February 11, 2004

FREE COLUMN AGREEMENT

This week’s Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin mentions John Tulloh, another leaked ABC memo, the UN, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the ABC, Mark Latham, the Partridge Family, Adam Hicks, the Gollan Hotel, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Saddam Hussein, Alan Ramsey, Iraq the Model, Wesley Clark, Phillip Adams, Margo Kingston, Megan Gressor, Marian Wilkinson, and Christopher Sheil.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 11, 2004 03:04 AM
Comments

WRT to Gen. Clark - the world at large may have long forgotten George McClellan, but America never will. Since ol Georgie ran in 1864, the US has elected only 2 ex-generals as President - U.S Grant and Ike.

Neither proved to be much use.

Posted by: mojo at February 11, 2004 at 03:54 AM

Tim, how does the headline ("Key no evil") fit the column?

Posted by: Dylan at February 11, 2004 at 04:46 AM

I beg your pardon, but both James A. Garfield and Rutherford B. Hayes were generals in the Civil War, although I believe that Hayes held brevet rank. Just the same, let's set history straight.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at February 11, 2004 at 06:11 AM

Ah, you're right Jorg - I forgot about them. For good reason, mostly.

James A. Garfield
---------------------
At the 1880 Republican Convention, Garfield failed to win the Presidential nomination for his friend John Sherman. Finally, on the 36th ballot, Garfield himself became the "dark horse" nominee.

By a margin of only 10,000 popular votes, Garfield defeated the Democratic nominee, Gen.
Winfield Scott Hancock.
(not an outstanding President, by any means)

Rutherford B. Hayes
----------------------
Although a galaxy of famous Republican speakers, and even Mark Twain, stumped for Hayes, he expected the Democrats to win. When the first returns seemed to confirm this, Hayes went to bed, believing he had lost. But in New York, Republican National Chairman Zachariah Chandler, aware of a loophole, wired leaders to stand firm: "Hayes has 185 votes and is elected." The popular vote apparently was 4,300,000 for Tilden to 4,036,000 for Hayes. Hayes's election depended upon contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. If all the disputed electoral votes went to Hayes, he would win; a single one would elect Tilden.

Months of uncertainty followed. In January 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission to decide the dispute. The commission, made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, determined all the contests in favor of Hayes by eight to seven. The final electoral vote: 185 to 184.
(that sounds awfully familiar for some reason)

Posted by: mojo at February 11, 2004 at 06:42 AM

So "the WMD argument is boring" now? Poor widdle Tim, did someone take your argument away?

Posted by: Barry at February 11, 2004 at 08:11 AM

My God. That's not a column. That's just pathetic.

Do you really have so little to say?

Posted by: Nemesis at February 11, 2004 at 08:57 AM

Tim, you are a disgrace. I never described Clark as "the candidate from heaven". I asked whether he was such a candidate, and you have left the question mark out of your column. This follows your previous piece referring to me on this site, which incorrectly said that I predicted Clark, a mistake which I have already brought to your attention. This further misrepresentation leaves me with little option but to conclude that you are very sloppy, utterly stupid, or a scurrilous liar. Whichever, in not acting to reverse your previous error and now compounding it with another, you are a disgrace to your ostensible profession.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 09:06 AM

Nemesis, That's not a comment. That's just pathetic.

Do you really have so little to say?

Ladies and gentleman, he cuts! He pastes! He's the Masked Commenter!

Thank you, you've been wonderful.

Posted by: Fidens at February 11, 2004 at 09:38 AM

Ha! Go nuts, Chris. Your headline was supported by lines like "it doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here" and claims that Clark "has the brains to do the job".

And so on. Your post ANSWERED the "question" in your headline.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 10:00 AM

Chris, I'd be inclined to pass that one on to the editor of the Bulletin - presumably Mr. Linnell will be less sanguine about the pages of his magazine being used to propogate lies than Tim is.

Just don't threaten to sue - suing for defamation is lame.

I, on the other hand, was amused by this attempt at righteous indignation:

So, according to the ABC, it is possible for representatives of non-terrorist groups to commit terrorist acts.

According to a great many other people as well, I dare say.

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 10:13 AM

Christopher Sheil. Protesting too much?

Posted by: ilibcc at February 11, 2004 at 10:23 AM

Send your letter here, Chris.

Mork: read Chris's post.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 10:45 AM

Tim - I read Chris's post. I agree with his protest. I can see how you could misinterpret the headling on a casual glance, but I don't see how you could misinterpret it once the original mischaracterization had been brought to your attention.

The first time was sloppy, the second is deliberate deceit.

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 10:55 AM

Well, Mork, let's both take a look:

"It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here."

"No question, this guy is telegenic."

"Clark is solid gold."

On timing: "This is another plus for Clark in my view."

"Almost every part of his critique of Bush's performance on Iraq has been proven right.”

On his outsider image: "No question again, he's a military man, so he's got this in the bag."

"Has the brains to do the job ... Clark kills it."

And these remarks clearly go to the "prediction" element of Chris’s earlier complaint:

"At this stage, the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate."

"I can't see a problem for a centrist Dem who's already got Michael Moore's support."

"No question in my mind, voters will give him a real look."

Sounds like Clark is "the candidate from heaven", doesn't it?

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 11:08 AM

Sounds like "imminent", hey?

Posted by: Jethro at February 11, 2004 at 11:31 AM

I can see how you might subjectively conclude that Chris believed that ... but that is not what he said and not what you reported.

You quoted him directly, but altered the punctuation in a way that fundamentally changed the meaning of the words quoted. That fails a basic test of accuracy.

This is something that was apparently obvious to you when Maureen Dowd did it.

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 11:36 AM

Christopher Sheil has had a crush on Clark for such a long time. To such and extent that I was waiting for Sheil`s offer to have Clark`s baby.

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 11:40 AM

Let David Marr decide!

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 11:41 AM

But Tim, he didn't say Clark had wings and a halo and carried a harp so he couldn't be the Candidate from Heaven. Tim lied! Nuns cried! (frothfrothfroth.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 11, 2004 at 11:43 AM

Tim, you can selectively take bits and pieces from my post as much as you like, but your reading is not possible, based on my words, by any stretch. My post asks the question, says he may (or, implicitly, may not) be the perfect candidate, runs through some critieria, and then explicitly invites others to place their bets (i.e. make predictions). My own explicit prediction never rises above him being an ideal running mate. I never described him as a candidate from heaven, and never predicted he would be president, or even the candidate. Your reading can only be inside your own head, as it's nowhere on the page. I'm stunned at such misrepresentation, and continued misrepresentation. I can only conclude that your stubborn clutching at straws is testimony to your embarrassment. It merely serves to amplify your disgrace. Face up to it Tim. You're dead wrong.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 11:43 AM

I think Christopher Sheil testimony is best disregarded, or at least treated with care. He has an established record of blogging trenchantly in favour of Clark, and is now drawing on himself as a source of evidence that tends to favour Clark. OK, he may be reporting faithfully[choke,gag], but it would be wisest to either leave his material aside, or at least keep it in a provisional basket. Or, to put this another way, we have a 'he would say that wouldn't he' problem here. We could rely on the testimony if it was either supplying evidence that cut across his political preferences, or was being drawn from reputable independent/disinterested/checkable sources. As it stands, it's a crok, imho.

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 11:52 AM

Oh fer chrissakes, Chris stop it. This is embarrassing. Leaving off a ? is nothing, man.
Tim has quoted you above.
Quotes.
Correct quotes.
Punctuation and all.
You look like an idiot, man, with your snotty responses. Blair's called you out as Sheil shilling for Clark.
You did so. Stand by it, don't deny it. You just look like a dickhead trying to deny it.

"It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here." Chris Shiel conclusion.

"No question, this guy is telegenic."
What Chris Shiel thinks.

"Clark is solid gold."
What Chris Shiel thinks.

On timing: "This is another plus for Clark in my view."
More of Chris's thoughts about Clark, all positive so far. Glowing, even.

"Almost every part of his critique of Bush's performance on Iraq has been proven right.”
And again Shiel reckons Clark is doing good.

On his outsider image: "No question again, he's a military man, so he's got this in the bag."
Ahem, Chris. In what bag? The Presidency? The Democratic nomination. Either one is reasonable to conclude, as Tim picked.

"Has the brains to do the job ... Clark kills it."
Goooo, Clark from the CS Cheer Squad

"At this stage, the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate."

"I can't see a problem for a centrist Dem who's already got Michael Moore's support."

"No question in my mind, voters will give him a real look."

Sounds like Clark is "the candidate from heaven", doesn't it?

Sure sounds like Chris Shiel thinks so.

Which was Blair's point.

Why are you, Chris, being such a dickhead about being noticed for being a shill for Clark? Just type - I reckon Clark is good even if he is losing, and be done with it.


Posted by: W at February 11, 2004 at 11:58 AM

Wail on, Chris! You didn't say that Clark "may (or, implicitly, may not) be the perfect candidate"; you wrote, much less ambivalently, that "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the
perfect candidate here."

"May well" is a very different construction than "may".

And your post doesn't merely "run through some critieria"; it states outright that "no question, this guy is telegenic", "Clark is solid gold", that "almost every part of his critique of Bush's performance on Iraq has been
proven right" and that he "has the brains to do the job ... Clark kills it."

As for "my own explicit prediction never rises
above him being a running mate", what you actually wrote was substantially more gushing: "At this stage, the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate."

As I invited earlier, please feel free to complain to my editor or Media Watch. Or God, in heaven!

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 12:04 PM

Talk about what things might sound like or complain about other things all you like w. Freedom includes the freedom to be irrelevant. It remains that Tim published it, and he was dead wrong. Now, what's he going to do about it? Does he have the journalistic integrity I expect of him? Full stop.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 12:06 PM

Writing things that might be read as close to what you allege is not the same as writing them in the first place Tim. You are dead wrong on the facts. Face up to it.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 12:08 PM

What "facts" have I got wrong, Chris? You asked if Clark was a "candidate from heaven", then outlined exactly why you believed him to be so.

If your post contained a list of reasons why Clark wasn't an excellent candidate, then the headline could be seen as questioning or sarcastic; as it was, the post indicated that you supported the notion of a heavenly Wesley. "Clark is solid gold"!

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 12:16 PM

He published it and he was on the money, Chris.
He didn't get anything dead wrong. He quoted you perfectly and drew the only reasonable conclusion to draw.
You're just a ball-less turd who won't stand by his preferred candidate.
And what's this?
"Talk about what things might sound like or complain about other things all you like w. Freedom includes the freedom to be irrelevant."
Just tryin' to give you some good advice, man. Cos you're looking pathetic here.

Posted by: W at February 11, 2004 at 12:22 PM

Isn't the asking of a rhetorical question effectively the same as the stating of the corresponding opinion?

Posted by: James Bennetts at February 11, 2004 at 12:24 PM

What "facts" have I got wrong, Chris? You asked if Clark was a "candidate from heaven", then outlined exactly why you believed him to be so.

Dead Wrong. I made some assessments, (deliberately) left the conclusion open, and asked the question, to see what others thought.

If your post contained a list of reasons why Clark wasn't an excellent candidate, then the headline could be seen as questioning or sarcastic; as it was, the post indicated that you supported the notion of a heavenly Wesley. "Clark is solid gold"!

Dead wrong. A question mark is the English language convention for indicating a question, which is what I used and what you have tellingly left off your Bulletin quote. The 'solid gold' comment related solely to his positives as a candidate on the security question. The post says no more than what I thought, which is that, at that stage and on the outlined basis, Clark may well (or, implicitly, may well not) be a very good candidate. That's all. No more.

You are wrong on the facts Tim. I never called him the candidate from heaven, as you have said in the Bulletin. I never predicted he would be president, or even the Dem candidate, as you have written on this blog. On both statements, you are dead wrong. Do the right thing.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 12:34 PM

"A question mark is the English language convention for indicating a question"--Christopher Sheil

Is Christopher Sheil a hack or a fraud?

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 12:57 PM

"I never predicted he would be president, or even the Dem candidate, as you have written on this blog."

"Unless someone finds Clark has some illegitimate children somewhere, at this stage, the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate (for an even later entry from Hillary, a mate in the media wildly suggested to me today)." (Emphasis added).

I'm having trouble with this, Chris. If a VP slot is "the worst he can do", what was he likely to do? What else is there higher than VP slot on a Dem ticket besides Dem nominee or President?

Posted by: scott h. at February 11, 2004 at 12:59 PM

So Christopher Sheil, do you still support Wesley Clark for US President?

Posted by: Fred Nurk at February 11, 2004 at 01:10 PM

It's pretty simple scott, but try to follow closely. My sentence means he might become the candidate or he might not; if not, he would be an ideal running mate in my opinion ("my book"). Note: the tricky bit to watch is that, if I write that he would be an ideal running mate, this is not the same as predicting he will be president, or the Dem candidate, as Tim has incorrectly written on this blog. Nor is it the same as saying he is the candidate from heaven, as Tim has written in the Bulletin. You can read it a million times, or cut it a thousand ways, but the facts won't change just because you might want them. Kapeesh?

Tim is dead wrong on the facts, and if he was a journalist with the integrity I expect of someone with his reputation, he would make a correction. This is not about me, it is about standards ... Tim Blair's.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 01:17 PM

Do you really think "representatives on non terrorist groups" can commit suicide bombing "repeatedly."

There is very little recidivism from suicide bombers.


Posted by: Peter at February 11, 2004 at 01:19 PM

Hmm... the way I read it, "the worst he could do" implied that he was likely to do better (nominee at least). But implying is not the same as an explicit prediction. BTW, you don't happen to have a link to the post on this blog where Tim said you predicted Clark as the future nominee/President? I've been googling around and haven't found it yet.

Posted by: scott h. at February 11, 2004 at 01:34 PM

It iss clear that English was never Christopher Shiel's best subject. I will demonstrate why his headline, "Is Wesley Clark the candidate from heaven?" has the same meaning and emphasis with or without the question mark. When a doting auntie says of her five-year-old niece in her new dress, "Isn't she just the cutest thing you've ever seen?" the statement, though phrased as a question, was not in search of contradiction or explanation. Mr. Shiel's fawning, sycophantic paean to the wonderfulness of Wesley Clark reads much like a doting auntie's praise of her favorite niece. Mr. Shiel think he can be clever and twist this issue into a "Tim Blair lied!" pity ploy, but like many people of his political ilk, Mr. Shiel has overreached himself.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 11, 2004 at 01:35 PM

You're wrong Andrea. A fair comparision would be:

Is Wesley Clark the candidate from heaven?

and

Is she just the cutest thing you've ever seen?

By writing "Isn't she .." you are changing the meaning, effectively saying she is.

OK so that failed. But still, there is no need to be rude. Tim is dead wrong on the facts, and in such circumstances the appropriate response is to make a correction.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 01:42 PM

So, Andrea, when are you going to "demonstrate why his headline ... has the same meaning and emphasis with or without the question mark," as you promise?

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 01:45 PM

No wonder Ken Parish threw the whiner out of the Troppo clubhouse. Shiel's an academic, right? It figures.

"Were you sniffing my daughter's bicycle seat?"

"No!"

"Why is you nose down there then."

"To deconstruct my position and attitude, the question mark evoked by the hunched back of the observed party is the contextual key. Therefore, while I might sniff, implicitly my nostrils pass the smell taste."

Posted by: superboot at February 11, 2004 at 01:46 PM

Chris writes: “I never predicted he would be president, or even the Dem candidate, as you have written on this blog.”

Where? When? What I wrote regarding that post was this: “Meanwhile in other academic prediction news: whatever happened to the candidate from heaven?”

Your post has a bunch of predictions, Chris, among them that “the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate”. I didn’t write that you predicted Clark would be President or the Dem candidate. You’re dead wrong.

Chris also writes: “I never called him the candidate from heaven, as you have said in the Bulletin.”

I wrote that you described him as a “candidate from heaven”. Which you do. The “question” in the headline is answered entirely by the rest of the post, which is a description of a heavenly candidate. Your call was dead wrong then, and you’re dead wrong to think you’ve been misinterpreted now.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 01:54 PM

Well, Mork, I'd explain it to you in even smaller words, but I find it impossible to communicate with someone whose IQ can be measured in the single digits.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 11, 2004 at 01:56 PM

Christopher Sheil lecturing people on "integrity" and rudeness. What next, a practising prostitute expressing the virtues of abstinence? At least the prostitute was a virgin at one time.

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 01:58 PM

Murph's told me that he intends to write an entry entitled Is Chris Shiels an arrogant, know-all, parasitic, left-wing, twat who masquerades as an academic, yet is clearly and openly bias, and sponges off the hard working honest citizens of Australia?, which will contain all the reasons why this is so. However, he will then hide behind Shiels's own ridiculous logic and claim that he never stated that Shiels was an arrogant sponge - he merely asked the question.

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 02:07 PM

“Meanwhile in other academic prediction news: whatever happened to the candidate from heaven?”

Ah, so Tim never explicitly said that you predicted that Clark would win the nomination. I thinks it's even a stretch to say he was implying that you predicted a Clark win. It looks like Clark can do a lot worse than Veep.

Posted by: scott h. at February 11, 2004 at 02:14 PM

"I wrote that you described him as a “candidate from heaven”. Which you do."

Bullshit. If you say that someone "describes" an object in terms that you enclose in direct quotes, you are saying that those are the exact words they used to indicate their perception of the object.

Which, in this case, is plainly false.

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 02:23 PM

Chris writes: "I never predicted he would be president, or even the Dem candidate, as you have written on this blog."

Where? When? What I wrote regarding that post was this: "Meanwhile in other academic prediction news: whatever happened to the candidate from heaven?"

Your post has a bunch of predictions, Chris, among them that "the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate". I didn’t write that you predicted Clark would be President or the Dem candidate. You’re dead wrong.

My interpretation of this is that you are now suggesting that your meaning is as follows: "Meanwhile in other academic prediction news which is not necessarily incorrect and has nothing to do with what I am now about to say: whatever happened to the candidate from heaven?" I didn't allow for the random association possibility. I assumed you were pointing out two errors in a row in the same post. If you're not dead wrong; you're completely incoherent. Your choice: are you a liar or a fool?

Chris also writes: "I never called him the candidate from heaven, as you have said in the Bulletin."

I wrote that you described him as a "candidate from heaven". Which you do. The "question" in the headline is answered entirely by the rest of the post, which is a description of a heavenly candidate. Your call was dead wrong then, and you're dead wrong to think you’ve been misinterpreted now.

Repeating a mistake doesn't make it correct. I didn't describe him as the candidate from heaven; I asked whether he could be described as the candidate from heaven. That is the purpose of the question mark which you telling ommitted from your Bulletin article and you have once again omitted from this quote. Go on Tim, put the question mark in the quote, if you maintain it doesn't make any difference. I dare you to use the full unedited quote, punctuation included, and try to maintain your stance.

The balance of the post was merely quickly googled info arranged according to criteria, which further begged the question. You were dead wrong in the Bulletin article, and you are dead wrong now, and if you had a sense of honour you would make a correction. Very poor form. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 02:24 PM

who the fuck is chris shiels????

Posted by: Roscoe.p coltrane at February 11, 2004 at 02:35 PM

You wrote "the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate". That's a prediction. Clark is doing worse than that. Your prediction was wrong. Tim pointed that out. He did not say you predicted Clark would become nominee or President.

Posted by: scott h. at February 11, 2004 at 02:42 PM

You should be in a remedial English class. My initial link simply stated: "Meanwhile in other academic prediction news: whatever happened to the candidate from heaven?"

How is this difficult to understand? Where is the lying, the incoherence? Where is the mention of the Presidency?

Baby wants his question mark. Okay, let's try it:

"Margo Kingston hoped he would 'help Americans recapture the vision'; and Megan Gressor wrote Clark was 'the man most likely to be the next US president'; Marian Wilkinson praised Clark as 'fearless in criticising Bush over his handling of the war'; academic and Evatt Foundation executive member Christopher Sheil described Clark as the 'candidate from heaven?'. He has turned out to be the opposite."

Wow! What a fuck-load of difference THAT makes! It's kind of easy to maintain my stance, especially because I could also have chosen to write:

"Christopher Sheil described Clark as 'solid gold'" .

or ...

"Christopher Sheil said Clark may well be the 'perfect candidate'"

or ...

"Christopher Sheil said 'voters will give Clark a real look'".

All of which are a valid as the original, and all of which turned out to be DEAD WRONG.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 02:45 PM

You're insane scott. Clark has (apparently) withdrawm as a candidate. A running mate has not been chosen.

This is my last comment on the issue. Tim has published erroneous material; the error has been pointed out to him, but he has chosen not to do anything about it and, worse, confects spurious arguments to deny the truth. I leave the matter to his conscience and reputation.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 02:53 PM

This is too funny. How anyone (except Mork or Chris) could read Chris' post and not conclude that the headline is a rhetorical question is quite beyond me.

In any case, would Chris have objected if Tim's Bulletin piece had read: "Chris Sheil, who asks if Clark is not the candidate from heaven..."

What about it Chris? Happy with that formulation?

Posted by: James at February 11, 2004 at 02:54 PM

sorry did I just see Chris Shiels use the word Honour? Now i know this bloke is a fake. Would the real Chris Shiels please stand up.

Posted by: Todd at February 11, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Tim, adding back the question mark makes your formulation nonsensical - which is exactly the point.

You just have to read the sentence to see that it doesn't make sense - grammatical or logical - to say that someone "describes" a thing by asking an open ended question.

You could have accurately said: "Chris Shiel asks if WC is the "candidate from heaven".

But you didn't. You were bullshitting in your column, and you're bullshitting now.

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 03:06 PM

Mork & Chris:

If you're so certain of my vile error, please take up my earlier invitation to tell Media Watch. The contact email is provided above.

Please. Do it NOW! I can scarcely wait to be pilloried over this blatant and evil wrong.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 03:41 PM

Why would I give a shit what David Marr thinks of you?

Posted by: Mork at February 11, 2004 at 03:50 PM

OK, one more comment, just to point out that piling absurdity and exagerration upon error does not an escape route make. Your wrong isn't vile and evil, even if you intended it to be; it is, quite simply, wrong. Correcting it is a test of your principles, which you appear to have failed.

Still, if you are so keen to attract the attention of Media Watch, I feel sure it will accept a self report ... this might make an interesting angle.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 03:54 PM

Two quickest invitation declines I've ever seen.

Posted by: ilibcc at February 11, 2004 at 04:09 PM

The "test of principles" here is whether you'll admit YOU were wrong, kiddo.

Where is this alleged "absurdity and exaggeration"? All I keep doing, Chris, is referring you to your own words. To summarise your post:

Q: Is Wesley Clark the candidate from heaven?
A: Yes, yes, yes!

My favourite moment throughout this was when you tried to claim that you'd said "he may (or, implicitly, may not) be the perfect candidate".

Your actual sentence, however, reads as follows: "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here."

Are you seriously suggesting that the sentence also implies: "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well or may well not have the perfect candidate here"?

Re Media Watch: I only suggest it as an arbiter. Nothing I say can apparently convince you, so perhaps you'd be satisfied by the judgment of Marr and co.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Against my better judgement:

The 'absurdity' is the tendentious suggestion that Media Watch would be bothered with your misrepresentation of me, with all due respect to your famous self. The exageration refers to your casting it as a supposedly vile and evil etc. As for the rest:

To summarise your post:

Q: Is Wesley Clark the candidate from heaven?
A: Yes, yes, yes!

The only small problem you have here is that the 'yes, yes, yes' is purely a figment of your own imagination. Repeating an error does not make it correct. You are and were dead wrong. A true summary of the answer would be: he seems to have a lot going for him, what do other folks think?

My favourite moment throughout this was when you tried to claim that you'd said "he may (or, implicitly, may not) be the perfect candidate".

Your actual sentence, however, reads as follows: "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here."

Are you seriously suggesting that the sentence also implies: "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well or may well not have the perfect candidate here"?

What I'm seriously suggesting here is "It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here, but I'm not certain and that's why I have used the equivocal word 'may'. I don't believe you are so stupid as to not be able to follow this.

In sum, face up to it. You made a mistake Tim. You were dead wrong. The appropriate course of action is to fess up and offer a correction. At this point, however, I have no expectation that you will act appropriately. Pity. You could have been better than this.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 04:43 PM

"...my last comment"
Followed by two more.
Pointing this out to the idiot Shiel will probably only result in him declaring I got it DEAD WRONG and he only felt like it was his last comment but never committed.
Can you not see what a fool you are making of yourself, Chris?

Posted by: W at February 11, 2004 at 04:58 PM

You are dead wrong about one thing W, and that is the supposition that I wouldn't admit I was mistaken in expecting it was going to be my last comment. See how easy it is to admit a mistake? I regret having said that, which was made on the evidently incorrect assumption that Tim would not be re-entering the discussion. As for being a 'fool', should that be true, I would at least be able to comfort myself with the fact that I have so much company in that state here at Spleenville.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 05:17 PM

Oh, Chris. That's three.
Can you hear yourself? Do you see your typing? You're still bullshitting man. You can't even be straight up about something as simple as '...my last comment'. You gotta put up some excuse about Tim being around.
The very definition of a fool. Keeps on going when all hope is lost.

Posted by: W at February 11, 2004 at 05:41 PM

It's really quite simple: Pompous twit writes a hagiographic post on a nutball presidential candidate, and when said nutball crashes and burns, said pompous twit tries to pretend said hagiographic post was something entirely different. The entire discussion to date has only reinforced this impression.

Posted by: reg at February 11, 2004 at 05:44 PM

You only have to admit to mistake if it was a mistake cs. Same thing goes to saying "Sorry" only if you are involved in that act and admitting to a lie only when you new it was a lie. Have you learnt the difference between 2004 and 2008 yet?

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2004 at 05:46 PM

Oh, come off it, man. You're parsing more than Bill Clinton here. Admit it: he nailed you dead to rights, and you're making yourself look like a bigger fool with this nonsense.

Posted by: Big Dog at February 11, 2004 at 05:49 PM

Oh, come off it, man. You're parsing more than Bill Clinton here. Admit it: he nailed you dead to rights, and you're making yourself look like a bigger fool with this nonsense.

Posted by: Big Dog at February 11, 2004 at 05:49 PM

Crap; humblest apologies for the double-post.

Posted by: Big Dog at February 11, 2004 at 05:50 PM

Thank goodness Mork is here to jump all over this tiniest of perceived infractions. You are in good hands, CS. I've sent a message to a renowned princess of fairy tale lore who also may be able to advise you, as her sleep as recently been troubled by a pea placed underneath her two dozen mattresses.

Posted by: Sortelli at February 11, 2004 at 06:42 PM

Summary comment for those with poor attention spans

Tim Blair is dead wrong. There is no room for discretion on the matter. I have never described Clark as "the candidate from heaven". It's black and white, and no amount of squirming or turning can make what has never been said into something that has been said. This is not at issue here.

What is at issue is whether Tim Blair has sufficient ethics to admit he was wrong and offer a correction. Full stop.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 07:00 PM

For fuck's sake, Chris. That is four posts you've posted here after your '"...my last post".
What are you drunk or something? Can you see how much contempt you are generating here?
You did not need to write the words "I think Clark is the candidate from heaven'. Your whole post was a shill for Clark. And your attempt to craft your post as just a question instead of the bald-faced shill that it was reveals you to be a fool.

Posted by: W at February 11, 2004 at 07:13 PM

Sorry, Chris--I got you all wrong.

I should have called you a "pompous delusional twit".

Posted by: reg at February 11, 2004 at 07:16 PM

I just can't believe Blair went with those "selected" Clark abortion quotes in print.

Or can I?

Posted by: LD at February 11, 2004 at 07:40 PM

I don't see why you should be upset W. You are the one who is being anonymous, rude, dogmatic and wrong, not me. Just think of how silly that makes you look, although I guess that's why you are anonymous. My whole post was aimed at flushing out whatever case there was for or against Clark. Yes, it's that simple. That's why it was framed as a question. That's why Tim Blair is dead wrong. Read this slowly.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 07:43 PM

Pathetic Tim.
"life begins with the mother's decision" and "I have always been and always will be pro-choice" to "I don't believe in abortion", then back again to "I support a woman's right to choose"
It's all the same opinion, you dip-stick. Abortion is the womans right. If you're going to denigrate someone by quoting them, at least choose opposing viewpoints from the same holder.

Posted by: Niall at February 11, 2004 at 08:27 PM

[slightly OT] Ooh, guys! Niall is letting us back onto his site! Aren't you excited? What? You're not? (Visits. Hits Back button.) Yeah. I see why. Never mind.

Go away, Niall. Aren't there some Asians to bash?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 11, 2004 at 08:44 PM

Read this slowly, Chris (although I suspect you have no choice):

Your whole post obviously wasn't simply aimed at "flushing out whatever case there was for or against Clark." Your post began with "Wesley Clark: the candidate from heaven?" and argued the affirmative case:

"It doesn't take much effort to discover that the Dems may well have the perfect candidate here."

"No question, this guy is telegenic."

(On security) "At the least, this issue has to be neutralised as a Bush plus. Clark is solid gold."

"Since Kennedy, all Dem presidents have been from the south, and this is another bulls-eye."

"Despite what the press is saying about him being a late entrant, this is another plus for Clark in my view."

"Almost every part of his critique of Bush's performance on Iraq has been proven right. No question in my mind, voters will give him a real look."

(On the benefits of an outsider image): "No question again, he's a military man, so he's got this in the bag."

"I can't see a problem for a centrist Dem who's already got Michael Moore's support."

"He also has support from Clinton and Gore: support from one of these would be a minus, support from both is a definite plus."

"Has the brains to do the job. As Dubya evidences, this is the least important qualification for US voters, but the most important for the world. Clark kills it. He was first in his class at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar."

"Unless someone finds Clark has some illegitimate children somewhere, at this stage, the worst he can do in my book is become the ideal running mate."

Perfect candidate ... telegenic ... solid gold ... bull's eye ... another plus ... proven right ... got this in the bag ... definite plus ... first in his class ... for Christ's sake, this is what you now summarise as merely "he seems to have a lot going for him, what do other people think"?

It's all there in black and white, Chris. You answered your own question; Clark clearly was your "candidate from heaven". Live with it, you hysterical, illogical, moralistic old whiner.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 09:01 PM

Tim writes:

Sounds like Clark is "the candidate from heaven", doesn't it?

Stating that Chris Sheil's post [s]ounds like Clark is "the candidate from heaven" is not the same as thing as the assertion that Chris Sheil described Clark as the "candidate from heaven", as you state in The Bulletin.

Even a cursory examination of Chris Sheil's post reveals that "the candidate from heaven" line is a question, not an assertion.

A recent Bulletin column of yours criticized Don Watson for writing "Lords" rather than "Lord's", and yet you feel free to change Chris Sheil's question into an assertion?

By all means, state that Chris Sheil's comments *sounded like* he was describing Clark as a candidate from heaven.

But, as a journalist, you cannot state as a fact that Chris Sheil described Clark as "the candidate from heaven".

Posted by: Jethro at February 11, 2004 at 09:37 PM

Sheil answered his rhetorical question with a post that described Clark as, among other things, "the perfect candidate", "solid gold", etc. I'll just keep repeating this until it sinks in. Might be a while.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 09:51 PM

Is Jethro a whiner?

Posted by: Angus Jung at February 11, 2004 at 10:18 PM

I did not say what you have asserted I said. You are dead wrong, and stooping to personal abuse helps neither your case nor your reputation.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 10:18 PM

And anyway, if you are to go that far, why don't you re-post the entire post, and not just your own preferred selection? Have you ever heard of being fair? Scared of the truth?

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 10:20 PM

Chris, in your very first post on this you referred to me as a “disgrace”, “utterly stupid”, and a “scurrilous liar”. Bit late to start complaining about personal abuse, isn’t it?

Also ... where in that looooong list of extracts have I misquoted you? Where do I assert that which you did not say? They're all direct quotes, man.

Re posting the whole thing: here's the link. Again.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 10:37 PM

I don't know why I'm bothering to say anything but...my take on it is as follows: Chris Sheil posed a question and then answered it himself! So while he may not have specifically said it in the exact way Tim quoted him as saying (ie. Tim didn't print the Q&A), it was still his belief. So he shouldn't be getting so hot and bothered about it. If it wasn't his opinion then he sure did a damn good job giving the impression it was....so maybe he should write another article clarifying whether he believes Clark is the candidate from heaven or not. If he doesn't believe it, then maybe Tim could could say he got the wrong impression.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at February 11, 2004 at 10:37 PM

"'...my last comment'
Followed by two more.
Pointing this out to the idiot Shiel will probably only result in him declaring I got it DEAD WRONG and he only felt like it was his last comment but never committed."

Wrong! The full quote is: "This is my last comment on the issue." See, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. You are a disgrace!

Posted by: Angus Jung at February 11, 2004 at 10:46 PM

Alex, as that looks like you could be sincere, I'll reply. The post asked a question, and I then supplied, I thought, sufficient material to justify asking that question.

I had no set answer, no firm belief, no predetermined message to send. The post was as honest as it was stated. Is Clark the candidate from heaven? I didn't know, and that's why I blogged on it ... to ask ... to see what other people might think, which hopefully may have assisted me in forming my opinion. Tim's conversion of my open question into an unequivocal assertion is dead wrong, not only literally, but also in terms of my ulterior belief.

This asking of questions or testing of drafts is regular practice by many bloggers, who do their real work elsewhere. To take up what is merely a question on a blog and convert it incorrectly into a mistaken assertion in a report in a national magazine is, I think any fair minded person would agree, very poor form indeed. If he had any integrity, he would offer a correction.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 11:07 PM

Answer my question, Chris: where did I misquote or misrepresent you?

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 11:13 PM

Also, I think it's real cute that after letting you whine and bitch here all day, you've banned me from commenting at your site.

Pathetic girly leftoid wimp.

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 11:15 PM

I can understand your point of view, Tim, but to me it's one of those "Do you think that X is true?" posts, where the blogger tentatively outlines reasons for the affirmative, but still seeks to elicit responses for or against before making a definitive answer.

From personal experience, I've often asked a question such as "Is this the best way of doing X?", and outlining my reasons for doing X in a particular manner.

However, implicit in asking the question is an understanding that I may be wrong, and that I'm not claiming that my reasons necessarily answer the question I'm asking. It would be misleading to state that in giving such reasons that I am baldly asserting my reasons are "the best way of doing X".

I think the same applies with Chris Sheil. He's asking if Clark is (was) "the candidate from heaven", and giving a series of affirmative answers, but framing it as a question to be debated rather than a bald assertion of fact.

In other words, Chris is aware that his reasons may be necessary to answer the question posed, but they may not be sufficient. He's seeking further responses (positive or negative) to help decide whether Clark really is "the candidate from heaven".

At least, that's my take, based on past experience. Perhaps Chris may disagree. I know that you will disgree, but c'est la vie, I guess.

Posted by: Jethro at February 11, 2004 at 11:20 PM

tim, you wrote in your column:

"academic and Evatt Foundation executive member Christopher Sheil described Clark as the "candidate from heaven".

Which is not true. There is no room for discretion. I never described him as the candidate from heaven, I asked whether he could be so described. Full stop. You are dead wrong. You should offer a corection.

Posted by: cs at February 11, 2004 at 11:24 PM

You asked the question and answered it. Stop hiding behind a question mark when statements like "perfect candidate" and "solid gold" indicate your obvious belief.

And what about this line of yours, on Clark’s qualifications: “Don't know about you, but this all seems too bloody good to be true!”

And this: “I'd almost kill to have the Clinton administration back in power, and this dude may just be even a little bit better. I'm in love after that answer on liberal-democracy. Go Wesley, you possibly-a-little-beauty ...”

You want to keep insisting that I’ve misrepresented you?

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2004 at 11:37 PM

wen, I think Whiplash's testimony is best disregarded, or at least treated with care. He has an established record of blogging trenchantly in favour of Howard, and is now drawing on himself as a source of evidence that tends to favour Howard. OK, he may be reporting faithfully, but it would be wisest to either leave his material aside, or at least keep it in a provisional basket. Or, to put this another way, we have a 'he would say that wouldn't he' problem here. We could rely on the testimony if it was either supplying evidence that cut across his political preferences, or was being drawn from reputable independent/disinterested/checkable sources. As it stands, it's a crok, imho.

Chris,

You posted the above as a comment on my Black Board Jungle piece at Troppo Armadillo. You later offered the provisional apology that follows.

My apologies if I've misrepresented you Whippy. I thought you were the resident RWDB from Surfdom.

Well, I am the RWDB from Surfdom but I am not a trenchant Howard supporter. Either prove that I'm a trenchant Howard supporter or retract your assertion.

Posted by: S Whiplash at February 11, 2004 at 11:59 PM

"and stooping to personal abuse helps neither your case nor your reputation."--Christopher Sheil

"I re-utter the appropriate if also immortal words: eat shit dumb fuck"--Christopher Sheil

"should one venture into completely brain-dead ignorant discourse? As an elite intellectual, I say, probably not. Eat shit dumb fuck."--Christopher Sheil

"I am a writer, or a policy analyst, or a historian, or an academic"--Christopher Sheil

Posted by: Gary at February 12, 2004 at 12:15 AM

I think it is fair to say that I barracked for Clark in several posts, enthusiastically even. In the blogosphere, you must shout to be heard, I think.

The phrase 'perfect candidate' was raised with a clear hesitation, begging the question, as I've already explained. I think he is 'solid gold' on security. His qualifications are stunning ... too good to be true captures that, I think. And on the surface, he may be better in principle than Clinton .. but obviously, as we now know, this does not (and did not) mean he is as good a politician.

I don't run away from any of that. It remains, however, that this is introducing new material which is beside the material point in dispute. I never described him as the candidate from heaven, as you have written in the Bulletin. This is black and white, and only has significance because you have published it in a national journal. I am requesting a correction, at least on your site.

Posted by: cs at February 12, 2004 at 12:26 AM

Consider it retracted, in combination with the earlier apologies Whippy.

Posted by: cs at February 12, 2004 at 12:29 AM

Thankyou.

My point was that, even though I don't remember ever making a single pro-Howard or anti-Latham post, your judgement was coloured by my oft stated support for the invasion of Iraq. It seems to me that you're doing the same with TB, that is, your dislike of his political views is affecting your judgement. You're carrying on a lot like Rob Corr on this one, and that ain't good.

Posted by: S Whiplash at February 12, 2004 at 12:41 AM

That's not fair Whippy. I actually try to be extra polite and fair to Tim, precisely because I know we differ so much politically. In this case, I object to views I do not hold and literally have not held being attributed to me in a national magazine. That's all.

Posted by: cs at February 12, 2004 at 01:15 AM

Hope you don't teach logic, Chris.

Posted by: octavio at February 12, 2004 at 03:47 AM

CS's next post:

Dead Wrong. There is no discretion .. 2+2=5

Tim you are a fool and dead wrong. Full stop.

Dead wrong.

Posted by: david at February 12, 2004 at 04:24 AM

So Chris, you ban Tim from replying on your site then whinge about fairness on his. No wonder Niall defends you.

Posted by: Gary at February 12, 2004 at 07:03 AM

"Tim, you are a disgrace."

"This further misrepresentation leaves me with little option but to conclude that you are very sloppy, utterly stupid, or a scurrilous liar."

"If you're not dead wrong; you're completely incoherent. Your choice: are you a liar or a fool?"

"I actually try to be extra polite and fair to Tim, precisely because I know we differ so much politically."

Posted by: Angus Jung at February 12, 2004 at 08:49 AM

Two of many contradictory statements.

"I think it is fair to say that I barracked for Clark in several posts, enthusiastically even. In the blogosphere, you must shout to be heard, I think."-- Christopher Sheil

And

"I object to views I do not hold and literally have not held being attributed to me in a national magazine. That's all."-- Christopher Sheil

Posted by: Gary at February 12, 2004 at 10:07 AM

We can now all agree that some small part of the money we spend on tertiary education is wasted -- unless CS is teaching a course in vanity, dissembling, flawed logic and personal abuse for egomaniacal hysterics.

Posted by: superboot at February 12, 2004 at 10:54 AM

test. (My this comment thread has grown. I remember it when it was this big.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 12, 2004 at 12:46 PM

And: has Mr Sheil hit magma yet? I've never seen anyone dig himself so deep a hole.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 12, 2004 at 01:34 PM