Quote of the week – a warm lesson on ethics from the experts

I have to laugh at the juxtaposition of rhetoric today. It’s like a gift from the universe.

While Joe Romm launches yet another angry and hateful rant over at Climate Progress because of a poor editorial choice I made two years ago, and for (in his opinion) not being upset enough about the Heartland billboard fiasco (selective outrage actually, since he refuses to cite or link to my initial piece and poll critical of Heartland and Romm too), citing “let their houses burn”Steve Zwick in Forbes who relied on the heavily edited WaPo piece which didn’t use most of my comments from the 15 minute interview, we get this stunning window into the soul of an ethical green professor down under.

Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun in Australia provides this “truly extraordinary stream of abuse” describing the rant of Professor Clive Hamilton, who, much like Joe Romm, is a hyperactive supporter of AGW alarmism:

On being abused by Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics

Former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton is furious:

Who would have thought the Melbourne Theatre Company would get into bed with Andrew Bolt?

But here’s the thing. Hamilton is a professional moralist – a Professor of Public Ethics, no less. Standing for goodness, he denounces ‘the highly personal attacks”, “vituperation” , “vilification of individuals” .and “angry ridicule” that he detects from sceptics.

Yet in response to the MTC staging a play with the sceptic as a hero, Hamilton lets fly with a truly extraordinary stream of abuse:

…discredited … rat-bags … denier .. conspiracy theorists … fossil-fuel industry hatchet men … cyber-bullies … shit-spreaders …  shock jocks … bullshit …  insidious … grubbier … distortion …  cowardly … artistic wanking … poison … slippery falsehoods … travesty

Wow. Just wow.

Full story here at Bolt’s: On being abused by Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics

On Romm, Zwick, Hamilton and all the other haters, who see themselves as pure defenders of the planet, casting us as “evil deniers”, without being able to self-examine the horrid rhetoric of their own, you just have to laugh.

UPDATE: Tom Fuller writes in via email with this part I missed:

Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor’s Chair, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics

“Perhaps Richard Bean’s next project will be The Heretic 2, another “funny, provocative and heart-warming family drama” in which the maverick academic David Irving, lone defender of the truth, uncovers definitive evidence that the Holocaust never happened. Sent to Coventry by his fellow historians — a spineless lot who have for years been manipulating the evidence to protect their funding and their reputations — David is in the end vindicated; the Holocaust was a Zionist plot after all.”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Quote of the week – a warm lesson on ethics from the experts

  1. omnologos says:

    I’d add Bora “SciAm Online Editor” Zivkovic and Phil “Bad Astronomer” Plait to the list.

  2. Steve Divine says:

    Very selective vision. And quite common among the individuals who self-identify with this group ideology. Those we constantly hear proclaiming themselves tolerant and civil… are the least so among us. The psychological projection is text book.

  3. Don Keiller says:

    Hamilton’s outburst is a disgrace to his office
    http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=About

    An Australian reader of this Blog should make an official complaint to Hamilton’s university, alleging that he is “bringing the University into disrepute”.

  4. jayhd says:

    Not surprising as this is the typical “do as I say not do as I do” liberal/progressive attitude.

    Jay Davis

  5. When the activists indulge in horrid rhetoric, the evil deniers are blind and deaf to the fact that this is righteous anger, analogous to that of Our Lord on casting out the money-changers from the Temple. While we grub about as catspaws of the evil Big Carbon, they soar above the Mundane, serving a higher calling and saving the Planet from mankind. They really believe that.

  6. Ric Werme says:

    Boy, Joe Romm sure does a great job at nursing a grudge.

  7. Ken Hall says:

    Referring back to a previous thread which expertly exposes blatant example of cherry picking creating a fraudulent paper by a selective use of the Yamal series, I would guess that our scepticism would be much less, IF the alarmists did not consistently insist on wilfully misrepresenting and cherry picking data to suit their flawed arguments. When they present an anomalous tree as the norm, and regard all the other trees in the region (by dropping better tree series’ in the process) as irrelevant, then they have a major problem of a complete lack of credibility.

    They can swear all they like, in fact their Ad Homs are only making their “cause” look even worse and less credible by the day.

  8. michaeljmcfadden says:

    Some thoughts from someone who’s been fighting a very similar battle for over 30 years at this point (against the “secondhand smoke alarmists”): Be happy! You’ve quickly moved to the third step in the classic Ghandian progression: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!”

    Those of us involved in the tobacco fight were “ignored” for years, with anything we said simply being falsely passed off as “tobacco industry propaganda.” More recently, in just the last decade or so, antismoking advocates moved to calling us “Denialists” and “Flat Earthers.” And it’s only quite recently that we’ve seen them mount full frontal attacks against individuals and organizations fighting such things as mandated smoking bans and excessive targeted taxation.

    The fact that you would be publicly attacked with such strong language by someone “respectable” in their movement shows that you’re being effective and have them worried. Don’t fall into the trap of mud-slinging back with them though: this is where you need to appear at your most calm, scientific, and professional in your arguments. You know where their lies are and which lies are weakest: pick them out and attack them in ways that can’t be denied. They’ll attack with propaganda and emotion, using the children and playing on exaggerated fears. You need to respond with pure science while making sure that it’s basic and clear enough that the “average guy in the street” can look at it quickly and see that it’s solid.

    Final suggestion: Consider producing a short, printable, bindable booklet that your supporters can print on their own and bring to hearings and meetings. The booklet should be a little bit bombastic in style to grab a reader’s attention, but it needs to have a lot of clear, basic demonstrations of how people are being misled and clear direction as to what they should do about it, while making sure there’s absolutely nothing in it that can be successfully attacked by your opposition. The best illustration of what I’m suggesting is simply the one I created in my own area hosted over at The Club site:

    http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

  9. John W. says:

    I view these coincidences as proof that:

    a. God exists
    b. He has a wicked sense of humor

  10. firetoice says:

    I find it fascinating that the Climategate materials were “stolen” or “hacked”, but the Heartland materials were “leaked”. It is more fascinating because the British authorities have yet to determine how the Climategate materials were made public, while the Heartland materials were admittedly “stolen” (with the exception of the obvious forgery).

  11. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    They are starting to get a bit worried now aren’t they?

  12. Heartland was right.

  13. imoira says:

    A synopsis of the play:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heretic_(play)

  14. BarryW says:

    The quote that hit me hardest was the C.S Lewis one:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

    Because they don’t see themselves as religious zealots, they are blind to their own zealotry and would burn the non-believers at the stake, for their own good.

  15. Billy Liar says:

    The comments on Bolt’s story are worth reading.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    And these hate filled ranters have the gall to abuse Heartland minor dip of the toe into the mud?

    I could only stomach reading a bit from each of these ranters.

  17. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Reminds me of a football game I played in as a child. A kid on the opposite side made a great catch and then ran the ball all the way to the end zone – the wrong way. When we pointed this out (he had just scored a touch down for our team) he freaked out and tried to blame us.

    The AGW alarmists kids are pretty mad right now.

  18. Hey, I’m a Canucklehead, so I’m immune.

  19. mkelly says:

    “…artistic wanking…”

    Gosh how would he critique “The Vagina Monologue”?

  20. agfosterjr says:

    Count me now among the doomsayers: Global Warming has reversed the Enlightenment. Heretics, beware. –AGF

  21. If you are in Melbourne go and see the play, the London version was fantastic.

  22. juandos says:

    Well if you have to give Hamilton his due, he sure can be entertaining in delievering his rant…

  23. Ed_B says:

    re : michaeljmcfadden says(against the “secondhand smoke alarmists”)

    I personally am very happy that smoking has been kicked out of bars, hotels, airlines, resturants, offices, and yes, cars with children in them.

    Nothing more vile than disgusting to me than smoke from a smoking addict. Yes, I used to smoke, and quit.

  24. davidmhoffer says:

    In addition to the obvious psychological projection, it strikes me also that the most vitriol of this nature is hurled by those least qualified to judge the science.

  25. TheOldCrusader says:

    Well, there are two arguments to be made on this issue.

    First, one can concede that there will be a double standard and argue that it is better that one side adhere to standards instead of all standards being abandoned.

    Alternatively, one can say that it is silly to maintain the farce of civilized discourse and just call them names and be called names in one’s turn. This tends to be a bit self regulating since postings that are heavy on abuse get ignored.

    I’d say let’s go back to 18th century standards of vituperation – let ‘er rip.

    (P.S. while I doubt the Heartland billboard was effective, I have no real objection to it since it is exactly in line with what Kaczynski believes.)

  26. JP says:

    Re Ed_B says:

    You might be glad and smoking can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but the analogy still stands – the evidence for the dangers of passive smoking is paper thin,but has been seen as sufficient to enact all sorts of new regulations, as it has political backing.

  27. PaulH says:

    Sounds like someone keeps a thesaurus handy. ;->

  28. Werner Brozek says:

    The loudest thunder gives the least rain.

  29. g3ellis says:

    This sure seems to prove the saying, “those who can’t, teach.”

    Professor of Public Ethics

    /case

  30. DirkH says:

    One for my ethicists collection. Thanks. It’s filling up quick.

  31. Bill Tuttle says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am
    The loudest thunder gives the least rain.

    “The flak is heaviest when you’re right over the target.”

  32. David Jones says:

    Hamilton describes himself as “Professor of Public Ethics.” I have some recollection of someone else who had a job title involving “ethics.” Whatever happened to him?

  33. hunter says:

    this is an example of wy the HI folly was so bad: the true beleivers really are swinish. And it is not possible to hide swine stench forever.

  34. 3x2 says:

    They all play their part. A machine gun rant from someone who can’t be bothered to follow ‘the science’ but just ‘knows’ that he is up against ‘holocaust deniers’, loose a few inconvenient tree ring chronologies down the back of the filing cabinet when they don’t fit the narrative, Adjust a few surface stations here and there to remove the inconvenient message, ignore a billion dollar ocean monitoring system in favour of a man with a bucket and a thermometer and let’s not forget the ‘journalists’ and politicians that would rather sell what seems popular than actually investigate the whole mess. A pox on all their houses.

    We need to identify the burial sites of all the ‘science greats’ and tap the energy from their spinning remains. Perpetual motion machines all.

    Why, one might almost believe there is a media blitz on the horizon and position is everything. Any meetings/reports due soon?

  35. hunter: “this is an example of wy the HI folly was so bad”

    I disagree. I loved the opportunity to remind AGW believers about the “No Pressure” video and quotes from the Guardian about it being “edgy”.

    Heartlands mockery wasn’t with a million miles of slick AGW fantasies about slaughtering children.

  36. gnomish says:

    he’s a wind generator. don’t worry about dinosaurs.
    idiocy such as this can not survive without huge subsidies.

  37. hagendl says:

    Hamilton plot: “David is in the end vindicated; the Holocaust was a Zionist plot after all.”
    Shows who is the true (holocaust) “denier”.
    Is this his basis for denying the magnitude of natural climatic variations? (as evidenced in the geological record).

  38. P. Solar says:

    Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor’s Chair, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics

    “Perhaps Richard Bean’s next project will be The Heretic 2, another “funny, provocative and heart-warming family drama” in which the maverick academic David Irving, lone defender of the truth, uncovers definitive evidence that the Holocaust never happened. Sent to Coventry by his fellow historians — a spineless lot who have for years been manipulating the evidence to protect their funding and their reputations — David is in the end vindicated; the Holocaust was a Zionist plot after all.”

    Well if anyone needs a reference as to what is meant by the abusive name-calling of “denier” I guess that’s about as direct as you could get.

    I suppose that also helps us to understand the subtle difference between pure thoretical philosophy and applied philosophy.

  39. DirkH says:

    3×2 says:
    May 9, 2012 at 10:31 am
    “Why, one might almost believe there is a media blitz on the horizon and position is everything. Any meetings/reports due soon?”

    Rio20+.

  40. Gail Combs says:

    John W. says:
    May 9, 2012 at 7:15 am

    I view these coincidences as proof that:

    a. God exists
    b. He has a wicked sense of humor
    _________________________
    I am not religious but Mother Nature’s timeliness is enough to make me a believer, or at least laugh. The Gore Effect (Washington Times) Obama’s return flight from Copenhagen (WUWT) the motorists stranded this winter as …snow jam[s] Southern California freeways not to mention the “BBQ” summer and flooding droughts in Australia, the UK and the USA.

    You would think with the repeated hits the warmists would give it up instead they just morph the message and keep coming back.

  41. Kaboom says:

    Shit-spreader? That’s rich coming from the land of Vegamite!

  42. DaveG says:

    Lets Face it we skeptics are just plain bad to the bone!

    WHAT ARE SKEPTICS

    Flat Earth believers. Anti science, Tobacco pushing, smoking rednecks. Intimidating and life threatening bully’s of Global warming scientists. (Especially in Australia) Tormentors of Climate scientist by demanding FOI data to substantiate the dire predictions of CAGW.

    /Sarc off

    Heretics of the Gaia and Mother earth … We are Discredited by warmist manipulated data and predetermined model outcomes …We are rat-bags for daring to question questionable science …We are evil deniers for NOT receiving Government and Green money grants to prove global warming is human caused.. We are Conspiracy theorists for presenting the real data and temperatures … We are highly paid fossil-fuel industry hatchet men (We all wish) … We are cyber-bullies simply because we ask for clear proof and un-manipulated / untainted evidence … We are shit-spreaders because what we say and show make sense of climate data and claims … We are shock jocks because we bring forward evidence of data tampering …We are bullshit because Al Gore says so … We are insidious because we want the truth. … We are grubbier because we will get our fingernails dirty to uncover IPPC cover-ups … We cause distortion of the IPPC misleading data to make it read as it was originally recorded not remodeled in an upward graph. … We are cowardly because we work for free and print our findings on blog-sites that the warmist can’t interfere with … We are a mixture of intelligent people that cover every walk of life that have sex and occasional are called wankers to further disparage us …We are poison to the Environmental doom and gloomers, they can’t take the truth … We are slippery because we always come up with the real goods on warmers climate shenanigans. We are filled with falsehoods because we expose the Hockey stick and prove the Middle Age Warming Period and the Little Ice Age was in a fact and Global in nature … It’s a travesty that we skeptics exposed every conniving data fudging lie and manipulation that Michael (Hockey stick) Mann and his carbon spewing friends like Al Gore present on a daily basis to their friends in the Mainstream media. We are accused of carry out personal attacks by simply questioning their sources and evidence.
    We are Skeptics are accused of sustained and bitter railing and condemnation: vituperative utterance. I see most of this coming from warmest we skeptics are much to busy delving into the truth.
    We are Skeptics are accused of are vilification of individuals and angry ridicule of warmers.

    The simple facts, it is the angry name calling rhetoric that has flowed like a river from the warmist camp for years and it is now coming back to haunt them!

    YEAH I’M A SKEPTIC AND LIVE BY A MORAL CODE – UNTAINTED BY THE WARMIST CREED OF LIES, MANIPULATION AND GREED. MOST SKEPTICS WHO READ THIS BLOG ARE THE SAME THAT’S WHY WE ARE PREVAILING!
    David Gibson.

  43. Gail Combs says:

    sunshinehours1 says:
    May 9, 2012 at 10:50 am

    hunter: “this is an example of wy the HI folly was so bad”

    I disagree. I loved the opportunity to remind AGW believers about the “No Pressure” video and quotes from the Guardian about it being “edgy”.

    Heartlands mockery wasn’t with a million miles of slick AGW fantasies about slaughtering children.
    ________________________________
    I am beginning to agree with you. You can not change the minds of the cult members but the public at large are mainly fence sitters. The comparison between Heartland (and individual “deniers” here on WUWT) with the rants of Romm, Steve Zwick, and Public Ethics(???) Professor Clive Hamilton is quite telling. More over it brings the fight into the face of the oblivious fence sitter. And the fence sitters really dislike mud-slingers.

    These ethics professors seem to be leading with examples of how NOT to act in public lately.

  44. Bill Tuttle says:

    Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics

    What, pray tell, is “Public Ethics” — conducting yourself ethically in public but going Mr. Hyde in private?

    1. Something is either ethical or it’s not, and

    2. Just because someone teaches ethics, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is an ethical person.

  45. Bill Tuttle says:

    Gail Combs says:
    May 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    You would think with the repeated hits the warmists would give it up instead they just morph the message and keep coming back.

    Let them. The more they insist that CAGW causes warmer/colder, drier/wetter weeks/months/seasons, the extinction of thousands of species each year (without naming any), an increase in the cases of eye diseases, 20-foot sea-level rises, the more material they provide late-night TV hosts.

    I guarantee you that more people* will remember what Jay Leno said about something than will have read anything on the original topic.

    *with the exception of WUWT visitors, of course…

  46. DirkH says:

    Gail Combs says:
    “You would think with the repeated hits the warmists would give it up instead they just morph the message and keep coming back.”

    Slow learners.

  47. Pull My Finger says:

    You can guarantee anyone who’s professional title includes the word “Ethics” is anything but ethical. Judgemental, moralistic, callow, petty, sanctimonious, self righteous… yes.. ethical.. no.

  48. Pull My Finger says:

    Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics
    WTF is that? That’s a real thing?

  49. u.k.(us) says:

    It is possible to lead astray an entire generation, to strike it blind, to drive it insane, to direct it towards a false goal. Napoleon proved this.
    Alexander Herzen

    It is amazing how many of those who consider themselves “thinking people” respond automatically to words the way Pavlov’s dog was conditioned to respond to certain sounds
    Thomas Sowell

    Ideologies have no heart of their own. They’re the whores and angels of our striving selves.
    John Le Carre

  50. timg56 says:

    Consider this:

    The warming and it causing some significant problems side of the debate are basically right on a large number of the issues, but have been tuned out as a result of how they have acted.

    Whose fault does it become? (I know where they will point the finger.) The people who doubted them when they were correct, or themselves for their egos, their arrogance, their over the top claims of well funded deniers, death threats and criminals against humanity, their unwillingness to being open or accountable?

    It is hard to keep an open mind when the people you may be at least willing to listen to are name calling, editing out unwelcome opinions and questions and making unsupportable claims and accusations.

  51. TRM says:

    Laugh? Cry? Run for the hills? Only admit my doubts in private? Good lord this is rather bizarre and considering the source I am even more shocked than I was by the GliekGate affair. Their blatant attempts to tie scientific inquiry to holocaust denial is just so over the top one has to conclude they have nothing intelligent to say.

  52. Max Hugoson says:

    I guess I’m stupid, insensitive, moronic, slow…WHAT was your “poor editorial choice” 2 years ago?

    I read the article, and found nothing “offensive” or “wrong headed”. Am I missing something? Am I not “hyper elite (sorry, “sensitive”) enough”.

    Someone, fill me in!

    Max (not Mad, just Max)

  53. Richard M says:

    It appears more and more of these bozos have entered the “anger” stage. Can “bargaining” be far behind?

  54. papiertigre says:

    The warming and it causing some significant problems side of the debate are basically right on a large number of the issues, but have been tuned out as a result of how they have acted.

    Name one thing they got right.

  55. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ DaveG says:
    May 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Lets Face it we skeptics are just plain bad to the bone!

    WHAT ARE SKEPTICS

    Flat Earth believers. Anti science, Tobacco pushing, smoking rednecks. Intimidating and life threatening bully’s of Global warming scientists. (Especially in Australia) Tormentors of Climate scientist by demanding FOI data to substantiate the dire predictions of CAGW.
    **************************************************************************
    You forgot ‘gun-toting’, ‘meat eating’, and a few others. Bosephus said it best: “A Country Boy Can Survive”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg

  56. This isn’t limited to commentary on climate science. I’ve not yet come across a public figure in the media who self describes as an “ethicist” on his CV who didn’t actually mean “wanker”. ;-)

  57. GreatAnarch says:

    The play itself is excellent. I think anybody not an out and out AGW bigot would get some enjoyment from this. Recommended if you are in Melbourne.

  58. DirkH says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    May 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm
    “Someone, fill me in!”

    The fascist BNP from the UK tried to hook onto skepticism; somebody sent Anthony a link and, not knowing what the BNP stands for, Anthony had a post about it. But was quickly clued in by UK readers.

  59. Goldie says:

    Unfortunately – in this world Ethics are as relative as the truth.

  60. David A. Evans says:

    I see that Hamilton brings up the death threats to climate psientists.

    I don’t really see 10 insulting emails and another recounting an overheard conversation as being credible death threats.

    He also states that there were investigations after the leaking of emails from UEA CRU. Can someone please let me know when those actually happened? Certainly hasn’t in the past. Crystal balls are wonderful. When/if the investigations do happen, I think the outcomes will be devastating.

    DaveE.

  61. David A. Evans says:

    DirkH says:
    May 9, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    If you believe all that the MSM say about BNP, you may as well include UKIP.

    They say the same about EDL too, but whenever there’s trouble at an EDL meeting it’s the AFL, (Anti Fascist League,) causing the trouble.

    Strange how illiberal liberals are.

    DaveE.

  62. Keith Minto says:

    Here is a three minute video regarding the play The Heretic.

  63. DirkH says:

    David A. Evans says:
    May 9, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    “DirkH says:
    May 9, 2012 at 3:48 pm
    If you believe all that the MSM say about BNP, you may as well include UKIP.”

    Wrestling with pigs etc… I decline the offer.

  64. David A. Evans says:

    DirkH says:
    May 9, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Dirk. I am apolitical. I just see the lies and propaganda for what it is.

    DaveE.

  65. Rick Bradford says:

    It is extraordinary that someone as full of inchoate rage and hatred as Hamilton could become a professor of ethics anywhere.

    He is a seriously creepy individual, and the author of indisputedly the most nauseating piece of climate agit-prop I have ever read (moreover, published by the State Broadcaster).

    Barf bags at the ready: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/28372.html

  66. old44 says:

    In comparison to some of his comments on other subjects his rant about the play would indicate that Professor Clive Hamilton was using his medication.

  67. Heggs. says:

    Rick Bradford says:
    May 9, 2012 at 6:06 pm
    ———————-
    You were not kidding about the barf bags, that article you linked was insane. How someone like this is given a voice anywhere outside of their own rant-blog is beyond me.
    Ah well, at least I can add “artistic wanking” to my vocab, I admit it made me laugh.

    Heggs.

  68. ozspeaksup says:

    when the playwright was interviewed on ABC RN book show a couple of weeks back the interviewer who is also heavy prowarmist was so OTT and acusatory it was embarrasing.
    the author came out looking sane and kept his sense of humour at all times.
    damn fine fellow:-0
    and as for clive C
    over here down under hes?
    a Dag( not in the friendly matey useage)
    its the stuff hangs off the butt end on a sheeps wool

  69. Harpo says:

    Clive hamilton is a kind of fagan when it comes to the crazy left in oz. you should check out his creepy photo on Wikipedia…. They loony lefties just love him… He is a particular favourite of Anna rose and her equally creepy, Marxist husband, simon the sheik. I’m glad that Clive is on their side… It makes it so easy…

  70. ferd berple says:

    Those that preach morality are often most lacking.

  71. Shona says:

    “AMB

    With ethicists like this, who needs scoundrels?”

    This is brilliant, I’m adopting it!
    You know you’re not doing so well when you make Big Oil look like models of propriety ….

  72. Gerjaison says:

    Andrew Bolt is well know to provide in-substantiate sources and opinions in Australia, if you bother to use him as a source in your blog. Eventually you’ll be apologizing once more for poor editorial choices.

    ["In-substantiate sources and opinions" ? Do you need that edited? Robt]

  73. Gerjaison: “Andrew Bolt is well know to provide in-substantiate sources … ”

    I find his blog to be extremely well referenced … unlike his enemies who prefer attacks like yours.

Comments are closed.