Posts by Greg Dawson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Jake Starrow,
I believe I’m the one that called you a puppet first, so there’s no need to take it out on Alfie.
And nobody here needs to discredit the ‘respectable’ Fran, she does that perfectly well herself, in the herald.
-
When do we find out which herald writers' sock puppet the inconsistently named jake is?
-
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to TracyMac,
Regarding Hager’s timing, I have to say that it’s patently obvious he’s trying to affect the election result. Good, whether his motivation is to get rid of these corrupt clowns, or something deeper.
You heard it here first - I fully intend to influence the election result, and my likely behaviour on the 20th (particularly the bit where I drop some paper in a box) can only be construed as a blatant attempt to subvert the rightful government of the day.
Knowing how responsible Mr Hager generally appears to be, I expect he intends no less.
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to Kumara Republic,
When people complain about Television New Zealand being Television Auckland, I’d say they really mean Television Epsom.
That one electorate has a hell of a lot to answer for.
-
I was wondering what whether there was anything useful in the IP addresses. Being spoofed? Have we found Jason Ede?
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Russell Brown,
No – this is a very widespread misconception. The conversation is quoted in Hager’s book, on page 46. It’s noted as “Cameron Slater, Facebook messaging to and from Judith Collins, 11 September 2011.”
Ah, thankyou for clarifying. Also to nzlemming for telling me its UTC not localised time :)
I’m not going to start throwing stones at people messaging each other in their lunch breaks, on account of my silica based residence.
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Angela Hart,
Given that Slater and Collins are both outright denying all/any facebook discussions, it is likely to be necessary to use legal channels to check validity/veracity here.
Agreed, the fb leaks are a new front unsupported by Hagers book - need someone to tell us whether we can just ignore all the fb ones as forgeries, or if it really is as bad as they make it out.
Also, the timestamps are a thing - are ministers really able to stay up past midnight chatting all the time and still do their job?
-
I think we can put aside any suggestions of impropriety in the electoral systems until we have, you know, even an inkling that they're in any way compromised.
Which we don't, and we have lots and lots of other mischief to talk about.
Nothing to do with being blue.
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Russell Brown,
Agreed. The idea of extraordinary powers being deployed to identify leakers is not good for democracy.
See I didn't think identifying the leakers was what was being suggested.
I don't have any problem with the investigating parties pulling facebook chat records (if they exist, via normal legal channels) to definitively prove whether or not the released chats are forgeries. That doesn't feel like overreach and privacy violation to me - just normal investigative functions as a response to denial of the accuracy of the evidence.
I wouldn't expect the investigating parties to then publish what they find, just to tell us whether Judith is lying (again).
