As I reported last month, Christopher Monkton backed out of a debate we were having on the website What's Up With That. Well, I'm still offering him the chance to continue the debate and provide the response he promised, but it'll be on a new site. I'll give details at the end of this video, but first I have to explain what's happened. Monkton's decision to pull the plug on the debate has been swiftly endorsed by the man who runs the What's Up With That site, Antony What's. I first got word of this not from Antony, but from people who began commenting on it on my channel. It turns out he'd written this in the comment section of a Monkton guest post on What's Up With That. He was referring to an interview with me that Peter Sinclair, aka Greenman, had posted on his website. While I can't hear what Hadfield is saying, they seemed totally infatuated with their manhunt so much for Hadfield's repeated claims of being dispassionate and logical. Thanks for posting this. When he starts colluding with that hateful Greenman, all semblance of rational debate is destroyed. This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. Well, Antony, I don't know if Sinclair is hateful or not. Sinclair emailed me very politely asking if he could do an interview, and I saw no reason to refuse him. See I'm not really interested in this rather silly us versus them catfied that so many people seem to think substitutes for a debate about the facts. I don't have hate lists, everyone's welcome on my channel, whoever they are and whomever they talk to. But as I've said before, Antony, you have a perfect right to run your channel as you see fit, to ban anyone you want, and block any comments you don't like. As for the idea that we seem to be on a manhunt even though you couldn't make out what was being said, I can assure you there is no manhunt. I'm not looking for Monkton and it doesn't really matter where he is, all he has to do is post his promised response and answer the allegations that have been clearly laid out and documented. Perhaps instead of defending him you should ask him why he doesn't do that. But I do have one beef and that is with you making up quotes. I've never said I was dispassionate and logical. Not once let alone repeatedly. Firstly it sounds arrogant for me to make assertions like this, secondly whether the quote is flattering or not, making up quotes is simply wrong. Okay, I could explain why making up quotes is wrong but this should be understood without having to have it explained. It's one of the first things they teach at journalism school, one of the first things academics learn when they do their research and something even politicians realize and this brings us back to the debate. Because Monkton, a politician, does know that his misquotes will be damaging to him which is why he backed out of the debate. A few days after his comment was posted I did get official word from Anthony Watts that he was pulling the plug on the debate. Oh well, I was delighted that Mr. Watts had even allowed the debate to begin given that so many of his readers and even one of his moderators professed themselves at Myrors of Monkton. It was a courageous act and one that surprised me, so Anthony I certainly don't take back my thanks to you for allowing your readers to glimpse some of Mr. Monkton's sources that clearly contradict the claims he made for them. Fortunately there are other internet sites that are willing to see a free and fair debate. I'm certainly willing to host one on my channel and I've made that invitation to Mr. Monkton and I was approached by a website called The League of Reason for that same purpose. I've readily agreed for the debate to be hosted on their website. I understand they've also invited Mr. Monkton and asked him to send his promised response which is now two months overdue. According to his supporters on Watts Up With That, Monkton can wit me easily. Great if you think a debate about accurately quoting sources is a football game or then why doesn't he?