Banned!!!

This is truly pathetic and a very sad indictment on those conducting a campaign to destroy the hopes of many of us wanting a stadium built.

I have been actively engaged in presenting an alternate voice on their web site. It is of course their web site and they can do what they like, but as a blog inviting public opinion, I took up my democratic right to voice a free opinion.

Sure I have been very active, but is that a crime. Just as they have made it their mission to stop the stadium being built, I have made it my mission to try and dispel many of their fears and of course to take them to task over some of the sillier claims – not forgetting some of the flat out lies they seem keen to encourage and foster.

There is of course no right or wrong answer with this stadium, only opinion, but an organisation that has actively sought public participation is suddenly in the very strange position of participating in censorship. Not only are they banning me for a week, they are suggesting longer.

What a terrible look for an organisation seeking openness and opinion.

BTW I challenge anyone within the StS to go through the posts and find where I have been less then courteous or even rude which could facilitate a ban.

This is also a very dangerous way to conduct ones affairs on the internet. They had better be bloody certain what they are doing is in fact a sensible move.

{Edit to this post. It seems that I was banned for simply having a large number of posts at their blog

this from Anne

The time out meted out to one participant on this site is because of his excessive postings that have stifled any sort of informed debate. More than 200 postings by one person or about that person’s views, is a few too many. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘having a different view.’ If that was the case, it would be quite serious. But it’s not.

So to have a voice and the time to debate is now reason to be banned from an organisation that is seeking openness from the CST, DCC and ORC. How can their claims be anything but laughable now in the face of this somewhat Communist regime tactic}

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Hot air, Media

15 responses to “Banned!!!

  1. Meg Davidson

    Calling people liars, Paul, and not being able to back up your claims, is not only discourteous and rude, it is defamatory. It is against the law.

    I came here because I knew you would have run home crying. Pity there’s nobody here to play with, but again I think you’ve only yourself to blame.

    Anne said it wasn’t a lifetime ban, only time-out for a week, in order to give other people a chance to state their views. I notice a few stadium supporters have come on board and they will be welcome as long as they play by the rules.

  2. Meg that is not only sad it’s truly pathetic.

    This is my blog, it is my forum to discuss any issues what so ever with regard to the StS and it’s deceitful campaign, as it is becoming evidently clearer which it has become.

    Meg, to make claims that are simply not true over and over again, in the face of the facts is a lie. For instance everytime someone tells us that it is a 20,000 seat stadium, they are lying. I can not make it any clearer than that. It is a 30,00+ stadium.

    As for the nobody here to play with, what’s with that. I know what the statistics are. What you mean is that the StS now that they have their own forum to continue myths and disinformation, they don’t need to come here. I have plenty of visitors a day the stats speak for themselves, and funny, many of them are coming from the StS site itself. If people choose to debate an issue here that is their choice.

    As for the ban. The web is a wonderful thing in that pixels and bits and bytes are relatively cheap and at this stage more or less an infinite resource. The wordpress platform which our blogs are both built upon has a 3gb traffic limit, however I an pretty sure that doesn’t include the database which drives the text on the screen. By me posting any comments on that site, does not preclude any other person making a comment. It’s not a matter or my comments taking valuable interweb real estate from others, the web just doesn’t work like that.

    “play by the rules” these would be to;

    not question the StS and it’s motives?
    not question the disinformation?
    not question the rubbish claims?

    or all of the above.

    Up until this moment, I had somewhere in the back the slightest admiration for the work of the StS, even though I didn’t agree with it’s goals. I thought the political action was brilliant and it’s a great indictment on our democracy that bodies lie the StS can exist. However any and all respect for the StS has gone right out the window. Especially since Anne continues to refuse to delete a very personal attack on me after I was banned. How can one respond to personal attacks. It’s a very underhand and I would simply say filthy turn of events.

    Also you will notice if you read the posts today, it was Peter Attwooll whom was infact chasing my posts, engaging me personally. I was posting and he was doing the chasing, to which on the whole I was ignoring. It’s a tactic I’ve seen over the blogosphere, normally on some of the nastier right wing political blogs, rather than here.

    But your final comments illustrate so beautifully the deceitful nature of the StS.

    “I notice a few stadium supporters have come on board an”

    I have been back to your site, and the two pro stadium folk whom have come along, have come along to protest my banning. They haven’t come to see the error of their ways.

  3. “I knew you would have run home crying”

    not gloating there are we Meg?

  4. Meg. This is an example of what could be described at the very least being completely dishonest with the truth (or as my Gran would say, is a lie).

    “Damien Garrett // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    There is nothing wrong with Carisbrook. All Carisbook needs to be upgrade, which would roughly cost $80 million dollars which would be cheaper then 188 million or 400 million for the proposed stadium.”

    Where does this $400m figure come from? There aren’t any published certifiable figures which back this assertion. At best it’s a sensational estimate with the cause to shock, at worst it’s as my Gran would say.

    From the so called Ten Facts about the proposed stadium.

    “2 We are told the anticipated cost of the stadium has not escalated despite the cost of steel rising sharply.

    Do you know that the Stadium design has already been modified because of rising costs. Do you know the design does not protect ordinary spectators from the cold or wind? ”

    This is simply not true (or what would my Nan say?), and a published one at that. I have checked and had this information verified for me. There will be ventilation within the stadium, this is to ensure that the grass will grow. If it blows at 100Km outside it will blow about 5 to 6km inside. The temp difference between inside and outside
    will be between 3 to 6 C.

    This is the fact of the matter, yet the StS continues to publish to the contrary. A very strange thing for a group of people seeking truth and openness.

    Currently at Carisbrook if it is blowing 100km outside it will be blowing 100km over “ordinary spectators”. In the new stadium that will be between 5-6km and of course there wont be any rain with that.

  5. Strange that they would do such a thing. They have people from the likes of the Alliance Party, which being a Socialist party would seem somewhat against their ideals.

  6. Yeah Cheers, bizarre action to take eh.

    I’m a member of the Green Party, and there is no way they would stoop to such stupidity at frogblog. I pray the Greens support for the StS is reviewed soon.

  7. Shall we take the Merriam-Webster definition of a lie.

    1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
    2: something that misleads or deceives.

    So using this definition, and the following claim by the StS “Do you know the design does not protect ordinary spectators from the cold or wind?”

    What am I to assume of the StS’s claim here?

    It definitely fits 1b of the definition and most certainly fits nicely into definition 2, considering in fact that this statement isn’t true and is possibly on their site to mislead people. Why else would it be there.

    If I am to apply their claim to dictionary.com’s definition of a Lie (as a noun) “an inaccurate or false statement”, all seems to be fine so far.

    And checking up on the New Oxford American Dictionary

    lie 2 |laɪ| |lʌɪ|
    noun
    an intentionally false statement

    Hmm, get the picture. You publish so called factual information about the stadium’s flaws, which of course are contrary to the truth and what do we have, well see the assorted definitions above.

    BTW Meg, seems banning me was a good thing, my visitor numbers have peaked compared to normal traffic, second biggest day yet on the old blog.

  8. This from the StS web site.

    “If the scheme’s proponents were privy to the actual seating details, they certainly weren’t letting on, because when it all emerged into the cold light of public scrutiny, it was for 16,000 ‘permanent’ seats, with 3500 ‘temporary’. And, there lies the first example of the devastating new ‘logic’ at work. We sell off a ground with capacity for 28,000, probably capable of being upgraded to 32,000 by ‘double-decking’ any one or more of the larger stands, putting the terraces under cover; and building in the gaps between existing stands; replace it with a new facility seating a maximum of 20,000, at a cost of $188 mill…”

    Sorry Meg, once again using the above definitions of a lie, this is what some would call a whopper. Because we all know that the actual capacity of the stadium as the design stands is over 30,000 people. This is an undeniable truth. Dr Hamlin repeated these claims at the inaugural meeting of the StS, to which there were many gasps, people actually believed his remarkable revelations. I have since heard this stuff repeated in the ODT, and unless they were at the public meeting, the only other place they could get such disinformation is from the StS, and lookie there it is in all it’s pixelated glory, a false claim.

    Taken from the StS web site
    http://stopthestadium.org.nz/index.php/2008/07/30/part-7-are-you-a-walter/

  9. Meg

    “not forgetting some of the flat out lies they seem keen to encourage and foster”

    is what I said. I did not say anyone in the StS per say was saying a lie. Also by pointing out said whoppers, I would assume that I am not being “defamatory”, as I am merely illustrating some of the increasingly less than truthfully published material on the StS web site.

    To defame someone is very serious indeed. To mislead people however is possibly a greater sin.

  10. Meg Davidson

    I agree my remark about you running home crying was unpleasant and unnecessary and I apologise. I don’t however resile from my objection to your use of the words ‘lies’ and ‘misinformation’ in connection with Stop the Stadium. I note you have them as key words on your posts here and use them at every opportunity. Our members have (for the first few months) treated you courteously, taken your posts seriously and rebutted your arguments at length, but nothing stops you.
    “To defame someone is very serious indeed. To mislead people however is possibly a greater sin.” That’s extremely questionable, and if you are suggesting that STS is doing that I reject that as well.
    I’m glad you have gained a bit of support for your blog. The ‘silent majority’ have indeed been very silent. It’s no wonder we doubt that they exist.

  11. Meg,

    this is about as simple as 1+1=2

    Do you accept the above definitions of a lie?
    Do you accept the above statements are on your web site?

    Is not the following statement in the objectives of the StS

    “To ensure that the views of the members of the Society are communicated effectively through all means at the Society’s disposal to the wider community”

    Thus by placing material on your site which is know to be untrue in a manner that is to persuade people against the stadium, would seemingly fit almost as perfect as a new Saville Row suit to the above definitions from the assorted dictionaries.

    “but nothing stops you”
    Meg, the day the StS either stops it’s campaign against the stadium or the day the ground is broken on the new stadium, I will continue to question the motives, the actions and seemingly the published words of the StS. That is the very heart of the democracy in which we live. Just as you are seemingly seeking the ‘truth’ from the DCC and CST, I wish for people to know that the truth isn’t as it seems within the published material of the StS. It is my democratic right in a free country to ask questions of you, if you are asking them of the CST and the DCC.

    Once again, the capacity of the stadium is not 20,000 and the people will be protected from the elements. This is undeniable.

    The StS continues to support the claims that the stadium could cost up to $400m. But at most these are astounding estimates. Why is it so hard for the StS not to accept the professional integrity of the likes of HOK, Arrow International and other multi-national companies involved in this project? Seemingly we have to accept the StS’s claims, but we aren’t allowed to accept the professional quotes and estimates of companies which have completed over 105 major international stadiums, with a combined value in excess of $21 Trillion USD (taking 10 minutes to go page by page through the wiki entries for each of their attributed stadia).

    I am all for public accountability, but some (indeed a lot) of the stuff coming out of the StS is verging on conspiracy theory stuff. If you think the city can’t afford it, that is fine. That is a very valid point to be taking, but to allow people to claim that global warming will flood the stadium, that transporting people to the Stadium is a bad thing for Global Warming (Anne herself lives in Middlemarch, how environmental is that for work in Dunedin?), that the stadium doesn’t in fact have a capacity over 30,000 but is in fact ‘hidden’ in the documents to be about 20,000 and that the ‘ordinary’ folk of Dunedin won’t be protected from the elements even though it will have a roof.

    This stuff is all pure fantasy. Which is strange for a society that seemingly seeks the ‘truth’ and ‘openness’ from the CST and DCC.

  12. BTW thanks for the apology

  13. Meg Davidson

    Paul we have been through this so many times. I will say it once more and depart.

    STS publishes opinions of all types on its website, That does not mean STS as a body condones or agrees with the sentiments expressed. Nor does STS endorse without question every utterance of invited guests at meetings and rallies. You can’t expect STS to be some sort of thought police, running around making sure its members toe the party line – let alone people who are not members.

    I’m won’t go into the individual points you have outlined above. None of them, as far as I can see, appear in STS’s own literature. We do say spectators will not be FULLY protected from the elements, which is true. The latest stadium plan shows it is NOT fully enclosed. It has open vents running the length of two stands between the back row of seats and the roof. We’re not disputing the need for them – simply stating that they exist.

    STS has no wish or intention to mislead, let alone conduct a campaign of lies and misinformation. Apart from the ethics of doing so, why would we, when the facts are damning enough?

    In carrying on in this vein you are impugning the integrity of a lot of people. You owe us an apology.

  14. “STS publishes opinions of all types on its website, That does not mean STS as a body condones or agrees with the sentiments expressed”

    If the StS goes out of it’s way to publish material on it’s web site (not comments but actual articles), as it must by copying and pasting it into the wordpress editor, even in the slightest way, without any editorial comment to the contrary, is giving tacit approval of the views.

    Given every standard dictionary definition of what constitutes a lie or misinformation, some content on the StS site (from whatever source) can fit within this framework.

    Misinformation : “that which is deliberately intended to deceive”.

    So given your above repeating of the claims published on the StS website “Do you know the design does not protect ordinary spectators from the cold or wind? ”, this fits almost perfectly with this definition.

    IF (and that’s a massive big bold IF), there was a 100km/hr wind outside the building, which coincided with an event at the stadium (very unlikely considering the winds in that part of town are considerably less than the rest), then the maximum wind in the building will be 5-6km/hr.

    However by putting the claim out by the StS as it stands, we are somehow meant to be swayed in our view that this will be a fully enclosed stadium in which we will all be nice and snug. Actually every major indoor stadium I have been to globally have been like fridges on the inside, but that’s an aside. And the wind created just by the convection of the atmosphere in the building is noticeable.

    If, as the StS claims, it is to be an avenue for information about the stadium to be exposed and expressed, and some of that information isn’t qualified by some form of Editorial advisory, what is the public to think, that this information is 100% beyond reproach unequivocally true? At the bottom of each statement, it would be very easy for Anne or anyone within the StS make a simple statement along the lines “this appears to be an estimate or opinion, the StS is unaware of the true extent of the claim”. That way the public could see that the opinion piece is qualified as simply opinion, estimate or stark raving mad commentary.

    I did notice once just recently Elizabeth correct a statement, saying something along the lines “that is an estimate which we are unable to confirm at this stage”. It was much appreciated, and as it should be on that site.

    Because pure and simply the web site set up by the StS is and could be a source of information for uniformed public. If that information isn’t correct or presented in a way as to misinform the public, even sensationalise, then the StS is complicit in providing false and inaccurate views of the development. Seemingly something that is against the ethos of the StS.

    I am not impugning the integrity of anyone, and there will be no apology forthcoming while information on the StS web site will continue to provide the public with information in a way that misinforms.

    “You can’t expect STS to be some sort of thought police, running around making sure its members toe the party line.” Yes I can. By being an incorporated body taking on a very large project, I would expect nothing less than what you expect of the elected officials running this city. Or at least the very top of this body to be exercising some form of editorial control.

    Look I don’t take this lightly, and this is not a fight I came looking for. It would go away if offending material was removed from the StS web site or was prefixed or suffixed by an editorial statement.
    I don’t even want to be wasting my time with this, but while its on the web site and the aims of the StS are to stop something that I want to see go ahead, I’ll carry on with it. Simple.

    As for the banning, Anne banned me for posting too many times, her words not mine. That is not only astounding it’s laughable. The internet is not a finite resource (that we know of) and there is no way by me responding to claims made by the StS or contributing commentators, that I can possibly stifle debate. It’s a physical impossibility. Pure and Simple the StS did not want to acknowledge that there alternative views to those held by the StS.

  15. KLK

    Meg:”Why would we when the facts are damning enough?”

    Depends on what “facts” your are working from, Meg. Unfortunately for you, its (among others) that the stadium will cost $400m and won’t shield people from the elements.

    Dishonourable? Deluded? Desperate? Probably all of the above….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s