Tim B. Liar
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
 
Most of Tim's posts are interchangable. But every now and then one pops up that's just plain weird. This one, for instance, where Tim endorses the "flypaper theory": that the war on Iraq gets all the terrorists in one place for convenient extermination.

This is patently silly - a prime example of magical thinking - and it's already been comprehensively debunked.
Monday, August 18, 2003
 
It's all ready to go when Tim returns: Blair Bingo. Collect four across, down or diagonally within two days' postings to win. Scroll down to play...




























Privatise the ABC!





Fast cars!



Boobies!



Philip Adams!



Death penalty yay!





Beer!



BBC biased!



ABC biased!



Laugh at Muslims!





Laugh at Germans!



Laugh at Frenchies!



Silvio!



David Marr boo!





Andrew Bolt yay!



Arts stupid!



Ad hominem attack!


Sunday, August 17, 2003
 
At the time of writing, Tim's page is completely blank.

Finally: all Tim's worthwhile posts on one page.

Update: Tim promises: "Regular wretched commentary will recommence shortly."
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
 
We admit it: the only reason we bother continuing with this blog is that it riles Tim so.

Tim is upset 'cause the story we quoted saying that the Baghdad Museum estimated 3,000 to 5,000 pieces lost came before this story, which puts the number at 33. (Still following?)

Sorry Tim, you're still wrong. That's what you get for relying on Howard Kurtz. The real story:
Staff there now say that only 33 major items and around 2,000 minor works have gone.
Nowhere in his tanty does Tim make this distinction between major and minor works - which is not surprising, as his source doesn't either.

And Tim didn't mention at all the other source we linked to - a catalogue of nearly 300 missing pieces, complete with photos. He should have, as it's pretty weak evidence: This collection includes a whole bunch of pictures of monuments far too hard for even the most dedicated Baathist to spirit away. And the photos would hardly be a great loss, provided the monuments they depict haven't been blown up or knocked over by the shoes of angry Iraqis.

So: 33? No. 300? Probably not. About 2,000? Probably. We don't know the exact figure; as we made clear yesterday, we just know it's more than 33.
Monday, August 11, 2003
 
A Token Lefty has already tackled Tim's Quadrant dinner-dance talk, as reprinted in The Australian. (Tim's upset at the ABC. Who'd ha' thunk it.)

The only thing we can add is this: Tim, try to keep up. Here's Timmeh on looted Iraqi antiquities:
The ABC hasn't mentioned this "inevitable humanitarian crisis" a great deal lately. Because it never happened. Neither did the infamous looting of the Baghdad museum. Early reports – that ran on the front pages of every newspaper, as well as round the clock on the ABC – claimed that 170,000 priceless antiquities had been looted. The actual figure, as it turned out, was about 33.
Yes Tim, the ABC's figure was wrong. But so is yours. From the Summer 2003 Art News:
Museum officials and American investigators are finding that the number of missing artifacts is vastly lower than first reported. Instead of 170,000 artifacts missing, museum officials say privately, the number will probably be 3,000 to 5,000.
The ABC got their figure wrong in an 'early report', as Tim says. What's Tim's excuse?

(There are at least 300 objects known to be missing from the Baghdad Museum; The Art Newspaper has a photographic database. That's still more than 33... We'll update with better numbers if and when we come across them.)
 
Tim's upset we're not exclusively focused on him. With that in mind, we proudly present the generic Shorter Tim Blair, suitable for use no matter what Tim posts:
Pay attention to me.
But really, Tim should take a look at our very first post, where we said:
Hell, we may even look at the loonies over at The Australian's editorial page - even if it does have all of three readers (including Tim). Andrew Bolt might get a mention, too. We'll see.
Sorry Tim: this blog isn't just about the contents of your mind. Sure, it has a narrow focus. But not that narrow.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
 
Tim's all for cutting the ABC (presumably the shows that have him on as a guest are to be excepted). Also joining the baying mob of Fearless Aunty Killers is The Australian's editorial writer, who wrote a couple of days ago:
There is, in fact, an area outside of advertising and administration where the ABC could make large cuts, and that is in light entertainment. Why has the ABC scrapped some useful news and education programs, but shown fanatical loyalty to its Friday night comedy offering The Glass House – a loyalty that is certainly not shared by any significant number of viewers. Programs of that kind on the ABC that do find an audience – like Micallef and The Fat – are really better done on commercial TV, as the recent exodus of the talent from those programs to the Nine and Seven networks demonstrates.
In other words, low ratings are proof the ABC does light entertainment badly. Conversely, shows that do well don't belong on the ABC. Or, shorter still: heads I win, tails you lose.

And yes, this leader did indeed appear the same day Nine cancelled Micallef... because of its low ratings.
 
Ultimate pot-kettle-black: Tim criticises columnist for incoherence.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
 
Heeere's Andy*, writing about the Jakarta Marriot blast:
No, it's the Australia-shame crowd I feel for. They're the ones who have been robbed.

I mean, who are they going to blame for this latest atrocity now that we're not among the dead?
This is the ultimate in straw-man arguments. Bolt has no-one to argue against - he's unable to produce one single person who blames anyone but JI for the attack. So he just makes them up. Lame.

*No link yet, as usual.**

**Update: linky here.
 
While we were out, Timbo decided to speculate on our identity/ies. Oooh, Tim. Nice to see you care.

For Tim, the only attack is an ad hominem one. And he can dish 'em out - but he can't take 'em. The poor little darling couldn't stand having to deal with anonymous words - he needs a tangible figure to hang them on.

And so, for Tim's sake, we present our true identity.
 
We're back: unlike Timbo, we can't spend all day and night blogging.

But it doesn't look like we missed much - another stab at the ABC (oh come on, Tim, leave it alone or it'll drop off), a plug for his column, and some assorted trivia.

Honestly, if we'd known watching Tim would be so repetitive we wouldn't have bothered. Then again, maybe if we don't leave it alone it will drop off...


Sunday, August 03, 2003
 
Timbo's a big fan of Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi - he loves Silvio's rants against Germans, the media and, um, spiders. But what's this? Some filthy rag has had the temerity to question Silvio in a lengthy open letter. And hard questions they are - questions about bribery, corruption, rigging the judicial system and why Silvio lied in court.

The magazine in question? That well-known communist organ, The Economist.

The magazine is striking back at Silvio - the Italian PM is suing The Economist for this story published in 2001, before Silvio came to power:
The known facts about Silvio Berlusconi, never mind the unanswered questions, rule him out for high office, even though his countrymen seem poised to make him prime minister


Update: Crooked Timber says Burlusconi's PR machine really has described The Economist as communist.
 
Tim likes this New York Post opinion piece:
I don't recall that Saddam's regime was elected. Or that it governed by a constitution. Yet that terror-state was recognized as legitimate by the world's diplomats and international bankers. Every slithering, interest-bearing one of them.
'International bankers'? Haven't we heard that phrase before?

Powered by Blogger