Speaks truth to idiocy in Doha:
As I delivered the last of my three points, there were keening shrieks of rage from the delegates. They had not heard any of this before. They could not believe it. Outrage! Silence him! Free speech? No! This is the U.N.! Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh!
One of the hundreds of beefy, truncheon-toting U.N. police at the conference approached me as I left the hall and I was soon surrounded by him and a colleague. They took my conference pass, peered at it and murmured into cellphones.
Trouble was, they were having great difficulty keeping a straight face.
Put yourself in their sensible shoes. They have to stand around listening to the tedious, flatulent mendacities of pompous, overpaid, under-educated diplomats day after week after year. Suddenly, at last, someone says “Boo!” and tells the truth.
Frankly, they loved it. They didn’t say so, of course, or they’d have burst out laughing and their stony-faced U.N. superiors would not have been pleased.
I was amiably accompanied out into the balmy night, where an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials were alternately murmuring into cellphones and murmuring into cellphones. Murmuring into cellphones is what they do best.
Sounds like a good time was had by all, at least all of any intelligence.
There is gold in them thar hills!
That’s some serious loot even by big oil standards. And that’s just for a reparations funds.
And the Obama administration discovers a new zeal for limiting liability.
I guess limited liability is ok, if you’re the target.
And he gets the typical regressive response, “Shut Up!”
“Shut up”, they explained. I always get a chuckle from that.
That apparently came from a Ring Lardner story.
I actually picked it up from this when I read it in about ’78, and it was originally published in ’69. No doubt, the bon mot goes back even farther than that.
For the love of God. Monckton? He’s a crank who thinks he’s a hereditary peer, but the other peers disagree.
Well, it’s hard to imagine a more persuasive ad hominem argument than that one.
Do you have anything substantive to say?
In addition to thinking he’s a member of Parliament, and thinking he’s been peer reviewed, he claims to be “responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases.” That’s a pretty high level of delusion.
So, doubling down on the ad hominem is your idea of a substantive discussion?
He is also a pernicious lube snopper (I think that was something I picked up in an old Bloom County comic strip making fun of ad hom attacks).
His repeated pattern of stating falsehoods that are easily shown to be false speaks to both his credibility and judgement.
Also, being ejected for impersonating the Burmese delegate is not actually a free speech issue.
…being ejected for impersonating the Burmese delegate is not actually a free speech issue.
Who said it was?
First ad hominem, now a straw man.
We still await something of interest on the subject from you. I suspect we’ll wait in vain.
So he has better manners than Code Pink and every other leftist protest group?