that is operating a web or other publicly accessible service using a domain name, for commercial or other purposes.
  • To contact a domain name registrant for the purpose of discussing and negotiating a secondary market transaction related to a registered domain name.
  • To notify a domain name registrant of the registrant’s obligation to maintain accurate registration information.
  • To contact a domain name registrant on matters related to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  • To establish or look into an identity in cyberspace, and as part of an incident response following an Internet or computer attack. (Security professionals and law enforcement agents use WHOIS to identify points of contact for a domain name.)
  • To gather investigative leads (i.e., to identify parties from whom additional information might be obtained). Law enforcement agents use WHOIS to find email addresses and attempt to identify the location of an alleged perpetrator of a crime involving fraud.
  • To investigate spam, law enforcement agents look to the WHOIS database to collect information on the website advertised in the spam.

I don’t see anything  there that suggests publishing contact information as a part of petty politically motivated attacks. Nor vindictive personal attacks.

Lynn – you say you wrote the post and managed the comments to expose Guerin (for doing similar things to what is done on The Standard).

Your words:

The “voitrol” was because he didn’t provide any information on the site to identify who was responsible for it. As far as I’m concerned he was concealing who was responsible from the public.

You easily found out who was responsible – that’s what WHOIS is for, isn’t it. Guerin had also been open about his involvement elsewhere in social media and other blogs had posted about who was responsible – without going to the level of abuse and exposure you did.

But all that aside Lynn can you explain this:

Why, after publishing abuse from yourself, contact information and abuse from others, and this comment from Atiawa:

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

Why, after Guerin advised you that as a result of what you posted he been abused (and you published):

Unfortunately, after my personal details including phone number, postal address and email address were published on an article on The Standard, I receive a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Why, five hours after Guerin posted that so you were well aware of what happened after you posted his contact details, in direct response to Guerin, why did you post this?

I have been busy this morning and lunch is a bit short for a full reply.

Here is Pete George, registrant of yournz.org.nz (just because I am thinking about complaining to him about his stupid and ignorant post this morning pushing this PR line)

This is explicitly public information to allow people to be able to check who is responsible for a domain, and for them to be able to contact them if there is an issue. This is a concept known as personal responsibility. Get used to it.

Lynn, why did you do this?

Prentice right of reply on Ben Guerin post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

Prentice actions “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ

Lynn Prentice often tells the world how well he knows the Internet, but Duncan Brown did a bit of simple checking and shows that when Prentice published the physical addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of Ben Guerin and myself he clearly breached conditions of the use of WHOIS registry searching.

What he did appears to be “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ – not just a one off slip, it was a series of deliberate actions by Prentice over a two day extended period.

Duncan has details in Vindictive Prentice breaks the rules.

Prentice can’t claim ignorance (maybe). In his  Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit post he provided a link to clear warnings at the head of the information he re-published:

Registrar Info
% NZRS Limited 
% Users confirm on submission their agreement to all published Terms 
%
And just underneath:
% 
% Users are advised that the following activities are strictly forbidden. 
% 
% Using multiple WHOIS queries, or using the output of multiple WHOIS 
% queries in conjunction with any other facility or service, to enable 
% or effect a download of part or all of the .nz Register. 
% 
% Using any information contained in the WHOIS query output to attempt a 
% targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation, using any 
% medium. 
% 
% A breach of these conditions will be treated as a breach of the .nz Policies 
% and Procedures.  Sanctions in line with those specified in the policies and 
% procedures at http://www.dnc.org.nz may result from any breach. 
% 
% Copyright InternetNZ

It looks clear to me that Prentice breached “Using any information contained in the WHOIS query output to attempt a targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation, using any medium.”

In his post he encouraged people to contact Guerin:

FFS: Could someone inform the pathetic dickhead that Dirty Politics was so last year.

He made it clear that he would carefully check any comment before allowing it to go public:

Just a wee warning. Because of the amount of diversion trolling going on on my post (some people like to live dangerously), I’ve put a full moderation on this post.

I’m letting through any half way reasonable comment and mostly answering them. But it’d inadvisable for the usual trolls to try diversion trolling. I’m really not in the mood for it, but I am finding it hilarious to do permanent bans for the fools who do it.

He cleared this comment (which was in response to one of his own):

Atiawa 9.1.1

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

So he approved of someone using the information he provided to abuse Guerin and who also encouraged more harassment. He heavily censored others and banned several commenters, seemingly more out of spite or anger than anything.

‘Izzy’ responded to Atiawa:

I think it’s disappointing that you saw fit to publish his contact information, which apparently commentators here have now used to send him abusive messages.

Prentice replied to tha, indicazting he was well aware of abuse as a result of WHOIS information he published:

The information that was published was the public information that every registrant for a domain must make public. If you want to change that then I suggest that you talk to IANA.

It is there specifically to allow people to find out who is responsible for uses of that domain. Perhaps you should bestir yourself to find out what the responsibilities are for a domain name holder.

Prentice should have found out what the responsibilities of WHOIS users are. Actually he did find out, he posted a link to them and then breached them.

And allowed and encouraged people to do his dirty work.

He can’t claim he had no knowledge of the abuse as Guerin made it clear in a comment.

Unfortunately, after my personal details including phone number, postal address and email address were published on an article on The Standard, I receive a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Prentice responded to that by posting my own private address and phone number, and said (amongst other things):

That information is available for ALL domain names and their registrants, admins, and technical contacts. That is because domain names are a privilege requiring personal responsibility. If you put up a website or mail server or anything else under a domain, then you are responsible for the content published under it. The contact details are there for people to contact you. Sometimes that contact may be unpleasant.

He made the contact details available to others at The Standard and encouraged contact that was unpleasant.

From your whinging, personal responsibility appears to be something you are uncomfortable with. Perhaps you should not put up websites until you are better able to bear the burden.

It’s not likely Prentice will follow his own advice, he frequently ignores the rules he imposes on others.

I this case it looks clear he has broken some one else’s rules, something that is clearly “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ. For all his claimed knowledge about the Internet ignorance is hardly an excuse he can use, and it wouldn’t wash anyway.

Responsibility is not something Prentice has any idea about unless trying to force it on others

Open letter to Standard authors

I have emailed the following letter to The Standard but know that some of them at least will see it here if they don’t get a copy.

Please distribute this letter to the Standard authors.

The Standard has a record of abusiveness and bullying. What you do within your own blog is of course up to you.

However a recent post by Lynn Prentice, Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit, takes abuse to an disturbing new level – promoting it outside The Standard via personal phone numbers, email addresses and home addresses.

This post plus comments in it’s thread openly instigated, incited and encouraged attacks beyond The Standard, and when it was confirmed that personal abuse had been successfully achieved further private details were published.

Lynn has made the point that these contact details are readily available, which is correct. However publishing them in an already highly abusive post had the obvious intent to widen the abuse beyond the blog and beyond the Internet. The post and comments that followed break Standard policies and would not be allowed if others did it (depending on who the targets where).

Publishing the contact details had clearly expressed malicious intent. And this places at risk not just the individuals that Lynn targeted – it also exposes others including family members.

As authors and moderators of The Standard you have a collective responsibility, and this escalation of abuse reflects on all of you.

You can choose to be abusive yourselves on your own blog, or for most of you to silently and tacitly allow it to happen.

However instigating and encouraging bullying and violent behaviour outside your blog (so far non-physical) and exposing associates and family members is far more serious.

Currently the contact details, and the encouraging of abuse remains on The Standard. And there are also threats of repeats of this reprehensible behaviour. Lynn’s last post to date:

lprent 9.1.1.1.1

The information that was published was the public information that every registrant for a domain must make public. If you want to change that then I suggest that you talk to IANA.

It is there specifically to allow people to find out who is responsible for uses of that domain. Perhaps you should bestir yourself to find out what the responsibilities are for a domain name holder.

The “voitrol” was because he didn’t provide any information on the site to identify who was responsible for it. As far as I’m concerned he was concealing who was responsible from the public. All that would have been required for me to make a quite different type of post would have been a prominent notice or an about at the top of the site that said this was put up by the Young Nats.

So I made my rapid searches public and expressed by thoughts of a politically aware fool who would do this complete lack of public transparency, along with a reasonable explanation of why he did it. Since he’d neglected to provide that information, I feel that he should wear the consequences like any responsible adult

Bearing in mind the search engine optimization on this site and the interest in this post, that will probably be for some time.

Suffice it to say that the next site that I spot of this non-transparent dirty politics ilk will at least redouble that level of vitriol if I can trace it back. So you should suggest to your wellington “team” that they’d better learn to be responsible before I make them.

BTW: I don’t play for any “team”. Many around the blogs and anyone who knows me will happily attest to that. I’ve worked and cooperate with people and organisations from the army to this blog, but I’m not into silly juvenile pack games.

If you allow this and do nothing about this then as a collective you are in effect supporting this ongoing bullying, abusive  behaviour plus threats of more..

Lynn also commented:

That information is available for ALL domain names and their registrants, admins, and technical contacts. That is because domain names are a privilege requiring personal responsibility. If you put up a website or mail server or anything else under a domain, then you are responsible for the content published under it.

Also:

Bearing in mind the search engine optimization on this site and the interest in this post, that will probably be for some time.

Bear in mind what that means to yourselves.

Lastly:

In short – you acted like a fool. Take some personal responsibility for it and learn from it.

If you remain publicly silent and take no action then you are aiding and abetting this disturbing escalation in abuse and the provocation of bullying and violent behaviour beyond The Standard.

I ask you to seriously consider dealing with this responsibly.

Pete George

Your NZ

Guerin responds to Prentice

Ben Guerin has responded to the attack on him at The Standard Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit by Lynn Prentice.

Dirty Politics Fuckwit

Good morning! As the subject of this post, I felt it was only appropriate that I provide a response.

Last night I tweeted the following: https://twitter.com/bjhguerin/status/620538187501277185

Monday 13th July 2015
Ben Guerin

Comment on How Kiwi Are You website

On Sunday the 12th of July I was a member of the Young Nats team that produced the Kiwi-O-Meter on the url http://howkiwiareyou.nz. I would like to publicly state that this website is not at all affiliated with the New Zealand National Party, New Zealand Parliament, or any National Party MPs; and is not endorsed by, or representative of, the views of my employer.

The Kiwi-O-Meter was developed solely by the Young Nats, with no financial compensation, for distribution on the Young Nats Facebook and Twitter pages.

Within 6 hours of launching, more than 25,000 people visited the site. Feedback from users was overwhelmingly positive, with people from all over the political spectrum indicating their support for a light-hearted, satirical website that lampooned the racist and ill-conceived statements made by Phil Twyford and Andrew Little regarding the Auckland housing market over the weekend.

As the registrar of the domain my details were publicly available. Perhaps this was a mistake, but I am a supporter of transparency, and made no secret of my involvement. The fact that the site was made by Young Nats was publicly acknowledged by myself personally and on the Young Nats social media pages.

Unfortunately, after my personal details including phone number, postal address and email address were published on an article on The Standard, I receive a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.

As a result of these communications, the Young Nats have pulled the site from thehttp://howkiwiareyou.nz domain, and we have no plans to re-launch it.

ENDS

It’s a pity Ben has said that the site was pulled because of hatred-filled vitriol directed at him because Prentice published his phone number and email address. That may encourage more dirty attacks.

I presume that Prentice intended to encourage personal attacks like that. He certainly didn’t have any problem with this comment encouraging attacks:

Atiawa

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

Prentice was closely monitoring comments, heavily edited some and claims to have thrown a quarter of the thread comments in spam, so he must have decided this mob motivator passed his standards.

And in response to Ben’s comment Prentice then posted my phone number and home address. It’s easily obtainable but the obvious intent is to encourage more harassment and abuse. That exposes women and children to risks more than me.

Prentice posted:

In short – you acted like a fool. Take some personal responsibility for it and learn from it.

He has a habit of describing himself, but I doubt he will learn from it.

Most Standard regulars have kept away from this thread, showing good sense. But one Labour Party stalwart joined the jeering

Anne

Oh boo hoo, hoo, hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

Serves you right. Shows what a bunch of mentally challenged, inconsequential, puerile minded itsy bitsy twats you all are. May your days be awesomely fruitful and enlightening.😀

That speaks for itself.

And is a very poor reflection on The Standard, on Labour by association and on political discourse in general. No wonder a million people don’t vote. And perhaps no wonder Labour is resorting to deliberately divisive politics – dirty politics – to try and rescue themselves from a dire situation.

A sane response to a manic attack

Someone called ‘Izzy’ has had their comment passed by tight moderation on the Lynn Prentice post that launched an over the top attack – Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit  -on one of the people involved in the Kiwi-O-KMeter website.

It covers things reasonably an well.

Izzy

I can’t stand the Nats, but I really don’t think this is dirty politics.

It’s a fairly obvious parody of Twyford’s foreign ownership work, clearly registered to Guerin, who makes his place of employment abundantly clear on LinkedIn and various other places online, and talked openly about making the site. One of the main things about ‘dirty politics’ was that those involved went to great lengths to hide their identities and their involvement, e.g. Jason Ede multiple email identities.

As for use of the Labour logo – possibly a poor choice, but it didn’t take much looking at the site to realise it wasn’t actually a Labour Party site, and it’s not exactly the first time a political party logo has been used to parody that party.

In comments Prentice said “And yet it has a logo that has to be in copyright eh?”

‘Whatevanext?’ said “and if some person pulled similar stunt using National’s logo? would there be uproar? Paddy and his gang would have a field day! or just a visit from lots of policeman for several hours while you are out?”

‘NZjester’: “I was just wondering if the said plonker has broken copyright law by the use of the Labour Party logo in his attempt at a non parody political hatchet job?”

Misuse of party logos doesn’t usually seem to be a problem at The Standard as the link (provided by Izzy ) to a post by the infamous ‘Eddie’ shows – Not quite beyond parody

And there were more. Plus links from Standard author and lawyer Greg Presland – Or this one? – to a spoof video that uses a National logo, so it can’t be a big deal if it’s against the other side.

I think it was poor judgement by Guerin to do this when he is an employee of the Parliamentary Service – while he has every right to be involved in political activities in his spare time, the unfortunate reality for PS employees is that it’s pretty risky to do so in any public way, because of perception issues like this. He’ll presumably learn from this mistake, which is an easy one for young activists to make when they start working for MPs.

I agree that it was at least questionable judgement that risked backlashing against National. He might have been lucky Prentice overplayed his hand so much and became to focus.

I think it’s disappointing that you saw fit to publish his contact information, which apparently commentators here have now used to send him abusive messages.

He said something about your team that you didn’t like, which pissed you off, and that’s chill. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to like his politics, you’re allowed to question whether the site was made in a work capacity or done independently (which he has answered). But he doesn’t deserve the level of vitriol in this post, and he doesn’t deserve texts and emails telling him he’s a piece of shit. Being a Nat doesn’t make him immune to being hurt by this kind of thing. Be kind.

Disclaimer: In the interests of transparency, I know Guerin through Wellington youth political circles – he’s friends with some of my friends so I’ve met him a few times and follow him on social media.

Prentice plus a few others piled in more vitriol. They only think it’s dirty if it’s done to them, not by them. But dirty looks dirty to most people.

Prentice: “there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag”

Lynn Prentice continues to do more damage to Labour than anyone else online as his behaviour and hos Standard blog are inextricably linked, despite his attempts to distance himself. Widespread perceptions matter.

Yesterday he demonstrated how, acting like a dirty politics hypocrite and “a complete scumbag”.

In January Prentice responded to a comment by ‘Juana’ – Cameron Slater’s wife in the post Where is Cameron Slater?

I think your guy is a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute. I intensely dislike being tarred with the same label as him because there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag. Perhaps you should consider that before trying to smear me.

Prentice has proven again that he is ” few of us who act like such a complete scumbag”. If Prentice doesn’t like being tarred with the same label as Slater then he shouldn’t act like a scumbag himself.

Yesterday Prentice was pissed off with a website set up to mock the Labour attacks on Chines property buyers. He posted about it – Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit. Fair enough rating about something he felt strongly about, but Prentice went further than that.

Prentice has spoken strongly against outing people online, and especially strongly against revealing personal details that enable people to launch personal attacks off the Internet.

For example in the same January post (where Prentice posted Slater’s home address):

As for publishing his home address on the Internet… wtf?

Cameron Slater has never had any compunction about doing that. He has published my address and phone numbers (unlawfully used from the DNS records), John Mintos, and numerous others.

Prentice obviously has no compunction about doing things like that either. Like a scumbag.

And like a coward he has abused and banned people who have confronted him – he likes to dish it out in dirty dollops but doesn’t like being on the receiving end of far more gentle criticism. The thread is full of heavy handed warnings and bans to shut down criticism.

Despite criticising Slater for doing similar Prentice published Guerin’s phone number and email address (and they are still visible).

This had what I presume was the intended effect – one comment that hasn’t been censored or criticised:

Atiawa

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

Not just enabling abuse, encouraging it.

On yesterdays post here Not amused about Kiwi-O-Meter:

TheContrarian

I text the guy from the number Lynn published. Seems the good people at The Standard have been sending him some fairly abusive texts.

Charming

On Daily Review at The Standard there was some guarded criticism of Prentice:

infused2.1.1

You act like a pissed off old man who just needs to ‘chill the fuck out’.

Nope. Just making a point about dirty politics.

If I have to bounce some dumb kid up and down to make that political point, then that is collateral damage.

I realise you probably don’t have any principles worth a damn.

But that is why I’m a “pissed off old man ” who doesn’t find mixing taxpayer paid political operatives anonymously with dirty politics “funny”. Hopefully this fool doesn’t think so either now as well.

If Slater does it Prentice calls him a scumbag and “a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute”.

But Prentice does it and defends it as just “collateral damage” to make a political point.

The point Prentice was making was “Dirty Politics”.

FFS: Could someone inform the pathetic dickhead that Dirty Politics was so last year. That he shouldn’t reuse his old last years condoms because it is very very unhygienic. He should especially not leave his fingerprints all over the results of his pulling. Or even better still – just don’t play those stupid games.

Dirty politics was very yesterday at The Standard. There’s no point in telling Prentice not to play stupid scumbag games, he only sees things like that when someone else does it.

“There are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag” – like Prentice in his own words.

And there are others with responsibilities at The Standard who are tacit supporters and enablers of lprent’s dirty hypocrisy.

Prentice’s long term and ongoing scumbag behaviour at The Standard is far more damaging to Labour than a temporary joke website.

Not amused about Kiwi-O-Meter

I think I first saw a link to Kiwi-O-Meter at in Rutherford on Labour’s surname policy at Kiwiblog:

Finally, if you want to work for yourself if you’re Kiwi enough to buy a house under Labour, try out this new Kiwi-O-Meter. Well done to the Young Nats for this humourous response to Labour’s dog whistles.

I thought it was quite funny. But someone else was not amused.

Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit

That is curious, suddenly a website pops up “how kiwi are you”. Full of slurs against Chinese. WTF!

It has a Labour logo? But that is linked to the YoungNats.org.nz (see below).

Oh. It appears we have some young fool trying to make a name for themselves. Lets dig out who.

So lprent outed someone who was already fairly well identified. He usually frowns severely on outing at The Standard but he often has different rules and standards for himself.

Well apparently he works doing MP support at parliamentary services. Working for some unknown National list MP “Brent Hudson”. Perhaps he thinks he is Jason Ede’s replacement.

But I’d never take tech advice from him… Yeah, I can just see how this “supports” the MP who employs him.

FFS: Could someone inform the pathetic dickhead that Dirty Politics was so last year. That he shouldn’t reuse his old last years condoms because it is very very unhygienic. He should especially not leave his fingerprints all over the results of his pulling. Or even better still – just don’t play those stupid games. Especially when being employed by the taxpayer while working for a MP. They don’t add anything to the political debate.

Also that he is a complete fuckwit and so are his National party employers

Not a happy chappy by the sound of that. I think he had been annoyed at Labour’s Chinese shouting and found someone to last out at. But it didn’t end there. His lack of humour continued through the thread.

SHG3

Amazing how even though the Young Nats’ Ben Guerin has been commenting online about what it was like to whip the site up on a Sunday afternoon, he was unable to hide the fact that identity behind the site is someone named “Ben Guerin”. Thanks for your Internet detective work there Captain Sysop.

  • So you approve of a parliamentary employee employed by a National MP doing this kind of trash?

    Surely that wasn’t what you have been saying for years about the imaginary Labour party staffers who don’t write here….

    You really are a hypocritical idiot.

    • SHG3.1.1

      So you approve of a parliamentary employee employed by a National MP doing this kind of trash?

      100%, because it’s nice to see that at least one side of NZ’s political spectrum knows how the Internet works.

      • lprent3.1.1.1

        And that says all we need to know about your sense of ethics.

        Rather than leaving it there, perhaps you should explain why you think this is a good idea for our local politics or anything else with some examples of what you think is permissible with people controlling data.

        Define the edges of what you think is permissible..

        Publishing other peoples posts under your own name – wait that’s been done – Cameron Slater..

        Coming to think of it – is there anything that Cameron Slater has done which you think would be over the edge?

        • SHG3.1.1.1.1

          It’s funny, and it makes Labour look stupid. Therefore it’s a good idea.

          [lprent: Ok now you are just trolling my post. You can justify anything with “but I found it funny”. Including rape, serial murders, medical misadventure, …

          Banned permanently. I’m not really interested in hosting psychopaths on this site. ]

Standard authors often tend to react badly to being shown up on their own posts.

Expect UpandComer to get get a ban hammering as well.

UpandComer11

Hold on,

What’s more dirty, some young talented guy throwing up an obviously humorous satirical website on an issue of the day that I ‘presume’ amounts to an exercise of free-speech that he’s publicised to be the same.

Or publishing on the internet his photo, his address, apparently his phone number, his post code… ? There are a number of adjectives one could use in relation to that. And for what purpose? What do you want to achieve by marking a big ‘X’ on where this young guy can be found?

What’s more dirty? This is actually hilarious. Carry on.

What’s more dirty Lynn?

UPDATE: it’s really got up his nose.

7:00pm…

Just a wee warning. Because of the amount of diversion trolling going on on my post (some people like to live dangerously), I’ve put a full moderation on this post.

I’m letting through any half way reasonable comment and mostly answering them. But it’d inadvisable for the usual trolls to try diversion trolling. I’m really not in the mood for it, but I am finding it hilarious to do permanent bans for the fools who do it.

I will pop this comment at the top of the list by putting a earlier time.

And someone who usually gets away with poking at him misjudged zero humour, zero tolerance:

TheContrarian

I thought political satire was a good thing.

Take a deep breath Prentice. It is a joke site, kind of like ImperetorFish and his Martyn Bradbury Real Estate. Kinda of like The Civilian. Pretty sure you are taking this Waaaaaaaay to seriously.

[lprent: So I don’t think Dirty politics is funny. And so far no-one has managed to explain why they think it or this was funny. Like Nicky Hager, I view this particular kind of political crap by taxpayer funded political party staffers to be quite unfunny. Doesn’t matter if it is Jason Ede or this idiot. I don’t tolerate it here because I really don’t want my taxes funding National being spent on this kind of stupdity.

But hey, lets give a concrete example. I warned in comments that I wasn’t that interested in this particular line. So I think this is funny.

Banned until the next amnesty for diversion trolling.

Laughing laughing…. Oh yeah that is FUNNY! I can see you rolling in it from here. Funny looks different to different people eh? ]