Wednesday, 5 December 2007

EFB debate at 'The Standard'

** Against my better judgement, I've just made a substantial contribution to the debate over at 'The Standard.' I'll be interested, though not surprised, to see where the debate goes.


  1. Let me get this straight, PC. For the last week, the Standard have been claiming that the National Party stole somebody else's intellectual property.

    Is it true that you own the intellectual property to the picture of Perigo on your blog, which the Standard used and attributed to the EFB march, when in fact it was at the anti-smacking march, and didn't acknowledge you as the source for the photo?

  2. Hmm, I confess I hadn't noticed that particular irony, but I don't think it's anywhere near the most important fish to fry here. More of a distraction from the main course, I would think.

  3. Just for the record, this is the post from which the pic was pilfered.

  4. Owned them, Peter. Well done.

  5. Well done Peter, although I think you are plowing the sea.

    The mob that runs the Standard (Tane & co.) will continue unabated their campaign of lies and deception. Thank God they reach a limited audience, otherwise NZ could become and ochlocracy.

  6. well done Peter, I've been watching this site with a bemused detachment for some time.(strange creatures lurk there..)

  7. I noted that roger nome made some comments on that blog. He has been hangin around DPF and other blogs but I've never seen him here at Not PC. There is only one conclusion and that is, the fucker doesn't want to come here, as LGM or PC would exposed his intellectual inferiority & mauled him around even in his own field of economics (that's what he has claimed in blogosphere).

  8. Hey Manolo, are you still a racist?

    Twice now around the blogs you've made remarks about me eating a bucket of KFC because I'm Maori. Recently when I said I was working late you joked it must have been a hui with kai provided. Yet other times you've made references to WINZ.

    I wonder what your fellow libertarian mates think of racist remarks like that.

    Oh, and you never answered my question the other day - are you from Wadestown? Cos I think I know you bro.

  9. I'd rather be a racist than a socialist, personally. At least racists mind their own business. All socialists do is mind mine. Nobody has a right not to be offended, so give up on your race-baiting Tane and piss off back up Helen's arse.

  10. I am with Tane here. There had been some racist comments about me, at DPF (twice - one last year and one earlier this year) and one at the business blog of Fronde CEO , Jim Donovan. It wasn't Jim who made the comment, but it was one of the regular readers of his blog. People who lost the argument do revert to attacking the person, but not the message.

  11. Some people resort to racist slurs in arguments.
    Others use the racism label to stifle debate.
    I always regarded this blog as being better than that and mostly, it has been.

  12. "Typical, just typical."
    - John Cleese

    Kick it off with a distraction and then half way down the page and the racist card is played as these things generally do when the missed-it-bird flies across the sky and all of a sudden someone gets slapped across the face with a wet fish.

    Scary thing is that you can slap some people with a fresh trout and they can never figure out why their cheeks are flushed, stinging and exude the pungently aromatic smell of a prawn cocktail.

    Totally owned Peter.

  13. Yes racism is far from helpful, and anti-intellectual, but then so is bigotry against people who have successful businesses, or own more property than others, or think that adults should bear the consequences of their actions.

    Those on the left eagerly throw around statements that are little more than blind bigotry about "foreign" investors, which is a form of racism, or treating anyone in business for profit as being akin to thieves, slave owners or murderers. In its extreme, this bigotry has created rivers of blood - as it did in the USSR, China and Cambodia on a grand scale.

    However it distracts from the key point. Attacking someone on irrelevant grounds demeans one's own argument, but people can be attacked for wilful blindness and stupidity.

  14. After Tane's usual faux outrage I guess your contribution to the Sub-Standard is going nowhere, PC. What do libertarians think of people who don't take any responsibility for the consequences of their own actions - such as going flame-trolling on other people's blogs, then playing the outraged victim when you get exactly what you're looking for?

    I don't really want to stink up PC's blog with the dishonest, bigoted abuse that seems to be Tane's standard MO, but its obvious to me that a morals lecture from the Sub-Standard crew is like parenting tips from Britney Spears.

  15. Tane, you're wrong. I'm not a racist, but a firm believer in the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of skin colour. Take your bogus outrage somewhere else.

    It appears you are very capable of dishing it out freely to others, but very touchy and delicate when comes to being on the receiving end.

    Is this another personality trait you share with Mallard?

  16. Phew, that was a long thread. And I have to say, the debate goes to Insolent Prick and PC.

    Yup, I think you guys Razed The Standard

  17. Peter,

    I read your comment at the Standard thread and it is very reasonable, quite a contrast from the usual slant coming from the anti-EFB protest. The 'extreme' in 'extremely important' has been taken out and given hyperbole that has turned many off the anti-EFB protest. If Boscawen's placard wavers had held messages more akin to the contents of your comment, then there might have been more support.

    On the subject of ironies, Boscawen's protest was money driven. I suspect a good viral blog/email campaign for a good cause could produce an equally large protest turnout for nil cost. Essentially Boscawen's protest demonstrates that money does not buy votes just as the EB mailout did not buy votes in 2005. Both were a total waste of money launched by people who mistakenly thought that full page ads and automated phone calls would make a difference. Good democracy is driven by something less material: it is driven by good ideas, and some visceral motivation which are distributed freely by word of mouth, news reports etc. There was none of that in either campaign.

    The indignation of moneyed groups such as SST against the $120,000 spending cap, while justified, is a little pointless given that election results ultimately come down to a combination of the overall basic summation of each party's policies how the leading players behave in the final run up to the election, in TV debates and from news reports etc which are all 'free'.


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)