The end of the Internet?

The Internet is the one tool in the hands of us, the ordinary people which allows us access to a wide variety of information and opinions.  It empowers us, so we are able to form opinions which are truly our own.

After all, most of us are not able to explore every aspect of science and society (and all that) all on our own!  If I spend my time in the lab, chances are I will not be able to travel to far off places to see what is happening there.  And, if there is no news-source to tell me that, say, a brand new type of car fuelled by water has been invented in Brazil, it just might not occurr to me to be dissatisfied with my gas-guzzler here….

The internet corrects this.  It allows me to search all kinds of sites, read things written by people from all over the world, with all kinds of opinions.  Raw and unfiltered… so I must learn to differentiate between supportable fact and fanciful notions or downright manipulations, but – again – the internet enables me to do that.  I learn a lot by doing this.

Yet, perhaps, even before my younger son gets to high-school, this may no longer be the case…. 

Thanks to Blazing Catfur, here is a truly scary piece of information: published an article titled ‘Canada’s ISPs plan net censorship’.  Here are some excerpts:

The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether. “

The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.”

“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,”

In other words, the internet will no longer be what it is now.  No more ‘surfing’.  Instead, the internet might – in effect – become no more than an extention of the current cable-subscription service/directed advertizing. 

The ISPs will be paid by the ‘richest’ sites (which will increasingly include specific TV shows and other ‘big-budget’ mass-media entertainment) to include their websites on the ‘package’ of 50/100/200 websites, much as entertainment channels are now sold in ‘bundles’.  If one wishes to go to other sites, they will either be ‘billed per visit’, or (depending on the ‘package’ one can afford to purchase from the ISP, all other sites will be blocked.

Yes, blocked.

But, even if you could access them ‘per visit’ – how many sites do you check on a daily basis?  For fun, news, entertainment?  5?  10?  50?

How many would you visit if it cost you $1.00 each time you went on?

And, if people can no longer afford to frequent all but the richest, most ‘influential’ (with ISPs, of course) websites, how long before most of the rest become obsolete…extinct???

And who will then control the majority of the content seen on the internet?  It will be the entertainment industry!  The very same people who have already bougth full or partian control of so much of our news industry.   

 Well, at least there will be consistency…

Our movies and TV shows will show the proper ‘moral’ lesson to go along with the ‘news’ and the ‘internet chatter’ of the day.  The ‘social engineers’ at the helm of these multinational corporations (which is what the big entertainment companies are now) will have unprecendented power over the opinions we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are able to form.

Is this an isolated move?

I wish it were….  But with the ‘stuff’ that has been happening all around the world, aimed at intimidating, limiting and regulating the expressions of free speech on the internet, this appears to be only one little step in the march towards internet collectivism….


(Thank you, ‘Dust My Broom’, for this most excellent post.)

The radicalized ‘Church of Global Warming’

If anyone were not yet convinced that the ‘Global Warming Alarmism’ is anything but a new religion, its missionaries have stepped up to remove any lingering doubts doubts.

Few months ago, Canada’s high priest of the ‘Church of Global Warming’ himself, Dr. David Suzuki, had delivered a series of speeches in which he openly called for the jailing of those who disagree with his views on Global Warming.  Dr. Suzuki is a geneticist, and apparently, these credentials qualify him as the leading authority on Climate Change.

Applying this logic, an ornithologist would be qualified to assess building codes for earthquake-prone areas and a meteorologist is qualified to work as an obstetrician.  After all, they are all ‘scientists’!!! 

Just imagine…



But, I digress…

Is it surprising, then, that one of the founders of the ‘Church of Global Warming’, James Hansen, is doing much the same?  Lubos Motl, from The Reference Frame, has analyzed this and makes some very insightful points:

“…when it is already clear that his predictions have been bunk since the very beginning, James Hansen wants trials against oil firm chiefs who help to allow the people to understand that the predictions have been incorrect.”


“…when you start to see fringe pseudoscientists who not only want to use their subjective, sensationalist, and mad visions and personal interests to unseat all inconvenient CEOs and Congressmen – another explicitly formulated desire of Mr Hansen – but you also see that they seem to have a clique of misinformed or equally evil collaborators who have been partially successful, I am telling you: This is a damn serious situation that should be solved unless you want to repeat some truly black pages from the history.”

It is not the beliefs or opinions themselves which identify someone as a ‘radical religionist’, it is the fanticism of their belief that it is their duty to remove all obstacles to re-shaping society according to their own visions. 

Wikipedia (a great place to start info searches) says, under ‘political radicalism’, that:

‘The 19th century American Cyclopaedia of Political Science asserts that “radicalism is characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application”.’

And that certainly includes the politico-religious extremists spreading the AGW creed.

Radicalization of religions

This is indeed the threat facing us today:  radicalization of religions.

And any set of prescribed ‘truths’ which are ‘unquestionable’ by its adherents is a religion.  In keeping with the original meaning of the word ‘religios’, it is a belief system which ties effects to specific causes.  These causes need not be supernatural, but they may be.

We are used to thinking of ‘religion‘ as ‘worship’ of ‘supernatural god/creator/force/consciousness’, but this is only one face or ‘religion’.  Rather, it is the fact that there exist some certain ‘tennets’ or ‘beliefs’ or ‘principles’ that are seen as powerful, influential or important enough to be singled out for ‘special attention/worship’ and which may not be questioned that turns a simple ‘belief system’ or philosophy into a religion.

So, it really does not matter WHAT the particular religion teaches.  It does not matter whether this religion is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Secular Humanism, or Global Warming Alarmism.  The  teachings/beliefs themselves are really not the point…

It is the RADICALIZATION bit that is the problem.  It is the WAY in which the ‘radicalized believer’ truly and honestly believes that unless they impose their own beliefs on others, regardless of the cost, the whole society will come to an end/be punished/destroyed.  It is their depth of conviction that they are the only ones who are right and that it is their duty to institutionalize their beliefs which poses the real danger.   

THAT is radicalization, and THAT is the problem.  We need to stop confusing ‘symptoms’ with ’causes’…. 

Immigrants: escaping the ‘self-imposed ghettos’

Over the last few years, people all over the world have noticed ‘problems with immigrants’.

Failure to integrate leads to demands for the host culture to adapt to the immigrants, rather than the immigrants adapting to the culture and accepting the customs of their adoptive land.  Perpetuation of non-integration leads to immigrant-youth alienation, which, in turn, leads to immigrant-youth radicalization.  This leads to a vicious cycle of conflict between immigrants and their host cultures.


Immigrants come to their new, carefully selected homeland filled with dreams and hopes….  I know I did!!!  Along with these, there are also a few apprehensions, or dowright fears.  The greatest fear which I, as an immigrant, personally faced in coming to a new land is that of ‘the unknown’.

Yes, most of us educate ourselves about our new land before arriving here.  We study the demographics, the political system, the statistics about the population.  Yet, the textbooks can never capture the essence of the landscape, TV-documentaries never reveal the true atmosphere of a place – at best, these are mere glimpses that can help prepare us for the reality which our new homeland will be.

And we want there to be differences! If there were none, there would have been no point to having left our birthplaces!  We come here for the differences!

So, it is not the fact that there are differences that is frightening.  Rather, it is the not knowing the scope of the differences….and how we will be able to understand them and learn to adjust to them.  It is sort of like going through one’s teens all over again – but without the benefits of youth!  That is a very real fear most of us immigrants do face when we first arrive.

It is natural that we should reach out to others, who have gone through this before us.  Especially the members of our original ethnic groups who will have experienced these differences already, and know how to explain them in cultural and linguistic terms that are easiest for us to understand.  It is comforting to the new immigrant to see people who came from similar backgrounds are thriving and happy here, and we try to learn from thier experiences.  And that is good – usually…

As with everything, too much of a good thing becomes poisonous.

So it is with this type of help. 

The first, and perhaps most obvious, danger is that the person(s) doing the explaining of the customs have not successfully integrated themselves, that their understanding of the mainstream culture and how to integrate into it is flawed. 

This does not, in any way, shape or form, imply that there is any malice or ill intent here.  To the contrary.  There are many immigrants who misunderstand or misinterpret much of the cultural mainstream about them, and only partially succeed in integrating.  Perhaps their professional skills and/or their tenacity allow them to succeed economically, but they simply do not have the time, skills or desire to integrate socially.  Perhaps their social obligations to non-integrated members of the community hold them hostage.

It does not mean that they are any less intelligent, or any less ‘cultured’!  Not in the least!  Being able to successfully integrate into another society requires a specific set of skills, and ‘intelligence’ is not a deciding factor in these.  Nor is the ‘previous culture’, the one they are coming from, necessarily an indicator of how successful will be their social integration.  I really do not know what the indicators are, or what the required skills are – though mastering the language does have a lot to do with it.  Simply, I have observed that this phenomenon of ‘partial integration’ cuts across cultures, professions, education levels – even perceived ‘people skills’.

The people who have only partially integrated then naturally cleave towards other immigrants, who are a ‘fresh source’ of contact with their ‘original culture’.  After all, intelligent, sociable people have a need for ‘cultured expression’.  Those for whom the host culture is incomprehensible – or, at least, viewed in a skewed way – will seek out immigrants in order to satisfy this need to sustain the ‘cultured’ part of their soul. 

In turn, they honestly try to be helpful to the newcomers, helping them establish themselves here….mirroring their own un-integrated ways!  And much of what they do is helpful – yet, at what cost…

This is strike one against many new immigrants:  the very help they receive may, indeed, perpetuate misconceptions about the host society and actively prevent the new immigrants from successfully integrating within it.

The second, much less ‘visible’ or ‘correctible’ danger is ‘social indebtedness’.

One of the best human qualities is our reciprocity in kindness.  It is what we need for that most human of things:  building communities. It is one of our best qualities – yet, it is also this very same quality which may shackle immigrants and prevent them from successfully integrating into their host society.

When we receive help from someone – someone who is truly interested in helping us, not one who is trying to somehow get an advantage by doing things for us, but who is genuinely doing things because they want to help us, we feel truly gratefull, and ‘well-inclined’ towards them.  We wish to reciprocate their kindness.  Through this benevolence, this ‘reciprocity of voluntary kindnesses’, communities are built – one relationship at a time. 

In order to successfully itegrate, an immigrant needs to turn to its host society to satisfy her/his cultural needs. 

If this does not happen, there will not be anything but the most superficial integration.  It is therefore ESSENTIAL that these ‘community bonds’ be establilshed with members of the mainstream society – NOT that of the socially un-integrated immigrant community!

Yet, it is exactly within the un-integrated elements of the immigrant community that a newcomer to a society will find help, and it is with these people that the social bonds will begin to be built through ‘reciprocity of kindnesses’.

Before they realize it, many immigrants find themselves living (socially and/or physically) in a self-imposed ghettos, made up of immigrants from their background, who have not integrated into the host society.

As the size of this ‘ghetto’ grows, the need to integrate decreases.  Once the ‘community’ is large enough to satisfy both the economic and social needs of the immigrants, there will be little incentive to interact (much less integrate into) the host society.  Even worse:  any desire or attempt to integrate (outside the immigrant community) will be perceived by the ‘helpful’ elements within this sub-culture as ‘being ungrateful’ for the help received.  After all, this would be a rejection of their version of the host society – and, in effect, the rejection of the benefactors themselves!!!

Nobody wishes to be ungrateful or disrespectful of the very people who have gone out of their way to help her/him.  Eventually, there will be very strong pressure on the new immigrant to reject integration into the host society.

So, how do we escape this self-imposed ghetto?

I don’t know a ‘good’ way of going about this.  I know how I escaped – but I also know ‘my way’ cannot possibly work for everyone…. 

I escaped by ‘being eccentric’.

I’m the first one to admit it – I am eccentric.  And, ‘eccentric’ is one of ‘them irregular words’:

  1. I am ‘original’/’free thinker’
  2. You are ‘eccentric’
  3. he/she/it is ‘certifiably nuts’

I know I hurt people’s feelings along the way – people who were nice people, and tried to help me the best they could.  But, I was ‘equal’ in my treatment of others and rejection of their ‘help’.  Soon, my ‘would-like-to-be-benefactors’ realized that I was indeed grateful to them, in my own way, it’s just that I was a bit weird…. and incredibly pig-headed, headstrong and perhaps even a little bit stubborn! 

So, socially, I was ‘written off’ as a ‘lost cause’….. 

Still, when I became of ‘marrigable age’, there were MANY attempts to find an ‘appropriate match’ for me from within the ‘immigrant community’.  I suspect that male or female, all young immigrants – and children of immigrants – go through this to some degree.  And I also understand that this is really meant in the best possible way. 

But, well, that way, self-ghettoization lies! 

Again, I know I was seen as rude – but in the most polite way I could manage (yes, that is not saying much…), I rejected ALL ‘help’ equally.  I did understand the desire to help me drove these efforts, and thanked my ‘benefactors’ for their efforts, even as I rejected them.  As politely as possible, but firmly and definitely. 

My best help in this came from my parents.  They were supportive of my desire to fully integrate.  Had they had a different set of morals, had they thought my desire to actually exercise the freedoms my adopted homeland afforded me was an attack upon them and their honour, I might not have had the desire or courage to make my integration complete.  And to them go  my eternal thanks for empowering me like this!

In times when so many immigrants live in self-imposed ghettos, it is important for those of us who have succeeded in integrating into our host cultures to share our experiences and insights.  It is imperative that we go out of our way to help all other immigrants – not just those from out specific background – succeed the way we have, so they, too, may enjoy all that our new homeland has to offer us! 

It is just as important that we do identify ourselves as immigrants to ‘the mainstream culture’ – in order to make people see that immigrants CAN successfully integrate!  And, of course, to reassure them that we came here BECAUSE of thier culture and customs, and that we, the immigrants, want them preserved at all costs!!!

Therefore, it is also imperative that we, the well-adjusted immigrants, oppose most vehemently and most vocally the erosion of values in the cultures of our adoptive homelands!!!  We are the ones who MUST LEAD the forces that protect the cultures and customs whose protections we sought when we were the most vulnerable! 

After all, this is the only way we will be able to preserve our host cultures!  We have NOT picked them lightly, we picked them because we liked them. 

Perhaps we each and every immigrant is not completely comfortable with all aspects of the host culture, but the whole is what we came for, and this whole cannot exist without the bits we are not all that comfortable with….so we must protect ALL OF IT!!!! 

All right, I know I am ranting now – but, well, this is something really, really important! 

I do not wish to loose all that my adoptive homeland has to offer – especially its culture!  I came here for the benfits the ‘Western culture’ of individualism has to offer – and I’ll be damned if I don’t do everything in my power to preserve it for my children to enjoy!!!

Canada’s ‘relevances’

It seems that everywhere I turn to theses days, some icon of ‘Candadian-ness’ is being eroded, poo-pooed or called irrelevant.  And that makes me angry.

Why?  I happen to like Canada.  I am a Canadian by choice.  I immigrated here a few decades ago, because I liked what Canada was, its values, its attitudes to its people and peoples.  Perhaps that is why I am so upset to see that Canada erased, one little symbol, onle little custom at a time.

Last month, we celbrated Victoria Day:  the birthday of Queen Victoria, which also represents the birthday of Queen Elisabeth II, the queen of Canada.  Predictably, many people used this occassion to diminish the role of The Crown here, and ridicule our system of government, the constitutional monarchy.  I think that John Robson – who used to be a History professor, and understands the workings of political systems (brokien or not) had said it best in his column, where he heaps criticism on those who hurl uninformed abuse in the direction of our monarch:

“More generally, I don’t see what they think are sound constitutional principles. Do they favour a separation of powers, with or without checks and balances? Should the chief executive have a veto over legislation? Should Supreme Court appointments and foreign treaties require legislative assent or remain part of the executive prerogative? Or would they prefer “convention” government by an all-powerful legislature, a quasi-monarchical system where all power rests with an elected executive, or perhaps pseudo-aristocratic government by appointed judges accountable only to their own impeccable political correctness? Do these people have a theory of government at all? Resentment doesn’t qualify, and neither does insolence.”

“If people don’t know our history, including why we honour Queen Victoria, they should learn it. Good government isn’t just for dead white males. All Canadians enjoy an enviable constitutional heritage. And while suggestions for refining it are welcome, they require a foundation more solid than ill-informed scoffing and hitting distinguished people in the head with hard objects.”

Mr. Robson is right, as he so often is.

Then, last week, CBC – our tax-payer funded TV corporation, has decided to not renew the rights to a silly little song that it had used for some 40 years to announce ‘Hockey Night in Canada’ – its only profitable show.  OK, not a big deal, it’s just a jingle.  Except, that is not the point.  The point is that so many Canadians identify this song with their childhood and their, well, ‘Canadian-ness’, that the fact this overbloated, condescending, brainwhashing-focused public white elephant (the CBC, in case I lost you) thinks so little of preserving it…well, it is a symptom of their disconnect with the populace they truly think they represent! 

The CBC big-wigs think the jingle irrelevant – and by doing so, they are telling a lot of Canadians that their concept of what makes them Canadian is also irrelevan, even unacceptable in this brave new world of theirs.

And, of course, this goes hand in hand with the erosions of our basic rights – our naturual heritage as Canadians and free peoples – like ‘that American concept’  (as a Human Rights ‘inquisitor’, and a public servant, had called it) of freedom of speech.

Yes, these are all connected.

We must start paying attention to the little things, as well as the big ones, because together they weave the fabric of who we – as Canadians, as ‘Westerners’, as free human beings – are. 

Tarek Fatah’s most brilliant comment!!!

It seems that people all over the world are observing Canada’s shame… 

This week, the British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal (thier Provincial flavour of the Canadian Human Rights’ Commission) held hearings of the complaint against the respected Canadian mainstream news magazine, Macleans, and one of its writers, Mark Steyn.  So, what was their crime?

An article Mr. Steyn wrote (actually, an excerpt from his book, America Alone), and Macleans magazine published, was deemed to be potentially harmful, because it quoted a Norwegian Imam who proudly boasted that ‘[Muslims] multiply like mosquitos’.  This, of course, could possibly cast Muslims in a negative light….so, REGARDLESS OF ITS VERACITY, it ‘ought’ never have been published!

According to whom?  Several extremist Islamists….and, by coincidence, 3 of them are just-graduating law students trying to make a name for themselves in the legal profession….  By the way, none of the complainants, or defendants, lives/has head office in BC – which makes this choice of jurisdiction somewhat curious, to say the least.

There are many wonderful bloggers, some of whom have been ‘live blogging’ from the hearings.  You can find some of them here.

One place through which I was attempting to follow the events of Friday, 6th of June, 2008 was the day of ‘final arguments’  (now that I think of it, it is a little funny that it fell onto D-day!) was Macleans’ own blog.  There, I came across a MOST BRILLIANT comment posted by the past president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Mr. Tarek Fatah.

This man knows his stuff!

Just linking to the page itself, the comment might get lost among the veritable sea of outrage, common sense, and – well – human nature.  Therefore, with Mr. Fatah’s permission, I am posting the whole of his comment.  It speaks for itself!

Dear ‘Just Living,’

Try living a full and free life instead of hiding behind a cyber-burka and a name that tells all, viz., Just Living.

To label all people on this forum as ‘bigots,’ is not surprising as it is the only tool employed by Islamists hell-bent on upholding the jihadi doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada.

I know it is difficult, but is it possible that the only people contributing to Islamophobia in Canada are the mulla-elmasry duo?

What did these twits achieve other than to embarrass all Muslim Canadians, who appear to held hostage by the blackmail of community patriotism?

Last night one of these imams came on the Michael Coren Show to discuss polygamy and made such an ass of himself, waving the Quran at the host, mocking Christianity on a Christian TV station and then claiming there was Islamophobia in this country! When I defended my faith by explaining that polygamy was a medieval Bedouin tradition meant to take care of war widows, the Imam started reading from the Quran, screaming, “My religion allows me to marry four wives…Tarek Fatah knows nothing about Islam,” then he sneered at me with ugly facial gestures, waving hands and feminine accent, “Tarek Fatah is modern … moddderrrnnn Muslim…He is not a Muslim,” as if modernity itself was his enemy!

Dear ‘Just Living’, start living and while you are at it, if you are looking for bigots, chances are you will find them in Elmasry’s mosque or Dr. Habib’s clinic, definitely not on this Macleans forum. Sarcasm? May be. Anger? Yes and justifiably so. Islamophiobia? Not a shred of it in five days of discussion.

Dear ‘Just Living,’ the notion that the US or Canada are anti-Muslim does not withstand scrutiny. The number one selling author in both countries for over two years is a Muslim: Dr. Khalid Hossieni whose novel ‘Kite Runner’ has made so many Canucks shed tears on Go Trains and in their solitudes as they embraced the young poor boys of Kabul as their very own family. There is more.

The most sold poet in all of North America is the medieval Muslim poet Rumi. Why would Americans choose to read Maulana Rumi if they hate Muslims?

The most popular sportsman in US for decades is Muhammad Ali Clay. This mischievous boxer who titillated and entertained all of us with his sly smile and political wit. And who still stings like butterfly and floats like a bee! If Americans and the US hate Muslims, why do they love Muhammad Ali, Rumi and read the Kite Runner?

Why does CNN give Ali Velshi so much airtime prominence if it is anti-Muslim? Why, if the West hates Islam, is Farid Zakaria the editor of Newsweek magazine and why is permitted to host his own show on PBS and CNN?

Right in the heart of Vancouver where the boy-band is spewing hate against Canada and its free press, lives Senator Mobina Jaffer. Does her appointment to the senate reflect an anti-Muslim bias in the West or Canada? How doe we end up electing a young Muslim lawyer from Ottawa Centre if Canaucks are anti-Islam? And if your anger is directed at the Conservative flank of Canadian political spectrum, why them would the Reform Party, then the Alliance and later the Conservatives elect Rahim Jaffer as an MP since 1993. Or do you discount him to be a good Muslim simply because he is smart, good looking, dates a lovely MP and wears stylish suits, and heavens forbid, has sense of humour that borders impish naughtiness, a trait that would help such cry babies as Khurrum Awan and Faisal ‘Joseph’ to grow up and stop sucking on their thumbs as they utter drivel.

Dear ‘Just Living,’ please start living.

Mr. Fatah could not be more correct!

One lie comes out to light!

As I wrote yesterday:  a lie repeated often enough eventually becomes perceived as the truth (because of the mechanisms our brain uses to process its input), I had no idea one frequently repeated – and widely accepted as true – statement would be proven to be a big, fat lie!!!

Perhaps only Canadians are following the circus happening in the Star Chambers of the British Columbia HRC .  (The commission sometimes has tribunals – but as they are the same people, the names get confusing…officially, they call themselves tribunal in BC- usually they say commission/tribunal.  I think they are just trying to confuse us.) 

What is happening there?

The BC HRC(/T) is dragging a mainstream news magazine, Macleans, and a writer, Mark Steyn, ‘onto the carpet’ for having the audacity to quote a Norwegian Imam.  Apparently, his words could cause prejudice or hate against Muslims in BC, and so they should not be allowed to print them.  The fact that the statement was quoted truly and accurately – and in context – is no defence.  It is the fact that the statement could be perceived as ‘hateful’ or ‘demeaning’ .  Not was, just could be.  So, no need to go through that pesky business of proving any actual damages….

What is perhaps most frightening is that TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE!!!

The complainants live in Ontario.  The magazine is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.  The writer lives in the USA.  Yet, the complaint is brought forward in BC….among other places (yes, double or tripple jeopardy do not apply).

One of the key pillars of their position, the thing that demonstrated how ‘unreasonable’ the magazine’s behaviour was, was the complainant’s insistence that MacLeans refused their suggestion that they publish an impartial article on that topic, written by a mutually acceptable writer.

Today, the truth comes out!  This was NEVER part of their demands! 

They never asked for a ‘more neutral’ article to be published, to be written by a mutually acceptable – or agreed upon (one variation wording of the LIE) writer.  Never.  One of the complainants admitted this, today, under oath, while questioned by a lawyed for Macleans who was actually present at that meeting where this alleged request took place.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Thanks for Blazing Catfur for the tip!