text:
Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore | July 26, 2012
By Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore • Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:52
Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own.
The affidavits also reveal that Tim Ball was "aware of the charges against John O'Sullivan almost from the start" and has tried to distance himself from his erstwhile advisor and writing partner.
The affidavits [1, 2] come from research of science and medical writer Andrew Skolnick, who documents O'Sullivan's misrepresentations, backtracking and questionable behavior.
Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan had a close working relationship, even before Mann sued Ball for libel in March 2011. For example, they co-authored the climate science denial book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which was published in 2010.
Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:
- that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
- that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
- that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
- that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
- that he is a member of the American Bar Association.
One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, "For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost."
Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."
Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.
Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment - certainly Tim Ball's equal - Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.
Principia certainly exists in some form. According to its website, O'Sullivan is its CEO, and Tim Ball is Chairman. Other members include climate deniers Paul Driessen, Paul Reiter and more. Principia notes that it operates as a "private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity."
This information emerged, and became relevant to this most recent libel action against Tim Ball, in part because Ball himself, in his Response to Civil Claim, stated that his communications with O'Sullivan were subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Mann then filed a reply, pointing out the facts documented in Skolnick's affidavits. As Mann's lawsuit proceeds, the court will inevitably rule on Ball's claim for "solicitor-client" privilege.
In the meantime, Ball has not submitted any affidavit from O'Sullivan attesting to his qualifications as Ball's legal advisor. If he did, O'Sullivan would be subject to cross-examination by Michael Mann's lawyer.
* The original post mistakenly said O'Sullivan was registering as an 'associate' member; in fact he registered as a member and was granted membership, despite not having a valid law degree or Bar certification in New York. We regret the error.
|2012 04 19 - Affidavit 1 of Skolnick.pdf
|2012 05 29 - Affidavit 2 of A Skolnick.pdf
climate criminal replied on Permalink
John O'Sullivan, made some pretty outrageous claims about Michael Mann over at Climate Crocks.
One of them was shown to be suspect, and then this. This man is full of ordure.
We need more like him!
What can I say? Liars and
What can I say? Liars and deniers for hire.
John Doe
Dr. Mann is accusing Tim Ball of libel as well as a "John Doe." Please let us know when they say who "John Doe" really is.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
The fascinating story of PSI
Hi Brendan & Richard,
Not a bad summary but you haven't presented anything like the full picture. There is much much more behind what Greg Laden calls "Strangest AGW Denialist Story So Far This Year" (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/24/strangest-agw-denialist-story-so-far-this-year/#comment-90604) .
According to my records two of the main players in the Principia Scietific International saga John O'Sullivan and Tim Ball were exchanging E-mails since the middle of 2010. That's when John was collecting together his team of "Dragon Slayers" in preparation for releasing their book "Slaying the Sky Dragon", which in my humble opinion is simply a hodge-podge of blog articles hurriedly thrown together behind a colourful cover. I'm not a scientist (neither are many of the PSI founding members) but after giving careful consideration to the arguments since March 2007 I am sceptical of the Catatrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. Although I'm a sceptic I have to agree with CACC supporters and many other sceptics that "Slaying the Sky Dragon" has little if any scientific merit.
The E-mail exchanges that took place during Dec. 2010/Jan 2011 indicate that John's big plan was to form an international publishing company Principia Scientific International (PSI) with thousands of subscribing members. PSI would have an executive with Tim Ball as Chairman, John O'S as CEO, Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder as CFO, Rev. Philip Foster as Complaince Offier and the rest of the executive chosen from the other co-authors.
John's teaching career (in art and possible some sports?), which extended over a period of about 18 years but seems to have been somewhat intermittent, appeared to come to a rather abrupt end in 2003 when those charges were brought by his step-daughter's one-time friend Rebecca. He was acquitted of all charges after his step daughter flew over from the US on the eve of the final day of the hearing and took the blame for sending the text messages. Since then John has tried a variety of other means of earning a living before his PSI venture.
When he failed to raise the start-up funds from within his group of "Slayers" (as I recall less than a measly £200 each) he then made a public appeal for £15000 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Since 17th Jan 2011 it has attracted £450, with John claiming that the £350 received within the first hour coming from a family member in the USA (although, as with most things that John claims, that is questionable). The next appeal that I am aware of John making was for donations to pay Tim Ball's legal fees. You have to hand it to John, he is persistent.
It's a long, complicated but fascinating story with many unexpected tsists and turns. Anyone interested can find out more at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) in articles and postings made since May.
Enjoy the read.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
John O'Sullivan's Riposte
John O'Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/
He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn't have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.
John O'Sullivan's Riposte
John O'Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/
He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn't have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.
John O'Sullivan
Tim Ball keeps changing what he says about climate change without giving any evidence for his contradictory arguments. How can the earth be warming in 2006 but cooling at an increasing rate since 2000?
Fair balance....
I very much doubt that this comment will see the light of day, but here's hoping this forum is open to healthy debate and is willing to consider counter-argument:
I'm not here to defend Mr. O'Sullivan, but as Mr. Skolnick has chosen to very publicly attack his credentials, I think his own credentials now become 'fair game' and open to scrutiny.
I hope he can directly address the following question:
Do you continue to believe it is wholly accurate (and not misleading) to describe yourself as 'nominated for a Pulitzer prize"? (see http://aaskolnick.com/new/mybio.htm)…as stated in your bio, resume and sworn court affidavits?
My understanding is that, at best, a piece you once co-wrote may have been entered into the Pulitzer competition by a newspaper. But, as you know, you were never nominated by the Pulitzer committee. Your co-reporters (Bill Allen and Kim Bell) don't make such claims to be 'nominees', despite the obvious prestige of such an honorific (see http://journalism.missouri.edu/staff/bill-allen/).
It seems patently clear to me that merely being an entrant, yet implying being a 'nominee', is disingenuous and misleading, at best. But I also base my opinion on such sources as the Pulitzer committee and respected 'investigative reporters' such as NBC's Bill Dedman:
See: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/26/12405234-bloomberg-tvs-ads-make-false-claim-to-pulitzer-nomination-for-anchor-liu?lite and http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q20
Under normal circumstances, such a padding of a resume could be overlooked and seen as rather inconsequential boasting. But as you've chosen to attack the credentials of another person, I think it's wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant).
Care to respond DIRECTLY to the question? Without any more personal insults?
P.S. I happen to believe Professor Mann is justifiably well-respected in his field. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the facts in the case….so I have deliberately never taken a stance on who is right and who is wrong. But I do feel Mr. Skolnick's personal insults of Mr. O'Sullivan merely dilute the prosecution case….comments such as 'humbug' lawyer merely exacerbate the already libelous environment…global warming is emotionally charged enough…such potentially defamatory comments don't help, in my opinion. As Mr. O'Sullivan is somewhat involved in this case (albeit in the past?), good on you Mr. Skolnick…but just be aware that your own credentials, prior terminations et al. are not beyond scrutiny either.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Courage of Convictions, Balance, & Transparency
Hi folks,
Although Andrew Skolnick and I are poles apart regarding the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis I still have a lot of respect for his courage and tenacity regarding searching for the truth and his transparency. Unlike others who throw insults from behind false names, Andrew has no qualms about disclosing who he is. He also puts his money where his mouth is.
Hundreds of comments and E-mail exchanges took place in 2011 between Andrew, members of John O'Sullivan's group of climate science "slayers"/Principia Scientific International (PSI) members and other parties and many have been posted on the Global Political Shenanigans blog since May.
The veracity of claims made by both John O'Sullivan and Andrew Skolnick were debated ad nauseum (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html and http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html) including the matter of Andrew's claim to have been nominated for a Pulitzer prize (a minor matter of semantics?). Much more significant claims were discussed, such as qualifications earned and employment record.
One example is John O'Sullivan's claim to having earned a degree in Law/Fine Art from University of Surrey in 1984 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) and to have " .. earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html - see my comment of Dec 19 2011, 06:28 PM). After repeated requests for evidence to support those claims John responded with " .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. " (12 Dec 2011 15:02).
On the other hand, when challenged by John " .. Among Skolnick's bogus assertions are that he possesses a master's degree .. " (8 Dec 2011 23:39) Andrew came straight back with " .. I'd be happy to mail a request to Columbia University's registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address. .. Let's see if John O'Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree. .. I've been asking .. for proof for the past 6 months .. " (9 Dec 2011 0:41).
I was the only one to ask Andrew (see my E-mail of 11 Dec 2011 9:55) and true to his word, on 4th January I received the certified evidence from Columbia University's Office of the Registrar " .. Skolnick, Andrew A. .. Attendance: Sept. 1980-May 1981 Degrees .. Earned .. Master of Science May 13, 1981 .. ".
In my humble opinion the scales of transparency are heavily loaded on Andrew Skolnick's side, despite the claims made by John O'Sullivan in the PSI promotional material " .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc).
I recommend that anyone looking for balance, like Mark (who? what? where?) G in this discussion have a very careful read of the May, June July posts at Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) – but then, perhaps I'm biased!
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE:Courage of Convictions, Balance, & Transparency
Thanks Pete
I've no doubt that, if proved, Mr Skolnick's claims expose some serious misgivings about O'Sullivan's claimed credentials. Totally agree.
But I just had one question about Skolnick's claimed credentials. Not relating to degrees from Columbia, just the claim that he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Mark G please look up the meaning and synonyms for "nominated"
Mark G, you seem to have problems with the use of the word "nominate" and the procedures used in awarding Pulitzer Prizes.
Firstly, let's look at the word "nominate". A quick check of your Thesaurus shows the words "put forward". This is exactly what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did, they put forward (nominated) Andrew to be considered by the Pulitzer Prize committee. The PPC then made a short list of candidates and from that list chose who was to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. It would have been wrong to call himself "nominated finalist" but that is not what he said.
Mark G, be very careful when you decide to use an ad hominem attack on some one, it might just backfire in your face.
Ian, Please read the nbc
Please read the nbc article I referenced:
"It's not uncommon for Pulitzer entrants to make a false claim to be nominees. Here's how it works: Though there are only three nominees, known as nominated finalists, in each Pulitzer category each year, there are more than 2,000 entrants. One could say that all of them were "nominated" by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.
The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board's online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, "Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Stop being stupid
Are you saying that the only time someone can use the word "nominate" is if they are a Pulitzer Prize "nominated finalist"? That is just nonsense, it is perfectly correct to say that such and such organization nominated you (put forward your name) for a prize by XYZ organization.
Why do you bring your ad hominem rubbish to this blog?
RE: Stop being stupid
Actually Ian,
The following claim was made by Mr. Skolnick on his bio: ""The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize. in Investigative Journalism".
If that clearly connotes that the publisher 'nominated' him, then clearly I'm stupid.
Tellingly, Mr. Skolnick has subsequently changed his bio:
FROM "The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism" TO "The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…"
I'll repost the PPC directive again:
"We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us." Source: PPC website FAQ
As well as an excerpt from Bill Dedman's piece on an expose of self-proclaimed 'nominees.'
"When Liu was a reporter for The Financial Times in Atlanta in 2000, Bloomberg said, the newspaper submitted her work to the Pulitzer committee. To call that submission a Pulitzer "nomination" is like saying that Adam Sandler is an Oscar nominee if Columbia Pictures enters "That's My Boy" in the Academy Awards….one could say that all of them were "nominated" by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.
The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board's online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, "Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … we discourage someone saying he or she was 'NOMINATED' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us." [emphasis added].
What isn't clear Ian?
Per PPC, "We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us." Yet, Mr. Skolnick claimed in his bio that "The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen, Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Jornalism."
Changing his bio to "The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleague…" is clearly more accurate, but still disingeneous, per PPC and Dedman.
But I'll leave you with a final thought. Why did Mr. Skolknick choose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb, if my allegation was so 'stupid'?
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Have you ever read Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland?
You must be Humpty Dumpty:
""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The rest of us do not have to live by your or Pulitzers' narrow definition of words.
RE: Have you ever read Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland?
You're perfectly right. You can choose to ignore whatever you like.
I'm obviously a Mad Hatter in disagreeing that the Pulitzer Prize Committee are misguided and narrow-minded in suggesting how their OWN entrants, nominees and winners are described.
And NBC reporter Bill Dedman clearly also lives in a Lewis Carroll story.
But thanks for your 'substantive' response.
Good luck in your career, Mark
P.S. Sorry for being so Alice-in-Wonderland, but again "why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so 'stupid'?"
I didn't catch your reply to this one question I asked of you…but probably a Humpty-Dumpty moment.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Digging a hole
Hi Mark,
Your " .. I just had one question about Skolnick's claimed credentials .. the claim that he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Nothing more, nothing less .. " required 400 words??!!
It doesn't wash - you were doing more than that, as clearly stated in " .. I think it's wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant) .. ".
Don't you agree that it is rather impertinent for someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to challenge the veracity of someone like Andrew who has demonstrated that he is prepared to be transparent and substantiate his claims. As I understand it Andrew Skolnick undertook very careful research before challenging John O'Sulivan's claims. I speculate that you have done little before challenging Andrew's claims.
May I suggest that before you dig yourself deeper into that hole you visit and read the articles that I linked to earlier. Also, you should perhaps consider whether or not you should apologise to Andrew – just a thought.
Best Regards, Pete Ridley
AndrewSkolnick replied on Permalink
Mark Thompson's personal
Mark Thompson's personal attacks here and on John O'Sullivan's web site might be relevant if the documents described in Brendan DeMelle and Richard Littlemore's article were based on my opinion. They clearly are not.
The documents described in their report are public records, most with links for readers to verify for themselves.
Mr. Thompson is a marketing consultant who has recently joined John O'Sullivan in attacking me by throwing anything they can find, from the Pulitzer Prize nomination my colleagues Kim Bell, Bill Allen and I received from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to being "just a pet photographer."
I confess, I took most of the photographs for my latest article in AKC Family Dog. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/68587367#/68587367/37 Now that they let the dog out of the bag, I'll count myself lucky they didn't find pictures of me washing my own dishes.
Whether I'm a dish washer, pet photographer, or science reporter, my credentials are an irrelvant smokescreen regarding this matter. What is relevant are the public documents I found and entered as sworn evidence in the affidavitts submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Tim Ball, et al.
Readers should ignore all the smoke and smear and examine for themselves the evidence DeMelle and Littlemore cite in their report.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Who is Mark G?
Hi Andrew,
You seem to be suggesting that Mark G is that Mark Thompson who is making those "personal attacks" (Come on Mark, show that you have the courage of your convictions and disclose who you are, where you're located and what is your area of expertise). Can you provide a link to the John O'Sullivan blog thread where those attacks are being made? I'm tempted to do a "due diligence" exercise on Mark G, as I did on John O'sullivan and his "Slayer"/PSI group (see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).
I had just been searching for Mark Thompson and came across a blog "Greenie Watch" (http://jonjayray.6te.net/green.html) run by John O'Sullivan's psychologist buddy John J Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html). It linked to John O'Sullivan's 16th Dec. article "Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics" (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43274.html) in which he made a ridiculous attack on your integrity. You'll recall John claiming in his E-mail to the "Slayers"/PSI members and others that " .. Mr. Skolnick is actively engaged in criminally fabricating web pages to use against me to bolster his bogus claims .. " (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html on 15 Dec 2011 16:27. See also the comment under UPDATE: 2012-07-25).
This was another of John's many ludicrous claims which was quickly refuted.
I wonder if Mark is managing to get his scales to balance yet.
It is very rarely that I agree with Cathy (AKA Snapple) or Ian Forrester but for once there is no argument.
Best regard, Pete Ridley
AndrewSkolnick replied on Permalink
He's a marketing consultant who's stalking me
Whether for pay or out of the goodness of his heart I do not know. But I would like to find out.
Mr. Thompson popped up some months ago in LinkedIn Science Writers Group and began to engage me in heated discussions after I pointed out that he is a self-employed marketing consultant with a masters degree in Marketing – not a science writer nor someone with a graduate degee in science as he was claiming.
He used that heated discussion to get me banned from the Science Writers Group and pressed moderators of other LinkedIn Groups to ban me, without success. Meanwhile, he peppered me with unwelcome messages accusing me of being a "a sad old fuck living with animals for company," being "a pet photographer," and similar crimes.
On July 29, Mr. Thompson sent another harrassing LinkedIn message accusing me of lying for claiming in one of my bios that I had received a settlement from Correctional Medical Services when I sued them for libel and tortuous interference in 2000.
Two days later, "Mark G" published the very same false charges on John O'Sullivan's blog, in which he accused me of lying and falsely claimed that CMS probably paid $1 for me to go away and not file an appeal. The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked, and I agreed to ask the judge for a "dismissal with prejudice" upon settlment – which is legalese for vini vidi vici.
So I have absolutely no doubt Mark G and Mark G. Thompson are the same.
RE: He's a marketing consultant who's stalking me
Mr. Skolnick
A heated discussion doesn't get people banned from a LinkedIn group…continued personal, unprofessional insults get people banned. And not just against one person, but against many, as I recall my email from the group owner.
Being a sad f**k isn't a crime…just a sad reality and personal opinion. Being a 'pet photographer", of which you admit to being, isn't a crime either.
Not sure which 'CMS' message you're referencing. But if my comment was so baseless, why amend your bio recently with respect to your CMS claim (and also alleged Pulitzer nomination?). Pray tell, how were these comments totally baseless, given your hasty rewriting of your bio?
RE:"The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked ."
I'm not aware of such a public record of Mr. Skolnick's settlement implying 'thousands'. Indeed, most settlements specifically include a confidentiality clause that prohibits either plaintiff or defendant from discussing the details of a settlement.
If Mr. Skolnick is indeed subject to such a confidentiality clause, suggestions of 'thousands of more dollars…' seems to be a clear breach of such an agreement.
I intend to pursue with CMS, given his defamatory comments and insults towards me.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Typical slime ball response
Mark G thanks for showing everyone what sort of a slime ball you are. Tim Ball must be really thankful that he has people like you and O'Sullivan in his corner.
By the way, have you seen how O'Sullivan showed is ignorance of the legal system in the New Zealand case where he may have compromised the whole case?
Seems like you two, err three, deserve each other.
RE: Typical slime ball response
Thanks for your kind comments Ian.
Any chance you can actually respond to my question, rather than devolving into cheap 'slime ball' personal insults? If not , I'll assume you can't respond to my argument without a weak 'ad hominem' attack.
What's the problem in responding to a very direct question? A failure to do so just exposes your immaturity and/or lack of intellect IMO.
By way of reminder (yet again):
"Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so 'stupid'?"
Just forget my other comments. Let's forget the other comments about PPC's clear directions…and Bill Dedman's article…they're obviously both Mad Hatters.
All the best, Mark
RE: Typical slime ball response
I still don't expect a direct reply to my question.
But if you're going to throw out irrelevant comments about Mr. O'Sullivan, please try and be grammatically correct:
"RE: By the way, have you seen how O'Sullivan showed is ignorance of the legal system…."
I assume you meant HIS ignorance? If so, fine. But hardly germane to the question I asked of you…any chance you can answer the question I posed, without resorting to personal insults or throwing out non sequiturs?
But here goes again, for one last time:
"Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so 'stupid'?"
No response or just further personal insults? Then I think our conversation is over.
I have a life…I don't have time for pointless debate.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
You continue with ad hominem rubbish
What makes you think that you have any right to demand an answer from me. Stop your ad hominem comments and people may respond in a civil way, keep up the nonsense and we wont, it's very simple. You started off with ad hominem comments and have continued to do so. I take it that you do know what ad hominem means.
Neither you nor Pulitzer have any right to hijack the meaning and use of words which are well established in the English language. Why do you find that so hard to grasp? Ooh wait, you cannot make ad hominem and insulting comments without resorting to redefining the meaning of some simple words.
RE: You continue with ad hominem rubbish
Ok Ian
You're perfectly right, as always.
Asking repeatedly for an answer to a question is an arrogant 'Mad Hatter' request. I guess i should just put up with irrelevant comments and an inability to engage in constructive debate.
In terms of 'Ad Hominem' comments, I believe it was you who made 'Humpty-Dumpty' and 'slime ball' comments, rather than respond constructively to my comments. I don't recall making such juvenile comments myself.
And, you're probably right, the Pulitzer folks are idiots as well, having the audacity to suggest how their own entrants describe their entries. Though we seem to have have moved from 'misinterpretation' of PPC to the 'narrow-minded Pulitzer folks', though I suspect you missed that.
Bye Ian.
Probably time to finish your homework. I really don't have the time to waste with non-players or intellectual pygmies. But take care.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Once again AGW denier trolls don't know what "ad hominem"means
Mark G, once again you have problems in understanding simple English usage and logical fallacies. The first comments you made on this blog posting were not to offer any evidence that AS was untruthful or making things up. Instead you stated a number of slurs and insults to demean him and therefore hopefully make people doubt his statements concerning JOS. That is what ad hominem is, you attack the person to try and show he is wrong rather than present evidence of his wrong doing.
My comments about you (e.g. Humpty Dumpty) was an analogy showing that you were trying to change the meaning of words to suit your position. That is not ad hominem but is just a description of the tactics you used.
Your more recent comments just show that my opinion of you as a "slime ball" are justified. Why anyone would actually try and defend JOS's actions is, to be honest, just astonishing. At the time JOS was accused of his completely inappropriate sexual attentions on a young girl I had a daughter of approximately the same age. I have been aware of JOS for some time but if I had known about these episodes earlier I can assure you I would be using much more derogatory remarks in describing his personage than "slime ball".
In response...
Pete, Ian, Andrew et al,
Of course I'm Mark G….and Mark Thompson…I have no qualms about admitting that.
I realize I've entered the lion's den by having the 'audacity' to question Mr. Skolnick's own credentials on this forum.
But I'll re-iterate. If Mr. Skolnick chooses to attack Mr. O'Sullivan's credentials, then his own credentials become fair game…both morally and legally (questioning his credibility as a witness is a basic legal tenet and right when he makes sworn court affidavits). If you can't understand that basic logic or right, further discussion seems futile.
So, I'll repost my latest entry on Mr. O'Sullivan's blog:
Rewriting history….
Had my above allegations against Mr. Skolnick's own credentials been baseless, would he have taken the time to quickly rewrite his own bio?
I think not. Clearly, he now realizes his own credentials are not beyond criticism.
Two key changes have been made to his bio, as of August 4th…which directly relate to comments previously made (c.f. Pulitzer nomination and CMS libel suit).
The changes are as follows (August 4th vs. July 23rd 2012, screenshots of both available):
FROM "The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism" TO "The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…"
Still disingenuous and misleading, per clear PPC guidelines, but at least the pet photographer has recognized his own puffery.
FROM "I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference and obtained an out-of-court settlement" TO "I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference, which I withdrew following receipt of a settlement offer."
Still no mention of the fact that CMS obtained a summary judgment against his libel claim, but being economical with the truth seems par for the course with Mr. Skolnick.
Again, one has to wonder why such changes were made if the allegations surrounding his own credentials were so baseless?
P.S. I just noticed. Mr. Skolnick was a little hasty in his rewrite…he didn't mention himself in the revised and still disingenuous Pulitzer 'nomination' blurb!…or maybe the Post-Dispatch didn't include him as an entrant? Thankfully, his fellow co-reporters never made such misleading claims to be 'nominated' (by either the Post-Dispatch or the Pulitzer Prize Committee), so they can never be accused of rewriting history.
Again, if these charges were unwarranted, why rewrite a bio? And attack my own credentials or motives as much as you like. I'm not party to a high-profile lawsuit, so personal attacks are irrelevant…and meaningless to me. My motive is to expose the hypocrisy….believe that or not….I don't really care.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Who's pulling the puppet's strings?
Hi Mark G Thompson,
The points that you make are very very similar to those made by John O'Sullivan back in Dec. 2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).
As for the suspected puppet-master, there's trumpet blowing and very very very loud trumpet blowing, which John excels at - but it has been said that empty tin cans make the most noise.
BTW, you should enjoy the latest update (#4) to "Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html#more).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Who's pulling the puppet's strings?
Ok Pete,
I think the Tim Ball camp has been guilty of trumpet-blowing. Fair point.
But I think the same charge can be levelled at the Mann camp….many comments on forums such as this and Prof. Mann's own Facebook page would evidence this, in my opinion (not sure if you participate in Mann's FB comments anymore?). But I've never known a high-profile, politically charged case where the non-litigant 'supporters', on both sides, don't get involved in trumpet-blowing.
I feel BOTH sides have also come very close, if not guilty, of making further defamatory comments. Which seems politically and legally naive, given that we're dealing with a libel suit.
But any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize 'nomination' blurb or CMS libel suit? That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball's or John O'Sullivan's behavior.
If my allegations were baseless and/or mere 'trumpet-blowing', why change?
Regards, Mark
P.S. I already stated that I have no stance on the trial per se…I don't have your knowledge of the global warming 'facts'…my sole focus has been on Mr. Skolnick's credentials. In the same way he doesn't appear to take a position on the trial per se…but merely focuses on Mr. O'Sullivan's credentials.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Defamatorty trumpet blowing
Hi Mark G Thompson,
If you had been involved in the hundreds of E-mails with the "Slayers"/PSI members and others since 2010 you might have a different opinion. Try reading what is available at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) then get back to me (unless, as I suspect, your strings are being pulled).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Defamatorty [sic] trumpet blowing
I've got back to you Pete.
To substantiate your allegation of defamatory trumpet blowing, can you please respond directly to my question?
"Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize 'nomination' blurb or CMS libel suit? That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball's or John O'Sullivan's behavior.
If my allegations were baseless and/or mere 'trumpet-blowing', why change?
To reiterate, a direct response to my direct question would be much appreciated. Without one, I think this discussion is going nowhere.
Best regards, Mark
P.S. I fully expect more 'smoke' about my motives. That's ok and that's your prerogative to create such a smokescreen. But kindly, respond to my direct question. Thanks.
P.P.S. And, to pre-empt any further questions, I DO have issues with Mr. Skolnick…he has personally insulted me on more than one forum…so I will expose what I see as hypocrisy from him (re: attacking someone else's credentials). You can google to your hearts content…you will see that I have never taken a stance on global warming…my motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity (much like Skolnicks, I assume).
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Is that a smoke screen?
Hi Marg G (Thompson),
You ask repeatedly of people here "Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize 'nomination' blurb or CMS libel suit?" but I speculate that you are not really interested in getting an answer. What I suspect you are trying to do is divert attention from what I consider to be the far more important questions about the founding members of the blogging group Principia Scientific International, driven by tim Ball (Chairman), John O'Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant), Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder (CFO) and Joe Olson.
You fail miserable so to do.
You make the laudable claim that your " .. motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity .. " and that too sounds very like the claims made in John o'Sullivan's promotional material on the PSI web-site and his declarations during the "PSI & Due Diligence" debate in Dec. 2010/Jan.2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).
Phrases such as " .. turn noble words into actions .. " .. to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization .. " and " .. our future intentions are to also provide member services to pursue other noble causes .. " spring to mind.
Mark, let me be blunt. I get the impression that you are full of BS.
Please answer me this question. Are you John O'Sullivan's puppet?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Defamatorty [sic] trumpet blowing
Many thanks for the link going back to December 2011. As you point out, Mr. O'Sullivan questioned the veracity of Mr. Skolnick's claims to be 'nominated' for a Pulitzer Prize on December 11th.
Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick didn't reply back then? Or why he eventually chose to rewrite his bio in the last few days following my recent question on this forum? (perhaps because he subsequently made sworn court affidavits, attesting to his own credentials?).
I'm not in the employ of O'Sullivan, Ball or anyone else. Nor do I support any position on global warming. But doubt that as you may…it doesn't relieve you or Skolnick from responding to this charge of 'puffery' (at best). A non-response…and the recent rewriting of a bio..merely demonstrates that such a charge was wholly warranted.
Though I doubt I'll get a direct response to my question from you. From what I've read, even the eminent Professor Mann wants to dissociate himself from you:
(From Professor Mann's Facebook post, titled, "I have formally demanded a retraction of, and apology for, this defamatory piece about me by National Review. I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights", started July 20, 2012).
"Michael E. Mann [Pete Ridley–you will no longer riddle these threads w/ your crass nonsense]
July 25 at 10:00pm"
I suspect this discussion with you is now over.
Best regards, Mark
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Blinkered Gemini
The Blinkered Gemini
Hi Mark G (Thompson) When I read Ian Forrester's first comment here my immediate reaction was "that can't be the same Ian Forrester that I've had exchanges with – this one sounds reasonable .. ". It didn't take long for Ian to show his true colours. " .. Mark G thanks for showing everyone what sort of a slime ball you are .. ".
Wait for it Mark, I anticipate that you'll soon be getting a blast of Ian Forrester's vile invective. Here's a sample from my March 2010 comment on "An update to Kiehl and Trenberth 1997" ( http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2095) QUOTE: .. In Ian's opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don't know what they are talking about, haven't a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments). It doesn't matter who they are, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. There are many examples, e.g. on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist and of course here on Chris's blogs .. ".
You've had the "slime ball" insult but I wonder which of the others you (or I?) will be subjected to next.
BTW, you seem to have the impression that I was suggesting that you were a trumpet blower. I have seen no evidence of that and my comment was directed at the puppeteer.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
If you are puzzled by my reference to "Gemini" see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-2014
"In Ian's opinion any who
"In Ian's opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don't know what they are talking about, haven't a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments)."
In the years I have participated and seen Ian's posts on various blogs, he seems like a pretty rational level headed guy. It's usually when people post deliberately troll like comments that I see a change and I think he is right to do so.
Deniers like to post outlandish, baseless, blog referenced, ill thought out comments, usually followed with the obligatory warmist/alarmist/CAGW/socialist/fascist/communist or some such projective comment. Then feign outrage when they are attacked back, or are not given the courtesy of emotionless argument or criticism. It's cheap and pathetic.
I've been called all the things you complain about and more on denier/right wing blogs, except "denier". Roll with the punches and stop being so precious.
The denier position can be explained very simply. It's either political (conservative,right wing or libertarian) or being funded by or in the employment of the fossil fuel industry or one of their front groups. They start from that position and work their backwards, looking for anything to support their fragile position. Usually a right wing blog that mentions Al Gore at least once a week, so as to convey to the casual drive by reader, what their angle is on the political spectrum. Always careful not to mention the conservative gov's and politicians around the world that agree with the prevailing AGW theory. That would blow a hole in the denier meme that it's a liberal conspiracy wouldn't it?
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Careful - he might be a precious denier
Hi Phil M (somebody),
I guess that you haven't visited the Global Political Shenanigans blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) - denier blog if ever I saw one.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
"I guess that you haven't
"I guess that you haven't visited the Global Political Shenanigans blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) - denier blog if ever I saw one."
Oh, another poorly designed no flowing conspiracy blog….goody.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Spreading the News
I speculate that Mark G (Thompson) may be upset that comments about his string-puller are permeating the bloggosphere. I've just come across this on the "With friends like these we need no enemies" thread of New Zealand blogger Richard Treadgold " .. Neither Mr O'Sullivan nor "his" PSI front has any credibility. In recent months he has tried this rubbish on Monckton and then my good friend Rupert Wyndham. He simply confirmed that he is a fool .. ".
The moderator's response included " .. Several people advise us kindly to have nothing to do with John O'Sullivan. My thanks to them, and a warning to John not to take the opportunity to fight it out again in these columns; I won't publish it .. " (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694).
Update #4 on "Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) Section 3.0 provides further related information.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Spreading the News
On May 30th 2011, Pete Ridley writes:
"DeSmoggians take the position that disagreeing with their cataclysmic views on global warming is a moral failing, and as such, that it is OK for DeSmogBlog to print vile and, amazingly often, false things about those people. .. If there is any one person that the DeSmoggians just can't stand, it is Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Over and over again they attack him, using the same silly and fallacious arguments and sophomoric insults. .. I'd never met or otherwise been in touch with Tim Ball. I'd read his writing many times; I even wrote about him when silly lefties falsely reported that he was employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, and again when the Long Beach Press-Telegram falsely reported that the National Center was "promoting him." And, of course, I'd see the lefties go absolutely nutty over him, in the deranged meaning of the term."
It seems to be that you, like Skolnick, just fill your long days with hurling juvenile slurs and insults at anyone who will indulge you. Whether it be me, this own blog or others such as O'Sullivan. I'm guessing that, like him, you're now retired? Honestly, I'd really find something else to occupy your time….these rants are really rather sad.
I don't recall throwing out comments such as 'slime ball' or anything close, to you, Ian or anyone else.
Please show some civility and professionalism.
Your inability to engage in healthy debate means that I have no further intention of continuing this meaningless conversation with you.
Skolnick on Ridley
I'll leave the last word on Mr. Ridley to Mr. Skolnick:
"Well, I wondered when the first [opponents] would get here. The honor belongs to the global warming denier and cyberstalker Pete Ridley, who just popped up to edit this biographical article – after the moderator of Dr. Judith Curry's web site repeatedly snipped and warmed him to stop posting malevolent personal and intimidating attacks. Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the "global warming hoax" is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds….I don't think Wikipedia is in need of "scholars" like Pete Ridley. Askolnick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Is Mr. Skolnick lying about you? Also a slime-ball for making such claims?
I found the "malevolent personal and intimidating attacks" particularly germane, albeit rather hypocritical. You both seem as bad as each other in your desire for malevolent, personal and unprofessional insults and slurs.
Take care, Mark
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Try to catch up Mark
Hi Mark G Thompson,
(Ref. your "Skolnick on Ridley" comment on 2012-08-05 19:04")
You really are out of touch with what is going on, aren't you. If you had bothered to follow the links that I gave you to Global Political Shenanigans and spent some time getting enlightenment from what is there you'd have seen that the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick was provided to the "Slayers"/PSI group almost a year ago (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html on 28 Sep 2011 @ 23:44 and on 18 Sep 2011 @ 19:07).
On that first occasion I said to John O'Sullivan and a fellow founding member of the PSI blogging group Joe Olson QUOTE: .. PSI's "Principles of Association" page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) claims that PSI promotes scientists adhering to the Scientific Method and individuals wishing to expose corruption in science. Professor Curry's "Slaying a greenhouse dragon" thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) was kicked back into activity on 4th June after a three month quiet period by one Andrew Skolnick, who questioned the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don't recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims. (Please Joe, don't start mistakingly suggesting that Andrew Skolnick and I are allies – see "Beware" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) .. ".
If you have a comprehension problem then please try to get an educated friend to explain to you what that final sentence within parentheses means.
I brought Andrew into those E-mail exchanges with the "Slayers"/PSI group members et al. on 8 Dec 2011 when I said to John O " .. Hi John, I see that Andrew Skolnick is still ferreting around for information about your background .. " and challenged John with " .. how about also making public your Surrey University and Hill University certificates so that Andrew can be put straight on this further questionable claim of his .. ".
True to form John tried diversionary tactics with " .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. " (12 Dec 2011 @ 15:02)
As I said to Andrew on 16 Dec 2011 23:38 " .. I don't know where John dreamed up the idea that you were my " .. dear friend .. " (his comment on 12th Dec.). I think you'll agree that the best way to look at our relationship is that we called an uneasy truce for a while .. ". Note that in response to that E-mail John O'Sullivan made that unsubstantiated claim " .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ".
You will recall that when I asked Andrew to substantiate his claim to having an MSc. he did so without any qualms. I ask you, why was John not prepared to respond in a similar transparent manner? After all, he claims repeatedly in his PSI promotional material that transparency is important to his blogging group PSI, e.g. " .. OUR CORE VALUES EXPLAINED: Principia Scientific International about transparency and truth .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/). Actions speak louder than words!
Please Mark, try to make some time to read and understand what has been made available on Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) since May about the PSI blogging group instead of risking making a fool of yourself. The article "Being Judged By The Company We Keep" (http://angelabininger.com/2010/03/28/being-judged-by-the-company-we-keep/) may help you to understand.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Try to catch up Mark
I think you're confusing me with someone who really cares about your views on PSI or John O'Sullivan. You clearly fell out with them/him at some point and now carry a big chip on your shoulder. But that's your problem, not mine.
I have neither the time nor the desire to trawl through the endless rants on your blog. You're clearly very proud of the fact that you have archived endless repetitive discussions about PSI and O'Sullivan. Good on you for doing so and I hope it gets you the attention you clearly crave, but you're missing the point of my original post.
My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick. The fact that he has now chosen to amend his bio with respect to the points I raised, indicates to me that I was right to do so. Had my allegations been baseless, why would he rewrite (and I very much doubt you will ever answer that question, much like Ian).
But I tend to agree with his August 7 views of you, especially with regard to "malevolent personal and intimidating attacks."
And if Skolnick is accurate in his claim that "Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the 'global warming hoax' is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds", then you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself…however politically charged this issue, such anti-Semite views are disgusting.
Rather than respond to charges centered around Skolnick's credentials, all you've done is come back with an endless rant about PSI/O'Sullivan. The best you've been able to muster up is something about him having an MS. I never challenged that.
So can you see why I feel you're unable to engage in constructive debate? And making personal 'slime-ball' slurs merely reinforces this view. Like Professor Mann has commented about you, I think it's just crass nonsense.
If you can't respond directly to the charges I made against Skolnicks own credentials, please don't bother responding. Yet another link to your archive of Professor Curry forum conversations will be pointless.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
You failed miserably
Mark G proclaims:
"My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick."
You tried to use your own definition of words to try and support your unjustifiable claim. You have shown a complete disregard for honest comment, not surprising for some one who would try and support such a despicable person as John O'Sullivan.
Your best bet now is to get back under the rock where you and JOS are hiding, it only befits such disgusting people that you hide under the same rock. You are a pitiful person but I feel no pity towards you only contempt.
RE: You failed miserably
Yes Ian, youre probably right, as always.
Though it's strange why Mr. Skolnick would rewrite his bio, specifically changing claims that I challenged. If it were mere word play, as you suggest, why bother?
Of course it's arrogant of me to suggest that you should ever answer that question (maybe because you can't…better just to hurl out another personal insult?).
And where pray, have I ever sought to defend John O'Sullivan? Whether in terms of his own credentials or his position on global warming? I've even gone as far to state that Skolnick's allegations, if proved, highlight serious issues about O'Sullivan's credentials.
From the outset, I have sought solely to challenge Skolnick's claimed credentials.
If you can't understand the hypocrisy of someone attacking someone elses credentials when their own are far from squeaky clean, then I give up. You seem to want to encourage full exposure of Skolnick's allegations but totally suppress any discussion of his own credentials. Normally, the credentials of a semi-retired journalist would be totally irrelevant…but as he has chosen to make sworn statements in a court of law, then they become highly relevant. What don't you understand about that argument?
Maybe there's some logic to your own argument and personal slurs. But that logic totally escapes me.
So why not avoid the question yet again and hurl out another insult?
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Wriggle worm wriggle
Mark G Thompson,
have a think about the topic of this article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan".
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Wriggle worm wriggle
And have a think about Skolnick's criticism of you. Professor Mann's criticism of you. Professor Curry's comments about you. And the allegation by Skolnick that you have made anti-Semite slurs.
By all means, disregard my own opinions of you.
This conversation is well and truly over.
I can almost overlook the fact that you have persistently avoided addressing the claims I have made against Skolnick..or explained his hasty rewrite to correct his own claimed credentials.
But I have no desire to engage an alleged anti-Semite in further debate.
Thank you, Mark
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Mark G Thompson,
Do you believe everything that you read in the blogosphere? Look fo revidence, not opinions.
As for anti-semite, the evidence wold seem to contradict that allegation - my lovely wife of 28 years and her loveley family are Jewish, but perhaps in your Universe they don't classify as Semmite.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
RE: Gullible?
I couldn't resist replying to the irony of your comment.
Who do you think implied you were an anti-Semite?
"Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the "global warming hoax" is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds."
The one and only Andrew Skolnick! Whose own claims to accuracy I am challenging, with respect to his credentials!
For once, the title of your post (Gullible) appears accurate, as it clearly applies to you.
So we're to assume Skolnick's slurs against you are totally inaccurate, but the accuracy of his own claimed credentials should be taken without a challenge?
If so, then you're as gullible as you accuse me of.
Honestly, this latest ironic twist is really rather amusing as you tie yourself up in knots and fail, yet again, to respond directly to my challenge of Skolnick's own credentials.
But I have a life to live and don't have the time to engage in these pointless, inane, evasive and illogical diatribes from you.
I'm sure there's others who may be interested in yet another link to your blog…but I'm not one of them. Sorry.
Pete Ridley replied on Permalink
Behind the times again
Hi Mark G Thompson.
Once again you are way behind. Andrew and I discussed that matter last year.
I think that you would benefit from a bit peace and quiet in the countriside. Moreau Lake's only a short drive away so take a break and relax.
Best regards, Pete Ridley


text:
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (MarketWatch) — Sector rotation strategies are playing a hot hand these days, and the hottest are those that focus on Fidelity's sector funds.
Those are the conclusions that emerge from a review of the 2013 performance rankings of the more than 500 portfolios monitored by the Hulbert Financial Digest. Of the 10 mutual fund portfolios that made the most money last year, nine focus on sector rotation. And seven of those nine focus on Fidelity's sector funds in particular.
That's an impressive sweep.
The average 2013 gain of the five best Fidelity strategies was more than 41%, compared to a 33.1% dividend-adjusted return for the Wilshire 5000 index WINDX, +0.46% . The advisers behind these strategies are, along with their HFD-calculated returns, are:
- AI Stock Forecast, edited by Michael Henry. This letter's "AI Fidelity Fund" portfolio gained 38.9% in 2013.
- AlphaProfit Sector Investors' Newsletter, edited by Sam Subramanian. This letter's "Fidelity Focus" and "Fidelity Core" portfolios gained an average of 46% in 2013.
- Fidelity Independent Advisor Sector Momentum Tracker, edited by Donald Dion. His "Fidelity Sector Momentum" portfolio gained 38.8% in 2013.
- Fidelity Monitor & Insight, edited by Jack Bowers. His "Select Model" portfolio gained 37.5% last year.
- Fidelity Sector Investor, edited by Jim Lowell. His "FSI Technology-Plus" portfolio gained 46.1% in 2013.
With returns so closely clustered in the 38% to 46% range, you might think that these advisers each recommended more or less the same basket of funds. But you would be wrong. In fact, more often than not, each of these advisers has tended to recommend funds that are not recommended by any other of the top five sector strategies.
That's amazing, since there are only 44 actively managed Fidelity sector funds and these advisers' model portfolios hold an average of between five and 10 funds each.
his suggests that there is more than one way of playing the sector rotation game, which is good news. If there were only one profitable sector strategy, it would quickly become so overused as to stop working.
This is even true among those advisers who recommend sectors based on their relative strength or momentum. Because there are so many ways of defining these characteristics, two different sector momentum strategies will often end up recommending two different Fidelity sector funds.
Another way of appreciating the divergent recommendations of these top performing advisers is this: Of the 44 actively managed sector funds that Fidelity currently offers, no fewer than 22 are recommended by at least one of these top five advisers. That's one of every two, on average, which hardly seems very selective on the advisers' part.
Furthermore, there is little agreement among the top five. Currently, there is just one fund that is recommended by even three of them: Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services FSCSX, +0.58% . And there are just nine more that are recommended by two of the five. That means that more than half of the funds that appear in any of these top five advisers' portfolios appear in just one of them.
The nine Select funds currently recommended by two of the top five advisers are:
—Air Transportation FSAIX, -0.14%
—Brokerage & Investment Management FSLBX, +1.00%
—Consumer Discretionary FSCPX, +0.40%
—Health Care FSPHX, +0.87%
—IT Services FBSOX, +0.69%
—Industrials FCYIX, -0.03%
—Leisure & Entertainment FDLSX, +0.49%
—Retailing FSRPX, +0.34%
—Transportation FSRFX, +0.47%
Click here to inquire about subscriptions to the Hulbert Sentiment Indexes.
More from MarketWatch:
The overrated argument for equities
Why this is the year to sell your home

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You are about to enter a website that may contain content of an adult nature.
Hello everyone, this is Indian cam girl AminaSky4U here. I'm 21 year old Female speak English in the Indian live sex chat action. i wanna be your number one chick in here:D!!!!!!. helllo there!if you see me on-line this means i am horny as hell:)since i come online only in that case!visit my frantic private show,where all your hidden desires become reality:O. Naughty 20 y.o. girl... LUV DANCING AND STRIPPING:) love traveling to new places and meeting new people... JUST wanna take FUN from life:D is my expertise and also what I will do in Indian live sex private show. I have Brown eyes, Long Brown hairs and my measurements are 36-25-36. For Turn ons: cam2cam,cum2cum,m eeting nice and interresting people(i love you guys:O). For TurnsOff: rude people. If you prefer kinks, then Shaved, are mine. I'm just hungry for a HARD cock, can't wait to see u in my Indian webcam sex chat room! :)
Show more models
This website contains indian cams, desi cam, free hindi chat and tamil sex chat related sexually explicit content.
You must be at least 18 years of age to enter this website. © Since 2012 myindiansexcams.com Indian Sex Chat Network All Rights Reserved
AllHosts1 - AllHosts2 - AllHosts3 - AllHosts4 - AllHosts5 - AllHosts6 - AllHosts7 - AllHosts8 - AllHosts9 - AllHosts10 - AllHosts11 - AllHosts12


text:
Reno Events, Coupons, Reviews!
Reno Events, Coupons, Reviews!
A couple weeks ago, I was finally able to cross a visit to Medieval Times off my bucket list. I've been trying to get to Medieval Times for years.....I would drop not so subtle hints to my husband.....but it never worked. Luckily, I was able to do a review of the show and I took my family to the Baltimore location for a surprise outing.
When we got there, we saw a huge castle. My kids had no clue what was going on. They just saw a huge castle and were very curious what was going on. Our location is actually attached to an outlet mall, so there are shops all around.....but there's no hiding it when you walk in that Medieval times is the main attraction. The kids immediately started jumping up and down.
We were greeted by a very friendly hostess at the ticket line and saw that there was a well 'guarded' VIP entrance. My visit was comped in exchange for a review, but I was surprised I was offered an upgrade for an additional cost. I declined but learned later the VIP upgrade would have given me a chance to sit closer to the arena floor and get a few additional souvenirs.
Before the show there is time to visit in the The Great Hall. My kids had fun interacting with the actors and spending all our money on souvenirs!
Once the show was ready to start, we were ushered into the stadium to our seats and we were set for the rest of the evening. Let me tell you....this is really a fun time to be had. Here are some of the fun moments I took away from our visit:
1. Dancing Horses
I didn't expect to come away from my visiting loving the Equine Entertainment portion of the show, but it was my favorite part. They showcase many of the talents of these trained beauties and if you're a horse lover....you will appreciate it. The horses, jump, leap, kick and dance around and it's a magnificent display. You can read up more about them here:
2. The Spectacular Jousting and Sword fighting
Okay - the action part of this show is SO AWESOME! The jousting is LIVE - it's for real....even though it's clearly well rehearsed and practiced, the weapons and armor are for real. This is the exciting part of the show and most fun. There is a lot of crowd participation in the way of cheering and booing....the Knights actually get off their steeds and come into the crowd and toss roses at the fair maidens. It's pretty wonderful.
3. Good Family Fun
This is an overall good family fun outing. It was different for us, the kids loved the spectacle of it all. I'm glad it gave us a chance to go out and do something fun, away from our usual outings. The staff overall were super friendly - especially the actors. The venue was clean, net, organized. The show was absolutely spectacular!
Those were all my positive takeaways from my experience at Medieval Times. I enjoyed myself overall. Since this was a sponsored visit, I was asked to review my experience and share it with my readers. That being said, here are a few things you should know when planning your visit:
- Regular price tickets are $59.95 for adults and $36.95 for children 12 & under: use the special promo code to receive discounted ticket prices and SAVE up to $25 OFF Adults and up to $9 OFF children (12 and under) making the price for Adults just $36.95 and Children $29.95. Use Promo Code MT3629 at http://www.medievaltimes.com/plan-your-trip/special-offers/us-family-guide-blogger-coupon-mt3629.html Offer Expires: 2/28/2017
Take a Trip Back in Time This Spring Break & Visit Medieval Times in Orlando!more
Take a Trip Back in Time This Spring Break & Visit Medieval Times in Dallas!more
Take a Trip Back in Time This Spring Break & Visit Medieval Times in Toronto!more
Take a Trip Back in Time This Spring Break & Visit The New Medieval Times Castle in Scottsdale!more
Holiday Bucket List Trip to Medieval Timesmore
We spent the holidays cheering on knights at Medieval Times!more
A Knight To Remember: Medieval Times Orlando Reviewmore
We Had a Great Time at Medieval Times in Scottsdalemore
We Spent the Holidays by Enjoying Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times in the desertmore
Celebrate 2020 with Medieval Times {Family Fun For The Whole Family!}more
Medieval Times Scottsdale Reviewmore
We spent the holidays cheering on knights at Medieval Times!more
Celebrations at Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times Surprise! Giveaway and 40% off toomore
Our Last Trip To Medieval Times in 2019!more
We visited Medieval Times with the Family!more
Medieval Times Dinner and Tournament: Baltimore, MD - REVIEWmore
Medieval Times in Dallas, Texas - How To Best Enjoy Medieval Times As A Familymore
Celebrate with Medieval Times in Scottsdale,AZ!more
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament | Dallas Castlemore
Medieval Times Tournament : That's How We Celebrated #MTCelebratemore
Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times: Celebration Destinationmore
Medieval Times Surprise! Giveaway and 40% off toomore
Our Journey to the Medieval Timesmore
Visiting Medieval Times! Here some Tips For You...more
Medieval Times Reviewmore
Cherish Family Moments with Medieval Times #MTCelebratemore
Celebrate Family at Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentmore
An Experience Gift to Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times fun for allmore
A Family Dinner Show, Unlike Any Othermore
Medieval Timesmore
Celebrate All of the Things at Medieval Times!more
Family Fun at Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentmore
Celebrate the Holidays With Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentmore
Medieval Times Dinner Theater A Unique Celebrationmore
Christmas Traditions to Enjoymore
Celebrating A Milestone Birthday At Medieval Times #MTCelebratemore
My 40th Birthday at Medieval Times!more
Medieval Times - Fun for the Whole Family! Win Four Tickets!more
Medieval Times Baltimore : A Royally Fun Celebrationmore
A Knight At Medieval Times Dinner Theatermore
Favorite Food Friday - Orlando Medieval Timesmore
CA 2019 Day 2 Dinnermore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentmore
It's a Knight to Remember at Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times: Dinner Theater Fun for the Whole Family in Myrtle Beach, SCmore
An Evening at Medieval Timesmore
Experiencing Medieval Times with Special Needs Childrenmore
Medieval Times: Dinner and a Show in a Castle!more
Family Fun at Medieval Timesmore
What Can I Eat at Medieval Times with Food Allergies Informationmore
Medevial Times Best Dinner and a Show in Atlantamore
Spring is about to get MEDIEVAL!more
10 Reasons to Check Out Medieval Times - including if you have Food Allergiesmore
We Had A Jousting Good Time At Medieval Times In Lyndhurst NJ #medievaltimesmore
Always Fun at Medieval Times Dallasmore
Medieval Times: Dinner Theater Fun for the Whole Family in Myrtle Beach, SCmore
Medieval Times - New Spring Show Reviewmore
All You Need To Know To Visit Medieval Times + COUPONmore
Medieval Times with Teensmore
Heroic Knights, Majestic Horses, and a Queen : Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times Dinner and Tournamentmore
An Evening of Wonder at Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times~Atlanta, Ga - SAVE 40% Off Tickets!more
Medieval Times has a New Show - SAVE 40%more
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament Review and Discount Code! #MTFan #Reviewmore
Medieval Times Dinner and Tournament: Baltimore, MD - REVIEW - SAVE 40%more
Visiting Medieval Times - SAVE 40%more
Experience the New Medieval Times Show & See The Queen! +Coupon Codemore
The Queen has arrived at Medieval Times and the Celebration Beginsmore
WHY YOU SHOULD VISIT MEDIEVAL TIMES DINNER & TOURNAMENT ORLANDOmore
Medieval Times Reviewmore
Go Back In Time at Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament Orlando, Floridamore
Medieval Times is the perfect place for any occasion: family fun night, birthdays, anniversaries andmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament - Orlandomore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament - Orlando Castlemore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament New Show Sovereign | SPECIAL SPRING OFFERmore
MEDIEVAL TIMES REVIEW - BUENA PARKmore
CELEBRATING A BIRTHDAY AT MEDIEVAL TIMES NEW JERSEY #MTFANmore
The Queen Is IN At Medieval Timesmore
3 Things You Must Do at Medival Times to Have a Great Timemore
Family Fun at Medieval Times Baltimoremore
Making Memories at Medieval Times + Discountmore
Go back to the medieval timesmore
Medieval Times Reviewmore
Food Allergies at Medieval Times: Receiving Royal Treatmentmore
Medieval Times' New show #review #sponsored @usfamilyguide @medievaltimesatl #MTFan #MTAtlantamore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament-An Exciting Family Eveningmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament-An Exciting Family Eveningmore
5 Reasons Your Family Will Love Medieval Timesmore
Family Memories At Medieval Times & Dinner Tournament - Plus Giveawaymore
Things are Getting Medievalmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament-Great Family Fun!more
Medieval Times - Fun for the Whole Familymore
Tips For Visiting Medieval Times and Discount Code!more
Travel back in time at Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament #Giveaway Ends 2/3more
Let The Games Begin at Medieval Times Dallas #MTFanmore
Dinner & A Show - Medieval Times Orlandomore
Medieval Times Reviewmore
Winter at Medieval Timesmore
Family Fun at Medieval Timesmore
Have Fun Storming The Castle with Free Journaling Cardsmore
Medieval Times: Delicious Dinner & Epic Entertainment for all ages! #MedievalTimesmore
A Visit to Medieval Timesmore
5 Reasons To Visit Medieval Times Baltimormore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament at Buena Parkmore
Take Your Family Back in Time at Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament in Myrtle Beach #mtfan #Reviewmore
We spent the evening with Nobles!more
Fun at Medieval Times in Dallas Texasmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament Atlantamore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament + NJ Giveaway Read more at http://www.gameonmom.com/2016/12/medimore
A Family Guide to Medieval Times Dinner and Tournamentmore
Top 3 Reasons to Visit Medieval Times and Things to Knowmore
Medieval Times Coupon Codemore
Medieval Times Reviews - Schaumburg Illinois Dinner Theatermore
Chivalry In Action At Medieval Times & A Giveawaymore
Our Visit to Medieval Times - Dallas!more
Medieval Times Dinner Show Reviewmore
Medieval Times for Family Fun + Giveawaymore
Review Medieval Times Dinner and Tournament Dallasmore
Medieval Times - Buena Park, CA photos and reviewmore
Holiday Gift Idea: Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentmore
Our Exciting Medieval Times Experience in Buena Parkmore
Medieval Times Dinner Show Buena Parkmore
Educational Lessons to Learn at Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times | The Perfect Winter Celebrationmore
An Experience Like No Other: Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament {Review}more
Have an awesome time at medieval times!more
What To Expect When Going to Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament *Baltimore, MD Castle* #sponsoredmore
Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament Reviewmore
Eating With Our Hands At Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times Dinner Tournament Review and Giveawaymore
Medieval Times is a Must!more
A Knight to Remember!more
{{Location Review}} Medieval Times in Dallas, Texas | AMAZING Food & Entertainment!more
A Royal Time to Be Had At Medieval Timesmore
Medieval Times Dinner and Tournament Specialmore


text:
Am i the only one of getting so f+++ing tired of finding this guys comments tall over the forum that doesnt make me learn nothing interesting.
Everytime i find nice post... he ruins the fun.
Can we vote to send him off?
At least if he gots in again would be with a different nick, as im tired of the Rockstar, and is a pitty as i LOVE ROCK, and he doesnt deserves that cool nick!
Each reply would be a simbolic vote to send him OUT!


text:
|What a handsom man he was!
I've mentioned Hazel in previous posts, but nothing really concrete. I never really knew much about my "Nana". She taught my sisters and I how to knit and crochet. She loved watching soap operas while she did her yarn-work. She embroidered and cross-stitched and even reupholstered the covers on some dining room chairs with her needlework. She lived in the house next door to us. It was a house that she grew up in and lived her entire life. It was the house she eventually shared with her husband, Maurice Blum.
I had always wanted to find out more about Nana, but like many things, I procrastinated and never followed through until I got a lovely email and phone call from a sweetheart named, Debbie, that came across one of my posts on Nana. I'm not going to tell Debbie's story here. She's going to be writing a book about it and when it's out I'll let you all know so you can see for yourself, but Debbie asked for some information on my Nana and I was so disappointed to admit that I knew little of value about a woman I loved dearly...so I started some research. Research for me to find out more about the woman that meant so much to me and research for Debbie because I was touched by the connection her family had with Hazel and Maurice Blum.
So having just returned from a trip to Pennsylvania I'm going to share the information I found starting with Maurice's obituary today. Maurice died a year before I was born, but Nana mentioned her husband frequently. Like a typical 11 to 14 year old, the information just never really made and impression and apart from his name and a couple other details I can remember nothing. It's really a shame because, as you'll see, he was an extremely impressive man. So much so that his death made the front page of the Hazleton Standard Speaker.
|Hazleton Standard Speaker, 21MAY1971, pg 1
Dr. Maurice L. Blum, local optometrist and one of the community's most active civic workers and leader in veteran affairs, died at 11 a.m. yesterday in the Hazleton State General Hospital following a lengthy illness.
Dr. Blum, who resided at 701 W. Diamond Ave., was a veteran of World War One, and was a charter member of American Legion Post 76, which he served as commander in 1928, and for many years as chaplain of the veterans' organization.
Dr. Blum served for 22 years as head of the National Firm's Division for the annual campaigns of the Hazleton Chapter of the American Red Cross.
He also served as general chairman of the United Fund Campaign, and headed divisions in other years.
Dr. Blum served as chairman of the Salvation Army Advisory Board, was a past president of the Hazleton Lions Club and served in various capacities with the Hazleton Tuberculosis and Health Society, the Anthracite Council of the Boy Scouts of America (now part of the Penn Mountain Council), and other local organizations.
Arranged Programs
|21MAY1971, pg 14
For many years he arranged programs for patients in the White Haven State Sanitarium and continued the service for the White Haven State School and Hospital.
He was also one of the organizers and an active member, until his illness, of the committee of veterans in the Greater Hazleton Area who visited hospitalized veterans in St. Joseph and the State General Hospitals.
In July 1965, Dr. Blum was selected to a life membership in the American Optometric Association, and prior to that honor was awarded life membership in the state organization and in the Anthracite Optometric Association in 1960. He aided in the organization of the anthracite group in September 1929, and served as its secretary-treasurer for 25 years.
State Chairman
In October, 1931, he was general chairman of the State Optometric Association Convention, which was held in Hazleton, at which time he was selected to serve a two-year term as secretary of the state organization.
In May, 1954, the Regional Association held a special dinner marking Dr. Blum's 25 years of service as secretary-treasurer, during which he was awarded a plaque for that service.
He has been the recipient of numerous local awards, among which were the designation of "Outstanding Citizen" by the Greater Hazleton Jaycees in 1957. He was also recognized by the American Legion, the Boy Scouts of America, Salvation Army, Heart Association, White Haven State School and Hospital, Greater Hazleton Veterans' Association; Unico Club and the Community Chest.
American Legion Post 76, in April 1969, awarded Dr. Blum a life membership for his outstanding service to the organization [sic].
Dr. Blum is survived by his wife, the former Hazel Hill, and ane [sic] sister, residing in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Services Sunday
Services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Sunday from the Temple Beth Israel, with Rabbi Abraham Ruderman, spiritual leader of the Temple officiating. Interment will be in Beth Israel Cemetery.
Viewing will be from 7 to 9 p.m. Saturday at the Joseph and Mary Fierro Funeral Home.
Pallbearers, all members of the Hazleton Lions Club, will be President David Schwarz; Third Vice President Louis Fierro, and Past Presidents Carl Ambrosio, Edward Scarp, Angelo Sist and Peter Forliano."
I read this and all I could think was, "WOW". I never imagined that Nana was married to such a man. She was so quiet and reserved...shy even. I could hardly picture her at his side at these events, but perhaps that wasn't expected at the time. I read this obituary and realized that Nana's life must have been so different than what I imagined...or was it? I wish I had paid attention to all her stories. She and Maurice never had children so who is there to remember them now?
FOLLOW UP - It didn't take long after posting this that something occurred to me...there's no age or date of birth for Maurice. All that great information and it isn't mentioned. It's not impossible to find clues to a birth for him (military records, burial, SSDI) but it was just plain surprising that with all the great information in there nothing on his birth. Heck...very little on his family in general!


text:
Godzilla isn't quite monster enough to really entertain, says PEOPLE's movie critic
Godzilla doesn't make the most of its monsters, but Million Dollar Arm is a baseball crowd-pleaser says PEOPLE's movie critic.
Here's what to see and what to skip in theaters this weekend.
He may still stride the narrow world like a colossus, but Godzilla's 60th anniversary update doesn't give him much of anywhere to go. Bloated and often boring, the movie largely exists as an excuse to lay waste to a few cities – not an inherently bad thing for your big-budget summer action dollar – but then it cuts the monster fighting cruelly short. Isn't behemoth-on-behemoth action the whole reason to buy a ticket?
Granted, everything starts well enough, with the crackly tension of an accident at a nuclear plant in Japan. Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) is a respected scientist who notices suspicious seismic activity increasing near the plant. He warns the higher ups to shut 'er down before things go, well, nuclear, but he's too late. The day comes at enormous personal cost to the husband and father, as it transforms him from a leader in his field into a pariah, spouting conspiracy theories about a government cover-up, even years later.
You know Joe is a kook because even his own son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), doesn't want to deal with him anymore. To placate the old man (because really, how many times can you hear the same nonsense?), Ford goes with his father back to their ruined Japanese home, near the accident site. Naturally, they get arrested. Illogically, they're taken directly into the plant itself, a site that supposedly houses the greatest secret the world has ever known, but apparently is open willy-nilly to random Americans stumbling around the Japanese Chernobyl.
RELATED: He's Baaaaack! Check Out Godzilla's Changing Looks
It's then that something awakens at the plant. No, not Godzilla – he's off in the ocean, waiting to bring the fight to somebody his own size. But it's something monstery and spoilery, and it's exciting, because it means Joe is right. He isn't a kook! Our faith in him wasn't misplaced! Oh, but it's too bad that we got invested, because the movie sidelines our guy almost immediately, sticking us with the bland, blank Ford instead.
It's then that director Gareth Edwards starts to play Candyland with Navy bomb tech Ford, moving him like a plastic doll from the Peppermint Forest, through the Gumdrop Mountains and into the Molasses Swamp, on a quest to get home to his wife, Elle (Elizabeth Olsen).
Meanwhile, the beast that awoke in Japan is also on the go, and so is Godzilla, following its signal and preparing for a showdown. But what should we tiny humans do while we wait? Kill the new beast and Godzilla? Nay, says Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), a scientist who's ostensibly in charge of all the world's prehistoric menaces, and inherently knows that nature demands a monster battle. "Let them fight!"
Fight they shall, and you will love it. You will want more. You won't get more. Just like the fantastically gifted Olsen won't get to do much besides look worried. Just like the amiable Taylor-Johnson won't register on screen, even when he's doing something vaguely valiant. Just like playing an adorably irritating kids' game isn't the same as providing an audience with a plot.
Godzilla is a withholder. If you have a principled stance on the matter, you might consider withholding your ticket dollars. But we all know you want to see a fat dinosaur kaiju kick some enemy monster butt, no matter how lacking the rest of the movie.
Million Dollar Arm
Like boy bands and Doritos Locos Tacos, the fact that Million Dollar Arm is cynically engineered to bring joy to a mass audience doesn't detract from its likeability.
The baseball comedy/drama stars Jon Hamm as J.B. Bernstein, a former sports super agent who's now barely eking out an existence with his business partner, Ash (The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi). They need a big idea and they need it fast, so here it is: They'll go to India, find a phenomenally talented cricket bowler or two, and turn them into major-league baseball pitchers practically overnight. Oh, and they'll film the search as a reality show. (At this point I need to inform you that the movie is based on a true story.)
RELATED: Jon Hamm Gives the Scoop on His New Movie Million Dollar Arm
After an exhaustive search, J.B. and his scout, Ray (Alan Arkin), find a couple of promising kids, Rinku (Suraj Sharma) and Dinesh (Madhur Mittal). Only things don't go quite so well in America, as the boys have trouble adjusting, while J.B. merely barks orders and treats them like commodities.
But you already know this, because the edge-free Arm is also bereft of surprises, telegraphing every twist in the game. The curiosity is that you won't really mind. Sharma and Mittal are so likable and Hamm so darned Hammish that it works. Add in Lake Bell as J.B.'s tenant, a doctor named Brenda who serves as his conscience in her spare time, and the (mostly) family friendly film comes together nicely. It's an easy pitch, so go ahead, take a swing.


text:
Monday, July 21, 2008
This past week he spent a few minutes complaining about one aspect of American society that you don't hear about much: the unpleasantness of airline travel. He pointed out, astutely, that it can be a hassle when planes are delayed! and that even when they are on time it is often uncomfortable on the plane! Ha ha, good one, Andy!
But that was the better of the two segments I saw. Last week he complained that milk does not taste as good as when he was a boy.
Click the screen cap for the video, if you really want.
3 comments:
- AnonymousJuly 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Part of me wants to believe that segment was a subtle performance art piece satirizing people who are nostalgic for a time that never really existed. And maybe that, along with what remains of his legacy and journalistic credibility, is why segments like that are still on the air. It also stands to mention that an old man ranting about how things were different in his day, yes they were, fills up a good three minutes or so of air time? But honestly, what's the point of that? If they wanted to go for it, 60 minutes could have done some actual journalism and scrapped together a piece on the reasons why there are so many brands and types of milk at the supermarket, why packaging is so flashy, why preservatives are key ingredients, and why typical dairy farms have given way to postindustrial factory farms. But instead of an expose of how capitalism and mass-production has influenced the foods that we think of as simple and untouched, they present an old man's ramblings as an editorial piece. Just look at the anchor introducing it and her self-indulgent smile of "isn't he just adorable? We let him do that because it makes him feel special." This is the kind of thing you see in small town newspapers next to an article on the success of the church car wash, not national news.ReplyDelete
P.S. - Carl, I enjoy the blog. And pardon my verbosity, I just hate this sort of bullshit filler that is done precisely because it's easier than doing research and actually trying to educate the populace. But I like the site, as I do your normal dealins'.
While I don't think your theory-of-andy-rooney-as-intentional-satire is correct, it is something I am going to have to think about. If I imagine him as trying to be as cranky as possible, it might be entertaining. Maybe if I imagine John McCain's face superimposed over Mr. Rooney.ReplyDelete
I do think 60 minutes does very good journalism otherwise (at least compared to other things on television) so I won't complain too much but, yeah, you do wonder if the people who introduce him are going "god, gotta do the andy rooney shit again, when is he going to just die already."
Today's segment was very similar to the milk one - he was complaining about funny chemicals in his food that he didn't recognize. "Why does this jello say 'lemon flavor' when it's really chemical flavor? Why, there's no lemon in it at all!" THANKS ANDY. YOU'RE STUPID. Why can he not accept that some chemicals are very important for food and just because they have long names doesn't make them Shady.
- AnonymousMarch 28, 2010 at 2:40 AM
First he complains that a 38% fat reduction isn't enough to make the milk reduced. Then he whines about the grammar of "skim milk." Then he grouches that his FATFREE half-and-half isn't actually half-and-half. No shit? And it does have something to do with something as good as milk? Look at the first two ingredients, "nonfat milk, milk." And do you know why they call it "whole milk?" Because they want to make it clear that it's not any other kind of milk, the same reason you called it "3.2 percent."ReplyDelete
Dammit, Rooney.


text:
Disclaimer: All LB Brass products are hand-forged and slight variations in dimension may occur.
Please Note:LB Brass has a unique Rust 380 finish that is created by a method in which the steel is chemically oxidized and then stabilized in a hot wax bath. This is a "living" finish and continued aging and variations in finish among pieces are to be expected. It is suggested to periodically re-coat the finish with a quality clear wax to maintain the natural appearance and for protection
- Brand:
- LB Brass
- Collection:
- LB Brass - European Country Knob Collection
- Category:
- Cabinet Hardware
- Sub Category:
- Cabinet Knobs
- California residents:
- see Proposition 65 information


text:
Related Resource
Maps from Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine EnvironmentSpecial Product
The following maps were developed for the report, "Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment." They are made available here for download as high-quality, print-ready files. Click the image to download a high-resolution version in TIF format.
Images are provided under an Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons license. Please credit the National Research Council.


text:
The past and the present collide through a powerful walkie-talkie. Park Hae Young (Lee Je Hoon) is a police lieutenant who is an expert criminal profiler. Hae Young went into police work despite his deep-rooted mistrust of cops stemming from a traumatic event from his childhood. When he was young, his friend Yoon Jung was kidnapped and later found dead. Hae Young saw a woman pick up Yoon Jung from school on the day that she went missing, but the police would not believe Hae Young and stated that a man took her. The case remains unsolved to this day. Now working at the same police station where Hae Young tried to get the cops to believe him as a child, Hae Young walks out of the station one day and hears someone talking to him. He searches around and finds a walkie-talkie with the voice of police detective Lee Jae Han (Cho Jin Woong) talking to him. But Jae Han is from decades into the past, and he is investigating the murder of Hae Young's friend Yoon Jung. Cha Soo Hyun (Kim Hye Soo) was a rookie during Jae Han's time and is now an experienced police detective. Can this unexpected trio help each other solve cold cases from the past by communicating through the walkie-talkie? "Signal" is a 2016 South Korean drama series directed by Kim Won Suk. The series is based on a real-life crime spree that took place between 1986 and 1991 where 10 women were raped and murdered in the same geographic area in South Korea. The 2003 film "Memories of Murder" and the 2014 television drama "Gap Dong" also were based on the same events.
This show does not have any episodes


text:
It's my second link to a report by Hal Roberts (and others at the Berkman Center) in as many days, but I worry that this this detailed document on denial-of-service (DOS) and hacking attacks on independent media and human rights groups might get missed in the holiday season.
The news headlines in the last few weeks have been full of stories of how DOS attacks can bring down even high-profile websites, often with relatively little technical expertise on behalf of the attackers. Such attacks are nothing new to online journalists across the world, however. Just this year, CPJ has dealt with cases of independent news sites being taken offline by remote Internet attacks in China, Burma, Vietnam, Russia, Kazakhstan, and now Belarus.
The Berkman Center's report details over three hundred other cases from 1998 onwards, from Sweden to North Korea. More important, the researchers interviewed the victims of these attacks, and categorized what defenses were practical and effective -- and what did not work.
If you're an online journalist with powerful opponents, I'd strongly encourage you to read this document and pass it along to your tech-savvy associates. Even a small amount of preparation can help keep vital news and opinion available online when you -- and your readers -- most need it.


text:
Fredi reflects on historic overturned call
MILWAUKEE -- Because it was something he had never experienced during any of his previous seven seasons as a Major League manager, Fredi Gonzalez said it felt like he was on the field for at least 10 minutes when he challenged first-base umpire Greg Gibson's call during the sixth inning of Monday's Opening Day loss to the Brewers.
But once he had time to review the sequence of events, Gonzalez learned that just one minute and 38 seconds elapsed from the end of the disputed play until the umpiring crew overturned the call after the play had been reviewed by an umpire in Major League Baseball's Replay Operations Center.
The decision to reverse Gibson's original ruling that Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun beat third baseman Chris Johnson's throw to first base proved to be historical. It will forever stand as the first call overturned through the use of MLB's expanded replay system, which was first utilized on Monday.
"It worked exactly the way they wanted it to work," Gonzalez said. "It just didn't feel like baseball. It felt weird. When you come out of the dugout, you're looking to protect your players, you're looking to yell at the umpire or get into a confrontation. But that never even occurred. [Gibson and I] were like two civil guys talking."
As he briefly conversed with Gibson in front of the first-base bag, Gonzalez stalled long enough for his replay coordinator Horacio Ramirez to review the play in the clubhouse and then quickly inform bench coach Carlos Tosca that the play should be challenged.
Gonzalez found it comical that some fans and at least one of his own players were confused when the challenge was issued after Tosca provided a thumb-down sign that was caught by television cameras. While a thumb-up sign might have seemed more appropriate, Gonzalez said all that mattered was that he and Tosca were on the same page.
"Does it matter what he does?" Gonzalez said. "It's something we came up with. It could have been take your hat off or whatever. That's something we came up with. It's nothing. It's just a sign."