Wednesday, September 03, 2008

The Standard stuffs up again

The Standard is a Labour-funded blog well known for banning right wing bloggers from commenting - especially if they fact check them or tell the truth about certain things. I am not a right wing blogger - more centre left - but am not averse to consistently pointing out errors in their blog posts.

One blogger, Chris Elder, communications staffer for the Prime Minister, who blogs in work time, posted a picture of a plane in Wellington that was taken by a correspondent. He said it was Lord Ashcroft's plane, and the chumps at the Standard believed him. Lord Ashcroft visited John Key last week. Here's the pic.

But this is not Lord Aschcroft's plane, as I pointed out.In fact Lord Ashcroft's plane looks different. Much different. Different tail number, different number of windows. Different plane, as you can see.

So I let them know and asked if they would check their facts on their 9th floor computers before posting. They didn't like that so they banned me for a while.

And apparently, that's standard practice and behaviour in the 9th Floor, as other bloggers will attest.No free speech allowed. Disagree, challenge and point out errors, associate bloggers at The Standard with their employment at the EPMU or the 9th Floor and they'll either control you, ridicule you or ban you - in itself a form of control.It's not just the NZ First party that does that now.

But The Standard, in Clarkesque style, continue to use smear tactics on others in their very next post ( update and write baseless allegations and offensive language in my blog comments, repeating these comments on their blog and giving me no opportunity to state the truth on their blog because they have banned me from commenting on theirs).

True Labour values. I have offered The Standard the opportunity to back up their allegations in comments, and would be pleased if they were to do so.

Thank you for reading Big News.




Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave that is bullshit. You got banned because you wrote a smear against the site or a writer on it. Moreover based on this post I'd guess that you repeated an unsubstantiated, unproven smear by that pathetically technical incompetent Whale.

You have lied all of the way through this post. Why comes to mind. I'd guess this little effort comes because I actually linked to one of your posts this morning.

Are you having to re-establish you credentials. You know exactly what our policy is about smearing the posters or the site. You've been putting comments up there for long enough.

September 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

I had no idea you linked to one of my posts this morning. Thanks. I`ll have look.
whats your email address Lynn

September 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

BTW, Lynn, or anyone else at the standard who reads this blog, feel free to point out the errors and correct them, Not only have you made baseless allegations, you incorrectly insinuated that my post was because your earlier linked to my blog. Very similar to Clark insinuating Key knew about the SFO inquiry because the SFO allegedly told him. But you did not know that I was unaware you had done the link.

Y'see, I have a life as well as a blog.

September 2, 2008 at 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Lynn - same plane or different?

Oh wait.....I just bet that's not important. Dave 'smearing' is important, isn't it?

Not the fact that you guys are so full of shit that its coming out your collars.

I will be very interested to see The Strandards views post election.

September 2, 2008 at 10:27 PM  
Blogger Keeping Stock said...

Congratulations Dave

You have joined a select club, to which I still aspire!

September 2, 2008 at 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dave: Ok sorry about the timing and therefore the association. It just seemed too damn coincidental that you picked martyrdom on the day I linked across.

IV2: Well there is an easy way. Just repeat Whales unproven speculations on The Standard. It is now a fast route to permanent martyrdom. I'm about to take the line that people who wish to talk about this thoroughly refuted speculation just don't want to be around - and I'm happy to oblige them. It is one way to drop the load on the server.

anon: I don't really care. It isn't a topic I'm all that interested in unless it shows up as an anonymous donation (which is a practice I think should be illegal).

September 3, 2008 at 2:19 AM  
Blogger Swimming said...

Thanks. It's a pity you didn't correct any errors. But unlike Clark, at least you used the s word.

September 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM  

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics