Tough Words
In a recent post, Antony Loewenstein sneered that Canberra needs to grow a back bone.
This from a guy who cowers at non-existent "death threats" (by little old Jewish ladies).
The good news: It looks like Antony has been widening his reading.
One of the comments at Loewenstein's blog (lucky enough to get through censorship) is less impressed with the Tele piece.
This from a guy who cowers at non-existent "death threats" (by little old Jewish ladies).
The good news: It looks like Antony has been widening his reading.
Good piece in today's Sydney Daily Telegraph.It's not April Fools Day and that's not even "Murdoch's Daily Telegraph". Perhaps Antony's looking for work and wants to impress the Opinion Editor at the Tele? Good luck with that. Then again, Tim Blair has previously run opinion pieces by seditious twerps calling for the defeat of Australian soldiers. Antony might just have a chance. Let's hope Tim forgets when unemployed Antony called him a stenographer.
One of the comments at Loewenstein's blog (lucky enough to get through censorship) is less impressed with the Tele piece.
It's the short of article that makes me not read Australian papers.That's the sort of literacy that makes one read Loewenstein.
Labels: Antony Loewenstein
posted by Dan at 6:09 AM |
13 Comments:
I can just imagine your thought patterns for the week, Lieutenant Dan, as you build up towards your regular anti-Loewenstein post.
It's building... "What shall I write about?"
It's almost there... "He likes something in the Tele? Nah, not quite enough."
And then, eureka! One of Loewy's commenters makes a typo - 'short' instead of 'sort'!
And awaaaaay you go.
I love it when RWDB covers all the big issues. Like... typos.
Someone's been saving one for at least 24 hours. Relieved, J-laddy?
Cheers
I sure am, Minicrap. Nothing eases constipation like one of Daniel-san's feebly-conceived Loewenstein posts.
A shame this blog doesn't appear in print - imagine the convenience of having a laxative that doubles as toilet paper?
Anyone with that functioning cerebrum you lack 'John', would realise the post is actually about the whining non sensical tripe that inspired the eventual typo, not the typo itself. You never seem to understand the obvious do you 'John'? You seem remarkably sensitive on the subject BTW?
PS I think your CV might make an excellent but alas very short strip of toilet paper. Which is good as your writing bears all the hallmarks of severe constipation.
Anyone with that functioning cerebrum you lack 'John', would realise the post is actually about the whining non sensical tripe that inspired the eventual typo, not the typo itself.
I get that bit, Einstein. I am no Loewenstein fan either, in fact I find his ideas cliched and his writing quite dreary. But picking up typos and oblique factual mistakes to score insipid points - or cheering it on, like you are doing - is weak, childish and uninventive.
I think your CV might make an excellent but alas very short strip of toilet paper.
It's amazing how the anonymous commenters here seem to have so much personal information about the other anonymous commenters here. Either that or you are just talking out of your arse.
"in fact I find his ideas cliched and his writing quite dreary"
Pot calling Kettle, anyone home?
"picking up typos and oblique factual mistakes to score insipid points"
and then you do it.
Are you serious with this shit? Are you that stupid?
"I get that bit, Einstein"
I really don't think you do
I find it interesting that you have chosen a nickname which describes a fart. Finally some self-realisation on your part.
and then you do it.
I do it occasionally in comments, as do others. But blogging about typos is utterly inane. People go to blogs to read interesting ideas and critiques in the posts, so they can discuss them in comments. What exactly do we discuss here?
"Oh, one of Loewy's commenters put in an 'h' where he/she shouldn't have... MAN WE REALLY NAILED HIM!"
If you and the meatheads who run this blog had a skerrick of initiative or talent, you'd be able to tear Loewenstein a new rectum, since the guy is a comparative lightweight. But what do we get instead? Typo police, grammar nazis and insults from two-bit buffoons like you, 'John's flatus'. By anyone's measure, it's not good enough.
"you'd be able to tear Loewenstein a new rectum, since the guy is a comparative lightweight"
well go right ahead clown..show us how it's done....give some credence to that massive unwarranted ego
(sound of crickets chirping)
I'm too busy tearing Lieutenant Dan a new one. Besides, this isn't my blog, so why should I have to do the heavy lifting?
Where's your blog, 'flatus'? Surely an intellectual heavyweight like you is full of great ideas and respected by the blogosphere.
"tearing Lieutenant Dan a new one" is that what you're doing?
I thought you were sharing an insight into the worthless life of a underappreciated (by your judgement) tosser.
The tearing is below your own belt when you frantically attempt to relieve your tension
Flatulence and masturbation - not hard to recognise your focus in life, is it?
So where's the URL for that stimulating blog of yours? We'll wait here while you run along and get it - take your time.
you seem to focus on tearing rectums and your self absorbed importance. show us your worldy brilliance. we're waiting.
So we are all agreed then?
Loewenstein is a lightweight tedious arsehole with the brains of a beached jellyfish.
Post a Comment
<< Home