https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so
enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote: >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

Yes very interesting, thank you.
I am very afraid that the antics of those who are striving for some sort of special race based authority in this country will trigger bloodshed. If so, they are the ones that will be responsible.
I hope that I am wrong but sadly overseas history tells us that I could be correct.
If only those people had some maturity, but they do not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so
enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a contract that should or colud be broken.

And it was not authored by Farrah.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less intelligent than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 11:50:21 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so
enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

DPF is the publisher, not the author. You again demonstrate your one-dimensional political rhetoric - you comment mostly on the
provenance of the article (with a demonstrable failure of
comprehension). There is nothing in the article about breaking a
contract.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 23:44:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so
enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a >contract that should or colud be broken.

You really missed the point, didn't you Tony - but that comes as no
surprise either . . .

And it was not authored by Farrah.

Indeed it was not authored by either Farrah or Farrar, but David
Farrar allowed it to be posted as a "Guest Post," implying that he
believed it worth reading for the regular readers of his political
propoganda.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big >questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less intelligent
than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

I will not argue with your self0description, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 23:44:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so >>>enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a >>contract that should or colud be broken.

You really missed the point, didn't you Tony - but that comes as no
surprise either . . .

I missed nothing.
I repeat - just for the dimwitted.
The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a
contract that should or could be broken. And of course Farrar did not write it.

And it was not authored by Farrah.

Indeed it was not authored by either Farrah or Farrar, but David
Farrar allowed it to be posted as a "Guest Post," implying that he
believed it worth reading for the regular readers of his political >propoganda.

You are so obsessed with publishers that only allow articles they agree with (like no right turn and other trash). True publishers allow any competent article to be posted.
Farrar might be one such - can you show otherwise?
Talking of propaganda - why did you actually post in this thread? You have added absolutely nothing to it other than nastiness and political shallowness.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big >>questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less >>intelligent
than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

I note that you agree with your description above.
As an aside, I have no political attachments of any sort. I just hate incompetent and dangerous people like you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 17:59:05 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 23:44:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so >>>enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a >>contract that should or colud be broken.

You really missed the point, didn't you Tony - but that comes as no
surprise either . . .

Tony missed no point - you did Rich. You have not yet commented on
any of the content in the article - probably because you are still
trying to work out what political rhetoric you can make up.

And it was not authored by Farrah.

Indeed it was not authored by either Farrah or Farrar, but David
Farrar allowed it to be posted as a "Guest Post," implying that he
believed it worth reading for the regular readers of his political >propoganda.

You seem to be confused by the fact that a publisher can and should
allow viewpoints to be published that the publisher does not agree
with. Look carefully at the post Rich - you will find no endorsement
by DPF of the article contents. You cannot perceive that a political
publisher would allow publication of viewpoints they do not agree
with. Yes this is rare but not unusual with publishers intent on
exposing viewpoints not politically aligned to theirs.

If you take a look at comments on posts to Kiwiblog, DPF almost never
responds to those who comment. Ponder the wider reasoning that behind
this Rich and you might begin to understand that sometimes DPF allows
guest posts that provoke an alternative viewpoint.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big >>questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less intelligent
than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

I will not argue with your self0description, Tony.

--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 20:56:10 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 17:59:05 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 23:44:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so >>>>enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to a >>>contract that should or colud be broken.

You really missed the point, didn't you Tony - but that comes as no >>surprise either . . .

Tony missed no point - you did Rich. You have not yet commented on
any of the content in the article - probably because you are still
trying to work out what political rhetoric you can make up.

Yes of course Tony missed the point. As one example, read:
"The founding document for NZ is not a remarkable statement of the
principles of good government like the 1776 American Declaration of Independence but the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between the British
Crown, and 500 something Maori chiefs.

We call it a treaty, but strictly it isn�t, treaties can only be
between sovereign countries and New Zealand in 1840 was a collection
of warring Maori tribes plus a few European settlers. It�s an
agreement or contract. "

Now we know that the document signed by the Crown and by the Maori
Chiefs was signed by the Governor, we know that it was called a
Treaty, and we also know that the version that was signed by most of
the Chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Maori Chiefs and their successors.
So the article is wrong on some of the most important issues.

Farrar does not any longer feature his previous strap-line of
"fomenting happy mischief", but it is clear that some posts are (and
for a long time have been) made to attract comments from those that
support the organisations that he supports - see https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

If he had strongly disagreed with the article he would have said so -
as he has on other occasions. So to your claim that he does not agree,
I would say to you that there is a good reason why Kiwiblog has for a
long time been referred to as the Sewer - the excrement included in
many posts is designed to feed the extreme views of supporters of the
far-right - originally National Party supporters, but now even more so
ACT supporters - not to inform or educate.

And it was not authored by Farrah.

Indeed it was not authored by either Farrah or Farrar, but David
Farrar allowed it to be posted as a "Guest Post," implying that he
believed it worth reading for the regular readers of his political >>propoganda.

You seem to be confused by the fact that a publisher can and should
allow viewpoints to be published that the publisher does not agree
with. Look carefully at the post Rich - you will find no endorsement
by DPF of the article contents. You cannot perceive that a political >publisher would allow publication of viewpoints they do not agree
with. Yes this is rare but not unusual with publishers intent on
exposing viewpoints not politically aligned to theirs.

If you take a look at comments on posts to Kiwiblog, DPF almost never >responds to those who comment. Ponder the wider reasoning that behind
this Rich and you might begin to understand that sometimes DPF allows
guest posts that provoke an alternative viewpoint.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big >>>questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less intelligent
than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

I will not argue with your self0description, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 20:56:10 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 17:59:05 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 23:44:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:50:05 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/12/guest_post_abraham_lincoln_and_the_treaty_of_waitangi.html

The second-to-last paragraph is key.

I had not realised that Farrar was so broken and bigoted, and so >>>>>enamoured with breaking contracts . . . .

I predicted that some halfwit would respond in that way.

Just for the record. The article contains no bigotry, it does not point to >>>>a
contract that should or colud be broken.

You really missed the point, didn't you Tony - but that comes as no >>>surprise either . . .

Tony missed no point - you did Rich. You have not yet commented on
any of the content in the article - probably because you are still
trying to work out what political rhetoric you can make up.

Yes of course Tony missed the point.

No, "of course" I did not miss the point. I read and understood the document. You may have read it, although I doubt it, but you certainly did not understand it. I did and Crash did.

As one example, read:
"The founding document for NZ is not a remarkable statement of the
principles of good government like the 1776 American Declaration of >Independence but the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between the British
Crown, and 500 something Maori chiefs.

We call it a treaty, but strictly it isn�t, treaties can only be
between sovereign countries and New Zealand in 1840 was a collection
of warring Maori tribes plus a few European settlers. It�s an
agreement or contract. "

Now we know that the document signed by the Crown and by the Maori
Chiefs was signed by the Governor, we know that it was called a
Treaty, and we also know that the version that was signed by most of
the Chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Maori Chiefs and their successors.
So the article is wrong on some of the most important issues.

No we do not know that, you are making it up.

Farrar does not any longer feature his previous strap-line of
"fomenting happy mischief", but it is clear that some posts are (and
for a long time have been) made to attract comments from those that
support the organisations that he supports - see >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

Off topic.

If he had strongly disagreed with the article he would have said so -
as he has on other occasions. So to your claim that he does not agree,
I would say to you that there is a good reason why Kiwiblog has for a
long time been referred to as the Sewer - the excrement included in
many posts is designed to feed the extreme views of supporters of the >far-right - originally National Party supporters, but now even more so
ACT supporters - not to inform or educate.

Off topic.

And it was not authored by Farrah.

Indeed it was not authored by either Farrah or Farrar, but David
Farrar allowed it to be posted as a "Guest Post," implying that he >>>believed it worth reading for the regular readers of his political >>>propoganda.

You seem to be confused by the fact that a publisher can and should
allow viewpoints to be published that the publisher does not agree
with. Look carefully at the post Rich - you will find no endorsement
by DPF of the article contents. You cannot perceive that a political >>publisher would allow publication of viewpoints they do not agree
with. Yes this is rare but not unusual with publishers intent on
exposing viewpoints not politically aligned to theirs.

If you take a look at comments on posts to Kiwiblog, DPF almost never >>responds to those who comment. Ponder the wider reasoning that behind
this Rich and you might begin to understand that sometimes DPF allows
guest posts that provoke an alternative viewpoint.

That covers everything you wrote.

Yes, anybody who is not prepared to listen, understand and discuss the big >>>>questions that we are facing right now is a genuineis halfwit.
Also anybody who sees only politics in such an article is even less >>>>intelligent
than a halfwit. Quarterwit perhaps?

I will not argue with your self0description, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)