ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumperMorrissey, I already posted that link to the entire planet with you named as the self-abuser. Come to think of it, I that seems perfectly appropriate!
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones >working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumperworking as a security guard in San Diego?
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
On 12/23/2016 5:21 PM, morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumperA post from our resident sad sack just makes the season go all that slimier
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
On 12/23/2016 5:21 PM, morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:working as a security guard in San Diego?
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
A post from our resident sad sack just makes the season go all that slimier
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones >>working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it was
more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur about
Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Morrissey, if this is yor post, then please clean your act up - politics
in New Zealand does not need the distraction of such obvious lies, and I doubt many see much humour in it either.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.comworking as a security guard in San Diego?
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it
was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur
about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue,
and more typical of
the sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more sophisticated dirty tricks.
Morrissey, if this is yor post, then please clean your act up -
politics in New Zealand does not need the distraction of such obvious
lies, and I doubt many see much humour in it either.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones >>>working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it was
more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur about
Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a reason
for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
Morrissey, if this is yor post, then please clean your act up - politics
in New Zealand does not need the distraction of such obvious lies, and I
doubt many see much humour in it either.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:john-key-win-another-term-2/
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane
Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >>cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it
was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur
about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of
the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a reason >>for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >>unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by
Hager (e.g. see: http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped-
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time for
the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such
posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false accusations, demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which they
claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and objecting
to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I express in posts where possible.
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 8:01:20 AM UTC+13, george wrote:beating, followed by your hero's speedy exit just over one day later.
On 12/23/2016 5:21 PM, morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumperA post from our resident sad sack just makes the season go all that slimier
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
"Sad sack"? Ha! I'm not the one still reeling from a landslide by-election
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it
was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur
about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of
the sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more sophisticated dirty tricks.
Morrissey, if this is yor post, then please clean your act up -
politics in New Zealand does not need the distraction of such obvious
lies, and I doubt many see much humour in it either.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.comcheerlea-1790317271
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane Jones >>>> working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it was
more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur about
Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a reason
for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous
unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by
Hager (e.g. see: http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped-john-key-win-another-term-2/
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it"
at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time
for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such
posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false
accusations, demanding cites while never justifying their own
opionions which they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters
willy-nilly and objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I express in posts where possible.
Morrissey, if this is yor post, then please clean your act up - politics >>> in New Zealand does not need the distraction of such obvious lies, and I >>> doubt many see much humour in it either.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com>But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >>>cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone
else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it
was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur
about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of >>>> the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a reason >>>for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >>>unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by
Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped- >john-key-win-another-term-2/
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but look at
this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time for
the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such
posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which they
claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and objecting
to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I
express in posts where possible.
(or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of those
who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who believe in
ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who (like Trump)
insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as the twin towers
came down. Can you?
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBut your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>>Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >>>>cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone >>>>> else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the
headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it
was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur
about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical
of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >>>>unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by
Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped- >>john-key-win-another-term-2/
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but look
at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time
for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such
posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false
accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which they
claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and objecting
to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I
express in posts where possible.
(or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of
those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who believe
in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who (like Trump) >>insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as the twin towers >>came down. Can you?
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have
never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one has
ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any other
political party.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy has
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBut your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots >>>(or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com >>>>>> wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>>>Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >>>>>cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone >>>>>> else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the >>>>>> headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it >>>>>> was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur >>>>>> about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical >>>>>> of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >>>>>unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by
Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped- >>>john-key-win-another-term-2/
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but look
at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time
for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such >>>> posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false
accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which they
claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and objecting >>>> to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I >>>> express in posts where possible.
those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who believe >>>in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who (like Trump) >>>insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as the twin towers >>>came down. Can you?
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have
never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one has
ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any other
political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But it's a >long way from there to establishing that the actions involved were part
of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than simple, misguided >enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor would prefer the latter >explanation.
It's also clear that the timing of Hager's book was itself a deliberate >attempt to intervene in the 2014 election. His pique that it failed to
gain traction is evident in the article you cite. But that article also >advances the notion that the conspiracy was smart enough to alter the
results of the election - which in turn is an admission that, even if
such a conspiracy existed, the Hager attempt to upset it wasn't smart
enough to do so.
More importantly than that, however, the article proposes that the
electorate wasn't smart enough either to detect the putative higher-level >conspiracy unassisted, or to be swayed by Hager's attempt to intervene in
the election. Voters may be persuaded by many things, but not by
assumptions that they are dumb.
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:near-
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>>>>Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-
helped-cheerlea-1790317271
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if
someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but
enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been
taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from
anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly >>>>>>> untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book
by Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-
Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy hasjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots >>>>(or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of >>>>those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but
look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no >>>>> time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts
most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making
false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which
they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and
objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that >>>>> I express in posts where possible.
believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who >>>>(like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as >>>>the twin towers came down. Can you?
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have
never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one has
ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any other
political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But it's
a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved were
part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than simple, >>misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor would prefer
the latter explanation.
been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at all
connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
It's also clear that the timing of Hager's book was itself a deliberate >>attempt to intervene in the 2014 election. His pique that it failed to >>gain traction is evident in the article you cite. But that article also >>advances the notion that the conspiracy was smart enough to alter the >>results of the election - which in turn is an admission that, even if
such a conspiracy existed, the Hager attempt to upset it wasn't smart >>enough to do so.
More importantly than that, however, the article proposes that the >>electorate wasn't smart enough either to detect the putative
higher-level conspiracy unassisted, or to be swayed by Hager's attempt
to intervene in the election. Voters may be persuaded by many things,
but not by assumptions that they are dumb.
Your views are entirely consistent with those of a large number of NEw Zealanders, and agree that no politician is likely to imply that they
are dumb.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com>near-
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>>>>>Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-
helped-cheerlea-1790317271
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if
someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but
enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from
anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly >>>>>>>> untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess." >>>>>>>
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book >>>>>> by Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-
.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until aNot only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy hasjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots >>>>>(or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of >>>>>those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who >>>>>believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who >>>>>(like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as >>>>>the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but
look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no >>>>>> time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts
most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making
false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which
they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and
objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that >>>>>> I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have
never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one has
ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any other
political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But it's
a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved were
part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than simple, >>>misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor would prefer >>>the latter explanation.
been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at all
connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as distinct
from a chorus of indignant speculation.
It's also clear that the timing of Hager's book was itself a deliberate >>>attempt to intervene in the 2014 election. His pique that it failed to >>>gain traction is evident in the article you cite. But that article also >>>advances the notion that the conspiracy was smart enough to alter the >>>results of the election - which in turn is an admission that, even if >>>such a conspiracy existed, the Hager attempt to upset it wasn't smart >>>enough to do so.
More importantly than that, however, the article proposes that the >>>electorate wasn't smart enough either to detect the putative
higher-level conspiracy unassisted, or to be swayed by Hager's attempt
to intervene in the election. Voters may be persuaded by many things, >>>but not by assumptions that they are dumb.
Your views are entirely consistent with those of a large number of NEw
Zealanders, and agree that no politician is likely to imply that they
are dumb.
That's far too subtle for me, I'm afraid.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>near-
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable,
clearly untrue, and more typical of the
Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until a >>case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as distinctNot only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy hasjohn-key-win-another-term-2/sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>>>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess." >>>>>>>>
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book >>>>>>> by Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New >>>>>>York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have >>>>>>> no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that
posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of
making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and >>>>>>> objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns
that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have >>>>> never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one
has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any
other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But
it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor
would prefer the latter explanation.
been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at all
connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
from a chorus of indignant speculation.
Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If
you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com>An important thing about holding up one end of an argument is
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until a >>>case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as distinct >>>from a chorus of indignant speculation.
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy has
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>>near-
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, >>>>>>>>>> clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a >>>>>>>>>reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess." >>>>>>>>>
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book >>>>>>>> by Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>>dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>>league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>>or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>>or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New >>>>>>>York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have >>>>>>>> no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that >>>>>>>> posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of >>>>>>>> making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and >>>>>>>> objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns >>>>>>>> that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have >>>>>> never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one
has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any
other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>>were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>>simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor >>>>>would prefer the latter explanation.
been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at all
connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If
you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial
competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the Nats' >abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful
whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to
say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless of
the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be taken >seriously.
You lose ......
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy has
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> >>> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBut your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of dots >>>> (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the league of
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST), morrisseybreen@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. Shane >>>>>>>> Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating-near- >>>>>> cheerlea-1790317271
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if someone >>>>>>> else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but enough of the >>>>>>> headers appear to match that if the nom has been taken over then it >>>>>>> was more than a few months ago. Apart from anything else, the slur >>>>>>> about Shane Jones is uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical >>>>>>> of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's more >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving a
reason for your opinion rather than just competing for sliminess." >>>>>>
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting scurrilous >>>>>> unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself?
You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the book by >>>>> Hager (e.g. see:
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped- >>>> john-key-win-another-term-2/
)
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or
alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but look >>>>> at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I have no time >>>>> for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite that posts most such >>>>> posts, but it is not the only poster guilty of making false
accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which they >>>>> claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly and objecting >>>>> to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns that I >>>>> express in posts where possible.
those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, or who believe >>>> in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, or who (like Trump) >>>> insist that Muslims danced in the streets of New York as the twin towers >>>> came down. Can you?
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed have
never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and no-one has
ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" from any other
political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But it's a
long way from there to establishing that the actions involved were part
of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than simple, misguided
enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor would prefer the latter
explanation.
been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at all
connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
It's also clear that the timing of Hager's book was itself a deliberate
attempt to intervene in the 2014 election. His pique that it failed to
gain traction is evident in the article you cite. But that article also
advances the notion that the conspiracy was smart enough to alter the
results of the election - which in turn is an admission that, even if
such a conspiracy existed, the Hager attempt to upset it wasn't smart
enough to do so.
More importantly than that, however, the article proposes that the
electorate wasn't smart enough either to detect the putative higher-level
conspiracy unassisted, or to be swayed by Hager's attempt to intervene in
the election. Voters may be persuaded by many things, but not by
assumptions that they are dumb.
Your views are entirely consistent with those of a large number of NEw Zealanders, and agree that no politician is likely to imply that they
are dumb.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:26:07 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyAn important thing about holding up one end of an argument is
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the >>>>>>>>> book by Hager (e.g. see:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego?
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>>>near-
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, >>>>>>>>>>> clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving >>>>>>>>>>a reason for your opinion rather than just competing for >>>>>>>>>>sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself? >>>>>>>>>
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>>>dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>>>league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>>>or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>>>or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of >>>>>>>>New York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I >>>>>>>>> have no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite >>>>>>>>> that posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty >>>>>>>>> of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly >>>>>>>>> and objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns >>>>>>>>> that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed
have never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and
no-one has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks"
from any other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>>it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>>>were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>>>simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor >>>>>>would prefer the latter explanation.
has been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at
all connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
a case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as
distinct from a chorus of indignant speculation.
Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If
you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial
competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the
Nats'
abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful >>whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to
say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless of >>the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be taken >>seriously.
You lose ......
I have not lost anything. All I have said is that based on what you have said, it is apparent that you have a much lower opinion of the
managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do.
As it happens in the area of sending the messages that they want to
send, I believe National have extremely good skills; they have spent of
lot of effort into that area of political management and are better than
most governments in that area. That I do not share some of their views
is irrelevant to that point. I simply do not believe that John Key and
the NAtional Party were not aware of what was being done by Ede in
liaising with other National Party supporters who John Key publicly recognised for their assistance to the party at different times. Are
you claiming that they were not aware?
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:16:59 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You do not appear to give credence to real documents that have never
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:26:07 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyAn important thing about holding up one end of an argument is >>>consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the >>>Nats'
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John >>>> Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until >>>>>a case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as >>>>>distinct from a chorus of indignant speculation.
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the >>>>>>>>>> book by Hager (e.g. see:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>>>>near-
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks. >>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving >>>>>>>>>>>a reason for your opinion rather than just competing for >>>>>>>>>>>sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself? >>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>>>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>>>>dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>>>>league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>>>>or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>>>>or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of >>>>>>>>>New York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I >>>>>>>>>> have no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite >>>>>>>>>> that posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty >>>>>>>>>> of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly >>>>>>>>>> and objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns >>>>>>>>>> that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed >>>>>>>> have never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and >>>>>>>> no-one has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" >>>>>>>> from any other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>>>it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>>>>were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>>>>simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor >>>>>>>would prefer the latter explanation.
has been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at >>>>>> all connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If
you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial
competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful >>>whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to >>>say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless of >>>the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be taken >>>seriously.
You lose ......
I have not lost anything. All I have said is that based on what you have
said, it is apparent that you have a much lower opinion of the
managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do.
As it happens in the area of sending the messages that they want to
send, I believe National have extremely good skills; they have spent of
lot of effort into that area of political management and are better than
most governments in that area. That I do not share some of their views
is irrelevant to that point. I simply do not believe that John Key and
the NAtional Party were not aware of what was being done by Ede in
liaising with other National Party supporters who John Key publicly
recognised for their assistance to the party at different times. Are
you claiming that they were not aware?
All I'm saying is that your (and Hager's) attempt to persuade that there
was a deliberate high-level orchestrated campaign of dirty politics
leaves me and many others unconvinced for two main reasons:
1. The case for connecting some ill-judged exchanges by individuals to
the Party hierarchy was and remains entirely circumstantial, without
proofs even to the level of balance of probability; and
2. Your (and Hager's) long record of spiteful antipathy for the current >Government of New Zealand damages your credibility in such matters >irrecoverably.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 07:25:12 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:masturbating-
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:16:59 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:26:07 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-
You do not appear to give credence to real documents that have neverAn important thing about holding up one end of an argument is >>>>consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the >>>>Nats'near-Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that
.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so >>>>>>until a case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as >>>>>>distinct from a chorus of indignant speculation.Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy >>>>>>> has been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at >>>>>>> all connected to thewishes of their employers . . .john-key-win-another-term-2/cheerlea-1790317271You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the >>>>>>>>>>> book by Hager (e.g. see:
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been taken over then it was more than a few months ago. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is >>>>>>>>>>>>> uncharitable, clearly untrue, and more typical of the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of
National's more >>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks. >>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try >>>>>>>>>>>>giving a reason for your opinion rather than just competing >>>>>>>>>>>>for sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>>>>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining >>>>>>>>>>of dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in >>>>>>>>>>the league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon >>>>>>>>>>landings,
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, >>>>>>>>>>> or alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or >>>>>>>>>>> "but look at this" relating to something not at all
equivalent. I have no time for the lies perpetrated by the >>>>>>>>>>> shallow hypocrite that posts most such posts, but it is not >>>>>>>>>>> the only poster guilty of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions >>>>>>>>>>> which they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters
willy-nilly and objecting to mild reprimands directed to >>>>>>>>>>> themselves.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify
concerns that I express in posts where possible.
or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area >>>>>>>>>>51,
or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of >>>>>>>>>>New York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed >>>>>>>>> have never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and >>>>>>>>> no-one has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" >>>>>>>>> from any other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>>>>it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions >>>>>>>>involved were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy >>>>>>>>rather than simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. >>>>>>>>Occam's razor would prefer the latter explanation.
John Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, >>>>> and neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was
doing. If you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of
the managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party
than I do . . .
abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful >>>>whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to >>>>say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless >>>>of the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be >>>>taken seriously.
You lose ......
I have not lost anything. All I have said is that based on what you
have said, it is apparent that you have a much lower opinion of the
managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I
do.
As it happens in the area of sending the messages that they want to
send, I believe National have extremely good skills; they have spent
of lot of effort into that area of political management and are better
than most governments in that area. That I do not share some of their
views is irrelevant to that point. I simply do not believe that John
Key and the NAtional Party were not aware of what was being done by
Ede in liaising with other National Party supporters who John Key
publicly recognised for their assistance to the party at different
times. Are you claiming that they were not aware?
All I'm saying is that your (and Hager's) attempt to persuade that there >>was a deliberate high-level orchestrated campaign of dirty politics
leaves me and many others unconvinced for two main reasons:
1. The case for connecting some ill-judged exchanges by individuals to
the Party hierarchy was and remains entirely circumstantial, without
proofs even to the level of balance of probability; and
been denied by those involved. They are not circumstantial at all, and
prove without doubt the intention to carry out what have become known as "dirty tricks"
2. Your (and Hager's) long record of spiteful antipathy for the current >>Government of New Zealand damages your credibility in such matters >>irrecoverably.
I believe I share an antipathy for deception, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence from our politicians. Hagar is not friend of any party that
he believes (with evidence) has acted badly in a way that can be
definitively proved through his research. There is no loss of
credibility in publicising and proving unacceptable behaviour.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 07:25:12 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyHe provided zero proof. only opinion, Which is as valid as any otrher uninformed commentator.
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:16:59 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You do not appear to give credence to real documents that have never
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:26:07 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyAn important thing about holding up one end of an argument is >>>>consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the >>>>Nats'
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John >>>>> Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until >>>>>>a case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs as >>>>>>distinct from a chorus of indignant speculation.
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Not only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy >>>>>>> has been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at >>>>>>> all connected to thewishes of their employers . . .
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyjohn-key-win-another-term-2/
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the >>>>>>>>>>> book by Hager (e.g. see:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>>>>>near-
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly untrue, and more typical of the
sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated dirty tricks. >>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving >>>>>>>>>>>>a reason for your opinion rather than just competing for >>>>>>>>>>>>sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>>>>scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>>>>helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>>>>>dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>>>>>league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>>>>>or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>>>>>or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of >>>>>>>>>>New York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I >>>>>>>>>>> have no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite >>>>>>>>>>> that posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty >>>>>>>>>>> of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly >>>>>>>>>>> and objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves. >>>>>>>>>>>
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns >>>>>>>>>>> that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed >>>>>>>>> have never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and >>>>>>>>> no-one has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" >>>>>>>>> from any other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>>>>it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>>>>>were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>>>>>simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor >>>>>>>>would prefer the latter explanation.
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If >>>>> you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial >>>>> competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful >>>>whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to >>>>say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless of >>>>the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be taken >>>>seriously.
You lose ......
I have not lost anything. All I have said is that based on what you have >>> said, it is apparent that you have a much lower opinion of the
managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do. >>> As it happens in the area of sending the messages that they want to
send, I believe National have extremely good skills; they have spent of
lot of effort into that area of political management and are better than >>> most governments in that area. That I do not share some of their views
is irrelevant to that point. I simply do not believe that John Key and
the NAtional Party were not aware of what was being done by Ede in
liaising with other National Party supporters who John Key publicly
recognised for their assistance to the party at different times. Are
you claiming that they were not aware?
All I'm saying is that your (and Hager's) attempt to persuade that there >>was a deliberate high-level orchestrated campaign of dirty politics
leaves me and many others unconvinced for two main reasons:
1. The case for connecting some ill-judged exchanges by individuals to
the Party hierarchy was and remains entirely circumstantial, without
proofs even to the level of balance of probability; and
been denied by those involved. They are not circumstantial at all,
and prove without doubt the intention to carry out what have become
known as "dirty tricks"
Zero proof, only opinion!
2. Your (and Hager's) long record of spiteful antipathy for the current >>Government of New Zealand damages your credibility in such matters >>irrecoverably.
I believe I share an antipathy for deception, corruption, dishonesty
and incompetence from our politicians. Hagar is not friend of any
party that he believes (with evidence) has acted badly in a way that
can be definitively proved through his research. There is no loss of >credibility in publicising and proving unacceptable behaviour.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 07:25:12 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:16:59 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:You do not appear to give credence to real documents that have never
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 20:26:07 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 21:50:28 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 02:56:34 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:25:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 23:40:45 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 19:36:03 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 02:50:09 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:37:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 23:11:25 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:38:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0800 (PST),cheerlea-1790317271
morrisseybreen@gmail.com wrote:
ACT is the inevitable next stop for this useless waka-jumper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone else caught the news about disgraced former M.P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shane Jones working as a security guard in San Diego? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://deadspin.com/security-guard-appears-to-be-masturbating- >>>>>> near-
I do feel uncomfortable about this post, and I did wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>> someone else was posting under the Morrissey Breen name, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> enough of the headers appear to match that if the nom has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> taken over then it was more than a few months ago. Apart from >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else, the slur about Shane Jones is uncharitable, >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly untrue, and more typical of the
An important thing about holding up one end of an argument isOf course it is - at least for those that accept for example that John >>>>> Key had a person in his office, paid for by the National Party, and.... which is a highly plausible explanation and will remain so until >>>>>> a case to the contrary emerges that rests upon solid proofs asNot only Occams Razor - National's entire communications strategy >>>>>>> has been to convince you that actions of staff members were not at >>>>>>> all connected to thewishes of their employers . . .john-key-win-another-term-2/You are possibly unaware of the "Dirty Tricks" exposed in the >>>>>>>>>>> book by Hager (e.g. see:sort of shallow posts we see from the defenders of National's >>>>>>>>>>>>> more^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sophisticated dirty tricks.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In another post in this thread, you instructed ".....try giving >>>>>>>>>>>> a reason for your opinion rather than just competing for >>>>>>>>>>>> sliminess."
So we are to take it, then, that your rule against posting >>>>>>>>>>>> scurrilous unsubstantiated opinion doesn't apply to yourself? >>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.nickyhager.info/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks- >>>>>> helped-
)But your example only works if you can justify Hager's joining of >>>>>>>>>> dots (or even the dots themselves) as reliable, and not in the >>>>>>>>>> league of those who insist that NASA fabricated the moon landings, >>>>>>>>>> or who believe in ancient aliens, or in flying saucers in Area 51, >>>>>>>>>> or who (like Trump) insist that Muslims danced in the streets of >>>>>>>>>> New York as the twin towers came down. Can you?
The facts exposed in that book have been consistently denied, or >>>>>>>>>>> alternatively excused on the basis that "they all do it" or "but >>>>>>>>>>> look at this" relating to something not at all equivalent. I >>>>>>>>>>> have no time for the lies perpetrated by the shallow hypocrite >>>>>>>>>>> that posts most such posts, but it is not the only poster guilty >>>>>>>>>>> of making false accusations,
demanding cites while never justifying their own opionions which >>>>>>>>>>> they claim as fact, or just abusing other posters willy-nilly >>>>>>>>>>> and objecting to mild reprimands directed to themselves. >>>>>>>>>>>
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do try and justify concerns >>>>>>>>>>> that I express in posts where possible.
The documents are all there - read the book. The facts revealed >>>>>>>>> have never been disputed by John Key or the National Party, and >>>>>>>>> no-one has ever been able to show any equivalent "dirty tricks" >>>>>>>>> from any other political party.
The basic facts have not been disputed because they can't be. But >>>>>>>> it's a long way from there to establishing that the actions involved >>>>>>>> were part of a systematic or orchestrated conspiracy rather than >>>>>>>> simple, misguided enthusiasm on the part of a few. Occam's razor >>>>>>>> would prefer the latter explanation.
distinct from a chorus of indignant speculation.
neither he or the National Party were aware of what he was doing. If >>>>> you believe that you must have a much lower opinion of the managerial >>>>> competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do . . .
consistency. In the remark above you are claiming a respect for the
Nats'
abilities that simply does not square with your habitual and spiteful
whining about them in these discussions. You are of course entitled to >>>> say whatever you like, but in doing so you are too often too careless of >>>> the ability of your readers to distinguish fact from fiction to be taken >>>> seriously.
You lose ......
I have not lost anything. All I have said is that based on what you have >>> said, it is apparent that you have a much lower opinion of the
managerial competence of both John Key and the National Party than I do. >>> As it happens in the area of sending the messages that they want to
send, I believe National have extremely good skills; they have spent of
lot of effort into that area of political management and are better than >>> most governments in that area. That I do not share some of their views
is irrelevant to that point. I simply do not believe that John Key and
the NAtional Party were not aware of what was being done by Ede in
liaising with other National Party supporters who John Key publicly
recognised for their assistance to the party at different times. Are
you claiming that they were not aware?
All I'm saying is that your (and Hager's) attempt to persuade that there
was a deliberate high-level orchestrated campaign of dirty politics
leaves me and many others unconvinced for two main reasons:
1. The case for connecting some ill-judged exchanges by individuals to
the Party hierarchy was and remains entirely circumstantial, without
proofs even to the level of balance of probability; and
been denied by those involved. They are not circumstantial at all,
and prove without doubt the intention to carry out what have become
known as "dirty tricks"
2. Your (and Hager's) long record of spiteful antipathy for the current
Government of New Zealand damages your credibility in such matters
irrecoverably.
I believe I share an antipathy for deception, corruption, dishonesty
and incompetence from our politicians. Hagar is not friend of any
party that he believes (with evidence) has acted badly in a way that
can be definitively proved through his research. There is no loss of credibility in publicising and proving unacceptable behaviour.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 229:16:26 |
| Calls: | 2,088 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,140 |
| Messages: | 948,523 |