June 16, 2003


Here's the first line from Saturday’s column by Phillip Adams:

Endless, relentless repetition.

Adams is an expert on the subject.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 16, 2003 10:58 AM

Par for the course. Brookes News carries a very good fisking of Philip Adams and his `sickening hypocrisy and contempt for the truth' which line summs up Adams' foot in the mouth disease '; the latter infirmity is idrectly due to a more grevious prior infirmirty.

Telling is, Adams equating free markets with communism viz misery inflicted upon people in the name of socialism, ( 1999) instance, communism in particularly.
Adams stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Pilger.

Go to the Brookes News site to read the article, but have a vomit bucket handy.

Posted by: d at June 16, 2003 at 12:47 PM

Saying Adams is as bad as Pilger is like saying Mussolini was as bad as Hitler. [[I meant no disrespect to Hitler, by possibly appearing to equate him with Pilger]]

Posted by: Norman at June 16, 2003 at 01:06 PM

Might be smidgeon of difference, the same article relates Adams stated of the mass murder of Cambodians those murdered were `victims of themselves'. As the writer continues; `Does he think they committed mass suicide ....... Adams couldn't bring himself to accept Ngor's correct obseration that communist ideology was respponsible for the mass slaughter.....He still hasn't.'

Dr.Haing Ngor, Suriving The Killing Fields.

Also cited is Adams on: resistance to communist aggression was `wrong', to quote the article fisking Adams; defying communism is `immoral' according to Adams.
If Adams is not as bad as Pilger, Adams runs so close it is hair splitting.

Posted by: d at June 16, 2003 at 02:05 PM

In this piece Adams refers to :

'A group calling itself “the Cabal".'

To describe Wolfowitz and supporters in the Pentagon. If anyone can find a reference to Pentagon groups applying this label to themselves, rather than being a label applied by critics could they please post a link. I had been under the impression that this was a (possibly anti-semitic) label applied by others??

Posted by: Thersites at June 16, 2003 at 04:22 PM


Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 16, 2003 at 09:45 PM

He appears to be a plagiarist and he may have been wrong about a lot of things, but there is nothing inept about this article. It points to a genuine political difficulty facing George Bush & Co. It's a difficulty that will make it VERY difficult to use "intelligence" as a basis for furthering the war against terrorism. The "cabal" has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at June 17, 2003 at 12:25 AM

Yes, TP it will be interesting to see how the WMD situation plays out. Damn near every knowledgable person on the planet assumed that Saddam had a covert weapons program and hidden stockpiles.

What rational person believes that Saddam disposed of his WMD and simply did not bother to inform the UN so that the horribly oppressive sancions would be ended? Could he have chosen this course just so that the suffering of the Iraqi people made the US look bad?

And what were the Iraqis doing with the small amounts of laboratory thiodiglycol found by UN inspectors? Thiodiglycol isn't good for making much other than blister agents.

There is also the very sophisticated gentics laboratory uncovered by UN inspectors. Was this ultrasophisticated lab really for improving goat herds as the Iraqis claimed?

No doubt about it, Saddam's crew were up to lots and lots, none of it good.

Given that Iraq was a closed society, it would have been very difficult for western intelligence services to get accurate information about what was really going on there. Also, in intelliegnce, as in science, there is a tendency to find what is being sought, so as to prove an hypothesis. Thus it is understandable that the intelligence services would have looked for, and found, evidence "proving" the existence of WMD.

The really inexcusable claims were made by leftists before, during and after the war. How many priceless historical artefacts were looted, to be sent to greedy and corrupt foreign collectors? The last I heard, less than 50.

Adams is a useless commie idiot who is carrying on well past his "best by" date.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 17, 2003 at 01:04 AM

Peter Weatherall

OMFG. Did you just post a link to Lyndon LaRouche's site? Do you have any idea who this guy is? He is a fascist and an avowed anti-semite.

Posted by: AndyM at June 17, 2003 at 02:41 AM


Every single day I see more and more evidence of the anti-war movement's alliance to Fascists and anti-Semites. Some of the greatest naysayers in Europe included Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie le Pen, Vladimir Zhironovsky, the BNP etc etc. Peter: it must be very self-satisfying that you hold such esteemed company.

Posted by: AndyM at June 17, 2003 at 02:47 AM

Of course, it's not been so long ago (perhaps it's still going on, I refuse to read LaRouche) that the LaRouchies were claiming that the international drug trade was being run by Queen Elizabeth II, from a secret base on Mars. Since this is about an average claim for them, I leave it to you to assess their reliability quotient.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 17, 2003 at 11:45 AM

I wouldn't want to be in the same room when Phillip Adams was repeating- the waft of decaying truffles and decomposing Bollinger would be fatal. (Mind you, the fat bastard seems immune).

Posted by: paul bickford at June 17, 2003 at 12:57 PM

Let's not make the incorrect assumption that the Anti-war movement equates with the left. There are numerous leftist writers (who we all read, quote and point to with great pleasure) who were in favour of the overthrow of the Iraqi government. OK, there is a huge overlap between the idiots who happen to be left and the idiots who are anti American in all cases. But be reasonable, some leftist idiots were not stupid enough to be anti-US in this case. Adams is a complete tosser but his views on the war and his leftiness are two different tosses.

Posted by: James Hamilton at June 17, 2003 at 01:51 PM

Not to get back to Tim's post, but it occurs to me that Adams's work is more perseverative than repetitive.

Posted by: Harry at June 17, 2003 at 02:44 PM

Being a farmer and a true Man of the Land, Adams is a staunch supporter of recycling. Now, any Akubra-wearing sage will tell you that if you've got a chicken shed to line or some pig slop to bulk up or a pile of mulch to mix, there's no paper better than the stuff they print that New Yorker and that New York Review of Books on. Sometimes, while tearing up said magazines or putting them through the tree chipper, Adams happens upon something that looks a lot like a column. And them big city papers pay good money for one of those. After marking the Important Bits with the pencil stub he carries behind his ear, he summons a farmhand and instructs him to run up to the house and write them out-- "and just add in some stuff from me, you know the things I'm always talking about--Me, how I invented the movie business and became an adertising mogul, the evils of capitalism, the evil Neocon Cabal and the conspiracy to destroy the world, Me." Thus is an Adams column "written," in much the same way as an egg is hand-crafted by a chook.

Posted by: elly at June 17, 2003 at 05:12 PM

Tim oh Tim oh Tim. Stop spewing your shit into cyberspace or your relatives will be turned into dust.

Posted by: Jack O'Farrell at June 17, 2003 at 07:12 PM

Tim oh Tim oh Tim. Stop spewing your shit into cyberspace or your relatives will be turned into dust.

You and your cronies really do waffle some bunk.

Posted by: Jack O'Farrell at June 17, 2003 at 07:12 PM

J O'F,

We all turn into dust eventually; some sooner, deservedly, than others.

If you really want to keep cyberspace free of shit, not making any more posts would be a start.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 17, 2003 at 08:42 PM

Did Mr. O'Farrell just threaten your relatives?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2003 at 04:26 AM

Tim is a ****ing idiot, but to threaten him or his relatives with physical violence is p*ssweak . So I say to Jack O'Farrell f*ck off .Go to an elementary course on logic and writing , Talk politely and then we will let you back .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 12:05 PM


I'm back, Mr Logic. Glad we agree on one thing. He really is a fu*kwit, isnt' he? Have you ever met the turd?

Posted by: Jack O'Farrell at June 18, 2003 at 12:55 PM

My relatives live on farms and own guns. They have little to fear from Jack Off Farrell.

Posted by: tim at June 18, 2003 at 01:05 PM

: Jack O'Farrell , pity we could'nt agree on the basis of a civil society which is that we use "argument" as our basis for solving disputes . By argument I don't mean yelling and sscreaming but the clear outlining of a series of logical statements connected logically in support of our conclusion .As a started I will give yu a list of common logical errors most of which have been demonstrated in this forum ; the either-or fallacy,the red herring, personal abuse , the bandwagon fallacy , begging the question , confusing cause and effect and sweeping generalisation.You can look all of these up via Google .As usual you miss the point Tim ; ust because you're relatives can defend themselves doesn't make it right for somebody to threaten them.

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 01:50 PM

Um -- it wasn't Tim missing the point, it was Mr. O'Farrell. Really, Mr. Weatherall, you shouldn't post while drunk. (If the above quote really is Mr. Weatherall and isn't actually Mr. O'Farrell in the last stages of delerium tremens attempting to pretend to be Mr. Weatherall.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2003 at 04:26 PM

Pathetic Andrea posts ; and the point of your post is ? Re- read what I had to say , and post again .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 04:59 PM

Sheesh, where did these cucarachas come from?

Somebody please turn on the lights.

Posted by: Harry at June 18, 2003 at 05:19 PM

Another idiotic poster. I work on the basis of 50% invective and 50% content.Do the same Harry ya mug

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 05:21 PM

Mr. Weatherall, you really don't want to be calling me names. You really don't. Why don't you -- whoever you are -- sleep it off now, okay?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 18, 2003 at 05:51 PM

Rational argument , Weatherall , when it is Adam's who damns himself by what he pollutes the airwaves with straight out of his mouth?
Can an intelligent conversation be held with someone who plays with facts falsely and is given to such grotesque assertions as his comments on the mass murder by Pol Pot and his fellow savages, then equating those savages and their savagery with those who are not ?

An engaging debate requires a lot more than you suggest.Then their is Pilger.... and the ABC regularly doesn't let objectivity stand in the way of its ideological commitment.Ponder the communnisto journalist Pinsky's statement to the effect, if facts and truthfulness stand in the ways of his devotion to socialist ideology he will always subordinate it in order to serve the latter.

Lastly, I count of your last post Weatherall, 30% truth , assuming the second sentence is true; and 60% invective, on the first and last sentence.

Posted by: d at June 18, 2003 at 06:40 PM

I'll repeat it for you Andrea you are pathetic ; post some content . I'm in Western Australia and much as I like alcohol I have'nt touched a drop today .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 06:41 PM

To d : good post ; at last a post with some content
As much as I like John Pilger and Phil Adams they have some deep problems . The truth is the highest goal we should be after, however painful that may be .The fallacies I mentioned are good ones to avoid .
Further the smallest components of an argument are facts and no one should spare the effort to estabilish what they are .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 18, 2003 at 08:47 PM


I suppose you use Lyndon Larouche as your source for facts and as a model of logical argument. Move further west and lecture to the bottom feeding scum suckers you whining commie loving moron.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 18, 2003 at 10:38 PM

Zsa Zsa you are a simpleton. the point of the Larouche quote was the original use of the word "cabal" w.r.t. Pentagon . A trap I set that you fell into . SHooting fish in a barrel .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 19, 2003 at 12:49 AM

Yep, fell right into the same "trap" the Musloonies try to set by referring to Larouche and other lunatic fringers as factual sources. I may be a simpleton but at least I'm smart enough to know Larouce's various sites are not to be cited in serious adult conversation for any reason, ever, and that Adams is a whining fool.

If you do some checking around you might find that the first reference to a Pentagon cabal was prior to 2001. But, if you're at all like your corpulent hero you won't bother to check your "facts" too closely, if at all.

If you want to have a battle of wits oh great whining, lecturing one, please make sure you come armed next time.

Oh and please, please, don't beat me around the head and shoulders with any more cliches, it tickles.

And please apologise to your significant other for me, no doubt he or she will bear the brunt of your frustrations.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 19, 2003 at 01:54 AM

Oh dear, Petey -- you mean that is your natural condition? So sorry to hear that.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 19, 2003 at 03:20 AM

Comment appreciated,P.W. - see what you were driving at.
( Oh, though, disagree strongly on, Tim is `f*** idiot)

Posted by: d at June 19, 2003 at 12:00 PM

No frustration involved Ga Ga Za Bore . If you have any references to the use of "cabal" in this context please post them . This is a research topic , ther is no statement by me that that was the origin of the use of that term in that context .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 19, 2003 at 04:23 PM

Still no content from pathetic Andrea . We're all waiting.

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 19, 2003 at 06:23 PM

I have a life, Petey. Unlike you.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 19, 2003 at 06:49 PM

Obviously I have had WAY too much to drink as I find the debate incomprehensible ..... oops sorry ..... i flnd hte dbeate nicperhonerble ... see .... I am drunk too !!!!!

And therefore being drunk ..... shit i've forgetten the brilliantly logical and insightful statement I was about to make ..... guess thats alcoholism for ya ..... shit happens !!!

But even through the alcoholic haze ..... umm .... where is Phil the Phuckwits source for 'The Cabal' again ?

Posted by: Thersites at June 19, 2003 at 08:49 PM

You're too late Thersites , debate over this topic is just about to disappear underneath the onward march of your great leader's dribblings . .Your imitation of a drunk is pissweak and not funny , as all those should be (Hint :" I drunkl .. too" or to the officer arresting you " good evening , Orrifice" ) Mispellings must be random and not contained in one sentence .
Incidentally I count my hangovers in terms of the amount of damage I cause . A good one is about $3000 .To Andrea at last the human beneath the mask .Love and best wishes

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 19, 2003 at 09:35 PM

Jeez PW you love to lecture and whine; are you a Pommy English teacher or just a good impersonator?

You should be counting the cost of your hangovers in brain damage, not dollars.

Save the wishes of love for your mother, I'll bet you two are really close.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 19, 2003 at 11:16 PM

Pssst , Ga-Ga come close and I will tell you a few secrets . Firstly to be insulting you have to know something that's true about the insultee ; something that you can deduce about them .For instance the hectoring ,badgering , know-it -all tone seems to indicate a teacher . But to call some one a teacher is not an insult , or you could call them a would be teacher if they had enough talent . Now that seems better .An insult about my mother - hey I bet all the women in your family wear army boots .Measurement of the cost of hangovers is surely just an individual choice .
Ga-Ga Za Bore is a good name for you .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 20, 2003 at 01:15 AM

Thanks for the lecture, at least you did much less whining this time around. Given the quality - or lack thereof - of your posts, brain damage is obviously a valid and reliable measure of the effects of your much ballyhooed hangovers.

As for insulting your mother, simply nominating her as responsible for you is surely insult enough. (The "your mother wears army shoes" line was already out of favour when Bob Clampett last had Bugs Bunny say it. Nice try however.)

Saying you seem to be a Pommy English teacher was simply an observation: you whine like a Pom and like an English teacher you overestimate your grasp of the language and try to force your "students" to see it your way. Every post you make confirms this.

No doubt a typical Adams follower.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 20, 2003 at 02:17 AM

I love youse too Ga Ga yo ho ho and a bottle of Rum , it being Friday me hearties .Still no content from you Zsga Zsga

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 20, 2003 at 12:16 PM

I think it's time to say "do not feed the troll."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 20, 2003 at 05:45 PM


I'll post some content if and when you do.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 20, 2003 at 06:03 PM

You don't know what a troll is Andrea ,unless you're referring to yourself. I've taken some time to read your rantings in other forums on the Internet . Some of it quite rational , but with a clear agenda in the background . You don't work for the Republican party do you ? Should be nice in Florida at this time of the year .To Zsa Zsa ; I've read your horoscope and it says be wary of people you think are friends .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 21, 2003 at 02:30 AM

I know you are but what am I?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 21, 2003 at 05:33 AM

I've been on the Internet for twelve years , I know what a troll is , how long have you been on the Internet ? . Fresh out of Republican party training school I suspect , site started in 2002 . They did'nt teach you well about the Internet either .Incidentally I have seen some wonderful trolls , some truely awe inspiring demonstrations of their ability (or inability), and their consequent destruction of the newsgroup they were on . Search on Scott Nudds . Is this a newsgroup ?

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 21, 2003 at 11:28 AM

This isn't the first website I've ever had, dumbass. As for your boast about being on the internet twelve years -- who gives a shit? The fact that you seem to feel the need to boast about it is pathetic. Go back to alt.binaries.masturbating.dwarfs and find someone who cares.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 21, 2003 at 01:38 PM


Do NOT p#ss off Andrea.

AH is near the top of my BloggerJogger(tm)

She be MEAN.

XXOO to Andra.

Imperial Falconer

Posted by: MonkeyPants at June 21, 2003 at 01:57 PM

Whoa, I wasn't fast enough.

And that should be "XXOO to Andrea."

Dang my keyboard.

Posted by: MonkeyPants at June 21, 2003 at 02:00 PM

Andrea you're not in my league .I bored .Give my best wishes to Jeb .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 21, 2003 at 02:15 PM

Man, what a ridiculous argument. PW, can't you even manage to use your puncuation correctly? WTF is up with the spaces before your periods and commas?

Posted by: Matt Moore at June 21, 2003 at 03:59 PM

Of course I meant punctuation, not puncuation. But PW is still a space misplacing punk.

Posted by: Matt Moore at June 21, 2003 at 04:00 PM

"Andrea you're not in my league"

Thank you Jebus.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 21, 2003 at 04:48 PM

Uhhhhh...I would like to point out that PW is not at ALL representative of the fine people of Western Australia. He must be one of those scary people from down in Perth...

Besides, someone who claims to be from Western Australia and says, "much as I like alcohol I have'nt touched a drop today," is either lying about not touching a drop today or lying about liking alcohol. Nobody BRAGS about liking alcohol; it's generally assumed that if you are of age and live in WA, you like alcohol.


Geoff G.
Exmouth, WA

Posted by: Darth Cirrocu at June 21, 2003 at 04:51 PM


Wow you've been on the inernet for 12 years. Hero. As for the supposed content you post it really bnv kmmlllllllllllllllle.ifw;. Sorry I dozed off just thinking about and nodded into the keyboard.

As for your claim to have a badgering style, doesn't badgering imply the ability to do damage? Like a Silky Terrier, you are able to produce lots of noise but don't threaten anyone. Go hump someone's leg, dahling.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 21, 2003 at 06:18 PM

MonkeyPants : I don't care if she is Sheena of the queer Bar its all the same to me .Here's a little pommy english teacher momemt for Ga Ga .
"Its the argument wherein we catch the Queen ".
Android : Jebus for President 2008 rah rah rah . Any more of that dwarf stuff and you' ll miss out on the 2008 campaign .The Republican party is a conservative organisation .Pick on somebody your own size . Not a career highlight .
Zsga Zsga : I don't where to start on that logical stew .
Hows the argument about WMD going in the U.S. ?

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 21, 2003 at 07:41 PM


What do you call a dead dog? Anything you want, it still won't come.

The "Staffy" has no teeth. Gum me some more big boy.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 22, 2003 at 12:14 AM

Way back in the 4th comment, Thersites asked for evidence that 'neocons' ever refer to themselves as "the Cabal", as Adams alleged. Peter Weatherall offered a URL in which some LaRouchites call them that. LaRouchites are not generally considered neocons by anyone who is both sane and sober. Anyone care to offer any actual evidence for Adams' statement? Thersites' question is still unanswered.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at June 22, 2003 at 05:00 AM

But Doc, that's the way trolls work. They do not answer questions that will refute their position, they use worthless url's to support their point of view, and will call sites that refute their point of view bogus.

That's why Andrea says don't feed the trolls. Of course, they can be fun to play with. And PW, will you please try to get your punctuation right? That's why everyone thinks you're drunk.

This comment function has a preview feature. Please use it.

Posted by: Denny Wilson at June 22, 2003 at 05:43 AM

The tag team continues
Boring Denny Wilson writes something but I fell asleep half way through .Doesn't know what a troll is .
What with all the dead dogs , the humping silky terriers , and the masturbating elves there is more components of pyscho-pathology here than a David Lynch movie . The only thing missing is Santa , now where does he go .
If there is anything useful to come out of this it is that I have discovered the talents of Zsa Zsa Zsa Zsa you are attentive , pick things up quickly and have a sense of humour . What are doing with this pack of dills.. Now the key question is - Can I displace that silky terrier in your life .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 22, 2003 at 11:21 AM

And in late breaking news Android is over at spleenville.com having a nervous breakdown.

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 22, 2003 at 11:27 AM

To Dr. Weevil , Denny Wilson : You make a fundamental mistake . This is not a serious forum ; its name spleenville.com is apt . It is devoted to bloated egos with little or no interest in serious debate .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 22, 2003 at 12:17 PM

Speak for yourself, Peter: yours is the only really bloated ego on display here, and the only one that shows no interest at all in serious debate. Seriously, can you come up with any evidence at all that neocons have ever called themselves "the Cabal"?

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at June 22, 2003 at 12:42 PM

Dr. Weevil ,Android happens to be the owner of this forum , that is she is the administrator for this domain . Look back over the posts and you'll see the whole thing degenerated when she tried her ego feed for Tim Blair .

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 22, 2003 at 07:51 PM


The punctuation thing, it's the only thing that makes you unique, isn't it? I'll bet mumsy was a real punctuation stickler. You rebel.

Thanks for the bouquet but since I was trying to be the biggest dill here - but failed - you should keep it.

So, who else do you admire, other than P Adams. Or is it just that Tim rubs you the wrong way?

Posted by: ZsaZsa at June 22, 2003 at 09:40 PM

I admire you my dear .Its love at first leg .I was premature in my judgement of you , mea culpa .As for
Timmy and sidekick best forgotten . I somehow have to cleanse the guilt and shame of it all .Perhaps a name change is in order for all of us . I think I'll start a blog of my own

Posted by: Peter Weatherall at June 22, 2003 at 11:36 PM

Looking back over the posts, I see that the whole thing started to degenerate when Peter Weatherall quoted a Lyndon LaRouche site that (a) utterly failed to prove the point in question, and (b) showed that he is a maniac or a fool, since no one else quotes LaRouchies, and further degenerated when Jack O'Farrell started spewing stupid insults. Still waiting for the evidence that neocons call themselves "the Cabal".

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at June 23, 2003 at 03:37 AM

I think I'm going to start a group and call it the Cabal. Obviously the very word strikes fear in the hearts of loons.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2003 at 07:08 AM

Can I join? Please!

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at June 23, 2003 at 08:19 AM

Me too! I wanna be a Cabalerro!

By the way, I doubt that the Republicans could succesfully steal an election using barely trained operatives. The woman who was paying the homeless in Milwaukee to vote for Gore was a senior member of the Democratic National Committee.

Posted by: triticale at June 23, 2003 at 09:51 AM

Me too! Me too! I'm a member of the VRWC. But I'd love to be in a Cabal, also!

Posted by: Denny Wilson at June 23, 2003 at 03:00 PM