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
Andrew Bolt and Ted Lapkin have issues with ethical academic Tim Lambert. First, an email from Ted Lapkin:
In November 2003, I argued in the pages of Quadrant magazine that the environmental movement is moral culpable for the deaths of 2 million Africans killed each year by malaria. In mid-February 2005, a left-wing blogger named Tim Lambert (Deltoid) accused me, and others, of participation in what he described as “The Great DDT Hoax.” Without going into all the gory details, the crux of the issue deals with the decision by Sri Lanka to cease using DDT during the mid-1960s.
I remonstrated with Lambert in an email communication that I stipulated was for private consumption only, citing segments from my Quadrant piece that made his accusation factually unsustainable. But Lambert avoided the substance of my counter-argument like the plague. Instead, Lambert cut and pasted to his website the introductory portion of my email that expressed my desire to resolve this issue amicably rather than litigiously.
Lambert accused me of threatening him, using my supposedly menacing verbiage as an excuse to disregard my explicit request that my email missive should remain in the private domain. And of course, through the gambit of playing the victim card, Lambert was able to sidestep my factual rebuttal of his hoax claim. How convenient.
There is an old proverb that proclaims: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
In light of Tim Lambert’s past behaviour, I have no confidence that he would not tamper with any comment that I submitted to his site. In order to ensure that my response to Lambert appeared in unaltered form, I appealed to the good offices of Tim Blair who kindly offered to feature my riposte on his weblog.
— Ted Lapkin, Melbourne
The following email was sent by Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt to Tim Lambert, and copied to me:
Dear Tim,
I became aware only of your web site this week, when Tim Blair pointed out some unethical behavior of yours.
It was only then I discovered you had form – and at my expense.
In particular, can you explain why, among your other deceits and misrepresentations, you said this:
Andrew Bolt, writing in the Melbourne Herald Sun offers this conclusive disproof of global warming: “Melbourne last week had its coldest February day on record, and its wettest day, which should surprise those still naive enough to believe our green gurus.”
I ask because I actually argued the very opposite in the article you quote, as you must have known. Hint: read its concluding paragraph, which states:
Of course, one bit of wild weather in our ever-changing climate doesn’t disprove the holy theory of global warming. But nor should green groups claim the odd cold snap proves it, either …”
Got it? You say I claim to offer a “conclusive disproof”. I in fact write that this “doesn’t disprove”. Is that simple enough for you?
So can you answer me the following three questions?
Why did you claim I said the opposite of what I in fact did say? Is this deceit of yours typical of your work and your ethics as a blogger and academic? Will you delete your preposterous posting, or at least do the moral thing and apologise for it on your blog?
— Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
- Re Bolt, this does look like a straight-up misrepresentation, and I would be surprised if Lambert didn’t offer either an apology or a post clarifying Bolt’s article (or both). My opinion of him would certainly diminish if he didn’t.
As for Lapkin, if you consult Lambert’s post, you’ll discover Lambert claims to have offered to post Lapkin’s counterarguments on his blog, but that Lapkin declined, which makes a nonsense of Lapkin’s claim that Lambert “sidestepped my factual rebuttal”. I wouldn’t personally have posted that excerpt from the email, but I can understand the position on threats, and I can’t say I wouldn’t have been tempted to post such a ludicrously pompous legal threat. (How’s that legal action going, by the way? Given that Lambert didn’t retract, must be well underway by now?)
- Do you people sue each other over everything?
Do “you people” lie about everything?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 03 17 at 08:37 AM • permalink
- I’ve never heard of Ted Lapkin, but the I’ve never heard a decent argument from the green scum either.
On the other hand, Andrew Bolt has always impressed with his carefully argued and factual material. Maybe Andrew ought slug it out with Lambert creature in a public forum, and we can be done with this overblown so-called academic.
- you’ll discover Lambert claims to have offered to post Lapkin’s counterarguments on his blog,
So he cuts and pastes parts of an email specifically stated to be private, but will only print facts that rebut his argument if he is given permission?? No-ones going to fall for that one.
He’s a just nasty little worm through and through, and its not before time that he’s been exposed for what he is.
And as for that apology to Bolt, I wouldn’t hold your breath unless blue suits your complexion. Lambert simply doesn’t have the class.
- So he cuts and pastes parts of an email specifically stated to be private, but will only print facts that rebut his argument if he is given permission?? No-ones going to fall for that one.
He posted the portion of the email containing a threat because he doesn’t think threats deserve privacy. The rest of the email, which contained no threats, was given privacy. I don’t see anything strange or inconsistent about that.
Notice that Lapkin conveniently avoids mentioning this claim of Lambert’s, even though he’s read the post. If you were keen to have your counterarguments posted on a blog, and the blog owner not only refused to post them but subsequently claimed he’d done this at your request, don’t you think this might rate a mention when you’re denouncing him later?
Also note the “Lambert accused me of threatening him, using my supposedly menacing verbiage” – was his verbiage menacing or wasn’t it? It certainly looks like a threat to me.
In short, I think Lapkin is the one being shifty and disingenuous there, but I’m siding with Bolt in the other instance.
- Also, I think it’s the height of rudeness to email someone who has merely quoted your work and disagreed with it, and immediately threaten them with legal action. I think it’s definitely ruder than posting the offending section of the email in response. To take an extreme example, if someone emailed me with a string of horrible insults plus a demand at the end that I not show them to anybody, I wouldn’t feel compelled to obey. They’ve waived their right to privacy because of their rudeness. While Lapkin’s email was pompous and irritating, I don’t feel it was quite rude enough to warrant the treatment Lambert gave it. Apparently he feels differently.
- I presume Lambert was just being sarcastic when he said Bolt had “conclusive disproof”.Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 03 17 at 10:21 AM • permalink
- This is Dear Lambert’s mobile need for context.
“Now that link sends one to a coal industry website containing various articles on various topics. Which article are you specifically referring to in your comment? That you cite a web page with specificing precisely your reference is being a tad disengenuous.
I am not going to waste time locating a reference you are too reluctant to point to directly.”–Tim Lambert
“Louis, when I wrote “The complete article that this quote comes from” I was specifically referring to the article that the quote comes from. You can scroll down till you see the article, or you could do a search in that page for Lindzen or a phrase from the quote. Or you can do a Google search for a phrase from the quote. Or, if you follow the link that Aaron gave above you get to a page that cites and links to Lindzen’s article.”–Tim Lambert
- Chris, the whole point of Lapkin’s email was that he wanted it to remain private – he never intended to publicly debate Lambert’s assertions, having already written and published a piece about the subject. He wrote to remind Lambert of facts and passages he overlooked in his assertions. He was never “keen to have [his] counterarguments posted on a blog.”
Then there’s this: “Lambert cut and pasted to his website the introductory portion of my email that expressed my desire to resolve this issue amicably rather than litigiously.” If someone told me, ‘Nightfly, I don’t want to sue, let’s just talk it out,’ I would have to be half-cracked to construe that as threatening.
- This is all a storm in a tea-cup. One guy tries the old “I really don’t want to sue, but…” line over some criticism. The other guy publishes the line to embarrass the first guy. A third guy misconstrues some sarcasm. That’s it. This sort of thing happens all the time in the blogosphere, so what’s the big deal here? (I mean, apart from the fact some mortal enemies are butting heads.)Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 03 17 at 04:02 PM • permalink
- Also, I think it’s the height of rudeness to email someone who has merely quoted your work and disagreed with it, and immediately threaten them with legal action.
hmmm….maybe I should have checked out both sides of this story a little better. I, like many others, wouldn’t go near Tim Lamberts blog if I was paid, (based on the “style” of debating that comes through in his comments to other blogs) so please except my apologies if I have this part wrong, but
I was working under the impression that Lambert had implied that Lapkin was part of a HOAX, in other words that he was part of fraud,
which of course is whole world away from your assertion that he “merely quoted” and “disagreed” with Lapkins work.
If there was no suggestion of a “hoax” then my only excuse is that the revelations about his “methods” that have come in the last couple of days have exposed character traits in Lambert that led me to accept that Lapkins protests were quite justified.
I notice on your blog, that, apart from routine insults such as douchebag and goose and valid commentary about my lack of ability as a party leader, that you also stated that I am a “woman-basher, wine-stealer and supposedly recovering drunk”
Whilst I’m not interested in suing people for defamation, I would like to indicate to you that neither of your first two allegations are true and the final one is either nonsensical or false. (although I can understand that media reports would have led you to believe that the one regarding wine theft is accurate.
- Michael, just go and read Lambert’s blog to see what he said. He says that it’s a hoax, but that writers who make such claims “might be just repeating what another anti-environmentalist wrote and be unaware of the true story”. So, rude and sneering as usual, but that’s the extent of it (and most of us here like to be rude and sneering, so let’s climb down off the high horses).
The DDT debate itself is interesting. The rest of it is just puffing.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 03 17 at 06:56 PM • permalink
- Nightfly: I understand that, but don’t you think it’s a bit rich for Lapkin to email Lambert with a claimed rebuttal, refuse to let him publish any of it, and then accuse Lambert of “sidestepping my factual rebuttal”? As far as having to be half cracked to view Lapkin’s words as a threat, if Lapkin called you up and said “take that post down or I’ll send the boys over to beat you to a bloody pulp”, how would you interpret that? Amicable? What’s the difference?
Michael42: It’s the work of a moment to Google for Lambert’s post and actually READ it. The post is titled The Great DDT Hoax but here is the only mention of Lapkin:
Ted Lapkin in Quadrant writes:
When Sri Lankan authorities agreed to ban DDT during the mid-1960s, rates of malaria infection exploded from twenty-nine cases in 1964 to over 500,000 a mere five years later.
And later Lambert writes:
The anti-environmentalist version of what happened is a hoax. That doesn’t mean that all the writers above were being deliberately misleading: they might be just repeating what another anti-environmentalist wrote and be unaware of the true story.
(My emphasis.) So Lambert specifically stated that he was not accusing Lapkin of fraud. (He goes on to accuse one of the other writers quoted of deliberate deception).
Gary: How the hell is that relevant? Accusing someone of being a woman-beater is not the same thing as quoting their work and calling them wrong.
- This is the reason why I objected to Tim Lambert’s assertion. I have posted it here because I have no confidence that it would appear unaltered on Lambert’s blog
Date: 16 March 2005
From: Ted Lapkin
To: Tim Lambert:
Re: Your accusation of a “DDT Hoax”But Mr. Lambert, in your original posting on the subject of the �Great DDT Hoax� (17 February 2005) you include me in a list of writers who assert that “environmentalist pressure forced Sri Lanka to ban DDT.” In fact, I did nothing of the sort. And the chronology that is clearly laid out in my article undermines your assertion on this point.
In my Quadrant piece I write that the global anti-DDT campaign only emerged after the USEPA banned that pesticide in the United States in 1972:
“Buoyed by the success of the American anti-DDT campaign, by the mid-1970s environmental activists had embarked on a worldwide crusade to abolish its use.”
And in the subsequent paragraph I write:
“During the final quarter of the twentieth century, nations throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America succumbed to a sustained lobbying offensive by the environmentalist movement, agreeing to discontinue the use of DDT for fear that being branded as anti-green might jeopardise their access to international aid programs.”
Of course; by definition, “the final quarter of the twentieth century” began on 1 January 1976.
But as we have seen, the initial abatement in DDT usage in Sri Lanka took place much earlier – in 1964. So how could an environmental advocacy campaign that only got underway in the mid 1970s be responsible for a Sri Lankan government decision that took place at least eight years previously? The answer to this non sequitur is that it couldn’t; and that I never made such an assertion. The ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ (after it, thus because of it) fallacy is a common enough mistake among historians. But you make a more unusual error, the �pre hoc ergo propter hoc� fallacy.
When I wrote that “Sri Lankan authorities agreed to ban DDT during the mid-1960s,” I was referring to an agreement in the sense of a consensus policy decision within the Sri Lankan government. I obviously could not have been denoting any sort of capitulation to an environmental pressure campaign that did not even exist at the time. You might wish to quibble with my choice of verbiage, preferring something like “phase out” to the word �ban.� But the end result of both words is the same, and the former (phase-out) is merely the gradual imposition of the latter (ban).
And Tim, as long as we are on the subject of semantic exactitude, let�s have a look at your own terminology. The primary definition of the noun �hoax� in Oxford English Dictionary reads: �a humorous or mischievous deception, usually taking the form or a fabrication of something fictitious or erroneous, told in such a manner as to impose upon the credulity of the victim.� A subsidiary definition reads �one who is a deception, �a fraud.��
These OED definitions clearly denote calculation or intent to deceive. While your posting does contain a throw-away line to the effect that your use of the term hoax �doesn’t mean that all the writers above were being deliberately misleading.� But in light of the literal definition of that word that appears in the most authoritative of English dictionaries, your caveat becomes next to meaningless.
I am quite happy to concede that; in retrospect, my choice of the word �ban� in reference to Sri Lanka�s DDT policy in the 1960s might have been awkward because it lent itself to misunderstanding. Are you equally willing to admit that your use of the term �hoax� in this context is entirely catachrestic and inappropriate? Unless you are going to accuse everyone involved in deliberate deception, your use of the word “hoax” is unnecessarily invidious and quite out of context.
It is beyond all reasonable dispute that the environmental movement engaged in an full-fledged global advocacy campaign that intimidated impoverished African governments into banning DDT against their better judgment. But this was later: during the 1980s and especially during the 1990s. You need not take my �anti-environmentalist� word for it. There is a plethora of ideologically neutral sources out there confirm this. The 11 March 2000 issue of the British Medical Journal that documents such pressure tactics in Mozambique comes to mind.
In response to a comment from one of your readers, you assert that you oppose the refusal of aid agencies to fund DDT programs and that you support the appropriate use of the pesticide. But Mr. Lambert, you haven�t a word of direct criticism to utter about the role of Greenpeace, et al, in conducting precisely such pressure campaigns, and their resulting about the culpability in the resurgence of malaria in Africa.
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 17 at 08:29 PM • permalink
- Thus your priorities seem to be somewhat curious. Or then again, perhaps not. By casting aspersions on those who call attention to the disastrous effects of the environmentalist anti-DDT campaign, you work to neutralize a major blight on the record of the green movement. And that; of course, has direct bearing on the credibility of environmentalist organizations where more contemporaneous issues are concerned. Thus, I suspect that your true agenda has more to do with Kyoto and global warming than with disputes over what did and did not happen in Sri Lanka over four decades ago.Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 17 at 08:29 PM • permalink
- Chris V — Is it true that Lambert edited his previous material to alter the context or not? If so, then why would Lapkin or any other serious correspondent want to provide him with further material? His credibility and honesty both seem to have been pretty thoroughly expunged…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 17 at 09:23 PM • permalink
- Chris:
He indeed made that offer. But the fast and loose nature of his initial posting raised some questions in my mind as to the content of his character. Thus my first instinct was to attempt to resolve his mischaracterization privately.
And if my instincts told me not to trust Lambert then, subsequent events have revealed that my scepticism was well justified. You have Lambert’s violation of my request that a communication remain private. Then there’s the whole mirror site business with Tim Blair. And now we have Lambert’s distortion of Andrew Bolt’s writing.
Ian Fleming put the following words in the mouth of his arch villain Auric Goldfinger “once his happenstance, twice is coincidence, and a third time is enemy action.” The problem is that Tim Lambert is not an honourable opponent.
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 17 at 09:29 PM • permalink
- richard mcenroe: No, I don’t believe that is true. It’s true that a careful reading of Lapkin’s work reveals no claim that the ban in Sri Lanka was the work of environmentalists, but neither does he clearly disavow that claim. The company in which Lapkin appears do imply this (e.g. the CapMag article opens with “Ever since Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring,” environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use.”, which earlier in this comments thread Lapkin denies is the case, saying the environmental campaign didn’t really begin until the 1970s) so I think it was reasonable for Lambert to assume that Lapkin held this opinion. After Lapkin emailed Lambert with the information posted earlier in this thread and Lambert’s offer to post it was refused, what was he supposed to do?
Ted Lapkin: Speaking of a “fast and loose nature”, let me quote you from the initial email you sent to Blair:
…Lambert avoided the substance of my counter-argument like the plague.
…through the gambit of playing the victim card, Lambert was able to sidestep my factual rebuttal of his hoax claim. How convenient.
Why would you say these things about Lambert when in fact he immediately offered to post your comments on his blog? They’re flat out lies. To me, you don’t come out of this looking very honest or courteous either.
- hello village?! come and pick up your idiot…Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 03 18 at 01:10 AM • permalink
- Eh, Chris:
I laid all that out in rather clear and comprehensible English prose. But for your edification, let me reiterate:
“the fast and loose nature of his initial posting raised some questions in my mind as to the content of his character. Thus my first instinct was to attempt to resolve his mischaracterization privately.”
In other words, the innaccuracy of his initial posting where I was concerned caused a big red master caution light to go off. This I made the decision to try and resolve the matter privately rather than avail myself of his offer to post.
You may agree or disagree with my decision, but in light of Lambert’s recent antics towards Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, I would argue that my caution was well warranted.
But regardless of any disagreement we might have on the wisdom of my course of action, I fail to see how my comments regarding Lambert can be in any way construed as “flat out lies.”
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 18 at 01:14 AM • permalink
- Ted:
Your last comment is entirely irrelevant. I am not concerned with the decision you made not to let Lambert post your reply, or the wisdom of that decision. I am concerned with the way you represented it in your email to Tim Blair – which is to say, you didn’t characterise it as your decision at all, but rather falsely claimed that Lambert had tried to avoid the substance of your article.
Look again at my quotes from you in my last comment. Given Lambert made an immediate offer to post your “counter-argument/factual rebuttal” on his blog, how are these anything but deliberate mistruths?
- Eh Chris:
Here are the facts:
A) I didn’t belong in Lambert’s original email because I never said in my Quadrant piece that the Sri Lankan discontinuation of the use of DDT in ‘64 was because of enviro pressure. (see postings # 24 and 25)
B) That is what I mean by Lambert playing “fast and loose.” And his patent disregard for accuracy caused me to doubt the wisdom of posting publicly on his site.
B) When I pointed this out to him, Lambert ignored the substance of my factual rebuttal and instead posted from the introductory portion of my email that dealt with my desire to resolve this issue amicably and without resort to other measures. And by doing so he violated my express request for privacy.
Thus, Lambert DID evade the substance of my critique of his posting. The rebuttal that appears above constituted the lion’s share of my private email to him. But Lambert decided to engage in “cheap shottery” (a neologism that I just coined) and selectively cut and paste to portray me invidiously.
This is so patently self-evident that I can’t really believe that you don’t get it. But then, the ability of ideological blinders to distort never ceases to amaze.
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 18 at 02:12 AM • permalink
- Change item A) above to read “I didn’t belong in Lambert’s original website posting…”, not “original email”Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 18 at 02:14 AM • permalink
- Ted:
I also can’t believe you don’t get it. I posed this question to you:
Ted: Is it true or not that Lambert offered to post your rebuttal on his blog?
And you replied:
He indeed made that offer.
And yet you still claim, in your most recent comment:
Lambert ignored the substance of my factual rebuttal
I can’t imagine how these two things don’t add up to a contradiction, in your mind. If his immediate reaction to your rebuttal was to offer to post it, how does that qualify as “ignoring” it? If you then refuse to let him post the rebuttal, then how can he act in a way that isn’t “ignoring” it under your definition?
The fact that he later posted the threat from your email isn’t relevant. He explained his reasons for posting that portion of the email, whether you agree with them or not. By all means accuse him of rudeness, breaking confidences etc, but how can you accuse him of deliberately ignoring the factual content when you specifically instructed him not to publish it? Would you prefer him to have ignored that request as well?
- “If you then refuse to let him post the rebuttal, then how can he act in a way that isn’t “ignoring�? it under your definition?”
Here’s just a wild and whacky guess, ChrisV, but how about:
A) Attempt to justify his statements about Tim in a private rebuttal to Tim, AS REQUESTED…
or
B) If he can’t justify his statements, then retract them, in his own words, on his blog.
Far as I can tell, there’s been no substantive response -yet- to the points Tim made. Not in Tim’s mailbox, not on his website, nowhere. So how you can say they -haven’t- been ignored is beyond me.
Qwinn
- Eh Chris:
Ok, I’ll try this one more time for the record.
A) Lambert offered to post my rebuttal on his website.
B) But the patent factual inaccuracy of his original posting caused me to harbour immediate doubts about his integrity
C) Those doubts caused me to decline his offer of a posting because I had little confidence in his moral rectitude. Thus, instead, I communicated my rebuttal to him privately, and requested that he remove the reference to me in his email.
D) He chose to violate my request and post parts of my email on his website
E) The portions that appeared on his website were taken from the initial couple of introductory sentences and had nothing to do with the substance of my rebuttal.
Hence my quite justifiable comment.
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 18 at 03:08 AM • permalink
- While I can understand that Ted is upset at Lambert for his misrepresentations, and while I can understand why he wants nothing further to do with him, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Lambert of avoiding “the substance of my counter-argument like the plague” when he offered to publish it. (And as ChrisV says, the publishing of the legal threat is a seperate matter).Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 03 18 at 04:57 AM • permalink
- Scott:
The point is that I didn’t trust his offer. I had no confidence that he would post my comment without alteration or redaction.
And I think my scepticism has been borne out by subsequent events. If he was going to violate my request for privacy, he could of posted the substantive portions of my email that rebutted his case, as well as the introductory portion. But he chose to post only the latter.
Hence the charge of avoidance.
Posted by Ted Lapkin on 2005 03 18 at 05:17 AM • permalink
- Ted, whether or not you trusted his offer, the accusation you made was that he avoided your argument like the plague. And that isn’t true.
I would have published your legal threat. Most bloggers would have. This isn’t a right-left thing. It’s just the general practise in the blogosphere. Legal threats, especially empty ones, have no right to privacy. Saying “I might sue you, but you can’t tell anyone” isn’t going to work. Many major right-wing bloggers have delighted in publishing such e-mails. I’m sure Tim B would act the same, if he hasn’t already. (And I’m sure Murph dreams of the day he gets such an e-mail.)
But that entitlement isn’t an entitlement to publish anything else in your e-mail (although not all bloggers would care about the niceties here). So Lambert said he would post your response *if you wanted him to*.
Now, I can understand you not wanting to have anything further to do with him at this stage, but you can’t then turn around say that he’s avoided your argument merely because you suspect he will alter your reply.
(And I have to say that I don’t share your suspicion. Lambert may be partisan and selective but I’ve never seen him alter material).
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 03 18 at 06:01 AM • permalink
- Scott, ChrisV, let’s keep things in perspective, shall we? Remember this thread?
It’s good that you are giving Tim Lambert the benefit of the doubt. But you should recall that his behaviorial history is not good. Ted Lapkin gave Lambert the benefit of the doubt…..and had a personal e-mail subjectively edited to highlight the bad points, while ignoring the substance of the letter.
Defend Lambert away, although I won’t. But don’t dump on Ted Lapkin—the man is trying to deal with Lambert, who seems to think the sun rises when he wakes up.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 18 at 07:35 AM • permalink
- I made a quick scan of Tim Lambert’s DDT comments looking for some sense in this debate.
Lambert has a habit of referring to secondary and remote sources, but not primary, so need to order the primary reference from Amazon.com for purposes of due diligence; Many readers here could not afford that.
His main contention concerning Sri Lanka was that spraying DDT resulted in the Mosquitos there developing a resistance to DDT. As animals do when subjected to increased background levels of chemicals – this is called adaption.
While I have not searched his site fully, I suspect Lambert has omitted the important new disovery that the efficacy of DDT is not to saturate a region with it, but to lightly spray the internal walls of dwellings. This has been found efficient in deterring the mosquitoes from entering the dwellings.
Of course, after cessation of blanket DDT spraying, subequent new mosquitoes would have lost any resistance to DDT, called adaption, and would probably now be sensitive to low levels of DDT applied to dwelling interiors.
The differnece between Tim Lambert and myself is that he is trained as a computer programmer, I as a scientist.
Computer prorgams never change. As Edward De Bono pointed out, living things do.
- This Lambert gets around…he left a negative comment on my 2A blog in ref to a post I had made on gun crime on 3/6.
My weblog is about as far down on the food chain as you can get and still be on planet Blog…I get about a dozen comments a year. (I still blog – it’s fun).
Tim, it seems, is going for a rep.
- Louis: If you do read Lambert’s site fully, you will discover he is in agreement with you. That is, he supports spraying dwellings when appropriate (ie when the mosquitoes are not already DDT-resistant) and opposes agricultural spraying on the grounds that it promotes DDT resistance. His complaint is that the charge against environmentalists and NGO’s that they oppose dwelling spraying is largely unfounded. Sure, there are some fringe groups that oppose any use, but the WHO, for example, support dwelling spraying.
Scott Campbell: Thanks for the support!
The_Real_JeffS: How many times do we hve to say it? Lambert offered to post the whole email, unedited. Later, when this was refused, he posted the legal threat. This is a separate issue. Can you seriously not untangle the two in your mind?
- Lambert has replied to the points raised by Lapkin and Bolt.
Michael42 wrote earlier in this thread:
And as for that apology to Bolt, I wouldn’t hold your breath unless blue suits your complexion. Lambert simply doesn’t have the class.
Lambert writes:
To avoid further misunderstanding I have modified the post to remove the sarcasm and apologize to Andrew Bolt for writing something that could be misunderstood.
My complexion is working out fine, thanks. Lambert also replies to Lapkin, making much the same points I have.
I did not find Lapkin’s argument persuasive and told him so. Nonetheless, I offered to post his email so my readers could decide for themselves…. I was able to sidestep his “rebuttal�? because he refused to make it public. I really wanted to make it public but respected Lapkin’s wish that it be kept private.
As far as having to be half cracked to view Lapkin’s words as a threat, if Lapkin called you up and said “take that post down or I’ll send the boys over to beat you to a bloody pulp�?, how would you interpret that? Amicable? What’s the difference?
We are at cross-purposes here, Chris.
Of course ‘take it down or else’ IS a threat. But that is NOT what Lapkin said – he said, ‘let’s talk privately and NOT go to the courts.’ It is in fact the exact opposite of a threat, and that’s why I’d have to be half-cracked to jump to that conclusion: it requires that I treat opposites as equivalents.
…but don’t you think it’s a bit rich for Lapkin to email Lambert with a claimed rebuttal, refuse to let him publish any of it, and then accuse Lambert of “sidestepping my factual rebuttal�??
No, because despite the refusal, Lambert published anyway, but only the parts of the email that suited his desires. He entirely omitted the ‘factual rebuttal’ portion of the message (thus ‘sidestepping’); he made it appear that Lapkin had merely decided to shake his fists at him – an illusion that some have sadly mistaken for reality. Thus he gets to pawn himself off as a wide-eyed innocent, shocked (shocked!) at the incivility of his opponents, to an all-too-ready to believe audience of fellow-travelers.
To give another example, I once wrote a letter to my college paper objecting to a particularly ill-thought-out argument, with a bevy of statistics disproving the original assertion. The paper ran my letter, but omitted all of my citations, making it appear as if I’d pulled the numbers from thin air. In reply to my phone call complaining about this dishonesty, they replied, “You can always write a letter to the editor!”
Like Mr. Lapkin, I gave up at that point.
How many times do we hve to say it? Lambert offered to post the whole email, unedited.
I dunno, ChrisV…..how many times do we have to point out that Lambert printed selective parts of an e-mail written specifically requesting privacy and Lambert engaged in unethical behavior concerning blogging at least twice?
You seem to trust Lambert. Fine! Some people don’t, Lapkin among them. If you don’t understand that, then at least acknowledge that we are not agreeing on that simple point. Because trust and credibility go hand in hand.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 18 at 02:56 PM • permalink
- Nightfly:
Of course ‘take it down or else’ IS a threat. But that is NOT what Lapkin said – he said, ‘let’s talk privately and NOT go to the courts.’ It is in fact the exact opposite of a threat
Huh? This is high school-level comprehension. Let me rephrase – suppose someone called Lambert and said “This whole thing can be cleared up by you taking down the post. In that event I would see no need to send the boys round to beat you to a pulp”. You’re telling me that this is not a threat? Lapkin’s clear implication was that if the post was NOT taken down, he would see a need for legal action – otherwise why mention legal action at all?
he made it appear that Lapkin had merely decided to shake his fists at him.
No, he didn’t. He said right in the post where the threat portion appeared that Lapkin had emailed counterargument, that he had offered to post it, and that Lapkin wouldn’t let him.
To give another example, I once wrote a letter to my college paper… The paper ran my letter, but omitted all of my citations
Did they email you first, offering to run all your citations, and did you email them back telling them they weren’t allowed to? Did they run an item next to the letter, explaining that there had been citations, but they had been instructed to remove them? No? Then it’s not really the same thing is it?
The_Real_JeffS:
Whatever Lambert’s recent conduct, it doesn’t mean you get to keep accusing him of “ignoring the substance of the letter” when the fact that he offered to publish it is not in dispute. Nor does it mean that Lapkin is automatically in the right when dealing with Lambert.
I don’t know if I’d stretch to “unethical” to describe Lambert’s mirror of this site (it has some similarity with RSS syndication) but I definitely have no problem with “childish” and “rude”. What I don’t think he is is inclined to cover-ups and dishonesty, which is the charge I’ve been defending him against. That’s why I had no problem predicting he’d apologise to Bolt (which, Gary, is not out of character: Lambert always apologises when he knows he is factually wrong. See for example the correction at the top of this post).
This will be my last comment on this thread as I think I’ve made all the points I wanted to make.
- Well, at least ChrisV knows when to shut up, since, as Roberts put it, “…Chris doesn’t want to see the hypocrisy in that Lambert deals in dishonest rhetoric…”.
Me, I call it unethical behavior on the part of Lambert. And that’s my final word.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 19 at 01:41 AM • permalink
- It’s fascinating to watch Tim Lambert’s comments pages: hit reload and the comments disappear right before your eyes! Lambert deletes comments that disagree with his view, even if they aren’t vulgar or abusive. A practice he accuses others of doing. Wonder if he bans, too. Flaming hypocrite!Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 03 19 at 08:53 AM • permalink
- To avoid further misunderstanding I have modified the post to remove the sarcasm and apologize to Andrew Bolt for writing something that could be misunderstood.
I’d love to know why Lambert feels his misrepresentation was only something that “could be misunderstood” – He said something that wasn’t true, its as simple as that.
However, it is an apology, even if forced, so credit where credit is due.
If he apologises to all the other people that he has misrepresented in a similar fashion, then I’d even have to reconsider my thoughts about his lack of class.
bwa bwa hahahhahahhahahahahahha
C’mon Andy! You know all too well that being a left-wing parasite means never having to say sorry.