Saturday, September 26, 2009

Blogging Etiquette

Nothing annoys, nay angers, Adolf more than bloggers who ignore the simple rules of blogger courtesy.

Among other things, bloggers are expected to respect pseudonyms, desist from link whoring and refrain from personal abuse of blog hosts. You'd think these simple little courtesies shown to one's fellow man or woman would not be too difficult.

Not so, it seems. In the last two weeks there have been two disgraceful incidents of bloggers 'outing' other bloggers. The first was the appalling case of Barnsley Bill's identity being splattered all over the front page of the local newspaper as a result of another blogger's shameless blabbing to a journalist.

Today we have none other than Peter Cresswell, a person I thought had more brains, publishing what he thinks is Redbaiter's real name and address.

All Adolf can say is that Not PC's credibility is zero. His despicable actions speak louder than all his fine and fancy words. It seems Libertarians think other people's privacy is something with which, when it suits them, they can take liberties.

As for the other fellow, words fail me.


Big News said...

I dont think publishing Readbaiters name is a problem. I thought everyone who wanted to know knew who he was as his name was published in at least two other places elsewhere some time ago.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well I didn't bloody know and that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

You might as well say it doesn't matter if you rape some poor bitch because some other bastard raped the poor bitch a year ago.

KG said...

Well, Big News I follow a lot of blogs and I didn't know his name.
In any case whether or not some people knew his name is irrelevant, surely--the convention is that bloggers and commenters address people by their nick even when they know their real name.
And there are obvious and good reasons for that.

Pablo said...

I disagree with Adolf. There are no universal rules of conduct in blogging, written or unwritten. Each blog establishes its own guidelines and allows the blog market to sort out their traffic. If people do not want to be "outed" by a blog proprietor when their comments get overly abusive or inane (or the blog owner is just a dork), then they can move elsewhere. KG has provided RB with a forum in which to air his views (at least with regard to the Not-PC fracas), so RB's freedom of expression has been maintained.

I believe that PC was within his rights to out RB, even if it would not be my choice of response. My blogging collective has placed RB on permanent auto-moderation so as to ensure his compliance with the comments policy. So far he has refused to do so and his comments are deleted. Perhaps PC's response will get RB to moderate his rhetoric or deter him from continuing with his invective-laced rants. Then again, perhaps not.

Could it be that what bothers Adolf most if that PC is a man of the right and therefore was supposed to subscribe to some implicit honor code when it comes to trolling by the ideologically like-minded (an honor code that the Left purportedly does not adhere to)?

My view is that PC would do the same thing to any persistent troll regardless of political persuasion and it was just happenstance that RB compelled him to do so.

KG said...

"..and it was just happenstance that RB compelled him to do so."
But a quick look at the post at CR might indicate otherwise, Pablo. Another commenter has put his hand up.
I don't want to buy into the original argument, but so far nobody has mentioned the possibility of IP spoofing. If that were the case then both RedB and PC are right.

And sure, there are no hard and fast rules applying across the blogosphere but not naming people is pretty much accepted practice.

Pablo said...

I see what you mean KG (regarding the IP spoofing). PC might choose to address that angle.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Pablo, you are a dick of the first order.

"PC might choose to address that angle."

Why don't you learn to speak English? What you should have said is "PC might consider an apology."

And as for this:-
"There are no universal rules of conduct in blogging, written or unwritten."

Where have you been this last five years? Secondary School? Iran?

Of course there are rules. In your world there might not be rules but in the real world there are.

Pablo said...


You seem to have some anger management issues today. Sort of like RB every day.

Take a deep breath.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Pablo, fuck off. Your first comment is plain flat out wrong. Don't come onto my blog lecturing me about anger management. Just go and get your story correct.

Pablo said...

My, my Adolf, you really are wound up!

What part of my comment was wrong? The notion that there are no universal rules in the blogosphere? Or is it the notion that blog owners have a right to make their own rules and let the blog market decide on traffic numbers?

As for lecturing--I did no such thing. I just disagreed with you, and that set you off into a name-calling frenzy. You and RB are not biologically related by any chance (given the common frothing)?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

No, not wound up. Just straight to the point. Don't come round here with your smart arse, oblique insults.

Go and sort yourself out. When you have, you might just find out out there are some widely accepted standards of behaviour expected of bloggers.

What part of 'fuck off' do you not understand?

All further comments from you on this subject will be deleted.

ZenTiger said...

It's pretty basic to respect the idea behind a pseudonym.

Even if one person does it, doesn't make it right for others to do it.

Of course, it's also unfortunately very obvious people will not always respect such conventions, and apparently don't even have the ability to work it out.

One day, it is quite possible some-one will cross the line between Peter Cresswell's blogging life and interfere with what Peter considers an aspect of his personal life that is out of bounds, and he may begin to gain a glimmer of that thought "treat others like you expect to be treated yourself".

An idea that holds up well unless you are psychotic, half insane, or perhaps libertarian - especially if it's supposedly OK for "the market" to decides if anything is permissible or not.

Pablo said...

Fine Adolf:

It is your blog and you call the shots. Which, of course, was my basic point.

KG said...

You just missed the point Pablo. Spectacularly.

Redbaiter said...

Jezuzz weaps- the claims regarding Redbaiter's ID made on Not PC and elsewhere are based on some looney tune Libertarianz assessment that someone who once wrote a letter to Gordon Maclauchlan had a writing style similar to my own. The whole thing is speculation, but if these half wits knuckle draggers and low IQ morons that populate the left side of the net (including the cowards at Not PC) want to run with it, then let them.

I have used this ID now for many years, I always use the same working email address and have often corresponded with bloggers from that email address. For the intents and purposes of blog discussions, I am Redbaiter.

I have always had only one response to those who think ID is an issue, and that is that they are free to choose as I am, and they can make their decision but whatever they decide, they have no damn business poncing about demanding that others follow their course of action.

We are discussing ideas here. It is the ideas that count. The left of course never have a good damn idea to save themselves, so of course would prefer to waffle over side issues. They always always always do it.

Take Adolf for example. I don't give a damn what his real name is. I like the guy as Adolf, and I argue with him as Adolf, and his ideas are those of Adolf. To me, nothing else matters.

That's all I have to say on this tiresome issue, except that I'm glad Adolf that you told that pontificating pain in the arse hypocrite Pablo to fuck off. He is one arrogant snide slimy dude.

Redbaiter said...

weeps weeps weeps..!!!!

Redbaiter said...

BTW Pablo is right off the main issue as usual.

If you read the latest on Crusader Rabbit you damn bigoted snide simpering loser, you would see that the trolling allegations are entirely false.

KG said...

You really do have to stop beating about the bush RedB.

Pablo said...


What point was that? If I missed it, it must have been on account of the yelling.

Good to see that RB has his defenders. The blog market clears.

KG said...

Pablo, the point is that any blogger can (and is entitled to) call the shots as he or she sees fit. But there are conventions which most bloggers observe.
Zen Tiger summed it up perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Just a small point here

I don't give a flying fuck who is behind the blog anons.

I just enjoy the fun and debate.

Who the person is behind the anon is of no importance.

Get a life for fuck sake otherwise you all sound like unloved lefties.

I think at times we all get carried away with what are tying to do which is just debate whatever we want,shout out, our opinion and all the rest.

Chill out and have fun

Blue Coast

Pablo said...


If you could show me where those conventions are written, or where the unspoken conventions are implicitly enunciated as a universal creed, I would be happy to retract my comments. But from where I stand, there are no universal conventions regarding blog conduct.

Instead, the blog world is a self-enforced society in which alliances may be formed and solidarity given between bloggers on any number of grounds (including universal rules of behavior), but in which the bottom line is buyer (commenter) beware. That is why I prefer the market to adjudicate traffic flows rather than accept arbitrarily imposed standards of behaviour based upon selectively imposed notions of "propriety" on the internet.

It strikes me that, whatever mistakes PC made with the IP interpretation, here we have a case of conservative social authoritarianism couched in vicious language posing as "freedom of speech" covered by the "right to privacy." In neither case is that an entitlement or a universal right in the blog world.

Redbaiter said...

Shut the hell up Pablo. You're nothing but an odious Stalinist, and the only people who don't know that you would if you could shut down every voice against socialism on the net are other commies just as fucked in the head as you are.

You use the language of those who sent Solzhenitsyn to the gulags, and you need to come to terms with the fact that many people consider the ideology you promote (socialism) to be a contemptible disgusting anti-human concept, and that these people likewise find it hard to converse with socialists without being overcome by severe nausea. Its really that repugnant.

Do you actually understand that???

You might find sympathy for your smug supercilious utterings among socialists, but on No Minister and other similar places we're free thinkers and free speechers, with a history you know nothing of, and you are an unwelcome and odious interloper.

So don't come here with your condescending arrogance. We're not (if I can speak for most others for a moment) the same kind of ignorant brain dead ilk you're used to conversing with over at that braindead vomit inducing left wing echo chamber you call a blog.

We're educated, erudite, well traveled and of independent means. We don't need any patronising shit from some nowhere bones of his arse commie university lecturer. Get it?

Pablo said...

Ah, RB, you never fail to disappoint. Such erudition. I am sure that Adolf is pleased that you have added so much value to this conversation. Sorry if I did not.

Redbaiter said...

"Sorry if I did not."

Apology rejected.

WAKE UP said...

The ENTIRE POINT of the blogosphere is freedom from FEAR.

I really shouldn't have to say any more than that.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Guys, calm down and have a steinie or a lion red for a break. I've already finished 2 doz myself (started at around 5pm) and I am not wasted yet, but I am getting there (ie, getting to heaven). Now Otago just won the NPC match against BOP by 26 to 17. So, off for more drinks along Ponsonby rd. So, any readers is out on Pon rd tonight and suspect some island guy may be Falafulu Fisi (in any of those bars - well I am similar build to Rodney So'oalo where he is 108 kg, while I am 110 kg with similar height), just say hello. If you're a chick , I'll tell you who I am , but if you're a guy, then sorry we'll just have to use our blog names in any conversations we may have. Well I may buy you a drink of your choice.

Pablo said...

WAKE UP: Is it not better said that one has the freedom of individual responsibility? I thought the Right would be all into that. If you do not fear consequences and assume that others have good intent or share your implicit standards of conduct, then you bear the costs of your intemperate actions and their unexpected response.

RB--I was not apologising to you, you silly rabbit.

ZenTiger said...

Pablo, comments spoken like a man who has no comprehension of ethics and integrity.

Why do you need something written down to understand what is ethical?

Since you keep referring to the free market for a solution, perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit"

Nick said...

The whole point of the political blogosphere is the freedom to exchange ideas, so I don't see why NOT PC has made Redbaiter's identity an issue, why does it matter, what are they scared of?

Tackle the ideas, don't try to tackle the person behind them.

Redbaiter said...

"The ENTIRE POINT of the blogosphere is freedom from FEAR."

Damn right. Sickening though the way certain sinister people try so hard to re-introduce that element into the debate. They want it the way it was, where only leftists get a soap box, and they spat on and assaulted anyone who dared to voice an alternative viewpoint.


Wakey- bear with me a moment. I came back to NZ in time to witness the run up to the 1999 election, and one of the first things I saw was the yellow ACT bus somewhere up near Auckland University, and they were trying to speak out on ideas that were a bit different, and they were under massive verbal assault from students from Auckland university who made it impossible for them to speak.

As I stood and witnessed this shocking event, where students who should have been taught first of all to respect freedom of political expression were practicing the same kind of Bolshevism that brought totalitarian dictators to power all around the world, it occurred to me that NZ was in deep trouble.

..and almost everything I have experienced in politics in NZ from that point on has confirmed that first impression. The country is suffering under the soft tyranny of socialism. The objective is totalitarianism as decreed by the articles of Socialist International.

One of NZ's biggest problems is that the universities are destroyed as places of learning.

Redbaiter said...

"you silly rabbit."

My my. The language. Adolf- please ban this offensive foul mouthed uncouth example of a bar room bully.

Pablo said...


You can be either pro-market and pro-choice with regard to opinion and its response or you can be not. There is no conceit in that.

To claim that RB can enter a proprietary domain (a blog) and run his mouth without regard to consequences is naive at best. Of course we all should behave better and adhere to implicit rules of civility. But that is precisely why RB got outed: he refused to do so when explicitly asked to refrain from his usual idiocy, and when he did not, he was named. Better to expose the coward behind the mask than suffer his diatribes ad nauseum to no good effect.

For people who supposedly believe in the market of ideas and personal responsibility, you and Adolf are sorely lacking in logical consistency.

Redbaiter said...

Jesus. I've just seen your utter rubbish on Not PC.

"On our blog, he always goes straight into moderation" you pronounce so ponderously.

I've posted twice on your disgusting propaganda sheet in six months, and Ill never waste my time there ever again.

What an utter fraud.

Pablo said...

Cheers for that RB.

Saves us all the effort. BTW. How do you plan to deal with DPF's new moderation experiment? Can you confine yourself to hiding behind the pseudonym in the general debate or will you feel compelled to bust loose with the moniker on a specific topic and get deleted there as well? Or are you going to man up and tell it like you see it with your name printed? I suspect not.

You really are a silly, and quite insecure rabbit after all.

Redbaiter said...

"How do you plan to deal with DPF's new moderation experiment?"

I'm not even thinking about it. Kiwiblog is most boring these days as with Key's election it has morphed into a hollow protector of the status quo. Mr. Farrar's blogging mana is fast dwindling.

..and in respect of these pathetic moderation experiments, I'm disappointed he's finally succumbing to the pressure of oily Stalinists like you.

Psycho Milt said...

To claim that RB can enter a proprietary domain (a blog) and run his mouth without regard to consequences is naive at best.

Nail, head, bang. That concept applies at this blog every day of the week. I use a pseudonym exactly because I don't want my real name attached to the drivel I post - but if someone goes and connects the two on their own blog, my comeback = 0. Life's like that sometimes.

Redbaiter said...

"PC is a man of the right"

Get with it will you. He is not a man of the right. He would be appalled at this description. Like most NZ Libertarians he is a Progressive as demonstrated by his rejection of the concept of moral principle. Ths makes him far closer to the left than the right.

Not PC is listed on many blogs in the right wing section. This is a mistake, and PC hmself has alluded to it in postings on his own blog.

ZenTiger said...


To claim that RB can enter a proprietary domain (a blog) and run his mouth without regard to consequences is naive at best.

When did I ever claim that? I did not.

Of course we all should behave better and adhere to implicit rules of civility.

We were actually speaking around ethics. You were virtually claiming that you didn't need to acknowledge the existence of these unless written down somewhere. That is what I was debating.

You are moving the discussion to one of manners, a different topic.

But that is precisely why RB got outed: he refused to do so when explicitly asked to refrain from his usual idiocy, and when he did not, he was named.

His usual idiocy? Off topic again, surely? He may be ill-mannered, but I personally don't find his comments at all idiotic. Strip out the colourful language and he makes excellent points.

Better to expose the coward behind the mask than suffer his diatribes ad nauseum to no good effect.

Ah, so you think people with Pseudonyms are all cowards? Can I call that statement idiotic without causing offense?

For people who supposedly believe in the market of ideas and personal responsibility, you and Adolf are sorely lacking in logical consistency.

Not at all. I think you have made some bad assumptions. To clarify:

1. I think it is unethical to reveal a pseudonym in this situation. Even for the justification of "well, he called me names"

2. I disagreed with your statement that "there are no universal rules of conduct ... written or unwritten."

3. I don't disagree that PC's blog is his property and that if he wants to show Redbaiter the door, that is his right. That wasn't the issue though, and that is not how it was handled though, was it?

4. How embarrassing for PC if his chosen form of censure turns out to name the wrong person.

5. An idea should stand up in the "market of ideas" without necessarily needing to know that "Pete Smith from Brighton" said it. A blog handle, when used consistently is just as good as "Pete Smith from Brighton"

Heine said...

If anybody told me the real name of a blogger who spends their time being a prize motherfucker then I will play with it for a while and make a considered response.

BTW, I didn't mean to say that Redbaiter is that, he's fine. I don't think it's a huge issue unless Red thinks it will affect him in any way.

KG said...

Pablo, you just got your ass handed to you on a plate by Zen. Why not gracefully retire and lick your wounds?

ZenTiger said...

Just stating my position KG, and my comments were more around this concept of an unwritten code of ethics that forms in society, and interesting topic I think.

I confess I hadn't actually gone into the detail of the NotPC / Redbaiter stoush, and assumed it was the usual attack on Redbaiter for the usual reasons.

Seems it is actually much deeper than I realised. Seems NotPC has leapt to some conclusions, and reacted and he may be incorrect.

I note this comment from Redbaiter on the No Minister thread a couple of posts up:

Adolf, the real issue was Not PC's deceitful attempt to publically pin the so called spamming (of the questions on the election money on Redbaiter) and manufacture this big false scenario that Redbaiter had been posting profusely there when he was not wanted.

This is all a complete fabrication, and has been exposed as such, and I state once again I was not the spammer, and I did not post profusley at Not PC as claimed, and that it was all utter lies.

I believe that statement, based on what I've seen of Redbaiter's commenting over many years.

Of course, there is a fuller statement over at CR, link in this post above.

I can now see why passions ran high over the matter though. Spammers are a pain in the arse and deserve a good lashing.

NotPC appears to have made a mistake linking those comments to Redbaiter's, and he's retreated into wanting to get rid of Redbaiter anyway.. I said earlier, it is his right to allow or ban anyone on his blog for any reason.

It is totally understandable though that the reasons given should be truthful, since they make the commenter "Redbaiter" guilty of things he didn't say.

The value of truth. Another interesting thing to debate.

WAKE UP said...

"Ah, so you think people with Pseudonyms are all cowards? Can I call that statement idiotic without causing offense?"

Yes you can, ZenT - because chosen anonymity is THE ABSOLUTE POINT of the blogosphere, and someone who outs others is merely showing he can't win the debate intellectually (i.e, he has to resort to bully tactics).

The unlamented Bryan Spondre used to pull that one, seemingly oblivious to the fact that his own name itself looked liked a pseudonym (indeed, his "surname" was an anagram of "respond :)

Why don't ya'll get back to the ISSUES? Anonymity is a blog RIGHT, and if you keep messing with it, the power of the blogosphere will be diminshed immensely. We'll ALL lose.

Pablo said...

Have it your way KG. I saw nothing by ZenT that categorically refutes my position. He disagrees with my views, overstating or diverting from the thrust of them in his response. The idea that there is some implicit code of ethics in the blog world, while nice, simply is not a universal truth. The rest is not worth commenting on.

I do see any part of my anatomy on anyone's platter, but I do see you doing some serious brown nosing on ZenT in that reply.

KG said...

"..but I do see you doing some serious brown nosing on ZenT in that reply."
Psychiatrists call that 'projection' Pablo.
Perhaps in your circle though, agreeing with someone is seen that way. So I'll leave brown-nosing ad ass-licking to the experts. :-)

Redbaiter said...

"but I do see you doing some serious brown nosing on ZenT in that reply."

What a sick joke. The ideology you subscribe to is all about "group think", and clustering together as sheep or a school of whitebait. Mindless obeisance to a corrupt dysfunctional and long outmoded political system.

If there was ever the advent of free and rational thought amongst you and your minions, socialism would expire overnight.

If ever this blog demonstrated such repugnant smarmy unction as one witnesses on left wing blogs (like Kiwipolitico and Public Address for two examples)) it would die overnight.

PC said...

KG, you say there's a "stoush" going on at NOT PC. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no "stoush," there's only a ban on someone I don't wish to have polluting my comments thread -- and a ban on any further similar pollution.

I invite folk to comment at NOT PC in good faith - to say what they mean, and to mean what they say. The fellow now using the name "Angus" hasn't done that, and nor has the fellow known to the blogospher as Redbaiter.

As anyone who's ever stepped in one of his comments knows, Rodbeater is as disingenuuous as he is persistent -- and as irrational as he is deluded. Some people talk about people, others talk about events, more intelligent people talk about ideas . . . Rodbeater can only talk about himself and his delusion. As a topic, that's far less interesting than he seems to think it is.

Just for the record, Rodbeater's first recorded comment at NOT PC under his "Redbaiter" alias was on August last year in a post about Helen Clark -- a comment that pretty well summarises every one since. Here it is:

"What a joke. The doctrinal control freaks that dominate NZ's so called Libertarian Party, and delete comments here no differently to the Standard, having the front to criticize Helen Klark. Sanctimonious pain in the arse pseudo liberals."

The comment is paranoic (I've been deleted!); factually incorrect (since it was his first post he has no deletions to complain about); off topic (the bare reference to Helen Clark gave it only a figleaf of relevance to the topic); and harps on the same obscure point which his next 207 posts would say over and over again, on whatever thread he cared to smear them.

That's why he was banned: Because he's an off-topic blowhard know-nothing who makes every thread about him. In other words, a troll who offered nothing of any value, and who lowered every comments thread to his puerile obsessions.

And he was banned and has been for at least a year, despite most of those 207 posts coming after the ban -- evidence only of his being too thick to understand that being banned meant he wasn't welcome to comment.

I'm unrepetant about the ban. The principle of free speech doesn't require that I provide dickheads with a microphone. And ironically enough, when Pablo points out the obvious over at Adolf's place -- "To claim that RB can enter a proprietary domain (a blog) and run his mouth without regard to consequences is naive at best" - both Adolf and Rodbeater resile for a moment from berating my own "bad manners" for banning this dickhedad to tell Pabo that he's banned from No Minister.

Irony, thy name is Adolf.

[Con't'd in part two]

PC said...

[Cont'd from part one]

So Rodbeater was banned from NOT PC, and despite his persistent reappearances he's been banned for over a year. Unlike other bloggers however, the blogging software as it's presently set up at NOT PC doesn't allow me to blocking a banned commeters'posts -- if I don't want their bullshit then I have to manually delete them as I come in, which I haven't always done (particularly if other commenters have been feeding the troll). Rodbeater's is one of only three bans I've had to implement in the five years I"ve been running NOT PC, and (despite his frequent whining that he has no interest in NOT PC) Rodbeater is the only one who refuses to desist. (The fact that well over two-thirds of his 207 comments come after his ban just shows you how thick-headed he is.)

And just for the record, because of that blogging software I presently use I have no idea nor any interest in knowing Rodbeater's email or his IP address (which would in any case change every time he visited Bangkok as he says he dos regularly). So I have no idea nor any interest in whether or not his trolling and the other recent trolling were by the same person or not -- fact is, that I was overwhelmed with off-topic trolling slime that was all saying much the same stuff, stuff that was posted under Rodbeater's name and anonymously and under other pseudonyms, none of which was slowing down when I asked posters to stop.

So when this latest bout of spam trolling erupted, I acted to protect my blog in the same way a bar-owner would act to protect his bar when other patrons are being abused, or a talkback host would act to protect his radio show, or a party's host woulr act to eject a gate-crasher. I pressed the moderation button, and told Mr Fletcher that his game was up.

Now, some people think I shouldn't have "named" the prick.

Why the hell not? I don't hold to the idea of "turning the other cheek."

For the scumbag to invoke the principle of "privacy" is laughable, since it's the private property of my own blog he flatly refuses to recogise. Pablo is right on the button here. "To claim that RB can enter a proprietary domain (a blog) and run his mouth without regard to consequences is naive at best." And to claim that I should sit still while he vandalises my property is ludicrous. That really would be a Sanction of the Victim, which is I suspect just what Rodbeater was relying on -- that I would be hamstrung by his idea of "blogging etiquette."

Well frankly, that's just self-serving disingenuous bullshit. You can't claim any right to privacy while refusing to recognise that same principle yourself.

So Mr Fletcher is banned at NOT PC, and he remains banned. And if Mr Fletcher doesn't like that, then that's just tough luck. I regret however that KG and Adolf don't like that, since I have a great deal of respect for both of them (even if I don't always agree with them), but if they wish to continue to allow him to pollute their own comments threads then that's their business, not mine.

And that's all I wanted to say, which is far more than the storm in a teacup deserves.

Redbaiter said...

All off the issue. Just cowardly self serving smoke screening. In your post at 10:29 am on Thursday you said this-

"We’ve unfortunately been invaded by the Rodbeater Troll virus this morning, so to fend off the deluge of abject drivel with which Mr Russell Fletcher of Tauranga has been trying to flood the comments sections here, I’m temporarily turning on moderation –"

This was a deliberate fabrication, and you admit yourself above you don't even know who was "flooding" the comments section. You decided you would smear me and that is all there is too it. You decided you would falsely nominate Redbaiter as the reason for the moderation and that was that.

Everything else is just so much worthless crap. A whiny pathetic attempt to justify your self serving bullshit.

...and as for your pathetic "outing"- are you totally braindead? Can't you read at all???? I've already said so many times I couldn't give a stuff for your piffling lame pathetic diversion of "outing".

As for your "ban", you have often encouraged me to post there and your cowardly minions have taken pleasure in discussing Redbaiter (mostly in the most grossly offensive terms) even when I have not been anywhere near your miserable little blog.

You're IMHO a contemptible and stupid (yeah that is right- STUPID. What else could you be to get yourself in a mess like this) control freak who surrounds himself with unctuous lackies and toadies and yes men, and whatever your true cause might be, (and I know damn well its not Liberty) its crippled now, for you have publicly destroyed whatever small degree of credibility you have ever had for a long long time.

Of course the question that was asked prior to the "moderation" still stands unanswered. What happened to the money donated for the cancelled court case, and was it used to support the Libs Mt Albert election bid? (That bid where you solicited about 30 votes?)

PC said...

". . . stuff that was posted under Rodbeater's name and anonymously and under other pseudonyms, none of which was slowing down when I asked posters to stop"

Bok said...

I have always aligned my political views closer to the Libs (sans some of their wackier ideas). But I have to say that this has been the closest thing to the nasty Clark type way of doing things that we grew to hate and despise, that I have seen in a long time.

I always respected Peter's views. No longer.

A man would have said , piss off you are banned. Clarkites and now it seems the Lib's white knight instead says :"Piss off and now I'll really hurt you. I'll throw so much shit....."

I read RB comments. Sometimes I laugh at them and sometimes I agree with them. And I used to have a running battle with Phil at DPF's. But all of that is as an equal or at least on a level playing field. Creswell I thought had more depth.

Clark used to use things like fear of exposure and public humiliation without the possibility of a reply being heard, to control those who disagreed with her, welcome to her club Peter.

How very sad. Redbaiter has a mouth that is filthy and a anger problem. You however have just proved yourself to be a bully and a lightweight Clark imitation.

PC said...

"A man would have said , piss off you are banned. . . "

Which was precisely what I did say, and kept saying it for around a year.

Unfortunately, the other fellow wasn't man enough to follow that request.

Heine said...

Sheesh. Handbags flying everywhere!

Get over it guys, it's a blog war but we're only specks in the true order of things. You forget who the real enemy is - far as I know you're all on the same team as me.

Redbaiter said...

"far as I know you're all on the same team as me."

Well you do not know much do you Clint? Cresswell's (and his band of limp wristed scurrying political neophytes) credo is the right are as bad as the left.

Agree with that do you??

Here's my view. As simple as I can make it. Things were relatively OK before the Progressives appeared. Since they appeared on the scene, we have been Trojan horsed to the extent we are less free than we have ever been in this country's short history.

I have two simple objectives. 1) Roll back the influence of the Progressives and 2) after 1) has been achieved, work for an even smaller government.

Cresswell's problem is that (like so many of his B stream 105 IQ comrades, who so arrogantly call themselves Libertarians,) he sprang from inside the Trojan horse of Progressivism. He's not the solution. he's the problem, and when he says we're as big an enemy to his group as the left, then that's fine with me.

I always like to be clear about who the enemy is, and there's no doubt, especially after Cresswell's latest craven idiocy, that the Libertarians are the enemy.

They're against the right so they're with the left. Secondly, they're Progressives, and they must be defeated as a peripheral political group of the main party we must defeat.

Cresswell and his miserable little band of crosswired sycophants are a group that is radically different to the Libertarians in the US. Ron Paul often appears at Town Hall meetings with the strongly religious Conservative Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin has been endorsed as a possible Libertarian candidate.

The NZ libs, With their intolerance of Conservatism and their hatred of religion, and their endorsement of so many anti-family ideas that are part of the Trojan horse strategy, are Progressives before they are Libertarians.

Dominated by authoritarian personalities and with their likewise lame low IQ followers limping along with whatever is decreed, are a just a pathetic joke as a political force, as the Mt Albert by election proved.

They're not on the same team. They're the enemy. They came with the Trojan horse of Progressivism. Secondly, who wants someone on their team who behaves like Cresswell. Not me mate. I'd rather be in a foxhole with a colony of scorpions, tarantulas and vipers.

Roger Nome said...

You have the emotional intelligence of a 14 year old Adolf. Ever thought about counseling or medication for you socially dysfunctional/emotional problems? Aspurgers is manageable you know. You just have to learn a few techniques.

Redbaiter said...

Gee Nome, you are obviously suffering from the delusion that readers of No Minister might have some interest in 1)your pretence to know something of psychiatry, or 2) your opinions in general.

The reality is they don't, and that this fact is so starkly apparent to everyone but yourself would suggest you're in greater need of treatment than anyone.

Heine said...

Err. Redbaiter - seriously??! The Libz are no evil threat whatsoever and their input into the debate against statism is essential.

Sheesh, everybody take a pill or three and pull your shit together. This is turning into something really pathetic. I think our team is a little more refined than half page hateful rants.

liberty said...

“The NZ libs, With their intolerance of Conservatism and their hatred of religion, and their endorsement of so many anti-family ideas that are part of the Trojan horse strategy, are Progressives before they are Libertarians.”

Red there is a small problem with your ill-informed rant.
One of the staunchest libs is a devout Christian
Would you like to post some facts to back up your crap statement.
You want because you can’t. You are just full of hot air.

Redbaiter said...

"Would you like to post some facts to back up your crap statement."

Anyone who has ever visited Not PC and observed the vicious anti-Christian sentiment so often on display (from Cresswell and his sycophants) doesn't need anything further.

"The Libz are no evil threat whatsoever and their input into the debate against statism is essential."

Thanks for that opinion Clint. I disagree. For the reasons I state above.

liberty said...

Red your ill-informed claim was
“The NZ libs, With their intolerance of Conservatism and their hatred of religion,”
You are judging all libs on one very informative Blog. It is true Peter is no God supporter.
That doesn’t mean all libs have the same views. If you have 10 libs you will get 10 different opinions. Thats what makes the libs different from the other lot.
If you want to be a sheeple and be conformist or a conservative that is your choice.
You are showing a great deal of intolerance for anyone who doesn’t want to be just a minion to nanny state.
Incidentally this thread was started over your hissy fit. Because Peter used his editorial right to spike your rambling.
So what has happen to your blog.
The one you didn’t have the balls to open for comments?

Heine said...

I have no problem with vicious anti christian opinion. I'd be more inclined to agree with it as well. :)

Redbaiter said...

"I have no problem with vicious anti christian opinion. I'd be more inclined to agree with it as well. :)"

Fine, but I disagree. I say that if people want to believe in a credo, Christianity of Objectivism for example, that it is up to them, and as long as they do not blow up people or fly planes into sky scrapers that's fine.

I also do not forget the debt that those who value freedom owe to the Christian faith, which is the force that has underpinned the growth and development of the most free and advanced nations on earth.

You too are a Progressive Clint, and really there's no answer to your bigotry than for you to piss off and join Labour. The right doesn't need people who don't know who the real enemy are or what direction to shoot in.

Redbaiter said...

BTW, for those who still don't get where I am coming from, one of the left's most succesful strategies has been to split the right along ideological grounds. They have done this by seducing many of the gullible into accepting Progressive ideas as a neutral influence.

They are not neutral ideas. They are ideas that bring success to the left, and the split must be healed if we are to cease losing ground.

Redbaiter said...


Christianity "or" Objectivism

Heine said...

Wow, I'm being preached to by somebody who reads and believes the bible about humanity, respect and tolerance.

Worse still, I am being told by somebody that the left want to try and split the right... when the only person here in this thread doing that is you Redbaiter.

Move along.

Heine said...

"You too are a Progressive Clint, and really there's no answer to your bigotry than for you to piss off and join Labour. The right doesn't need people who don't know who the real enemy are or what direction to shoot in"

Oh, and the last thing I want to hear is somebody like you telling me that *I* am bigoted just because you don't agree with me. You don't speak for the right - which is a huge relief for many.

Calm down, take your pills and read this thread again. Get over yourself, it isn't all about you. I can't believe I even let myself get sucked in by this silly thread.

Redbaiter said...

Move along.

Okay Helen.

I'm not splitting the right. I am soldifying it. Fuck off and join Labour Clint. That's you're true Ideological home, and you would do far more for freedom there than by posturing as a rightist.

"somebody who reads and believes the bible"

What makes you think that?? I've never in any post ever said any such thing. Start thinking for a change.

Redbaiter said...

"Oh, and the last thing I want to hear is somebody like you telling me that *I* am bigoted just because you don't agree with me."

That's not the reason I called you a bigot Clint.

I called you a bigot because you said this-

"I have no problem with vicious anti christian opinion. I'd be more inclined to agree with it as well. :)"

Obsequious smiley face not withstanding.

Heine said...

So let me get this straight, I am a bigot because I am not a christian and am comfortable with letting people speak their minds about it?

Your commonsense is lacking. Asking me to join Labour would be as sensible as you saying you are SOLIDIFYING the right. What utter nonsense. Yeah right. Abusing anybody who thinks you're a little OTT and yelling down anybody for nnot subscribing to whatever you rant on about.. yeah thats really diplomatic. No wonder PC outed you, if you went to my blog I'd have done the same!

Redbaiter said...

"So let me get this straight, I am a bigot because I am not a christian and am comfortable with letting people speak their minds about it?"

I guess being dull witted is all part and parcel of being a Progressive. It certainly seems to apply to you and Peter Cresswell and most of the others who flit so airily around him on Not PC.

You have not got it straight at all, and you're so far away from comprehending what I have said, I give up. You're a dunce, not worth talking to especially when I read you second paragraph, full of the same old same old PC left wing crap about "shouting people down". This is a written medium you sad wittering dumbarse. Its impossible to "shout people down."

Fuck off and join Labour. You're too intellectually dull to be anywhere else.

Heine said...

And yet the ironic thing is Redbaiter, the language that you use, the anger, and bitter bile that spews out of your mouth. In fact everything you say reminds me of the nasty Alliance voters I fought years ago.

You sound like an Alliance fucktard and you probably look like one too Red. I have never heard such hatred from anybody on the right before - as it is the domain of the left. And you good sir have captured the Socialist spirit in one. Congratulations. I guess you have done a full circle and have become one of them now.

Grow up. Playground taunts telling me to join Labour isn't going to win you any respect. If you are the solidifier of the right then I'd hate to think how much of a bad state the right is in.

Come on and prove me wrong Red. Say something that doesn't sound like you're Ken Douglas or a Standardista.

liberty said...

“I'm not splitting the right. I am soldifying it”
What a load of tripe
Gods gift to the perfect political party is just a fence sitter.
All the years I have been reading your posts .
It been National are doing it all wrong. Act are doing it all wrong
As for the Libz.they are now the antichrist. The party you were going to send of a donation too.
Yes what happen to that donation Redbaiter did you pay.
or was it just more blowing in the wind.

Redbaiter said...

"Come on and prove me wrong Red. Say something that doesn't sound like you're Ken Douglas or a Standardista."

Run off and join Labour retard. You've got the IQ of a fungus.

"the nasty Alliance voters I fought years ago."

They won of course. The left now controls our public institutions, our media, our parliament and our education system.

You made it so easy for them. Because like most Progressives who posture as rightists, you're too black hole dense to know what's really going down.

Heine said...

It was blowing in the wind Liberty - he is all froth and no beer.

RB, thanks for proving my point. You can't even stop sounding like a nutjob even when you try.

Redbaiter said...

Better get used to it Clint. The socialists are toast with not long to go.

You Progressives, their partners in crime, are the next target.

Heine said...

The next target for who? Name for me some right wingers who will follow you on your crusade against the "Progressives".

Your enemies are National, ACT, Libz... so it shows that maybe you are the odd one out!

As I said - you are all froth and no beer.

Redbaiter said...

"Your enemies are National, ACT, Libz... so it shows that maybe you are the odd one out!"

I don't suffer from any collective mentality Clint. I'm no whitebait, I'm a sovereign individual, and I do what I think is right regardless of how many followers I might have. You might want to check out the protesters in the US tho Clint. There's one thing that's remarkable for its absence there, and its Progressivism.

Funny how you left Labour out of that list of enemies Clint. Now why would you do that??

Here's a hint. Just check who your allies are in this little battle and who they're seeking out as allies again.

You'll find for example, your good buddy Mr. Cresswell, kissing Pablo's arse (Not PC embracing Mr Extremely PC) over on Kiwipolitico, that useless and cowardly left wing echo chamber.

Quite indicative of the whole problem- why we're in this mess. Its because of the alliance between the Progressives and the Socialists, where you pretend to do battle as left and right, but every day freedom and civility fall further away because you're both really cast from the same mould. The Progressive mould.

You say you've been 'fighting' for decades. Then why the hell are we in the shit so deeply Clint?? I'll tell you. Because you are loosing, and you don't even know why you're losing. And every day you fight, is a day we sink further into the morass.

You're losing because you are divided in your loyalties, because you are divided in your intention, and because you don't even really know yourself what you want.

Your confused blabbering on here, where you've got just about everything I've said completely arse about face shows that well enough.

In order to fight Redbaiter, you seek alliances with Pablo and his ilk. It won't do you no good. You're the next target, and you will one day face defeat just like the redistributionists are now facing defeat. Get used to it.

BTW- stop ranting about my deserving what happened at Not PC. That's another thing you've got completely wrong. 1) I do not give a damn about Cresswell's spineless so called "outing", and 2) The allegation that I behaved badly there is completely false.

I posted infrequent messages attacking the Progressivism of the Libertarians, and Cresswell, being that craven leftist he really is deep down, got pissed off with the criticism.

That's all that happened there. The allegation that I spammed the site endlessly with "offensive" (there's that PC again) messages is a fantasy. Anyone with a brain who has followed this little event knows this.

You're right in one thing tho Clint, (hurrah) and that is I do battle against National Act and the Libs. They're all as deeply infiltrated by the fifth column of Progressivism as each other. Perhaps not quite as deeply as Labour, but deeply enough to make them ineffective as any kind of fighting force for liberty.

Heine said...

Thanks for that, I think?! Well enjoy life as the lone wolf. You don't have a clue what I support but I'll let you go on and enjoy whatever you do.

Roger Nome said...

"I'm a sovereign individual"


Redbaiter said...

Wow, both Roger Nome and Clint saying I'm mad. Throughout history, the left's most favoured strategy against anyone who does not think like them.

Funny isn't it that all over the Progressive blogosphere, they're getting their nickers deeply knotted over a madman. All those words from Mr. Cresswell and his buddy Pablo and the rest of the Progressives, about someone who is deemed "mad" by Clint and Roger.

Those snivelling deceitful cowards who use their blogs to attack Redbaiter and then deny him any right of response on the self serving grounds that I might write something "offensive". Yeah right. They deny me a response for one reason only and that is I can hit their pathetic narcissistic rubbish out of the park in a few sentences.

Wow- imagine the concern I might cause them if I was rational.

(There you go Adolf- got the thread to eighty. Is that any kind of record??)

Sus said...

No Red: you're "denied a response", as you put it, because you go on ad nauseum and bloody rudely at that -- the latter of which makes your near apoplexy at any or perceived criticism of Christianity in particular, pretty ironic.

Redbaiter said...

..and you of course Suze would be such an objective judge of that.

(being as you're as big a Cresswelll sycophant as any of them.)

They're frightened. It sticks out like dogs balls.

Heine said...

I thought the classic leftie response was frothing hatred and bile towards ones enemies. You fit that description ten fold.

Do you have your own blog Red?

I don't get you - you are bitching about being denied your freedom to speak and all I want is for you to shut up. Totally different things.
You are doing the right no good by acting up like this. Where are your supporters in all this or are you the only real right winger left in the building?

Redbaiter said...

"I thought the classic leftie response was frothing hatred and bile towards ones enemies."

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or insane .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind."

--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943

Your problem Clint is that you mistake contempt for your silly Progressive ideas as an expression of hatred. You don't know any better. One day, (maybe) you'll understand that passion and disgreement are not things that need to be stamped out because the PC czars dictate they should be.

"you are bitching about being denied your freedom to speak"

Please example where I actually do this, (and try and avoid presenting yet another demonstration of your appalling comprehensive abilities)

"Where are your supporters"

I know where yours are. Over at Kiwipolitico and Public Address. They even say almost exactly the same things.

Heine said...

yeah yeah Red. I obviously mistake your sweary anger fuelled rants as abuse when it's right from the heart. Nice. My mistake. I must remember to address all my friends in the same way and see how far I get :)

Err, I love how you seem to think I am one step away from Jim Andertons office. Fuck, if you believe that no wonder you don't have any friends on the right.

Redbaiter said...

"yeah yeah Red. I obviously mistake your sweary anger fuelled rants"

"Fuck, if you believe that"

Like talking to a lump of firewood.

Sus said...

"an objective judge of that."

Yes, in spite of not being an Objectivist. :)

But no, they're not 'frightened' as you put it. Just tired of being told they're the red left every time you happen to disagree with something.

I know I shouldn't respond, but you're a damn itch that just has to be scratched. However, that's it from me. It's all yours.

Redbaiter said...

"Just tired of being told they're the red left every time you happen to disagree with something."

Except the whole moderation issue was blamed on spamming. By me. Which was of course a completely false allegation. When it was exposed as false, there was a need to dream up some alternative reason. Hence the rubbish that I was "nasty, swore and told them they were leftist in every post", which is of course another fabrication.

NOT PC stands as one of the most arse about face titles for a blog on the net. Try saying something un-PC about queers and see what happens.

Funny thing is, at the same time, you can be as contemptuous as you wish regarding Christians.

This is as PC as anything. By the Progressive standard.

NOT PC is a complete misnomer, but in my experience of the idiot rantings of the blog owner, who when he's not sucking up to the commies on public address sucks up to the commies on Kiwipolitico, nothing at all unexpected.

"Its all yours"

Wow, a gift. How kind.

Heine said...

Redbaiter - it's so hard to figure out who you hate and who you don't. You should write it down. So far you dislike National, ACT, Libz, Progressives, queers?...

What about Labour, Greens, Alliance retards? Come on now don't hold back on us!

liberty said...

“Redbaiter - it's so hard to figure out who you hate and who you don't. You should write it down. So far you dislike National, ACT, Libz”
I suspect Redbaiter weeps for the National party of the 60s. A left,right god party
It’s taken National nine years to realise ACT is not the enemy. Rebaiter is just taking a little longer. To accept the political spectrum has changed.

Redbaiter said...


Dumbarses. I've already addressed your pathetic collectivist proclivity for this word. (above)

Man- you guys are so hopelessy immersed in Progressivism its no wonder you don't ever get anything.

If brain transplants ever become possible in your lifetime, you should line up and get yours exchanged for one of a whitebait- for a 100% increase in intelligence and individuality.

Sinner said...

Redbaiter at least remembers that the slogan of the Left in the French revolution was:

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!

The fucking Libz believe in the Liberty bit;
the fucking Nats believe in the Fraternity bit;
the fucking Labour and and greenie CUNTS believe in the Equality bit

As a good conservative redbaiter believes in none of this progressive crap. All men are not created equal, There are no inalienable rights, especially not to life, to liberty, or to the pursuit of happiness (for FUCKS SAKE!!!).
There are the deserving and the undeserving. The productive and the unproductive. The independent humans and the dependent bludgers. Governments exist to govern, and maintain that power through the use of deadly force. As Orwell put it: "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever"

As the Christians - when they were conservative - used to put it:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate

And the Libz hate this idea as much as Labour, as much as the Greens, as much as the John "State House Boy" Key lead National party does. At least the UK Conservatives have Cameron and Johnson - literally from the playing fields of Eton!

When NZ was founded, the vote was restricted to those who owned substantial real property - that's a conservative idea. In the UK a prime minister cannot be a Catholic - that's a conservative idea.
And of course a good chunk of the UK and Canadian upper houses are not elected - that's another conservative idea. Hell, even in super-liberal Scandinavia, the head of state is "appointed" on the basis of who their parents were: another conservative idea, well tested. And again in those Scandinavian countries Hellen liked so much, membership in the Church is a matter of law - another great conservative idea.

I've always described NZ's political culture as "libertarian socialist". And PC would cheer as Hellen liberalized the gays, for example!

Whatever PC is, he is not conservative.

Redbaiter said...

"Whatever PC is, he is not conservative."

All cults have the same kind of leadership structure. A conniving scheming manipulative and narcissistic lead figure surrounded by a small clique of arse licking lieutenants who as a command group busy themselves exploiting a larger group of low IQ mentally disturbed knuckle draggers.

Angus said...

"All cults have the same kind of leadership structure."

Splitting hairs maybe, but I'd me more inclined to describe the Libertarianz party as one that is led by an oligarchy. Read this link below from one of the more lowly ranked members. (that limp-wristed, belly crawler Elijah.)

Redbaiter said...

(that limp-wristed, belly crawler Elijah.)

Quite a useful fool actually, as he exists as a stark example of Not PC's rank hypocrisy, in that the site owner professes to care about nastiness on his site but allows this freak to write stuff that is really appalling and never censures (or censors) him at all.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it is just an example of how the libz can be very tolerant to individuals even if one of them is a bit of a tosser.

Angus said...

Perhaps it is just an example of how the libz can be very tolerant to individuals even if one of them is a bit of a tosser."

Ah no. Glenn Beck & Neal Boortz are self-described libertarians. Do some research and see of they could ever conform to be a member of Cresswell's clique.

What got be so pissed about the Libz was a couple events in recent times:

Firstly Cresswell's "Where was God" post in the wake of the Elim Christian College drownings - a moment which sealed in my mind that Cresswell is not a libertarian but a secular-progressive.

Secondly, posting under my own name a few times, my opinion was met with name calling and insults by the regular libz posters there, and when I returned fire, only my posts were deleted by Cresswell.

Cresswell is not a paragon of freedom and liberty, the man is a narcissistic louse.