grodscorp@grods.comBlairWatch #2 - Sideshow Tim gets wackier
 | Posted by John Surname on Sunday 27 May 2007, 5:45 pm Categories: Baiting Bolta, Blogosphere, Bogans, Environment, Freaks, Media, Politics, Religion Tags: BlairWatch, GlobalWarming, Islam, TimBlair |
Proving yet again that he has no idea what he is talking about, ex-lefty and moron Tim Blair has written yet another ghastly opinion piece in the 100% unbiased Daily Telegraph.
The basic idea behind this waste of ink is surprisingly stupid, even for him. For some reason, he asks us to imagine that various quotes about Global Warming are instead attributed to Islam, where, suddenly, they make sense….or something. It really is a bad idea. The basic feel of the piece is that Tim was sitting up the night before, smoking crack, racking his brains trying to think of something to write. Or maybe it was a bet gone horribly wrong.
Typical stuff really, Sideshow Tim tries to discredit Global Warming using Bolt-style methods, but he does give us some cracker quotes.
There are plenty of reasons why climate changelings overwhelmingly emerge from the left. The main one would be that, having failed to constrain capitalism by any other means, the left now seeks to impose barriers in the name of science (well, almost science; it more closely resembles a type of liberation theology).
Oh yes, that must be it. It’s another evil leftist plot to control the world! More truths of the left!
In fact, the left stands to lose far more, given extreme Islam’s hatred of their pet causes (feminism, gay rights, art, tolerance, music, diversity, everything).
Meaning, of course, that Tim opposes feminism, gay rights, art, tolerance, music, diversity and everything. Maybe Tim should be glad that we on the left want Islam to take over, and Australia to adopt Sharia Law, because he won’t have to put up with any of those horrible things anymore.
Music? Who needs that?
Gay rights? Why do those fags deserve anything?
Diversity? I don’t want a bunch of darkies living in my street!
Tolerance? What’s that?
This has been John Surname, for GrodsCorp - trying to take away your personal freedoms since 2004.
Update - Tim Blair wrote the piece on a plane, which explains the ludicrousness of it. The high altitides had a devestasting effect on his brain.
GrodsThink Ep.31 (16/9/08)
Sunday 27 May 2007, 9:44 pm #Fang
Re Update.
I can’t believe he had the gall to write something when he was away from his desk. Despicable.
Sunday 27 May 2007, 10:51 pm #Mikey
Yeah as a leftist when the Islamic hordes come I will be standing there with my tiny ‘praise allah’ flag by the docks.
Because you know, they hate our freedoms (cough interference in their culture/sphere of influence cough)
Monday 28 May 2007, 1:04 am #Fang
Obviously you are not a student of history Mikey. You will be right anyway. You will just have to grow your beard longer and shave off your mo.
Monday 28 May 2007, 12:51 pm #Bridgit Gread
That’s right Mikey. And since it’s intellectuals who they’ll target first in this new Islamo-fascist-Sharia-theo-Hilalyocracy, you’ll be safe too Fang.
Monday 28 May 2007, 1:31 pm #John Surname
I’m with Mikey - I welcome our Islamic overlords.
Monday 28 May 2007, 3:49 pm #Big Bill
John, you still haven’t acknowledged the error you made in the previous BlairWatch, wherein you called Tim Blair a “hypocrite” on the basis of a false accusation of bandwidth theft - a concept you clearly did not understand. If you don’t have the good grace to do so now, you really shouldn’t be throwing stones.
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:04 pm #John Surname
http://www.grods.com/post/1168/#comment-5619
*picks up stones*
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:05 pm #The Editor
I don’t know how much more clearly John S. can acknowledge his error than this, Bill.
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:05 pm #The Editor
Beat me to it by 30 seconds, John.
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:06 pm #John Surname
Maybe I should have taken out a full page apology in the Tele.
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:49 pm #Mikey
Obviously you are not a student of history Mikey. You will be right anyway. You will just have to grow your beard longer and shave off your mo.
(cough, Vietnam, cough; cough, starting coups in Mid East countries to gain western friendly dictatorships and/or backing them if in place, cough)
Thanks for the nose news Fang. I will explain your views to my Bachelor of Arts with History Major and my Masters in Strategic Studies.
Curse all my book learnin’ Of course when the Arabs come I won’t need it!
(holds up flag; “Praise Allah”)
Monday 28 May 2007, 4:51 pm #Mikey
I’d like to remind them [Islamic Overlords] that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Monday 28 May 2007, 5:13 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
In addition to the Simpsons, it may be worth referencing Dr Strangelove here. Tim Bleh, and those of his ilk, are a bit like General Ripper:
‘The Mooslims are stealin’ my essence, through the fluoride…
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb#General_Jack_D._Ripper
Monday 28 May 2007, 5:35 pm #Fang
I think the irony of my comment was lost on Mikey.
Monday 28 May 2007, 5:43 pm #Fang
Impressive Emily.
Monday 28 May 2007, 7:07 pm #Mikey
I think the irony of my comment was lost on Mikey.
How was it ironic? It just seemed like a stock standard no nothing empty sledge from the Pen of Fang*
Do you have pink and frilly notepads made up for your extra special islamaphobic statements. I hear they hate pink. It’s in the Koran and everything.
Monday 28 May 2007, 7:41 pm #Fang
Good for you Mikey. I am glad you have found the courage (via your prestigious award) to stick up for yourself against Islamophobes like myself.
*I will ignore your veiled homophobic comments about my pink and frilly notepads.
Monday 28 May 2007, 8:33 pm #Mikey
You still haven’t explained the irony.
Oh - my use of pink/frilly WAS ironic.
Maybe you mean Alanis Morrisette Ironic. You know - when it’s not irony.
Monday 28 May 2007, 8:53 pm #Fang
Re - Irony. You have told me about your degrees before on several occasions. It is kind of old fashioned talking about ones credentials but something sadly that has been lost over time.
What a paradox we have going, you making an ironic comment about my pink/frilly notepad and me responding with an ironic comment saying your comment was homophobic. And further you making a reference to a song about irony that has the gay marriage lyric:
“It’s meeting the man of my dreams and then meeting his beautiful husband”
Monday 28 May 2007, 8:56 pm #Mikey
Re - Irony. You have told me about your degrees before on several occasions.
Yeah twice isn’t “several times” fang. And as for knowledge of gay lyrics, well, you got me beat.
Monday 28 May 2007, 8:57 pm #Mikey
Oh - that wasn’t irony on your part RE my quals. If you genuniely remembered a time I had said that, and referred to it in that manner, it was sarcasm.
Monday 28 May 2007, 9:02 pm #Fang
Point noted and conceded re difference between sarcasm and irony.
Tuesday 29 May 2007, 3:33 pm #Stumps
You may recall I was on here for the first time about a month ago rubbishing John Surname for his disappointing parody piece on right-wing bloggers, suggesting that he could have found far more powerful examples than the ones he used to attack Blair and Bolt.
Now, I’ve admitted to being a regular follower (and enjoyer) of Tim Blair’s blog, but I’m also generally very interested in rational balance, and identifying as neither a left-winger nor a right-winger, I don’t always agree with his views. As a result, I’m only too happy to suggest that there’s a recent and noticeable double standard in his (and his readers’) reaction to Virgin’s plans to screen the 9/11 conspiracy documentary Loose Change 2 on its flights, and the ridicule of the response of opponents to the ABC’s planned screening of The Great Climate Change Swindle.
Personally, I fully support the ABC’s decision to screen this documentary as a significant alternate view and an important piece of the full picture on this issue, and am disappointed in the defensiveness of the petulant responses of the inflexible dogmatists opposing this move.
However, I fail to see how this same logic can’t apply to the screening of a documentary like Loose Change. Sure, it may be one of the battiest conspiracy theories going around, and it may dangerously mislead some simpler-minded folk who are already receptive to anti-US hysteria, but that’s exactly the sort of thing that’s being said of The Great Climate Change Swindle by those who oppose its screening.
No matter what side of politics or ideology you’re on, I don’t think it’s acceptable to argue that views that conflict with your own should be silenced — you’ll always eventually be exposed as a hypocrite if you do, and that’s what’s happened to Blair and co here.
This is the sort of stuff I would have liked to see John Surname and others pick on, rather than rants like the one above that seems to have really missed the point. (”Meaning, of course, that Tim opposes feminism, gay rights, art, tolerance, music, diversity and everything”? Where the hell is the logic in that assumption?)
Tuesday 29 May 2007, 5:57 pm #Mikey
Personally, I fully support the ABC’s decision to screen this documentary as a significant alternate view and an important piece of the full picture on this issue, and am disappointed in the defensiveness of the petulant responses of the inflexible dogmatists opposing this move.
It’s not an “alternative view”. It’s a blatant piece of unscientific drivel whose founding science was proved to be on a bedrock of sand when it was released. If it was a credible view I’d support it. It’s not a credible view at all. Hell even one of the main figures on it protested how he and his science had been depicted in it when it occured.
It’s not balance. Blair is not balance.
I look forward to your blog where you do your own views like this instead of complaining that tongue in cheek leftists fail to take the left to task which appears to be the case here.
Tuesday 29 May 2007, 11:18 pm #John Surname
I think they should run it, but only if they run that youtube video of the scientist debunking it point by point also.
Wednesday 30 May 2007, 2:19 am #Stumps
Mikey, you seem to have once again missed the point (several of them, actually) completely.
You reckon? It’s the same view then, is it?
Did I claim it was? Nevertheless, I for one would like the opportunity to watch it and see for myself, just as I would similarly welcome the chance to see it debunked.
OK … getting a little obsessive here. Who said Blair was balance? I’ve wandered in and (helpfully, I would have thought) pointed out a key piece of Blair inconsistency. Re-read my post — I’ve asked why Blair sought to effectively ban one film that is generally considered to be tripe, yet mocks those who hold that attitude towards another film that is probably regarded in a similar manner. Is he in favour of that kind of censorship or not? This is the point I’m making, one your paranoia seems to have led you to catastrophically miss.
Oh dear, stooping to trotting out this cliched old flawed argument, like a footballer who would churlishly submit that journalists who haven’t played the game professionally have no right to comment on their performance, or directors who would suggest that movie reviewers can’t assess their films until they’ve matched their directorial achievements …
Hmmm, clearly some serious comprehension problems happening here (not to mention rabid defensiveness). Where did I complain that the left haven’t been taken to task? I didn’t even mention the left! I complained that the right have been taken to task *poorly* (I mean, seriously, where is the logic in the original post here?) and then supplied an example of how to do it more rationally (and thus in my opinion, more effectively).
You may choose to ignore that example (perhaps it’s not sarcastic or emotive enough for this audience), but I seriously have no idea how you interpreted my post the way you seem to have done. I come on here and actually supply you with ammunition to attack one of your favourite right-wing targets and you STILL interpret it as an attack on the left. Amazing. You really are doing your darnedest to turn your claim that I’m inclined against the left into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I admit that I find it very hard to empathise with folks who are this irrational and paranoid.
Wednesday 30 May 2007, 7:19 pm #Mikey
You said it was ‘an alternate view’ in a manner that implied balance, reasoning, and equality of science. Then you claim that’s not your intent. It’s not an alternative view unless it is grounded in reality. Otherwise its a crackpot view, a stupid view, a moronic view. It’s up there with that Iranian whack job’s holocaust denial conference where knuckle dragging retards came along with micro models of death camps in an effort to prove the amount of bone meal around was not commensurate with so many deaths.
Yes, you can Godwin me at this point.
But you’ll be pleased to know the ABC has cunningly set up a panel of experts to ‘discuss’ the offending doco straight after it is shown.
So will you be watching?
Oh I find your rebuttal of not starting a blog as likening it to professional football simply laughable. Starting a blog takes about 2 minutes. Start it up. Put your views up. Let’s debate it. Or hang around here and whine about how people who are clearly taking the piss don’t attack the right in a non partisan manner.
Wednesday 30 May 2007, 10:53 pm #Stumps
I most certainly did no such thing. You seem to be consistently delusional.
This is unbelievably illogical, on two levels. First of all, since when has “grounding in reality” been part of the implied definition of the term “alternate view”? You’re making up definitions to suit yourself. The term simply means “another view”. Logic would suggest that MOST alternate views are NOT grounded in reality because the commonly accepted view (the one the alternate views disagree with) IS usually grounded in reality.
Secondly, how on Earth can you so confidently claim to absolutely know “reality” on this issue, with such certainty that you would go as far as to silence dissenting views? “The scientific consensus agrees with me,” you might respond, and if scientific consensus had an infallible history of 100% accuracy then you might indeed by justified in making that logical leap … however, as I’m sure you’re aware, scientific consensus has no such history.
Excellent. Sounds like we’ll be getting two views for the price of one. Of course I intend to watch it. I trust myself to pick the plausible from the ridiculous, even when the information will inevitably be presented by representatives from both extreme ends of the spectrum. As is often the case when this occurs, I will probably end up thinking the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Oh dear, more difficulty with comprehension. I was likening your fallacious “you can’t knock it unless you’ve done it yourself” attitude to that displayed by many others who are similarly logic-impaired in the face of criticism, including (but certainly not limited to) insular footballers and over-sensitive film-makers.
Why would I need to start a blog in an already over-saturated market? I’m far too middle-of-the-road in my views to have a “cause” or theme, and if I wish to comment on a particular issue, there are thousands of blogs (like this one) where I can do so. Put my views up? I’ve just done so and we’re debating my views here — why do I need to “own” the blog in question?
Gosh, you STILL don’t get it. This is nothing to do with “non partisan manner”. For the umpteenth time, it’s to do with lack of logic or relevance and poor selection of material. Anybody can create misleading and fictitious straw men and blow them down. If that’s what you consider entertainment, then I pity you. Objectively speaking, parody, satire and other forms of “taking the piss” are so much better when they’re actually accurate (what’s funnier — an impersonator doing a startlingly precise satirical impression of a politician’s mannerisms, voice and views, or somebody who just acts like a generic fool while wearing a name tag with that politician’s name on it?) — and nobody is doubting that the fodder is there for an accurate piss-take, if somebody with some skill chooses to use it.
Call it “whining” if it makes you feel better, but I can’t see how I could have been more constructive in my criticism — I’ve even gone to the trouble of coming back a month later with a new example of how it could have been done better.
Thursday 31 May 2007, 7:13 pm #Mikey
Interesting 600+ random heavy on the rhetoric words in a three paras to the line analysis of what I wrote.
This deserves, no must be on a blog. I bet my groat Strider is open as a free name. Go on tuck in.
Now to the fun part. You claim you weren’t spruiking the doco as credible alternate view. Let’s go look.
Personally, I fully support the ABC’s decision to screen this documentary as a significant alternate view and an important piece of the full picture on this issue, and am disappointed in the defensiveness of the petulant responses of the inflexible dogmatists opposing this move.
Yep, clearly not promoting it as credible at all. I completely apologise.
Thursday 31 May 2007, 7:14 pm #Mikey
Call it “whining” if it makes you feel better, but I can’t see how I could have been more constructive in my criticism — I’ve even gone to the trouble of coming back a month later with a new example of how it could have been done better.
Well as a seasoned blogger, I think I can say that now, we in the blogger community would call that sad.
Thursday 31 May 2007, 11:44 pm #Bruce
You may recall I was on here for the first time about a month ago rubbishing John Surname for his disappointing parody piece on right-wing bloggers, suggesting that he could have found far more powerful examples than the ones he used to attack Blair and Bolt.
I can remember you coming on here, and pretending to be non-partisan then applying double standards across left and right, hence abusing people’s good faith.
Mikey’s citation of your remarks;
I most certainly did no such thing. (In responce to Mikey’s accusation of you spruiking for the doco.)
and then..
Personally, I fully support the ABC’s decision to screen this documentary as a significant alternate view and an important piece of the full picture on this issue, and am disappointed in the defensiveness of the petulant responses of the inflexible dogmatists opposing this move.
Demonstrates that you still aren’t willing to be honest with us. Stumps, you may believe your own self-contradictory remarks, but please don’t credit us with the same level of gullibility.
Right, left or centre, there’s a calling for all of us to be honest. Lift your game.
Friday 1 June 2007, 12:25 am #Stumps
I haven’t seen the documentary, so how can I promote it as credible or otherwise? The “anti-panic” (or whatever it’s called) viewpoint is undeniably represented in the public, including amongst educated people, and I would be interested to see whether there’s any foundation for it. Whether this program is the vehicle for that or not, I don’t know, but it seems to be supported by the people of that viewpoint so I imagine it is a fairly good representative of their position. For that reason, it is worth seeing. Worth believing? I won’t know until I watch it (and the subsequent rebuttal). Silencing it, in my eyes, serves no purpose.
Friday 1 June 2007, 12:27 am #Stumps
Why wouldn’t it surprise me that somebody like you would have that opinion about a commitment to constructiveness and backing up your talk with actions? Far easier to just fabricate, murder logic and snipe lazily, right?
Friday 1 June 2007, 12:33 am #Stumps
Gee, I’d assumed by your lack of response to my last demolition of your pitiful arguments that you’d accepted you were dead wrong in making that claim … now I find you trotting it out again? No shame, obviously.
As I showed two posts above, it rather shows your utter lack of comprehension skills. I want to see the documentary. I want to see the rebuttal. I have no idea how good the two will be, and I’ve certainly never professed to comment on the quality of either. Seemingly unlike you, I have no desire to be wilfully shielded from information or opinions that conflict with some predetermined view I force myself to subscribe to. I wonder what it is you fear so much.
Friday 1 June 2007, 7:32 pm #Bruce
Demolished. Yeah. If you say so. lol
Monday 29 October 2007, 5:14 am #Krypto
can’t you just picture Tim Blair waking up from a meth induced blackout naked next to a very unconvincing transgenderist sex worker (not that there’s anything WRONG with that), picking up his morning edition and in a cold sweat realising “I wrote WHAT?!?!…and they RAN it?!?!” I don’t think complete autonomy from any form of rationality was the inspiration behind the concept of the free press, I might be wrong, but I suspect not.