Canada's long, slow decline

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I disagree with that.  Canada has always had a very strong space program, from having the fastest aircraft (until Eisenhower asked us to shut it down) to being the third country to launch a satellite into space to the Canadarm to leading ISS missions.  It's not about risk-taking, which Canada does very well.  Read our world war histories.  It's about avoiding reckless policies like the 2nd Amendment.

 

...and avoiding riskier opportunities as well.   Canada didn't launch anything....another nation launched that Canadian built satellite...and Canada still can't.   The doomed CF-105 was not the fastest aircraft, and failed for the same risk averse disease that holds Canada back in many areas.

Canadians helped to put men on the moon...but had to leave Canada to do it.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

...and avoiding riskier opportunities as well.   Canada didn't launch anything....another nation launched that Canadian built satellite...and still can't.   The doomed CF-105 was not the fastest aircraft, and failed for the same risk averse disease that holds Canada back in many areas.

 

You clearly know little about this important historical achievement: the first aircraft to approach Mach 2, successfully developed in Canada.  I did some consulting at Orenda, which developed the engines behind these planes.  The Avro Arrow was groundbreaking at the time but shut down for political and budgetary reasons.  Basics:

A top speed of Mach 1.98 was achieved, and this was not at the limits of its performance.

Avro Arrow. Avro Arrow (CF-105), an advanced, supersonic, twin-engined, all-weather interceptor jet aircraft developed by A.V. ... Test flights indicated that with the proper engines the plane could well be the world's fastest and most advanced interceptor.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You clearly know little about this important historical achievement: the first aircraft to approach Mach 2, successfully developed in Canada.  I did some consulting at Orenda, which developed the engines behind these planes.  The Avro Arrow was groundbreaking at the time but shut down for political and budgetary reasons.  Basics:

 

Please don't turn this thread into another Avro Arrow CF-105 beat down....but since you insist on cheering on this Great Canadian Myth:

The Canadian program needed the following American resources to even complete development:

• Pratt & Whitney engines (Iroquois engine was never fully developed)
• Wind tunnel testing at Langely, Virginia, USA
• B-47 engine test bed bomber (returned damaged to the USAF)
• Nike (American) rockets for high speed shape testing over Lake Ontario
• U.S. developed missile and fire control

Canadians made the decision to cancel the expensive program that had no buyers for an interceptor aircraft that never made it to production...even Canada didn't want it.   Meanwhile, the proven speed and superior combat radius of the Convair F-106 was already in production years earlier at much lower cost.

Worse yet....A.V. Roe was British in origin !

 

 

http://taylorempireairways.com/2010/08/myths-are-public-dreams-dreams-are-private-myths/

Edited November 15, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...and then there is this....from a Canadian:

Quote

While Canadians are proud - in our typically understated way - of their country, they feel it has fallen short of its potential. Famously Wilfred Laurier declared that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. Instead we ended it as a well respected, and well run, middle power. Not very flashy, rather dull but the sort of place you'd want to live in. Like the suburbs with excessive amounts of snow. That good but not brilliant sense of ourselves breed a strange envy (especially toward America) and uncertainly. Human beings need explanations, even bizarre ones. The "fall of the Arrow" became Exhibit A in trying to explain our not quite world class status.

https://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/08/myth-of-the-arrow.html

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Please don't turn this thread into another Avro Arrow CF-105 beat down....but since you insist on cheering on this Great Canadian Myth:

The Canadian program needed the following American resources to even complete development:

• Pratt & Whitney engines (Iroquois engine was never fully developed)
• Wind tunnel testing at Langely, Virginia, USA
• B-47 engine test bed bomber (returned damaged to the USAF)
• Nike (American) rockets for high speed shape testing over Lake Ontario
• U.S. developed missile and fire control

Canadians made the decision to cancel the expensive program that had no buyers for an interceptor aircraft that never made it to production...even Canada didn't want it.   Meanwhile, the proven speed and superior combat radius of the Convair F-106 was already in production years earlier at much lower cost.

Worse yet....A.V. Roe was British !

 

 

http://taylorempireairways.com/2010/08/myths-are-public-dreams-dreams-are-private-myths/

They were never developed because the project was cancelled!  It was canceled by Diefenbaker.  The case made was that Canada couldn't afford to develop both a aircraft and missile program.  Diefenbaker came to power with the promise of public spending and axed the program.  That was the public story, but actually there was foreign pressure and it was point of pride at that time for countries like Britain and the U.S. not to buy other countries' military tech. Canada once had a very high military aircraft production capacity.  I don't deny that parts of most aircraft came from different allied countries.  We shared a supply chain.

In WW2 alone:

Wasps, Mosquitos, and Hawker Hurricanes

Canadian aviation industries manufactured engines and other parts for various aircraft, as well as complete bomber and fighter aircraft such as the Lancaster, the Mosquito (whose laminated fuselages were made of wood harvested from the forests of British Columbia), and the Hawker Hurricane, to mention a few.

• Production in the aircraft industry went from extremely low levels before the war to 4,000 military aircraft a year by the end of the war. At its peak, the industry employed 120,000 men and women.
• Canada assembled a total of 16,000 military aircraft, 10,000 of which were shipped directly to Britain, and the remainder going either to the United States or remaining in Canada for use in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

They were never developed because the project was cancelled!  It was canceled by Diefenbaker.  The case made was that Canada couldn't afford to develop both a aircraft and missile program.  Diefenbaker came to power with the promise of public spending and axed the program.  That was the public story, but actually there was foreign pressure and it was point of pride at that time for countries like Britain and the U.S. not to buy other countries' military tech. Canada once had a very high military aircraft production capacity.  I don't deny that parts of most aircraft came from different allied countries.  We shared a supply chain.

 

Actually, the CF-105 was cancelled by Diefenbaker's cabinet after Canada's military staff rejected it.  The Liberals would have killed it too.

Canada was a colony for UK aircraft design and production.

All you are doing is reinforcing the sad history of potential never realized....dreams that died...in Canada.

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, the CF-105 was cancelled by Diefenbaker's cabinet after Canada's military staff rejected it.  The Liberals would have killed it too.

Canada was a colony for UK aircraft design and production.

All you are doing is reinforcing the sad history of potential never realized....dreams that died...in Canada.

Nice try.  Canada punched above its weight in both world wars.  We were in it from the beginning in both wars.  When something becomes a focus for our people and government, it gets done.  Your lies will never undo those great achievements.  Avro Arrow was not a UK invention.

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

...and then there is this....from a Canadian:

 

Really, you want to dig up anti-Canadian quotes from Canadians?  I could dig up anti-American quotes from Americans.  This is a dumb and endless war.  Maybe spend a bit more time in the rain thinking about the loss of soldiers' lives rather than starting wars, but then again:

“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
― Mark Twain

Edited November 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nice try.  Canada punched above its weight in both world wars.  We were in it from the beginning in both wars.  When something becomes a focus for our people and government, it gets done.  Your lies will never undo those great achievements.

 

Because Canada was part of the problem....The British Empire !    Thanks for helping out in two catastrophic world wars for God and King.

Your delusional myths are not reality...the CF-105 died in development...never achieved its potential and never would in Canada.

 

Quote

Really, you want to dig up anti-Canadian quotes from Canadians?  I could dig up anti-American quotes from Americans.  This is a dumb and endless war.  Maybe spend a bit more time in the rain thinking about the loss of soldiers' lives rather than starting wars, but then again:

 

Some Canadians do not blindly believe the myths that other Canadians cling to like a religion.

Edited November 15, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Because Canada was part of the problem....The British Empire !    Thanks for helping out in two catastrophic world wars for God and King.

Your delusional myths are not reality...the CF-105 died in development...never achieved its potential and never would in Canada.

 

 

Some Canadians do not blindly believe the myths that other Canadians cling to like a religion.

I prefer our myths to yours because they aren't so riddled with propaganda.  You're right though: What was the point of fighting the Axis powers in the 2nd World War?  Are you kidding me?  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I prefer our myths to yours because they aren't so riddled with propaganda.  You're right though: What was the point of fighting the Axis powers in the 2nd World War?  Are you kidding me?  

 

Well, at least you finally admit that there are such myths spinning around the Canadian national identity and psyche.

If Canada is in decline, it won't be saved by pointing at the decline of other nations for comfort.

 

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Well, at least you finally admit that there are such myths spinning around the Canadian national identity and psyche.

If Canada is in decline, it won't be saved by pointing at the decline of other nations for comfort.

 

True, but we are on the ascent.  Canada is not in decline, but the common denominator between the commentators on here who say so is that they are all basically anti-immigrant and alt-right.  Their idea of decline is in many ways most progressives’ idea of progress.  So much depends on your ideological viewpoint these days.  Sad.  

Edited November 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

True, but we are on the ascent.  Canada is not in decline, but the common denominator between the commentators on here who say so is that they are all basically anti-immigrant and alt-right.  Their idea of decline is in many ways most progressives’ idea of progress.  So much depends on your ideological viewpoint these days.  Sad.  

 

I don't know if Canada is in decline or not...I am not Canadian.

But there are plenty of folks in Canada who readily insist that the USA is in decline...maybe as a distraction to what is going on in their own backyard.

[DogOnPorch]

 

29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't know if Canada is in decline or not...I am not Canadian.

But there are plenty of folks in Canada who readily insist that the USA is in decline...maybe as a distraction to what is going on in their own backyard.

Out of that list of aircraft, it was the F-4 Phantom II that came-out on top. Both a superior dog-fighter (who knew?) and a good interceptor...at home on a carrier deck or a runway.

And Canada didn't want them...lol. Instead...the Voodoo and Starfighter...neither very suitable for Canada. Air strikes in a 104? Seriously?

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Top 5 Winners

 

These 'Chamber of Commerce' style rankings prove very little. If you look more closely at academic analyses, Canada's rankings across a number of indices have been declining throughout much of the recent past, except perhaps during the 2008/09 recession when we had the benefit of a temporary reprieve as a result of high energy prices.

Edited November 15, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Out of that list of aircraft, it was the F-4 Phantom II that came-out on top. Both a superior dog-fighter (who knew?) and a good interceptor...at home on a carrier deck or a runway.

And Canada didn't want them...lol. Instead...the Voodoo and Starfighter...neither very suitable for Canada. Air strikes in a 104? Seriously?

 

Indeed....Delta wings do have limitations.    Canada actually took Voodoo transfers from the USAF in exchange for more investment in Pinetree early warning.   F-4 Phantom II production was booked out for at least 10 years !  

The reference above hints that Canadian brass was not very happy with Avro's performance and support for CF-100 Canuck....had low expectations for the more complex CF-105.

[DogOnPorch]

51 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed....Delta wings do have limitations.    Canada actually took Voodoo transfers from the USAF in exchange for more investment in Pinetree early warning.   F-4 Phantom II production was booked out for at least 10 years !  

The reference above hints that Canadian brass was not very happy with Avro's performance and support for CF-100 Canuck....had low expectations for the more complex CF-105.

 

By 1960, the idea of lobbing a low yield nuke into a crowd of hydrogen bomb armed Tu-95s was viewed with the folly it deserves. Who knew Soviet thermonuclear fuses were so touchy? A B-52 can accidentally drop two 4 megaton surprises onto North Carolina and the safety features kicked in. Russian H-Bombs? Good luck....

Edited November 15, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[cannuck]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's really simple, we decided to put economics ahead of virtue.

This decline is also very global in nature so it's not just us at fault.

Problem is: neither we nor almost all of the rest of the world really understand what is good economics and what is really bad.  So, we/they embrace the really bad (which is speculative gain run wild).  If one grants the privilege to banksters to use all of the money they can lay their hands on for nothing but wealth redistribution, nothing is left for productive work that creates wealth (at a much lower rate than the "money for nothing" of speculative transactions).

There is no money available to find the "virtuous" efforts of man if we simply give a tiny part of the world population access to ALL of the money for nothing but speculative economic suicide.

As far as Canada vs. everywhere else goes:  about 40 years ago, we sold our businesses and set out to find the best place in the world to raise children.   I had a contract that allowed/required extensive travel and communication internationally, and we short listed the places that met most (none met all) of our ideals.  We ended up moving to SK - sure glad we did.  Depending on how one applies the metrics for reference, you can make ANY country look good or bad.  I voted with my wallet and over a year's work for Canada.    Well, specifically WESTERN Canada (I am from the East but at that time we lived in the North).

As fa as the CF 106 goes:  I have had several friends who were young engineers in that programme, and one of my former business associates was the RCAF acceptance test pilot for the F-104 (I still fly today with one of his squadron mates).   B-C hit that one right on the head.  The airplane was redundant but the intent was to try to build a Canadian military aviation industry.   As with anything else government tries to do - the result was total fiscal and economic disaster.

BTW: The 104 was strictly and interceptor - never intended for strike.

Edited November 15, 2018 by cannuck

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

 

BTW: The 104 was strictly and interceptor - never intended for strike.

 

If I recall correctly...our CF-104s were actually intended for ground attack duty rather than knocking down bombers. The RCAF had been hoping for the Republic F-105 Thunderchief...a real nuclear strike fighter-bomber capable of Mach 1 loaded at sea level. But Ottawa/Canadair had a deal in place with Lockheed to build the CF-104's wings and tail sections...so here's your new "bomber"...by default.

To add: The 105 went on to aviation fame as a workhorse in the Viet-Nam War...screeching into Route Pack 6 at top speed while the 104 (introduced fairly early to SEA) was quietly withdrawn from the conflict as completely unsuitable for the mission at hand.

Edited November 15, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Problem is: neither we nor almost all of the rest of the world really understand what is good economics and what is really bad.  So, we/they embrace the really bad (which is speculative gain run wild).  If one grants the privilege to banksters to use all of the money they can lay their hands on for nothing but wealth redistribution, nothing is left for productive work that creates wealth (at a much lower rate than the "money for nothing" of speculative transactions).

There is no money available to find the "virtuous" efforts of man if we simply give a tiny part of the world population access to ALL of the money for nothing but speculative economic suicide.

As far as Canada vs. everywhere else goes:  about 40 years ago, we sold our businesses and set out to find the best place in the world to raise children.   I had a contract that allowed/required extensive travel and communication internationally, and we short listed the places that met most (none met all) of our ideals.  We ended up moving to SK - sure glad we did.  Depending on how one applies the metrics for reference, you can make ANY country look good or bad.  I voted with my wallet and over a year's work for Canada.    Well, specifically WESTERN Canada (I am from the East but at that time we lived in the North).

As fa as the CF 106 goes:  I have had several friends who were young engineers in that programme, and one of my former business associates was the RCAF acceptance test pilot for the F-104 (I still fly today with one of his squadron mates).   B-C hit that one right on the head.  The airplane was redundant but the intent was to try to build a Canadian military aviation industry.   As with anything else government tries to do - the result was total fiscal and economic disaster.

BTW: The 104 was strictly and interceptor - never intended for strike.

It's always been a challenge for us to know whether to build it ourselves or buy from other countries.  We gave up making submarines.  Trudeau Sr. generalized the armed forces with those terrible uniforms and massive cuts to military spending.  The problem with renting or buying other countries' gear is that you lose the production, maintenance, and training capacity and other expertise.  We often run the risk of trying to be all things to all people in Canada, which is impossible for a small country.  It's arguable that we're getting closer to a population size that can support more variety of specialization.  This is another reason that immigration can still play an important role in Canada, as a larger population creates the economy of scale that makes more made-in-Canada industries viable.  However, it's a fine balance.  How big do we want to get?  Some argue we shouldn't grow larger than we are now. 

With regard to the "banksters" doing casino capitalism (creating speculation bubbles with sketchy investments that eventually collapse and require bailouts from middle class taxpayers), these problems are easily solved by regulating banks much more heavily.  Military expenditures can also be a waste of taxpayers' money.  It's important to ask whom government tax and investment policy benefits the most.  I promise you that current U.S. banking deregulation will cause another 2008-style economic mess that working people will pay for.  I also promise that middle class people will be saddled with servicing the debt amassed to pay for the huge tax cuts for the rich.  At least Canada's banking system is more carefully regulated and our tax policy directed toward helping the middle class and poor.   This creates a more level playing field for children and a safer society with more opportunity and less income disparity.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

37 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's always been a challenge for us to know whether to build it ourselves or buy from other countries.  We gave up making submarines.  Trudeau Sr. generalized the armed forces with those terrible uniforms and massive cuts to military spending.  The problem with renting or buying other countries' gear is that you lose the production, maintenance, and training capacity and other expertise.  We often run the risk of trying to be all things to all people in Canada, which is impossible for a small country.  It's arguable that we're getting closer to a population size that can support more variety of specialization.  This is another reason that immigration can still play an important role in Canada, as a larger population creates the economy of scale that makes more made-in-Canada industries viable.  However, it's a fine balance.  How big do we want to get?  Some argue we shouldn't grow larger than we are now.

Where military equipment is concerned, Canada just doesn't have enough of a stake in the international geopolitical game to justify the development and maintenance of a military-industrial complex. Even in high value-add industries like commercial aircraft production, when we develop high quality products we generally can't ramp up our efforts into world-beating enterprises. The Bombardier C-series fiasco, where a Canadian company basically and unceremoniously gave away a high quality product developed at a cost of $6B to a foreign company, was in the end precipitated by American action intended to protect its main commercial aircraft manufacturer, Boeing. Thus, real market rules didn't apply. Simply put, we can't beat the Americans, or the Europeans, or the Chinese or any other big economic entity at the mercantilist game, which forces us to become either niche or branch plant producers and trade agreements have largely ruled out the branch plant approach. Immigration can't and won't resolve Canada's small-market second-tier conundrum and it's a pipe dream to imagine that it can. I agree that we should limit population growth and instead focus on wage and productivity enhancement. I suspect that doing this will in the long run render ordinary Canadians much more prosperous than will be the case with any other strategy.

Edited November 15, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Where military equipment is concerned, Canada just doesn't have much skin in the international geopolitical game to justify the development and maintenance of a military-industrial complex. Even in high value-add industries like commercial aircraft production, when we develop high quality products we generally can't ramp up our efforts into world-beating enterprises. The Bombardier C-series fiasco, where a Canadian company basically and unceremoniously gave away a high quality product developed at a cost of $6B to a foreign company, was in the end precipitated by American action intended to protect its main commercial aircraft manufacturer, Boeing. Thus, real market rules didn't apply. Simply put, we can't beat the Americans, or the Europeans, or the Chinese or any other big economic entity at the mercantilism game, which forces us to become either niche or branch plant producers and trade agreements have largely ruled out the branch plant approach. Immigration can't and won't resolve Canada's small market second-tier conundrum and it's a pipe dream to imagine that it can. I agree that we should limit population growth and instead focus on wage and productivity enhancement. I suspect that doing this will in the long run render ordinary Canadians much more prosperous than will be the case under with any other strategy.

Well I disagree on reducing immigration levels right now.  It does have to be more controlled and directed to meet Canadian interests.  Hitting the 100 million population mark would make us the size of Germany and larger than both France and the UK.  It would make a highly equipped, specialized military viable, with all of the attendant industries to support it.  I agree that, while we currently need to boost our military, we certainly don't need a massive expansion, as neither our country's size nor our security concerns warrant it.  Bombardier was cornered into selling off a division of production due to unfair and illegal US trade practices, that it was ultimately able to circumvent.  In the end, Canada retained much of the expertise and employment connected to the C-Series aircraft, so supporting it wasn't a waste of money, though all forms of industry subsidies are questionable and require careful scrutiny.  I agree that in the near term, until Canada grows much larger, which is probably inevitable, we should focus on boosting technology, productivity, and value-add, especially in niche industries where we can lead.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Well I disagree on reducing immigration levels right now.  It does have to be more controlled and directed to meet Canadian interests.  Hitting the 100 million population mark would make us the size of Germany and larger than both France and the UK.  It would make a highly equipped, specialized military viable, with all of the attendant industries to support it.  I agree that, while we currently need to boost our military, we certainly don't need a massive expansion, as neither our country's size nor our security concerns warrant it.  Bombardier was cornered into selling off a division of production due to unfair and illegal US trade practices, that it was ultimately able to circumvent.  In the end, Canada retained much of the expertise and employment connected to the C-Series aircraft, so supporting it wasn't a waste of money, though all forms of industry subsidies are questionable and require careful scrutiny.  I agree that in the near term, until Canada grows much larger, which is probably inevitable, we should focus on boosting technology, productivity, and value-add, especially in niche industries where we can lead.

 

100 million via immigration?? That's quite insane. I like my Canada nice n' quiet. Not full of religious wars.

[turningrite]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well I disagree on reducing immigration levels right now.  It does have to be more controlled and directed to meet Canadian interests.  Hitting the 100 million population mark would make us the size of Germany and larger than both France and the UK.  I agree that in the near term, until Canada grows much larger, which is probably inevitable, we should focus on boosting technology, productivity, and value-add, especially in niche industries where we can lead.

100 million? We will not reach this level and neither should we try to. Nor will we become a major international geopolitical power and neither do we need to. Canada now has one of the fastest growing populations among Western economies and yet is facing massive social and economic problems as a result. Our middle class, in particular, has declined precipitously. I don't think there's any viable or rational basis for promoting large-scale population growth in a place with a cold climate in which most of the population is for practical purposes restricted to living on a small proportion of the country's territory. Realistically, I believe we should aim at relative population stability (perhaps 50 million, at most, by the end of the century) in combination with enhancement of productivity and incomes. We should figure out what we can best do and what we can constructively cooperate with others to do. Population growth is no panacea. Those countries that are expected to experience the most population growth throughout this century are also for the most part also predicted to experience the biggest social, economic and environmental problems. Why join that club?

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

100 million? We will not reach this level and neither should we try to. Nor will we become a major international geopolitical power and neither do we need to. Canada now has one of the fastest growing populations among Western economies and yet is facing massive social and economic problems as a result. Our middle class, in particular, has declined precipitously. I don't think there's any viable or rational basis for promoting large-scale population growth in a place with a cold climate in which most of the population is for practical purposes restricted to living on a small proportion of the country's territory. Realistically, I believe we should aim at relative population stability (perhaps 50 million, at most, by the end of the century) in combination with enhancement of productivity and incomes. We should figure out what we can best do and what we can constructively cooperate with others to do. Population growth is no panacea. Those countries that are expected to experience the most population growth throughout this century are also for the most part also predicted to experience the biggest social, economic and environmental problems. Why join that club?

Where are you getting this idea that Canada is facing "massive social and economic problems"?  All the stats say that our economy is running on all cylinders, unemployment is at record lows, and national unity is strong.  It sounds like xenophobia.  Perhaps the fear-mongering from the south is taking its toll?

Edited November 15, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Where are you getting this idea that Canada is facing "massive social and economic problems"?  All the stats say that our economy is running on all cylinders, unemployment is at record lows, and national unity is strong?  It sounds like xenophobia.

 

Typical defence when presented with a differing opinion.