KANCKGATE: THE EXCLUSIVE TIM BLAIR INTERVIEW

A Tim Blair reference to a single letter:

This week, South Australian busybody Sandra Kanck - whose surname is but one consonant away from complete accuracy - decided Australia’s population needed to be cut to just seven million in order to save us from “environmental suicide”.

Is pounced on by a Pure Poison intellectual dishonesty debunker:

See how Blair called Kanck a “skank” without having to quite say it? Classy.

A couple of Pure Poison's less easily stampeded readers point out that it's more reasonable to think Blair meant adding an "R" to get "crank" but the herd quickly works itself into a speculative frenzy:

Despite its utter juvenility, Blair’s insult against Kanck is clever in a way, because it can be interpreted in two ways. The most common interpretation is of course “skank,” but Blair and his minions can plausibly deny this interpretation, because of the “crank” interpretation. “The Left,” i.e., Blair’s critics, cannot prove 100% Blair’s meaning was “skank,” though this is obvious to any fair-minded person, but it’s not the Left’s job to verify Blair’s intentions. It’s Blair’s duty to defend himself against the charge that he is making a crude sexist insult against one of his female political adversaries.

On seeing this I got straight on the direct line to Blair (thanks Rupert) to ask master how he wanted to handle this grave situation. His response:

If I'd wanted to describe Ms Kanck as a "skank", I wouldn't have written that her "surname is but one consonant away from complete accuracy"; I'd have written that her "surname is but one INITIAL away from complete accuracy".

But, besides being indefensible, it wouldn't make sense in the non-sexual context of Kanck's views. It isn't skanky to believe in population reduction. A crank, however...

Anyway, this is all a fascinating Rorschach test. I wonder what these people see in, say, Pepsi bottles?

Another bullet dodged.

Update: The Pure Poison post makes much of Blair's entry in the urban dictionary but fails to mention Scott Bridges' contribution to the language. The bloke's hiding his light under a bushel.
Regardless, Bridges gets Blair's law all wrong (aren't you shocked?):

Blair’s Law is essentially code for Teh Left.

Here's the definition Bridges links to but didn't bother to read:

Blair's law

Coined by Australian journalist, Tim Blair as -

"the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force."

1. The alliance between the radical Left and extremist Islamists is an example of Blair's Law.

2. The fact that white supremicists like David Duke supported 'Mother' Sheehan's sit-in at Crawford, TX is an example of Blair's law.

Teh idiots are where you find them.

Update II: In comments Scott admits he could be wrong about Blair's intent:

Fair enough. “Kranck” didn’t come to my mind, but it’s another possibility.

Jeremy Sear condemns this "hidden" content:

A link is provided under the text needing support, and it is implied that it backs up the assertion made - and it is only if the reader clicks on it that they will discover that it does no such thing. Everyone else - at some sites, probably the majority - will automatically assume the linked content says pretty much what the linking text says it does. You can see the opportunity this technique, if more widely-adopted, would provide the cynical and shameless.

The possible interpretation error should be noted in the original post; not hidden in comments.