Thursday, 24 September 2009

A troll

We’ve unfortunately been invaded by the Rodbeater Troll virus this morning, so to fend off the deluge of abject drivel with which Mr Russell Fletcher of Tauranga has been trying to flood the comments sections here, I’m temporarily turning on moderation – which means, I’m afraid, that your comments will sometimes take a while to appear (depending on how long it takes me to see them and okay them), but when they do appear they will at least be published in threads unpolluted by Mr Fletcher’s abject stupidity.

Don’t blame me, blame the troll.

And rest assured that as long as you’re concise and on topic, then your comments will be welcomed. But grandstanding bone-headery won’t be.


  1. For the benefit of the troll(s), I have no problem with honest disagreement, even with insulting -- as long as the paying customers don't mind -- but I draw the line at nasty and vicious.

  2. I enjoy debate about serious issues. That's why I'm here. The idea is that both I and those I debate with can learn more and expand our thinking.

    "When two people are thinking the same thing exactly. You can be sure that one of them isn't thinking."
    (Quote from Someone)

  3. You know your allegations are a lie. You have been told so twice now.

    Your actions in posting these allegations are those of a weak and spineless coward. I repeat I have posted no messages to your site today other than these two posts designed to confront your lie.

    I have posted only two or three message to your pathetic cowardly little blog this week.

    Your allegations are a lie and you are a coward not only for making those allegations without any substantiation but now also for refusing to take them down.

  4. "You know your allegations are a lie. "

    I know nothing of the sort, and you've been asked every single time you've posted here to desist, to go away, that you're not wanted, that you're not invited, that your contributions are unwelcome, that your posts are just trolling, and since you still haven't got that message then it seems to me that you only have yourself to blame now if others trolling is confused for yours.

    So there you go. You've made your lying bed, so . . .

  5. You know.

    It is shameful that one who professes to be "Libertarian' should resort to the kind of smearing and lies favoured by the totalitarian left. This is a strategy no real libertarian would indulge in. You are a fake and a coward and a liar, and this is further proven by your selective posting of my messages. This is my third message now and if you had any integhrity at all you would also publish the initial message some time earlier when I first informed you that you were making an error.

    I have seen some disgusting things in the blogosphere, but nothing that has ever amounted to what I have seen from you today Mr. Cresswell, wherein you have, in return for the humiliation you have suffered at my published words on here, tried to smear Redbaiter by attributing to me the work of some anonymous poster.

    You know this is the truth.

    Until you take that post down and admit your mistake you remain a liar a charlatan and a coward.

  6. Fine. I agree. I'm a liar a charlatan and a coward.

    Now go away.

  7. For christ's sake..!!! If you had not made your false allegations this exchange would not even be occurring, and if you let the few messages I have posted here this week mocking Libertarianism get you this enraged you seriously need some kind of treatment.

  8. Bollocks. "This exchange" has been going on in every second thread now for weeks. And you still haven't got the message: that you're not wanted.

    Now go away.

  9. "been going on in every second thread now for weeks."

    That is another lie. I have posted here very infrequently.

  10. Yes of course you have. And I'm a liar a charlatan and a coward, and you're the tooth fairy.

    Now you've had a good run here -- far more than you deserve, and that really is your lot.

  11. Wow, someone needs to get a life.

  12. Didn't Helen Clark used to refer to herself in the third person?

  13. In Redbaiter's defence - he may not like you Peter but to my knowledge he has never wished for your death, or suggested someone murder you as a solution to the "Not PC" problem.

    Unlike others whose "nasty and vicious" comments about people they do not like are allowed to stand.

    Just saying...

  14. ..."he may not like you Peter"...

    Why on earth doesn't he fuck off then? He disagrees with everything, but he keeps coming back and reading it.

  15. “Why doesn’t he FO then”
    Because Redbaiter is a closet libertarian
    He just has a funny way of showing it.

  16. Since RedB is no longer able to answer comments made about him here, in the spirit of libertarianism I've offered him space over at CR to answer his critics. :-)

  17. KG: Knock yourself out, but in all the time he's been here -- either with permission or without, he's reminded me of no-one so much as Alamein Kopu.

    Interviewed years ago Kim Hill kept asking her what her problem was, to which Kopu kept responding "People need to listen to me." Asked what she would say if they did listen to her, she kept replying, "I'd say they need to listen to me."

    I figure that's all we've ever seen here with your time-waster. So knock yourself out.

  18. Fair enough. And I'll spend a few minutes searching the archives for Ruth's commenter who wishes for someone's death or for murder...
    Although I suspect it'll be something like looking for a unicorn.

    Anyone prepared to bet a bottle of Aussie red against Geelong to win tonight? There's a bottle of Hardy's Shiraz Mataro here that says St. Kilda are going to lose--by a lot.

  19. I have just read the piece on Crusader Rabbit.

    Is it just me or is anyone else confuzzled as to what on earth he is talking about?!?!

    I read all threads on and have done for 4 or 5 years yet never read any posts about donations/court cases/Candidates in Mt Eden [sic]...and feel free to point out these posts to me if I have missed something.

    In short - had he not mentioned it I (for one) would have had no idea about it!

    I should also point out to readers I have on several occasions been the subject of personal abuse by Mr Baiter/Fletcher here and on kiwiblog, so he is hardly 'pure'.

    One point he seems to have a bee in his bonnet about is to do with terminology; he wants the word 'conservative' to mean something different to what it both 'actually' means and its meaning in common usage (a kind of negating 'A is A', so to speak).

    Mr Baiter/Fletcher seemed to get extremely irate when corrected and had it pointed out, for instance, that 'conservatives' tend to want freedom for themselves and things they support (guns, protesting, freedom of speech, low taxes) but are happy to ban things they disagree with (abortions, gay sex, drunkeness, cocaine etc) and that such a selective freedom seems hypocritical.

    If a person is unable to accept another person pointing out something without exploding and claiming victimisation I think that is both childish and a sign of ignorance.

    I was going to mention fears for the safety of Mrs Baiter (or Batter?) were she to commit the sin of correcting him on something -

    Red: "pass the honey"
    Mrs Baiter: "ummmmm...that is raspberry jam, dear"
    Red: "You f**king B**ch! you dare to question me???? it is honey because I say it is honey you f**king communist infiltrator" ...
    [the neighbours block their ears to the sound of punches, kicks and screaming]

    - but I won't.

  20. One of the golden rules of blogging is that you don't divulge the identity of people who choose to write under a pseudonym.

    As far as I'm concerned Mr Cresswell, your behaviour here is reprehensible.

    You can carry your own fucking banner next time.

  21. Peter:

    Sorry to see that you have had to deal with this individual. He obviously has some issues.

    Over at KP he goes into auto-moderation. If he says something reasonable and civilised, it is allowed through; if not, not. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), he has had little to say that is rational, reasonable or civilised. Hence, since he does not add value to the comments threads and in fact detracts from them, he is not provided the KP forum in which to rant. On the other hand, KC has kindly provided him with an outlet, so the blog market has in fact responded in ways that allow him free expression.

    The fact that he rages against anyone who takes exception to his style, much less his arguments, tells us something. Right or Left--it does not matter to him. We are all "cowardly totalitarians" in his fevered mind.

    Adolf: I believe that you have in the past subscribed to the view that in blogging there are no universal rules, and that what rules exist are those of the blog owner. Thus, "outing" Mr. Fletcher is no violation of anything sacred and in fact may be a deterrent to his flaming in the future (although I shall not hold my breath).

  22. Adolf, blogging goldnen-rules according to who? United Nations? Google?

    I think that you should stick to being infatuated with John Key , no matter what policies he introduces even if he supports those ones started by Labour that you despised so much during the last government.

    There is no golden rules for blogging, since it wasn't something agreed by the UN General Assembly or something like that. Besides, Redbaiter's real identity was outed on Kiwiblog some months ago, so there was no divulgence here of anyone's identity at all as far as I can see.

  23. ..."he may not like you Peter"...

    Why on earth doesn't he fuck off then? He disagrees with everything, but he keeps coming back and reading it.

    At a guess I would say he is trying to intimidate. Some people are permanently addicted to the politics of fear and rage, they bring their club to the party and harass those who won't do their ideological bidding. As PC is a unique voice on the internet he is obviously a target, and I don't blame him for not hosting the hate.

    As an extension of that, people like KG who say that Obama/Key or whoever he disagrees with should be removed "by whatever means necessary" are not just paper tigers. They empower others. For example at the US Consulate the manholes have been cemented on and two fires have been started in the basement of Citibank House in the last month. And not by Scary Muslims, but Angry White Men.

    If KG thinks Obama getting a bullet will make one iota of difference he is wrong. The revolution has to take place inside heads, not on the streets.

  24. I am responsible for the Darnton vs Clark questions, plus some the anonymous inflammatory comments directed at other regular posters.

    My questions about the Darnton vs Clark cash still stand however.

  25. Angus: a troll is a troll is a troll. It doesn't matter what sort of experiment you were attempting, or your reasons for doing so. This is just a blog. Nothing has been compromised. No force has been initiated, just property rights exercised.

    What is with this latest trend to cry hypocrisy at every turn? Unless I missed something, Peter isn't the official voice of the Libz. Just an interesting, opinionated, passionate, and vocal ex-leader with a well read blog. If people can't tell personal opinion (AFL is the best game in the world, Dexter sucks, religion is a bad thing) from real issues (erosion of our freedoms on issues like banning cellphones, anti smacking bills, destruction of wealth by currency meddling) then they will very quickly get upset.

    As to not revealing someone - well... I'd agree that it's perhaps not the most polite thing to do. But, as others have pointed out, it wasn't really a secret. Anyway, isn't hiding behind an alias just as "cowardly" as being anonymous? I've always used my real name on the net. The reason being that I don't feel I need to hide who I am, or what my opinions are. Like any human being, my opinions have changed over time as I've tested and kept or rejected certain ideas. If people want to say "oh, but you used to say X and are now claiming Y" they are free to do so. One thing I've never done, or seen the point of doing, was to troll. It's disgusting behaviour in my view. It makes comment threads almost worthless, and on this blog, that's worse than usual, as I believe some of the best debate around can be seen here. I'd like to ask those who do use aliases why they do so? I'm sure there are some valid reasons, and I'm interested in hearing what they are.

  26. Ruth thinks that "by whatever means necessary" must necessarily involve violence, need to get help Ruth. :-)

    Greig, the use of pseudonyms when writing has a long and honorable history and people use them for all sorts of reasons, obviously.
    Because commenters here and lots of other places respect the right of free speech and widely diverse opinions doesn't mean everybody does and writers have been hounded and lost their jobs (and worse) in the past merely for expressing an opinion.
    Given especially the Alinskyite tendencies of the left (and lunatics such as Ruth who see Lee Harvey O. behind every suggestion of radical political change) it would seem the sensible thing to do.
    Added to that is simple privacy--the cost of expressing an opinion shouldn't be to have one's address, family's names and contact details broadcast to the world at large.
    My 2c worth.

  27. Heavens, what a storm in a teacup!

    Angus: why didn't you put a damn name to the posts in the first place? And if you have bona fide questions, I suggest you address them to the appropriate persons rather than troll all over an independent blog.

    Ruth: you appear to choose to take flippant comments seriously when it suits you. Oddly enough, not unlike bible-bashers who take as gospel every bloody word of the big book ...

    Red: as noted over at CR, don't cry wolf and then whinge when someone calls your bluff -- irrespective of its accuracy or lack thereof.

    PC: If 'Angus' is indeed a separate entity, then FFS, acknowledge as much so that this bullshit can be put to bed.

    This is reminiscent of a kindy squabble.

    Or a gay nightclub ... ;)

  28. You will be aware Sus that 'KG' has made many a comment about removing Obama by force and actually approving of assassination. Not to mention deporting (or worse) Muslim immigrants and so on. I was being polite when I said "By any means necessary". His comments are never as polite.

    Peter has no need to give in to petty intimidation and apologise to the discontented on the far right. In fact I have always maintained that these people have lost Libz votes by attaching themselves to libertarians.

    As Wendy McElroy says "When you are trapped in an unpleasant or boring conversation, you are well within your rights to state, "I don't care to talk about this (or to you) further." Make the statement without hostility, as a matter of fact, then simply walk away."

    And Gordon McLaughlin(sp) outed Redbaiter in a national newspaper years ago for heaven's sake, so stop the faux outrage.

  29. Golden rules are determined by sensible mature people and detested and ignored by those who do not fall into that classification.

  30. Ruth, agreed: blogowners can do as they please. But if any mistake has genuinely been made -- and that's "if" -- then an acknowledgement is prudent, don't you think.

    BTW, I presume your last comment re Red wasn't directed at me? (I've not commented on the so-called outing).

  31. Wendy McElroy! Now, there's an authority to quote!
    Had dinner with her too, have you Ruth? Are you really so pompous in real life or do you just self-inflate on demand?

  32. Let's get this straight.

    PC has the right to determine who comes into his home (or his blog). If a person comes into his home and abuses PC, PC's other guests, and adopts a debating style that is intellectually dishonest (and nasty and vicious), then it is appropriate that PC tells that person to leave.

    It is for these reasons that PC had told Redbaiter that he was not welcome here and that he should not return. This request had been made a number of times in the past and had been well documented. However Redbaiter persisted in gatecrashing and ignored PC's requests that he stay away.

    Further, if a gatecrasher arrives and abuses the guests in a nasty and vicious manner throwing stuff around the house, then that gatecrasher cannot claim anonymity by appealing to some moral high ground. The gatecrasher has no such right in the context. To then claim that the homeowner (blogowner) is the perpetrator of an injustice is an inversion of morality.

    So on Thursday morning when Redbaiter again posted nasty and vicious comments on PC’s blog – and did so under his own name - then PC quite legitimately put an end to his posting here.

    On the same morning, anonymous comments appeared of the same nature as Redbaiter’s. PC made no comment as to who might be the instigator of these comments, but they were indicative of the comments of a troll(s) (such as Redbaiter). PC acknowledged this in his first comment on this thread at 2.05pm where he uses the term troll(s).

    And people say that PC is the unreasonable party here!


  33. Nice, self-righteous prolixity Julian. Now, answer a legitimate question.

    How was the Darnton vs Clark donations money spent ?

  34. Angus

    1. If you have a real interest in the answer to your question, then is this not something you should address directly to the relevant person? Have you actually done this? If you have not, then you are here using PC's blog to smear someone without any evidence.

    2. Why is this relevant to PC or his blog?

    3. How is your question relevant to any of the threads here?


  35. Redbaiter was revealed here on this thread at Kiwiblog.

    I don't know why Redbaiter is making a big issue about it either here, kiwiblog or anywhere else? In fact, there is no one stopping him in changing his online profile from say Redbaiter to Masterbater or something similar ?

  36. Redbaiter has been an argumentative irrational obnoxious debater for a good 10 years at least. He and mike gordge would be going at it hammer and tong, and neither making any headway.
    I was warned by Mike not to get into a debate with Redbaiter way back then as he was a total timewaster, (amongst other things)
    I guess one of the goals of writing a blog is to attract as many readers as possible.

    I have never gone to a blog hoping to read a posting by redbaiter.

    I have often gone to a site hoping he had not posted a message though.

    I have nothing against reading posts I do not agree with - I do have a problem with reading rude, obnoxious, unnecessary, mean, negative shite, and will be much happier knowing I dont have to trawl past it to read the good stuff. Its like having to walk past the sewerage plant on the way to the pub - it spoils your thirst!

    In about 10 years of lurking around the internet, I have rarely read a post of his worth reading - why doesnt he start his own blog instead of infecting other peoples blogs with his presence.

    On a happier note - I have lived in Tauranga for 40 years and never had the misfortune of making his aquaintance. so if he does live in Tauranga, then he must be a troll that never leaves the confines of his barrow and is solely a denizen of the blogosphere.

    He has never responded to any of my letters to the editor (which you would think would think he could not help himself), and he does not write to any of the papers under the name Russell Fletcher.


We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.