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.
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?
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.
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?"
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
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.
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.
"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-sta…
Alas, it's not a parody. Luttwak really is an [advocate for civil war](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/05/07/d…).
Did you send Glenn an email alerting him to your post? Or have you quit doing that?
No, I didn't send Glenn an email. Is it possible for you to conceive that some bloggers don't live for a Instalanche?
So that means they were serious about DDT after all.
Neil Clark? Serious?
So it was only me receiving your "look at me" emails? I feel honoured!
"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
"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.
Now I'm completely confused. Are we agreed that they are serious or not?
They are serious about Carson being worse than Stalin, civil war being good and about the checkered dresses.
Neil Clark, meanwhile, is best known in the UK as a career advocate for Slobodan Milosevic. So thar ye go.
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
"They are serious about Carson being worse than Stalin, civil war being good..."
Wait, does that make them worse than Carson?
No, because Carson also ate the people she killed.
"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.
UPDATE. The dividing line between "rarely viewed" and "super popular" is now somewhere between 1,570 and 10,448.
Heh.
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.
10,448? Isn't that The Bulletin's circulation these days?