Are you freaking kidding me?

What the bloody hell was I saying just the other day.

You DO NOT come onto this site & say any vile shit that you think fit.  YOU DO NOT make threats against other people, YOU DO NOT wish people dead (figurative of literally) you DO NOT say shit that will see me in front of the courts.

Calvin you are that freaking close from being banned & your email address published for the would to tell you just how they bloody feel.  I can only guess from your behaviour you are a 10 year old boy discovering the internet for the very first time, sadly I know this not to be true & who should know better.

BTW Calvin, you have not been exactly 100% stellar with the facts & figures when it comes to crunching the sums here, so please for the love of pity sake, refrain from loading a shotgun full of stones and standing in a glasshouse (this place).

I tell you people, this is the last bloody time. Clean your bloody act up or it’s bye bye Whatif & start you own site up.

Paul Le Comte – really f-ing pissed off.


Filed under Stadiums

24 responses to “Are you freaking kidding me?

  1. I have no idea what is going on Paul, instead of threatening me Elizabeth, please could you moderate as well as email anyone whom you think has crossed the line – that’s a courtesy. Simple really instead of the circus. You’re welcome to set up a meeting with me soon as. Clearly we have things to discuss.

  2. Paul, I take your comments as being in earnest. However I would be slightly interested if you would explain the ‘non stellar’ facts and figures referred to so that I can either verify or apologise. If not, I will stand by those highlighted. After all, I do have a plethora of reference material for a 10 year old boy.

  3. Elizabeth I am not threatening you, I am warning the stupid people of this blog once again that behaviour that gets me in trouble will not be tolerated.

    I would (seemingly idealistically) like to believe that although I don’t necessarily agree with the comments on this site, I don’t have to spend my days at the beacon call of this site policing the insane comments folk make. I have a life, you have life. In fact I was at school picking up my sick kid when someone text me to say have you seen what Calvin has said today – how is that reasonable.

    No I don’t have time to moderate ever comment, I don’t have time to email people who are so childish as to not moderate then own behaviour, I don’t have time to negotiate with folk as to what is or isn’t acceptable behaviour on this site.

    As you know I let 99.99% of of the crap stand, I couldn’t care less if the Mayor has or hasn’t got a grasp on facts and figures as deemed by individuals, but I do care that my days are increasingly being interrupted by folk here who simply can’t help themselves and at my/our expense say what they bloody well like.

    • Let’s hope the football teams, coaches, managers and players don’t take offence at Twitter ;) I doubt they’re worried by free speech there given love of the game. Keep calm. It was a nice day. Never trip over political agendas received by comment, tweet, text or email – it’s spring (March Hare stuff) and oh, pre-October.

  4. The difference Elizabeth I don’t own twitter & I am ultimately responsible for the crap I say there – that is a choice I make. Here, I am responsible for everything that is said wether I like it or not, I don’t make the choice to be the owner of ‘the man must hang’ comments.

    I can not go to someone’s house & put up a billboard saying whatever I like & expect the owner just put up with it.

    I don’t care about agendas or even 99.99% of what is said here, but ultimately by law I am responsible for this place & that’s all that matters.

    Yes it was a good day until I had to become someone’s mother again…

  5. Peter

    This all a bit weird, Paul. Your own language is rather intemperate, don’t you think?
    I certainly don’t agree with some views and sentiments expressed here (like yourself), to the point of even feeling uncomfortable at times, but I think for your own credibility you have to explain the kinds of pressures being put on you, how often, whether it is by the same people, and what are the common objections raised, by whoever and, ideally, name these objectors. Otherwise, you could be accused of deliberately caving in to these people – possibly quite willingly – and using this ‘pressure’ as a pretext for closing this site.
    I realise this is up to you as you ultimately own the site, but it does raise questions about yourself, if you did so, whether you like it or not.

    Calm discussion by phone or meeting is best. Not here. It’s embarrassing. It’s like hearing a couple row in public.

  6. Russell Garbutt

    I too would be interested in learning just who was applying so much pressure. In my experience, often it is those with most to hide that will do most to prevent exposure.

    I can think of so many instances whereby, for example, entities such as the NZ Police, or the DIA will, for many reasons do everything within their power including legal threats to prevent the exposure of their ineptitude. This isn’t just imagination, it is provable. There are a large number of people within our community that simply don’t want their activities exposed because they operate on the fringes of propriety while masquerading as benevolent and upright members of the business community. When mainstream media are connected to some of these activities, then it is only by sites such as this, that a little illumination can be used to show what is actually going on. An example that springs to mind are the arrangements that were made round the naming rights of the stadium. Just as one – but I could name dozens of examples.

    All that said, I think Paul has two options available to him as owner of this site. Close it down, or actively mediate it to meet his “standards”. Equally, anyone who is a regular contributor or reader has two options. Use it on the basis of Paul’s “standards” or start their own site.

    Whichever options are chosen, it is imperative that such social discourse is able to be continued. Because without freedom to express opinion – and never forget that the readers form their own judgement in any case – then people that should be exposed, will remain hidden.

  7. Paul; I’ve been busy trying to work out what you were implying when you said some of my figures were ‘less than stellar’. Suddenly the penny dropped. It was about the time of the thread on the world junior soccer tournament and you said that, despite criticism of the Forsyth Barr Stadium there were successful and profitable stadiums around the world. You then named the ‘Rogers Arena’ in Toronto Canada as being one. I then researched and found that it had opened around 1989 at an inflation adjusted cost of $918 million. Then through a convoluted series of mishaps it was finally sold for $25 million, at which stage it is now profitable. Paul, you are absolutely right, those figures are very much ‘less than stellar’. Thanks for reminding me.

    • Liked the idea of keeping this site running (fed it every day in some way or other and did so since Paul invited me in, this included all spoofing and characterisation of ‘Elizabeth’ that happened as part of the sane, insane, un-bright, plotting and incendiary) – hours and hours of work went in to keep it going, for the free-speaking bloggers to say their minds, yell, let off steam, provide essential facts, expose or whatever. The numbers listening in are a credit. But hey, Paul paid me well to dedicate all the time so I can’t complain. It was a pleasure. Lost count of how many chocolate fish he slipped me.

      [always reads better past tense]

  8. Peter

    It is noteworthy that these faceless characters who complain do so, not directly to those bloggers who don’t use pseudonyms, but to the owner of the site. These kind of people always try to find the weakest link to silence what they don’t want others to know. They do it in secret. They do it because sometimes, what is revealed, hurts. They don’t want people to know their business… which turns out to be our business when it affects us detrimentally.
    I think we have a good idea who these sensitive souls might be, don’t we. We know because we have heard of specific occasions when they have used these power ploys to shut people up.

  9. Phil

    Thank goodness we still have off-shore forums, blogsites, and the like which aren’t subjected to anonymous pressures.

  10. Hype O'Thermia

    Paul, as an example of the terrible pressure put upon you, you write,
    “someone text me to say have you seen what Calvin has said today”. Have you considered assistance to put such threats to your finances and wellbeing into proportion? Sometimes people say disagreeable things to me but I have found that by calmly assessing whether this is genuinely, realistically harmful, or just someone expressing their own issues by loudly sounding off, I can 99.999999% of the time avoid reacting in a way that upsets myself. For me it works best not to feed the over-heated one’s fires (unless it’s amusing at the time). If someone threatens you with violence of course this is not a wise approach, instead you should contact the police promptly.

    • I say, befriend a farm animal and for godsakes hide the bungy cord.
      That’s how to deal with it! Dave should be happy with that.

      [It’s ok, trying to connect things I don’t know, or people who recently posted here on elections that are suddenly missing presumed drowned – that’s what inexplicable damned marooning does to unfortunates, cast into exile on the knoll, with fierce flood waters about. The desperation, chastisement and chafing. And safety lines for expression that weren’t thrown. Someone heard shouting.]

      Great material for the book ‘Come hither? Dunedin…’ due out before Christmas.

  11. Anonymous

    There’s a Canadian legal decision which found that comments on a blog were not libellious if there was a method of reply (such as a comment facility) that allowed the impugned party to counter the original claim. If this mechanism was available and not used, then the libel claim was thrown out.

    • It certainly seems to offer a rational and workable protocol – and an understanding of free speech that technically (in Canadian law, by precedent) would be of benefit if adopted in New Zealand.

    • Pete, thanks for filling us in – it’s reprehensible that Radio NZ thinks that this is in any way right and proper, and is so far outside democratic principles that it boggles the mind !!
      I haven’t listened to previous episodes of Outspoken which have also dealt with pre-election issues around the country.
      Twitter and national blogs will be useful, as will print media, to point to Radio NZ’s ineptitude, slant, and lack of democratic principle.
      Wish I’d known about this earlier.
      That the RNZ, as a national broadcaster, didn’t self-critique their rampant bias here, is extraordinary.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s