January 22, 2004

KIDS TODAY

Robert Corr is having basic comprehension problems again. Could someone who is patient and works well with children please help him out? Thank you.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 22, 2004 01:21 PM
Comments

I just want to know, Tim -- did the public ignore Al Gore's endorsement of Dean, or did they respond to it by voting against him? It can't have been both.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 01:28 PM

Robert,

Do I actually have to explain to you that the words "it sure was" were intended to convey the opposite meaning? Is that where you're got the big problem? With the complicated sarcasm?

Anyone else confused by this? Anyone? Maybe The Bulletin should publish a special Slow Learnersí Edition for Western Australian legal students.

Posted by: tim at January 22, 2004 at 01:52 PM

You imply that Gore's endorsement harmed Dean (in fact, according to you his endorsement is so harmful that it can change the weather), when you had previously said nobody cared one way or the other.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 01:58 PM

Jeezus, what a nitpicking idiot you are turning into, Mr. Corr. No -- worse, you're turning into a picker of nits that don't exist. Try a new medication.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 22, 2004 at 02:01 PM

I mean, Tim, did Mr. Corr fail to pick up on the use of italics which is often used to convey the concepts of sarcasm and irony in one's post? I didn't think so...

Posted by: Roger Bournival at January 22, 2004 at 02:04 PM

Speaking as a real solicitor, and not a law student, I'd have to say that Mr Corr needs to improve his reading skills. Otherwise his career in the law is going to be very short-lived.

Ah, but of course, he won't go into private practice, he'll probably end up in some government department or authority or in some "community group".

Posted by: Toryhere at January 22, 2004 at 02:06 PM

Rob's first client, upon receiving a 30-year sentence for littering: "Oh, great strategy, legal dude! Really excellent work. You're a total freakin' genius."

Rob: "Thank you!"

Posted by: tim at January 22, 2004 at 02:11 PM

Sure, it's nitpicking. I never claimed it was anything more than nitpicking.

Roger, they're my italics, as I mentioned in the post.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 02:14 PM

Hey Tim, you better be careful or a number of hit-starved blogs will start saying silly things about you just for the hyperlinks.

Posted by: charles austin at January 22, 2004 at 02:15 PM

Well, then why haven't you picked up on Tim's use of the same?

Sorry, now you have me nitpicking...

Posted by: Roger Bournival at January 22, 2004 at 02:18 PM

Sorry, where did Tim use italics?

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 02:24 PM

This is like when Trekkies fall out.

Posted by: Bruce at January 22, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Only more pointless.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 02:38 PM

Charles, stop reading my mind! I guess it's kind of like Frank J.'s filthy lies about Glenn Reynolds...

Also, Rob, you should probably give up. Your argument is very weak and it's like you're picking a fight just for:

A) A bit of extra traffic; or

B) For no really good reason at all.

Posted by: Marty at January 22, 2004 at 02:40 PM

I'll take option B, thanks Marty.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 02:43 PM

I've had a look at Robert's kick and scream blog. Robert recently bought a car - 92 Hyundai Excel Sprint. Very, very practical but it's imported from an asian sweatshop.

Posted by: Bugner at January 22, 2004 at 02:46 PM

Robert

You have waaaaaaaaaay to much time on your hands

Posted by: swassociates at January 22, 2004 at 02:46 PM

I read it as sarcasm, stating, by intimation, that the endorsement sure WASN'T a momentous event.

Disclaimer: I like Tim Blair's writing and am sympathetic to many of the views he expresses.
Hitherto, I had no knowledge of Robert Corr or his views and, consequently, had no view. Now I think him to be an utter wanker. Whose fault is that?

Posted by: Fidens at January 22, 2004 at 02:48 PM

I believe young Mr Corr has envy issues related to Tim's being bigger than his.

Posted by: S Whiplash at January 22, 2004 at 02:53 PM

So Rob, if there was no real reason why you picked this fight with Tim, why are you so vehemently defending yourself when it's clear to me now (given your choice of option B above) that you know your argument is half-assed and, more importantly, an almost completely pointless attack?

Posted by: Marty at January 22, 2004 at 02:57 PM

Robert:

Uhhhhh, maybe it was here?

Sorry, was gettin' my wank on. It's a Trekkie thing...

Posted by: Roger Bournival at January 22, 2004 at 03:00 PM

What, a 92 Excel? Did someone lose a bet recently?

That's the vehicular equivalent of Godwin's law. I hereby declare this thread terminated.

Posted by: Roger Bournival at January 22, 2004 at 03:06 PM

Is Robert Corr the guy with the Gilligan hat?

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 22, 2004 at 03:07 PM

I'm with Robert. Why just recently Blair posted on that Dean flap and described "Deanís genitals-in-a-blender howl". I saw the video and Dean's genitalia were clearly untouched. Blair is obviously a liar.

Posted by: scott h. at January 22, 2004 at 03:39 PM

I am also a real lawyer. As a matter of fact I work for a Trade Union. I certainly can't see the point (if any) this law student is trying to make. TB's comments were completely accurate and consistent.

Posted by: sue at January 22, 2004 at 03:42 PM

Roger, those italics indicate nothing more than that Tim was quoting other people. It's his standard formatting for block quotes.

I don't think my argument is half-assed, but that doesn't mean it's massively significant. It's a blog, fer chrissakes!

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 03:45 PM

I offered Bob some constructive advice involving his pointy head and a deceased carnivore known for its malodorous bottom.

Posted by: Habib at January 22, 2004 at 03:51 PM

I gotta side with Blair on this one (and I've previously sided against him several times, including the Great "Ennui" Scandal Of 2003). Here's the deal. Tim's "It sure was" was sarcasm directed at Krugman's opinion, which was clearly that the endorsement helped Dean. Tim was saying it hadn't helped Dean. However, he didn't say that the endorsement had caused the decline in support - he mentioned that only to point out how badly Krugman's prediction had been wrong.

Like Angela said: nits that aren't there. It's fun trying to trap big bloggers into contradictions, especially when about half their posts are doing it to other people. But you need better ammo than this, Rob.

Posted by: ChrisV at January 22, 2004 at 04:07 PM

Dean has made plenty of goofs since he entered the race. Gore showed poor judgement endorcing him IMO, but it didn't affect the outcome. Dean said he thought the Iowa caucus was a waste of time a week ago. Then he showed up at a DesMoine meet and greet sporting a Palestinian Fatah Movement keffiya (just like Arafat wears). Face it, it would take a bigger man then Gore to save this turkey.

Posted by: Papertiger at January 22, 2004 at 04:27 PM

I'm one of Tim's biggest fans, but I don't think Rob is insane - I can see where he's coming from.

Tim didn't completely sew all of the rhetorical holes shut. Sure, one post kind of implies that endorsements are worthless. The other kind of implies that Gore's endorsement is the kiss of death. But - kind of not.

When it's Internet High Noon, talking shit in public to a professional shit-talker (I mean that in the most complimentary sense, Tim) is just bad tactics. Of course, this is all just internet bullshit, so using the word "tactics" is extraordinary import inflation.

Posted by: Dylan at January 22, 2004 at 04:31 PM

This back and forth is giving me a headache. Get Nedra Pickler on the phone and let her parse it out.

Posted by: nick kidman at January 22, 2004 at 04:34 PM

Papertiger - Dean was wearing what where? Link it, champ.

Posted by: Dylan at January 22, 2004 at 04:34 PM

The Dean photo is at LGF.

Posted by: Robert at January 22, 2004 at 04:59 PM

i know a union rep who'd break robert 'pimply' corr's knees for a carton of beer. anyone want to chip in?

Posted by: roscoe. at January 22, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Hell, I'll do it for a thimbleful of Amstel Light.

Posted by: Angus Jung at January 22, 2004 at 05:49 PM

I break his arms for FREE!

Posted by: Drago Milovechek at January 22, 2004 at 06:09 PM

Just ask him nicely to put his pens and pencils away, and tell him to go and play with his Lego set. If he argues, send him to his room.

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at January 22, 2004 at 07:12 PM

"...those italics indicate nothing more than that Tim was quoting other people."

[SUMMONING PATIENCE] Robert, the things in print that indicate someone quoting someone else are called quotation marks.. See the things on either end of the sentence above?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 22, 2004 at 08:14 PM

Since Tim's second comment was clearly ironic, there was no inconsistency.

However, I think he was wrong on a point of interpretation. From memory, Krugman's column thought Gore's endorsement important, not because it would deliver primary or caucus votes to Dean, but because an endorsement of a fringe left-wing figure like Dean by a mainstream figure like Gore indicated that the Democrats were taking a sharp turn to the left.

The Iowa results would indicate that this is not so, at least as far as their broader base is concerned.

Posted by: parallel at January 22, 2004 at 09:08 PM

Italics don't mean nuthin

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at January 22, 2004 at 10:03 PM

Tim, why do you care what this guy says? The only thing I can figure is that you find him somewhat promising in a lost-puppy kind of way. I'll read his blog with new eyes now, I guess.

Posted by: Bovious at January 23, 2004 at 12:22 AM

I'm playing a long game, Bovious. Rob is currently a law student. He will eventually become a wealthy conservative lawyer, and he will thank me for his conversion to the right by giving me several million dollars.

Robert Corr is my pension plan.

Posted by: tim at January 23, 2004 at 12:50 AM

Coming in very late and not having the patience to read all of the preceding comments but for Fck sake does someone have to explain to this retard (and by the way sport couldn't get into UWA law could we??) that irony is not related to steely and bronzy

Posted by: lawerboy at January 23, 2004 at 01:26 AM

I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading Roberts crap. Can I have them back please?

Now I don't want to get too rough on the poor guy, but he has suffered major head injuries at some stage, right?

Posted by: Huddo at January 23, 2004 at 09:36 AM

the things in print that indicate someone quoting someone else are called quotation marks

Not if it's a block quotation. And Tim's stylistic habit is to italicise every block quotation. It doesn't mean he thinks everything in a block quotation is sarcastic.

(and by the way sport couldn't get into UWA law could we??)

Oh, fuck off. I was offered a place at UWA, I declined it. I encounter enough petulent wankers reading this site, why would I want to meet them in person every day?

Posted by: Robert at January 23, 2004 at 10:07 AM

The point, Rob darling, is that italics have nothing to so with quoting. Admit it: you started a stupid argument with a stupid premise, you have been solidly pounded into the ground.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 23, 2004 at 08:25 PM

And I forgot to add that you have the temerity to insult the other commenters here, and then complain that you were slammed in return. Welcome to a taste of the real world.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 23, 2004 at 08:29 PM