Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not >that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
On 10/3/2016 7:12 PM, Tony wrote:
Strike two!Many years ago I used to buy Mad, Cracked, Sick, Punch and any other
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not >> that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
such satirical magazine.
Nowadays we have Colon a much stranger turn.
Cheaper too
LOL Dickbot so desperate for friends he posts the dribblings of some obscureCorbyn fan!
Go on Dickbot - say "time for a change" again. You've been saying it since2008 and it seems to be working as well now as it did then.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 08:28:22 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:(not
On 10/3/2016 7:12 PM, Tony wrote:
Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force
that he ever was really).Many years ago I used to buy Mad, Cracked, Sick, Punch and any other
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
such satirical magazine.
Nowadays we have Colon a much stranger turn.
Cheaper too
You are not the only person to find him strange: https://thekiwifirewalker.blogspot.co.nz/
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 01:12:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not >>that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
I'm with you on that one. I have mixed feelings about the jury award
to Jordan Williams - it is so high as to have a chilling effect on
newspaper opinions, but we will have to see whether the amount gets
reviewed anyway.
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 22:14:09 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 01:12:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not >>>that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character.
I feel for the women involved!
Tony
I'm with you on that one. I have mixed feelings about the jury award
to Jordan Williams - it is so high as to have a chilling effect on >>newspaper opinions, but we will have to see whether the amount gets >>reviewed anyway.
I don't see how the award to Williams has any chilling effect at all.
It should emphasise the need for public utterances of political
leaders to be confined to political debate rather than personal
character assassination.
Craig still has an appeal process to use, but as things stand he has
been found to have libeled Williams.
I don't see how the award to Williams has any chilling effect at all.
It should emphasise the need for public utterances of political
leaders to be confined to political debate rather than personal
character assassination.
Craig still has an appeal process to use, but as things stand he has
been found to have libeled Williams.
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 21:26:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>(not
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 22:14:09 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 01:12:00 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Strike two!
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force
that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character. >>>I feel for the women involved!
Tony
I'm with you on that one. I have mixed feelings about the jury award
to Jordan Williams - it is so high as to have a chilling effect on >>newspaper opinions, but we will have to see whether the amount gets >>reviewed anyway.
I don't see how the award to Williams has any chilling effect at all.
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of
Jordan Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type
of activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his
book which would be no bad thing.
It should emphasise the need for public utterances of political
leaders to be confined to political debate rather than personal
character assassination.
Craig still has an appeal process to use, but as things stand he has
been found to have libeled Williams.
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book
which would be no bad thing.
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of >> > activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature.Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Craig is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation
of Jordan Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar
for journalists passing on information that they have been given in
good faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk
averse. Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for
the type of activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by
Hagar in his book which would be no bad thing.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig >> > is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan >> > Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. >> > Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of >> > activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book >> > which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Craig
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature.
Jordanis clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of
averse.Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good >> >> > faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk
ofStill I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type
bookactivity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob
What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig >> >> > is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan >> >> > Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. >> >> > Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book >> >> > which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good >> >> >> > faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't even remember/read what you just posted?There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court date with the Hagermans?
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Craig
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature.
Jordanis clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of
goodWilliams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in
averse.faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk
type ofStill I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the
bookactivity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his
mob he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >> >> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by >> >> the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did
not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken seriously JohnO.
even remember/read what you just posted?Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or
unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
date with the Hagermans?
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
want to address the subject of the thread.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. >>> >> >> >Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of >>> >> >> >Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk
averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the >>> >> >> >type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his >>> >> >> >book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >>> >> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by >>> >> the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob >>> >he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip >>into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did
not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >seriously JohnO.
I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the thread subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid right' in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a personal attack.There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't >>even remember/read what you just posted?
unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court >>date with the Hagermans?
want to address the subject of the thread.
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste of bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest of minorities and hardly worth a thought.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> >> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. >>>>> >> >> >Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of >>>>> >> >> >Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>> >> >> > journalists passing on information that they have been given in >>>>> >> >> >good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>>> >> >> >averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the >>>>> >> >> >type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in >>>>> >> >> >his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >>>>> >> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>> >> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue >>>>> >> that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by >>>>> >> the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the >>>>> >mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>> >goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip >>>>into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did
not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't >>>>even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court >>>>date with the Hagermans?
want to address the subject of the thread.
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >>exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a personal >>attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of
political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid
right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt
much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want
to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In
relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely
Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least
in my view and many that have watched his antics.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the thread
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. >>>> >> >> >Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of >>>> >> >> >Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>> >> >> > journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>> >> >> >averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the >>>> >> >> >type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his >>>> >> >> >book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >>>> >> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue >>>> >> that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by >>>> >> the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip >>>into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did
not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't >>>even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court >>>date with the Hagermans?
want to address the subject of the thread.
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid right' >in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a personal >attack.
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste of >bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest of >minorities and hardly worth a thought.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> >> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. >>>>>> >> >> >Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of >>>>>> >> >> >Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>>> >> >> > journalists passing on information that they have been given in >>>>>> >> >> >good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>>>> >> >> >averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the >>>>>> >> >> >type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in >>>>>> >> >> >his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >>>>>> >> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>>> >> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue >>>>>> >> that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the >>>>>> >mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>>> >goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip >>>>>into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court >>>>>date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >>>exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a personal >>>attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid
right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt
much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want
to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least
in my view and many that have watched his antics.
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially >describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
As for right, this country is currently governed by a centristpolitical party
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know you >disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of >that, no real research or proof.That is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported
Tony
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste of >>bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest of >>minorities and hardly worth a thought.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>> >> >> >nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation >>>>>>> >> >> >of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>>>> >> >> > journalists passing on information that they have been given in >>>>>>> >> >> >good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>>>>> >> >> >averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for >>>>>>> >> >> >the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in >>>>>>> >> >> >his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>> >> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>>>> >> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue >>>>>>> >> that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued >>>>>>> >>by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the >>>>>>> >mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>>>> >goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>slip
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>court
date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >>>>exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid
right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want
to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least
in my view and many that have watched his antics.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of
voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main
characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty
Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation
or libel.
The definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I believe there is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the subject.A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially >>describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
Thqt is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported
personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread. Do you disagree with
the word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater?
Not at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the subject. Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centristpolitical party
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know you >>disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of >>that, no real research or proof.That is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported
Tony
personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring
to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty
Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the
whole government.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may have escaped your notice that Colin Craig was the leader of a
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste of >>>bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest of >>>minorities and hardly worth a thought.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>>>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>>slip
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>>> >> >> >nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation >>>>>>>> >> >> >of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>>>>> >> >> > journalists passing on information that they have been given in
good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>>>>>> >> >> >averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for >>>>>>>> >> >> >the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in >>>>>>>> >> >> >his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>>> >> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>>>>> >> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued >>>>>>>> >>by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the
mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>>>>> >goodness
for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . . >>>>>>>
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>>can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>>court
date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >>>>>exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>>personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>>>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid >>>>right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>>much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want
to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least >>>>in my view and many that have watched his antics.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of
voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main
characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty
Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation
or libel.
I do not dispute the definition of rabid. I dispute that the word isThe definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I believe >there is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the >subject.
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially >>>describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
That is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported
personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread. Do you disagree with
the word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater?
The normal expression is "Right-thinking", Tony, which is in one senseNot at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the subject.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centristpolitical party
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know you >>>disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of >>>that, no real research or proof.That is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported >>personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring
Tony
to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty
Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the
whole government.
Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash.
Tony
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:59:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHow patronising of you
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may have escaped your notice
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:I am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste >>>>of
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>>>>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>>>slip
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnOWhat are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the >>>>>>>>> population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>>>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . . >>>>>>>>
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>>>> >> >> >nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation >>>>>>>>> >> >> >of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given >>>>>>>>> >> >> >in
good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very >>>>>>>>> >> >> >risk
averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for >>>>>>>>> >> >> >the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar >>>>>>>>> >> >> >in
his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure >>>>>>>>> >>that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>>>> >> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>>>>>> >> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest >>>>>>>>> >>issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been >>>>>>>>> >>pursued
by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder >>>>>>>>> >the
mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>>>>>> >goodness
for that!
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>>>can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>>>court
date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate >>>>>>exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>>>personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>>>>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid >>>>>right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>>>much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want >>>>>to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>>>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>>>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least >>>>>in my view and many that have watched his antics.
bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest >>>>of
minorities and hardly worth a thought.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of >>>voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main >>>characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty
Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation
or libel.
that Colin Craig was the leader of aIrrelevant - I started the thread about one person who has behaved appalingly, he could have been a bus driver and I would still have posted it.
political party that got more votes than ACT - not many more and he
would have had 4 or 5 MPs.
The reason for the actions by anotherWhat an idiotic thing to say - you used the word rabid first and clearly do not understand its meaning. There is no rabid right here.
political party to attack Craig was totally political. I have not
objected to discussoin - that is what usenet is for, but rational
discussion is preferred - or are you defending JohnO's stupidity in
thinking that 47% of voters were involved somehow?
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially >>>>describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
That is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported
personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread.
Do you disagree withOf course not and if you had read what I posted you would not have needed to ask such a silly question.
I do not dispute the definition of rabid. I dispute that the word is >applicable to me. Do you agree that it is reasonably relevant to Colinthe word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater?The definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I >>believe
there is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the >>subject.
Craig and Cameron Slater?
It just is, I don't need to prove an opinion, can you prove otherwise?The normal expression is "Right-thinking", Tony, which is in one sense >slightly relevant to the thread - it was typical right-thinkingNot at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the >>subject.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centristpolitical party
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know you >>>>disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of >>>>that, no real research or proof.That is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported >>>personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring
Tony
to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty
Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the >>>whole government.
Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash.
Tony
arrogance and sense of entitlement that led to the fall of Colin Craig Bullshit, it was typical unthinking self agrandisement, nothing to do with his politics.
- as for many other politicians before him. But in the sense you meant
it as a personal attack in lieu of reasoned argument, your descent
into personal abuse to avoid the reality that you have provided no
proof or evidence supporting your assertion that the current
government is "centrist".
Yes, No and No
On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:29:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYes, No and No
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:59:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHow patronising of you
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may have escaped your notice
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:You turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:I am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste >>>>>>of
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that >>>>>>>>the
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>>>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>>>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>>>>>seriously JohnO.
wrote:No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>>>>>slip
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnOWhat are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the >>>>>>>>>>> population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in >>>>>>>>>>>court
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >reputation
of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >for
journalists passing on information that they have been >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >given
in
good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >risk
averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >for
the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >in
his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure >>>>>>>>>>> >>that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>>>>>> >> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest >>>>>>>>>>> >>issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been >>>>>>>>>>> >>pursued
by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder >>>>>>>>>>> >the
mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and >>>>>>>>>>> >thank
goodness
for that!
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . . >>>>>>>>>>
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that? >>>>>>>>>
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>>>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>>>>>can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>>>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>>>>>court
date with the Hagermans?
thread
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>>>>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of >>>>>>>>deliberate
exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>>>>>personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>>>>>>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid >>>>>>>right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>>>>>much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want >>>>>>>to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>>>>>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>>>>>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least >>>>>>>in my view and many that have watched his antics.
bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest >>>>>>of
minorities and hardly worth a thought.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of >>>>>voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main >>>>>characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty >>>>>Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation >>>>>or libel.
that Colin Craig was the leader of aIrrelevant - I started the thread about one person who has behaved >>appalingly,
political party that got more votes than ACT - not many more and he
would have had 4 or 5 MPs.
he could have been a bus driver and I would still have posted it.
You nade it political not me!
The reason for the actions by anotherWhat an idiotic thing to say - you used the word rabid first and clearly do >>not
political party to attack Craig was totally political. I have not >>>objected to discussoin - that is what usenet is for, but rational >>>discussion is preferred - or are you defending JohnO's stupidity in >>>thinking that 47% of voters were involved somehow?
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it >>>>>>essentially
describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
That is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported >>>>>personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread.
understand its meaning. There is no rabid right here.
Do you disagree withOf course not and if you had read what I posted you would not have needed to >>ask such a silly question.
I do not dispute the definition of rabid. I dispute that the word is >>>applicable to me. Do you agree that it is reasonably relevant to Colin >>>Craig and Cameron Slater?the word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater? >>>>The definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I >>>>believethere is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the >>>>subject.
politics.
The normal expression is "Right-thinking", Tony, which is in one sense >>>slightly relevant to the thread - it was typical right-thinkingNot at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the >>>>subject.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centrist >>>>>political partyThat is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported >>>>>personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring >>>>>to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty >>>>>Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the >>>>>whole government.
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know >>>>>>you
disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view >>>>>>of
that, no real research or proof.
Tony
Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash. >>>>
Tony
arrogance and sense of entitlement that led to the fall of Colin Craig >>Bullshit, it was typical unthinking self agrandisement, nothing to do with >>his
- as for many other politicians before him. But in the sense you meantIt just is, I don't need to prove an opinion, can you prove otherwise?
it as a personal attack in lieu of reasoned argument, your descent
into personal abuse to avoid the reality that you have provided no
proof or evidence supporting your assertion that the current
government is "centrist".
And as for personal attacks you are a past master with innuendo, sarcasm and >>patronising behaviour not to mention lies in abundance.
Tony
So you claim that you do not need to provide any support for your
opinions, but ask for proof or evidence from others. Then when called
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:59:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netHow patronising of you
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may have escaped your notice
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:You turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:I am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste >>>>>of
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>>>>>thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>>>>slip
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnOWhat are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the >>>>>>>>>> population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
<johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation
of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >in
good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >risk
averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >in
his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure >>>>>>>>>> >>that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>>>>> >> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>>>>> >> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest >>>>>>>>>> >>issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been >>>>>>>>>> >>pursued
by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder >>>>>>>>>> >the
mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank
goodness
for that!
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . . >>>>>>>>>
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>>>>not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>>>>descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>>>>seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>>>>unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>>>>can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>>>>want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>>>>court
date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>>>>right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate
exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>>>>personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of >>>>>>political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid >>>>>>right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>>>>much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want >>>>>>to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>>>>relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>>>>Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least >>>>>>in my view and many that have watched his antics.
bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest >>>>>of
minorities and hardly worth a thought.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of >>>>voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main >>>>characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty
Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation >>>>or libel.
that Colin Craig was the leader of aIrrelevant - I started the thread about one person who has behaved appalingly, >he could have been a bus driver and I would still have posted it.
political party that got more votes than ACT - not many more and he
would have had 4 or 5 MPs.
You nade it political not me!
The reason for the actions by anotherWhat an idiotic thing to say - you used the word rabid first and clearly do not
political party to attack Craig was totally political. I have not
objected to discussoin - that is what usenet is for, but rational >>discussion is preferred - or are you defending JohnO's stupidity in >>thinking that 47% of voters were involved somehow?
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially
describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
That is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported
personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread.
understand its meaning. There is no rabid right here.
Do you disagree withOf course not and if you had read what I posted you would not have needed to >ask such a silly question.
I do not dispute the definition of rabid. I dispute that the word is >>applicable to me. Do you agree that it is reasonably relevant to Colin >>Craig and Cameron Slater?the word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater? >>>The definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I >>>believethere is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the >>>subject.
It just is, I don't need to prove an opinion, can you prove otherwise?
The normal expression is "Right-thinking", Tony, which is in one sense >>slightly relevant to the thread - it was typical right-thinkingNot at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the >>>subject.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centrist >>>>political partyThat is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported >>>>personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring >>>>to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty >>>>Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the >>>>whole government.
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know you
disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of
that, no real research or proof.
Tony
Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash.
Tony
arrogance and sense of entitlement that led to the fall of Colin Craig >Bullshit, it was typical unthinking self agrandisement, nothing to do with his >politics.
- as for many other politicians before him. But in the sense you meant
it as a personal attack in lieu of reasoned argument, your descent
into personal abuse to avoid the reality that you have provided no
proof or evidence supporting your assertion that the current
government is "centrist".
And as for personal attacks you are a past master with innuendo, sarcasm and >patronising behaviour not to mention lies in abundance.
Tony
On 10/9/2016 3:48 PM, Tony wrote:
Yes, No and NoWhy is rich defending Colon?
You don't imagine that they could be one and the same ?It is not often that you are correct, but this may be one of those
It would appear that he will be facing the same evidence as has alreadyNow you have lost it totally, george152
been proven in a court and should start apologizing to those he has
maligned
On 10/9/2016 3:48 PM, Tony wrote:I cannot imagine! Seems incongruous to me.
Yes, No and NoWhy is rich defending Colon?
You don't imagine that they could be one and the same ?
It would appear that he will be facing the same evidence as has already
been proven in a court and should start apologizing to those he has
maligned
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 10/9/2016 3:48 PM, Tony wrote:I cannot imagine! Seems incongruous to me.
Yes, No and NoWhy is rich defending Colon?
You don't imagine that they could be one and the same ?
It would appear that he will be facing the same evidence as has already
been proven in a court and should start apologizing to those he has
maligned
Tony
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:59:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may have escaped your notice that Colin Craig was the leader of a political party that got more votes than ACT - not many more and he
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 17:12:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou turned it political, so you should expect others to respond.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:04:56 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:I am not in denial, people like Cameron Slater and John Minto are a waste of
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:I don't want to get into that but it might be worth remembering that the >>>>>> thread
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just >>>>>>>> slip
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the >>>>>>>>> population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court >>>>>>>>> - or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . . >>>>>>>>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature.
Craig
is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> journalists passing on information that they have been given in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> averse.
Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his
book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were >>>>>>>>>>> undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan >>>>>>>>>>> Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable >>>>>>>>>>> statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued >>>>>>>>>>> by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the
mob
he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank >>>>>>>>>> goodness
for that!
into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did >>>>>>> not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are >>>>>>> descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken >>>>>>> seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or >>>>>>> unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you >>>>>>>> can't
even remember/read what you just posted?
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not >>>>>>> want to address the subject of the thread.
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their >>>>>>>>> wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming >>>>>>>> court
date with the Hagermans?
subject was not ever political until you made it so. There is no 'rabid >>>>>> right'
in this countries political environment and using that sort of deliberate
exaggeration will always attract condemnation and what you see as a >>>>>> personal
attack.
Tony
from the comments by posters and commentators with a wide range of
political views, many do regard Colin Craig as part of the "rabid
right", Tony. You may prefer other descriptions, , but really it is nt >>>>> much different from the so-called "loony-left" although you may want >>>>> to deny the existence of people fitting that description as well. In >>>>> relation to the non-libellous revelatons in "Dirty Politics", surely >>>>> Cameron Slater comes at least close to being "rabid right" - at least >>>>> in my view and many that have watched his antics.
bandwidth and of very different poilitical views but they are the tiniest of
minorities and hardly worth a thought.
Until JohnO stupidly tried to imply that I was referring to 47% of
voters, the thread has been about a very tiny minority - 3 main
characters in the Colin Craig case, less than a dozen in Dirty
Politics which in contrast did not lead to legal action for defamation
or libel.
would have had 4 or 5 MPs. The reason for the actions by another
political party to attack Craig was totally political. I have not
objected to discussoin - that is what usenet is for, but rational
discussion is preferred - or are you defending JohnO's stupidity in
thinking that 47% of voters were involved somehow?
I do not dispute the definition of rabid. I dispute that the word is applicable to me. Do you agree that it is reasonably relevant to ColinThe definition of rabid is not an opinion. I have already said that I believe
A review of the word rabid would assist your comprehension - it essentially
describes a fanatic. It suits you very well!
That is of course your unsubstantiated and largely unsupported
personal opinion, and irrelevant to the thread. Do you disagree with
the word "rabid" in relation to either Colin Craig or Cameron Slater?
there is no such thing as a "rabid right" in this country. Don't change the >> subject.
Craig and Cameron Slater?
The normal expression is "Right-thinking", Tony, which is in one sense slightly relevant to the thread - it was typical right-thinkingNot at all unsupported by thinking people - again you are changing the subject.As for right, this country is currently governed by a centristpolitical party
and so was the last Labour government. Both are fairly centrist. I know youThat is again of course your unsubstantiated and larely unsupported
disagree but you have only ever provided opinion in defence of your view of
that, no real research or proof.
Tony
personal opinion, and again irrelevant to the thread. In my referring
to the rabid right, the context was the revelations of "Dirty
Politics"- a very small section of the National Party, let alone the
whole government.
Be reminded that you turned a non-political thread into a bit of trash.
Tony
arrogance and sense of entitlement that led to the fall of Colin Craig
- as for many other politicians before him. But in the sense you meant
it as a personal attack in lieu of reasoned argument, your descent
into personal abuse to avoid the reality that you have provided no
proof or evidence supporting your assertion that the current
government is "centrist".
On 10/9/2016 3:48 PM, Tony wrote:
Yes, No and NoWhy is rich defending Colon?
You don't imagine that they could be one and the same ?
It would appear that he will be facing the same evidence as has already
been proven in a court and should start apologizing to those he has
maligned
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 18:22:52 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:Corbyn fan!
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 08:28:22 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 10/3/2016 7:12 PM, Tony wrote:
Strike two!Many years ago I used to buy Mad, Cracked, Sick, Punch and any other
I am delighted that he is almost certainly no longer a political force (not
that he ever was really).
Hey Rich, not a political issue for me - just a judgement on character. >>>> I feel for the women involved!
Tony
such satirical magazine.
Nowadays we have Colon a much stranger turn.
Cheaper too
You are not the only person to find him strange:
https://thekiwifirewalker.blogspot.co.nz/
LOL Dickbot so desperate for friends he posts the dribblings of some obscure
Go on Dickbot - say "time for a change" again. You've been saying it since2008 and it seems to be working as well now as it did then.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 16:43:18 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig >>>>>>>> is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan
Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for >>>>>>>> journalists passing on information that they have been given in good >>>>>>>> faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. >>>>>>>> Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of
activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book
which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that >>>>> the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue >>>>> that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by >>>>> the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob
What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
No obviously it was you who mentioned "rabid right" - or did you just slip into the Dickbot account after another operator posted that?
Now you are being insulting by implying I said something that I did
not. Those named in the book do not make up 47% of voters - if you are descending to Pooh levels of nastiness you cannot expect to be taken seriously JohnO.
There you go again - a Pooh-like personal attack when incapable or
Or are you just having a little bipolar/schizophrenic episode and you can't even remember/read what you just posted?
unwilling to undertake rational discussion.
And a Pooh-like attempt to distract from the subject when you do not
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
Indeed. I wonder how nervous Angry little Andy is about his upcoming court date with the Hagermans?
want to address the subject of the thread.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig >>>> is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan >>>> Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good
faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. >>>> Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of >>>> activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book >>>> which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 15:49:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:What are you on about? Hagers book did not mention 47% of the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:46:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 12:13:13 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 22:14:15 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
It is apparently the highest award for any case of this nature. Craig >>>>>> is clearly in the wrong, but I cannot see that the reputation of Jordan >>>>>> Williams has been significantly damaged. It raises the bar for
journalists passing on information that they have been given in good >>>>>> faith - and we already know that newspapers must be very risk averse. >>>>>> Still I suppose it also raises the potential for damages for the type of >>>>>> activity carried ut by National that was disclosed by Hagar in his book >>>>>> which would be no bad thing.
Hagar (the Horrible) is a cartoon character.
Hager (the journalist) is a pain in the arse.
He's not a journalist. He's an activist.
Either way it explains why he had to take so much care to ensure that
the dioclosues in his book about the Dirty Politics that were
undertaken by Key and his minions were totally supportable. Jordan
Williams has shown how much money can be made from unsupportable
statements - it reinforces that if there had been the slighest issue
that could have been challenged in court it would have been pursued by
the rabid right.
Poor old Dickbot thinks 47% of voters are "rabid right". No wonder the mob he's associated with can't get any where near government - and thank goodness for that!
population, let alone say anything that anyone could dispute in court
- or some individual would have seen fit to claim damages . . .
Truth is a powerful defence against those that seek to hide their
wrongdoing, JohnO
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 47:41:41 |
| Calls: | 2,096 |
| Files: | 11,143 |
| Messages: | 950,024 |