All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

Ramon Glazov: Conveying no Cognizance

Mr Glazov's Facebook Avatar.
I think this avatar indicates what sort of a person he is.
He obviously thinks that masking one's face and
 burning Postman Pat and stealing his cat is OK!

If you believe the ABC's DRUM Unleashed, there are some:
  "Unanswered questions on the Convoy of No Confidence."

There are some unanswered questions that Ramon Glazov, who penned the DRUM item, should address. Mr Glazov admits that he originally authored the piece for an online scream-sheet called Exiled Online.

An oligarchy is defined as "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

In a previous piece by this author in Exiled Online, he described Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest as an Oligarch.

Questions without notice for Mr Glazov:
  1. When did Mr Forrest take over the government? 
  2. Do you believe in Oligarchy or Democracy?
  3. Do you believe, after Julia's lie -There will be no carbon tax - that the current Australian Government was democratically elected. 
  4. Do you think for yourself? 

Exiled online must think that its readers can not think for themselves.
Exiled online published pieces like the two by Mr Glazov under this banner:

  In the current piece telling readers what they should think, we have some sloppy and inaccurate journalism by Mr Glazov. He describes the Convoy  of No Confidence participants as "Australian Teabaggers." Perhaps there might be a few in the group who have links to the Tea Party but in the main most would not and some may not even have heard of the Tea Party. Mind you, most, if not all, would agree that we are Taxed Enough Already.

Our intrepid reporter writes:
Climate-denying factory farmers? Check. Friends of convicted child-killers? Got em. A Pinochet-style fascist who wants to “inflict maximum pain” on the Australian economy by causing artificial famines? Yes, Sir! – ¡VIVA EL GENERALISSIMO!
Climate Denying Factory Farmers? First of all, Mr Glazov, the farmers are more aware of climate than the rest of the community. I don't believe that any of the convoy deny climate. I don't believe that any farmer would deny that climate changes. And Friends of convicted child-killers? Oh really? Would you like to name them? And would we believe some-one talking of child killers who uses a masked man and a burning postman as his facebook avatar?

And Factory Farmers, Mr Glazov? He is talking about Feed lot owners. The only Factory Farmers are the farmers with WindTurbine Factories on their properties. Speakers at the two rallies following the convoys into Canberra included Station Owners, Dairy Farmer, Cattleman, Politicians, Stock and Station Agent, Mining Innovator/Co Director, Geologist,  Feed Lot Owners, Trucking Industry, Hairdresser,, Biologist,  as well as representatives of the NFRA. There was a space reserved for any member of the Federal Government that wished to address the meeting but unfortunately they turned their backs on their constituents.

The Convoy of No Confidence grew from a social web forum called Just Grounds. 

The following is a reply to Mr Glazov by Julene Haack published on the DRUM:

Julene Haack, Just Grounds :

22 Aug 2011 6:02:13pm
I hope that The Drum will publish this, as I consider I have right of reply, having been named in this article. I also hope that it will be published in full and not truncated.

On one hand it would seem that Mr Glazov has inadequately researched the content of Just Grounds.

The discussion entitled "Convoy of No Confidence - Routes" has had 1672 replies. I will leave it to Mr Glazov to count how many individual posters in that one. It was one of our main Convoy discussions. The discussions for individual convoys that he has mentioned were offshoots from there and were primarily used for updating each convoy route.

Some selective reporting there.

On the other hand, it would appear that Mr Glazov has gone trawling through two years worth of discussions on Just Grounds to find a quote to put Mick Pattel in a bad light, without presenting the context in which that comment was made.

Mr Glazov interviewed people at Belmont Racecourse, but does not provide names for those to whom he spoke. In particular he does not name the driver who was "hired to make the journey".

He describes the people he spoke to as: "Nearly everyone I met was a casual, a one-timer, an UNPAID extra." (emphasis mine) Then later (ironically) he asks, Who is paying for the whole thing?

I'll answer him and I hope he reads my lips: There is NO funding by powerful economic or political or lobby groups for the Convoy.

It has been funded through the shallow pockets of the National Road Freighters Association (a small organisation of around 400 members) and through the personal pockets of convoy participants, with some wonderful towns putting on free meals and petrol vouchers, to help them on their way.

Mr Glazov can try to insinuate links to Exxon Mobil etc, but he will not find them.

Just Grounds online receives no funds of any kind and the small monthly fee is paid out of the pocket of the site owner. The management team is unpaid.

Having provided the above facts, I will specifically state that we are not an "Astroturf" group and Mr Glazov will find no evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for publishing this reply,
Julene Haack (member of management team, Just Grounds)


  1. I think you will find that the vehicle in the avatar is a Royal Mail van, and it's driver is in fact Postman Pat. The gentleman behind the mask is holding his famous black and white cat.

  2. Adjusted now, thanks Lucas. For people like me unaware of Postman Pat, to see Pat and his cat in better times:,r:3,s:0

  3. Actually, it isn't his avatar. It is one of his profile picture.

  4. Lucas,

    Are you an apologist for this despicable person, Ramon Glazov?

    It IS HIS avatar on his Facebook page.

    I do, however, thank you for pointing out that the despicable Ramon thinks it is OK to go around with a Hoodie and a Mask and to steal someone's loved pet whilst they burn the pet's owner.

    And, Lucas... he doesn't have to use this AVATAR on his facebook page.

    But thanks again for pointing out that he uses a despicable deiction of a childhood cartoon character as his image.

    It still shows his direction...

  5. I have NOT pointed out anything of the sort.

    I think you are drawing a long bow to suggest that because someone has humorously photo-shopped a picture of a clearly illegal act that they support the original, unaltered image.
    This is like suggesting that laughing at the coyote as he plunges off a cliff in pursuit of the road runner is condoning interspecies murder.
    Perhaps you should stick to attacking what you actually dis agree with, rather than the person himself.

    Presently, this image is not his avatar. have a look for yourself.
    You may have to friend him. A good idea, as you can then address him personally.

  6. I have followed the link to the facebook profile, and I must agree that the avatar is not the postman pat image.

  7. Obviously Ramon has read this post and removed it but there is a screen shot in the post above with the avatar shown.

  8. Mary and Lucas;

    Ramon's attack of decency has been overcome and he has again put that despicable atar back on his facebook page.

  9. Geoff what you are doing is called an ad homenim logical fallacy. It also has attributes of the strawman fallacy.
    This image and your opinion of it has no relevance to his position.
    The only way it would be relevant would be if Ramon were inciting the immolation of fictional cartoon characters.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!