So, when is beyond the pale not beyond the pale? Personally, I'd say that unjustifiably smearing someone as a paedophile actually is beyond the pale in all cases. PT appears to think differently. I've been waiting all weekend for an explanation as to why this is but no answer was forthcoming.
So, here's a short post dedicated to PT (and one of his commenters).
Another Rightie Goes Beyond the PaleRight?
The Right definitely dominate when the blogosphere comes to posting things that are completely beyond the pale. And it seems like the material is coming thicker (pun intended) and faster than ever.
"Guido Fawkes" (who has boasted of his use of illegal tax evasion strategies) wrote that Mark Oaten was "a slaphead who most mothers would feel uneasy seeing near a playground". This comment was made last year.
Remarkably "Guido" is allowing his comment to stand.
There can be no doubt that the left occupy the erudite, blogging high-ground while the right prefer the low swamp of attack and innuendo
No, obviously not. Because, you see, I realise that although "the right" has it's fair share of tossers, hypocrites and bastards just like any other group of human beings, it would be unfair on the many decent people of the right to extrapolate that sort of behaviour in this stupid generic way in an attempt to gain partisan political advantage. It would be misleading, dishonest and well, just not very nice.
That obviously isn't a concern shared by everyone though.