Two climate denialists walk into a bar ...

The pond was delighted that one of the most destructive and hypocritical politicians of a generation - in a profession noted for destruction and hypocrisy - was out and about having a populist head-kicking go at the banks, long after it mattered ...

Talk about virtue signalling by the knight-loving onion muncher, and naturally the reptiles were on hand to faithfully transcribe and explain the astonishing insights ...

Eventually some of my own colleagues decided that it was all too hard?

No wonder some are getting tired of these meandering, self-justifying trips down memory lane, no wonder Liberal activists target Tony Abbott's seat over climate change policy …

But then frabjous joy, even better news came. The dog botherer was out on the prowl and ready to nip at the heels, and harass the ABC, all in glorious defence of the onion muncher …

Uh huh, well climate denialists must stick together, because after all, if you're going to destroy the planet, it's important to keep on suggesting you're just taking part in a congenial debate, which doesn't matter because it's just like arguing about the reality of Santa Claus or Jesus ...

After all, that's what activists of the dog botherer kind are all about …though the pond had to think long and hard about calling the dog botherer a journalist activist, when perhaps war criminal and planet-destroying activist might suit a little better ...

Ah the poor cawing Crowe …

Now he's disgraced himself and gone over to the dark side, which is to say to Fairfax, the traitor must be punished …

As for being both objective and pluralistic, the pond was immediately suspicious.

That sounds bizarre, and almost like multiculturalism, and that can't be right …or even worse, it might be French and deviantly relativist…

In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there is not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world, but rather many. Often this is associated with pragmatism, or conceptual, contextual, or cultural relativism. In the philosophy of science it may refer to the acceptance of co-existing scientific paradigms which though accurately describing their relevant domains are nonetheless incommensurable. (Greg Hunt it here).

What, you mean the dog botherer can think the onion muncher isn't destructive, but objectively, albeit in a subjective way, everybody else can recognise he's a gigantic tool?

The pond could go on and on about the fatuous stupidity of flinging around words like "objective" and "pluralistic", but frankly it would be incommensurate with a sensible use of anyone's time.

Never mind, objectively the pond knows that the onion muncher destroyed what the NBN might have become, with Malware as his willing accomplice.

Forget the destruction of the planet, the destruction of the NBN alone warrants him being labelled the most destructive politician of a generation …

And now, speaking of Malware and planetary destruction, Rowe was on song today, with more chirpy Rowe here ...