LOL - and no, Jimmy, it doesn't mean "Lots of love"
I'm sorry, but this is just too funny to miss. BlairSupporter has transferred his attention from defaming the legal team at the Leveson enquiry to Tony Blair's actual testimony. Now to do this he has done his normal cut-and-paste job on a report by Tom McArthur from Sabotage Times (I'd never heard of ST, but it looks interesting - thanks Jimmy!) The general tone of the article is unsympathetic to Blair, but Jimmy loves it (apart from some reservations he mentions about...well, pretty much everything to do with the testimony and Blair's record in office) because it points out that the Slippery One is still a consummate performer and a gifted politician. The tone of the article is that Blair was "all style and no substance", which pretty much chimes with most people's general recollections of the disgraced ex-PM, but Jimmy cares naught for substance or truth: politics is all about looking good.
So far, so typically Jimmy, but that's not why I felt I had to return to the lad so soon. You have to remember that Jimmy didn't link to the article, he simply cited where it came from then did a lift-and-drop. This is relevant, as you'll see.
While explaining his "provisos", Jimmy has this to say about the article:
There are a few points in the article below that the above quote is taken from with which I profoundly disagree, including the three thoughts underlined here -
“His persuasive, mesmeric doublespeak has already led the UK into an illegal war … Blair is great at tricking the public into thinking he’s answered a question…”
Especially when the writer thought that remark so good that he said it twice. It’s actually bad, but who cares about truth when Blair’s name is attached?
Now why does Jimmy think the writer "said it twice"? Look at the original article and you will see that the editor has taken a couple of sentences and put them into - I'm not sure what the printing jargon is, but the in-line equivalent of an enlarged sidebar, in order to emphasise them and give the skimming reader a flavour of what's in the article. Now when Jimmy did his cut-and-paste, most of that formatting was lost, though the two extracts are still differentiated by being indented and having a grey vertical line alongside them.
Blair is great at tricking the public into thinking he’s answered a question, but a cursory check of the transcript or Hansard proves that he didn’t.
Did I say differentiated? Not to one of Jimmy's vast intellect and reading ability, they're not. Nooo, they're just repetition (no matter that they are some way away from where the original text appears so make little sense). Repetition, obviously because the writer had a high opinion of himself.
I'm used to Jimmy's straightforwardly lying about things. I'm used to his linking to sources and saying they contain something different from what they actually contain. I'm used to his pasting articles in their entirety and then refusing to take any responsibility for what he has just incorporated into his own blog (for example, the Islamophobic blood libel he apparently still stands by). But this is the first sighting of BlairSupporter's taking an editing bungle of his own as evidence of someone else's vanity.
Update: I mentioned in a comment to Jimmy that he'd made a boo-boo, but the comment has disappeared and the boo-boo remains. That's the trouble with folk who censor opinions they don't like: they miss things. And BlairSupporter's monument to his own ineptitude remains....