Monckton walks the planck

UPDATE: Part 3 added

It is said that if you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk. Monckton of Brenchley certainly has done both. There’s only one problem: pirates, and I’m not talking about Flying Spaghetti Monster comparisons. Josh explains:

But as we know, Monckton doesn’t go down easily:

There might be a part three coming.

UPDATE: Here it is! That’s one hot kraken.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Satire and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to Monckton walks the planck

  1. Mike says:

    I’d be more impressed if he turned water into wine.

  2. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    October 4, 2011 at 8:52 am
    “I’d be more impressed if he turned water into wine.”

    Mike, especially for you: Arctic Ozone Hole caused by Global Warming.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/the-rare-record-breaking-arctic-ozone-hole-and-global-warming/2011/10/04/gIQAfmWwKL_blog.html

  3. j ferguson says:

    I see Josh is using Monckton’s spelling of Planck rather than Lucia’s. Likely he’s more used to remembering to get the c before the k. View 2 is clearly Monckton as seen by himself.

  4. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    j ferguson says:
    October 4, 2011 at 9:01 am
    I see Josh is using Monckton’s spelling of Planck rather than Lucia’s. Likely he’s more used to remembering to get the c before the k. View 2 is clearly Monckton as seen by himself.

    Most of the Thermal Club uses C instead of K, and if the cooling trend continues, walking on water will become easier with time.

  5. kim says:

    Does the Lord walk upon a whale that Dallas has hooked and Paul K helping to land?
    ==========================

  6. Scott Brim says:

    Perhaps there is something written in A Random Walk on Water by Dr. Demetris Koutsoyannis which could assist Lord Monckton in traveling from one side of the pond to the other.

  7. PhilJourdan says:

    However he does it, the warmist movement see him as a dire threat who must be destroyed. Not defeated, but destroyed. The ad hominem attacks on the man are an indication of their fear.

  8. John Blake says:

    We assume that “planck” refers to some quantum-physical probability function, whereby waves become particles and so on, rather than to Blackbeard’s maleficent means of disposing with captives.

  9. j ferguson says:
    October 4, 2011 at 9:01 am

    I see Josh is using Monckton’s spelling of Planck rather than Lucia’s. Likely he’s more used to remembering to get the c before the k.

    “Planck” is an allusion to Planck’s constant (named after Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, the man who formulated it), something that Christopher Monckton often illustrated is often being erroneously or not at all applied by many proponents of the theory of man-made climate catastrophes. Planck is the correct spelling of the proper name, even if the name is used as a pun in another one of Josh’s excellent cartoons (cartoons that constantly keep improving in quality and artistry).

  10. John Whitman says:

    Josh,

    OK, you win.

    What (who) is the green tentacle arm reaching out from behind the Santa Lucia in the Part II cartoon?

    Is that a monster spawned of Kev’s missing heat?

    Or is it our English prof Moshpit tape recording Christopher Monckton’s erudite prose for future self-improvement study?

    John

  11. Verity Jones says:

    Shouldn’t that be walk the walk?

  12. George E. Smith; says:

    Well actually we need someone who walks on HOT water. Mind you, Lord CM is a good candidate for that too. I take it that the Santa Lucia is not an accidental ship either ?

  13. James Sexton says:

    John Whitman says:
    October 4, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Josh,

    OK, you win.

    What (who) is the green tentacle arm reaching out from behind the Santa Lucia in the Part II cartoon?
    ===========================================
    I took it to be an allegory for the green movement holding (supporting) the blackboards boat. Of course, we all see what happens to boats that are temporarily supported by tentacled monsters of the deep in cinema and literature.

  14. tchannon says:

    Reminds me of the George W joke on the Pope’s hat.

    IIRC the punchline, next day headlines, George W cannot swim.

  15. steven mosher says:

    “Dr. Demetris Koutsoyannis … could assist Lord Monckton in traveling from one side of the pond to the other.’ by teaching him how to differentiate. Of course, I suspect that Lucia will learn to spell or accept corrections, faster than the Monktopus will learn to differentiate or accept corrections.

  16. kwik says:

    May The Force be with you, Lord M !

    That ocean must be all filled up with watermellons.

  17. Heretic says:

    Monckton seems to excite antipathy in certain circles – not surprising when he demolishes warmista arguments (he may not be rigorous, but he seems to win). Ad Hominems are only to be expected (as are long mathematical journeys in rebuttal!).

  18. John Whitman says:

    Josh,

    In a possible Part III cartoon, does Captain Nemo’s submarine Nautilus surface to pick up CM? Then does it proceed to ram the hapless Saint Lucia?

    [apologies to Jules Verne's 'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea']

    John

  19. cromagnum says:

    Get away from the ship before it sinks.

    Will Plankton be part of the riddle?

  20. D Marshall says:

    Peter Hadfield, a longtime science journalist who does quite thorough research into climate change facts and claims has taken Monckton to task on several occasions and has a 5-part YouTube video series on it on either the Potholer54 or the Potholer54debunks channel.

  21. Gareth Phillips says:

    Mike says:
    October 4, 2011 at 8:52 am
    I’d be more impressed if he turned water into wine.

    This may not be possible, but I have it on good authority that he can turn wine into water.

  22. kim says:

    We’ll have to let the wind drop before we sea it change.
    ===========

  23. Dr. Dave says:

    The Santa Lucia! Arrr ye…fingernails on a blackboard.

  24. Ian W says:

    For those that can follow such things….

    The statement “ as thick as two short Planck’s” comes to mind.

  25. DR_UK says:

    You can see Lord Monckton debating here:

    http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/eco-warriors

    As Phil Jourdan says above, ad hominem attacks seem to be his opponents’ main weapons.

  26. j ferguson says:

    Walter,
    Frankly, i thought it was the Plonk Constant being discussed and neither of them could spell it correctly.

  27. 1DandyTroll says:

    @Mike

    “I’d be more impressed if he turned water into wine.”

    That has been known for eons or perhaps you are like the early Christians who, apparently, didn’t knew that wine came from properly watered vineyards, hence turning water into wine.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster rules the day, again. TFSM knows everything about wine, hence spaghetti.

    Do you want to know how to turn water into tomato juice?

    See what I did there? :p

  28. John Whitman says:

    @Walter,
    Frankly, i thought it was the Plonk Constant being discussed and neither of them could spell it correctly.

    —————

    j ferguson,

    Arrrgh, thar’s me matey. Plunk down some plunder for a pint of plonk. Avast!

    Piratical Note: Me thinks Plank or Planck is bad pirate spelling by them thar edumucated types.

    John

  29. Josh,
    Sheer genius!
    Made I larf, that did!

  30. Smokey says:

    Verity,

    “Walk the talk” is a contraction of the older phrase, “He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.”

  31. _Jim says:

    D Marshall says on October 4, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Peter Hadfield, a longtime science journalist who does quite thorough research into climate change facts and claims has taken Monckton to task on several occasions

    Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?

    .

  32. _Jim says:

    Hark!

    A Part III is upon us!

    .

  33. D Marshall says:

    @Jim

    “Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?”

    Watch the videos and then decide if Hadfield is successful. If you thought I wasn’t being helpful enough, here’s a direct link to the 1st:

  34. Jimmy Haigh says:

    If only Mann and his cohorts had gone through the ‘peer review’ that Monckton currently is going through…

  35. _Jim says:

    D Marshall says on October 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Watch the videos and then decide if Hadfield is successful. If you thought I wasn’t being helpful enough, here’s a direct link to the 1st:

    Are you unable to provide any specific points yourself where Monckton may fall short?

    Otherwise, you _are_ acting like an advance, ‘ad’ or pitch man … (DON’T think you’re the first to ‘pitch’ potholer/Peter Hadfield on WUWT, you are only the latest of what are sure to be a series of admen doing same.)

    QED

    .

  36. John Whitman says:

    Like a fine Napa cabernet sauvignon, CM just keeps on improving while the supporters of alarming AGW seem to get shriller and shriller like plonk . . . . .

    This is education (thanks CM) and entertaining . . . .

    John

  37. D Marshall says:

    @Jim I let those who do it better or best, speak for themselves. When someone here provides a link or a video, I read or watch before I post, even if I’m already familiar with the issue, unless it’s something I’ve seen before.
    That’s exactly what I did with the post 2 weeks ago on “Early Winter in Switzerland”. If you’ve seen the vids ( even just ONE ) and want to argue, by all means, let’s have it out.
    Any fact I would point out would be challenged for a source – rightfully so. Here I’m providing it straight from the horse’s mouth, free of charge; and his sources and methodology are also in the video or the comment area below.
    And so what if someone has posted these before? That fact alone does NOT discredit them.

  38. Hadfield is is quite possibly the MOST discredited charlatan to ever appear here on WUWT – he is very much a clueless zealot who has no idea how foolish he appears…

  39. James Sexton says:

    D Marshall says:
    October 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    @Jim

    “Has he (Peter) fallen short of his goal such that he must employ advance, ‘ad’ or pitch men?”

    Watch the videos and then decide if Hadfield is successful.
    =======================================================
    Groan, D, we’ve been down that road, asked and answered several times. Go back in the archives…. just search for Monckton. I couldn’t sit through much of the drivel. The first starts by attempting to refute something but, he failed. Secondly, having a “science” background is highly subjective….. but then it goes on to misstatements, taking Monckton out of context, displaying Hadfield’s own unique form of ignorance, ….. its just too much to watch in totality. Never mind, just go here…..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/#comment-746523

    Just start at the top, and then read the pertinent comments.
    Of the 17 issues brought up by the troll, only one error could be proven. It was an error Monckton has acknowledged and explained how he came to such error on more than one occasion. Most grownups accept this and move on. It would be refreshing if all parties would conduct themselves in the manner Monckton has.

    BTW, success, too, is subjective. Hadfield is successful if his aim was to cast erroneous dispersions towards Monckton. He was unsuccessful in refuting Monckton’s statements. But, considering he spent much of his time on acknowledged errors, and appeals to authority without directly refuting Monckton, this is unsurprising.

    James

  40. James Sexton says:

    Josh, I can’t make it out. On the 3rd cartoon, which finger is Monckton using?

  41. TedK says:

    D Marshall says:
    October 4, 2011 at 11:37 am
    Peter Hadfield, a longtime science journalist who does quite thorough research into climate change facts and claims has taken Monckton to task on several occasions and has a 5-part YouTube video series on it on either the Potholer54 or the Potholer54debunks channel.

    How interesting. And just what does this post (and your followups) do to help this discussion? Not a thing right? You just want to thread bomb…

    Mark S says:
    September 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    …No, I wait to see how the person accused of making an error responds to reasonable criticism.
    In Peter’s case, when a genuine error is pointed out to him (normally something minor) he promptly concedes the point and is happy to update the video description with an accurate or more fuller explanation, so not to mislead his visitors.

    I’m intrigued. Not only have you tried to interrupt a thread with a completely irrelevant topic post, but your technique, approach phrasing and wording is remarkably similar to other topic trolls who have made similar posts about the same terribly researched videos. Are you working from the same playbook? Perhaps even using easy cut and paste rebuttals with fill in the blanks? Or are you perhaps even the same person using different names trying to increase page hits at a disappointing site with poor attendance?

    Anyway; you are caught! Hadfield has been discussed and thoroughly discredited here before. Since you love asking others to chase links, here is one for you to chase. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/. Oh, there are others, but you can find themselves.

  42. James Sexton says:

    TedK says:
    October 4, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    ====================================
    Yeh, I wasn’t going to chase down all the rebuts, either. But, it isn’t so much as having the same playbook, ….. well, they do, but it is simply the way they are. The extent these people go through to attack Monckton is hilarious. A 5 part video posting…….. when it would only take a simple written response to credibly refute his assertions. But, for a written post, links are expected so context can be read. 5 second sound bites……. and Peter Hadfield is a science journalist? LMAO that explains much.

    What most of these people don’t understand, is that Anthony usually has open invitations for the alarmists to come here and present their case. While I can’t speak for Anthony, I’m sure if he was approached, he’d let Hadfield have his say. If not, Hadfield certainly could present on my blog. :-) But, written and links to his assertions provided. But, they don’t do that. They cower behind walls to prevent scrutiny. They don’t answer. They obfuscate. They divert attention. They engage in character assassination. Anything other than answer the science.

    I would say, in this case, Lucia is a different sort. But, I’m not sure better. Obsessing on the minutia of Chris Monckton’s assertions isn’t productive in any manner. It loses sight of reality. For example, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/

    James

  43. _Jim says:

    D Marshall says on October 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    @Jim I let those who do it better or best, speak for themselves. …

    Please, pitchman, no more ‘pitchman’ videos unless by an original author or source, like Dr. Bob Carter who could, and can, answer questions off-the-script:

    .

  44. James Sexton says:

    You know, this is sad. :-( It used to be that Monckton detractors would stop at nothing to try and cast him in a bad light. So, when his posts are here, I look forward to a rancorous discussion.

    While the expected distractions do occur, the defense of the distractions seem a bit……. well, nonexistent. This shows effective progress and legitimizes Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. It further goes to the credit of WUWT. But, what of me? Here I am, 1/2 full of beer and vinegar and no one to play with! That’s progress. I wonder what we’ll all do when this is done?

  45. TedK says:

    James Sexton says:
    October 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Looks like we are in agreement. While I was chasing down the similar language sentences you beat me to the link. Good job!

    The modus operandi seems to be post an innocuous statement making the claim about allegedly well researched and damning videos that will convert the faithless. Wait, and as soon as someone rebuts/replies to their original post they then aggressively post links imbedding the video or back to the vid site. In all posts they (if it is they instead of one or two) ignore all rebuttals or complaints and pretend their video deity is without blemish.

    Looks like no evening hadfield troll religious posts, maybe no-one is on the second shift?

    I do not know what is up with Lucia. I used to visit the blackboard about twice a week two+ years ago. As time went by, I didn’t like wading through the “in crowd” clique comments directed at newbies and those less versed in math. No, I never read any comments by Lucia where she engaged that way; she was blunt, brutually accurate but generally unfailingly polite. Over the past year, I found less and less reason to visit the BB and the last time I went, I just never went back. Period. When I recognized Lucia’s name in the Planck post, I never got an urge to read the BB version. Nor do I care whether she is correct or not in whatever trivial assumption nitpic she is harping (unfortunate word description, but also unfortunately apt) about. I got the point about Lord Monckton’s post and I think it is a brilliant ploy; use the IPCC/team’s math and data against CAGW. I would’ve been happy to read through Lucia’s math analysis here, if she had posted it, but I will not click through to the BB to read it.

  46. James Sexton says:

    TedK says:
    October 4, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    James Sexton says:
    October 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Looks like we are in agreement.
    ==============================================
    Yes, yes, and sadly, yes.

    Trolls, are trolls. They will forever ignore the rebuttal comments. I’ve hope for D Marshall. He(she?) seems to be a person of rationale. Albeit misplaced. Witness the lack of response. This is unusual in a post about Monckton. But, I’ve noticed it occurring recently. Watch for the trolls to come play when we’ve called it a night. Its happened the last couple of times.

    As to the last “yes”. It is heartbreaking for me. It isn’t an indictment of Lucia, she’s gold. It is an indictment of what she embraces. Don’t get me wrong, mathematics is fundamental. It is truth in a manner a speech. But, it can be used and manipulated. And, to Lucia’s credit, she’s seen and exposed the blatant manipulations that commonly occur in cli-sci. But, here is a truth that she doesn’t address…….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/

    While we sit and work through the maths, (Lucia and Steve McIntyre would be infinitely better than I, and any number of people) and while I hold no one responsible, except for the alarmist activists, people die. People lose their life, their property, their ability to provide for themselves. Wealth is usurped and human progress stalls. In the mean time, we quibble about the mathematical equation towards a forcing we all know makes not a damned bit of difference.

    That’s my rant for the day.

    James

  47. RockyRoad says:

    There is a perceptable change in the contrary position of late–take it as a sign that fighting a losing cause expends a lot of energy and apparently unnerves those who were smashingly convinced 10 years ago that by now we’d be swimming along most city boulevards bordering the ocean, snow would be displayed only in museums, and vigils would be held for the last three polar bears in existence.

    Now the best they can do is verbally beat up on one of the pivotal figures in this fight–the honorable Lord from Brenchly, who has my deep gratitude for his unflagging servitude. It must not be easy being the target of such abuse, but since the arrows almost always miss by a wide mark, I’m guessing their intended target is inwardly laughing at their antics. Me? I’m just disgusted at the spectacle. Do they consider themselves to be professionals? I don’t.

  48. kwik says:

    D Marshall says:
    October 4, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    I think the job he is doing is typical for his kind. He believes authorities are important for us, because they are to him.

    So he attacks what he believe to be our authorities.

    Because he cannot attack the numbers Monckton comes up with. So the attacks on Monckton as a person will go on and on and on. And on Spencer, Lindzen, Soon, and all the others who dared to talk about the numbers.

    These attacks is what the video-maker believe is “Good communication”. Let him continue. Please! Because it will increase the number of sceptics.

  49. Joe V. says:

    Josh,
    This is very amusing. You never cease to amaze.

    I wonder if Christopher might wear the T-shirt at his next presentation.

    Joe

  50. Philip Bradley says:

    I got the point about Lord Monckton’s post and I think it is a brilliant ploy; use the IPCC/team’s math and data against CAGW.

    I was surprised at the number who didn’t get that it was a critique and not a case for ~1C rise for CO2 doubling.

  51. bushbunnysh says:

    St.Lucia is one of the Islands in the Caribbean that has a climate change policy, what I don’t know, I couldn’t be bothered to read their 39 page policy. Or the is a blogger called Lucia, that I believe supports him. Anyway, I thought the cartoons were funny, especially giving the finger
    at the end while walking over a giant octopus. We have to keep our sense of humor.

  52. paulhan says:

    Excellent series of cartoons. Again. And so apt. I wonder what Josh has LMB saying in the third part?

    It has been an incredible exchange. I wonder what got Lucia so wound up, because this goes a lot deeper than one equation. Even Mosh and bender, who added absolutely nothing to the exchange, had to get their little insults in. They’ve all gone down in my estimation.

    On the other hand LMB’s stock has risen dramatically. He has not only shown that he’s done the hard yards mathematically, his conduct has been a wonderful example of how to handle detractors. I wish I had half his vocabulary.

  53. Phil. says:

    bushbunnysh says:
    October 5, 2011 at 1:27 am
    Anyway, I thought the cartoons were funny, especially giving the finger
    at the end while walking over a giant octopus. We have to keep our sense of humor.

    Seems unlikely that an Englishman would ‘give the finger’, the standard gesture there involves two fingers. ;-)

  54. G. Karst says:

    paulhan:

    Well said! There seems to be an element of jealousy in opponents response to Lord Monckton. I don’t really understand the vitrol reaction. Most of our famous scientists had aristocratic backgrounds, so that cannot be the reason alone. I am so grateful for his unrelenting, poking of warmist settled science.GK

  55. Doug in Seattle says:

    While I like many things about Monckton, I find his arrogance a bit hard to take. His dispute with Lucia was for the most part a result of this arrogance.

  56. James Sexton says:

    Doug in Seattle says:
    October 5, 2011 at 7:51 am

    While I like many things about Monckton, I find his arrogance a bit hard to take. His dispute with Lucia was for the most part a result of this arrogance.
    ==================================================
    Other way around. Lucia is the one that went after Monckton, first.

  57. Where can I get the originals of these splendid cartoons? Of course, we Catholics can walk on water even without a monster of the deep to provide a firm footing. Next time, Josh, don’t forget the halo – oh, and the South-of-France suntan. A bientot!

    REPLY: Josh is off for a week on family business, but I’ll pass your request on to him. He gerenally is happy to provide hi-res versions. – Anthony

  58. Tenuc says:

    Just love the Josh cartoons… LOL

    Can’t understand why Lucia went for Lord Monckton so hard on this occasion as she usually accepts well reasoned arguments eventually. Perhaps she got out the wrong side of the bed, or was feeling a bit hormonal.

    Ah well, he who laughs last laughs longest…

  59. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:

    @Mosher

    Fat chance

    [SNIP: That really is a bit too personal and vitriolic. -REP]

  60. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:

    @Tenuc

    Nothing Lucia does makes any sense. She claims arctic ice is melting due to global warming, yet she won’t post the temperatures. If you ask her to post the temperatures, you will be banned from her site. If realclimate has any job openings, she would be a great candidate. Oh and ho ho ho, one more thing, Lucia thinks that ice isn’t supposed to melt. Truly. She keeps pretending that there is a record ice melt going on….just because satellite measurements started in 1979, doesn’t mean the ice hasn’t melted lower before. If her logic is permitted, a record would be broken every day. I just pissed in a toilet in a bathroom I’ve used before but not that toilet, wow, what a record. In short, I discourage anyone and everyone from visiting her site because she is perpetuating the myth.

  61. Robert says:

    [Reply: Robert, I think you are right. It's my fault and I'll take care of it. -REP]

  62. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:

    Yeah anyone who is familiar with Blackboard would know that Lucia has a small troupe of brown nosing fanboys who defend everything she says. Don’t worry, the good doctor has caught Lucia’s tongue many times, which has resulted in my being banned. I’m sorry but if you’re going to run a site and focus on ice melt due to global warming, post the temperature or prepare to be thrashed. It’s quite hilarious, I’ve noticed Steve Goddard gets attacked for doing this very thing. Frankly I don’t think Lucia is worth the bug stuck in the gum on Monckton’s shoe.

  63. Ian H says:

    Monckton and Planck vs. Monkton and Plank

  64. Ranger Joe says:

    Does the sea monster live on planckton?

  65. Gail Combs says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    October 5, 2011 at 1:20 am

    I got the point about Lord Monckton’s post and I think it is a brilliant ploy; use the IPCC/team’s math and data against CAGW.

    I was surprised at the number who didn’t get that it was a critique and not a case for ~1C rise for CO2 doubling.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    I am not that good at math any more (too rusty after 40 years) but I certainly saw that Lord Monckton was using the IPCC’s numbers and STILL doing a tap dance on them.

    It was so elegant.

  66. Bush bunny says:

    Actually Phil at 5 am 5 October. I doubt if Lord Monckton would stoop to such a vulgar expression. But one finger is a ‘up yours’ expression, and is quite a ‘common’ modern expression.
    Two in the V palm facing backwards is Victory like what Churchill gave, two V palm outward is well something else. Not sure if that’s right but I’m sure Lord Monckton would not stoop to use any rude expressions, lashing with his tongue, yes.

  67. Joe V says:

    That’s quite right Bunny @ 12:42 , 6 Oct, MOB doesn’t do vulgarity. I’d hazard it’s the finger of inspiration, the forefinger raised in a gesture of realisation, as in ‘I have it’, while realing off some raft of statistics from the literature. Though I Guess only Josh can tell us what that last gesture is really about.

  68. Phil. says:

    Bush bunny says:
    October 6, 2011 at 12:42 am
    Actually Phil at 5 am 5 October. I doubt if Lord Monckton would stoop to such a vulgar expression. But one finger is a ‘up yours’ expression, and is quite a ‘common’ modern expression.
    Two in the V palm facing backwards is Victory like what Churchill gave, two V palm outward is well something else. Not sure if that’s right but I’m sure Lord Monckton would not stoop to use any rude expressions, lashing with his tongue, yes.

    I believe you have those two definitions of the 2 fingered salute reversed. When I lived in the UK the 2 fingered version was universal and the single finger was unknown, maybe things are different now?

Comments are closed.