If we aren’t covering an issue you think needs debating today – go for it. Moderation rules apply, play nicely.
Open Mike Wednesday 9th October
If we aren’t covering an issue you think needs debating today – go for it. Moderation rules apply, play nicely.
Foreign policy + Intel + Security
Subscribe | Follow | Bookmarkand join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday
MIL Public Webcast Service
If by liar, you mean someone with a different political viewpoint to you.
Lynn Prentice has banned me from his site. As is his right, and which I don’t mind, it is his site. But in politics you can’t just (metaphorically) kill off a political opponent, without first having to assassinate their character.
As part of this campaign Lynn Prentice has made a number of untrue and unsubstantiated claims that I am a liar.
He has indulged in character assassination implying that I am akin to Rob Gilchrist and
Joseph Goebbels. Lynn and others have on a number of occasions accused me of being an extremist.
If Lynn thinks that calling on our democratically elected leaders in a blog thread, to take constitutional action, to enact legislation to fight climate change, is “extremist”, then he doesn’t know the meaning of the word, and his political judgement is way off.
Usually I just brush off these ad hominen attacks, and challenge Lynn and others to adddress the substantive issues.
But like any smear campaign there are always gullible people who will believe it. At some point a deliberate and unwarranted smear campaign, no matter how ridiculous, has to be confronted.
So I publicly challenge Lynn Prentice, of The Standard, to show where I have lied, or advocated “extremist” policies or actions. He won’t, because he can’t.
You’re lying now, Jenny. You were banned after being warned that unsubstantiated claims would lead to a ban. You then chose to post a fantasy about “sharp differences” between Labour and Greens policy on coal. You failed to provide any evidence for that claim and got banned, which must have been exactly what you expected to happen. Lying is what got you banned and lying is what you’re doing now.
You might recall that after your previous ban for similar self martyrdom, I welcomed you back. I look forward to doing the same next year.
Despite what you claim TRP, there are “sharp differences” between Labour and Greens policy on coal.
Labour support the start of the Denniston Coal Mine (the biggest open cast coal mine in the country’s history) And the Green Party official policy on coal states, and I quote: “NO NEW COAL MINES” and I have been told by senior Green Party members that there are no plans to revoke this official Green Party policy.
TRP, you can choose to believe that this is not a “sharp difference”, or just “fantasy” if you like. And if you can get any Green Party MP, or spokesperson, to back you up. I and many others would be more than interested to learn of it.
Again, Jenny, you are fantasising without evidence. If you’d found any actual evidence of the ‘sharp differences’ and put them up on TS, you’d still be commenting there. But, alas, you can’t do that, or more likely, won’t even try.
The LP and Green position on coal, generally, and Denniston, specifically, are more or less the same. Both parties support provincial employment. They both agree that coal is not good long term, and they both think the Denniston process is undemocratic. The Greens have actually moved closer to the LP position on mining in recent years, particularly under the pragmatic leadership of Russel Norman.
I guess that your real goal is to drive a wedge between the two parties that will form the next Government, but nobody is convinced by you because you are full of it. Readers can spot trolling behaviour a mile away and you were specifically warned to put up links for your claims and you did not. The ban was well deserved.
Feel free to contradict anything I said now or earlier with a complete set of links. I won’t hold my breath. It might be quicker if you just grow up and apologise to LP for lying about why you were banned from TS.
“NO NEW COAL MINES” is Green Party official policy
I have it on the highest authority from within the Green Party that there are no plans to change this official position.
I don’t know how you can square this, with supporting Denniston, which is labour’s position.
TRP are claiming that this is not Green Party Policy?
No, I’m claiming it’s not evidence for “sharp differences between the Greens and Labour open up over coal”, which is something you made up. And still can’t muster any evidence for. Because you made it up.
Still time to say you over-reached and apologise with dignity. Or carry on dissembling. Up to you.
What part of “NO NEW COAL MINES” don’t you understand. I don’t care how “pragmatic” the Green Party leadership are, they daren’t go against their party’s decided policy of “NO NEW COAL MINES” at the risk of destroying their party.
Well I suppose they could, and go and do a, Joschka Fischer or Jim Anderton, in return for permanent seats in parliament, care of the Labour Party. But I don’t think that’s likely. And it is growing less likely every day.
You accuse me TRP of trying to drive a wedge between the Greens and Labour. Yet you crow that the Greens are growing closer to Labour’s position on new coal mines. I dispute this I am not trying to drive a wedge in, what I am trying to do is bring Labour Party closer to the Green Party’s position of NO NEW COAL MINES. If Labour refuse to budge, all it will do is expose a gap that was already there. Politicians from both sides can ignore this gap if they like and try and paper over it, but only at their peril, because it will break out somewhere else, in some other form, and usually, at the worst possible time. Already hundreds if not thousands of mostly Green Party members are organising to right around the country try and stop the Denniston Coal mine going ahead, if they see their leadership standing on the other side with Labour, that will be the end of the Greens.
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
TRP: “The Greens have actually moved closer to the LP position on mining in recent years, particularly under the pragmatic leadership of Russel Norman”
Rod Donald used to say that the West Coast coal should be kept on the West Coast, and used for something like running a coal-fired train as part of a tourism enterprise to create alternatives to coal mining jobs (and if he were around today he’d no doubt be saying the train should be built at Hillside).
What are you trying to say Weka?
I don’t think that Rod Donald would be supporting the excavation of the biggest open cast coal mine in the history of this country, to be dug on the Denniston plateau for the extort trade. In fact the opposite.
And I certainly don’t think Rod would support entering a majority Labour Party cabinet where they would be outvoted every time, but where they would be bound hand and foot by “cabinet collective responsibilty” to support the majority decisions of that cabinet. Particularly when those decisions could be to support Denniston, or Fracking, or deep sea oil and gas drilling.
He was too smart a cookie for that.
Rob Donald’s greatest strength was organising outside of cabinet from a minority position.
Rod Donald was the polar opposite of a “pragmatic” politician.
With a sharp mind and unbending principles he was able to lobby for, and get, legislation passed, to make New Zealand nuclear free. And an MMP electoral system.
Jenny
You could try getting over yourself in the next 24 weeks. You were off previous ban on the 4th of October, and gone by the 8th – and at that I was surprised they didn’t extend your first ban for commenting in late September, but you even got a pass on that… Please read The Standard’s Policy page if you want to comment there again.
LPrent summation to counterpoint your own:
“If you look at what she got banned for this time:-
1. It was for lying about what I’d said about her on my post. 12 weeks
2. Persistently lying about what the greens and labour’s policies were on a number of topics. 12 weeks
The point was that she didn’t damn well know what the policies were because it was apparent that she’d never looked.
In both offenses she’d been warned what would happen if she did it again the day before, and obviously decided to deliberately do it. I acted in accordance with what I’d said.
I’d call it a penalty peddling fantasies as fact and for stupidity. She is welcome to write at other forums where I’m sure that she will be welcomed /sarc”
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-8102013/
Jenny, why would you use access to a platform to start a discussion – to carry on a one-sided argument with another website?
You have a lot to contribute to the discussion on climate change and its impact. If you focus on that – you may find that you will play the part of informer and systematic change.
Just to be clear, Jenny didn’t get banned from the standard for talking about Climate Change or politics. She got banned for ignoring multiple moderation warnings about her behaviour.
If anyone wants to know more detail, feel free to pop over to the standard and I’m sure that any number of Standardistas who are thoroughly sick of Jenny’s antics will be happy to point out what the issues were 🙂 (can’t see the point of getting into it here, not least because I don’t wish the same level of drama onto TDB’s new Open Mike).
The Standard migrates…
Just a bit of outreach 😉
intervention
OE
More of a “busman’s holiday”
or a batman’s furlough
Comments are closed.