<< SOME FOLKS’LL NEVER FALL FOR SCAMS, BUT THEN AGAIN SOME FOLKS’LL ~ MAIN ~ GEOTHERMIAN SHUNS SCIENCE >>
ARGUMENTS BORING
The Australian’s editorial criticism of the Left displeases Tim Dunlop:
Frankly, these sorts of ideological arguments are boring ...
So boring, frankly, that Dunlop wrote 1263 words in reply. Jeremy Sear kicked in another 1400 or so (in a post notable for the former-anonyblogger’s complaint that the Australian’s editorials are anonymous) and Lefty Kim offered 534 further words of loud denunciation (a happier review may be found here).
Of course, Tim, Kim, and Jeremy read those editorials online for free; imagine how annoyed they’d be if they were drained of $750 million per year to fund ideological views they opposed. Anyway, following recent leftoid howls over alleged silencing, this Dunlop line is interesting:
And it is always the usual suspects, David Marr, Robert Manne, Phillip Adams, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, I’d be happy to never to read another word by any of them ever again ...
He wants them silenced! Dunlop is finally getting with the sinister Murdoch program.
(By the way, Tim seems to be saying “frankly” a lot these days. It must be an Adelaide thing.)
Interesting that The Australian allows online reader replies to columnists such as Price and Albrechtson, despite snide remarks about the ‘Murdoch Press’. Lets see Fairfax open its columnists to the same scrutiny/comment/democracy. Oh thats right, it’s Howard who is silencing dissent. Why not lead by example Fairfax?
Tim Dunlop runs the most wretchedly dull blog that side of the Pacific.
George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad George Bush is bad John Howard is bad Karl Rove is bad
Nary a word of criticism about the wild eye jihadis. I used to read two blogs, Dunlop’s and Tim Blair’s. But I found myself constanting arguing with the moonbats there who refused to listen to reason. I finally concluded that they would rather see Islamists detonate a WMD in an American or Australian city than to support President Bush or Prime Minister Howard one iota.
Nuts, all of them. And boring nuts to boot.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 06 16 at 08:44 AM • permalinkonly concern yourself with 2 Tim Blair and Timtams
mmm Tim serves red AND white wine. TimTams, well, they are chocolate, mmmmmmmmmmmmmm chocolate…................Posted by surfmaster on 2007 06 16 at 09:04 AM • permalinkIn Adelaide, they say “frankly” so much in reference to “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a dam”. This is merely a shorthand lament for “why didn’t past and present governments build more dams”.
Just wait until summer when “frankly” is used as shorthand for “frankly, everyone’s body is bad because of the shower ban”.
Careful Tim, Jeremy will accuse you of stalking him again, a lowly blogger who just wants to see the world run as he see fits. There’s nothing nefarious or delusional about his rantings.
‘Left>Right, JWH=Scum, Local issues fixed my way, Attempted sarcasm, Oh look here’s my cat, personal issues no one cares about, Left>Right, More cats, Legalese references to global issues, cats as replacement for human company, Green politics=enlightenment, bla bla bla’
That about covers it.
I would like an explanation as to why Ant Loewenstein has been excluded from authorship in these books about how the left have been silenced.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 06 16 at 08:29 PM • permalinkIn a startling display of Pavlovian proportions, Jezza launches his attack.
Congratulations to the editor of The Australian. In this one sentence,Their voices have not been silenced, they have simply lost their relevance. , he (whoever he is) sums it up perfectly.
Well done.Posted by DropDeadUgly on 2007 06 16 at 11:24 PM • permalinkInteresting that those who believe the left cannot be defined have no problem lumping the right together, as Dunlop does in his first sentence.
He goes on to repeat the mantra:
Try and define the arguments put forward by a John Quiggin, an Andrew Leigh, a Kim Jameson, a Cam Riley, a Robert Merkel, a tigtog or whomever merely in terms of a left/right dichotomy. It simply won’t work, and to do so would be to label yourself as unserious.
However wron at #4 defines it perfectly and seriously. All of the people Dunlop names will remain true to wron’s definition, even if it means ignoring any other belief - thence comes the comedy.
If Dunlop was fair dinkum that the left and right dichotomy was not useful, he wouldn’t use the terms. Truth is, as a lefty, he’s embarrassed to be associated with those who would appease the girl cutters.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 06 17 at 12:15 AM • permalinkTry and define the arguments put forward
Substitute ‘unsupported assertions’ for ‘arguments’ and he might be closer to the truth.
What distinguishes the writings of this group is largely the total absence of what most of us would recognize as an ‘argument’.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 06 17 at 12:31 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Why do people who try to be anonymous denounce the right of others to try to be anonymous?
Or is it something I’ll never understand?