Thursday, November 05, 2009

I am a "bullshit troll" apparently

This happens from time to time. Someone has a crack me for not just a view expressed but for living in Eastbourne. I guess Metiria Turei is taking over from Sue Bradford, except, Sue never got personal I must say.

Worse than this however is a comment on the Standard;

Lindsey is incorrect, and so are you. Why do I know this? Because I’ve never seen her do a straight set of stats to date, it is always biased to what result she wants. I don’t think that she will have changed her long term trend just now. For that matter I’ve yet to see her link to the sources of her stats – the sure sign of a bullshit troll.

I know that over the years I have made mistakes but always put my hand up and I certainly don't hide the sources of my statistics. The poster says he will provide me with examples when he gets time.

I hope so because far more people read The Standard than read this blog. If there is substance to the claim, put it up.

20 comments:

KG said...

You know what they say about fighting with pigs, Lindsay...

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I suggest you formally ask for a retraction and apology.

pdm said...

Far more people might read the Standard than read your blog Lindsay.

But, I think you will find that far more people believe what you write than believe what they see at the Standard.

RightNow said...

Far more left leaning idealogues read the standard perhaps, but they're never going to change their opinions based on facts Lindsay.
The polls are to them highly dubious, and to them the voters are clearly being duped by Mr Key's nice smile.

bez said...

Lindsay, I've checked out both threads you've been referring to, and can only reach one conclusion:
You're wasting your time.

The people at Frog and Stranded will, never, ever, even try to understand your argument or comprehend your statistics. They will always revert to the 'debating' tactics of the left: attack the man, not the ball and shout out or shut up the opponent. The arguments they develop are nonsense, they use the most ridiculous of assertions as holy writ and will always restructure any and all argument to align with dogmatic statements of their perverted truth. Just one argument I picked up at the Stranded was an idiot who suggested that increasing the minimum wage "send a market signal".
I mean, people that come up with that sort of logic, are beyond salvation until they grow up and get a real job one day.
I'd stop wasting your time, and use your boundless energy to get your message across in another way, like your press releases and TV appearance.

big bruv said...

Don't worry about it Lindsay, in their eyes you have already committed the most heinous crime imaginable by even suggesting that low life would be better off working for a living.

Buggerlugs said...

The Left don't deal in facts. Eric Roy has been having a letters to the editor battle with a real 'bullshit troll' in Lesley Soper. Eric has been posting fact after fact, while Soper discounts these as lies because...(wait for it) Rod Oram said something different in the SST! And then she just makes stuff up to support an insupportable (sic) point. Par for the course for all Labour loopys for the last nine years and longer. You're getting under their skin, Lindsay - a sure sign of success!

libertyscott said...

Given the Standard has now posted about "what if the capitalist parasites didn't exist" and wondering about the alternatives, it is another universe.

I was denigrated because I kept insisting competition in ACC is different from privatisation and no one uses the word privatisation anywhere else when there is no transfer of state assets to the private sector. The links given to argue it I completely fisked and I was told to go away, as the emperor had no clothes and didn't like me pointing.

brian_smaller said...

Lindsay - I don't visit the Standard as they don't have any. To the lefty trolls there "analysis" is what they need, not something they do with facts and figures.

toad said...

Lindsay, you had an op ed in the NZ Herald a month or so ago:

"When the United States declared war on poverty and expanded welfare in the 1960s, poverty won. When it reformed welfare in the 1990s, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and so did poverty levels."

Well, not according to the University of Michigan’s Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy:

"In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004."


So poverty levels, contrary to your assertion, dropped right through to 1973 and remained reasonably stable through to the early 1980s.

And they started to decline in 1993 – three years before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton. So you are wrong again.

And to claim the trifecta of inaccuracy, under the welfare reforms you laud, poverty levels rose between 2000 and 2004.

Or maybe you're using a different measure of poverty to the researchers at the University of Michigan. We just don’t know.

I wouldn't go as far as calling you a "bullshit troll", but that impression does get reinforced by making assertions of fact that can be challenged and failing to citing the sources of your supposed facts.

wino said...

Oh my your live in Eastbourne - shame on you (or something) LOL.

I can't bring myself to read the Standard it makes me nauseous...

Manolo said...

Lindsay, take her comments as a compliment. You know you are hurting them when the Luddites have to stoop to personal attack, instead of the contest of ideas.

Keep up your excellent work!

Oswald Bastable said...

Manolo just beat me to it!

Keep up the outstanding work- and take no prisoners!

Anonymous said...

I suggest you formally ask for a retraction and apology.

Fuck it. Call up Franks or Madeline and sue the bastards. Or get some guys from a Rugby team to knock some sense into them.

The only languages the left understands.

pdm said...

Anon - better for Lindsay to get a League team rugby plyers are not even allowed to `nudge' an opponent these days as evidenced by Woodcock's suspension.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Lindsay said...
I hope so because far more people read The Standard than read this blog.

You're 100% correct there Lindsay and the reason is because, only the intellectual handicapped people who can't read informative blog like yours, go to The-Starndard. One has to read messages posted by commentators and wondered if he/she just stumbled across a kindergarden website. I am talking about the depth of knowledge in their articles and their (left-wing) commentators.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Toad, you seem to be all over the place. You quoted a University of Michigan's study to have a go at Lindsay and justified your pro-Welfare, but YOU (Greens) and the commentators at The-Standard, ignore a study that I posted over there (I think last year), that showed that raising minimum wages, will sustain high youth unemployment. Despite that post I made, your comrades at the Greens were still pushing to raise minimum wage via legislation.

So, you and the Greenies didn't believe the findings of the research paper I quoted, but now you believe some studies from University of Michigan huh?

What does that say about the Greens?

One word. Hypocrites.

Sus said...

Toad quotes figs from U Mich. That same report says this:


"The official poverty measure has been criticized for not accounting for several factors that can affect a family's economic well-being and for not having been updated, except for inflation, for four decades.

For example, while cash benefits from government assistance programs are included in a family's income when calculating the official poverty measure, benefits received in-kind such as food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid, employer provided health insurance, housing subsidies, and other social services are excluded. Taxes that families pay and tax credits they receive such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) do not enter into the official poverty determination.

Additionally, the threshold value a family must earn to escape poverty was developed in the 1960s by combining emergency food budget data from the US Department of Agriculture with an estimate of what fraction of income families spend on food. Although the thresholds are adjusted each year for inflation, some analysts believe that these numbers no longer accurately reflect the minimal resources a family requires."


"Poverty" is an extremely emotive term, the definition of which varies greatly between the first & third worlds. I saw various hard-up communities while travelling through the US myself 20+ years ago.

But its massive growth in govt, and by extension govt services over the last few decades must affect those stats.

Further, not measured is the psychological impact of generational welfare. Poverty of intelligence, anyone?

However, a proportion of the electorate in a perpetual state of mental & fiscal disadvantage is very handy for the left come election time. All the more easier to buy 'em off with another tenner, eh?

Tears shed for the poor, Toad? More like crocodile tears I think ...

Falafulu Fisi said...

The study that I mentioned above is shown below:

MINIMUM WAGES, LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS, AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT: A CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS

Anonymous said...

Lindsay
You are a traitor to the female gender and it gets you some nice misogynist fans and might even pay quite well. Most women who disagree with your points of view do not even speak because of the consequences like loss of career mariage leading to impoverishment etc. Only women who promote vicous victimisation of their own gender are comfortable enough to speak out. They have some ardent male fans.
Just incase you are unaware Lindsay if children are left alone a woman can be jailed for neglect. How do you suggest single mothers pay the childcare fees to avoid this problem. The fathers of their children are not asked to contribute yet often sit on the sidelines and slag off the mothers of their own children who are required by law to provide 24 hour care.
Yes it might be a sensisble idea financially for women to marry before they have children but I think you will find most single parents have been married and are divorced.
According to a Herald poll more than 40% of men have been unfaithfull to their wives and about 16% of married women have cheated. They failed to mention though that wives infideity is usually a revenge affair after discovering a husbands affair.
We get this constant bullshit that men are just different and women are forgiving but the truth is the consequences for a mother having an affair are the end of her marriage and life long impoverishment unless she gets another ( cheating bastard ) husband. Wronged women bury their
anger to keep a roof over theirs and their childrens heads but they shouldnt have to.
Do you think women should put up with infidelity Lindsay please tell me.
You talk about their being less poverty when mothers get off welfare but what are their lives like? Studies in the US show the average mother does about 50 hours housework per week. If you combine this with working say a minimum of 40 hours thats 90 hours per week and many mothers work sixty hours plus for pittance wages. Their children are often left alone. So what should women in the US and NZ do when their partners visit prostitutes, strip clubs, bash them etc Lindsay. The cause of female poverty is often abuse by husbands. If your husband cheats or beats you either put up with it or you pay for the rest of your life.
What sort of quality of life do mothers have working 24/7. They might have a little more moeny but most compalain of complete physical exhaustion. They have no quality of life as is the same for many married mothers doing the same thing. Marriage is not something I would even think about. Its just slavery for many women Lindsay.
I know many mothers who come home from work and start doing the housework while their husband minds the kids. They work untill midnight and dont even get time with their own children. The husband and children have a slave cleaner. Women putting up with this is nothing to do with childrens welfare if all they actually do is work cook and clean.
We are constantly lectured by capitalists that women should sacrifice for children.
Well if they live miserable impoverished overworked lives then their daughters will too. The only benefactors are men.