On 4/12/2016 3:11 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse.

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet >>>>>> - gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet >>>>> Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing.

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940 >>>>

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.
You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for
that lie?

You claim it's a lie but can't provide a cite to backup your lie Rich.
But then that's the trouble with lies and liars like you. Just trolling
lidle shits avoiding reality.

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between
National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world the

government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour.

A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single

by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me

wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New

Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 4/12/2016 10:47 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 22:59:13 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 17:24:39 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:08:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 15:11:45 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse.

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet
- gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet
Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing.

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.

Oh yeah, When?

Well?

You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for >>>>> that lie?

I suspect you just made it up. Nobody else would try and excuse
National's by-election failure with such a lie. Now you are trying to
hide from your own statement!

FFS dumbo. The only failure was Labours inability to get more than half
the electorate out to rubber stamp itself as a safe Labour seat! Only a halfwitted trolling Trotsky like you would fail to comprehend THAT!

Good ol' Dickbot wants someone to prove a negative, classic!

Why did you say it if you didn;t know whether it was true or not? Has
anyone else ever said it that is believable?

You claimed that it is a fact - why did you claim that?

Because it is true.

How about you prove a positive and name the by-election that the government one off the opposition? How hard can that be?

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

You could yourself but you are either incapable of doing a search, or
hoping htat I won't expose your lie. In the meantime, you are trying
to distract from the reality - see below - that all your claims were
thin spin is not total lying like the by-electon lie.

So explain why you're unable to prove him wrong if it's that easy Rich?
Is it your typical lack of technical (or any other) skills that prevents
you or just that you know it's impossible because you know JohnO is right?

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between
National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981 >>>>>>> and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

I notice you do not dispute that it was an electorate going towards
National - until this by-election

Bloody hell Rich. You're to thick to comprehend what 'safe Labour seat'
means aren't you! Labours been holding that seat comfortably since MMP
started. Sure it's been giving National the party vote like most safe
Labour seats. But that only tells those with a functional brain cell
that they prefer National as government while following the union line.

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world

the government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour.

A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

You can run JohnO, but you have still lied . . .

As always the lies are yours Rich. After all you can't run away from the
fact the ng know your just a lying, trolling, marxist muppet well
brainwashed to see Labour as the saviour of New Zealand...

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 4/12/2016 5:24 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:08:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 15:11:45 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse.

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet
- gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet >>>>>>> Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion

articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing.

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940 >>>>>>

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.

Oh yeah, When?

You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for
that lie?

Good ol' Dickbot wants someone to prove a negative, classic!

Why did you say it if you didn;t know whether it was true or not? Has
anyone else ever said it that is believable?

You claimed that it is a fact - why did you claim that?

You claimed it was a fact government has won by-elections -why did you
do that rich. Or is it just your typical knee jerk reaction to anything
that exposes your constant and persistent lies?

How about you prove a positive and name the by-election that the government one off the opposition? How hard can that be?

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government

vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between
National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981 >>>>> and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world the government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour.

A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 4/12/2016 7:59 p.m., JohnO wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 17:24:39 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:08:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 15:11:45 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse.

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet
- gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet >>>>>>>> Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing.

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940 >>>>>>>

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.

Oh yeah, When?

Well?

You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for >>>> that lie?

Good ol' Dickbot wants someone to prove a negative, classic!

Why did you say it if you didn;t know whether it was true or not? Has
anyone else ever said it that is believable?

You claimed that it is a fact - why did you claim that?

Because it is true.

How about you prove a positive and name the by-election that the government

one off the opposition? How hard can that be?

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single

by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong

is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

Of course he can't JohnO. The stupid trolling bastard Rich is just lying
as usual in a desperate and useless attempt to prove he's incapable of
proper debate. Typical of the marxist muppet.

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between
National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981 >>>>>> and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world the government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour.

A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:04:45 UTC+13, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single >> >>by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me >> >>wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from

the

opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New >Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 Audrey Young used to be a union delegate so we can assume that she is a

Labour

supporter and today on a radio interview John Key said exactly the same thing and we can assume he is a National supporter. There seems to be a consensus here!

I was going to cite both John Key and Steven Joyce saying the same thing but didn't bother because I knew it would make Dickbot squeal like a pig.

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/12/2016 8:01 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 10:12:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 22:47:12 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 22:59:13 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 17:24:39 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:08:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 15:11:45 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet
- gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet
Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.

Oh yeah, When?

Well?

You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for >>>>>>> that lie?

I suspect you just made it up. Nobody else would try and excuse
National's by-election failure with such a lie. Now you are trying to
hide from your own statement!

Good ol' Dickbot wants someone to prove a negative, classic!

Why did you say it if you didn;t know whether it was true or not? Has >>>>> anyone else ever said it that is believable?

You claimed that it is a fact - why did you claim that?

Because it is true.

How about you prove a positive and name the by-election that the government one off the opposition? How hard can that be?

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

You could yourself but you are either incapable of doing a search, or

Of course I can and there are no hits to "nz government wins opposition
electorate by-election" and similar.

As I pointed out, Dickbot, there's no proving a negative but you are clearly

far too thick to grasp this concept.

hoping htat I won't expose your lie. In the meantime, you are trying
to distract from the reality - see below - that all your claims were
thin spin is not total lying like the by-electon lie.

So what we know is you are unable to find any by-election where the governing party has taken an electorate off the opposition. End of story, really.

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between >>>>>>>>> National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

I notice you do not dispute that it was an electorate going towards
National - until this by-election

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world the government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour. >>>>>>>>> A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

You can run JohnO, but you have still lied . . .

I've not run anywhere Dickbot. Still here, waiting for you to show me the by-election where the government has taken an electorate from the opposition.

You cannot provide any source for your incorrect assertion; as usual
your posts are a mixture of lies, personal attacks and pointless
insults - as fact free as the government tries to be when hiding
failure.

Boo hoo. Poor widdle Richie. Been caught out telling porkies so gets
himself a safety pin for his treasures and weeps crocodile tears about
the truth of his posts. Diddums!

Perhaps you should just do some basic research - the information is
there on the web, and find out for your self. Records of by-electon
results are available thrugh the internet you know. Go on, for once in
your life don't just make up Nat-spin and do some work yourself. You
are capable of doing better than persisting with making things up when
you have been told you are wrong.

AGAIN and so typical of the trolling Trotsky twat you are Rich. You're incapable of even attempting to find out if your lie is one (which it
is) so you persist in a lying attack on a better and honester man than
you are. Like the so called opposition and your glorious misleader PATHETIC!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:39:53 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one

single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me

wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in

New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating

more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion

that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Pays to fact check anything Dickbot says.

Holyoake took Motueka for Reform off United in 1932. But... the government of the day in 1932 was the Reform-United coalition. So that was not the case of a sitting government taking a seat off the opposition it was one coalition partner taking a seat
off the other coalition partner.

So it has only ever happened was 1921.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/12/2016 8:58 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong

is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong. To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

So Rich finally admits he's been lying like buggery and repeating it in
the vain hope it will become the truth without Rich having to risk his
vague sanity by actually having to find something he can twist to fit
his ever more twisted view of reality.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/12/2016 9:44 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 11:55:22 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:01:02 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 10:12:27 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 22:47:12 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 22:59:13 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 17:24:39 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 19:08:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 15:11:45 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:58:36 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 09:39:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:49:30 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:42:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:41:43 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2/12/2016 8:29 PM, JohnO wrote:

But he's simply reflecting a few home truths the Labour faithful won't face up to. And Robbo and Adern are too cowardly to do anything before the election.

Labour - doomed I'm afraid. A walking political corpse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Certainly Little is doomed. Labour could last for a couple of terms yet
- gradually marching to the burial ground.

Opinion, opinion, opinion - nothing factual - all just wishful "Planet
Key" thinking.

LOL Dickbot, you hypocritical little wanker, you constantly post opinion articles, then complain when someone else does the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Some facts would be good - try this for example:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759940

Fact: No sitting government has ever taken an electorate off the opposition in a byelection.

Wrong

Don't be stupid. It was not wrong.

I has not happened in recent years, but it has happened.

Oh yeah, When?

Well?

You made the claim that it has never happened - do you have a cite for
that lie?

I suspect you just made it up. Nobody else would try and excuse
National's by-election failure with such a lie. Now you are trying to >>>>> hide from your own statement!

Good ol' Dickbot wants someone to prove a negative, classic!

Why did you say it if you didn;t know whether it was true or not? Has >>>>>>> anyone else ever said it that is believable?

You claimed that it is a fact - why did you claim that?

Because it is true.

How about you prove a positive and name the by-election that the government one off the opposition? How hard can that be?

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

You could yourself but you are either incapable of doing a search, or >>>>

Of course I can and there are no hits to "nz government wins opposition >>>> electorate by-election" and similar.

As I pointed out, Dickbot, there's no proving a negative but you are clearly far too thick to grasp this concept.

hoping htat I won't expose your lie. In the meantime, you are trying >>>>> to distract from the reality - see below - that all your claims were >>>>> thin spin is not total lying like the by-electon lie.

So what we know is you are unable to find any by-election where the governing party has taken an electorate off the opposition. End of story, really.

Fact: The Greens and NZF sat this one out, gifting their anti-government vote to Wood.

Why waste their money - it was a straight-forward fight between >>>>>>>>>>> National and Labour.
See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87168596/labours-michael-wood-sweeps-mt-roskill-byelection
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87091959/stacey-kirk-labour-and-the-greens-set-the-stage-but-does-mou-backdrop-always-apply
and
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11759981
and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87168484/mt-roskill-slam-dunk-a-win-for-little-as-well

Fact: It was a safe Labour electorate anyway.

Not what was being said just before the election:
http://insights.nzherald.co.nz/article/mt-roskill-byelection

I notice you do not dispute that it was an electorate going towards
National - until this by-election

So enjoy your pointless little victory Dickbot. Back in the real world the government will cruise on with it's massive lead over Labour. >>>>>>>>>>> A lead over a single party may not be enough under MMP

You can run JohnO, but you have still lied . . .

I've not run anywhere Dickbot. Still here, waiting for you to show me the by-election where the government has taken an electorate from the opposition. >>>

You cannot provide any source for your incorrect assertion; as usual
your posts are a mixture of lies,

Says you, with nothing to support yourself.

It was your claim. It is wrong. You cannot support it, but still have
not even done basic research into what was an incorrect statement -
that is tantamount to a lie.

personal attacks

Says you, while making a personal attack

Really? Where?

and pointless
insults

Says you, while making a pointless insult

No I have not. If you think any of my posts have been, identify it.

- as fact free as the government tries to be when hiding
failure.

Perhaps you should just do some basic research - the information is
there on the web, and find out for your self. Records of by-electon
results are available thrugh the internet you know. Go on, for once in
your life don't just make up Nat-spin and do some work yourself. You

Have done so. There's nothing to show where a government has taken an opposition seat in a by-election.

Not very competent are you. Try searching for By-Election results.

You really don't get this basic logical fallacy of proving a negative do you?

are capable of doing better than persisting with making things up when
you have been told you are wrong.

Told by you, when you provide no rebuttal whatsoever? Wow, that's compelling, Dickbot.

Yet still you persist - chaeck with your handler . . .

I'll try one more time: If you read this slowly Dickbot, perhaps it will sink into your think, vacant skull: The proof is to find a by-election where the government took a seat off the opposition. If it can't be found then the assertion that it has

never happened has not been rebutted. You can't prove a negative... do you get that?

I agree that would disprove your unsupported (and incorrect)
assertion. Why have you not found one of them?

Probably not. There's no cure for your intellectual shortcomings.

Get help JohnO - your claim - it is up to you to support it.

Another total lack of comprehension from the mindless, lying troll Rich Bot.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single

by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:56:14 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:39:53 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> > >>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >> > >> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion

that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Pays to fact check anything Dickbot says.

Holyoake took Motueka for Reform off United in 1932. But... the government of the day in 1932 was the Reform-United coalition. So that was not the case of a sitting government taking a seat off the opposition it was one coalition partner taking a seat

off the other coalition partner.

Black was an Independent (he had previously been a member of the
United Party) at the election before he committed suicide - the Reform
party won the seat back when Holyoake was elected.

That is why I said you may prefer the secondexample I gave.

So I did not lie - you did, through your uncritical accpetance of
anything the lyng John Key said. That he also lied about not attending by-election parties when results were announced should have triggered
a warning - in fact that he said anything at all should have triggered
a warning. But he has now resigned - as New Zealand's equivalent of
Trump we are indeed fortunate that he had clearly started finding that
his casual lying was getting too hard.

So it has only ever happened was 1921.

Have you really checked that, JohnO? Your casual approach to the truth
comes through again . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> >>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one

single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove

me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in

New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >> >> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating

more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion

that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:13:06 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:56:14 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:39:53 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> > >>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one

single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove

me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party

in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >> > >
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >> > >> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >> > >> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections

in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >> >

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by

restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this

discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Pays to fact check anything Dickbot says.

Holyoake took Motueka for Reform off United in 1932. But... the government

of the day in 1932 was the Reform-United coalition. So that was not the case of
a sitting government taking a seat off the opposition it was one coalition partner taking a seat
off the other coalition partner.

Black was an Independent (he had previously been a member of the
United Party) at the election before he committed suicide - the Reform
party won the seat back when Holyoake was elected.

Dancing on the head of a pin.

That is why I said you may prefer the secondexample I gave.

So I did not lie - you did, through your uncritical accpetance of
anything the lyng John Key said. That he also lied about not attending by-election parties when results were announced should have triggered

Stop waffling and div erting off-topic

a warning - in fact that he said anything at all should have triggered
a warning. But he has now resigned - as New Zealand's equivalent of
Trump we are indeed fortunate that he had clearly started finding that
his casual lying was getting too hard.

So it has only ever happened was 1921.

Have you really checked that, JohnO? Your casual approach to the truth
comes through again . . .

See for yourself, dickhead.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLLaw2016021/by-elections-in-new-zealand-1905-2015

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >> >> >>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in

New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >> >> >
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >> >> >> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >> >>

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating

more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable? I not that depsite screeching for my apology when
you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty
Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/12/2016 4:01 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >>>>>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >>>>
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on
Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >>>>> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion

that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Many of the commentators are as stupid as you Rich. after all you have
to be bloody idiotic to think a safe seat is going to go to a different
party after 30 odd years of voting one way.

Hell you'll be telling us angry Andy's the best PM new Zealand's had
next......

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/12/2016 4:34 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >>>>>>>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me

wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >>>>>>>> You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in

New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >>>>>>
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >>>>>>> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >>>>>>> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >>>>>>> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >>>>>>> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >>>>>>> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >>>>>

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >>>>> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >>>>> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >>>>> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >>>>> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable? I not that depsite screeching for my apology when
you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty
Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

Still as full of shit as ever I see and displaying your usual lack of comprehension.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:53:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:13:06 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:56:14 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:39:53 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from

the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >> >> > >
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >> >> > >> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >> >> > >> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >> >> >

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >> >> > quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >> >> > Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >> >> > post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Pays to fact check anything Dickbot says.

Holyoake took Motueka for Reform off United in 1932. But... the government of the day in 1932 was the Reform-United coalition. So that was not the case of

a sitting government taking a seat off the opposition it was one coalition partner taking a
seat off the other coalition partner.

Black was an Independent (he had previously been a member of the
United Party) at the election before he committed suicide - the Reform
party won the seat back when Holyoake was elected.

Dancing on the head of a pin.

That is why I said you may prefer the secondexample I gave.

So I did not lie - you did, through your uncritical accpetance of
anything the lyng John Key said. That he also lied about not attending
by-election parties when results were announced should have triggered

Stop waffling and div erting off-topic

a warning - in fact that he said anything at all should have triggered
a warning. But he has now resigned - as New Zealand's equivalent of
Trump we are indeed fortunate that he had clearly started finding that
his casual lying was getting too hard.

So it has only ever happened was 1921.

Have you really checked that, JohnO? Your casual approach to the truth
comes through again . . .

See for yourself, dickhead.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLLaw2016021/by-elections-in-new-zealand-1905-2015

An interesting site, but it does not address or support your claim -
although "So it has only ever happened was 1921" is a typically
garbled claim - it could almost be worthy of John Key - essentially
meaningless but capable of subsequently being said to mean whatever
turns out most convenient at the time. Your personal abuse is also
typical of a Nat-bot - an unthinking response to arguments you cannot
answer, or views that conflict with your pretend reality. It really
indicates a serial loser - and you have still not apologised for being
wrong, or your stupid denial of that fact.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net>

wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one

single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to

prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from
the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party

in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >> >> >
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >> >> >> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >> >> >> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections

in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >> >>

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >> >> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >> >> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >> >> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by

restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this

discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The

2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years. Of course it will never happen.

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from

the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >> >> >> >> >You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party

in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a
mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >> >> >> >> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >> >> >> >> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections

in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you
content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >> >> >> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the
resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John
Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >> >> >> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >> >> >> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >> >> >> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had
attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it.

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key, being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.
Read: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had "proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that "disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years. Of

course it will never happen.
Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but
apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 08:19:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net>

wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite

one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to

prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from
the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >> >> >> >> >You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government

party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone
reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >> >> >> >> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took

on

Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george -

why

don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the

by-elections in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >> >> >> >> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >> >> >> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the >> >> >> resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John >> >> >> Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you

to

quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than

John

Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never

attended

post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had >> >> >> attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by

restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this

discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The

2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it.

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key,

Nope, Audrey Young.

being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.

Red Audrey? Hardly sycophantic.

Read: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

What a load of irrelevant off-topic drivel. No thanks.

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had "proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that "disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years.

Of course it will never happen.

Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Not a lie to pass on what you have seen reported and believe to be true. Get over it princess.

The contrast is your own long history of lying here, despite having this exposed time and time again.

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but
apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 6/12/2016 8:26 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 08:19:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove

me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >>>>>>>>>>> You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case. >>>>>>>>>
Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party

in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone >>>>>>>>>> reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >>>>>>>>>> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >>>>>>>>>> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >>>>>>>>>> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >>>>>>>>>> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >>>>>>>>

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941, >>>>>>>

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >>>>>>>> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the >>>>>>>> Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the >>>>>>>> resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was >>>>>>>> elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John >>>>>>>> Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >>>>>>>> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >>>>>>>> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >>>>>>>> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had >>>>>>>> attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it. >>

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key,

Nope, Audrey Young.

being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.

Red Audrey? Hardly sycophantic.

Read:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

What a load of irrelevant off-topic drivel. No thanks.

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had
"proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that
"disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation
campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such
disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years.

Of course it will never happen.

Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Not a lie to pass on what you have seen reported and believe to be true. Get

over it princess.

The contrast is your own long history of lying here, despite having this

exposed time and time again.


The contrast is also Rich and his reliance on information from highly
dubious sources (polity, norightturn, thestranded and Labour) which he
takes as gospel handed down on tablets of stone!

Once again Rich has a tantrum because he's a stupid trolling, Trotsky
twat who only believes the bullshit that emanates from left.

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all >>>> you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but
apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 6/12/2016 7:07 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >>>>>>>>> You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870 >>>>>>>
You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone >>>>>>>> reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >>>>>>>> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >>>>>>>> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >>>>>>>> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in >>>>>>>> an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >>>>>>>> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333 >>>>>>

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941,

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >>>>>> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the >>>>>> resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was
elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John >>>>>> Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >>>>>> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >>>>>> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >>>>>> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had >>>>>> attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years.

Of course it will never happen.

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Translation: Because I'm incapable of checking shit or of comprehending anything or of even having technical skills you can't tell the truth
about me (Rich) because it hurts my delicate sensibilities. So THERE!

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but
apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:26:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 08:19:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from

the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject.
You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case.

Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone >> >> >> >> >> reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >> >> >> >> >> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took

on

Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why
don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections in
an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >> >> >> >> >> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941, >> >> >> >

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for
the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the
Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the >> >> >> >> resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was >> >> >> >> elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John >> >> >> >> Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to
quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John
Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended
post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had >> >> >> >> attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The

2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it. >>

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key,

Nope, Audrey Young.

being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.

Red Audrey? Hardly sycophantic.

Read:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

What a load of irrelevant off-topic drivel. No thanks.

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had
"proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that
"disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation
campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such
disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years.

Of course it will never happen.

Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Not a lie to pass on what you have seen reported and believe to be true. Get over it princess.

Exactly what the Nats dirty politics brigade hope you will feel. False
stories always get more publicity than the detraction . . .

The contrast is your own long history of lying here, despite having this exposed time and time again.

and accusing others of your own faults is another part of the Nat
dirty tricks arsenal. Next you will bring out distractions, "but they
all do it", , minimising and belittling you already did ("Get over it princess"), , and if all that fails blame someone else and start
another story . . . Are you getting paid, JohnO?

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all
you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but
apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 7/12/2016 7:34 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:26:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 08:19:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from

the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the subject. >>>>>>>>>>>> You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case. >>>>>>>>>>
Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection." >>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling. >>>>>>>>>>

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone >>>>>>>>>>> reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such a >>>>>>>>>>> mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they took on >>>>>>>>>>> Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george - why >>>>>>>>>>> don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the by-elections

in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are you >>>>>>>>>>> content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941, >>>>>>>>

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won for >>>>>>>>> the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the >>>>>>>>> Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following the >>>>>>>>> resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was >>>>>>>>> elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from John >>>>>>>>> Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting you to >>>>>>>>> quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than John >>>>>>>>> Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never attended >>>>>>>>> post election parties following a by-election, but of course he had >>>>>>>>> attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong. The

2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over it. >>>

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key,

Nope, Audrey Young.

being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.

Red Audrey? Hardly sycophantic.

Read:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

What a load of irrelevant off-topic drivel. No thanks.

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had
"proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that
"disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation
campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such
disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for years. Of course it will never happen.

Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Not a lie to pass on what you have seen reported and believe to be true. Get

over it princess.

Exactly what the Nats dirty politics brigade hope you will feel. False stories always get more publicity than the detraction . . .

Nats dirty politics? you still believe that bullshit from Hager? FFS ALL
the party's practice dirty politics and the lefts tends to be the dirtiest!

The contrast is your own long history of lying here, despite having this exposed time and time again.

and accusing others of your own faults is another part of the Nat
dirty tricks arsenal. Next you will bring out distractions, "but they
all do it", , minimising and belittling you already did ("Get over it princess"), , and if all that fails blame someone else and start
another story . . . Are you getting paid, JohnO?

No Rich! Accusing others of your own behaviour is the sign of a dirty
politics practising trolling Trotskyite like YOU! YOU do need to get
over it princess and face up to the fact that you're a victim of your
own bloody stupidity like so many loopy Leninist lefty's!

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all >>>>> you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but >>>>> apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 07:34:35 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:26:48 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 08:19:42 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:07:29 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:34:33 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 19:14:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:01:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:39:52 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 11:05:09 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:19:23 -0800 (PST), JohnO

<johno1234@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Monday, 5 December 2016 08:58:10 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 08:19:37 +1300, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net>

wrote:

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, JohnO wrote:

No comment Dickbot? You called me a liar and you can't cite

one single by-election to back yourself up?

You see Dickbot, as I already pointed out, the *only* way

to prove me wrong is to cite a by-election where the government gained a seat from the opposition.

So go ahead.

(You can't)

We're waiting for rich to prove you wrong :)
C'mon rich, you can make up some bullshit to change the

subject.

You usually do

Change the subject? Why?
JohnO has been told he is wrong.

You say I a m wrong. I say you are wrong.

I say you can't prove a negative.

However one can prove a positive - but you cannot in this case. >> >> >> >> >
Audrey Young, NZHerald Political Editor: "No sitting Government

party in New Zealand has won an opposition-held seat in a byelection."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11731870

You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it suitably grovelling.

To persist in such a false statement
is effectively lying - he has not been able to point to anyone >> >> >> >> >> reliable (indeed not even anyone unreliable) who has made such

a

mis-statement - it is just Nat-spin given the drubbing they

took on

Saturday.

JohnO appears incapable of doing the research himself, george

- why

don't you help him by pointing out at least one of the

by-elections in

an opposition seat won by the government of the day - or are

you

content-shy as well?

Still if its opinion you want feast on this one:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760333

Look at the by-election at which Keith Holyoake was elected 1941, >> >> >> >

1932

winning a seat for the government following an independent.

You may prefer the election of Kenneth Williams in 1921 - he won

for

the Reform (Government) following the death of the Leader of the >> >> >> >> Opposition William MacDonald (Liberal).

Later that year the government won another by-lection following

the

resignation of Myers (Liberal) when Clutha Mackenzie (Reform) was >> >> >> >> elected.

There may well be more; it only really needed one.

Audrey Young would have almost certainly repeated the lie from

John

Key, who said it in early November this year - I was expecting

you to

quote him - Audrey Young is normally slightly more reliable than

John

Key, but that is not a high bar - he also said that he never

attended

post election parties following a by-election, but of course he

had

attended two . . ..

Ok I will accept that Young was incorrect and will correct her by

restating more precisely: no sitting government in NZ since 1932, prior to the Labour/National era, has ever taken a by-election off the opposition.

Happy now? Or do you think this affects my original point of this

discussion that in the 2016 by-election it would have been exceptionally unusual for the government to win it?

Didn't think so.

Many commentators were saying it could be close. Read:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/319588/mt-roskill-labour-1,-national-0,-media-0

Why would that surprise anyone? The pundits constantly get it wrong.

The 2014 NZ election, the 2015 UK general election, Brexit, Trump etc. They are
absolutely hopeless at predicting elections.

Does that statement somehow assist you believe that being wrong is
somehow acceptable?

What are you dribbling about now? The media were wrong - just get over

it.

_YOU_ were wrong. I told you that you were wrong but you did not check
your own statement - and now yuo claim that is OK because someone else
also got it wrong - in this case John Key,

Nope, Audrey Young.

being uncritically repeated
by one of his sycophant journalist buddies.

Red Audrey? Hardly sycophantic.

Read:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

What a load of irrelevant off-topic drivel. No thanks.

One of the characteristics of modern politics from the "Right"is such
"dirty tricks"behaviour - a cavalier attitude to the truth accompanied
by deliberate false information. You were told that you were wrong but
did not believe it, and when yu posted a news story givingthe same
false inforamtion you said "You may apologise now Dickbot. Make it
suitably grovelling."

If you believed I should apologise when you obviously thought you had
"proved"me wrong, then now that you accept that you are wrong should
you not apologise?

It is well known that National, and John Key in particular, took media
advice from Crosby Textor, as have other right-wing political parties
around the world. They know, as you do, that false stories are often
more effective than the trugth, and that the denials never get the
same level of coverage or the same audience - and hence a deliberate
strategy of dis-information. You appear to willingly be part of that
"disinformation" - just as Audrey Young is an uncritical "hack"
reporter (not a journalist) who has used her close links to the
National Party to have a very easy time over the last 8 years - she
has often been an unwitting dupe in their "dirty tricks"disinformation
campaigns - and you fell for it as "useful idiots" have to other such
disinformation campaigns in other countries.

I not that depsite screeching for my apology when

Most people have been demanding you apologise for your lies here for

years. Of course it will never happen.

Yet you have now admitted to a lie and refuse to apologise? Your
hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Not a lie to pass on what you have seen reported and believe to be true. Get

over it princess.

Exactly what the Nats dirty politics brigade hope you will feel. False stories always get more publicity than the detraction . . .

The contrast is your own long history of lying here, despite having this

exposed time and time again.

and accusing others of your own faults is another part of the Nat
dirty tricks arsenal. Next you will bring out distractions, "but they
all do it", , minimising and belittling you already did ("Get over it princess"), , and if all that fails blame someone else and start
another story . . . Are you getting paid, JohnO?

That's hilarious, Dickbot. You post hundreds of times a month and suggest I am getting paid?

you thought (wrongly) that your own statement which you refused to
check was correct, now when you have foin that I was correct after all >> >> you do nt even have the decency to apologise. You really are a nasty

Could someone please translate that incoherent babble into English?

Nat, aren't you - the "post-truth" era started for you years ago, but >> >> apologise? - you will never see that as the "right" thing to do . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)