Disqus - Latest Comments for OnthePaepae

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:40:50 -0000

@stephanie crowhurst Thanks for your courteous reply Stephanie.
It's terribly easy for our 'tone' to be misread. I didn't/don't seek to attack you.
I agree, it's not in anyone's interests to drag things 'on-stage' that are presently off-stage. Indeed.
I just realized I saw a comment from you on another blog about this — with which I agree wholeheartedly:

... It’s time to stop talking about it on here and other blogs. Ring each other up, go meet for coffee and talk about the ins and outs of it all, in private away from the eyes of the blog world.
Time to move on and enjoy our loved ones and friends.

Good for you. Go well.
--
@Thinking Matters Brendan, while I'm here, I just wanted to acknowledge this passage of, as I see it, very good writing in your reply to me:

I also think that you have an unreasonable fear of this ruling, wrongly assuming that men in cyber jackboots could turn up any day now to kick in the door of your blog because of this decision.

I may not agree with your point, Brendan, but you put it well there.

- Peter 28/6/13

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:39:31 -0000

These two comments above (Stephanie Crowhurst & the sock-puppet using the pseudonym 'Jacqueline') are good examples of the kind of aggressive public 'contribution' that has inflamed and kept this contentious situation alive.

@Stephanie: It seems to me if you're going to comment, at the very least you should declare your association, especially in context of the 'intimately invested' discussion above. Sadly, you also (deliberately?) miss my point with your 'telling lies is not freedom of speech' straw man. I don't say that it is.

And Stephanie, do you really want to bring the previous Order in to the spotlight? It's fair to say Judge Mary-Beth Sharp's ruling surprised some in the legal fraternity with respect to its BORA implications.

It's also clear that Judge Harvey — at Mrs Flannagan's request — used it as a basis for the 'indefinite' and 'broad' aspects of his Decision (those are the aspects that trouble me most — not so much the 'take-down' aspect, as I explained). Convenient that Madeleine should be so up-to-date with events in that case. I assume she's in close communication with that applicant. Can you ask him for me?
--
@sock-puppet: It's hard for me to find any respect or sympathy for what you're doing here. You seem to be fanning the flames ... yet you tell me to 'shut up'.

re my alleged 'spin', thanks for reading my comments here and at The Paepae, and for your feedback. I don't think I've been inconsistent, as you suggest (but perhaps I've been unclear?) Email me directly if you want to continue that conversation and suggest 'corrections'. I welcome it. (My address is on the 'About' page at my blog.)

While you're at it, sock-puppet, tell me (privately) what on earth you mean regarding my supposed 'issue' with the use of the word campaign. I used it three times in that post:

With respect, I frowned at Rob Kidd's reference to “a blogger who launched an online campaign to ruin [the lawyer's] reputation”, since it imputes motivation.

My point there was to question Rob Kidd's claim about *why* the blogger acted as she did, not whether her actions could be so described. (See my note below.)

A supporter of the lawyer, using the pseudonym 'Scrubone', himself engaged in a lengthy vitriolic campaign of cyber-bullying and name-calling, flinging the blogger's past at her and repeatedly calling her a 'liar', [...]'crazy', etc.

(Insert for clarity: I do NOT impugn Scrubone's motives for so doing, but *decry* the excesses of his approach as, in my view, needlessly inflammatory.)

It's also inescapable that some of the blogger's comments and statements were offensive (reactive or not) and her 'campaign' of criticism and denigration protracted and potentially threatening the lawyer's reputation and livelihood.

sock-puppet, my point (expressed on my blog and in my replies above) is that the blogger's 'campaign' or 'pattern of behaviour' was, and has to be seen as at least in part a reaction to a pattern of actions taken against her — including the sort of provocation which your reply to me exemplifies:
Hotly aggressive (needlessly in my case) and anonymous.

As I said to another anonymous commenter at the NZConservative blog:

Don't you realise your hateful behaviour is confirming the allegations against you?

What you're doing isn't helping, sock-puppet, and I don't imagine Brendan welcomes it on his blog.
Talk to me privately, if you wish.

- Peter 28/6/13

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:19:31 -0000

After reading it I really don't have any desire to continue things any further with yet another point-by-point reply of my own, This would merely be a rather pointless and time-consuming expercize in futility it seems.

OK. Thanks for reading it, Brendan — and allowing me to respond.
Peace be with you.

- Peter 27/6/13

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 04:01:39 -0000

OK. Trying again, again ... Hi Brendan,

Let me quickly refer to your point that the harassment cannot be 'justified' by the abusive treatment that's been meted out (much of it anonymously) to the blogger by people YOU describe as 'over-zealous defenders of Matt and Madeleine Flannagan'.

The Flannagan's (sic) did NOT perpetrate this abuse, and it cannot be used to justify her harassment of the Flannagan's.(sic)

I'll get to it below, but allow me to underscore it here: It seems there is a fundamental mischaracterisation being promoted by some in the Flannagan 'camp'.

The truth is, I actually don't seek in anyway to "justify the harassment of the Flannagans". To do so would be a waste of time. I've said the blogger's behaviour crossed the line. I've said it was wrong and I wish it had never happened.

It is equally a waste of time to pretend that the disgraceful treatment the blogger has been confronted with (not by the Flannagans) can be 'set aside' as if it were some neat theoretical point. We're dealing with human beings here. We live in an emotional, interconnected, action-reaction-overreaction world. That's the reality. It explains something.

Our actions have consequences — emotional consequences — which drive other actions. That applies to Madeleine's actions too. As I have said, legal correspondence ratchets up the emotional pressure. That's a fact of life.
--
OK, to respond more fully:
As a general point, Brendan: With respect, you keep saying I imply things — even after I have denied your interpretation and further explained my intended meaning. Really, we seem to be only one step above an interchange that looks like this:

Peter: The sky is quite light today
Brendan: Why are you minimizing the blue? Outrageous!
Peter: No, I didn't mean the colour -- the sky is quite light.
Brendan: You were implying the blue was 'weak'. Disgraceful!
Peter: Wha? 'Implying'? No, no I wasn't. I was saying the sky looks ... light ... to me.
Brendan: Well, that's how I took it. That's your implication.
Peter: ????

At this point, I think we've got to both (meaning 'you' :-) ) admit that it's a more a matter of you inferring things from my comments rather than me implying them. Especially since I've *clarified* my meaning — as in the Law Society complaints issue. For you to keep saying that I imply or suggest something when I've told you I don't isn't useful.
--
More importantly, I think I've located the fundamental misunderstanding in our discussion.

It's there in the title of your blog post 'Harassment is NOT freedom of expression' - but I didn't actually click to it until the other night when I read Madeleine's similarly titled post on her blog 'Why Defamatory Speech is not Free Speech'

I don't disagree with what's expressed in those two titles. So we're arguing different things.

The two of you, Brendan and Madeleine (and Matt too I guess) seem to think that my 'freedom of speech concerns' are to do with what we all actually *agree* can fairly be described as a 'campaign' (or 'pattern' as Judge Harvey put it) of unacceptable and harassing online comments and allegations of dishonesty, incompetence etc posted on the blogger's website.

That's wrong. I mean it's wrong to think that I somehow want the blogger's 'over the line' treatment of Madeleine protected as free speech. I don't.

As I have tried to explain, I'm hesitant (for reasons I'll get to) but I broadly concur with Judge Harvey's decision re the 'take-down' order.

It is a 'landmark' decision in that respect alone, in that in some ways it anticipates the Law Commission's recommendations re internet communications. (Obviously not a coincidence, given Judge Harvey's stature on these matters. He had input, I would say.)

As I read his decisions (2012 & 2013) His Honour was somewhat conflicted by the case being brought as a Harassment Act action rather than a defamation proceeding. Me too — my hesitancy.

By the way, that aspect is unquestionably a 'legal novelty' Brendan. See the link to Steven Price's article 'Has the Harassment Act just swallowed the law of defamation?' on my blog where he describes the Decision as 'a radical judgment that by-passes defamation law' and opens his article:

The recent decision Flannagan v. Sperling (DC Waitakere) may have opened up a cheap highway through the expensive labyrinth of defamation law.
Why sue for defamation when you can get an injunction by showing that a publisher has harassed and distressed you instead?
For one thing, you don’t need to worry about all those pesky defences such as truth and honest opinion. ...

Also, if you have time, consider some worthwhile comments by 'Jay' following my 'Is this what we want?' post.

My freedom of speech 'issues' are to do with the extraordinarily broad and indefinite restraining order preventing the blogger from even mentioning Madeline Flannagan's name or anything that might, by implication, identify her or her family.

As I see it [insert my standard 'I am not a lawyer' disclaimer here] that's an *extreme* use of a restraining order (Steven Price calls it 'a whopper', Jay is troubled by its 'blanket' nature) and an imposition on the blogger's Bill of Rights freedoms. Judge Harvey said he 'weighed' those. Hmmm.

As I see it, at the point a restraining order is issued it should apply to further 'specified acts of harassment'. That's fair enough. But in this context (internet discussion) it seems a stretch to me to class as a 'specified act' mentioning somebody's name (even in a neutral or positive way), or referring to an adverse Court judgement.

Now I know, some have made parallels with domestic violence and protection orders applying to sexual abuse victims where 'no contact', 'no reference at all', are appropriate — and I do sincerely believe there is genuine distress in this situation (on both 'sides'). But is the blogger restrained from contacting Mrs Flannagan? I don't see that in the Decision. (I'm open to correction. :-) ) If not, that weakens the parallel in my eyes. BUT: I could be wrong.

I blogged about 'The curse of hypervigilance ' last year in the aftermath of the 2012 case. It's definitely a factor in this case too, as I see it. [Have a read, I'd be interested in your feedback.]

As 'Jay' (commenter on my blog) pointed out, and this is also mentioned by law lecturer Steven Price, the gagging order effectively stops the blogger from even acknowledging she's received the judgement or saying whether she agrees, disagrees or is indifferent to it — on her blog.

Judge Harvey issued a judgement and effectively (so far as online, within her moderation/editorial control is concerned) banned her from addressing it. Sorry, to me that effect smacks of secret judgements, secret courts, banning orders and 'exile'.

I'm not the only one to raise concerns.

re your [3]
my alleged 'intimate' and 'emotional investment' in this. Wow. Brendan, you open your blog post with this:

Disclosure: I know Matt and Madeleine Flannagan personally, and am privileged to call them friends. I also regularly share the speaker’s podium with Matt at public events.

Yes, I found them to be an impressive couple too.
As far as I know I've never laid eyes on Jacqueline Sperling, I've not spoken to her, and you say I'm the 'emotionally invested' one? Yes, she's commented on my blog, yes, we've corresponded. I've corresponded with quite a few of the commenters on my blog. I've met several of them for lunch or drinks. So?

Your assertion "you even quote the correspondence you had with her" is incorrect, as far as I know. I believe every such 'quote' is from a [public] comment on my blog. (I'm not perfect, but I try to be careful about such matters.)
Likewise my 'advice' to her has been pretty public: Stop engaging. Stop looking. Let it go. WALK AWAY.

With respect Brendan, I'm reluctantly forced toward the conclusion that your earlier remarks about me being 'intimately invested' and your comment 'I simply pointed out that you have more invested in this incident than just a fascination with legal rulings pertaining to freedom of expression' are an attempt to discredit me through shabby innuendo. Shame on you, mate, if that's the case.

re your [5]
Thanks for clarifying the 'real world actions' you were referring to. OK. I wondered if you meant other undisclosed things. As I said at the time: approaching an employer is despicable, and the Law Society complaints appeared to me to be vindictive. No argument from me there.

Although, as the paragraph [32] Matt quoted from the Decision records, the Judge explicitly refused to confirm the Standards Committee's finding (and Mrs Flannagan's submission) that the LS complaint should be seen as a continuation of the harassment i.e. described as 'specified act'. People are entitled to complain as part of checks and balances on the powerful. Awkward, open to abuse, but there it is.

re your [6]
I'm not clear what you are attempting to draw from quoting those passages. Please explain.

For reference: I do NOT regard "acting to vindicate themselves" as a bad thing. Just the opposite. I do that. And as I said, 'They [M&M] were trying to put something right'. Why would I criticise that motivation? I don't.

re your [7] Martin Niemöller's poem
I think we'll have to just agree to see my inclusion of that differently, Brendan. I've told you (and Matt) why I cited it:
To explain why, given my terrible unease about this exercise of state power to indefinitely prevent someone in these circumstances from mentioning a name or referring to a Court judgement, I chose to speak up.

Given the vehemence of the reaction to my blog post discussing the 2012 case (I don't recall ever having to moderate a discussion thread so heavily, then CLOSE IT, not to mention the offline reaction) I knew I would be heavily criticised for doing so. So it has proved.

As above ... If, in the face of ME TELLING YOU WHAT I MEANT, you have to lean on:
"Firstly, you are implying that..."
"Secondly, you are implying that..."
"Thirdly, you are implying that..."
and, as just an extra helping of ridiculous:
"I'm fairly confident that Martin Niemöller wouldn't be too happy..."

...well, Brendan, it seem to me on this point we have what some people call 'a major disconnect'.

re [8] 'the most fatal flaw' you say:
"I was not referring to the specifics of this restraining order."

Well I was, Brendan, as I pointed out. So, respectfully, the rest of your point, which (as I read it) amounts to little more than: 'She was bad. Very bad. So she deserves to be punished and have some of her rights stripped away' is moot, as far as I am concerned.

re [9]
I have nothing to say to you about your denial that you're characterising me as a conflicted twister. You've done it again in your reply. Too bad.

I haven't set out to demean you Brendan — nor anybody else.

regards, - Peter 26/6/13

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:09:44 -0000

Erk!! My masterpiece!! ... LOST!?! :-)
Hey, no worries. I'll reconstruct it.

On the good side, I've mellowed a bit, so it'll possibly be less ... strident.
(On the bad side, that means it'll be longer.)
If the first one turns up, trash it, please. I'll drop you a reply later tonight, when I get a chance.

- Peter 26/6/13
PS. MUCH improved comment legibility! Well done.

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:06:41 -0000

Hi Brendan, I submitted a reply to your response to me yesterday 25/6 before lunch. It seemed to appear briefly. But it's not showing. Is there a problem? - Peter 26/6/13 2:06pm

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:23:55 -0000

@Matt: Thanks for the correction and paragraph reference Matt. (Madeleine's been in touch overnight too.)

My mistake. I accept Judge Harvey's Decision *did* refer to the Law Society complaint, as you point out. As I suggested I would, I added a note yesterday recording the outcome at that point in my post. I've now expanded it with more details, since I now have them.]

Please don't let that obscure my substantive point: I DON'T seek to minimize the "serious and stressful" ramifications of the Law Society complaint being laid. I'm relieved that they were dismissed. You will recall this in my reply to your comment on the 2012 post:

I wish Jacqueline hadn’t written/published such comments; and also that she wouldn’t pursue the law society complaints she’s laid, which have an appearance (to me) of being unnecessary and vindictive. That’s something of which she accuses Brown-Flannagan. Such actions won’t help anyone put this behind them. And ‘putting behind’ is what’s best for everyone concerned, in my view. But what do I know?

That she didn't withdraw them is a matter of record.

@Brendan: Sorry I misspelt your name a few times in my comment. Unintentional — and corrected, I hope.

I look forward to your response to my questions and the points I've raised.

Some feedback: Gee it's *hard* to read comments on your website with grey letters on a dark grey background.
This is how it looks on my browser (Safari OSX and similar in Chrome):

Maybe you could consider tweaking a setting on your blog's theme to make comments more easily legible?

- Peter 24/6/13

Re: Harassment is NOT freedom of expression

Peter A — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:49:15 -0000

Hi Brendan, thanks for reading my latest post on this controversial cyber-harassment case involving Matt & Madeleine Flannagan. I really appreciate you speaking up for your friends in such a reasonable and rational tone. Good on you.

I hope a few responses from me will be welcome. I'd like to clarify where I'm coming from in some of the points I've made and also, if you don't mind, ask you what you mean by a couple of your comments — I'll just mention those as I come to them.

"rather lengthy post" — yeah, sorry, I apologised at the end. I thought it was important to quote that significant section of Judge Harvey's decision where he spells out his rationale for overruling the blogger's Bill of Rights Act freedoms. A big step. (But, some would say necessary and justified in this case.)

Also, as your own 1500 word post demonstrates, a lot has 'gone down' in this protracted dispute and there's quite a lot to cover just by way of narrative before we get to the points to consider. Still, let's get on with it.

You mention the episodes of 'unacceptable abuse' directed toward the blogger by over zealous defenders/persons unknown, and seek to have those treated as a 'totally separate issue'.

Well, while I like how you've put that ... you can hope to do that, but the ugly stuff chucked at the blogger as psychological warfare over months *is actually relevant*, it seems to me, to her state of mind, and in part driving her own unacceptable abuse of and action toward the Flannagans.

I agree with you that dreadful bilge chucked her (by anonymous Scrubone and anonymous others) is not abuse by the Flannagans. I take them at their word, without hesitation, that they were not involved in it. But it did happen and it *is* a factor.

I have no idea, but would like to know, what you mean by this:

"... based on his own comments and admissions in this blog post – that [Peter] is probably a little bit too intimately invested in this case to be an objective commenter on the issues at hand ... it certainly should give the reader caution when discerning the stance he has taken in this article.

Wow, what are you referring to Brendan? Do you mean my 'admissions' about being subject to censorship myself? Or do you mean to imply something else by your use of the word 'intimate'? What? Please explain.

re my supposed 'trivialising' of the Law Society complaints: No, that wasn't my intention, Brendan. I didn't mean 'albeit temporary' as a kind of softener for 'serious and stressful'. I meant the impact of the, since dismissed, Law Society complaints was serious and stressful, but NOT permanent. (It's OK, I know you're defending your friends.) Maybe I could add a comment about the Law Society complaints being found to be 'vexatious' — can you point me to evidence to support that assertion? (Not a trick question. The outcomes aren't cited in the Decision.)
UPDATE: See Matt's comment below pointing to para [32] of the Decision, and my response. I accept he's right.

I don't disagree with your statements about the potential for a 'single sentence' published to have a huge negative impact. You're right. We're playing with fire here.

I also agree that the campaign the blogger directed at Madeleine & Matt was reprehensible. It definitely 'crossed the line', no question about it — I've said similar things in my post, and I wish she'd never done any of it.

But I am mystified about the 'real world actions' you refer to several times:
...and yet this incident wasn’t just pixels on a screen, it involved real-world actions, and some very vicious attacks on someone, attacks that potentially had very serious ramifications,
and

Secondly, this harassment DID NOT JUST HAPPEN ONLINE – actions were taken offline as well.

Really Brendan? What *were* these offline incidents? I am unaware of them. Are they recorded in either of Judge Harvey's decisions? If not, where?

Also, you say, about me:
It is woefully misleading to suggest that the Flannagan’s have engaged in some sort of tit-for-tat self-serving court action here.

Well, yes, it would be — if I did suggest that. But I don't — and I don't believe that's what they did. Not for a second.
They were trying to PUT SOMETHING RIGHT. Please read where I said that in my post.

re your comment: Martin Niemöller anti-Nazi poem ... its inclusion is a totally unfair and overly emotive attempt to malign the actions of the Flannagan’s in this incident.

No, it wasn't intended as such, and as I wrote to Matt and posted (in green) on the bottom of my post, I cited that powerful, inspiring, challenging poem (is that what you mean by overly emotive?) 'Who will speak for me?' to explain why I am speaking up expressing my terrible unease about the indefinite and extremely broad gagging order imposed by state power against someone it seems you and others would have be seen as a pariah.

The poem is there to help explain MY motivations for speaking up in the face of the perfectly predictable criticism I'm getting for doing so — even here on your website. (But you and Matt can take offence if you're determined to.)

So, thank you Brendan, for your suggestion that my citing Pastor Niemöller is somehow "the very antithesis" of what he meant — I strongly disagree with your view (and I'm not the only one.)

Let's quickly deal with what you call 'the most fatal flaw' in my post — my question about whether Judge Harvey's restraint order would apply to the blogger if she dared to breathe Madeleine's name in a book or a magazine article. Or is she only prevented from referring to Mrs Flannagan "online, and where she has moderation power"?

Again, Brendan, in your outraged zeal to defend Matt & Madeleine, you've misunderstand my point. I am (of course) NOT suggesting the blogger should/would/could - EVER - repeat or publish again her defamatory statements or 'specific acts of harassment' in written form. Or anywhere. This has to be, for heaven's sake, an end to that harassment. Surely.

My query (and I don't expect to you to answer it Brendan) is this: OK, so the blogger is legally prevented — indefinitely — from making any mention of the Flannagans online.

Here's the order:
[76] I further order that Ms Sperling be restrained from publishing Ms Flannagan’s name or any material that may directly or by inference lead to her identification or any other details about her or her family, explicit or implied, on her blog WonderfulNow or any other on-line forum accessible by the public which she can moderate. (emphasis mine)

But what about other media? Just how broad is this indefinite gagging order? Is it just online publication that SHE has moderation power over? That's how it looks. As I read it, Judge Harvey's decision doesn't address physical books and magazines - but perhaps it does. I'm a publisher, not a lawyer.

So, with respect Brendan, your final paragraph:
"So if you can’t do it in a book, a public presentation, or in print or broadcast media, then why would Peter Aranyi think that it would be acceptable to do so on a blog or other online forum? It seems to me that this is the real question that needs to be answered here."

... doesn't just put words in my mouth — I don't "think that it would be acceptable" — you're fundamentally misunderstanding the question I'm trying to ask.

Let me finish by emphasising this: We haven't met, but I'm all for you defending your friends, and I appreciate you doing so in a reasoned manner and without stooping to merely indulging in character assassination.

But please don't mistakenly characterise me as some conflicted twister defending what Judge Harvey found were 'specific acts of harassment' as somehow a free speech issue.

That's really missing my point.

Best wishes, Peter Aranyi 23/6/13

Updated to fix misspelling and add note re Law Society complaint - P 24/6/13

Re: Almost... there...: A New, Improved Infrastructure

Peter A — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:41:00 -0000

... and inconsistently. #sadtrombone

Still, I love Instapaper.

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:45:26 -0000

Cameron, you say:

I told you things to see where they ended up...

I see. So you're NOW saying you simply lied to me about your use of multiple fake Facebook profiles to stalk politicians? Lied to my face. Thanks for clarifying that.

Let's consider the veracity of your latest claims. You say

...you come here to engage I do not do so the other way.

Do I? Actually, referring to my Disqus profile, aside from briefly offering condolences on your mother's passing, and an update to note the Min. of Ed. caving on the Thurston Place school, it's been over a year since I 'engaged' in discussion here at your website. And quite some time before that. Have a look: http://disqus.com/OnthePaepae/

I just refreshed my memory, and I see it was to do with your 16 March 2012 post responding to Duncan Garner calling you a liar, again — in which you linked to one of my posts at The Paepae (Cheers. Isn't that how it works?)

My comment was a short response to your wife Juana spinning a fantastical story (runs in the family?) in the comment stream which also referred to me. I called her narrative 'Hogwash'. http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2...

So, a gap from 16 March 2012 to yesterday, 6 April 2013. Hmm yep, looks like I'm crazy-out-of-control all right. What a frenzy!

But, you tell us, you "do not do so the other way." ...

You don't? So what's this? http://j.mp/CS-comments
Comments on The Paepae from someone claiming to be Whaleoil? IS THAT NOT YOU 'engaging', Cameron? (As if that was bad.)

As for me 'initiating' on Twitter — do you mean referring to you? Do you understand how Twitter works? Good grief.

For someone who says "Explaining is losing" your vacuous attempts to smear me as some sort of communications 'aggressor' (with you as the 'victim'? Pfft!) seem unconvincing. As does your pop psycho-analysis ('thrill').

But I guess your comments are for consumption here, with no real expectation they be truthful.

Finally, let me say I was provoked to comment yesterday by your ludicrous, hyperbolic use of Twitter 'Mention Maps' to libel David Fisher and Barry Soper as not being "ethical and fair and balanced journalists" because they somehow offend you.

I know you don't like criticism, but that was shabby, Cameron. Even for you.

- P

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 05:38:16 -0000

Not likely to be an issue. - P

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 05:36:28 -0000

I quoted the wikipedia definition of 'sock puppet' merely to demonstrate your mis-use of the very term you accused me of not understanding. A minor point.
But you'd be right to say I think you're an online stalker. Unquestionably.

I only have one online identity,...

Strange, that doesn't square with what you told me in person — specifically relating to your use of Facebook to track politicians. So ... has that changed, Cameron?

"a weasel, pretending chattiness, and friendliness in order to "collect" acquaintances, information and gossip."

Sure thing Cameron. OK — No, actually I am genuinely chatty, I assure you. And I look for the best in people. Shoot me. (Not literally! Oops.) Refer to my earlier comment about people telling me things.
And, oh boy, are you saying gossip is A.Bad.Thing, Mr Tipline?

If your definition of 'friendly' is "never criticise my actions no matter what I do" you're on a path to shallowness and disappointment. Take it as feedback.

I'm perfectly happy with a 'polite distance', thanks. That's quite close enough.
As for the rest of your tortured psycho-babble about who is 'engaging' whom, and accusing me of 'trolling' you, sorry Cameron, I think you're being most disingenuous.

Can you really be that blind to your own actions and fixations?

Good night.
- P

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:33:58 -0000

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets.

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:20:45 -0000

David Fisher and Barry Soper actually ARE journalists, Cameron, not "so-called", despite your ill-feeling toward them.
I distrust your partisan interpretation of their (or anyone else's) 'colours' based on whether their reporting/writing at the moment displeases your friends.

Also, your use of these Twitter 'mention maps' seems nonsense to me. Sorry. Your example — the link between the two of us — undercuts your conspiracy theory against Fisher and Soper (and earlier Andrea Vance) — doesn't it?

"It doesn't mean that we correspond or communicate."

Er, Cameron? Yes we do. What makes you deny that here? (Shall I prove it?)

"Clear troll-like tendencies"? That's rich coming from you, I must say. So is your suggestion I'm "a left wing sock puppet" based on my writing, comments and (spooky noise) my 'associates'. Oooooh. But that's your feedback, I guess.

While you undoubtedly have more experience in the blogosphere than I do, I'm pretty sure it's you who is misusing the term, 'sock puppet', Cameron. Ask around. I write in my own name.

Mr Key's appointment powers aren't the issue, are they? It looks more to me like questions about the trustworthiness of some of his statements (in Parliament and to the media) and the changing account of his association with Ian Fletcher.

Thanks for reading The Paepae so carefully.

- P

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 21:46:45 -0000

"apparently"? Where? I don't recall *ever* being known as that. (Are you confusing me with someone else, perhaps? Do we know each other?)

I do, as I explained here (http://www.thepaepae.com/no... ) experience an odd phenomenon where people just tell me stuff ...

I don’t know what it is, but people seem to want to tell me things — surprising things. It was like that when I worked as a journalist, it was like that before, and it’s still like that. I don’t pry, they just tell me. Dunno why. Something about my face? It’s a mystery.

- P

Re: Understanding bloggers…and other political tragics

Peter A — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:59:50 -0000

Cameron, you say: "These people purport to be ethical and fair and balanced journalists when the evidence is pretty clear that they are not."

What evidence? A MentionMapp? Are you serious? You're advancing THAT as 'evidence'?

Observe the disclaimer: "You are looking at a map of MENTIONS. Each user is connected to the people and hashtags they mentioned in the MOST RECENT TWEETS."

Hardly 'evidence' with which to question ethics and fairness even by the most fevered conspiracy theorist.

And you haven't given us the benefit of your own MentionMapp. Here it is:
http://j.mp/CameronMentionMapp

Oh.My.God. You're linked to the Harlem Shake! You menace!

- P

Re: Was Paul Holmes' Kim Dotcom interview his last?

Peter A — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:38:39 -0000

Oh, Regan. No, not OK:
"We sincerely hope that there is no truth to this and hope someone can put this rumor (sic), which is circulating, to rest."

I worked with Paul for five years so maybe i'm sensitive, but gee, mate ... nah.
I don't like what you've done here.
- P

Re: RIP Mum

Peter A — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:56:56 -0000

I'm sad for you, Cameron.
My condolences to you and your family, and all who loved your mum.- P

Re: Please bear with me

Peter A — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:32:03 -0000

I'm very sorry to hear this about your mum, Cameron. These are hard days, I know. Wretched days.
Our parents give us something irreplaceable and precious. Their gift stays with us, even after we lose the givers.
Look after yourself and your family. I'm confident in you that you'll be doing what you need to do.
I send you and your family my best wishes for peace.
- P

Re: Redundancy: Five months on

Peter A — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:08:50 -0000

Good column. Thanks for sharing.
And good use of 'provisionality'. Bang on. It was always so, just not obvious.
They're great questions you're asking yourself.

Cheers, P

Re: Meghan McCain Is Not A ‘Bully’ Who ‘Looks For Fights’

Peter A — Mon, 28 May 2012 19:59:29 -0000

Nice one Tommy. Good post. You're right to describe her as a spokesperson for the 'young, moderate conservatism' 'held hostage by dinosaurs'.
And right to hail her courage in the face of personal attacks.

Re: Gibbs Farm

Peter A — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:07:20 -0000

Sorry to hear this news about your mum's outlook Cameron.
That's a tough situation for her and her loved ones.
- P

Re: Silence is not an option

Peter A — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:53:03 -0000

Just to note for the record, the outcome of the protracted anti-Thurston Place school protest action and lobbying government members ,,,

"Thurston school stopped Howick Pakuranga Times 24/4/12
MEMBERS of the community calling for a stop to the development of Thurston Place College have been granted their wish.The Education Ministry announced last Friday that the proposed school in Bucklands Beach will be canned ..."

http://www.times.co.nz/news...

Note from these comments, the 'bizarre' protest at a John Key appearance in Jami-Lee's Botany electorate is credited as one of the key (pun) factors in the 'victory' ...

Richard Spong, spokesman for the Bucklands Beach Action Society, which was formed to fight the development, is pleased the reasons outlined by the ministry to not go ahead are the same as the group campaigned on.“I was surprised they took on board everything we said,” says Mr Spong.
... Mr Spong says two events in the year-long battle were pivotal: a protest during a visit by Prime Minister John Key to Botany, and Mrs Parata replacing Mrs Tolley.“That protest couldn’t have gone any better. It was really well planned. We had a big turnout and got to speak to John.“Having him say he was open-minded and he knew where we were coming from was reassuring.”

- P

Re: Why cats are evil

Peter A — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:17:01 -0000

Oh, that is FANTASTIC video. What a hoot!
Thanks for sharing.
- P

Re: On Duncan Garner

Peter A — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:56:40 -0000

Juana: What hogwash your narrative is. Perhaps you've been misinformed. It's a common tactic to deflect criticism by smearing the critic, but your imaginative tale simply isn't factual.

For a master class in negative fixation you need look no further than your husband's fevered blog e.g. check tags like Trevor Mallard, Winston Peters, Chris Carter.

Am I 'upset' at Cameron's 'success' as you suggest? No, I'm not. I merely sometimes disagree with him and his tactics.

Neither do I think Duncan Garner is 'envious' of him btw.

Agent Ballsack: Thanks for your feedback. No, I was never a big commenter here - 42 comments total, according to my Disqus profile ... compared to your 999.

I personally find some in the 'community' here (including camp mum and dad Cameron and Juana) intolerant of alternative views and abusive of those who question Cam's sometimes clearly dubious assertions.

Which is only to say: I tried it, thanks, but it isn't much to my taste.

Each to his or her own.

Best wishes, Peter.