Instapundit fan strikes back

The fun never ends with Glenn Reynolds’ “steal the oil” post. Tim Blair exclaims:

Warming alarmite Tim Lambert (current average daily visits: 3,577) is now demanding $520 per week for ad space at his rarely-viewed site; $3360 for three months! Guess that explains his recent graceless attempts to provoke an Instalanche. (By the way, ads presently displayed at Lambot’s (sic) site are apparently shared throughout the ScienceBlogs network.)

I wrote my post because Reynolds was wrong: invading Iraq has reduced their oil production. I guess that since Blair is always angling for an Instalanche, he thinks that everybody else must be. Pointing out Reynold’s mistakes or criticising him is, in any case, a very ineffective way to get him to link to you since he very rarely links to such posts. If you are looking for an Instalanche, the secret is to write something that confirms Reynolds’ world view. Of course, that’s no guarantee because there are oodles of right-wing bloggers writing the same sorts of posts, all hoping for that Instalanche.

I have nothing to do with setting the advertising rates here. That’s done by the same people that have been responsible for launching tornadoes across my posts this last week. (And sorry about the tornadoes — they’ve promised not to do it again.) If they can get $520 for an ad, more power to them. Though for that price it would probably involve a mortar in the sidebar gradually destroying my posts by lobbing shells into them.

And Blair’s sitemeter says he gets 10,403 visits a day. I suppose the dividing line between “rarely viewed” and “super popular” must be somewhere between 3,577 and 10,403.

Comments

  1. #1 z
    May 9, 2006

    Isn’t somebody complaining about “$520 per week for ad space at his rarely-viewed site (By the way, ads presently displayed at Lambot’s (sic) site are apparently shared throughout the ScienceBlogs network)” like somebody who claims to be “an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” complaining that “the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an effective monopoly on public announcements”? Or like somebody citing the successful uses of DDT against malaria to prove the existence of a ban on the use of DDT against malaria?

  2. #2 tigtog
    May 9, 2006

    I occasionally spy into Blairville to see his moan du jour. His snark is kinda ponderous isn’t it? It’s like watching a hippo trying to dance.

  3. #3 Steve Edwards
    May 9, 2006

    Tim – I thought you might be interested in this:

    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=471

    The title is: “Rachel Carson – deadlier than Stalin?”

  4. #4 Dano
    May 9, 2006

    Steve:

    That journal is parody. I missed it too at first skim, but any arty advocating Eye-rack-ee civil war is obviously a joke.

    Best,

    D

  5. #5 Adam Ierymenko
    May 9, 2006

    Instapundit is everything that’s wrong with blogs. For all his “army of Davids” BS, Reynolds has done everything that he can to make the net more like the “legacy media.” Blogs have filter points, attention choke points, etc. Blogs suck. They suck slightly less than Usenet, mainly because Usenet was destroyed by spammers, but they still suck.

  6. #6 Kristjan Wager
    May 10, 2006

    At one stage I did a comparision between Reynold’s posts the first few months and his post in recent months (at the time where I did the comparision), and it was interesting to notice that not only did his posts become shorter, and more contentless (much like Atrios’), he started to link more and more exclusively right-winged.

  7. #7 Steve Edwards
    May 10, 2006

    “That journal is parody.”

    I didn’t read any other articles, so thanks for the tip.

    Funny thing is, I was referred to it off a serious site that approvingly linked to the article!

    http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/05/she-killed-more-people-than-stalin.html

  8. #8 Tim Lambert
    May 10, 2006
  9. #9 tim
    May 10, 2006

    Did you send Glenn an email alerting him to your post? Or have you quit doing that?

  10. #10 Tim Lambert
    May 10, 2006

    No, I didn’t send Glenn an email. Is it possible for you to conceive that some bloggers don’t live for a Instalanche?

  11. #11 Steve Edwards
    May 10, 2006

    So that means they were serious about DDT after all.

  12. #12 Tim Worstall
    May 10, 2006

    Neil Clark? Serious?

  13. #13 tim
    May 10, 2006

    So it was only me receiving your “look at me” emails? I feel honoured!

  14. #14 z
    May 10, 2006

    “That journal is parody. I missed it too at first skim, but any arty advocating Eye-rack-ee civil war is obviously a joke.”
    I didn’t think it was a parody until I saw this:
    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=3&subID=495

  15. #15 z
    May 10, 2006

    “That journal is parody.”
    Err, I should clarify that my previous post identifying it as parody was a parody. I.e., yes he is advocating letting the Iraqis kill each other off, as well as saving the third world suffering from lack of abundant DDT. And bad checkered dresses.

  16. #16 Steve Edwards
    May 10, 2006

    Now I’m completely confused. Are we agreed that they are serious or not?

  17. #17 Tim Lambert
    May 10, 2006

    They are serious about Carson being worse than Stalin, civil war being good and about the checkered dresses.

  18. #18 Alex
    May 10, 2006

    Neil Clark, meanwhile, is best known in the UK as a career advocate for Slobodan Milosevic. So thar ye go.

  19. #19 Dano
    May 10, 2006

    I was making a statement about how far gone their nutjob ideology was: it is so far nutjob, it doesn’t just approach parody, it is parody.

    My point was very clear and cogent in my mind, anyways…

    Best,

    D

  20. #20 Adam
    May 10, 2006

    “They are serious about Carson being worse than Stalin, civil war being good…”

    Wait, does that make them worse than Carson?

  21. #21 jade
    May 10, 2006

    No, because Carson also ate the people she killed.

  22. #22 tim
    May 11, 2006

    “They are serious about Carson being worse than Stalin, civil war being good and about the checkered dresses.”

    Who are “they”, in this case? Clark seems to be one of your fellow anti-war lefty idiots.

  23. #23 tim
    May 11, 2006

    UPDATE. The dividing line between “rarely viewed” and “super popular” is now somewhere between 1,570 and 10,448.

    Heh.

  24. #24 Ian Gould
    May 12, 2006

    The First Post weighs in on DDT:

    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=471

    It seems to me that for such staunch champions of property rights, the right are down-right communistic in their approach to intellectual property – there’s scarcely a sentence in that
    article that couldn’t have been lifted in whole from any fo a number of other articles pushing the party line.

    Still I’m sure the ends justify the means.

  25. #25 mister z
    May 14, 2006

    10,448? Isn’t that The Bulletin’s circulation these days?