Comments on: Missing Link – Saturday 28 July 2007

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:00:35 +0000

Bunyip was the original. I found it a tedious rather than an endearing eccentricity but, then again, nothing much was ever going to endear me to him.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:02:52 +0000

Niall as Bannerman carried off the third person gag rather well, I thought. He couldn’t do it forever, so he stopped. The comic effect was effective while it lasted, though.

By: Darlene

Darlene — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:21:49 +0000

“He was an unlikely factional warrior for the forces of freedom but while holding down his day job running the state, thats precisely what he was.

And I cannot think of a higher tribute than that. We were lucky to have him.”

The day job part is acceptable, but being a factional warrior for the forces of freedom (errr, Labor Unity) won’t win him a Peace prize.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:45:09 +0000

I am impressed that someone who used to refer to themselves in the third person has anything to teach anyone on the subject of English :)

By: Niall

Niall — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:19:16 +0000

Niall Cook wants to pick a fight with Tim Blair

Merely trying to teach the lad the finer points of the English language. After all, he is supposed to be a journalist, yes?

By: jc

jc — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:58:17 +0000

TIm

The Aussie count is the natural state more or less. I would have thought it was more, but anyways we’re talking about excess deaths in Iraq. That’s a pretty big nut to crack if you don’t have at least some days of big conflagerations. The biggest day I ever heard was about 300 people dying of a large bomb blast, which was a few years ago.

But 700 deaths a day on average as a run rate?

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:28:01 +0000

JC, about 500 people die every day in Australia. But you never read of a death toll that high. Not all or even most deaths are reported in the papers.

By: cs

cs — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:20:28 +0000

How do princesses behave jc? I’ve never met a princess. Do they always wear flouncy dresses and sleep on a bed with a pea under it?

By: jc

jc — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:16:45 +0000

Stop behaving like a princess. All I’m doing is giving you an honest opinion that this issue has no chance turning even one voter around. The only two people in the in the country- no the entire universe- who seem to think its mighty important is you and red Kezza. You’re both on the outer field on this one.

I never suggested you were a yawm. I said the issue was.

I really think you’re jumping a lot of hoops in lateral thinking here, CS. There are plenty of other reasons to vote out the Libs, but it’s hardly going to be because you and kezza think Howard hasn’t been a good economic manager because Costello is comparing his own performance to Howard’s in the early 80′s. That’s a 500:1 shot CS. It has as much chance of resonating with the electorate as suggesting Julia Gillard is a closet libertarian.

By: cs

cs — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:58:04 +0000

Sorry to wake you up jc. Go back to sleep now, that’s a good boy. Why, now I’m yawning too. zzzzzzzz

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:53:14 +0000

“As you correctly say, Ken, in a postmodern world, [etc.]”

Pretty funny, Mark.

By: jc

jc — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:49:26 +0000

CS
This election thing isn’t a rugby match, dude. you seem obsessed over this Howard thing as though it was. I watched the interviw with red kerry O the other night and Costello. It seems that the only two people who give a cracker over this Howard/Costello/who’s the best treasurer is you and Kerry. It’s a yawn.
No one really cares.
Here’s a deal, find me two voters who are swayed by the fact that Costello thinks he’s a better treasurer than Howard.

And no, I am not a howard supporter. I don’t vote in elections because I don’t believe in compulsary voting and stay away in protest.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:23:09 +0000

But unfortunately the rest of the company were far too dignified to join such a singalong! ;)

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:22:08 +0000

Actually, now I recall that having looked to my right I immediately thought of a song and was trying to get some others singing along. “Swing low sweet chariot” IIRC.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:56:50 +0000

As you correctly say, Ken, in a postmodern world, all texts are open to multiple readings, but as far as the discredited concept of authorial intention goes, the answer would be no.

I’m a bit of a regular at Hotel Bravo and I can report that she always dresses like that.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:53:59 +0000

Speaking of that waitress, was the Benny Hill-style pun in Mark B's post title completely unintentional?

By: cs

cs — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:52:19 +0000

Ken, you mistake the joie de vivre in my writing, which is pronounced because I love to write, for the actual content, which in this case is sober. I would never write-off Howard, but I think that Costello may well have. For the Labor side of politics, I think that spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e … unless the Old Queen is determined to hang on, in which case to the gallows he will go. No leader is electable, or re-electable, if he has the hellhounds in his own party on his trail.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:42:45 +0000

Yes JC,

Perhaps I was just concentrating on keeping my eyes on the paella, about which, as Mark reports, I was lavish in my praise.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:23:26 +0000

Chris

Sorry you’re annoyed. I guess it’s just part of this postmodern world that there are multiple readings of any text. Mine was that you were gleefully writing off Howard as a result inter alia of the ammunition Costello has given Labor to destroy his economic management credentials. Moreover, I’ve just re-read your post in the light of your expressed objection, but it’s still the sense I get from it. Naturally, however, I accept that that wasn’t your intention.

By: jc

jc — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:05:14 +0000

Tim

What’s the upgrade from Lancet. I read somewhere they’re suggesting the total is about 1 million now since the start of the war.

If that’s the case it means there has been just under 700 deaths a day in Iraq.

I have never read a toll that high on any day. Bit high don’t you think? It does seem to be stretching things a little.

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:53:27 +0000

Missing Link says: "[John Ray] also reports on a new paper that apparently finds that the 600,000 Iraqi deaths paper published in 2004 in Lancet is internally inconsistent." The paper was first posted on my blog here. There has been lots of discussion in comments. I also commented on Ray's post here. Also, the paper was about the "100,000 excess Iraqi deaths" paper published in the Lancet in 2004.

By: cs

cs — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:24:13 +0000

Yes good work folks, except I must also correct “gleefully”. I would prefer Ratty to stay. As I said in my post, Costello would induce a honeymoon, tighten the race and at least save more government furniture (if, implicitly, he didn’t win). Sorry to be a pedant, but I cannot help being annoyed at misrepresentation.

By: glen

glen — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:15:46 +0000

massive effort again, ken. good work!

By: cs

cs — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:15:06 +0000

Christopher Sheil is gleefully writing Ratty off.

I don’t think so. I have suggested that the Federal Treasuer has written the Prime Minister off.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:14:44 +0000

That’s the waitress.