Tuesday 6 July 2010
Five minutes into the 7 a.m. news, we are graced with the daily
“Paul Holmes Comment” brought to you by [sponsor’s name
deleted]---"committed to inspiring futures.” Today, Holmes chooses to
rail (yet again) against teachers. Their decision to stand up to the
government really angers him. He suggests, in apparent high
seriousness, that this National government “knows as much about
education as the teachers do.” He bawls loudly that “the teachers are
public servants! I know you’ll agree with me, Larry.” Well, he was
right on that very last point.
“Paul Holmes Comment” brought to you by [sponsor’s name
deleted]---"committed to inspiring futures.” Today, Holmes chooses to
rail (yet again) against teachers. Their decision to stand up to the
government really angers him. He suggests, in apparent high
seriousness, that this National government “knows as much about
education as the teachers do.” He bawls loudly that “the teachers are
public servants! I know you’ll agree with me, Larry.” Well, he was
right on that very last point.
At 7.15, the major topic of concern is Justice Minister Simon Power's
proposed crackdown on knife crime. Larry Williams, a loud supporter of
the right to carry and use knives, is worried.
proposed crackdown on knife crime. Larry Williams, a loud supporter of
the right to carry and use knives, is worried.
Williams is keen to make a crucial distinction between “hoodlums who
carry knives as opposed to good kids who carry knives to protect
themselves.... Do we have kids who are good kids taking knives and
screwdrivers to school to protect themselves?”
carry knives as opposed to good kids who carry knives to protect
themselves.... Do we have kids who are good kids taking knives and
screwdrivers to school to protect themselves?”
First guest is Steve Boxer, Foundation for Youth Development national
manager. Boxer is clearly flabbergasted by Williams’ insane line of
questioning. Devil’s advocacy is one thing---but Boxer soon realizes
that Williams clearly BELIEVES in the “right” of “good kids” to
“protect themselves with a knife or a screwdriver.”
manager. Boxer is clearly flabbergasted by Williams’ insane line of
questioning. Devil’s advocacy is one thing---but Boxer soon realizes
that Williams clearly BELIEVES in the “right” of “good kids” to
“protect themselves with a knife or a screwdriver.”
Williams’ lunacy gets a far more sympathetic hearing from the elderly
Auckland University law lecturer Bill Hodge, who has developed into a
reliable go-to guy when someone like Holmes or Williams needs a right
wing endorsement with a bit of academic cachet. Hodge was the loudest
of the small number of right-wing academics who denounced the spy-base
saboteurs, he supports the right of the Japanese government to kidnap
New Zealand citizens, and the right of Chinese security guards to
stifle pro-Tibetan protest---even in the grounds of the New Zealand
parliament. So if you need endorsement of your opinion that a juvenile
version of Bruce Emery should be able to carry a knife, Dr. Bill Hodge
is your man...
Auckland University law lecturer Bill Hodge, who has developed into a
reliable go-to guy when someone like Holmes or Williams needs a right
wing endorsement with a bit of academic cachet. Hodge was the loudest
of the small number of right-wing academics who denounced the spy-base
saboteurs, he supports the right of the Japanese government to kidnap
New Zealand citizens, and the right of Chinese security guards to
stifle pro-Tibetan protest---even in the grounds of the New Zealand
parliament. So if you need endorsement of your opinion that a juvenile
version of Bruce Emery should be able to carry a knife, Dr. Bill Hodge
is your man...
BILL HODGE: It’s different from guns, isn’t it....I don’t see a ban
is going to stop a 16-year-old grabbing a knife as he goes out at
night with his alco-pops.
LARRY WILLIAMS: Well we’ve got a more violent society haven’t we? It’s
like a slow train wreck isn’t it?
HODGE: These kids are going out binge-drinking, and the knives come
out after the binge-drinking. I don’t have all the answers but I know
that society is changing, and not for the better. The crap that
they’re selling to kids these days is TERRIBLE stuff.
This, then, is the NewstalkZB line as endorsed by law lecturer Dr.
Bill Hodge: Alco-pops bad; Knives and screwdrivers GOOD---but only for
“good kids”. Presumably not for what Leighton Smith calls “genetically
different” kids.
Bill Hodge: Alco-pops bad; Knives and screwdrivers GOOD---but only for
“good kids”. Presumably not for what Leighton Smith calls “genetically
different” kids.
On Jul 6, 8:16 am, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
wrote:
wrote:
- show quoted text -
The insanity continues! Just after 9 o'clock, Smith engages in a
learned discussion about Chinese investment...
learned discussion about Chinese investment...
WOMAN CALLER: I hope Ian Wishart gets onto it. He's an investigative
journalist.
SMITH: Yes he is.
journalist.
SMITH: Yes he is.
Daisycutter Sports Inc. Fact File: Ian Wishart is a certified lunatic.
He believes in flying saucers, and he repeatedly tries to convince his
listeners that the world is six thousand years old.
He believes in flying saucers, and he repeatedly tries to convince his
listeners that the world is six thousand years old.
 |
On Jul 6, 9:23 am, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
- show quoted text -
The nuttiness continues. In the middle of a wandery, disconnected free-
form rave about the problems of the world as he sees it, Smith brings
up one of the extreme right wings' bete noirs: Venezuelan president
Hugo Chavez. According to Smith, this democratically elected
politician is a dictator. "Have you heard of the food shortages in
Venezuela?" he froths to a caller. The caller has not. Nor has anyone
else. it's an invention. But Smith insists on it. "Chavez is screwing
his country. They'll end up hanging him by his heels."
form rave about the problems of the world as he sees it, Smith brings
up one of the extreme right wings' bete noirs: Venezuelan president
Hugo Chavez. According to Smith, this democratically elected
politician is a dictator. "Have you heard of the food shortages in
Venezuela?" he froths to a caller. The caller has not. Nor has anyone
else. it's an invention. But Smith insists on it. "Chavez is screwing
his country. They'll end up hanging him by his heels."
He then goes on to quote from the similarly looney British rag the
Daily Telegraph. "We need to know what's going on," he gravely tells
his listeners.
Daily Telegraph. "We need to know what's going on," he gravely tells
his listeners.
|
In message
<a390a2db-1a2f-4d75-86dc-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
<a390a2db-1a2f-4d75-86dc-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> ... he supports the right of the Japanese government to kidnap
> New Zealand citizens ...
> New Zealand citizens ...
When did that happen?
|
On Jul 6, 12:54 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <a390a2db-1a2f-4d75-86dc-
>
> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> > ... he supports the right of the Japanese government to kidnap
> > New Zealand citizens ...
>
> When did that happen?
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <a390a2db-1a2f-4d75-86dc-
>
> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> > ... he supports the right of the Japanese government to kidnap
> > New Zealand citizens ...
>
> When did that happen?
Clearly you have been asleep for the last three months.
|
On Jul 6, 1:02 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
wrote:
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Clearly you have no grasp of the law, in particular international law.
Even Bethune and his defense team don't claim he was kidnapped. Only
nut-jobs like you, Mowissey, could think that he was.
Even Bethune and his defense team don't claim he was kidnapped. Only
nut-jobs like you, Mowissey, could think that he was.
|
- show quoted text -
Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
see he was kidnapped. We have a government that lacked the courage to
utter even one word of condemnation when Israel bombed and shot to
death more than 1400 civilians last year, and did not dare to protest
even when Chinese government goons swiftly and publicly stifled a pro-
Tibet protest by a New Zealand M.P. in the grounds of parliament. So
it should not be a surprise to see our government acquiesce meekly in
the face of Japanese aggression.\
see he was kidnapped. We have a government that lacked the courage to
utter even one word of condemnation when Israel bombed and shot to
death more than 1400 civilians last year, and did not dare to protest
even when Chinese government goons swiftly and publicly stifled a pro-
Tibet protest by a New Zealand M.P. in the grounds of parliament. So
it should not be a surprise to see our government acquiesce meekly in
the face of Japanese aggression.\
Your throwing around of epithets like "nut-job" only serves to
highlight the poverty of your argument and your complete failure to
grasp what has happened.
highlight the poverty of your argument and your complete failure to
grasp what has happened.
|
On Jul 6, 3:50 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
- show quoted text -
No. If your argument had one shred of validity it would be used by
Bethune, his lawyers and Sea Shepherd. That they haven't clearly shows
that you are talking out your arse. The general case for you being a
nutter is also supported by your schizophrenic use of multiple posting
nyms and imaginary entities.
Bethune, his lawyers and Sea Shepherd. That they haven't clearly shows
that you are talking out your arse. The general case for you being a
nutter is also supported by your schizophrenic use of multiple posting
nyms and imaginary entities.
|
In message
<20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
<20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
> see he was kidnapped.
> see he was kidnapped.
He was the one who broke into their ship, they did not take him on board.
|
On Jul 6, 7:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
>
> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> > Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
> > see he was kidnapped.
>
> He was the one who broke into their ship, they did not take him on board.
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
>
> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> > Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
> > see he was kidnapped.
>
> He was the one who broke into their ship, they did not take him on board.
You have not looked at the case in any detail. Bethune served the
captain with a writ for the illegal ramming and destruction of his own
boat. He was then detained against his will and taken to Japan. That's
kidnapping.
captain with a writ for the illegal ramming and destruction of his own
boat. He was then detained against his will and taken to Japan. That's
kidnapping.
|
- show quoted text -
They have all repeatedly said that Pete Bethune was kidnapped.
>
> That they haven't clearly shows
> that you are talking out your arse.
> That they haven't clearly shows
> that you are talking out your arse.
They have said that. By the way: your quick resort to unimaginative
abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
>
> The general case for you being a nutter
"The general case"? What "general case"? Witless and desperate name-> The general case for you being a nutter
callling by Leighton Smith is a "general case" now?
>
> is also supported by your schizophrenic
Something tells me you know as much about schizophrenia as you know> is also supported by your schizophrenic
about international law.
>
> use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
> use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
Call the police! Shut down the internet! Good God, man, you're in
cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
|
On Jul 6, 7:46 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
- show quoted text -
Cite.
By the way, Bethune pleaded guilty to charges of trespass, destruction
of property, illegal possession of a knife and obstruction of
business. The Japanese captain had every right under maritime law to
detain him. Therefore your silly kidnap story is still bullshit.
of property, illegal possession of a knife and obstruction of
business. The Japanese captain had every right under maritime law to
detain him. Therefore your silly kidnap story is still bullshit.
But keep going. Your public self-humiliation is good entertainment and
entrenching your reputation as a leading laughing stock of the usenet.
entrenching your reputation as a leading laughing stock of the usenet.
> By the way: your quick resort to unimaginative
> abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
>
>
>
> > The general case for you being a nutter
>
> "The general case"? What "general case"? Witless and desperate name-
> callling by Leighton Smith is a "general case" now?
>
>
>
> > is also supported by your schizophrenic
>
> Something tells me you know as much about schizophrenia as you know
> about international law.
>
>
>
> > use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
>
> Call the police! Shut down the internet! Good God, man, you're in
> cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
> abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
>
>
>
> > The general case for you being a nutter
>
> "The general case"? What "general case"? Witless and desperate name-
> callling by Leighton Smith is a "general case" now?
>
>
>
> > is also supported by your schizophrenic
>
> Something tells me you know as much about schizophrenia as you know
> about international law.
>
>
>
> > use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
>
> Call the police! Shut down the internet! Good God, man, you're in
> cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
Ah, at least you admit to being a liar and sock puppeteer. Now we're
getting somewhere.
getting somewhere.
|
On Jul 7, 10:52 am, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> unwisely wades in way
over his head:
>
>
>
> > By the way: your quick resort to unimaginative
> > abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
>
> > > The general case for you being a nutter
>
> > "The general case"? What "general case"? Witless and desperate name-
> > callling by Leighton Smith is a "general case" now?
>
> > > is also supported by your schizophrenic
>
> > Something tells me you know as much about schizophrenia as you know
> > about international law.
>
> > > use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
>
> > Call the police! Shut down the internet! Good God, man, you're in
> > cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
>
> Ah, at least you admit to being a liar
over his head:
- show quoted text -
Bethune's legal team took the best deal they could under the
repressive and undemocratic Japanese legal regime.
repressive and undemocratic Japanese legal regime.
>
> The Japanese captain had every right under maritime law to
> detain him.
> The Japanese captain had every right under maritime law to
> detain him.
No, he had no right to kidnap him.
>
> Therefore your silly kidnap story is still bullshit.
> Therefore your silly kidnap story is still bullshit.
There you go again with the swearing.
>
> But keep going.
> But keep going.
Don't worry, my friend, we shall.
>
> Your public self-humiliation
> Your public self-humiliation
???????!!!?!?!?!???
>
> is good entertainment and entrenching your reputation as a leading laughing stock of the usenet.
> is good entertainment and entrenching your reputation as a leading laughing stock of the usenet.
There you go again! Cite please. Okay, there's you and your guru
Leighton Smith. Who else?
Leighton Smith. Who else?
>
>
>
> > By the way: your quick resort to unimaginative
> > abuse is a disappointment, but not unexpected.
>
> > > The general case for you being a nutter
>
> > "The general case"? What "general case"? Witless and desperate name-
> > callling by Leighton Smith is a "general case" now?
>
> > > is also supported by your schizophrenic
>
> > Something tells me you know as much about schizophrenia as you know
> > about international law.
>
> > > use of multiple posting nyms and imaginary entities.
>
> > Call the police! Shut down the internet! Good God, man, you're in
> > cyberspace---learn the way things are done here!
>
> Ah, at least you admit to being a liar
I don't lie. You do, routinely. Or perhaps you're just bewildered.
That's it!--- your continual support for Communist Chinese repression
of human rights is entirely unwitting.
That's it!--- your continual support for Communist Chinese repression
of human rights is entirely unwitting.
>
> and sock puppeteer.
> and sock puppeteer.
That's a legitimate cyber-space strategy. What's your problem,
exactly?
exactly?
>
> Now we're getting somewhere.
> Now we're getting somewhere.
You're not going anywhere, buddy. You're sinking in the quicksand of
your own stooo-pidity.
your own stooo-pidity.
|
Ha! Behold the writhing of a befuddled mind...
- show quoted text -
|
In message
<a220a35d-1b8c-4b8d-8789-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
>> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
>>> see he was kidnapped.
>>
>> He was the one who broke into their ship, they did not take him on board.
>
> You have not looked at the case in any detail. Bethune served the
> captain with a writ for the illegal ramming and destruction of his own
> boat.
<a220a35d-1b8c-4b8d-8789-
Transcripts Ltd wrote:
> On Jul 6, 7:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_
> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <20abecdb-9f21-4cd6-97af-
>> Transcripts Ltd wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody with eyes and even the most rudimentary grasp of the law can
>>> see he was kidnapped.
>>
>> He was the one who broke into their ship, they did not take him on board.
>
> You have not looked at the case in any detail. Bethune served the
> captain with a writ for the illegal ramming and destruction of his own
> boat.
Which court issued that writ? Writs are not something people can just make
up.
up.
> He was then detained against his will and taken to Japan. That's
> kidnapping.
> kidnapping.
If somebody broke into your house, and you were in a position to do
something about it, would you not make a citizen’s arrest, and hold them
until you could pass them onto the authorities? That’s what was done with
him.
something about it, would you not make a citizen’s arrest, and hold them
until you could pass them onto the authorities? That’s what was done with
him.
|
- show quoted text -
Ooh look, another sockie.
Are you going to wheel out the 'Mo' one as well?
|
On Jul 7, 1:07 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
- show quoted text -
I've never supported Communist Chinese repression of any sort. Once
again you clearly demonstrate that you are the bewildered one here! .
again you clearly demonstrate that you are the bewildered one here! .
>
>
>
> > and sock puppeteer.
>
> That's a legitimate cyber-space strategy. What's your problem,
> exactly?
>
>
>
> > Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> You're not going anywhere, buddy. You're sinking in the quicksand of
> your own stooo-pidity.
>
>
> > and sock puppeteer.
>
> That's a legitimate cyber-space strategy. What's your problem,
> exactly?
>
>
>
> > Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> You're not going anywhere, buddy. You're sinking in the quicksand of
> your own stooo-pidity.
|
- show quoted text -
Your record of apologising for China and pouring scorn on its critics
stands in irrefutable testimony against you. For instance, here's what
you wrote on June 22nd.....
stands in irrefutable testimony against you. For instance, here's what
you wrote on June 22nd.....
******************************
Russell Norman should resign for telling a bare-faced lie on TV
this morning. He claimed to have been standing still and quietly
holding his flag. He claimed he was not chanting until he after got
roughed up by the Chinese. Subsequent footage clearly showed he was
chanting before they got near him.
He's an embarrassment to New Zealand and risked damaging this
country's relationship with China, all for a cheap publicity stunt.
******************************
Russell Norman should resign for telling a bare-faced lie on TV
this morning. He claimed to have been standing still and quietly
holding his flag. He claimed he was not chanting until he after got
roughed up by the Chinese. Subsequent footage clearly showed he was
chanting before they got near him.
He's an embarrassment to New Zealand and risked damaging this
country's relationship with China, all for a cheap publicity stunt.
******************************
Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting. You repeated the lie put
out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
And even if he HAD been chanting, why should that be a problem?
Because the Chinese government's enforcers say so, that's why! Do you
ever think of judging these things for yourself?
Because the Chinese government's enforcers say so, that's why! Do you
ever think of judging these things for yourself?
All your blather about damaging our relationship with China is mere
repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
repression.
Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
repression.
|
On Jul 7, 5:26 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd <daisycutterspo...@lycos.com>
- show quoted text -
Stop lying, Mowissey. None of the above in any any apologies for China
or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
> Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
You lie again, as this clearly shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over. I don't specifically
have a problem with that - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
have a problem with that - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
> You repeated the lie put
> out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
>
> And even if he HAD been chanting, why should that be a problem?
> out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
>
> And even if he HAD been chanting, why should that be a problem?
Not in itself a problem. If you paid attention you would note It's the
barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
> Because the Chinese government's enforcers say so, that's why! Do you
> ever think of judging these things for yourself?
> ever think of judging these things for yourself?
That is a another issue altogether.
>
> All your blather about damaging our relationship with China is mere
> repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
> the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
> of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
> All your blather about damaging our relationship with China is mere
> repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
> the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
> of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
Rubbish. Norman and everyone else is free to express dissent. He
should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament.
Even Goff agrees with this.
should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament.
Even Goff agrees with this.
>
> You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> repression.
> You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> repression.
Ranting nonsense, Mowithey.
|
- show quoted text -
No it is not. You could easily have criticised Norman's style or lack
of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
people of Tibet. You did not do that. In fact, you have loudly
supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
people of Tibet. You did not do that. In fact, you have loudly
supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
>
> > Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
>
> You lie again, as this clearly shows:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over.
He yelled it a couple of times. That's hardly chanting.
>
> I don't specifically
> have a problem with that
> I don't specifically
> have a problem with that
Nonsense. You ranted about it repeatedly. It's the core of your
argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
>
> - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
> - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
He did not lie.
>
> > You repeated the lie put
> > out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
>
> > And even if he HAD been chanting, why should that be a problem?
>
> Not in itself a problem.
> > You repeated the lie put
> > out by the Chinese government's propagandists.
>
> > And even if he HAD been chanting, why should that be a problem?
>
> Not in itself a problem.
Once again, I point out that your whole case against Norman rests on
your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
>
>If you paid attention you would note It's the
> barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
>If you paid attention you would note It's the
> barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
No, what you are concerned about is the fact he dared to put his head
above the parapet and speak out against an oppressive regime. Your
blather about "lying" and "chanting" is a diversion.
above the parapet and speak out against an oppressive regime. Your
blather about "lying" and "chanting" is a diversion.
>
> > Because the Chinese government's enforcers say so, that's why! Do you
> > ever think of judging these things for yourself?
>
> That is a another issue altogether.
> > Because the Chinese government's enforcers say so, that's why! Do you
> > ever think of judging these things for yourself?
>
> That is a another issue altogether.
That is the very core of the issue. One brave M.P. is being
systematically denigrated and vilified by the Chinese goverenment and
the New Zealand political establishment and some useful idiots like
Chris Trotter and Brian Rudman. You're not alone, JohnO, so I guess
you can take solace in that fact. But don't kid yourself about your
distaste for lies that you have imagined.
systematically denigrated and vilified by the Chinese goverenment and
the New Zealand political establishment and some useful idiots like
Chris Trotter and Brian Rudman. You're not alone, JohnO, so I guess
you can take solace in that fact. But don't kid yourself about your
distaste for lies that you have imagined.
>
>
>
> > All your blather about damaging our relationship with China is mere
> > repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
> > the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
> > of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
>
> Rubbish. Norman and everyone else is free to express dissent.
>
>
> > All your blather about damaging our relationship with China is mere
> > repetition of the National government's line. You went along, without
> > the slightest demur, with John Key's acquiescence in the closing down
> > of dissent IN OUR COUNTRY.
>
> Rubbish. Norman and everyone else is free to express dissent.
Not if the liikes of you have anything to do with it. You've
repeatedly condemned him for doing just that.
repeatedly condemned him for doing just that.
>
> He should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament. Even Goff agrees with this.
> He should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament. Even Goff agrees with this.
Did you see my comment above about the political establishment? That's
Goff, a crawler par excellence. As I say, JohnO, you're by no means
alone.
Goff, a crawler par excellence. As I say, JohnO, you're by no means
alone.
>
>
>
> > You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> > Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> > repression.
>
> Ranting nonsense, Mowithey.
>
>
> > You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> > Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> > repression.
>
> Ranting nonsense, Mowithey.
It's not nonsense, JohnO, and you know it. If you support Chinese
government enforcers stamping out public dissent you are a supporter
of those enforcers.
government enforcers stamping out public dissent you are a supporter
of those enforcers.
|
On Jul 7, 10:32 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd
<daisycutterspo...@lycos.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Stop lying, Mowissey. None of the above in any any apologies for China
> > or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
>
> No it is not. You could easily have criticised Norman's style or lack
> of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
> people of Tibet. You did not do that.
> In fact, you have loudly
> supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
> goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
>
>
>
> > He should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament. Even Goff agrees with this.
>
> Did you see my comment above about the political establishment? That's
> Goff, a crawler par excellence. As I say, JohnO, you're by no means
> alone.
>
<daisycutterspo...@lycos.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Stop lying, Mowissey. None of the above in any any apologies for China
> > or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
>
> No it is not. You could easily have criticised Norman's style or lack
> of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
> people of Tibet. You did not do that.
Irrelevant and weak.
.
.
> In fact, you have loudly
> supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
> goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
Liar. As I said, I'm happy for him to make is statement *without
demeaning himself or Parliament*.
demeaning himself or Parliament*.
>
>
>
> > > Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
>
> > You lie again, as this clearly shows:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> > He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over.
>
> He yelled it a couple of times.
>
>
> > > Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
>
> > You lie again, as this clearly shows:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> > He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over.
>
> He yelled it a couple of times.
Four times before he got bustled out of the way.
> That's hardly chanting.
Oh, you are now waffling about *degrees* of chanting? Pathetic. He
was, end of story.
was, end of story.
>
>
>
> > I don't specifically
> > have a problem with that
>
> Nonsense. You ranted about it repeatedly. It's the core of your
> argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
>
>
> > I don't specifically
> > have a problem with that
>
> Nonsense. You ranted about it repeatedly. It's the core of your
> argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
Because of the way he did, not what he did. But you are simply
divverting away from your original lie that I support China. And no
wonder you are diverting from that - you look like a fool.
divverting away from your original lie that I support China. And no
wonder you are diverting from that - you look like a fool.
>
>
>
> > - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
>
> He did not lie.
>
>
> > - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
>
> He did not lie.
Of course he did.
>
>
> Once again, I point out that your whole case against Norman rests on
> your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
> stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
>
> Once again, I point out that your whole case against Norman rests on
> your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
> stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
I don't build a case against Norman at all, other than he lied about
chanting.
chanting.
>
>
>
> >If you paid attention you would note It's the
> > barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
>
> No, what you are concerned about is the fact he dared to put his head
> above the parapet and speak out against an oppressive regime. Your
> blather about "lying" and "chanting" is a diversion.
>
>
> >If you paid attention you would note It's the
> > barefaced lying about it that I am most concerned with.
>
> No, what you are concerned about is the fact he dared to put his head
> above the parapet and speak out against an oppressive regime. Your
> blather about "lying" and "chanting" is a diversion.
Oh, the irony. *actually* what we started arguing over was your
assertion that I support China, but you can only support that with
this waffle about criticising Norman.
assertion that I support China, but you can only support that with
this waffle about criticising Norman.
Pathetic effort, Mowithey, or whatever you are calling yourself today.
<snip>
> Not if the liikes of you have anything to do with it. You've
> repeatedly condemned him for doing just that.
> repeatedly condemned him for doing just that.
Condemning his childing and undignified behaviour in no way prevents
him from doing anything, liar.
him from doing anything, liar.
>
>
>
> > He should do it in a manner that does not demean himself and Parliament. Even Goff agrees with this.
>
> Did you see my comment above about the political establishment? That's
> Goff, a crawler par excellence. As I say, JohnO, you're by no means
> alone.
>
You sure as hell are. At least you have your multiple personalities to
keep each other company.
keep each other company.
>
>
> > > You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> > > Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> > > repression.
>
> > Ranting nonsense, Mowithey.
>
> It's not nonsense, JohnO, and you know it. If you support Chinese
> government enforcers stamping out public dissent you are a supporter
> of those enforcers.
>
> > > You support the right of Chinese government goons to silence a New
> > > Zealand M.P. You are a shameless supporter of Chinese Communist
> > > repression.
>
> > Ranting nonsense, Mowithey.
>
> It's not nonsense, JohnO, and you know it. If you support Chinese
> government enforcers stamping out public dissent you are a supporter
> of those enforcers.
You have yet to point out in any way that I have supported the
stamping out of dissent. You are just a dissembling, diverting liar,
failing at every turn.
stamping out of dissent. You are just a dissembling, diverting liar,
failing at every turn.
|
On Jul 7, 11:43 pm, JohnO <johno1...@gmail.com> rants and rages and
bawls but says nothing new:
> On Jul 7, 10:32 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd<daisycutterspo...@lycos.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Stop lying, Mowissey. None of the above in any any apologies for China
> > > or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
>
> > No it is not. You could easily have criticised Norman's style or lack
> > of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
> > people of Tibet. You did not do that.
>
> Irrelevant and weak.
> .
>
> > In fact, you have loudly
> > supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
> > goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
>
> Liar. As I said, I'm happy for him to make is statement *without
> demeaning himself or Parliament*.
bawls but says nothing new:
> On Jul 7, 10:32 pm, Radio Transcripts Ltd<daisycutterspo...@lycos.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Stop lying, Mowissey. None of the above in any any apologies for China
> > > or supports its policies. It is purely about Norman.
>
> > No it is not. You could easily have criticised Norman's style or lack
> > of it, if you wanted to be that petty, yet endorsed his support of the
> > people of Tibet. You did not do that.
>
> Irrelevant and weak.
How is it irrelevant? If your concern with Norman was with his style,
rather than the substance of his protest, you would have said so. You
did not because his personal style does not matter to you or the other
friends of Communist China; what matters is his gall.
rather than the substance of his protest, you would have said so. You
did not because his personal style does not matter to you or the other
friends of Communist China; what matters is his gall.
> .
>
> > In fact, you have loudly
> > supported the closing down of his lone voice, by Chinese government
> > goons, in our parliamentary grounds.
>
> Liar. As I said, I'm happy for him to make is statement *without
> demeaning himself or Parliament*.
Nonsense. How does holding up a Tibetan flag demean anybody but the
Chinese regime and its apologists?
Chinese regime and its apologists?
>
>
>
> > > > Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
>
> > > You lie again, as this clearly shows:
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> > > He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over.
>
> > He yelled it a couple of times.
>
> Four times before he got bustled out of the way.
>
> > That's hardly chanting.
>
> Oh, you are now waffling about *degrees* of chanting? Pathetic. He was, end of story.
>
>
> > > > Of course, Russell Norman was not chanting.
>
> > > You lie again, as this clearly shows:
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
> > > He's chanting 'freedom for Tibet, over and over.
>
> > He yelled it a couple of times.
>
> Four times before he got bustled out of the way.
>
> > That's hardly chanting.
>
> Oh, you are now waffling about *degrees* of chanting? Pathetic. He was, end of story.
The people making an issue of his "chanting" (do you even understand
what chanting is?) are the people affronted by his protest---i.e. the
Chinese government and its New Zealand defenders.
what chanting is?) are the people affronted by his protest---i.e. the
Chinese government and its New Zealand defenders.
>
>
>
> > > I don't specifically
> > > have a problem with that
>
> > Nonsense. You ranted about it repeatedly. It's the core of your
> > argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
>
> Because of the way he did, not what he did. But you are simply
> divverting away from your original lie that I support China.
>
>
> > > I don't specifically
> > > have a problem with that
>
> > Nonsense. You ranted about it repeatedly. It's the core of your
> > argument---i.e. Norman's protest was "undignified".
>
> Because of the way he did, not what he did. But you are simply
> divverting away from your original lie that I support China.
You support the "right" of Chinese government thugs to stamp out the
slightest sign of protest in New Zealand's parliamentary grounds, you
pour scorn on the M.P. who stood up to those goons, you object to his
opening his mouth in protest. You are a complete supporter of the
Chinese government.
slightest sign of protest in New Zealand's parliamentary grounds, you
pour scorn on the M.P. who stood up to those goons, you object to his
opening his mouth in protest. You are a complete supporter of the
Chinese government.
>
> And no wonder you are diverting from that - you look like a fool.
> And no wonder you are diverting from that - you look like a fool.
No I am not. And you know it. I have pinpointed your hypocrisy and
your blind reiteration of government apologetics (both Chinese and New
Zealand) and all you can do is hurl around epithets.
your blind reiteration of government apologetics (both Chinese and New
Zealand) and all you can do is hurl around epithets.
>
>
>
> > > - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
>
> > He did not lie.
>
> Of course he did.
>
>
>
> > Once again, I point out that your whole case against Norman rests on
> > your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
> > stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
>
> I don't build a case against Norman at all,
>
>
> > > - but he shouldn't lie about it afterwards.
>
> > He did not lie.
>
> Of course he did.
>
>
>
> > Once again, I point out that your whole case against Norman rests on
> > your assertions that he was an "embarrassment" and that his principled
> > stand was a "cheap publicity stunt".
>
> I don't build a case against Norman at all,
You certainly did not.
>
> other than he lied about chanting.
> other than he lied about chanting.
That point is asinine, JohnO, and I think you know it. Why not just
admit you were, and are, in the wrong here? Or simply assert that you
are in the right, if you insist. After all, this is a free country,
unlike Communist China. But please, please do not try to say you are
not a supporter of Communist China. Your words in earlier posts bear
testimony against you.
admit you were, and are, in the wrong here? Or simply assert that you
are in the right, if you insist. After all, this is a free country,
unlike Communist China. But please, please do not try to say you are
not a supporter of Communist China. Your words in earlier posts bear
testimony against you.
No comments:
Post a Comment