Pam Corkery

Pam Corkery offers to resign, yet “There will be no apology to the media”

puls3

Turns out Pam’s tirade wasn’t pre-planned after all. ?She really did lose her rag.

Internet-Mana Party press secretary Pam Corkery offered to resign after swearing at journalists at the party’s launch at the weekend, but she says she won’t apologise to the reporters.

Corkery rounded on media at the launch of the party on Sunday when questions were asked about the party’s founder Kim Dotcom’s involvement in historic computer hacking.

She told them to “piss off”. Read more »

Chess spotter check mates Kim Dotcom again

Remember the chess tweet that Kim Dotcom sent last time that was, like, completely wrong?

Well, if you like chess, and dislike Dotcom, you’ll like this:

Hello Cam
Apologies for not getting this to you sooner but life gets in the way…and in light of the Whaledump fiasco, I think it is time to submit what I wrote some time ago.
Kim Dotcom (KDC) posted another image of pawns checkmating a king with the heading “Kings tend to forget that they can be checkmated by pawns.”
retre
Let’s not forget this is his second attempt given the first attempt had the board upside down.
I presume this is a not-so-subtle reference to John Key (represented by the black King) about to be / or having been check-mated by Kim Dotcom.
This time the picture has been presented the correct way round but I am curious why the King (John Key) is represented using the black pieces given:
1) black is the natural underdog / defender in chess,
2) white is the naturally dominant or attacking player in chess,
3) but KDC is the defendant in the court cases to date, and
4) according to KDCs version of events the more aggressive player in the whole sorry saga to date has been John Key.
So I think KDC has his colours the wrong way round.? But more importantly…let’s look at the board as presented by KDC.
I believe the board has been truncated to create ambiguity as to how the position was arrived at and where the pieces are actually on the board.? (Can anyone else see the irony?)? This is not the traditional way of presenting a chess board and we can only assume the squares at the top of the picture are the edge on which the player deploys the black pieces.? In attempting to be clever and outwit any chess analysts, KDC has merely shown his own lack of knowledge of the game.
In KDCs headline he states “Kings tend to forget that they can be checkmated by pawns” so I will assume there are no other significant pieces on the board, given the emphasis placed on the pawns.? However, I suspect? truncating the board was intended to conceal there may have been other pieces at play, which he may later call upon to discredit any smart-alec chess analysts.? Furthermore, there may have been other pieces that are no longer on the board…more on this later…
What KDC fails to notice is the pawns of themselves could not deliver the checkmate, but were reliant on the presence of the white King, without which checkmate could not have been achieved.? Is this an oblique reference to himself being King?? Manipulating others he sees as pawns?? How prophetic is this tweet?
Anyway putting that aside, to achieve the checkmate as shown the white pawn must have moved onto the black square to the South West of the Black King.? Let’s call this square the ‘killer square’.? There is no other way this checkmate can have been achieved as depicted.
To move onto the killer square the white pawn either moved forward one space, or the pawn took a black piece that was occupying the killer square.? Given KDC has shown no other pieces, we can only assume his image is complete and there are no other relevant pieces.? This analysis is based on this assumption.
The pawn can not have moved forward one square for the following reasons.? For the black King to move to its final position, it must have moved there from a position that was in check in the previous move.? The only way for the King to have not illegally moved into check in the previous move and to then move onto its final resting place was for the pawn on the black square beside the white King to have not been there, and that pawn moved forward to put the King into check on the killer square in the previous move.? To achieve checkmate from that scenario requires the King to then move itself into its final position in which it can be checkmated, rather than taking the unprotected pawn immediately below it, being the pawn that ends up on the killer square ultimately delivering checkmate.? In other words, the black player would have to play like a dunce to end up in that position.? Furthermore, this is not a case of the King ‘forgetting’ that pawns can checkmate a King given it was the pawns delivering the vital checks through the sequence of moves.? So this can’t be what was intended by KDC.
An alternative analysis shows the white player is the dunce if the pawn was moved forward to deliver checkmate.? If the black King was merely hopping from square to square trying to block the promotion of the white pawn (assuming the pawn beside the white King was back one square), the position of the white King is such that white could easily have forced the black King away from the top row, accelerating the advancement of the pawn followed by promotion to a Queen, thereby hastening the ultimate decline of the black King – rather than relying on the black player to play suicide chess.? So the alternative conclusion of the white pawn having moved forward one square to deliver checkmate is that the white player doesn’t know what he is doing.? I don’t think this was KDCs intent either.? However, given KDCs history of chess posts, an own-goal is a very real possibility…
The second alternative is the pawn on the killer square took a black piece that previously occupied the killer square.? The only reason a black piece (being one of the Queen, Rook, Knight or Bishop) would take a piece on that square would be to prevent checkmate in black’s previous move.? In other words it is a forced move, assuming the player controlling the black pieces knows what he is doing.? This threat can only have been delivered by either the white Queen or a white pawn on the killer square (the bishop is ignored given KDC has elected to truncate the board which implies the black square at the top left of the image is irrelevant).? Note 😕 any other piece not threatening checkmate requires the black player to voluntarily take a piece that was not threatening checkmate, again being suicide chess which can be dismissed.
If the white piece (now removed) threatening checkmate was a pawn, the black King has voluntarily moved into a suicide position in the previous moves and/or the white player delayed promoting his own piece – it is the same analysis as above with the pawn having moved forward.? In other words, one of the players has no idea what they are doing, or this is a game between children.? Again we can dismiss this sequence of moves.
The only snesible alternative is the white piece (now removed) threatening checkmate was the Queen.? To not move the white Queen immediately to the top row for an earlier checkmate implies a single black piece was protecting both top squares in that column.? The only piece that could have protected both crucial squares to enable checkmate as depicted and preventing immediate checkmate with the white Queen was the black Queen positioned on either of the top squares in the left hand column.? In other words the white player sacrificed his Queen to enable checkmate.? This is the only sensible scenario that gives rise to the checkmate as pictured / described where the King ‘forgets’ about checkmate from pawns assuming this is a game between compos mentis adults.
And here comes the kicker : If this is intended to be an allegorical prophesy from KDC, who is the Queen he intends to sacrifice?? Is it Laila Harre?? Is it Hone Harawira?? Or is it someone else?? Despite KDCs best efforts, he clearly doesn’t know anything about chess and/or allegorical prophesies, unless he was intentioanally sending a message with more than one meaning?? I doubt that, but time will tell…
P.S.? on a personal note : sorry for the long letter and thanks for reading.? Next time you want to blow away your chess opponent, try the Alekhine defence – I think it would suit your personality style.

Read more »

Impertinent questions

qwdqwdd

My readers have been keeping a close eye on the “Dotcom hacker” stories, and they’ve observed this

Interesting that the TV 1 website has dropped all coverage of last nights theatrics, also Stuff has done the same. The Herald has a watered down piece which mostly is a promo for IMPs policies. TV3 still has the video up, but I bet by lunchtime it will be down. Either these news organizations respond to threats made by Dotcom, or perhaps those in a position of leadership in each organisation have seen the (financial) wisdom of being Kim’s friend.

and

Why has Stuff removed every reference to these events in their articles & page links?? Even their article on the party launch has been purged of all references to Dotcom.

Read more »

So, exactly how low will the media go, ctd

It’s interesting to see someone outside of politics and the media‘s take on Dirty Politics

Hager claims that the stolen private communications?were sufficiently in the public interest as to justify their publication.

But if this information truly was serious enough to outweigh?the means by which it was obtained, then why did Hager and the hacker wait to release it?

Why was it not made available to the public weeks or months ago?

Surely it?can?t be both compelling evidence that is sufficiently in the public interest as to outweigh what would normally be an illegal act, while at the same time not worthy of immediate publication?

If?the material someone has in their possession is clear evidence of wrongdoing that the public need to be made aware of, then shouldn?t the public be made aware of this as soon as is humanly possible?

Compelling evidence doesn?t need to be timed for maximum political impact the way that this stolen information?was, and it certainly doesn?t require an extra layer of unproven speculative narrative to be added to it (as Hager?s book and subsequent media coverage has done).

There are some VERY problematic potential ethical issues about journalists collaborating with hackers, which is why serious caution and carefully considered prudential judgments must be entered into before embarking down such a path.

I don’t think anyone except Nicky Hager is still maintaining that it is anything but a political hit. ?Nicky’s probably hanging onto that so he can sleep at night and feel righteous, but the fact that all he had was material exposing one side of politics and not the other would have any?real journalist sit up and go: ?”am I being used here?”

Of course, Hager knows he was being used. ? ?And did it anyway ? Read more »

Election rules? Kim Dotcom don’t need no stinkin’ election rules

qwewq

Read more »

Kim Dotcom is a super hero. No… I’m serious, why do you ask?

Credit:  SonovaMin

Credit: SonovaMin

This may come a bit as a surprise, but that’s actually how he’s being marketed to his constituency: Read more »

How does Pam Corkery know which journos I work with? Did Kim show her my emails?

wq

She also said to her former media colleagues:

“You know you’re all in the dumper by connection.”

She wouldn’t know who in the media I talk to, work with, help or otherwise have connections with unless she’s had access to my emails as well.

So, again….

How did she get access to my emails? ? Read more »

Press want to ask if Dotcom is @whaledump – Pressec loses it

qwq


(care of ONE News)

Yes. Read more »

Face of the day

Pam Corkery

Pam Corkery

Pam Corkery has my grateful thanks for opening the MSM’s eyes to what has been plainly obvious to the rest of us.
It must be incredibly frustrating for her trying to manage Kim Dotcom’s Media image when the egotist cannot keep his big mouth shut.

Yesterday the strain finally caused her to snap, attacking the very Media that it is her job to manage. Read more »

Face of the day

Years ago when Cam was not at his best he was interviewed by Michele Hewitson. The stand out line from her interview for me was her comment that he had ‘ dead eyes,’ so it was of no surprise to me whatsoever to see her comments on Laila Harre.

Don’t hold back Michele tell us what you really think.

Laila Harre

Laila Harre in her ‘ Uniform ‘

Read more »