Greenpeace Nuclear Blog Disables Comments
March 29th, 2010
|
| Share |
What is a blog without comments? It would seem to defeat the whole purpose of a blog. The whole idea behind “web 2.0,” blogging, citizen journalism and the like is that communications should be social with user-generated content, contributions and exchanges by readers. A blog without comments is just an editorial column, or even someone’s rant.
So why would someone remove the option to comment form them blog? An even bigger question: why would they remove the option to comment from one blog and leave it on many others that the same organization runs?
Chances are that they’re not happy with the comments they’re getting. It can make a site look pretty bad when all the feedback shown publicly is heavily against their view. Worse still is when the comments contain effective counter arguments or point out factual errors. How do you deal with that?
Well apparently Greenpeace didn’t want to deal with it, because their anti-nuclear blog, called “nuclear reaction” has now gone comment-less. Even the previous comments have been expunged from the record.
Does this constitute censorship? That would seem to depend on whose definition of censorship you use. Regardless of whether it’s censorship, it’s certainly within the rights of Greenpeace to disable to comments on their own site, which they control and pay for the bandwidth on. This might be considered a good example of “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” because while they’re free to run their own site how they want, it’s not usually a good sign when you show that you can’t take any heat but are fully willing to dish it out or that you’re not willing to have your facts checked or statements questioned.
Greenpeace Blogs:
Nuclear Reaction - Comments disabled and previous comments deleted
Making Waves – Comments Allowed
Ocean Defenders – Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Blog Community – Comments Allowed
Greenpeace USA – Comments Allowed
Greenpeace UK - Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Canada – Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Germany- Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Sweden- Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Australia and Pacific Region – Comments Allowed
Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Comments Allowed
A big thanks to “Nuclear Fissionary,” another grassroots pro-nuclear blog for pointing this one out!
This entry was posted on Monday, March 29th, 2010 at 8:19 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Just LAME, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 29th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
This can only be viewed as a sign of weakness. Credibility is hard to come by on a blog with no comments. This is a perfect example of The Nukes of the Net holding the fear mongers accountable and putting enough pressure on them that they would resort to cutting out an integral part of their blog out of desperation.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Well, it may not be censorship in any legally actionable sense of the word, but it’s still a pretty damning indictment of their philosophy.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
apotheosis said:
It might not be censorship in the legal sense, but it’s basically censoring other opinions on their site. It’s legal, but yeah, still looks pretty bad. I think they probably did it because they thought it looked worse to have a lot of comments challenging their stance on it.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a reaction to Greenpeace members expressing contrary views rather than the usual pro-nuclear suspects like us. We can be shrugged off but it’s harder to denigrate and shout down the membership.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 12:23 am
There’s no question that it’s censorship. It wasn’t a government action (presumably), and no one’s rights were violated, so it’s not a legal or constitutional question. It’s a private website, and Greenpeace can do with it what they wish.
But the fact that they censored out opposition in a forum that is meant for the free exchange of ideas shows them to be too weak to counter that opposition through reasoned debate and to be intolerant of people they can’t browbeat into submission.
I’d say that anyone who wishes to voice their opinion on the “Nuclear Reaction” blog should just post their thoughts on “Making Waves.” When Greenpeace shuts down that blog’s comments, then they can move on to “Ocean Defenders” and let them shut that one down, too. See how far they’ll go.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 6:16 am
I disagree with your last comment, Shafe. If you give them a legit reason to be angry with the pro-nukes (other than we’re right and they’re wrong), it may push some people to be more sympathetic to Greenpeace. Just keep pointing out their factual errors in any nuclear-related post they have – it’s the best we can do to get the right message out.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Even when greenpeace allowed comments weren’t they heavily moderated? I was under the impression that they were moderating out pro-nuclear comments before. This may have been over at climate progress instead, not sure.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 9:01 am
It is worth reading through the disclaimer at the bottom of the Nuclear Reaction blog page:
“The opinions expressed on this website are the entirely personal opinions of various members of Greenpeace who should probably be busy working on some highly important and time consuming project but instead choose to make their opinions known to the rest world in the naïve belief anybody else wants to know, and those from outside Greenpeace foolhardy enough to venture into the debate. The opinions have nothing at all, absolutely, whatsoever, for all time and in any way, shape or form at all, anything to do with Greenpeace, probably never will do, definitely never ought to, and should not be construed to be so. In fact, we wash our hands of it all, completely”
So Greenpeace is saying that the views on the Nuclear Reaction blog are not necessarily those of Greenpeace. That’s fine, many blogs on organizations’ websites have a similar disclaimer. But we shouldn’t confuse the unilateral actions of whoever runs that blog with the overall policy of Greenpeace itself.
What is interesting is that the Greenpeace disclaimer talks about “those from outside Greenpeace foolhardy enough to venture into the debate” and “anyone else who contributes will have to do so entirely at their own risk, because once those New Media guys ensnare you in a conversation, they never let you get away.” So whomever set up the site and prepared the disclaimer did so in the expectation that there would be open comment. Good for them, it is a pity it isn’t an attitude shared by the person running the Nuclear Reaction blog.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 9:25 am
So why would someone remove the option to comment form them blog?
Aside from the Greenpeace-issue (which others here have already comprehensively discussed, I think), let me answer this one: There are other possible reasons than not wanting dissent. One possibility is that the blog-author lives or hosts the blog in a country with stupid/excessive libel laws that make him liable for anything written in the comments, effectively forcing him to pre-approve any comment. Some say the UK law actually does this.
The laws in Germany are also pretty hard in that direction.
Another possibility is that if you run a small blog as a personal news-channel for a small group of people, why would you need comments. The blog-engine is just the most efficient way to publish the information you want to publish.
Just some small details I wanted to throw out ..
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 10:04 am
A telephone poll of 1014 American adults conducted between 4 and 7 March by the Gallup polling organisation found that 62% of respondents favour the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways of generating electricity in the USA. This was the first time that support of nuclear power in the USA surpassed 60% since Gallup began conducting such surveys in 1994. In addition, 28% of people said they “strongly favour” nuclear power, also a record level in the surveys. One-third of respondents (33%) said that they opposed nuclear energy, a record low.
Meanwhile, a poll conducted by TNS Sofres on behalf of Areva in Europe found that the majority of informed respondents supported the use of nuclear energy: France 82%, Germany 51%, Italy 62%, Spain 71%, Belgium 73%, UK 84%
Greenpiss is looking down the wrong end of the pipe on this issue now and they have no intention of having it rubbed into their faces on their own website. I personally suspect that they are going to do a slow turn on the issue. Killing comments is the first stage in making that page irrelevant, I suspect that it will disappear altogether in the near future. After a decent interval, they will repackage their message such that it we show a more benign view of nuclear energy, perhaps supporting thorium as a way of saving face.
Ether way, someone in the higher echelons of that organization sees the writing on the wall
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I don’t consider it censorship. This is more akin to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and going LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. As Q said, it’s a damning indictment of their philosophy.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Of course it is censorship, but then it is a private blog run by a private group so they have a right to censor their forums. That said it looks bad to have one forum where you allow no comments at all when the rest allow comments. Because it looks like they got their backside handed to them and retreated.
Given that they clearly expected a controversial forum we are left guessing why they shut it down. I would lean towards the fact that their own membership didn’t agree with it and that looked very bad. And as DV82XL said they may be moderating their stance on the issue. Of course they may not as well but instead are trying to come up with an effective campaign against nuclear energy and don’t want to be informed/distracted by the realities of nuclear energy.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
In the gun world, we call it “reasonable discourse” when the anti-side shuts down comments or removes unfavorable ones.
It’s sarcastic, you see.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I’m in agreement with DV82XL – this is part of the slow dropping of nuclear power from Greenpeace’s agenda. I think that within three or four years – I’ll be bold and say by December 2013 – Greenpeace will no longer have a policy opposing nuclear power. The press, if they so desire, will still be able (and possibly encouraged, for a while) to find Greenpeace members who will give their personal opinions, but no official statements will condemn nuclear power. Next year’s 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster will be an interesting test of the trend.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Joffan said:
I disagree, I don’t think they’ll stop opposing it. They might move it lower on the priority list and not talk about it so much, but it’s a threat to their version of how the world should be. If nuclear power is a workable solution to the energy issues, their whole side falls apart like a house of cards. Also, the one thing they don’t want is a solution that actually might eliminate the need for their support. The best thing about solar and wind is that no matter how much there is, they can always protest that there’s not enough.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Q said:
There is a certain logic in what you write, however I think it is important to consider the fact that their business model is to collect donations. To do so effectively they must remain sensitive to the direction the wind is blowing. Ultimately they are little more than an outdoor agitprop theater troupe; if the audience doesn’t like what they see, they’ll stop throwing coins.
They could reposition themselves with respect to nuclear energy by taking an oblique stand – I suggested above, throwing support behind thorium, for example – or by positioning the organization as an independent watchdog. Conversely they could refocus their antinuclear efforts back to weapons, a sector that is both vulnerable and underrepresented by the activist community these days.
The bottom line is that no one will take Greenpeace seriously when it vigorously attacks nuclear energy for the sole purpose of defending its past credibility, which at this point is all they are doing. And if people won’t take them seriously, the donations dry up.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Agreed, Q.
I think that Greenpeace is more likely to disappear altogether (or at least be completely marginalized to the point that they are utterly irrelevant) before they give up their irrational opposition to nuclear power.
Greenpeace is like those people who handle snakes. Nothing, not even self-preservation, is going to convince these people to change their ways. Their “holy books” tell them that nuclear is bad, so they will oppose nuclear until the end of the world … or until the end of Greenpeace.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
DV82XL said:
I don’t believe that Greenpeace will ever be outright pro-nuclear. They’re basically founded on a theme of anti-technology, anti-centralization, pro-”natural”, for unworkable solutions, for conflict. The idea of something like nuclear, which would be acceptable to industry is a problem because they need conflict with industry to push their crap.
I think a more likely position is the kind of thing they do with genetically modified foods in North America. Most Americans have been eating them so long there’s no fear and the vast majority don’t take issue with genetic engineering.
They will not support it outright ever, and officially they’re entirely against it. Approving of genetic engineering would undermine their whole theme of anti-industrialism, anti-buisiness, anti-technology. So what do they do? They just don’t talk about the issue that much. They make it a much lower priority than they do in markets that are more receptive to that line.
Greenpeace international tailors its complaints to whatever the local market is going to accept. They don’t have different policies country to country, because, overall, they’d look bad if there was internal conflict.
Thus, they just stress the ones that fit. In North America, they don’t spend much time protesting genetic modification. In Europe they do. In Australia, they spend a lot of time protesting whaling, but they wouldn’t do that as much in Northern Europe, where the issue doesn’t have the same kind of appeal or media interest.
I already notice they don’t protest nuclear power in the US as much as they do in places where the public opinion is more slanted in their favor.
It’s really fairly brilliant marketing. Whatever the hottest issue is in a given country is the one they make a big fuss over. Ones that don’t have much support can be kept on the down low.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
drbuzz0 said:
On reflection I think you are probably right, it’s more keeping with how they behave for sure.
Quote Comment
March 30th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I have noticed in the US that their campaigns recently have centered a lot around certain companies or products. Like, for example, going after Dell or Apple or something, saying that they have bad enviornmental practices or saying their products are not ‘green’ enough. Of course, they are also always going after car companies.
It kind of makes sense, when you think about it. There are a lot of people angry about big companies getting government bailouts or blaming bad practices on economic problems. Politicians constantly talking bad about corporations and everything. It seems like it’s the popular thing to go with.
When they go after nuclear power, it’s more often than not tied to how big companies are getting away with something.
I think they’re trying to tap that whole mindset that is now common.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 12:38 am
Dave said:
Yeah well, you know, whatever brings in the money.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 4:51 am
I have just recieved the following email (I sent the standardised ‘Nuclear Fissionary’ protest email to them).
Dear Craig,
Nuclear Reaction’s comments have been turned off over the last few days. We had to take this step after the site suffered a large spam attack. We apologise for not announcing this at the time but we’ve been a little busy clearing out the junk comments and waiting for the attack to fade away.
Comments are now back on so feel free to have your say.
In the meantime, Nuclear Reaction will be getting a redesign in the next week or so and we’ll be using a new commenting system.
Kind regards,
Karen Gallagher
Public Outreach and Information
Greenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5
1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
+31 (0) 20 718 2000
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 5:39 am
Now… given the content of the last comment, what do you think the chances are of all the mis-informed and ignorant commenters before it apologising or admitting they were wrong etc?
All the people who said it was “censorship”… Hmm… some sort of apology perhaps?
****ing no chance.
I promise you people, it’s not Greenpeace who are the problem.
–
Here’s why Nuke is a seriously stupid idea:
http://www.lobbygroup.org/2009/07/19/why-nuclear-power-is-a-seriously-stupid-idea/
Nuclear power will never happen (and has never happened) without massive tax-payer subsidies. Anyone who advocates nuke power just isn’t thinking.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 5:51 am
Nick Taylor said:
What in the world makes you think Greenpeace is telling the truth about this? Even if they are, their previous behaviour warrents extreme suspicion in regard to this incident. If the reaction of pro-nuclear advocates to this incident has been misplaced (a position I don’t yet concede), the fault lays squarely with Greenpeace, given their track record.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 7:24 am
Greenpeace’s email is easier to understand if you use a Greenpeace-to-English dictionary. Here are a few helpful terms:
“large spam attack” = an inundation of pro-nuclear comments
“junk comments” = comments that point out errors in the blog
“new commenting system” = a system that will make it quicker and easier for Greenpeace to filter out comments that do not agree with their narrow view of the world
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 7:48 am
I’m willing to accept the Greenpeace explanation and that the conclusion that comments had been turned off to stifle debate was wrong. I’d also contrast Karen Gallagher’s polite and apologetic response with the tediously sweary toddler tantrum of Nick Taylor.
As for the new commenting system, I think it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Karen has said that people should feel free to have their say, although the current system is still moderated. I hope that comments are moderated and posted promptly under the new system to allow a good debate.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 8:01 am
KovaaK said:
They lie about everything and anything, but just take their word for it there was a spam attack? Not a chance.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 9:28 am
Soylent said:
In a press release issued by AREVA yesterday, the company said:
At the invitation of AREVA, five representatives of Greenpeace visited the group’s mining facilities in the north of Niger in November 2009.
The Greenpeace took a number of readings and samples on the sites without sharing them with AREVA.
Many of the conclusions and statements issued since by Greenpeace are unfounded.
AREVA finds this lack of transparency highly regrettable.
AREVA’s mining activities in Niger are carried out in strict compliance with international health, safety and environmental standards. The many international inspections and audits hoped and prayed for by Greenpeace have already been carried out on several occasions over the last few years. The French Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Institute, Quanta Médical, Gispe (a French nonprofit organization working in healthcare) and AFAQ (the French quality assurance association) have all visited the group’s sites to attest to the quality of its environment, health and radiation protection management systems.
AREVA has also joined forces with the Nigerien government, Sherpa and Médecins du Monde to run a Health Observatory through which it monitors the health of former mineworkers and those living around the sites. This is the only initiative of its kind in the industrial world.
AREVA reiterates that it is perfectly prepared to enter into calm, argued discussions and confirms its commitment to developing responsible mining activities.
Same old, Greenpeace
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Nick Taylor said:
Same tired old arguments that have been refuted time and time again. It’s gotten very very tedious at this point to hear this crap.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
drbuzz0 said:
. . . . so why not do some refuting then?
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Feel free to refute Nick’s comments on his original post. Or would this be too tedious for you?
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 2:51 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Maybe you should just put up a page with the standard arguments/refutation, then post a link when needed.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
LobbyGroup Admin said:
I will. Every so called “subsidy” you’re implying is actually paid for by the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Waste Fund is subsidising the government more so than the other way around. Plant operators have paid the government $34.4 BILLION for NOTHING while Harry Reid pats himself on the back for maknig electricity more expensive.
The NRC is funded by the nucler industry. Plant decomissioning is funded by the nuclear industry. The majority of the property taxes in the entire town a nuclear plant is located in is paid for by the nuclear industry.
Even loan gaurantees for new builds aren’t subsidies, they’re not even loans. They’re insurance policies with a premium to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Between that premium and the tax revenues generated by the economic boom in the area, the government will collect handsomely.
Any actual SUBSIDY you can cite is only paid out more so to oil, coal, natural gas, wind, or solar.
Why doesn’t the antinuke side bring some proof to the table for a change?
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
LobbyGroup Admin said:
From the web page he linked to.
It is bad systems design.
No it’s not, if you are set on small distributed generation, nuclear energy can do that too, in fact it is one of the directions being explored very seriously right now.
Nuke is dangerous.
Really. Please show a list of real accidents other than Chernobyl where people died, or there was significant property damage.
The economics stink
No they don’t. And when renewables do without subsidies and make a profit we’ll talk.
We don’t know what to do with the waste we already have.
Yes we do, but you blocked the simple one didn’t you. Now we are going to burn it in GenIV reactors.
Centralized control.
Like as if anyone but you guys care
Proliferation
No country has built nuclear weapons from their civil programs – ever. Nuclear weapons programs are very different, and cannot be hidden effectively. The total effort needed to carry through from the mine to the bomb, a surreptitious program of atomic armament on a scale sufficient to make it a threat or to make it a temptation to evasion, is so vast, and the number of separate difficult undertakings so great, and the special character of many of these undertakings so hard to conceal, that the fact of this effort is impossible to hide.
Quote Comment
March 31st, 2010 at 5:58 pm
LobbyGroup Admin said:
I intend to. I’m a bit busy at the moment. I’ll do so this evening.
Quote Comment
April 1st, 2010 at 10:01 am
LobbyGroup Admin said:
Thank you for the invitation. My response is the rather lengthy essay near the end (sorry about that).
I’d write more but I’m not being paid to comment on blogs, I’m not sure my dream job exists just yet.
Quote Comment
April 1st, 2010 at 10:51 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
However you can cut and paste, and in this case justifiably so. Your essay needs wider distribution. It is very good. please post it here as well.
Quote Comment
April 1st, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Greenpeace long ago stopped being an environmental organisation and is simply an ‘anti’ organisation. I appreciate their sentiments but a bunch of old hippies churning out ‘anti-nuclear’ drivel is somewhat tired now!
Quote Comment
April 5th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I wrote some stuff, the nice Nick Taylor chappy responded and then set comments to members only so I can’t reply.
So I’m going to do it here. I apologise to those who are already bored, but you don’t have to read the massive chunk of text to follow:
Nick Taylor said:
No, actually I was talking about a number of deaths to make a point. You were going to some length to labour the point about the government having to back the financial cost of a major incident, I was using the relative death toll of smoking and air travel to explain that perception and truth are different things.
Nick Taylor said:
So the government lost some highly confidential documentation? So? This happens all the time. Usually it’s just National Insurance databases. It’d take the loss of about a dozen massive hard-drives and a platoon of engineers to come up with anything usable to attack a nuclear site with any great impact.
And well I was in the middle of something so I hold my hands up on this, and will now address a couple of them:
[4] The Guardian, discussing the unplanned temporary shut-down of a reactor and general malaise of the ageing British nuclear fleet. This is not surprising, like most British public services, British Energy’s facilities have faced years of chronic under-funding. See also: the entire rail network, the NHS and the decor at 10 Downing Street. No wait, TB redid the latter.
[5] Euronews, reporting on a minor irradiation of workers at Tricastin in France. I note the following quote amongst others: “Doctors say there is no risk to the health of the contaminated workers”
And for the rest, fine, I’ll put up my hands and say that accidents and problems happen. The systems in place are not always perfect but in general are a million miles further on now than they were. Oh, and if you want to get on a high horse and say that I’m admitting defeat on nuclear accidents, check out the dangers of gas and coal explosions which drbuzz0 so kindly compiled.
Nick Taylor said:
Errr, I’m not actually. As mentioned in my post, governments have got to take the financial gamble on it because otherwise the situation simply isn’t viable. In the insanely unlikely event of “Chernobyl II: Return of the Three Eyed Fish” the litigation would be insane (irrespective of the evidence, see also: MMR) and the companies would collapse.
Nick Taylor said:
No, actually the problem of being stuck with a unit for 50 years is EXACTLY what I meant by economies of scale. You can build a power plant to last five years and rebuild it every five years if you like. But you pay the massive cost increase for that flexibility. Is it economical?
Nick Taylor said:
What is this massive bill we keep talking about? Do you expect that after burying lead-lined concrete casks of spent fuel we then have to slowly build grand palaces to our dead ancestors on top of them for the next few centuries? Or do we simply have to make an offering of gold and more gold to the gods of doom in order to avoid some sort of magical / divine disaster?
Nick Taylor said:
No, actually that’s the state of play. I wasn’t talking purely in nuclear terms, I’m talking generally. But I would direct you to the case of Italy, who since canning their nuclear power decades ago have been importing electricity for years and paying through the nose for it. As a happy island state, Britain would suffer more with this sort of thing, as you can bet the transmission losses would not be allowed to cut into the supplier’s profit margin.
Nick Taylor said:
True. But Blue Peter’s predictions were not made based on the presenters sitting around over some cups of tea. They were simply copied from what were then the “established and accepted truth”, that our oil-guzzling economy would soon collapse. And it hasn’t.
Making projections about the future is a very dangerous game indeed, especially when gambling on what technology will and wont be available. Which also is a point to consider on the idea of these hideous nuclear compounds being around for hundreds of thousands of years…
Nick Taylor said:
The pro-anything lobby are professional liars. It’s essentially the job description. But to give you a better example: you can make certain high explosives from kitchen chemicals. But you’d need a very high end chemistry set to do it properly.
My reference to Mr Blair was in particular to ensure you draw the correct distinctions between things like a proper fission bomb, the conventionally understood nuclear warhead held as a deterrent by the world’s superpowers and the various lesser forms of bombs which could incorporate some amount of nuclear material for some purpose or other.
The UK government in the run up to the Iraq war were guilty in particular of choosing not to clarify scare-mongering reports that Britain was at risk from Saddam Hussein’s WMD when this was clearly untrue, even according to the “over-zealous” reports taken as fact by the government.
Nick Taylor said:
I made no such claim, but you’re quite right.
Nick Taylor said:
Strange image that, even stranger is that I get it too.
Quote Comment
April 5th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I’mnotreallyhere said:
Heh … It appears that none of those guys can stand the heat.
Careful what you say, however, or Mr. Taylor will be asking you for an apology. You shouldn’t be making fun of the “conversationally-challenged.”
Quote Comment
April 6th, 2010 at 1:31 am
BMS said:
Well it’s rather ironic given he was originally critical of various people here citing Greenpeace’s closing of comments as censorship.
I hope he gets the joke at least.
Quote Comment