By The Editor
Remember the Islam-hating comment that got published at Bolta’s blog? This time Andrew’s moderator monkeys let through a comment suggesting that ex-US President is a paedophile.
Why is it that the people who criticize the loudest also deny that private philosophy has nothing to do with public performance. If you believe something strongly enough in private it eventually works itself out in the public. Mr Clinton’s child sex abuse with Monica and others followed by his subsequent lying only made him more popular in America. My Buswell might be hoping the same things.
Billk of WA
Tue 29 Apr 08 (01:32pm)
I wonder how long this one will last once Bolta reads this post?
(Thanks to 243K for the tip off.)
41 Comments
29 April, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Clearly a sock puppet.
29 April, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Mr Clinton’s child sex abuse with Monica and others followed by his subsequent lying only made him more popular in America.
Well I for one generally like and vote for liars and child abusers.
29 April, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Child sex abuse with Monica? Or ON Monica?
Either way, what a load of rot.
Who is stupid enough to say shit like that anyway?
Please, no more. I can’t take it!
29 April, 2008 at 11:44 pm
How was it child abuse when she was a consenting adult?
30 April, 2008 at 1:09 am
It’s a Lefty plant, don’t you know? On a similar theme, has anyone else noticed a distinct whiff of McCarthyism on Bolt’s blog? You can’t say anything from the path of The One without being accused of being gay, a lefty, communist, socialist, Labor stooge, pinko, warmenist, eco-terrorist, and probably a whole lot more I’ve missed.
30 April, 2008 at 7:28 am
Actually, I think I recall a Bolt article claiming McCarthy was a great man – I kid you not. So, yes, McCarthyism would probably be a compliment!
30 April, 2008 at 8:37 am
Oh FFS. If you delicate little flowers are that offended by that comment, have the gonads to respond to it on the site saying just that instead of coming to your little chair-sniffing circle jerk site and whinging about it to each other.
You people are pathetic.
30 April, 2008 at 10:30 am
I have left a response directed at the moderators to remove it. we will see if it takes effect.
TW – did you do something about it?
30 April, 2008 at 11:06 am
No. But then, I wasn’t the one having Victorian-era vapours over it.
Your selective Moral Outrage is tres cute, but. LOL. I suppose you’d run out of smelling salts if you were to visit Ms Fit’s (Marieke Hardy’s) den…
30 April, 2008 at 11:17 am
According to MK, Clinton had to “rape 2000+ children before he got life in prison”.
Word.
30 April, 2008 at 11:19 am
“chair-sniffing circle jerk site”
Iain Hall is back!
It’s not about being offended here, it’s about Bolt leaving up some abusive comments (that, surprise, allign with his politics) while taking down perfectly reasonable objections to his vomitous ranting.
30 April, 2008 at 11:39 am
There you go, trolls. Within minutes of one of you delicate flowers letting Bolt’s mods know that you were so horribly offended by said post, SNIP went the shears.
How stupid do you look now, wanking on about it for hours and hours over here at Circle Jerk Central instead of bloody doing something constructive about it?
Pathetic.
30 April, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Not stupid at all.
How stupid do you look?
Very.
30 April, 2008 at 12:58 pm
TW – With all due respect, shut your blow hole.
The reason the post was placed here was to show how inadequate the moderators of the Bolt blog are at managing the posts that are submitted.
Andrew himself says he does not allow abuse or negligent posts but ones like the above constantly get through. If Barry Bones or someone on the “other side” to Andrew had said something similar against a Neo-Con politician do you think it would have even made it to the site?
30 April, 2008 at 1:12 pm
And specifically relating to the SNIP.. well to take out one word to leave in the “sex abuse” part of it is childish. I have never heard of any interaction between Monica and Bill as being abuse.
30 April, 2008 at 1:31 pm
TW, try to keep up.
The point is that Bolt via his winged monkeys vets every single post before it gets up, unlike say this blog. In fact, in relation to the racist post that appeared last week, Bolt’s own defence claimed that a fill-in moderator allowed the post through, and that it would normally never occur.
So demanding that we advise them that the post is offensive is just stupid. Umm, can’t they recognise it when they see it? Oh, I get it- offensive to them is something that sits in opposition to The Great One.
30 April, 2008 at 1:53 pm
TW – And by the fact that within minutes of my post being submitted, the SNIP occured shows that they do indeed look at posts.
So either they only look at some posts, or they look at them all and let some go as they see fit.
And before you statr on the “It’s his blog, he can do what he likes”.. It is not his blog, it is the Herald-Sun website hosting his blog (as it says in the program window) and all posts should be in line with their publishing guidelines. If he wanted to do it his way he should set up a stand alone version like Tim Blair.
30 April, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Did anyone catch the piece he published yesterday, cant remember the title, but it had a link to a site called “greenie watch”. The site was criticising Peter Singer (not that I think Singer shouldnt be criticised). When i dug around a little, i found other articles by the creator of the greenie watch site, which among other crazy ideas, seemed to be excusing Nazism. I posted a quote from the learned greenie watch moderator to bolt’s blog, and the whole of bolt’s post now seems to have disappeared.
30 April, 2008 at 11:49 pm
sorry, forget my last post, bolt’s piece is still up. something about wikipedia being a leftist, possibly chinese , plot. Notice he didnt publish my post though.
1 May, 2008 at 12:18 am
TW,
Or is it ‘Jay Santos’ or ‘universal’?
Either way, your comments are troll-like. Address the issues rather than the individual, or bugger off back to Tim Blair or whichever stone you crawled out from under.
1 May, 2008 at 8:31 am
Somehow Andrew’s wit is being conveyed in today’s completely non connected article trying to link the increase in tax on pre mixed drinks with Kevin Rudd visiting a strip club for 5 minutes..
1 May, 2008 at 11:20 am
Chair sniffing is relatively trivial (provided the chair consents). I don’t know what the fuss is about.
Clinton having his employee blow him was much more tawdry though clearly not illegal. It may actually be comforting to some that an older man can attract such attention, at least in the right circumstances. Give that man a cigar!
1 May, 2008 at 11:32 am
The following is in relation to the topic, and I know it won’t be posted on Bolt’s site, so thanks in anticpation of it being posted here.
Gordon, it’s so nice of you to patronise me, but I’ve been here for years thanks. As for your claim that Andrew is just as hard on men who leave their kids, I’d like a few examples please. All-round, Andrew is a (self-confessed) rusted-on conservative when it comes to family issues. And when those issues come up, it is the women who strike free who get slapped down, by him and his loyal followers.
Andrew is a perfect example of what I would call a neo-con. Look at his biog: disaffected former Labor staffer, failed at uni, probably passed over for uni grads and creative types, now has a huge chip on his shoulder and passes it off as lifelong beliefs on the sanctity of blah blah blah… The reality is the only way he could be heard above the clamour of babblers was to adopt an arch conservative position, to wow those who agree with them and scandalise the faint of heart. He probably doesn’t even believe most of what he writes, but he’s now addicted to the attention.
Still, his insecurities pop out every so often, such as when he pouts there aren’t enough of him on the ABC, or people like him aren’t interviewed on the ABC, or people who matter don’t talk to him. So nothing has changed, except Bolt has found this pathetic band of haters who pour adulation on him and puff up his ego.
1 May, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Here’s another example of selective moderation on Andrew Bolt’s blog. I once quoted a post right above mine, one of the words in the quote was bullshit, the silly moderator chose to blank it out in my quote whilst not even noticing I was quoting the post [b]directly[/b] above mine (made by someone who pretty much agrees with everything Andrew Bolt writes).
I’m rarely rude on Andrew’s blog, I don’t make ad hominem attacks on other posters yet I get censored and even snipped, I can only assume it is because I have a dissenting viewpoint to 90% of what Andrew pretends to believe. Or that the people who moderate Andrew Bolt’s website are not very bright.
1 May, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Errr, how do I bold words?
1 May, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Off topic. Sorry.
But I note two things of interest today in the Pit of Despair.
(1) Bolt’s recent attacks on Cate Blanchett (he really doesn’t like her, does he?) are the subject of a blog post by Evan Maloney, which has resulted in a bit of name calling and pigtail pulling. Most amusing is the heading to Bolt’s response to Maloney – “Only child rapists disagree with our Cate.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/only_child_rapists_disagree_with_our_cate/#commentsmore
Whuh? I’m not sure if he is showing off his Shakespearean knowledge, or just trying to be provocative. Hell, I guess its both.
(2) The insufferable and extreme irritant Mr Logic has irrefutably deduced who the much maligned Barry Bones is. Bravo, Mr Logic !!!
“Mr Logic replied to Barry Bones
Thu 01 May 08 (12:11pm)
scrabbling in the dirt of his logic
Mr Logic advises J. Hansford that BB, aka Jeremy Sears, does not possess an IQ commensurate with the use of logic. Mr Logic has already proved this.”
1 May, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Liv,
Mr Logic is a wanker. I have annoyed him a few times, especially ages ago when various members would post ‘logic problems’ and he would get the wrong and I would point out where he stuffed up.
He uses the term ‘proof’ as much as Bolt uses the ‘I have said it before’ to prove an argument.
1 May, 2008 at 4:10 pm
It seems every Thursday the Mooncalf posts some comments regarding his favourite works.
One of his, so far (2), date-lickers replies to his bluff:
“Besides it gives me a chance to view the arts which I’ve scorned and now feel scorned for doing so.”
Says it all really…
1 May, 2008 at 6:07 pm
oh, Mr Logic and I are old friends.
The stupid twat.
1 May, 2008 at 6:08 pm
One could almost say “he is my old sparing (sic)partner”.
Heh.
Sorry. Couldn’t help a ;;;; reference
1 May, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Ha;!
2 May, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Ok, so TW is Circle Jerk right?
Circle Jerk said that he wasn’t coming back in the last thread. Seemed apoplectic about people not wanting to meekly accept his insults. A bit precious and fragile.
3 May, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I wrote:
“Andrew you’re beginning to scare me.
You honestly believe this insipid idea that everyone on “the Left” (what an absolutely laughable concept to actual journalist) is a twisted humanity-hating bastard? That’s moronic.
There are good guys and bad guys [i]on both sides.[/i] So please, grow up. You’re starting to seem more than a little unhinged.”
Not sure if it’ll be published.
4 May, 2008 at 9:20 pm
So, is this site dead, or what?
Cause you guys totally missed Bolt saying that all the rich people in Australia are rich because they deserve to be.
5 May, 2008 at 11:01 am
guys you have to comment about the bleatings about the abc list of possible names of dignitaries to have a portrait hung in the national gallery.
5 May, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The guy is a pure idiot. He chooses to buy into the discussion regarding the economic history of the world, and the deeply complicated reasons for the distribution of wealth around the world, and within societies, without even himself, reading material relating to the matter, or conducting any research.
Instead he just links to a REVIEW of the book “A Farewell to Alms: A brief Economic History of the World”. A highly one sided polemic style historical analysis, by an author driven to argue that the wealth of the west, and indeed that of most wealthy indiviuals in society, is purely down to cultural superiority over others.
Fair enough, its forms one side of the argument, but balance it by reading other pieces on this matter to formulate a thorough and objective understanding of the issue. But at the very least, I mean at the very least, read the one-sided book that you refer your argument too, instead of just a review of it. Of course none of this prevents Bolt’s slathering idiots, from spouting the usual rubbish about the cultural superiority of their own relatvies, the uselessness of those less well of, including indigenous populations, and the stupidity or even evilness of welfare for the needy.
.
5 May, 2008 at 3:48 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sub_premium_service/
Andrew feels “cheated” because he has been ripped off at $2 a pop for sms. Obviously did not read the fine print.
also on the portrait post there is this lovely comment:
Any one of them if it is by the neck.
kevin of Armidale (Reply)
Mon 05 May 08 (02:48pm)
i wonder how long that will take before being removed?
5 May, 2008 at 5:46 pm
can you say IRONY
‘ABC Unleashes the Crazies’
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/us_to_blame_for_september_11_dead#32184
I wet myself. Seriously, still giggling like a school girl.
Then this morning he was o the Today show as a regular commentator. hahahahahahahahahah.
9 May, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Mr Clinton’s child sex abuse with Monica and others”
He’s pinched this straight from Anne Coulter.
9 May, 2008 at 3:10 pm
My offering from yesterday, in the “Working beats whingeing”* thread of Thurs May 8, that the moderators, for some reason, did not post:
Make up your mind Spencer. On the one hand you point out the “innate dishonesty, criminality and intellectual under-achieving of African-Americans”** and yet on the other hand speak highly of these two African-Americans, who presumably similarly suffer from the innate dishonesty, criminality and intellectual under-achievement that you attribute to their race.
Aren’t people, as youve pointed out, like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams INNATELY inferior? Why then point to them as an example of anything praiseworthy when nothing of the sort could come from their type?
Are you schizophrenic?
* http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/working_beats_whingeing/#commentsmore
** See (3/4 down page): http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/forum_sunday_april_13/
10 May, 2008 at 8:55 pm
re post by:
Steven Rogan
1 May, 2008 at 11:32 am
bolt NEVER allows any criticism of gordon of perth. never. anything remotely critical is snipped. try it, garrantee youll be snipped.
maybe bolt in love with him?
Comments are closed.