Have you been asleep since 1992 Mr Bird? I know skepticlawyer is some kind of protected species/pet at Catallaxy, but everywhere else she’s the dumb kid that lied about her background to sell a book, then plagiarised rubbish off the internet because she was too lazy to write her own column for the Courier Mail.

I’m sure she’s very happy to know you are a fanboi of hers. I’m certainly a great fan of yours and enjoy your Catallaxy contributions greatly.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2863

If the target of Catallaxy is “statists”, there are an enormous number of them in the government ranks, but the cheap shots are almost always reserved for the Labor Party.

Then there’s Rafe…

her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld

On referring to Catallaxy as a right-wing haven, I find this irritating. It’s a Libertarian blog, and Libertarians have more in common with Social Democrats than anyone might like to admit, it’s just we think the free market leads to the liberal society that you think the government and tax-payers should legislate and pay for. Calling it a right-wing haven incinuates it is conservative, it’s not, and there is a difference.

I know Andrew Norton has the same complaint about people referring to the CIS as a ‘conservative’ think-tank (it isn’t).

As for Media Watch, I think the problem is, a show designed to adress dishonesty in the media is being run by card-carrying, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy believing, Lefties, who are naturally inclined to beleive the only dishonesty in the media comes from the conservative side, and any dishonesty in the left is justified by its end, which is to expose the VRWC.

To be taken seriously, MW needs to be run by genuine centrists with a genuine respect for the role of an honest and accountable media. Too much to ask of Aunty, I suspect.

ABC still biased to point of ridiculousness.

Niall still the biggest fuckwit in the blogosphere.

It’s comforting in a way.

1. Incosequential subject matter that most couldn’t give a stuff about;
2. Post that displays moral outrage completely out of proportion with alleged offence/outrage;
3. Valid and pertinent comments derailed by juvenile bickering and name calling;
4. Special pleading.

I think it is a combination of sheer lack of resources to do anything better, plus a strong sense that the gang lives in a particular kind of moralistic, cardiganey, second-hand SAAB kind of bubble. A lot like me, really - except for one very important difference. I constantly take the piss out of myself, and this lot is always sanctimonious.

I think it is often a rhetorical trick to solve a problem. It can be very difficult to simply explain what is wrong with an example, so they resort to a “nudge, nudge, know what I mean” system of shared references.

For instance: You either do or don’t get why the Adams reference is so ugly. Partly it is to deal with the subtle(ish) question of the use of the word “chilling”, which is both a cliche, is somehow triggered by the fact that Helen has a cool Northern Europeanish exterior, is connected in his brain with the Holocaust, and actually refers to another person he interviewed for whom the word is actually not a cliche.

In this case, MW didn’t pick up on this level at all - it was left to people on this thread to make the connection. But you can see how they bundle a long set of references into the one sourish little moue.

I really enjoy Adams on the radio, btw. For me it is like sucking the liqueur centres out of chocolates. But he is hugely self-confident and has a substantial ego which warps his ability to say to Helen that he was completely bloody wrong, maligned her in the process, and made a dill of himself.

Of what possible relevance is this? Both MW and Phillip Adams were both (finally) pretty clear on the fact that Adams hadn’t interviewed Helen - on LNL or off it.

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=2205&ps=20&dm=1&pd=2&am=2205#m2205

There’s much more to this tale than your article exposed. I do think you should have done much more spade-work on this one. Who knows, you might have uncovered a real Media Watch scandal in the blog world.

Ooh! shock! scandal! Helen Dale answers charges at her regular blog home.

Nial, the Inspector Closeau of the Blogsphere

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=2205&ps=20&dm=1&pd=2&am=2205#m2205

I think you should have identified the website you displayed Dale/Demidenko as having written on/from as Catallaxy, rather than simply displaying what appeared to be an unidentified webpage. Catallaxy, as almost anyone in the Australian Blogosphere will confirm, is decidedly right-wing in expression. Inhabit the ’sphere for even the shortest period and you’ll soon discover that right-wing despise left-wing and never hesitate to slag off those they identify as ‘lefties’. Phillip Adams is identified by the more rabid of right-wing bloggers as fat phil, or phat phil. Indeed, just about any derogatory nominative will do, as long as it’s not Phillip Adams. Pointless, but revealing none the less.

So what exactly is revealing? Tell us.

And how else am I supposed to interpret your original comment to Ken?

Personally, I thought it a complete & utter non-event, but was amused to note that Demidenko/Dale/Darville/Dunnowhosheisandcouldcareless made her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld. Why not from CT, which is supposedly so fair & balanced?

So you were alleging some sort of conspiracy to ‘get Fatty’ whereas the fact of the matter is Adams fired the first shot and Helen was entitled as a citizen to respond to Adams libelling her using taxpayer funded premises.

You then go around the ABC and then now Club Troppo thinking you’ve found some smokin’ gun because Helen didn’t post this on Troppo but decided to post this on Catallaxy instead totally unaware that Helen has never been, with the exception of Missing Link posts, a regular Troppo contributor.

Busted, and no mealymouthed sophism can paint you out of your fool’s corner.

Predictably, I note you’ve risen to protect one of your own, while you’d be none the better acquainted with whether this woman has or hasn’t met Adams at some time in her, or his, dim distant past, yet you’re all too ready to slag off all comers of an opposing ideological stance. Just love your comment on your own graffiti wall, by the way.

Dopiest comment of the week, nay the year must go to Niall Hyper-idiot Bannerman. He thinks he’s come across some conspiracy. If he ever any smarter, his IQ would be room temperature

Completely missed the point while living up to my expectations of your kind to the nth degree. Well done, son!

Personally, I thought it a complete & utter non-event, but was amused to note that Demidenko/Dale/Darville/Dunnowhosheisandcouldcareless made her initial disclaimer & shaft at Adams from a distinctly right-wing haven in blogworld

Because Catallaxy is her blog-home and has always been her blog home, dopey dopey Niall. skeptic only posts missing link on club troppo.

what possible relevance is it other than that? and no other *contributor* on Catallaxy has ever picked a bone with Phillip Adams (and no commenters are not contributors otherwise the collective IQ of Club Troppo would be brought down 40 points by your presence). Catallaxy is a blog I started up and I have probably rarely if ever mentioned Adams before - you’re welcome to search the archives. If anything I may have praised him once for taking a consistent line on free speech.