Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.
The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.
Yahoo! Search
Preceding Posts
- Mitterrand ordered Rainbow Warrior bombing
- The founding Secretary General of the UN was a Sov...
- Infernal Security
- Looking for the London bombing photos?
- The Lemur makes it to the NY Times...
- Leaked documents show extent of Islamist infiltrat...
- Appeasement and Criticism
- London bombing suspects and Al Qaeda ("The Base")
- 20 to 50 still missing
- We burn civilisations to the ground
Archives
SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved
Monday, July 11, 2005
You Go Girl
Looks like Lyndon Hood of Sensitive Flowers has had a brain spasm, and decided to post the results on the Interweb.
While you're reading Hood's latest attack on Sir Humphrey's, remember that his blog does not allow comments and that every single one of his posts contains his own wonderful name prominently displayed before the actual post title. Note also that a good 30% of his latest post is based around a conspiracy theory that we are in fact the Green Party in drag, for which he denies personal responsibility by attributing the idea to 'a friend'. This is typical - Hood's posts/comments always seem to be phrased so that if necessary he can later claim they are just a joke, for example his last little hissy fit aimed at Sir Humphrey's. Maybe Hood's just looking for attention, and once that attention is achieved, he suddenly loses his fighting talk.
Hood also mentions Peter Cresswell in a negative way: "reading that blog is bad for my blood pressure". I think most people would consider PC a rather mild-mannered writer, if from a pronounced Libertarian perspective. Unlike Russell Brown for instance, PC doesn't perpetuate factual inaccuracies, nor does he ignore the substantial ethical and competence problems of our present Labour Party-led Government. So what's Hoods problem?
Hood could, of course, have posted an item on the rather prominent recent terrorist attacks in London, but no, apparently Sir Humphrey's coverage is more important to him. How can we argue with that?
So - you go girl *lateral head wiggle*.
[Note to RWDB: your cunning name choice appears to be causing cognitive dissonance amongst the moonbats. Excellent...]
[Note to other SH authors: suggested catchphrase: 'Causing cognitive dissonance in socialists since February 2005']
CORRECTION: Yes, I misread the PC part of the post. The original has been substantially re-edited, so the context is now clear when before it was murky.
While you're reading Hood's latest attack on Sir Humphrey's, remember that his blog does not allow comments and that every single one of his posts contains his own wonderful name prominently displayed before the actual post title. Note also that a good 30% of his latest post is based around a conspiracy theory that we are in fact the Green Party in drag, for which he denies personal responsibility by attributing the idea to 'a friend'. This is typical - Hood's posts/comments always seem to be phrased so that if necessary he can later claim they are just a joke, for example his last little hissy fit aimed at Sir Humphrey's. Maybe Hood's just looking for attention, and once that attention is achieved, he suddenly loses his fighting talk.
Hood also mentions Peter Cresswell in a negative way: "reading that blog is bad for my blood pressure". I think most people would consider PC a rather mild-mannered writer, if from a pronounced Libertarian perspective. Unlike Russell Brown for instance, PC doesn't perpetuate factual inaccuracies, nor does he ignore the substantial ethical and competence problems of our present Labour Party-led Government. So what's Hoods problem?
Hood could, of course, have posted an item on the rather prominent recent terrorist attacks in London, but no, apparently Sir Humphrey's coverage is more important to him. How can we argue with that?
So - you go girl *lateral head wiggle*.
[Note to RWDB: your cunning name choice appears to be causing cognitive dissonance amongst the moonbats. Excellent...]
[Note to other SH authors: suggested catchphrase: 'Causing cognitive dissonance in socialists since February 2005']
CORRECTION: Yes, I misread the PC part of the post. The original has been substantially re-edited, so the context is now clear when before it was murky.
19 Comments:
I can't get over the fact that anyone could mistake me for Sue Bradford. I mean, Sue Bradford! I've been trampling all over her pet project. Sue's not a masochist, is she?
I can't over the fact he thinks we're more important than the London bombings.
Typically he has nothing factual to criticise about RWDB's post, nor does he attempt to mount a counter-argument. Hood just has that furry offended tone common to many people who've unquestionally absorbed their political opinions from others.
It was pretty funny, though. I laughed and laughed before I could even type out a response. I'd be quite happy for him to write out something like that again at a future date, but make me someone else, please, Lyndon.
Though it could have the advantage of really freaking Philu out if he thinks we're his superiors!
Damn, Matt Robson! I was hoping you were Ahmed Zaoui.
I've met Adolf. Keith Locke he ain't.
I wish I could say this on her blog but as you say she doesn't allow comments.
Her? Is Lyndon female? Will have to change my post....
But, Nick, you could be in on it too - how would he ever know for sure?
Hey, Lyndon's post was very funny.
But I was left off the ear bashing! My secret is out. I'm Lyndon, and I just couldn't bring myself to say anything nasty about me. Other than I hang out with a bunch of right wing lunatics.
Now excuse me whilst I update my Frogblog.
Being a transvestite Greenie would certainly explain why the New York Times both reads Sir Humps, and features it in print.
But, I read somewhere that Lemur is actually David Farrar. Which would mean that he is also a NYT-featured trannie. It's all too confusing.
Bugger it all. I've been sprung. Oh well, that means I can't write any more speeches for Steve Maharey. It was such good fun too. All I had to do was set the random word machine going into a teletype and push the stop button after three screeds.
Lyndon Who?
You got me Lucyna. I'm really Matt McCarten.
I fiddled with the title of that post, and broke your link.
Post is now at http://fightingtalk.blogspot.com/2005/07/lyndon-hood-not-one-to-bear-grudge.html.
BTW, I resent being called mild-mannered Resent it I tell you. I've never been so offended, and my blood pressure is going through the roof.
Actually, I think Lyndon was still referring to Sir Humphreys when he was talking about his blood pressure, even though PC was in the sentence. Maybe.
And mild mannered might be better put as "diplomatic".
Mind you there are two styles of diplomacy. Old style, where you tell some-one to go to hell, and you do it so well they think they'll enjoy the rife there.
And Sir Humphrey's style. If style is the word I'm looking for...
bugger, typo: enjoy the ride there..
Z: Its hard to know - the original has been completely rewritten. Now I rewrite my own posts (normally within the first hour), but only if they are broad relatively uncontroversial topics like the recent Charles Johnson post. Otherwise everything should be noted in an UPDATE section. Stealth edits on topics under debate is a big no-no.
Thanks for the ethical commentary. Except...
"Completely rewritten"? That's utterly fucking untrue.
I may have made a couple of corrections immediately after posting. Then, in the morning I think, after you posted but before I was aware of it I removed exactly one letter from the title and that is all.
Tincanman commenting on PC says he has an original copy and hasn't disputed my version of events.
If it's different than what you remember, it's because you read it with blinkers on the first time.
L
Lyndon, if you must pretend to be an intellectual it will help to learn some basic English. Different 'from' if you don't mind.
Hmm. From Pc's post:
http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/07/when-sensitive-flowers-attack.html
tincanman said...
Yup, he's also edited the post. (Lords, no - not editing of his post hours after the fact?) Heh. Watching somebody jerk around on the floor with a furious gnashing of teeth and foam at the corners of the mouth is always funny. Peter Cresswell? Bad for your blood pressure? Only if you actually think about the scenarios he describes where the Statist government is Not your best friend. Oh well, I have the original page via feed if you're interested. Haven't checked (couldn't be bothered) to see what the differences are.
Yes, and after tcm commented I said what the change was and after that he commented again and did not disagree. Twice.
That is all. Goodbye.
Post a Comment
<< Home