Tim Blair is incensed at my conclusion that Steyn had stolen from a blogger. He calls me "the Lambot" and "a thief", searches for something to attack me with ... and comes up with an incorrect comment I made on another blog. I guess I'm in good shape if that's the best he can come with. Especially since since it's the fourth time he has ranted about that comment. And he has yet again linked to his post that contains uncorrected errors of his own. (Lockitch's article was not published in the Age, and the quote was not part paraphrase.)
I enjoy your stoushes with Mr Blair. He always seems to lose.
Timbot I wouldn't worry what brainless Blair has to say. A usual with Blair in his hurry to worship a right wing god he gets it all wrong.
It must be the name... The other Blair is an incompetent and liar too.
I have even managed to get myself banned from Mr Blair's site. I was angling for it, though.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/mao_mocked/
Challenging Blair on one of his silly claims is likely to get you banned from there. I notice that Blair's Brains Trust couldn't come up with any examples of there silly Mao-praising historians.
No, indeed, and they only came up with a single name for any China historians, Mao-praising or otherwise, the great sinologist John K. Fairbank, who was active from the 50s through to the 70s. I am fascinated/disturbed by their hysterical refusal to think.
Thanks for that Mark , it leads to a priceless dummy spit any commie would be proud of .It contains all the essential ingredients of intellectual compost. Andrea Harris "You know what, mhar? Fuck you, your question has been answered over and over again, and now you're ordering people to do more research until they find an answer that satisfies YOU? For being an asshole, you're banned.
Today is I'm Sick of Troll Shit Day. By the way, any emails I get from trolls complaining about how I've banned them will be published both here and on MY blog. With email links. "
It's Orwellian. Black is white and white is black. No proof of anything is "proof". I am fascinated by it in a way, but also horrified at the sheer violence of their discourse. It's all about demanding submission for its own sake. You can really see totalitarianism in the way they speak: the Chairman makes an off-hand remark and the Party enforce it. Or try to in their silly little world.
How strange. Tim Blair does call you a thief, but he links back, not only to a comment you make, but also to the mirror Blair site you set up on the UNSW server. In an update, he notes that you are also partial to the sort of plagiarism that you accuse Steyn of.
Yet you mention neither of these things in this post, evidently to strengthen your argument. A little misleading,. methinks, Tim.
given his opinions on the lancet kerfuffle, and specifically the reasons he thought the lancet was full of sh*t, crazy, left wing and other such things [and especially given, say, this], i submit that this post contains blair's most hilarious error.
the "gang who couldn't count straight" indeed.
Taking up Mr Will-type-for-brains's pseudo-incisive point, here are Lambert's crimes:
1) Setting up a mirror site to circumvent Blair's blanket censorship of critical comments... copyright infringement!
2) Parodying Cabbagehammer's 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' by coining 'Gore Derangement Syndrome'... plagiarism!
3) Mistakenly asserting in a comment thread that Miranda Devine had fabricated a quotation; then failing to devote a separate blog entry to a retraction... disobedience!
Who will rid us of this turbulent scientist?*
* Uh oh! More plagiarism!
"It's Orwellian. Black is white and white is black. No proof of anything is "proof". I am fascinated by it in a way, but also horrified at the sheer violence of their discourse. It's all about demanding submission for its own sake. You can really see totalitarianism in the way they speak: the Chairman makes an off-hand remark and the Party enforce it. Or try to in their silly little world."
Approximate quote from a movie I saw recently whose name I fail to remember:
"Once you get them to agree with something they know is not true, you've got them by the balls"
It's the difference between judging one's positions by whether reality agrees with them, where rage is irrelevant, and judging them by whether everybody else agrees with them, where rage can indeed seem relevant.
Hmm... I wonder if I can get an ARC grant to study the psycho-social make-up of right-wing bloggers and their readers, now that PP McGuiness is no longer vetoing them.
Rage would feature strongly in such a study. It seems too obvious to be true, but rage seems to be a reaction to the sudden realization that their ideas are wrong or contradictory or incomplete, and that they might have to actually think. And such rage!