Lying liar and the lie he told

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:41 pm

Lefty blogger Mathew Henderson-Hau has been lying about me since last July:

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.

His reply:

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.

Posted by Tim B. on 04/28/2005 at 09:16 AM
    1. Tim Lambert is more like a nitroglycerine fact-checker…stuff tends to blow up in his face at the most inopportune moments.

      Posted by PW on 2005 04 28 at 10:35 AM • permalink


    1. Boy, I could be in trouble…

      Posted by J F Beck on 2005 04 28 at 10:37 AM • permalink


    1. Wait, I was supposed to comment negatively on his appearance, wasn’t I? Drat.

      Posted by PW on 2005 04 28 at 10:37 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe Darp and Lambert think you make up all the commenters here. After all, otherwise they’d have to admit that there are more than ten rightwing deathbeasts in existence.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 04 28 at 10:43 AM • permalink


    1. The funny thing is that for all the Margo abuse here, I’d never seen a photo of her, read any comments about her appearance or imagined that “pulls out remaining hair’ was a reference to her scalp, not her sanity. Not until Henderson and Lambert decided to make it an issue…

      Posted by Otter on 2005 04 28 at 11:02 AM • permalink


    1. Here’s a photo of Margo.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 04 28 at 11:05 AM • permalink


    1. This will be in the expansion pack to “Invent A Cause: Save the Left”, “Inventing More Things To Save The Left”.

      Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 04 28 at 11:08 AM • permalink


    1. Evil,

      Thanks for taking the heat off me.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2005 04 28 at 11:16 AM • permalink


    1. If memory serves me correctly then this is the same guy who advocates MURDERING KITTENS and RAPING WHALES.

      lemme dig up the links…

      Posted by Drunk Fade on 2005 04 28 at 11:21 AM • permalink


    1. JF,

      I plead guilty to making fun of Margo’s appearance. Tim is innocent, he was framed.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 04 28 at 11:23 AM • permalink


    1. Darp and Lambert are on the case?  Tim’s reputation is safe—those two couldn’t find an honest fact if it came up behind them and bit ‘em on the ass.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 28 at 11:45 AM • permalink


    1. It’s a double gotcha.  On the one hand, you want to say that you’re not making fun of her looks.  On the other hand, you want to ask what if you were?

      She’s got plenty of ink herself.  It’s a fair fight.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 04 28 at 11:58 AM • permalink


    1. Tim Lambert have been the “dynamite fact-checker” who played down some of the Wounds of Mass Destruction he came across.

      “Margo would’t know illiterate babble if it jumped up and bit her on one of her body parts that produces the stuff she doesn’t flush. If she was baying, you’d know it was full moon.”

      Ken Parish.

      Posted by C.L. on 2005 04 28 at 12:02 PM • permalink


    1. Tim Lambert MUST have been…

      Posted by C.L. on 2005 04 28 at 12:03 PM • permalink


    1. Click on the link to Darp’s blog. Check out the entry dated 28th April, second picture down showing the row of NZ National Front deadbeats. My god. Is that PETER GARRETT?

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 04 28 at 12:03 PM • permalink


    1. I mean, I know he changed his political spots, but this just takes the cake!

      Posted by James Waterton on 2005 04 28 at 12:05 PM • permalink


    1. Darp would also need to explain why he ran pictures of Hitler look-alikes as part of a commentary on the new pope being elected, he said, on the dictator’s birthday. (He wasn’t).

      Quote: “You can bet your bottom dollar that the neo-Nazis of southern Germany, Poland, Croatia (and even Russia) will be heading out on the mother of all rampages to celebrate this.” (Namely, Benedict’s election).

      No retraction, correction or apology.

      Racist, intolerant, mendacious, culturally ignorant, sectarian and dumb – kinda extreme right wing traits. Maybe Matthew writes so much about Nazis that he’s finally going native.

      Posted by C.L. on 2005 04 28 at 12:16 PM • permalink


    1. Uh, actually, they might be thinking of me.  What I said was I know she was lending her picture to be applied to leftwing T shirts.  You know, the Che of the New Millenium.  But couldn’t she have chosen a better picture?  Gee whiz.  Go to Glamour Shots woman!  Have some photos made.  Doesn’t Australia have a Glamour Shots studio at the mall?

      They could dress you up in a frilly dress, apply some make up (possibly for the first time), and have you lounge seductively on a couch.  “OK, Margo, give me your pout, that’s it, pout for me baby.  Oh you’re good, didn’t know you had it in you, did you.  Yes, baby, now lick your lips, that’s it, why you tease you.  Ok, now be sassy, that’s it, on all fours, head down, your ass high, show it to me, show it.  You’re an animal Margo, a lioness, show me your teeth, growl for me, you’re dangerous, yes, very dangerous.  Yes, that’s it baby!  And, that’s a wrap!”

      Oh gosh, I did it again, didn’t I?

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 28 at 12:18 PM • permalink


    1. You probably had your hands on your hips while blogging those comments about Margo’s appearance.

      Posted by tachyonshuggy on 2005 04 28 at 03:26 PM • permalink


    1. Michael Moore is fat?  Who knew?

      Posted by Achillea on 2005 04 28 at 03:34 PM • permalink


    1. You’re scaring me here, wronwright.

      Posted by Achillea on 2005 04 28 at 03:34 PM • permalink


    1. Lambert remains the internet’s most famous virtual stalker.

      Posted by Roberts on 2005 04 28 at 04:14 PM • permalink


    1. I suspect that Lambert found a footnote in a Lancet report which supports his claim.

      Posted by Adam B on 2005 04 28 at 04:50 PM • permalink


    1. Speaking of the devil, where is the Web Dairy Queen?

      Since becoming an independent contractor time has been set at large with a long weekend@ Byron Bay have been extended by umpteen sickies; time to send out Trapper Tom

      Posted by rog2 on 2005 04 28 at 05:31 PM • permalink


    1. Um, I’m so sorry Achillea.  I don’t know what came over me.  You won’t tell Lambert and Henderson-Hau on me would you?

      (what’s up with the hypenated name?  isn’t that something one sees mainly with women?)

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 28 at 06:02 PM • permalink


    1. It’s okay, wron.  It’s a good kind of scared.


      Posted by Achillea on 2005 04 28 at 06:33 PM • permalink


    1. The US frequently invades Iraq too.

      Posted by fidens on 2005 04 28 at 08:13 PM • permalink


    1. Margo going medieval on the AMP building was MY WORK, you dirty plagiarist. I claim to have made more snide, disparaging and childish remarks about the Margoyle’s instant-cataract causing visage than anyone else, so there. BTW, Michael Moore is not only fat, he’s ugly as well. And probably smells bad, in sympathy with his audience of unwashed bedwetters. (And what’s more, even with a rag on a stick, when you’re that big a bloater you can’t reach all those nooks and crannies, and he’s too cheap to hire these fellas.

      Posted by Habib on 2005 04 28 at 08:42 PM • permalink


    1. Tim made fun of Margot’s appearance 100,000 times. It’s in the Lancet so it must be true.

      Posted by ArtVandelay on 2005 04 28 at 08:50 PM • permalink


    1. Ok Habib, maybe just maybe you did make more snide remarks about Margoyle’s appearance.  But you’re the old champ Habib, and I’m the young kid on the block, er, blog.  I’m in your rear view mirror and coming at you fast.  I have my Margo poison pen ready, so don’t get too comfortable resting on their laurels.  Those laurels will be mine.

      (did that sound kind of Karl Evil Rove like?)

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 28 at 09:45 PM • permalink


    1. That Michael Moore fellow is very overweight…

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 04 28 at 10:14 PM • permalink


    1. At least we haven’t made any cheap gags at the expense of Darp’s appearance.

      Posted by Habib on 2005 04 28 at 10:32 PM • permalink


    1. Margo’s got a face like a half sucked mango, anyone can see that.

      Posted by Nic on 2005 04 28 at 11:33 PM • permalink


    1. I do know from inside info that whenever the denizens at Fairfax have a staff meeting and Margo decides to make a statement, a collective sigh of irritation or frustration usually ensues.

      As for Darp’s comments and Tim being Lamberted, thaaat many comments about Margo’s appearance are made here?

      Posted by Louis on 2005 04 28 at 11:43 PM • permalink


    1. Obviously he is confusing spelling and grammar with appearance. An easy error to make. 🙂

      Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 04 29 at 12:13 AM • permalink


    1. Heaven forbid we ever mocked Tim Lambert’s appearance and objectivity, or his commitment as an educator.

      Posted by Habib on 2005 04 29 at 12:29 AM • permalink


    1. I think the really interesting thing about Margo is that the ABC Lateline program likes to present her as an impartial commentator.

      Posted by Astonished on 2005 04 29 at 01:03 AM • permalink


    1. I’m certain that Tim never used the phrase “Ugly as a hatful of arseholes” to describe the ‘Web Dairy Queen’ – that’d be rude.

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 04 29 at 01:05 AM • permalink


    1. Blair, perhaps you could ban anyone who is critical of Kingston’s appearance, just like you do for those critical of your views. Then you may not be seen as condoning such gutter talk and there would be no confusion between your views and those of the devoted few who follow your lead. Just a thought.

      Posted by nwab on 2005 04 29 at 01:14 AM • permalink


    1. Tim, your post centres on the word “usually”. The basis for this is Darp’s comment that:

      He never actually challenged Margo on anything of substance, it was usually her hair, her looks …

      However, the full comment was:

      Strange, he never actually challenged Margo on anything of substance, it was usually her hair, her looks, a misplaced comma or semi-colon.

      Since you do usually criticise Margo for her punctuation, grammar and spelling, I don’t think Darp’s far off the mark at all. This selective quotation business is dishonest.

      Posted by Robert Corr on 2005 04 29 at 01:22 AM • permalink


    1. If Darp hadn’t mentioned hair or looks—and if he hadn’t mentioned (in other quotes you’ve selectively omitted) me remarking on Margo’s appearance, and me not being able to draw breath without noting Margo’s attractiveness—you’d be almost right, Robert.

      Posted by Tim B. on 2005 04 29 at 01:30 AM • permalink


    1. He never actually challenged Margo on anything of substance

      So saying “Zionists control media and politics in Australia and the US” is nothing of substance, then, eh?


      Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 29 at 02:54 AM • permalink


    1. Blair, perhaps you could ban anyone who is critical of Kingston’s appearance, just like you do for those critical of your views.

      I see you’re back to being obtuse. One more time: People get banned for being disruptive assholes, not for holding the “wrong” opinion. Otherwise, you’d be long gone, too. (Not that it’d be a great loss, frankly.)

      Posted by PW on 2005 04 29 at 05:17 AM • permalink


    1. This from Dunlop:

      No, frequent criticism of Margo’s looks on your blog is not a totally different thing from criticism directly by you

      Ha!!! You can’t win Tim. Things not actually said by you are therefore your comments. What a hoot!

      God I love the left.

      Posted by Nic on 2005 04 29 at 05:55 AM • permalink


    1. To be honest now – I dont think that Margo Kingston is that physically unattractive. Her ‘ugliness’ comes from her inner self, ie her fear of conniving world dominating hook nosed ‘Zionists’ and her totally irrational hatred of P.M John Howard and anyone who voted for him.

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 04 30 at 04:42 AM • permalink


    1. That’s nonsense, Robert.

      Darp says “he never actually challenged Margo on anything of substance”.

      Since Tim frequently challenged Margo on issues of substance, your own quote proves he was lying.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 04 30 at 11:37 PM • permalink


  1. Looks like some bookseller cooperative with the acronym NWAB is spamming the blog. Hey, bookseller cooperative! Buy an ad!

    Posted by Smithovitch on 2005 05 01 at 09:30 PM • permalink