Bolter’s back on Insiders!
The Comic Dog was up on his favourite chair, wagging his tail, his coat shiny after a 6 week stay on the farm.
As usual, he talked all over everyone, maintaining a veneer of civility only until he could get a cheap shot in at David Marr about global warming.
Thus leaving everyone else on the show in perpetual catch up mode.
Memo to anyone kennelled with the Comic Dog – he’s never smiling, he’s baring his teeth. Get him in a squirrel grip first and fast, or he’ll eat the baby’s face.
And what is going on with the models’ own costuming for that show? Last week Karen Middleton and Malcolm Farr looked like Santa’s enormous elves in red and green. This week Marr was topless, with bad eczema. Oh no, it was a red shirt, searing the eyeballs. Earth tones people please. It’s Sunday morning.
(picture: top to bottom a young Chris Barrie, Fran Kelly, David Marr and Glenn Milne from an episode in 1973, when it had another name).
25 Comments
Guy:
There’s a blog at Crikey already obsessed with Bolt. Why don’t you head over there and pollute that spot with your obsession instead of trying that low brow crap here. It’s boring.
As for this so called air of civility that you demand of others…. Let the evidence show that your performance on Q&A last time you one was anything but civil to others you disagree with. In fact you were downright obnoxiously uncivil, so please stop the hypocrisy as I’m reaching for the bucket.
Here’s the link to Rundle’s uncivil (edit) performance on Q&A.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm
Link episode 13.
For Rundle to be calling others uncivil is jaw-dropping.
I’m not sure Guy is saying that Andrew should be civil. I think Guy’s advice is that anyone unfortunate enough to be on the panel with Andrew should get him back first (as we used to say in primary school).
I’m not sure Guy is saying that Andrew should be civil.
Yes he is, more or less.
I think Guy’s advice is that anyone unfortunate enough to be on the panel with Andrew should get him back first (as we used to say in primary school).
As against anyone unfortunate enough having to endure Rundle’s (EDIT) about economics etc. on Q&A?
Keep it on the issue please Tee and drop the personal stuff or be blocked.
Poor tee. Beaten to a pulp at Pure Poison has slinked off to the other blogs.
I’m loving the stump, and Guy I saw the not so funny comic dog, and thought Marr’s opening up of the newspaper in his face was an elegant reply – reminded me of commuting in London – see something weird, and up comes the Observer. The other thing I was amazed by, I wish I had access to the records, but Barrie’s interview with Ms Bishop revealed that she believed that Mr Rudd ” is putting the jobs of Australians on the line because he believes that clean coal technology is going to replace our reliance on coal for our electricity needs.”
Good god, so clean coal is not coal?
Besides, isn’t it because of the climate change deniers ala Bolt and the Liberal party that we are now inextricably reliant on Clean Coal because the former government put the mockers on alternative energy research and development. They really are lost sheep, or goldfish or lost angry goldfish or something.
Full Question and reply below -
“BARRIE CASSIDY: But already you’ve had declining growth, you’ve had rising unemployment and yet it’s the Opposition’s credibility that has collapsed. Do you ever ask yourself why that is so?
JULIE BISHOP: Well Barrie let’s have a look at Labor’s major reform that was the subject of the West Australian convention and that is the emissions trading scheme.
Mr Rudd is putting the jobs of Australians on the line because he believes that clean coal technology is going to replace our reliance on coal for our electricity needs.
This technology is unproven. If it ultimately proves not to be viable Australia will be greatly disadvantaged and it will cost jobs.
Now what we need Barrie is we need a debate in this country, a realistic assessment of alternative energy sources that will create jobs and protect jobs, not cost jobs.
We need to look at the viability of renewables to become part of a base load power solution. We need to look at alternative energy sources like natural gas and nuclear. We have to have a realistic assessment of whether clean coal technology is viable.
Now this is a massive reform that Mr Rudd is seeking to impose on Australia before the Copenhagen conference and it will cost jobs.”
Starting with yours Julie – just keep talking angry goldfish stuff please.
@Evidently: some good points. If what Julie Bishop says is Coalition ppolicy does that mean they no longer supports the development of CCS? And if so what does the Minerals Council think of this?
Bishop: “[Rudd] believes that clean coal technology is going to replace our reliance on coal for our electricity needs” WTF?? No Julie he believes an economically viable CCS would allow us to continue to export coal. Most notably to the European Union who, by the way, have had an ETS inoperation for some years now.
Yes, telling the editor to stfu seems perfectly civil to me. 80
It didn’t know he was the editor. However he’s obviously taking sides on the issue.
Rundle makes comments about other people’s civility and I put up a link showing Rundle to be anything but civil to his political opponents. That’s as pertinent to the thread as anything could be.
Case closed as far as I’m concerned. Rundle is a hypocrite.
And if the editor was being fair he would have also dealt with “josh’s” comment.
I’m not an editor here tee. I don’t know why anyone would have that idea.
Of course the difference between my comment and yours was that I didn’t resort to profanity. I just called you out on being a coward which I note you didn’t address.
Yes, the ’stfu’ (directed at Josh, I think, not the editor i.e. Jonathan Green) was uncalled for, but tee is right on the money in every other respect. Bolt is far from Robinson Crusoe in talking over others on Insiders. And Jonathan Green, unless there was something outright libellous in place of the (EDIT)in tee’s 7:01pm post, that is the most unjustified block threat I’ve ever seen on any blog, and I’ve seen a few. Methinks your bias is showing, in much the same way as a petticoat under a miniskirt.
What a strange notion – the editor of a website supporting one of his journalists! It doesn’t have to be “fair” (although for the record I think it was fair enough to edit you and what Josh said in response was relatively mild”. Tee, I (and probably most of the people on here) have seen Rundle on Q and A. He’s not in the same league as Bolt as far as obnoxiousness goes. Not even close. (Edit: a bit ad hominem there)
keep your stfu’s holstered please folks.
Jonathon:
Please stop being dishonest. You threatened me with a block well before the STFU comment.
Mark’s comment explains it well enough.
MD:
Please try to keep up with the class. I’m not measuring who is the most obnoxious. I’m simply calling Rundle out on being a complete hypocrite in solto voce demanding civility when his performance on that Q&A link shows how uncivil he is (in addition to being illiterate in economics).
Can someone please explain to me why lefties like Rundle are always talking about economics when they haven’t the slightest idea about the subject? It’s such a denialist bent to somehow think the demand and supply curves doing slope downwards and then talk about economics not having studied it.
Rundle should apologize on this thread for being a hypocrite or at the very least for his own behavior one Q&A.
Tee said “As for this so called air of civility that you demand of others….”
I don’t really want to get involved in an exegesis of Guy’s article, but I think it’s pretty clear that he is not demanding an air of civility of others. What Guy appears to be saying is that Bolt is not going to be civil to you, so it is unwise to be civil to him. I would have thought the sentence “Get him in a squirrel grip first and fast, or he’ll eat the baby’s face” is compelling evidence, particularly the “first”. *If* Guy has been uncivil elsewhere, it might merely be an example of him following his own advice.
Nope, sorry don’t buy that swill, Nigel. You’re trying to let the worm off the hook too easily and in this case this worm is well and truly hooked.
it was only a little while when guy was egging someone on to sue the Murdoch papers for libel over something that wasn’t even remotely libelous.
I watched that episode of Q&A at your suggestions tee and while I found it interesting and at times very amusing (the eruptions of laughter at Greg Sheridan’s naivete, for example), I fail to see what it was that was so “obnoxiously uncivil” about Guy’s performance. Is saying something you disagree with all that it takes for you to consider a person “uncivil”?
ROTFL
Well Guy, while I’d certainly agree with you about the need to keep a squirrel grip the Bolter.
Perhaps you should defer to the comic Firstdog when it comes to the artwork.
Even with the name tags provided, that cover’s an epic fail.
I fail to see what it was that was so “obnoxiously uncivil” about Guy’s performance
Perhaps your volume was down.
Go to 14.20 and listen to Rundle interrupting some else speaking with ” nonsense, absolute nonsense”. Turn the volume up this time.
Let me know if you need other examples. That’s exactly what Rundle complains about about Bolt however he only expects better standards from his opponents, bot from him of course. LOl.
As an aside, the economics he spouts is about the most illiterate crap I’ve ever heard. I’m actually still laughing listening to the swill.
To paraphrase this economic genius… America has had a deeper recession because it’s roads and bridges aren’t up to the same standard as Sweden. This would score a laughable fail even in 11th grade economics. It’s pathetic crap.
Jonathon, pleeeease show that you mean what you say and block Tee. His contributions have been responsible for dragging the discussion into the basement.
Bolter is as Bolter does. He is a bore. He does talk over others and off topic. And David Marr’s disdain for him was marvellous to behold. Thanks to Guy for a reasoned comment on his reappearance.
Bennetts:
Stop being a boring pissant. Don’t like what i say then don’t read it. Now run along and cry to mommy you big cry baby.
Ah. I see. “tee” is for troll. Ignore it and it will go away.
Gah, I hate that those who run sites such as this have to live in fear of being accused of engaging in censorship, bias etc etc by simply removing people who like to use the internet as their emotional punching bag. In the end this site is a product, and the product is reduced in value by having every second discussion descend into the gutter by a single rogue poster. There are plenty of people who would share the same views that contribute in a usefull way to discussions around here. Bring on the banhammer!
Just watched the video of that Insiders with Bolta. Sure, Marr was dismissive, but he didn’t say anything offensive. Bolt tried, badly, to derail the conversation completely off topic to get his view out, again, that the world has been cooling for 8 years, yada yada yada.
As Guy says, his MO does seem to be to try and antagonise people, by talking over them, baiting them, making preposterous statements, only to try and get a reaction, so he can appear wounded and hard done by again. The poor bugger’s self esteem must be shattered. Why can’t everyone on Insiders be like Annabel?