Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A service | Main | At the RSE »
Monday
Sep262011

GatesRLocked

Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) seems not to be bothered about its reputation. Just read Roger Pielke Jnr's latest correspondence with the journal.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (54)

Were the two reviewers, reviewing the same paper?

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Gallon

Dear Kev is watching! Always watching!!

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Well it could be a travesty if such a paper was to be published now right before the AR5 deadline.

And it could be that there were other not-so-shameful papers in the pipeline that are designed to be cited in AR5, so someone called someone and said something, and also some editors don't really like to play Wagner.

Just a hypothetical thought of course, with no empirical foundation.

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBebben

The paranoia runs deep in that one...

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

I think the key sentence from reviewer two is
'It does confront the issue of continued misrepresentation by some of the impact of “climate change” on presently experienced insurance and other losses from tropical cyclones. '

That would have been sending alarm bells ringing at 'Team' HQ right enough , but basically if they can't tell you what the problem it simply can't be that major in the first place , so the GRL editors comments do seem odd.

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

The Editor writes from Stanford. Could somebody with more knowledge about US academic institutions advise whether I am correct to view anything coming out of Stanford, with the gravest suspicion.

A bt like UEA in the UK?

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Makes perfect sense to refuse to publish - it saves them having to apologise to Kevin and resign.

Sep 26, 2011 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

I wonder what would qualify as a Minor Revision...

Sep 26, 2011 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

I recommend that journals like the GRL post this on plaques over the entrances to their editorial offices:

(apologies in advance to Twilight Zone’s Rod Serling)

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination imaginative AGW alarmism. Beyond it is another dimension of funding - a dimension of Kev’s editors, a dimension of pal review, a dimension of modeling mind over observation. You're moving into a land of both unearned fame and decline hiding, of the Team and its ideas. You've just crossed over into a scientific journal biased toward the IPCC AR5 preparation zone.”

Sep 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

Ah! GRL and the magazine EOS. Forever burdened with the ignominy of the Doran survey. The nine question survey, only two reported on. Strange the editor apporoved a not so very homogenious database; on that trumpeted occasion.

Sep 26, 2011 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

John Whitman

Excellent post. I am surprised that "The Twilight Zone" wrote that well.

Sep 27, 2011 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

If you read the email exchanges at Pielke, Jr's, website, you will see that no reason is given for rejecting the paper. After a paper has been declared publishable by two reviewers, rejecting a paper because it needs major revisions is unheard of. Rejecting a paper for any reason and not specifying the reason is unheard of. I have seen an editor write a rejection note that stated as the reason for rejection that the author was vituperative. I was a reviewer who did not reject the paper but I agreed with another reviewer who did and the editor.

Sep 27, 2011 at 12:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Roger is whining in public. Most unseemly.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterbigcitylib

Shorter bigcitylib: Gatekeepers done good

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterlittlecitylib

I lost any respect for peer review 30 years ago.

Sep 27, 2011 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterLevelGaze

BCL of course he should just shut up and accept this gross breach of publishing standards, then you and your friends can carry on arm-waving about the dominance of your point of view among peer-reviewed science. Not much that is liberal about your value system really - I suggest you go back and read Locke and Mill and see whether you qualify for the tag.

Sep 27, 2011 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

Well of course the major revision of the original paper;

"trends in tropical cyclone landfalls around the world finds no upwards trends"

should have been;

"trends in tropical cyclone landfalls around the world finds upwards trends"


Obviously, Roger Pielke Jnr's inclusion of the word "no" was seen by Noah Diffenbaugh as a typo.

Sep 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I had a similar experience with Nature. I also know of another person whose paper was rejected in another journal, then the same topic was heard by chance by the Editor at a conference and finally the penny dropped and the paper got published without further review.

Editors are a funny and often unpleasant species. That's why wagner's resignation is even more important than anybody thinks. When the trust will be finally and completely eroded, scientific publishing will transform in a purely blog-based enterprise.

Average quality will get much lower, but the number of groundbreaking papers will skyrocket.

Sep 27, 2011 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Packed court room. The trial has ended. Judge turns the jury foreman.

Judge: Have you reached a verdict on the defendant? Guilty, or not guilty?

Jury foreman: Yes, your Honour. We find the defendant not guilty.

The Judge nods. He then produces a black cap and places it somberly on his head.
He turns to the defendant, Mr Jones, who is waiting nervously in the dock.

Judge: Mr Jones, you have been judged by a jury of your peers and found not guilty of the crime. I hereby sentence you to be hanged by the neck until dead.

There is some confusion in the courts, and no little alarm in the dock.

Defence counsel (Mr Williams): Err, I hesitate to criticise your Honour, but you did say, “found not guilty?".

Judge: That's right.

Defence counsel: Then may I make so bold as to ask why the death sentence is being passed, my lord?

Judge: Because Mr Jones is guilty.

Defence counsel: I'm confused. The jury found him innocent, did they not?

Judge: That's right.

Defence counsel: So, err, why…?
The judge is getting impatient now, looking at his watch.

Judge: Because, if you had been paying attention, Mr Williams, you would have heard that the prosecuting counsel said he was guilty.

Defence counsel: My Lord, that is why we have a trial. The result of which was that my defendant was found innocent.

Judge: Exactly. Now if you'll just be quiet I can get on with sentencing.

Sep 27, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

As I wrote on Pielke's blog, referee 2 argued that the paper oversells the results. This calls for a major revision, where "major" refers to the substance rather than to the amount of work required. Instead of doing just that, Pielke decided to pick a fight.

Sep 27, 2011 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Richard Tol - assuming you're not reviewer #2, can you explain the "major" rework needed to do the following: I would like to see that aspect down-played and perhaps the title adjusted to read “Towards a homogeneous database …” or some such.

Also consider the bit immediately following: Further, Diffenbaugh has chosen not to respond to my emails asking for clarification as to what he sees as needing "major revision.

Sep 27, 2011 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Richard Tol bottom line you like GRL can't tell us what the 'major revision' is , that would suggest its not that major after all.

Sep 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

The more we learn, the more we are led to conclude that the peer review process as such is not the primary problem, but editorial prejudice. A fraternity akin to some kind of environmental masonic-like closed shop seems to have evolved among the ruling councils of the primary earth science societies, tightly controlling journal editorial appointments. These appointments appear to be offered only to persons of the right persuasion, who must accept that their position requires batting away off-message submissions by fair means or foul, on pain of dismissal.

Sep 27, 2011 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Richard Tol

As I wrote on Pielke's blog, referee 2 argued that the paper oversells the results. This calls for a major revision, where "major" refers to the substance rather than to the amount of work required. Instead of doing just that, Pielke decided to pick a fight.

We should all bow to the authority of reviewers and be merciful and quiet.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPatagon

@MM, KnR
I was neither the editor nor the referee on this paper. I am an editor for another journal, and I do do a fair bit of reviewing.

In my opinion, the main problem identified with the paper is "oversell". It is a minor effort to repair that, but the tone of the paper changes in a major way.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Richard Tol is right, I think:

In my opinion, the main problem identified with the paper is "oversell".

Look here:

Reviewer #2

The work seems essentially sound and useful to the community but lacks in-depth analysis and illustration. It does confront the issue of continued misrepresentation by some of the impact of “climate change” on presently experienced insurance and other losses from tropical cyclones. For that reason it is perhaps (just) publishable but claims of a new homogeneous database (based on JTWC outside of the US) are grossly over-stated as there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed. This is especially so in regard to intensity, which the authors treat fairly simplistically in any case. I would like to see that aspect down-played and perhaps the title adjusted to read “Towards a homogeneous database …” or some such.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Maurizio

I had a similar experience with Nature.

You never cease to amaze!

Please do link to your paper rejected by Nature. I'd be genuinely interested to take a look.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Peer review is a very informal procedure, which allows for lots of flexibility. As Richard Tol says, changing the title of a paper, and perhaps some qualifiers in the text in lign with that change, may significantly affect the message of the paper. Consider Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid vs. something like Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: Preliminary Speculation about a Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Also, many journals request that referees tick a box with a recommendation - "Accept Without Revision", "Minor Revision", "Major Revision" etc. Which box was ticked is often but not always shown to the author (I don't know what is usual with GRL). Some journals also allow additional comments for the Editor's eyes only - and nothing stops a referee expressing such views if they want to. Hence it is perfectly believable that referee 2 may have gone beyond his or her very tepid words in the report itself, and recommend major revision. So as so often in such cases, you can make a plausible case that rules were not really broken, and that Pielke is being oversensitive, and should just live with it.

So each individual case proves little (swallows and Spring spring to mind) - but that is ignoring the wood for the trees. We now have case after case after case after case (Steig's Nature paper, O'Donnell's criticism therof, McIntyre & co's comment in Nature, Spencer's Remote Sensing paper, Dessler's recent GRL, Lindzen's PNAS paper, this paper, and so on) showing the bias in the system in favour of AGW proponents and against sceptics. I don't really see how people can deny that bias - or seek to claim that it is not distortive of the way research progresses in the field.

Sep 27, 2011 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Harvey

As Jeremy Harvey says, GRL has indeed a comment section for the editor alone.

One of the purposes of GRL is publishing
Instrument or methods manuscript introducing an innovative technique that makes new science advance possible, with immediate applications to AGU disciplines.

If there is about 75% acceptance from the reviewers, it would be more polite from the editor side to explain the rejection and what is needed.

We don't have the full review, and that would be necessary to shorten the speculation a bit. I wonder too about the "intensity treatment"

The sentence

It does confront the issue of continued misrepresentation by some of the impact of “climate change” on presently experienced insurance and other losses from tropical cyclones. For that reason it is perhaps (just) publishable

seems to me that shows the reviewer as critical of overstatements regarding tropical cyclone impacts, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that one.

What I hope is that the review has detailed points critic with specific aspect of the database, not only general impressions, but we need to see the full review to know that.

Sep 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPatagon

Richard Tol is wrong. Dr. Pielke Jr. posted this r response to Richard at WUWT

QUOTE

Richard Tol’s comments are puzzling at best. He has not seen our paper, nor does he know anything about tropical cyclone data. Further, he apparently is unaware that GRL defines “major revisions” in terms of the time needed to do them, rather than the definition that he invented:

“[M]anuscripts are routinely declined if the reviews point to a need for additional analyses, simulations, or other significant changes to support purported high-impact results or implications. However, for those submissions that show promise of reaching GRL’s criteria, authors are encouraged to resubmit following necessary revisions. While “resetting the clock” on manuscripts that require major revisions reduces the time-to-publication dates, the policy is motivated not by a desire to make the GRL editorial process appear as rapid as possible but rather by a desire to
make the process be as rapid as possible.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/Editorial_GRL.pdf

I also find his comments curious about picking a fight, as anyone can see from my exchange with GRL, it was professional at all times. I simply lost trust in a process in which our editor refused to reply to very simply questions of clarification and the chief editor was unable or unwilling to point our what “major revisions” were needed. Thus, I’ll take my business elsewhere.

One might think that as an economist, Tol would perfectly well understand such a response.

UNQUOTE

It is a clear summation. People who comment about " major revisions " needed obviously did not bother to read GRL's own definitions of " major revisions ".

Sep 27, 2011 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenter

Venter

Yawn.

Reviewer #2

The work seems essentially sound and useful to the community but lacks in-depth analysis and illustration. It does confront the issue of continued misrepresentation by some of the impact of “climate change” on presently experienced insurance and other losses from tropical cyclones. For that reason it is perhaps (just) publishable but claims of a new homogeneous database (based on JTWC outside of the US) are grossly over-stated as there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed. This is especially so in regard to intensity, which the authors treat fairly simplistically in any case. I would like to see that aspect down-played and perhaps the title adjusted to read “Towards a homogeneous database …” or some such.

Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD - the other Authors of the Nature paper I have participated to, have decided to keep it aside for the time being. I'll do my "coming out" when they'll let me. And no, I wasn't first author, my contribution was not central, and it didn't contain any groundbreaking result (basically it showed how natural variations could easily explain what was fancifully attributed to AGW). The paper was recommended for publication by both reviewers and killed at the last minute by one of the Nature editors claiming it wasn't interesting enough (against one of the reviewers explicit suggestion that our work was interesting indeed). And yes, it was all pre-Climategate...perhaps nowadays we would have fought harder.

BTW...you can keep requoting the Reviewer #2's text but I recommend to read it as well. When they said "there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed" for example, Reviewer #2 was not suggesting such "much work" was expected there and then by Pielke Jr. In fact they suggested using "towards" and some down-playing.

For example a liberal use of "might" in place of "is" is usually enough to warrant publication to the wildest hypotheses.

Sep 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

BBD, bigger YAWN. You don't know what you're talking about and keep making up stories.

Here's RP Jr.s statement in is blog to another poster about the reviews

QUOTE

Perhaps so, but the reviewer's rating of the paper -- 3A, strongly suggests otherwise.

What is a 3A?

The A:

"Presentation A : Manuscripts should meet ALL of the following:

*Abstract is succinct (< 150 words), accurate, and comprehensible to a non-specialist
*Manuscript is generally well-written, logically organized, and adequately illustrated
*Figures and tables are understandable and readable (when sized for GRL) English usage and grammar is adequate, with few spelling/typographical errors (please specify any minor fixes)
*Manuscript appears to to GRL's 4-page limit

The 3:

"Science Category 3: The paper is publishable in the refereed literature but is unlikely to become a Category 1 paper. For example:

*It is a scienti cally correct paper but not obviously a signi cant advance in a geophysical field
*A solid paper with little immediate impact on the research of others (e.g., a routine application of a standard research technique, or a new measurement/laboratory method with limited geophysical application)
*A good but basically incremental improvement to existing data sets, models, or instruments"

What is most odd is that the category of 3A basically means "no major revisions" -- the reviewer just wasn't too excited, but found nothing major wrong with it according to these criteria.

Both categories 2 and 4 imply a need for major revisions, yet the reviewer did not select these categories!

In case you are curious, the other reviewer gave us a 1B, where 1 means:

"Science Category 1: The manuscript meets one or more of the following criteria:
*Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline
*Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application
*Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with important geophysical applications"

Any paper that gets a 1 and a 3 and an A and a B should not be rejected, that seems obvious.

UNQUOTE

So quit trolling and read what you're talking about first.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenter

MM

I have no trouble with my reading comprehension.

claims of a new homogeneous database (based on JTWC outside of the US) are grossly over-stated as there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed. This is especially so in regard to intensity, which the authors treat fairly simplistically in any case.

And I look forward to seeing the mystery paper one day.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Venter

So quit trolling and read what you're talking about first.

Why does anyone who disagrees with you automatically become a troll?

You are simply trying to amplify an already manufactured controversy. GRL has been inconsistent and RPJr is justifiably irritated. This sort of thing is commonplace. Get over it and move on.

And re-read reviewer #2's comment.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I specifically called you as a troll because of your response and because you demonstrated that you did not bother to read GRL's own statement about major revisions and also review comments. But you were quick to jump on to the bandwagon with Richard Tol against Pielke Sr.'s stance. When I pointed out about GR's policy about major revisions, your response was an arrogant " Yawn " and half informed rubbish.

That's why I specifically called you a troll as your behaviour demonstrated that you exhibited neither competence nor honesty but a troll's attitude.

And once more, read the gradings given by both the reviewers and see the journal policy on major revisions. Reviewer's grading is " 3A " which means no major revisions are needed. You still persist in your dishonest approach.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenter

BBD, If you'd like a copy of the paper just send me an email. I'm happy to share.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Pielke Jr.

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever one of these issues pops up, a member of the team seemingly gets nominated to defend what has occurred. They make comments at all of the blogs and they always seem to have inside information about what went on, but will never admit where that information came from. They argue from certainty even though they were supposedely not involved.

Apparently Richard Tol drew the short straw this time.

Sep 27, 2011 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterGlacierman

Venter

More yawn. Invective, speculation, BS

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

Can you please refrain from adding remarks like "Yawn" to your comments. This is disrespectful and just leads to a foodfight.

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

@Glacierman
There is a Rapid Response Team, but I'm not a member.

I responded on three blogs I routinely follow because Pielke Jr is being unfair to GRL.

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Roger Pielke Jr

I follow your blog, so I will be happy to await further developments and your take on them. My reading of your paper is unlikely to resolve the issues with GRL and its editorial policy (and possibly confusion therein). That remains a matter between yourself, your co-author and the journal.

Please do not mistake me for an enemy. The Climate Fix was the best book on climate and policy that I read last year. Your analyses showing no trend in normalised weather disaster damage are persuasive.

However, is there not a danger in becoming over-confident of past trends as reliable indicators of future behaviour wrt extreme weather events? A sort of equal-and-opposite to erroneous claims that the anthropogenic signal is clear in existing damage statisitics?

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BH

Apologies. Next time someone here starts up with invective aimed at me, do I take it that the crozier will fall with equal speed and impartiality - on them?

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

@Richard Toll

"There is a Rapid Response Team, but I'm not a member.

I responded on three blogs I routinely follow because Pielke Jr is being unfair to GRL."

I thought ther RRT was to provide information to media outlets. Has their mission expanded?

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterGlacierman

BBD
I fear you do have a little trouble with your comprehension as, apparently does the GRL editor. Let's try a little parsing

...claims of a new homogeneous database (based on JTWC outside of the US) are grossly over-stated...
Fair enough so far.
...as there is much work needed before that can be genuinely claimed.
The work that is needed is not a major re-write of the paper. The reviewer is arguing (see infra) that more work needs to be done on the data before the claim made in the title can be justified. Therefore he
would like to see that aspect down-played and perhaps the title adjusted to read “Towards a homogeneous database …” or some such.
But since he has already said the paper is "publishable" as has Reviewer 1, where is the problem?

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Glacierman says (about AGW-proponent commenters on incidents like this one):

"They argue from certainty even though they were [...] not involved."

That applies to many of us here and my comment above was specifically aimed at pointing out that we really don't know all the details of what went on. Referee 2 had some stern words about the manuscript, but we have no way of knowing how serious he/she thought the alleged shortcomings were. It may be this referee clicked 'Major Revision' somewhere, without us being party to that information, and it may even be that he or she meant to click on 'Minor Revision' but mis-clicked. Maybe Referee 2 was in a bad mood that day, so although he/she would have been sympathetic to the message of the paper on that day, decided to demand major revisions. And maybe if Roger had changed one word in the title, and meekly re-submitted, it would have sailed through. On the other hand, maybe referee 2 (or referee 3, 4, ...) would then have found more reasons to gate-keep. For all those reasons, Roger's own comment here, i.e.:
I have not alleged a conspiracy. The decision is odd, certainly. Maybe just bad luck.

Seems like a wise one to me, and about as much as you can say about that particular case.

But posting the exchange online is instructive, nevertheless - we now have quite a collection of examples where reasonable papers by sceptics get delayed or rejected, and so-so or indeed bad papers by AGW-proponents get waved through. There's clearly a pattern.

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Harvey

Mike Jackson

When I have just asked BBD to refrain from adding gratuitous insults to comments, it's a little annoying to have you comment in similar vein straight afterwards. Please can we try to concentrate on polite exchanges.

Sep 27, 2011 at 4:56 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

BBD, No worries, I don't see you as an enemy of any sort ;-)

On future uncertainties in catastrophe losses given projections of changes in climate, I'll point you to our recent paper on signal detection:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/1/014003/fulltext

Sep 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Pielke, Jr.

I don't have time or interest to follow Richard Tol around the blogs correcting his nonsense, but you will note that he is much more cautious in his comments at my blog, and rightly so.

I will repeat this comment on Richard's views:

Richard Tol’s comments are puzzling at best. He has not seen our paper, nor does he know anything about tropical cyclone data. Further, he apparently is unaware that GRL defines “major revisions” in terms of the time needed to do them, rather than the definition that he invented:

“[M]anuscripts are routinely declined if the reviews point to a need for additional analyses, simulations, or other significant changes to support purported high-impact results or implications. However, for those submissions that show promise of reaching GRL’s criteria, authors are encouraged to resubmit following necessary revisions. While “resetting the clock” on manuscripts that require major revisions reduces the time-to-publication dates, the policy is motivated not by a desire to make the GRL editorial process appear as rapid as possible but rather by a desire to make the process be as rapid as possible.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/Editorial_GRL.pdf

I also find his comments curious about picking a fight, as anyone can see from my exchange with GRL, it was professional at all times. I simply lost trust in a process in which our editor refused to reply to very simply questions of clarification and the chief editor was unable or unwilling to point our what “major revisions” were needed. Thus, I’ll take my business elsewhere.

One might think that as an economist, Tol would perfectly well understand such a response.

Sep 27, 2011 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Pielke, Jr.

Apologies if I'm out of line.
It seemed a fair enough comment when I wrote it based on his 3.01pm comment

Sep 27, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>