An Italian Marxist abusing a 4th generation Kiwi? That resonates about as loudly as Kim Schmidt pleading to be take seriously. I might ask Snowden if he can help me check your papers.
This isn't the first time it's come up - there seems to be a growing trend of petty nationalism (and racism, and sexism) across the majority of western democracies, at least since the GFC, and in direct reversal of what had seemed to be a trend away from nationalism in the decade prior. It's an interesting and depressing trend.
I've set out to contribute respectfully and reasonably and intelligently today which I have. And any quick reference to the last few hours will reveal the fairly substantial amount of abuse I've received in return. And when I snap back on occasion, out come the knives. Do many of you find it nigh on impossible to tolerate input from someone not part of the predominate persuasion?
But don't you think it all a little dull if all that transpired was mass agreement?
On whatever grounds you attack me, it is patently clear it's what I defend, not what or how I say it that really bugs you. Don't be so afraid. Eliminate the risk of this wonderful site becoming just a forum for lemming-like zealots.
But guys, remember, it’s just that JaJerSamAdam espouses such edgy original and controversial opinions. Like, “That John Key, he seems nice,” and “Man, feminists, so humourless, amiright?”
Careful – if you’re too mean he’ll slip back into aposiopesic fits of apoplexy, and then his barrage of posts will take even longer to scroll past.
Thanks, Alfie. I've asked it on three other sites too on posts by the following journalists: David Fisher, Tim Watkin and Bernard Hickey - so far everyone's mum as to Fisher's source and indeed Russell is the only one who has included a correction to the assumption that it came from Dotcom himself. As I suggested on Hickey's article - if the Hollywood execs faked their own email - the story would be bigger than Ben Hur :-)!!! What will I do for entertainment when this election campaign is over, eh?
mental health shaming slurs
Ok Craig, on that call I'll accept fault. I also think it was pretty damn clear from my post that I thought neither of those things were reasonable explanations but you are right, even as a light hearted contrast to the more reasonable explanations I was wrong to use them.
1. It is my real name.
2. I have been polite.
3. I do listen.
4. I won't compromise on my Key-admiration status.
5. I won't turn on proven, highly respectable journalists just because their conclusions don't suit my bias.
6. I won't take name-calling directed at me comfortably.
7. I won't feel as though my opinions are somewhat diminished because I haven't been around long.
8. I did respond positively to Mr. Brown reminding me that it's not about me.
9. I never intend to offend but if putting forward my opinion does, I can't help that.
10. I would prefer being told that I'm not welcome based on having differing viewpoints to the PA status-quo as opposed to being regularly undermined by lowly ad-hominem comments.
dude check yourself. I haven't seen one bit of ad hominem criticism directed at you. On the other hand, today you made "jokes" about checking Giovanni's papers and how feminists are oh so sensitive. If you listened more carefully you might have understood how that would go down.
To be fair, I did call him an imbecile, but that was after a particularly creepy exchange he had with Danielle. And I fully stand by my assessment.
And I called him a sock puppet, but that's because Jeremy Botham is his real...Sam Bryant is his real...Jake Starrow is his real name.
I've set out to contribute respectfully and reasonably and intelligently today which I have.
Your contributions may seem that way to you and all three adverbs would probably apply if you were posting on the oily site.
But really Jake, (or whatever you're calling yourself today) -- have a look around... get a feel for the neighbourhood. Notice the tidy lawns and the absense of vandalism?
It's not all about you. Honestly.
Just today, I've been called "an imbecile" "a sock puppet" "a troll bingo" and "creep"
Without any ad hominem provocation but more fiercely defending the integrity of the likes of Fran O'Sullivan who was harshly defamed.
Relax everybody, your team might still win. It's no certainty either way .
Just today, I’ve been called “an imbecile” “a sock puppet” “a troll bingo” and “creep”
And now a bunny .
are you aware of the clever mens hair colouring products that are available today Richard. They would give your appearance more credibility than your appearance.
Please note. Richard started it and I responded. And that's the usual pattern.
You're just not very good at this. Have you considered taking up another hobby? Macramé? Interpretive dance?
That's my shtick...
Ya just gotta watch out for
those Factitious characters, though...
rather...."they would give your appearance more credibility than your abuse
Kinda funny Danielle....like the flu can be on very rare occasions
Another load of shoot the messenger tripe. You don’t like the conclusions Fran O’Sullivan comes to so you lash out at her personally.
Fran isn’t deranged, nor is she really stupid nor is she a liar…all of which you suggest she is.
And nor did Fran agree to run a story edited by the Nats under her own name.
No, none of that, but in that column she’s gone completely tribal in election week in a way (Snowden using “stolen National Security Agency files”) that betrays her own good work every time she has reported on the basis of leaked documents.
Rather than dish out defamatory abuse, I suggest you go into a darkened room and chant a million times ” Maybe Fran got it right, maybe Fran got it right… etc etc etc.
No, she didn’t. That column is an absurd mish-mash of mistakes, omissions and non-sequitirs. Fran can be great, but that column is, frankly, terrible. There’s simply no excuse for quoting Key’s “no middle ground” opening gambit and not noting his progressive equivocations since.
That exercise might just bring you to your senses in some self-hypnotic kind of a way..
Stop it. I know you’re not the only doing the ad-hominem baiting, but you are the only one on your third pseudonym in two weeks. Do not push it.
Everyone else also, please don’t turn into Kiwiblog comments. You can rebut someone’s argument without personally attacking them.
I’ve had a very busy day and I may run out of patience soon.
Really? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that she was defamed.
Or perhaps my post, to which you reacted so vehemently, was quite simply highlighting how absurd her conclusions were given the events of the last few days.
I will admit, as I have to Craig that using examples that intimated mental illness was a mistake. However, your response was as ludicrous as her original column. To threaten, and yes I use that word deliberately, defamation of her character was absurd.
Most readers here would take your post and the others that have followed it as trolling, whether you intended to troll or not. That is what people are trying to communicate to you when they suggest you should be aware of the neighbourhood and how at odds with it your comments are.
Ok. I'll give it my best shot to rise about the heckling. And I will. Was Fran really that bad?
Everyone else also
Yeah sorry Russell. Not my best work.
He's a knotty boy...
taking up another hobby
1. It is my real name.
you should really google "Jake Starrow" (with the quotes), apart from your postings here all one gets is the defunct facebook page of some 13yr old english kid trying to look all gangster. It's as if you came into being out of the etherwhen you started posting here
He also intimated that I'd been trippin' on 'shrooms, but, you know I just let that kinda shit just, er………… wash….hmmmm………wait on……OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHWEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!