Some of them seem to believe their rants

A couple of days ago The Standard had a strange post obsessing about David Farrar and I supposedly obsessing about them. Anthony Robins wrote:

David Farrar has a bad case of STD (Standard Titillation Disorder). He seems to find us endlessly fascinating, if the desire of him and his Dirty Politics mates to spy on / hack this blog are anything to go by. Take this post on us today, we’re flattered, really we are. David Farrar and Pete George, who can even tell them apart these days?…

I’m sure Anthony can tell us apart. It’s curious that he seems to be trying to link me in with the ‘Dirty Politics’ agenda – he doesn’t usually go down the dirt track, but where there’s mud there’s a muckraker.

Then lo and behold felix chimed in.

Oh dear. Went and had a look in Pete George’s dismal hole for the first time in a while and noticed four things:

1)In spite of his pretensions to politeness, he lets some pretty hateful stuff happen in his comments.

2) Whenever he posts on any topic that Cameron Slater has an interest in, his comments section is overrun by what appears to be one person using several handles (handles I’ve never seen before) to shout very loudly over anyone else.

3) He has begun to refer to the PM by his first name, beginning a post thus: “Graeme McCready’s criminal prosecution against John has been rejected by the District Court. ” lolz 

4) He is still utterly obsessed with everything that happens here. Forget about Big Brother. Weird Uncle is watching you.

Will check it again next year and report back if anything changes.

It’s common the hear people claim they wouldn’t ever go near xyz blog but just happened to notice something. “Weird Uncle is watching you.”  Very funny. You get to know who the “utterly obsessed” are.

If I referred to Key as ‘John’ it was a typo, I normallyrefer to him as ‘John Key’ or Key. I’ve never met him nor had any communication with him in anway, unless he comments on blogs under a pseudonym like ‘felix’.

But if missing a word out like that can get felix and Anthony all excited about where I might fit in within the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy maybe I should try it a bit more often.

Then the master of self-unawareness, lprent, posted this:

I see the pingbacks to the posts goinga into spam. Occasionally I click into them and go over to rev PG up a bit more in his obsessional spiral. I’m getting interested in testing how extreme I can make the guy get by simply pointing out his personality flaws.

It appears to be petty I know. But he really has this interesting inability to see himself as others see him, and never seems to have developed the self-critical ability that most people have that allows them to learn from criticising their own performance. I’m interested in how far I can push before he starts to develop it.

There has to be a name for the condition – it is like megalomania, but probably less extreme. I have observed it before (Pat O’Dea seems to have it as well) and I’m still kind of puzzled about how adaptive such people are. They are a pain on the net because they seem to pull all of the opinions out of their arse and hate discussing alternate viewpoints. They also are usually pretty poorly informed on their obsessions because they never seem to research them.

I won’t bother responding to most of that. Anyone who knows me and just about anyone who has observed lprent here or at The Standard can judge that for themselves.

Except I will say that I think I’m fairly well informed about The Standard, having done a fair bit of research and having experienced a lot of the comaraderie there first hand. That seems to get up their noses a bit going by their ongoing reactions.

And then Sacha repeated an absurd claim despite having been told before how ridiculous it is (and being told at The Standard about the dangers and the stupidity of online psychological diagnosis.

I reckon he might be an aspie. Not that it means anyone should have to tolerate the crap way he engages in conversations.

I don’t know and don’t care what Sacha’s mental condition is, all I know from observation is that he is intolerant of people having different views or approaches to politics that he has to the extent that he actively tries to shut them out of forums.

Sacha and lprent are well known intolerants. Robins is, or has been, different. When he jumps on the ‘Dirty Politics’ bandwagon and makes nonsense assertions and insinuations then it’s more notable (whoops, I shouldn’t have referred to him as ‘Anthony’ earlier, felix might start to think I’ve been colluding with him).

Some of them at The Standard seem to believe their nonsense. Some just get sucked in to the dirty party game.

And when people like Little and Robins do it doesn’t bode well for a Labour recovery. It may simply be the lack of other viable options that keeps them on life support.

I await Lynn coming back here to “rev PG up a bit more in his obsessional spiral”.

I’m getting interested in testing how extreme I can make the guy get by simply pointing out his personality flaws.

Prentice really did post that line. How extreme can I get? Letting him display himself perhaps.

Response to ‘felix’, on torture

Fairly predictably I was mobbed attacked after posting at The Standard yesterday. One of the more devious and bitter regulars,felix, posted a comment that I seem to be unable to respond to, my attempts to reply disappear (normally you’re notified if “In moderation”).

So in the meantime this is my response to felix’s “quick factcheck on what Pete posts elsewhere” trivialisation of torture.

felix’s “quick factcheck” is misrepresentation. Take:

“One is a repost of a video from Fox News about CIA torture, no obvious stance is taken by Pete except to say that the interview is “illuminating” and “sobering”.”

Highlighting an interview on “CIA torture” should give a wee indication of my stance. I gave a brief summary of points including “very distressing”, “waterboarding didn’t work”, “told to do what was necessary”.

I added this quote:
The committee’s report showed that CIA and private medical professionals were centrally involved in the program, and that they “violated numerous international treaties, laws and ethical codes,” said the Physicians for Human Rights analysis.

Leading roles were played by two private psychologists, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who developed and administered the harsh techniques and formed a private company <strong>to which the CIA paid US$81 million (NZ$104m)</strong>
James Mitchell was the person who tried to defend his torture in the interview.

To which I said “Torturers are paid well in the US.” and “Remember Abu Ghraib?” with a picture of a bound prisoner being attacked by a dog.

felix chooses to trivialise torture by the US but I saw the interview as important enough to share so people could see a torturer making excuses for himself and the CIA, who Mitchell thinks should be trusted to do what is necessary and politicians should mind their own business.

I haven’t seen a post on this torture here. Make up your own mind what you think of the interview with a torturer trying to defend the CIA interrogation program he played a significant role in establishing and executing and along with his partner was paid  US$81 million for his efforts.

The title of the post should be an obvious indication of my stance – A US torturer interviewed.

But this is trivial to felix, it seems more important for him to use tortured facts, favouring ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ at The Standard.

PG attacks a Standard response

I raised a minor issue yesterday about an attack on Patrick Gower at The Standard.

Gower was quoted tweeting about Laila Harre quitting the leadership of the Internet Party but this was turned into an attack on Gower by also quoting two diversionary tweets directed at Gower rather than the news he reported. See End of the Internet Party?

I made a minor point about the author of the post not using his own ID but posting under ‘Notices and Features’. Anthony Robins later admitted it was him, but he then turned that into an attack on me.

I put up this post Pete. Does it matter? Your obsession with The Standard is unhealthy, and frankly creepy.

An odd over-reaction to being called on something. But that seems to be the normal approach, here are more reactions from The Standars welcoming committee.


I guess your conservative spite blinded you into not reading the post.

Draco T Bastard:

You trolling already PG?


I see the trole is back then.

‘Troll’ is Standard vernacular for ‘I don’t want you posting comments here’. ‘Trole’ is a spelling variant to try and bypass auto-moderation.


It is all about pete. Isnt it?!?

It was obviously about something else, and some managed to discuss some aspects of what it was about.

Glen Jacobs (not a regular Standardista):

When and why did Pete George get his ban lifted?

Whilst I find his pathetic ways somewhat entertaining, I hope whoever was behind the amnesty does realise he’s just going to fuck the forum again

lprent responded as moderator:

[lprent: He doesn’t have one at present. They are generally time limited. His last one expired quite a while ago.

PG tends to ban himself to the great delight of most readers. I guess it helps with his usual senile victim routine as he routinely lies about why he got banned. But I believe he has recently been getting banned from other sites recently. So he is back to get his jollies here. ]

I’ve challenged him a number of times on his repeated claims that I lie about being banned from The Standard. And I’ve proven him wrong. And when facts are put to him he disappears.


“I don’t believe I lie about bans”

lolz at the senility of that statement.

Shall we start a book on how long it takes for Pete to either get a ban, or self-ban? His comments seem to be mostly about criticising ts, so I’m guessing he either goes quickly, or he’s trying out a new strategy for how long he can do this and stay just under the bannable level of offense.

felix (the king of the Standard jungle):

We all know how it ends.

Can’t someone just ban him in advance and be done with the stupid prick?

I responded to felix and weka:

I’ve no idea what ” just under the bannable level of offense” is weka. But I do know that when the usual suspects start to swarm it raises the prospects.

Thanks. And to you too felix. We know how it’s done, don’t we.


Yes we do. It starts with you raising stupid irrelevant points that no-one gives a fuck about (“omfg someone reposted a tweet”),

then you blow it out out of all proportion (have you written an OUTRAGED STANDARD DISGRACE post on your website about it yet?),

then you use this pretend issue to shoehorn your big issue (“why doesn’t the world take more notice of Pete George?”) into every thread on this site until one after another everyone here gets sick of you and, in one way or another tells you to fuck off,

and then you have a tanty because the web isn’t recognising your god-given right to post whatever you want on every site you stumble across as if you owned it,

and eventually a mod decides they’ve had enough of your passive-aggressive bullshit and bans you for something that, on its own, probably doesn’t rate as much of an offense without the context of the months of trooling that led to it,

and then you fuck off back to your site to write a martyrdom post that no-one except Lynn will ever read and spend the next three weeks reposting it at kiwiblog and whaleoil and having a big cry about the unfairness of it all.

Yes Pete, we know exactly how it works. And we know it’s going to work exactly the same this time too. Seriously, it would save everyone so much trouble if you just fucked off and started working on your martyrdom post now.

That’s a normal sort of manoeuvring from felix. He’s long practiced at trying to engineer bans for anyone he decides should not comment at The Standard. I responded:

You’re as funny as ever felix.

Wouldn’t the logical approach to comments or commenters “that no-one gives a fuck about” be to ignore them? /rhetorical


Yes Pete, the logical approach to things no-one gives a fuck about is to ignore them.

Your approach, however, is to take those things that no-one gives a fuck about, and mix them in a blender with your dog-shit of a personality, and spray the resulting filth all over this site,

and you’ll be doing it all day, every day, until someone bans you,

because that’s how it works.

My reply:

I don’t intend to comment here anywhere near all day every day. I have a lot of other things I usually prefer to do, unlike you it seems, destined it seems to grump it out here trying to chase anyone away you don’t approve of.


“I don’t intend to comment here anywhere near all day every day.”

No-one intends that you do. But that hasn’t stopped you yet.

Why don’t you comment on whaleoil instead? Cameron’s getting desperate for attention, he could do with the page views.


And the thread has deteriorated to be about pg, not the topic of the post.



You mean the title of the thread wasnt

What is pete george thinking about today?

Stephanie Rodgers

have you written an OUTRAGED STANDARD DISGRACE post on your website about it yet?

Spoiler alert: he totally did, complete with pearl-clutching about the ~misuse~ of the “notices and features” handle.


Oh, dear George! Did he now? What a witnit!


Oh gawd. Is he banned from ontheleft?

Stephanie Rodgers

Strangely enough he hasn’t graced many of our threads with his comments after the first few times I told him to stay on topic and cut the passive-aggressive BS.

I haven’t seen anything of interest to comment on there. Funny Stephanie talking about aggressiveness. She aggressively attacks people who stray off what she wants the topic to be confined to.


And the thread has deteriorated to be about pg, not the topic of the post.


And when its not


They don’t take kindly to Josie Pagani being critical of them either.

Such is the Standard of debate. And one of the next steps is for them to claim I am taking over threads and should be banned for it.

I don’t care if I’m banned again. It won’t stop me from criticising them when I see fit, and it won’t stop attacking me.

But this time it switched the bash wagon from one PG to another.

UPDATE: In a comment below lprent said:

I really don’t have time to deal with senile lying old gits with too much time on their hands who quote our policies for Notices and Features and then proceed to misrepresent what it says.

However he has found the time at The Standard, in response to me saying “I don’t believe I lie about bans. You keep claiming this, incorrectly. ”

His response reasserts that I lie but again he doesn’t back it up with anything apart from a rant…

[lprent: You routinely do. I always give the reason why I ban someone based on what is in the policy. That could be anything from questioning the site rules, to diverting off a posts topic, to simply appearing to waste moderators time by initiating boring flamewars that are invariably about you and your behaviour.

Rather than deal with that and just modifying your own behavior, you invariably choose to interpret that as some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy rather than dealing with what is said. What you appear to not accept is that it is your own behaviour on our site that triggers the warnings and bans. Your behaviour in this post is absolutely characteristic. Your interpretation of our clear rules about the use of notices and features was just outright wrong and quite indefensible. But you managed to divert a large portion of the comments on the post completely off topic.

You also appear to be oblivious to your usual behaviour after you get a ban which is the basis of why I say that you routinely lie about it. Felix in a comment in this marathon comment scan (I’m currently on page 12 of 50 comments heading back to about 2pm yesterday) gave a pretty concise description of your usual behaviour.

If you’d just content yourself with actually addressing the topics of the post or the derived debate, and not making whole swathes of commentary being about you, it’d save me a whole lot of time. It’d take a while before the automatic responses by other commenters die down, but just ignore them or confine your responses to your own blog and stick to topics raised, and eventually you’d wind up commenting without the collective “FFS it is PG self-indulgently wanking again” response that you currently get.

Commenters automatically respond to you going off topic because they have seen you use your usual tactics far too many times. Instead of writing when you have something relevant to say, you seem to have an obsession with simply typing crap and asserting it is fact – because you think so. That isn’t debate. Then you complain that people don’t like it, disagree with you, and tell you why. That is the behaviour of someone who has a narcissistic need to be the centre of attention – not someone who is actually interested in discussion and debate.

BTW: If I have to ban you again, I have already decided that the date will be November 21 2017. I really don’t have time for this type of shit again. ]

I assume from this he doesn’t want me to debate, he makes baseless assertions, fails again to back them up, then threatens a ban. That’s very tough Lyn. You must love that power.

Cosgrove’s asset bill clobbered

Overshadowed by the marriage bill, Clayton Cosgrove’s supposed asset protection bill was voted down yesterday afternoon.

As usual The Standard tries to make a scandal out of nothing:

Right votes for future asset sales

National, Banks, and Dunne voted to keep the door open for more asset sales yesterday. Clayton Cosgrove’s Bill would have required a super-majority in Parliament or a referendum to move more companies out of the SOE Act – a necessary step in the privatisation process. Dunne in particular has promised not to support further asset sales, yet given a chance to stop them, he refused.

This was a poor bill that was poorly promoted by Cosgrove, it always appeared to be unrealalistic legislation that was little more than an excuse to try and score some cheap points. And that’s what ‘Eddie’ is trying to do. And also ‘felix’, true to poor form:


So Dunne turns out to be a two-faced liar, eh? Who’d have thunk it? He always seemed so genuinely principled and not like a weasel-wording snake-oil selling politician at all.

Shock I am.

Shock I’m not, that’s standard ‘felix’ nonsense, weasel-wording snake-oil selling blog commenter and all. The old liar accusation again, when he’s the one promoting political lies and smears. Again.

As a principled politician Dunne did the right thing by refusing to buy into this claptrap.

The bill was barely mentioned leading up to it’s introduction, it was that ridiculous the media virtually ignored it. It only took until the second comment for the obvious to be pointed out:


Cosgrove’s Bill was unreasonable, and in fact antidemocratic. It cannot be right that a government elected with say a 70% majority and an explicit committment for asset sales would be thwarted by a minority of 30%. Supermajorities should be reserved from the most fundamental of democratic rights, usually associated with the electoral system.

Cosgrove tried a follow up press release that hasn’t been taken any more seriously:

National’s rejection of a Labour bill to raise the barriers to selling state assets shows the Government still has the likes of KiwiBank, KiwiRail and TVNZ lined up on the block for sale, says the bill’s author, Labour’s SOEs spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.

“My bill had a simple proposition. Ensure that no state asset can be sold without a national referendum or support of three-quarters of Parliament. That protects our assets for the future and ensures the voice of the people is heard.

“The Protecting Strategic Assets Bill lost by just one vote. National and its support partners have rejected this bill, ensuring that KiwiBank, TVNZ, New Zealand Post and many others remain seriously at risk. There can only be one reason for opposing the bill – they want to sell more assets.

This bill was an over the top solution to a problem that didn’t exist. I don’t recall seeing anyone else in Labour even bothering to pay more than lip service to the bill.

Except ‘Eddie’ and ‘felix’, but it’s hard to take these blog hacks seriously if this is the best they can come up with.

It would have been a major embarrassment to Labour if this bill had passed it’s first reading, but that would have been a waste of Member’s time.

Is this a new Standard?

Much was said at The Standard yesterday about me in my absence. Irony in abundance. There’s a lot that could be responded to, but there’s little point. But a couple of comments say quite a bit.

Bill 16 July 2012 at 7:06 pm:

I had previously suggested that those irked by his comments simply ignore them. That obviously doesn’t work for some people. Granted, it’s difficult to remain silent if and when you feel provoked by stuff some-one is saying.

I have often remained silent when provoked, and I’ve been the subject of much un-sought attention and provocation. Sometimes I’ve spoken up in defence. And I end up getting the blame for dominating threads.

Bill suggests:

So…know how in real life when an idiot or intensely annoying person insists on debating frivolous side issues and you respond to them, not with simple silence, but a smile of indulgence and pity that carries a thousand unspoken words and unverbalised counter positions? And you know how that tends to either render the irksome personage silent or throw them into paroxysms of emotive clap trap?

Cue the ultimate irony – felix 16 July 2012 at 8:11 pm

I like the way you think Bill. I’ma try that if I get the urges.

I wonder if felix can smile at himself. Or will he stick to his paroxysms of emotive clap trap?

For those who don’t know, felix is a prominent, pedantic, persistent, frivolous troll at The Standard.

Handful of blog accusations against Dunne keep ignoring facts and mainstream reality

Peter Dunne continues to be attacked by a few anonymous blog commenters, in stark contrast to mainstream media coverage. From The Standard:

felix 3.2

What a load of shit, Pete.

“I think the people have had far too much of politicians who say one thing before an election and then weasel word after it. In fact, I must be the only politician being criticised for keeping his word.”

The lying prick knows full well, as you do, that his electioneering material was very carefully crafted to loudly and boldly proclaim ‘WE WILL NEVER SELL WATER, KIWIBANK, OR RADIO NZ’, while whispering softly ‘but everything else is on the block, and ps when I say water I’m not counting the water in the hydro system ie most of our water’.

He’s not being criticised for keeping his word Pete, he’s being criticised precisely for weasel- wording. He’s a deceitful, manipulative weasel and a nasty piece of work.

He’s not being criticised for keeping his word Pete, he’s being criticised precisely for weasel- wording. He’s a deceitful, manipulative weasel and a nasty piece of work.

This is repeated nonsense.

But look at who’s criticising him. A few anonymous people on a blog. No evidence presented, just ‘opinions’ used in in attack that seemingly deliberately keep ignoring clear facts.

The Q+A researchers would have been aware of what he would claim and prepared no challenge. Shane Taurima didn’t challenge it. Stuff haven’t challenged it:


Facing a highly organised campaign against him in his electorate, United Future leader Peter Dunne is understandably finding the focus on his support for the Government’s asset sales legislation a tad tiresome.

When asked by TVNZ’s Q+A if voting for the Government’s mixed-ownership model was a difficult decision, he responded: “No, it wasn’t … what’s been surprising, though, is that no-one seemed to notice that we were honouring a policy commitment we put in place three years ago.”

He said United Future had never opposed floating shares in some state assets.

I asked a different Felix (Marwick) a while ago why the MSM weren’t interested in smear campaigns on blogs.

I’m sorry to say there’d be limited news interest, if any, in the debates about the accuracy of comments made on political blogs. In this case Dunne’s position has been accurately represented in the media and that’s where it’ll have been most noticed.

I’m sure more people are aware of Dunne’s position on asset sales via what’s been printed and broadcast in mainstream avenues than they’ve been influenced by whatever comments have been made by authors at The Standard.

Continued claims of things like “deceitful, manipulative weasel and a nasty piece of works” are in a small echo chamber in places like The Standard and reflect more on those who keep making unsubstantiated accusations.

For felix

It looks like I made your day yesterday:


(Cue indignant self-righteous posting on Pete’s blog and KB about how he was “banned just for having a different opinion”.


I’ll make your day again. As you well know I don’t have the right of reply where you posted. I’d have done it here sooner but I didn’t realise what has caused you so much joy, I hadn’t bothered to read the detail of lprent’s long laboured lambast about not wasting his time until today.

I don’t think I was “banned just for having a different opinion”. I was banned because lprent decided he wanted to, you know that’s how it works there as well as I do.

You’ll just have to find someone else to hound for a couple of weeks, you might even get someone  banned yourself one day, if that’s what amuses you.

In the meantime I’ll make some better use of my time.