Perhaps we did, bsprout, and gave it to him in order to help. The asset sales are having a curiously bonding effect on those parties that oppose them. They're also, I notice, showing Peter Dunne in a particularly mendacious light.
Mendaciousness appears to be a perquisite for anyone involved with this government and I'm sure our Prime Minister was well schooled in this by his past employer.
Sorry about the moderation thing, Towack. I was fiddling with the settings, tried it, thought it hadn't worked then took off for Dunners, leaving the castle guarded, it seemed. I've been having stuff turn up in the spam folder that by rights should have gone straight through, so I was trying to reconfigure. Our old friend whio didn't show - whew!
Anonymous - That has me puzzled. I don't know who 'John McLeod is and I don't know why you would want that comment to be 'moderated'. If you'd like to tell me, I am, like Prince Charles, all ears. If you think I should delete the comment, please speak up.
The comment was related to moderation happening in this blog. And I posted a previous blog of yours to prove a point that you whistle freedom of speech but then moderate those entering your blog.
Interesting point, Anonymous, though you're misunderstanding a couple of things. The first (fyi) is, a particular 'item', such as this one titled 'Sugar-hit economics' is called a 'post, not a 'blog'. Secondly, I've only used the moderation function once or twice in all the time I've blogged, an then only because I was to be away from a computer for a period of time. Most recently, as signalled, I was travelling to Dunedin and thought it a good idea to delay the posting of comments til I could be there to answer them. Our friend whio had been using foul language and I didn't want that appearing while I was unable to manage it - my very lovely mother-in-law reads my blog regularly and I don't want her eyes smarting from something a potty-mouth like whio might say. You can relax now though, democracy is restored.
Democracy when it suits. Censorship when it suits. This blogging, posting, commenting has encouraged some neat behaviours from you Robert. I will endeavor to ensure my venacular is correct in the future. I would hate to offend your sensitivities. I hope you don't delete that?
I certainly won't, Anonymous. You haven't given a convincing reason for keeping your identity hidden here on my blog. You seem to me to be hypocritical in demanding this or that, from the position of anonymity, where you aren't answerable for anything you say. I regard it as a very weak position, ethically. You like to criticise, but ensure you are free from owning anything you say. You can (and I suspect, will) disappear into the gloom if things become awkward for you. I have taken the braver position of posting under my own name. You anonynimity doesn't give much support to your asrguments, in my opinion. Your slipperiness when asked a question is similarly un-impressive. You are able to hide whenever it suits you, pretend to be someone else (perhaps, who would/could know?) or others can speak as if they are you. I suppose it's clever, keeping to the shadows, but it's not behaviour that impresses me. I sense you have a particular axe to grind. I will, if I choose, delete comments from you that I believe to be harrassment, however subtly you might present them. It's a tool all bloggers wield for their own protection. Far be it from me to put myself on a pedastal above my fellow bloggers :-)
Here's the kind of thing bloggers have to put up with, Anonymous. This comment posted on Kiwiblog about Helen Clark from an anonymous commenter who calls himself "Cows4me" would be a problem for me, had it been posted here. I wouldn't have deleted it, but nor would I have defended his right to say whatever he wants, had someone else here found it objectionable.
"cows4me (244) Says: June 22nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
Diseased Marxist mole. She should do the world a favor and drop dead. People of her ilk are evil and like the idiot Melons use environmentalism as an excuse while pushing for global governance and totalitarian power. As for that naive brain dead child they wheeled out to kick their wankfest off, gee of course she knows all about what ills the world being 17 and all. I guess she has to speak while she is young, the evil bastards that she hangs out with would be quite happy if she droped dead after a lifetime of work, can’t have her wasting precious resource’s. She Beast, this plethora of fools and their agenda 21 seek only to subjugate then divide the western worlds resources and prop up their own power bases. I despise them.
Robert, You fight for the right to blog yet you seem so disturbed by people that blog within the rules of the forum. I dont set the rules of this forum that you choose to communicate in. You do. And that choice allows for anonymous contributors. If you are unhappy with my prescence - delete - report etc. Alternatively choose a different forum. I am not sure constant whinging is achieving much?
I would suggest the underlying issue is your choice of forum that allows for 'Anonomii' to exist. Even if I humbly exit on your request, I suspect others are lining up to be 'Anonymous'.
Being anomymous has not changed the moral fibre by which I am cut. I have endeavoured to remain fair in my activities. No different from if I had a pseudonym. You can accuse me of creating confusion but I can assure you this has not been my purpose. The fact that many 'Anonomii' post and causes confusion is again a weakness of this forum and hardly my fault. Indeed let me ask have you posted as 'Anonymous' and so also caused confusion? If that is the case how can you possibly accuse me of acting inethically. You paint a picture of moral high ground because you post your name, but you continue to use inuendo to convey a message and some of those messages I consider a campaign against rate payers. Your use of inuendo leads to interpretation requirements. Although your messages are often clear and clear as a campaign against those you detest, you hide behind the need to interpret. And when asked to make your point clear you dont. You promote this as format for communication but you hide in shadows inuendo and interpretation so to hide from recourse. You may as well be Anonymous. You can keep putting yourself on this pedestal of morality, but I am sticking up for those that you tirelessly attack and for that reason I can assure you that I feel I own that moral territory. Finally you talk about hiding in the gloom of awkwardness. But I can think of two blogs that you are hiding from in awkwardness. I would love so see some responses to these one day. Straight up answers not dance around politics. See below. http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/council-reports.html http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/occupy.html
Anonymous - you've given your position some thought - not especially deep in some way, especially around your desire to remain anonymous, which of course you are welcome to do - you'll know that I can disable the 'anonymous' function on the comments in a trice and require that commenters register, however i don't wish to be restrictive. That doesn't mean that chosing the anonymous form doesn't reflect negatively on those who take that option. I think less of you for it, given your prominence in commenting and the intensity of your challenges. Would you admire someone who met regularly with you, but insisted on wearing a mask to hide his identity? Not me. As for my choosing titles and topics that you think provocative, you are quite right - I'm provoking you, however, provocation to comment isn't a hanging offence. I believe it stimulates discussion and offers you and others a chance to put your side of the story up for discussion. You can hardly say you've been denied the opportunity to do that, can you.
Not a hanging offence. Just a breach of your code of conduct...
I have been here such a short time and you have complained about my anonymity most of that time. Time will tell if you tolerate my retort. I suspect the personality traits which Shunda so elegantly described may hault your will to 'switch me off'. Your viewers would most likely consider it as a weakness.
I have consistently offered to leave without return upon your request. This is more than likely a better option for you as it leaves open the option of interactions with other 'Anonomii'. Those that will smile at you up on the pedestal. Even if it is becuase they can see up your trousers.
The offer of a exit remains on the table. It is fair to say that I consider myself to be a fair person. I would not like to remain here if you consider my presence unwelcome.
I've not indicated even once, Anonymous, that you should 'exit'. Nor have I said you must not comment anonymously. I'm not 'complaining about your anonymity, I'm pointing out to you that it produces problems and casts you in a lesser light, imho. I'm not going to decide for you. I will try to influence your thinking though. However, you seem stubborn. And passive/aggressive :-) I don't accept for a moment that I've breached my code of conduct. You insist I have. Test your claim, I say - put up or shut up (sorry about the indelicacy).
20 comments:
Error before, I wish there was an editing facility.
I had tried to say that it was a great line and I wished that we had thought of it first. :-)
Perhaps we did, bsprout, and gave it to him in order to help. The asset sales are having a curiously bonding effect on those parties that oppose them. They're also, I notice, showing Peter Dunne in a particularly mendacious light.
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
Are you taking the fun out of this blog RG. What about poor old Whio, who will he swear at now
Mendaciousness appears to be a perquisite for anyone involved with this government and I'm sure our Prime Minister was well schooled in this by his past employer.
Teacher - green communist - and now economist. Three great roles! And what a combination.
Guyton -> teacher -> green communist -> economist. Whatever next?
Sorry about the moderation thing, Towack. I was fiddling with the settings, tried it, thought it hadn't worked then took off for Dunners, leaving the castle guarded, it seemed. I've been having stuff turn up in the spam folder that by rights should have gone straight through, so I was trying to reconfigure. Our old friend whio didn't show - whew!
Anonymous - all that and more!
Next, plutocrat.
Fascinating. All that talk about freedom of speech etc. Now we have moderation.I wish this had happened when you posted this blog.
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/little-light-leunig.html
Anonymous - That has me puzzled. I don't know who 'John McLeod is and I don't know why you would want that comment to be 'moderated'. If you'd like to tell me, I am, like Prince Charles, all ears. If you think I should delete the comment, please speak up.
The comment was related to moderation happening in this blog.
And I posted a previous blog of yours to prove a point that you whistle freedom of speech but then moderate those entering your blog.
Interesting point, Anonymous, though you're misunderstanding a couple of things.
The first (fyi) is, a particular 'item', such as this one titled 'Sugar-hit economics' is called a 'post, not a 'blog'.
Secondly, I've only used the moderation function once or twice in all the time I've blogged, an then only because I was to be away from a computer for a period of time. Most recently, as signalled, I was travelling to Dunedin and thought it a good idea to delay the posting of comments til I could be there to answer them. Our friend whio had been using foul language and I didn't want that appearing while I was unable to manage it - my very lovely mother-in-law reads my blog regularly and I don't want her eyes smarting from something a potty-mouth like whio might say. You can relax now though, democracy is restored.
Democracy when it suits. Censorship when it suits. This blogging, posting, commenting has encouraged some neat behaviours from you Robert.
I will endeavor to ensure my venacular is correct in the future. I would hate to offend your sensitivities. I hope you don't delete that?
I certainly won't, Anonymous. You haven't given a convincing reason for keeping your identity hidden here on my blog. You seem to me to be hypocritical in demanding this or that, from the position of anonymity, where you aren't answerable for anything you say. I regard it as a very weak position, ethically. You like to criticise, but ensure you are free from owning anything you say. You can (and I suspect, will) disappear into the gloom if things become awkward for you. I have taken the braver position of posting under my own name. You anonynimity doesn't give much support to your asrguments, in my opinion. Your slipperiness when asked a question is similarly un-impressive. You are able to hide whenever it suits you, pretend to be someone else (perhaps, who would/could know?) or others can speak as if they are you. I suppose it's clever, keeping to the shadows, but it's not behaviour that impresses me. I sense you have a particular axe to grind. I will, if I choose, delete comments from you that I believe to be harrassment, however subtly you might present them. It's a tool all bloggers wield for their own protection. Far be it from me to put myself on a pedastal above my fellow bloggers :-)
Here's the kind of thing bloggers have to put up with, Anonymous. This comment posted on Kiwiblog about Helen Clark from an anonymous commenter who calls himself "Cows4me" would be a problem for me, had it been posted here. I wouldn't have deleted it, but nor would I have defended his right to say whatever he wants, had someone else here found it objectionable.
"cows4me (244) Says:
June 22nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
Diseased Marxist mole. She should do the world a favor and drop dead. People of her ilk are evil and like the idiot Melons use environmentalism as an excuse while pushing for global governance and totalitarian power. As for that naive brain dead child they wheeled out to kick their wankfest off, gee of course she knows all about what ills the world being 17 and all. I guess she has to speak while she is young, the evil bastards that she hangs out with would be quite happy if she droped dead after a lifetime of work, can’t have her wasting precious resource’s. She Beast, this plethora of fools and their agenda 21 seek only to subjugate then divide the western worlds resources and prop up their own power bases. I despise them.
[DPF: 50 demerits.]
Robert,
You fight for the right to blog yet you seem so disturbed by people that blog within the rules of the forum.
I dont set the rules of this forum that you choose to communicate in. You do. And that choice allows for anonymous contributors. If you are unhappy with my prescence - delete - report etc. Alternatively choose a different forum. I am not sure constant whinging is achieving much?
I would suggest the underlying issue is your choice of forum that allows for 'Anonomii' to exist. Even if I humbly exit on your request, I suspect others are lining up to be 'Anonymous'.
Being anomymous has not changed the moral fibre by which I am cut. I have endeavoured to remain fair in my activities. No different from if I had a pseudonym. You can accuse me of creating confusion but I can assure you this has not been my purpose. The fact that many 'Anonomii' post and causes confusion is again a weakness of this forum and hardly my fault. Indeed let me ask have you posted as 'Anonymous' and so also caused confusion? If that is the case how can you possibly accuse me of acting inethically.
You paint a picture of moral high ground because you post your name, but you continue to use inuendo to convey a message and some of those messages I consider a campaign against rate payers. Your use of inuendo leads to interpretation requirements. Although your messages are often clear and clear as a campaign against those you detest, you hide behind the need to interpret. And when asked to make your point clear you dont. You promote this as format for communication but you hide in shadows inuendo and interpretation so to hide from recourse. You may as well be Anonymous.
You can keep putting yourself on this pedestal of morality, but I am sticking up for those that you tirelessly attack and for that reason I can assure you that I feel I own that moral territory.
Finally you talk about hiding in the gloom of awkwardness. But I can think of two blogs that you are hiding from in awkwardness. I would love so see some responses to these one day. Straight up answers not dance around politics. See below.
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/council-reports.html
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/occupy.html
Anonymous - you've given your position some thought - not especially deep in some way, especially around your desire to remain anonymous, which of course you are welcome to do - you'll know that I can disable the 'anonymous' function on the comments in a trice and require that commenters register, however i don't wish to be restrictive. That doesn't mean that chosing the anonymous form doesn't reflect negatively on those who take that option. I think less of you for it, given your prominence in commenting and the intensity of your challenges. Would you admire someone who met regularly with you, but insisted on wearing a mask to hide his identity? Not me. As for my choosing titles and topics that you think provocative, you are quite right - I'm provoking you, however, provocation to comment isn't a hanging offence. I believe it stimulates discussion and offers you and others a chance to put your side of the story up for discussion. You can hardly say you've been denied the opportunity to do that, can you.
Not a hanging offence. Just a breach of your code of conduct...
I have been here such a short time and you have complained about my anonymity most of that time. Time will tell if you tolerate my retort. I suspect the personality traits which Shunda so elegantly described may hault your will to 'switch me off'. Your viewers would most likely consider it as a weakness.
I have consistently offered to leave without return upon your request. This is more than likely a better option for you as it leaves open the option of interactions with other 'Anonomii'. Those that will smile at you up on the pedestal. Even if it is becuase they can see up your trousers.
The offer of a exit remains on the table. It is fair to say that I consider myself to be a fair person. I would not like to remain here if you consider my presence unwelcome.
I've not indicated even once, Anonymous, that you should 'exit'. Nor have I said you must not comment anonymously. I'm not 'complaining about your anonymity, I'm pointing out to you that it produces problems and casts you in a lesser light, imho. I'm not going to decide for you. I will try to influence your thinking though. However, you seem stubborn. And passive/aggressive :-)
I don't accept for a moment that I've breached my code of conduct. You insist I have. Test your claim, I say - put up or shut up (sorry about the indelicacy).
Post a Comment