Medlar Comfits, 2007. Author: Anna - Calodema

Report Abuse Next Blog»Create Blog Sign InM E D L A R C O M F I T S& M A G N I F I C A N T S — M A G N I F I C E N T I N S I G N I F I C A N T SA N N A T A M B O U R ' S1 4 A U G U S T 2 0 0 7on Trevor J. Hawkeswood - Part 2: Theswashbuckling knowledge-sharerM Y O T H E R B O X O F C O N F E C T I O N S —Anna Tambour and OthersF R E S H C O M F I T SThe F Queen's adviceThey all say Ee! at viriiThe plot-driven beetleKilling what we stand for to save whatwe stand fo...Go to Vanessa Ruiz's Street AnatomyGreat and beautiful sciencephotography: The 2007 ...Finding gems in the crush of booksDevelopments in technolustBev Wigney's "Incredible beauty"choicesA deformed she-oak by the highway30 Jan 2010 — POSTSCRIPT: Therehas been enormous controversy aboutthe scientific integrity of this journaland about Trevor Hawkeswood, soplease read the comments, too,especially today's post by "R".I applaud scientists who uphold thetenets of true science, and havecalled for those standards to beupheld also, in posts such as "Soreally. What IS science? Meremiracles?"So the controversy about Hawkeswood is important insofar as itillustrates how much scientific integrity matters to some scientists.If only they would speak up more when it comes to "science" in theaid of profits or a well-funded machine of a campaign.How, for instance, could the Himalaya melt debacle happen?--------------------------------------------------------------------CALODEMA natural history and biology journalU P F R O M T H E C E L L A RThe adventures of discovering theellemehnopeePortraits of muck in a rainbarrel's lid:The Invertebrates of IllawarraOde to a dung beetleGiles Watson's Poetry-"Littlecelebrations of the secret"Adverb apoplecstasyThe breakers' laundryBedside books and a public bedsidemannerIn my introduction to this unboxable footsore researcher and prolificwriter, I didn't touch upon his journal, Calodema, a publication sosurprisingly fascinating that I urged him to adjust his subscriptionprices so that subscriptions are attractive. And they are now, thoughthis is one journal that is worth every issue at full price.The surprise is that the articles in Calodema (named after the coverstar of Hawkeswood's indispensable though long outof print Beetles of Australia, Angus & RobertsonPublishers, 1987) are page-turners, even to thislayperson.The writing in Calodema is never dry, thoughsometimes it is scorching. There are topics thatresound far beyond the world of natural history. One

Postcard from the Fifth KingdomXzamadhoom and the Lamp of HistoryRestaurants & Critics & Peppermills &BlingWild sorrelHow to play the cowsOptical illusions, spiders andwaspishnessWhat the octopus?What 'ordinary' really meansMy father's hobby time-machine: Amadeleine-free remembranceSo really. What IS science? Meremiracles?Do English-as-a-second-languagewriters (and speakers) have more fun?The big picture and little thingsLove letters from D_____sThe first Onuspedia entry: 'Skwandro'Remains of a Christmas beetleIndividualantsA circus of common language?A pellet of dung beetlesFrom the bloodgumThe beauty of natural inventionOnuspedia: Lord Pemberton Gimbleand Lord Pemberton GimbleA cure for incuriosityThe heavy on medieval fartsBut is that unicorn nugget geneticallymodified?An ass, reflectingI've got the proof of intelligent design,but what or whom was it made for?To the unsung Autonomic NervousSystemI think that I will never seeT R I B U T E Sresound far beyond the world of natural history. Oneissue, for instance, gave me the excuse I always needed for my habit ofreading several things at once. In this case, a book review by K.L.Dunn discussed plagiarism, and the rather sneaky style of plagiarismthat he showed was practiced in that book was exactly that of thefamed Mrs. Beeton as discussed by Kathryn Hughes in theenlightening book The Short Life & Long Times of Mrs Beeton.Another article in Calodema, by Hawkeswood himself, discusses theprocess of submission review procedures of another journal--and hedoesn't mince words. There is a good deal of irreverence in everyissue. J.D. O'Dea dares to bring up "Problems with the HoneybeeDance Language". A series of articles by Dewanand Makhan answeredwith a good deal of charm, a question that I've never had answered –Where do names come from? Also in that issue are the largestdrawings I've ever seen, of coleoptera male genitalia.So far, I haven't found an uninteresting page in Calodema, and it'srefreshing that the journal is so understandable to someone like me,who enjoys the Janet and John part of Nature, but finds the papersthemselves mostly incomprehensible. The first issues of Calodema hada majority of articles authored by Hawkeswood (rightly called aswashbuckler by another scientist who sails the dangerous seas ofresearch and submission), but increasingly there are more (brave?)authors in Calodema, and the journal is truly international. I highlyrecommend Calodema to everyone with even a smidgen of interest inthe world around them.Sharing knowledgeAlthough Hawkeswood doesn't blog, his website isa virtual Circus (and not just of the spineless). Thesite contains an ever-growing body of papers that hehas put on for anyone to read. His attitude toknowledge is in the spirit of the open accessmovement, and his works tie in perfectly with theattitude of The Encyclopedia of Life andEdward O. Wilson, who Hawkeswood calls his "hero".Hawkeswood actually said to me that he didn't want to hide hisinvestigations, only to "pop off" with the information lost, as somehave. Unless he meets the mother of all assassin bugs, we have manyyears left to enjoy along with Hawkeswood, a literate passion for thenatural world.POSTED BY ANNA TAMBOUR AT 1:10 PMLiterary Titan, Asher E. (huh?) TreatTo Rosie: Death comingTo Rosie: Thy will be done - Deathcame1 0 C O M M E N T S :marek said...I am sorry to say that, but some articles in "Calodema" seem to beintended to do much bad blood in biology. Publications of DewanandMakhan are grossly inadequate and bring much distress to experts

For anyone interested in Dr Hawkeswood's work and the tone ofCalodema, he has posted many articles and papers on his site.Any fool can burn down a house.13 DECEMBER 2007 10:07 AMAnonymous said...Hi AnnaJust found this site (several years late!) and wanted to let you knowthat Calodema is a 'boys own annual' look at biology. It is notacceptable as science because Hawkeswood is the only editor and maincontributing author! He also mainly publishes articles from his friends.For a publication to be accepted as scientific it has to be reviewed byestablished scientists working in the field (often first assessed by theeditorial board of the journal and then sent for independent review by2-4 external reviewers). Science is a process, it's not about beingperfect but about applying rigor to assessing what people think theirdata say.I'm sure it's a good read but not science (and shouldn't be promotedand priced as such). I am a professional entomologist doing scientificresearch (I do it as a hobby also) and in my opinion the articles are ofwoeful standard. Biological/science journals also do not publishpersonal letters and arguments.(FYI; in my job I run various entoprojects, have to review science/scientists often and I have publishedin a range of top biological journals).This is where the animosity is coming from; the pretense of being agreat scientist(!) and publishing scientifically valid articles. Combinedwith his constant self-congratulations. Those things (and his constantknocking of "the system" would annoy all of the hard working peoplewho are subject to the normal scientific process and get NOrecognition).That's my honest view....I don't know Hawkeswood (never heard ofhim and Calodema until recently, even though work in entomologicalscience, hence just found your blog). I don't know his friends or his"enemies" which seem to be many. That's just what I think. Oh....hisPhD comes from an "internet university" too (try find that out fromhis site.....pretty basic thing..."What was your PhD in?").It's easy to burn down a house, yes. It's easy to pretend too.On the other hand, true scientific advances are hard. The complexityof science in the modern age is such that advances are rarely areachieved by individuals. Usually by groups interacting and consistingof students, scientists, technical people etc etc.R

R30 JANUARY 2010 9:50 AManna tambour said...and more in my author site.D E V E L O P I N G N O S EJanuary 2010December 2009November 2009October 2009September 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009March 2009March 2008February 2008January 2008December 2007November 2007October 2007September 2007August 2007July 2007June 2007May 2007April 2007March 2007February 2007January 2007December 2006November 2006October 2006Dear R,Thank you very much for taking the trouble and time to write such asuperb letter. I wrote this piece at a time when I was filled withoutrage at a number of poor but lauded works by professional(s),wherein 1) scientific observation had been sacrificed to theory, and/or2)the facts as they were reported were ludicrous but able to bereported because so few people live close to the natural world now,and/or 3)an arrogance of language and unnecessary jargon hadinfected the work. As a layperson, I greatly appreciate yourprofessional assessment of the scientific integrity of the articles inCalodema, and I agree with you entirely that any publication that is aclosed network is a poor publication, especially when it purports to bescientific. As to one that ends up being a vanity pressed vehicle forself-congratulation and one-sided rants about feuds, this deserves tobe condemned wherever it occurs.So, "R", I stand corrected by you and thank you for not shrugging andthinking, "Why bother? This ignorant blog post isn't worth replyingto." Though I have the choice to "erase" the recommendation postingon the blog, I think it might be more useful if I leave it all on, partlybecause there has been some merit to the publication, and partlybecause this discussion is of merit. I will, therefore add a Postscriptthat will appear as a preface — directing future readers to see thecomments, especially yours.So I'll do that now.30 JANUARY 2010 11:41 AMDrTJHawkeswood said...Dear AnnaI wish to have the opportunity of reply to “R”’s rave on your blog. Thestatements made by him are mostly lies and innuendo, meant to smearmy scientific achievements and the authors of Calodema.I wish to put the record correct on a number of fronts.First the true identity of “R” is Richard Glatz, a “molecule molester”from South Australia who is not an entomologist but a genebiochemist (as far as I can make out!). He apparently knows nothingabout field work and traditional descriptive/taxonomic entomology.To date, the journal Calodema has published the works of over 15authors, including biologists from overseas whom I have never metand whom are not necessarily my friends. Most of the papers AREreviewed. The last paper of mine (the Manwell letters) was reviewed

September 2006August 2006July 2006June 2006May 2006April 2006March 2006February 2006January 2006December 2005O T H E R F E A S T S - A B I T O F T H I S , AB I T O F T H A TA Blog Around the ClockAbnormal InterestsAds Without ProductsThe Annotated BudakBibliophile StalkerButner BlogspotAhar: Pleasure and SustenanceAmple SanityAshbury's AuberginesBibliOdysseyBitter LemonsBooks, Inq.Book View CafeBrisbane Insects and Spiders DailyBurning SiloChiZineCriminal EnglishDaniel Franklin's ReviewsDispatches from the Culture WarsEdgeEffect MeasureErrantryEvolving ThoughtsForms Most BeautifulGreedy SpaceGeorge Bristow's Secret Freezerreviewed. The last paper of mine (the Manwell letters) was reviewedby 6 (yes, six!) people, including an well-known academic fromWollongong University in New South Wales, a solicitor from NewSouth Wales, an expert witness who is a crocodile scientist and threeother biologists in three States - Western Australia, New South Walesand Victoria. Some of the Calodema papers do not require anyextensive review as they are basically referrals to overlooked researchetc. Over 200 papers have been published so far in Calodema andthere are many in press. The published research in Calodema has beenaccepted by most biologists throughout the world although there isalways a little clique who don't like other scientists and who (forvested interests and the guilt of their own unproductivity) will nit pickand put out excuses about the publication of others works. Many ofthe papers in Calodema have been cited favourably in the works ofothers. See e.g. referred papers on my website (which will be updatedsoon).As regards personal letters and comments, all good journals should dothis as it stimulates thought and eliminates interior bias in refereeingand control by those editorial panels.Glatz believes that Calodema is a “boys own annual”- well that goes forevery other journal in the world that is specialised and uses referees toweed out competition from rival scientists and papers that are inconflict with their own views or restricted scope of their particularjournal. Most of the Calodema papers are available as free pdf filesfrom the www.calodema.com.I have been undertaking research in this country and overseas since1965 and have published over 410 papers and 3 books. The fact thatGlatz hasn’t heard or seen works published by me shows just howignorant he is! One of my books (Host plants of Chrysomelidae of theWorld with Dr P Jolivet of France) has been cited over 150 times. Myspider book (Spiders of Australia) saved the life of a person inWestern Australia when they were able to positively identify a spidershown in a great colour photograph and thereby get the correcttreatment. MY papers have appeared in renowned entomological andbotanical journals all over the world. Some of the research has beenutilized by the USA Defence Department and the USA AgriculturalDepartments. It should be noted that Glatz is in his early twenties andhas published (since 2003 - 7 years) about 16 papers onmolecules/genes of blowflies and other lower creatures. Each of hispapers have been written with many other authors - one of them has14 authors, thereby one cannot deduce Glatz's input into such works!.In contrast, most of my papers have been written by myself.(part 2 below in next blog entry)14 MARCH 2010 12:22 PM

Giornale NuovoFood and WhiningFrankenstein Journalfrom Archaea to ZeaxantholGernot Katzer's Spice PagesIdea JugglersThe Inferior 4+1Jivha for IngredientsLanguage LogGrrl ScientistMaking LightMike's PrattleThe ModulatorThe MumpsimusLibrary AngstNaturalist NotebookThe Panda's ThumbPencil and LeafPhasmatodeaRigor VitaePopcorn & Chain mailResearch at a Snail's PaceSnark HuntingSailu's KitchenStreet Anatomy - Anatomy in ArtPharyngulaPoem du JourTalking SquidTechnofettishistThoughts from KansasWords and PicturesDr TJ Hawkeswood said...(Continued from above blog entry)Incidentally at the same time as my journal (and all of irs writers?) isbeing criticised, the great Edward O Wilson from Harvard Universityis being criticised by underlings like Glatz in the USA and elsewherewho don't have the right to criticize and should know better. Thecritics are also young people who are apparently jealous of theachievements and public exposure of the likes of older men suchWilson and myself and whio are very disrespectful. The clue to theirjealousy is given for example in Glatz’s heated diatribe in this blog: (a)in his statement re. true scientific advances are rarely achieved byindividuals and (b) the statement regarding hard working people whoare subject to the (blah blah).... get NO recognition (!). Poor Glatzwants recognition but nobody out there is really interested in hisboring (but expensive and taxpayer funded) research on flies! Boo hoo!Glatz is also incorrect when he states that I have many enemies. Ibelieve I have many more friends than enemies, but this is not whatscience should be all about. This Glatz statement is merely smear yetagainSuffice to say, overall I regard Glatz’s moanings as rubbish, whichshlould be relegated to the dustbin of history. If he doesn’t liketaxonomists and field workers (which is very apparent in hisramblings both on this blog and in others), my advice for him is to gojoin a cooking or sewing class and get out of science altogether, as heoffends not only me but thousands of other scientists (entomologists,ecologists, taxonomists) who publish in journals which he wouldregard as lowly and not worth publishing in. Science for him and hismates appears only to be elitist. My science is for everyone.And I am not scared to show myself. Those that criticise me and E.O.Wilson are cowards of the lowest order who hide behind anonymity(viz. “Marek’”, “R”, etc. etc).Calodema and the website will continue while I am alive and I hope tobe around for another 30 years at least. So there!A F E W P O R T A L S A N D A C I R C U SRadio CasablancaTree of LifeThe A to Z Journal of MaterialsAsimov's Science FictionArts & Letters DailyCulinary History NetworkIf anyone like Glatz has any complaints against any Calodema paper,they are free to publish a rebuttal or corrections. But at this stage, noone has sent me any such papers for publication.Dr Trevor J. Hawkeswoodwww.calodema.comPS. Over 5,000 pdf files have been downloaded from the Calodemawebsite already this year. Can Glatz, the “molecule molester” equalthis?

Culinary History NetworkDouble-Tongued DictionaryThe Food TimelineInterstitial Arts FoundationLocusMicroscopy UNew ScientistPublic Library of ScienceScienceBlogsCircus of the SpinelessS O M E C O L L E C T I O N SAnthropology of FoodBlack Mask MagazineClassical Music ArchivesCuriosities of Biological NomenclatureEncyclopedia of LifeDigital MorphologyibiblioIslamic Medical ManuscriptsInfinity PlusPicture AustraliaMedieval and Renaissance InstrumentsMondomix MusicThe Micropolitan Museum ofmicroscopic life formsThe Red Hot Jazz ArchiveRoyal Microscopical SocietySaki's short storiesthe Serpent website (the kind ofserpent that goes bwaah! when youput your lips to its mouth)Folklore and MythologySacred Texts ArchiveSecret Meanings of Nursery RhymesPenny PostcardsCornellUniversity of PennsylvaniaThe British LibraryBoccaccio's Decameronthis?14 MARCH 2010 12:26 PMAnonymous said...Comment From Richard WellsHello Anna,I've just come across this latest Glatz comment and Hawkeswood'sresponse.Well, who the hell are these two characters many might be nowasking?Basically, "R"s (Richard Glatz?) response is OK because I've seen it allbefore. Some of what he says about Hawkeswood is spot on, there isno doubt about that (I've known "TJ" for over 30 years).But it seems to me that most of "R"s comments are just rehashedsour-grapes of the most ignorant kind.For the record, Hawkeswood is your classic eccentric naturalist in thebest British tradition - although he an Australian presumably derivedfrom those Norman bastards as I repeatedly tell him. He is howeverfully qualified as a scientist anyway. TJ has two degrees fromrecognised Australian Universities - a BSc (Honours) from UNE inArmidale, and a BEnvSci from Charles Sturt University. However, onemust say that is approach to biology is definitely not that of youraverage genteel scientist.TJ is permanently stuck on fast-forward. He's got no time to waste inhis desire to record the natural world and even less time for imbecileswho fall foul of his wrath if they happen to be part of what he believesis an anti-Hawkeswood clique (and, believe me it does exist).Of course TJ's argumentative and bombast style, can be a bit of aproblem for most people, making associating with him a rather tryingand difficult task - particularly for those careful to protect theirreputations as sane and reasonable researchers (but is there reallysuch a thing in entomology?). Periodically even I have had to chasehim through the bush with a large club in an endeavour to make himstay focused on biology rather than what someone has said about him.He has definitely been very badly affected by a number of individualspublishing and spreading their smear tactics, and this has been verysad to observe. However, he gets back on his feet very quickly, and issoon back to his annoying best, bug-bothering and the like.I have always believed that publishing even basic observations wascritically important in biology, and so too has Trevor Hawkeswood andmost other experienced naturalists that I have known in over 50 yearsof being interested in natural history. Hawkeswood's frantic desire todocument the natural world in this brief manner has its definite downsideas it can impede the more thorough study or more in-depthresearch that he is certainly capable of. His publications mostly reflecthis approach to biology - he just records the basic facts that he hasobserved as natural history notes that most serious Journals in biologywould nowadays ever contemplate publishing - although less than a

ChaucerWodehouseThe Book of PrefacesM O R E D E L I C I O U S T I D B I T SJudy Horacek's cartoonsThe Red World Stories of Marilyn Prideand Lewis P. MorleyMahanandi's RecipesAlphabet of IllustratorsAscidiaceaBois de JasminTom Volk's Fungus of the MonthThe Caterer comicThe Heron's NestGode CookeryFeral KnitterTom Volk's Fungus of the MonthVerbivoreFood and WhiningInternation MusingsHeliotrope MagazineRoyal Microscopal SocietyDarwin AwardsThe Seaslug ForumThe Omnificent English Dictionary InLimerick FormS O M E C L E A R - O U T S O F T H E N A S A LP A S S A G E SCaMPaGULAN (Campaign for MorePercys and gratuitous Use of LettersAfter Names)Pravda's Anomalous Phenomena"Psychic readings by live psychics"Cheap ThoughtsCameron Kippen's delicious,voluminous History of FootwearSociety for the Prevention of Crueltyto Bulwer-LyttonS O M E C R E A T I V E T Y P E Swould nowadays ever contemplate publishing - although less than ahuman life span ago and prior to that, most Journals would havepleaded with authors like Hawkeswood to publish such information.But it is building-block-biology. Basic observational data is criticallyimportant data.14 MARCH 2010 5:40 PMAnonymous said...Continuing on from the above...That said, there is also a body of Hawkeswood's papers that could notbe dismissed so lightly as mere natural history notes. He has publishedmany works that could be legitimately described as "scientific" by evenGlatz's twisted mirage of what science is supposed to be. This rushinto all things molecular is all well and good for the biotechnocratswho have usurped the naturalist's hard-earned mantle. But they woulddo well to realise that their elitist approach to biology is no lesssuperficial than the nature notes of the field naturalist. But the "downside"of their biochemical approach can breed a detached ignorance ofthe big picture that real world, living creature biology never does.And yes, I know that Glatz and his kind fancy themselves as biologists,but I've never seen any of them in the field on my thousands of fieldtrips - but I have seen Hawkeswood. I have seen him carefullyexamining flowers being pollinated by beetles, catching beetles andspidersm probing holes in rotting logs, turning rocks, getting soaked inthe rain or cooked in the heat while trying to make the next clump oftrees to see what they offered.14 MARCH 2010 5:42 PMAnonymous said...Pt 3 - Continuing on from earlier post...As I said I have known Hawkeswood for decades, and he has been aconsistently brilliant field biologist in entomology (AND botany Imight add) during all the years I have known him.He still rushes out into the field to study insects and plants at everysingle opportunity even at his present age of nearly 50 years - by car,on trains, buses, bicycles or even on foot. On his return from the fieldhis home base is a dingy, one-room office/bedroom that he rents fromone of his friends, an Accountant of similar eccentricity with money.Hawkeswood starts thumping away on his keyboard writing anotherpaper - day in, day out - year after year. His living/working quarters isspartan to say the most. It has no furniture except his computer, asmall mattress and a few rags for bed clothes and piles of scientificpapers teetering like skyscrapers all around him. His "bed" is in themiddle of piles of his most loved scientific papers - such as the worksof Edward O. Wilson. His room is also full of living spiders and theirvast web structures which grow liberally all over the place. The roofand walls and his computer and books are all interconnected with

S O M E C R E A T I V E T Y P E S( R E L A T I V E L Y L O W I N P E R S O N A LP R O N O U N S A N D R A B B I T T I N G O NA B O U T C R E A T I N G )Dean Francis AlfarGilad AtzmonSteve AylettJanine BajusA.C.E. BauerNiall Benvie. Paul Harcourt Davies.Andrew ParkinsonMay BerenbaumDeborah BiancottiGail CarrigerGeoffrey ChaucerMarcus ChownBrendan ConnellEllen DatlowClare DudmanHal DuncanJeffrey FordJackie FrenchTrevor J. HawkeswoodRich HortonTim HunkinKathleen JenningsBachi KarkariaDavid KowalskiEllen KushnerClaude LalumièreEugene LindenGlenda LarkeVal Littlewoodand walls and his computer and books are all interconnected withspider webs ("to control the cockroaches and mosquitos") much to theconsternation of his landlord who has to interview his business clientsin an adjacent office that is now periodically the roaming ground foran every growing population of several species of toxic arachnids.Hawkeswood has even been bitten by them and instead of gettingmedical treatment like any normal case, TJ rushes to his computer torecord the symptoms for another quick paper !And by the way, Hawkeswood does not operate his research on somecushy government grant, nor is he on some permanent universityslush-fund - he is entirely self-funded. Many years ago he was virtuallyon the verge of starvation and I encouraged him to take upenvironmental consulting - and this fortunately has allowed him themoney to travel the world as well as further his researches. His criticthe venerable Dr Glatz would be hard-pressed to live a day byHawkeswood's standards. The Great Glatzby appears to be a primeexample of the modern academic: an undoubtedly competenttechnician, quite happy to toe the party-line, but woefully ignorantabout how science REALLY works - and very quick to be dismissive ofus lesser mortals. As his career has only just started, he is perhaps tooyoung to have been treated to the full force of The Club's peer-reviewcontrol system...but sure as bacteria flourishes under shit, it willhappen to even Sir Richard. And then what will become of him ? Ifancy to think you will never hear a peep from him again, once hefinally understands what really goes on that vicious little pond calledAcademia. Hopefully, he will then be more understandng of scientistslike Hawkeswood.Richard WellsAustralia14 MARCH 2010 5:43 PMPOST A COMMENTL I N K S T O T H I S P O S T :CREATE A LINK

Vandana SinghRachel SklarThe Serpent WebsiteMichael SwanwickJay TomioJeff VanderMeerGiles C. WatsonNeil WilliamsonA F E W N E W S A N D C O N T E X T S I T E SGlobal PostallAfricaNewspapers worldwideNew Scientist's Short Sharp ScienceWar in Context - with attention to theunseenSpinwatchChurch & StateInternational Crisis GroupDaily StarDawnThe IndependentPeople's DailyTikkunPeace NowAustralians for PalestineIndependent Australian Jewish VoicesTimes of IndiaTaipei TimesZamanE N L I G H T E N M E N TChurch of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterL I K E W A T E R A N D A I RReporters Without BordersUshahidi - Crowdsourcing CrisisInformationProject Censored

The Sunshine ProjectTheocracy WatchTransparency InternationalWatchdog on ScienceQuackwatchThe OnionInternational Freedom of ExpressionExchangeRead Banned Books" True, my sweet bird, true,"answered the knight, picking a comfitfrom his gold drageoir." Only a poor comfit needs a golddrageoir," whispered the toad." Or a knight," the donkey sniggered." Care, dear, for another medlarcomfit?"C O P Y R I G H T © A N N A T A M B O U R2 0 0 5 - 2 0 1 0