Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:41 pm
I really don’t see any comedic relevance to Blair and the Right as a whole in slagging off Margo on the grounds of physical appearance … Aside from aesthetics, it is a rare occasion when Blair actually takes Margo on intellectually.
It’s a rare occasion when anyone takes Margo Kingston on intellectually, for obvious reasons. Mathew (he calls himself “Darp”) later repeated his claim that I constantly target Margo’s looks:
Tim can’t draw breath without commenting on what a ‘stunner’ Margo is.
And more recently:
He never actually challenged Margo on anything of substance, it was usually her hair, her looks …
Usually? You’d think it’d be easy to dig up all the links where I do that, given how often I mention the woman. On April 12, I began an online experiment—How Long Will It Take For a Stupid Lefty to Acknowledge His Dishonesty and Publish a Retraction?—at this comments thread:
Try to find some links to support your claim that I’ve constantly criticised Kingston’s appearance, or mocked her as ugly. You’ve been saying this for months. Put up some evidence, or retract and stop lying.
Mathew immediately exited the thread, but Tim Lambert—“a dynamite fact-checker”, according to Ken Parish—took up his case. Lambert turned up some crushing evidence:
You quoted this: “Margo Kingston pulls out remaining hair, flies broom into the AMP building” on your blog, approving the criticism of her hair.
And you’ve called Michael Moore fat a gazillion times, which encourages your fans to make similar attacks on the appearance of other people you disagree with.
Dynamite! Lambert had yet more evidence:
You are certainly wrong to accuse Darp of lying on this matter. Since Margo’s appearance is attacked so frequently on your blog, I think most people would get the impression that you were one of the people doing it, so I believe that he made an honest mistake.
The boy can’t distinguish between comments and posts? Continuing my experiment, on April 26 I asked Mathew:
If I usually mock Margo’s appearance, why not post all the evidence? There must be tons of it.
Though I’ve got infinitely more important things to do, I’ll scour through your Spleenville archives to find the article (from roughly March-April last year) where you comment on the ‘new’ photo the SMH puts up for Margo.
The article? Just one? That equals “usually”? In any case, Mathew couldn’t find it. Challenged further, he claimed:
You commented on her hair once and on her looks in general another time …lemme dig up the links.
Still waiting. For 17 days, in fact, since I first asked Mathew to support his claim. Mathew is one of those bloggers who really could use an editor.