Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Andrew Bolt

Aug 10, 2010

More barbarian Twits

For someone who only last week declared "It shouldn’t need saying, but I do not have a Twitter acc

Share

For someone who only last week declared “It shouldn’t need saying, but I do not have a Twitter account” the Herald Sun’s resident social media expert, Andrew Bolt, seems to have developed quite a fascination with Twitter.

Yesterday, a tweet from Marieke Hardy provided an excuse for Bolt to roll out a collection of her perceived sins from the past six years. Today his target is comedian Daniel Burt, who seems to have made the list of people Bolta dislikes primarily because he’s Catherine Deveny’s writing partner, or as Bolta might put it, part of:

..the Marieke Hardy/Catherine Deveny barbarian collective

Deveny-Hardy-Barbarian.jpg

Really? There’s a collective now? Do they have a theme song, or would a chant be more appropriate for barbarians? Amazingly enough, Bolt’s continuing descent into self parody with his barbarism meme isn’t what strikes me as the funniest thing about today’s piece of fauxrage.

The tweet that Bolt felt the need to highlight today, August 10th, was sent on July 27th, two weeks ago. So what? So, I can’t stop imagining Andrew Bolt in a darkened room, his face lit only by a CRT screen in front of him, (because it uses more electricity than an LCD – take that greenies) searching the internet for evidence of crimes against decency that have been committed by the people on his hand written list of enemies, which has gradually been growing since he began writing it in 1972. Perhaps yesterday was his day for tracking Burt? After all, you’d need a well planned rotation system to make sure that no-one was missed, and so he stumbled across a two week old message from a service whose entire focus is on real-time messaging. Eureka! Barbarism Patrol is go! Post written, now on to Philip Noyce…

That a journalist who seems to fancy himself as an opinion maker in the national political realm appears to be trawling the internet in search of things he finds objectionable is astounding, if perhaps a little bit pathetic. It’s the type of behaviour that belongs to the unemployed, unkempt, semiliterate blogger stereotype from 2003, where everyone you disagreed with on the internet needed to be publicly shamed for any perceived failures.

Who will be the next member of the Marieke Hardy/Catherine Deveny barbarian collective? Tune in for the next episode, same batty time, same batty channel.

99 comments

99 thoughts on “More barbarian Twits

  1. quantize

    ‘Set up an experiment to prove me wrong.’

    Since their ratings are good and I enjoy it, I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss what you think.

    Your posts are enough to prove my point right to anyone reading. As you were.

  2. RobJ

    clever – not lever!!! Grrrr I swear my keyboard is broken, maybe I should learn to type… Nah!

  3. RobJ

    [Could equally be interpreted as evidence of stupidity.]

    As has been pointed out, it’s subjective, certain bands aren’t crap because I don’t like them, I just don’t like them..

    Seinfeld – Meh, I’m not into it, many are though so I wont write it off as not funny.

  4. Bloods05

    [Show the sketch to an audience and see if anyone laughs.]

    Could equally be interpreted as evidence of stupidity.

  5. RobJ

    Bloods not Bolls, lever, not ccklever.

  6. RobJ

    Bolls, didn’t you find the Osama at the WTO funny? Some of the songs are both ccklever and hilarious..(in my opinion)

  7. mondo rock

    I challenge you to set up an experiment to detect the presence or absence of humour in any episode or sketch.

    Well that’s easy. Show the sketch to an audience and see if anyone laughs. If they do then they have detected humour in the sketch.

    Next.

  8. Dom Ramone

    i see this thread has now descended into the banal.

  9. Matthew of Canberra

    Bloods05 @88

    The orthodox dictionary definition of Reductionism is:

    “Material world-view in which complex phenomenon is broken down into conceptual chunks small enough to be analyzed or measured.” or “An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set”

    You’re (I’m guessing) using it in the unorthodox sense of “scientic reductionism”, meaning the position that everything can be explained scientifically, or that there is nothing that’s inherently unexplainable.

    A claim about a paranormal ability is either true or it isn’t. If it can’t be observed, then it’s the latter.

    “No, sorry mate, can’t be bothered.”

    Chicken 🙂

    “I challenge you to set up an experiment to detect the presence or absence of humour in any episode or sketch. Your choice.”

    How about just watching the audience to see if anyone laughs? But seriously – humor is subjective. It’s entirely a matter of opinion. But it’s not a matter of opinion whether the world is 6000 years or, or whether someone can find underground water using a couple of metal sticks. That’s testable, with a yes/no answer, and objections to the testing process can be quantified. Trying to conjure up a case where that doesn’t apply is just special pleading and nothing more. If that makes me a “reductionist fundie” then I’m guilty as charged.

  10. Bloods05

    [You’re utterly dead inside if you don’t find at least SOME of the The Chaser funny.]

    Youre utterly empty inside your head if you don’t find ALL of The Chaser juvenile, derivative, shallow, devoid of political bite and utterly predictable. Set up an experiment to prove me wrong.

  11. quantize

    You’re utterly dead inside if you don’t find at least SOME of the The Chaser funny.

  12. Bloods05

    [(1) could you please tell me what you understand the word “reductionism” to mean. I have my own understanding, but I’m having trouble making it fit the context you’re using.

    (2) explain why I’m wrong, with examples ]

    No, sorry mate, can’t be bothered. I’ve seen quite a few of your posts and I know you’re smart enough to know what reductionism means. I will set you a challenge, though: people try to tell me The Chaser is funny. I challenge you to set up an experiment to detect the presence or absence of humour in any episode or sketch. Your choice.

  13. kedgie

    Bolt perfectly okay with his commenters suggesting Marieke et al have brain injuries:

    ” …..Or brain injured. I’ve worked on head-injury wards and it is common knowledge that brain injury can result in filthy language.”

    Marieke is not a REAL woman:

    “…..it would seem that YOU did not get the point about the pigtails….. in the case of the rather immature Hardy, it indicates that she has not grown up or rather she has not matured to become a REAL WOMAN”

    Looks like a street-walker:

    ……”and I might add that the picture that I saw shows someone who looks like she is a street-walker”

    More “people I don’t like should be compared to people with disabilities”:

    ….”Mentally disturbed with a child-like attention seeking condition”

    Giving as good as they get:

    ….”am I allowed to hope that all three of them – Hardy, Deveny and Burt – are abused and tortured by hideous tentacle-monsters from another dimension until they beg for a death that isn’t granted to them?”

    Where was that line again, Andrew?

  14. Matthew of Canberra

    Bloods05 @83

    Ok, then. Two questions:

    (1) could you please tell me what you understand the word “reductionism” to mean. I have my own understanding, but I’m having trouble making it fit the context you’re using.

    (2) explain why I’m wrong, with examples 😉

  15. Blackgold

    ‘Possibility’ is dependent on technological capacity. 100 years ago you couldn’t prove that certain things such as microbes existed because the technology wasn’t available.

    We may able to discover the existence of other things in the future – such as life forms on other planets – when we develop the capacity to extend our reach that far. Until then it remains an experiment that is impossible to set up but it doesn’t mean that other life forms don’t exist outside of planet earth.

  16. kedgie

    So, wait. Bolt, who presumably gets paid $600 – as everyone else does – per appearance for appearing on Insiders and is therefore also in the ABC’s employ thinks its perfectly okay to publish comments like “Doesn’t he (Jason Wilson, in response to an attack post by Bolt) have an eminently punchable face?” but calls for violence are NOT okay?

    Anyone else confused?

  17. Bloods05

    [If it is impossible to set up an experiment to detect the presence or absence of a phenomenon, then that phenomenon effectively does not exist.]

    Come on Matthew, you’re better than that. That is reductionism at its worst and, dare I say, most fundamentalist.

  18. Matthew of Canberra

    jules

    “You know … what is truth?”

    Usually it’s measurable.

    “I know from some of his less public statements”

    Eh? What statements has he made that are “less public”? They’re either public or they’re not. Whether or not they get a lot of coverage in the MSM is a different matter. Just because the MSM makes a big deal about something doesn’t mean it’s “more public” than something it doesn’t make a big deal about.

    “These aren’t just things that exist in objective reality.”

    Then they don’t exist. If it is impossible to set up an experiment to detect the presence or absence of a phenomenon, then that phenomenon effectively does not exist. Somebody who can find water because they’ve lived all their life in one spot and can therefore make educated guesses about where water might be – that’s not psychic, that’s a bit of experience and luck (and probably a lot of confirmation bias)

    James Randi has a million bucks sitting in a bank account, and it really is there for the taking for anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal ability in a verifiable setting. What’s interesting isn’t the fact that nobody has ever collected it, that’s hardly surprising (and it’s also hardly surprising that a lot of applicants disappear when they realise they’re actually going to be properly observed). What’s really interesting is how few people even TRY. Apparently, not one faith healer has ever come forward for a shot at the money. A million bucks. Sheesh. If I could read minds or magically cure disease, I tell you what – I’d have that.

    “Anyway it seems as if its dogmatically ascertained that there is no possible room for any “weirdness” thats unexplainable in the world.”

    I’m sure there’s plenty that hasn’t been explained. But unexplainable is something completely different. I don’t believe that anything is “unexplainable”. I believe history will support my position.

  19. Bloods05

    [Accusations that he is excessively and unreasonably rational seem an odd way to attack the guy.]

    “Reductively rationalistic” would be a more accurate characterisation of the criticism that Jules is making. Dawkins is vulnerable to that criticism.

  20. quantize

    This horseshit about atheism equating fundamentalism is simply a desperate smear by the religious because Dawkins doesn’t fawn and tippy toe when there’s no good reason to respect their very lack of reason.

  21. mondo rock

    Look, Dawkins is probably less fundamentalist about “rationality” than he comes across on tv.

    Is there an alternate option? Would it be preferable if Dawkins’ occasionally embraced irrationality?

    Dawkins’ strict adherence to science, logic and reason is what identifies his as the superior argument if you ask me. Accusations that he is excessively and unreasonably rational seem an odd way to attack the guy.

  22. fred p

    Pedro @ 60: “Bolt did not mock her appearance. He mocked her idiotic hairdressing.”

    Noice self-pwning.

    *golf clap*

  23. jules

    “Hmm, no. Not really. He’s occasionally a bit clumsy about his choice of words (IMHO) and I think he gets exasperated too easily on camera, but he’s no fundie – unless you count a refusal to accept things that are simply, provably not true as “a fundie” .” – MoC (@ 74)

    Well yeah I do actually. You know … what is truth?

    Look, Dawkins is probably less fundamentalist about “rationality” than he comes across on tv. I know from some of his less public statements that he has an open mind to a point.

    But … ok lets take something slightly disreputable, like “Psychic” powers. (Whatever the hell they are.) Same thing applies as does in the footy analogy I made earlier.

    These aren’t just things that exist in objective reality. They are human skills if they exist at all. When someone tests for a training effect then perhaps we’ll be getting somewhere.

    To me that should be obvious.

    Anyway it seems as if its dogmatically ascertained that there is no possible room for any “weirdness” thats unexplainable in the world. That the idea is already settled. Thats fundamentalism.

  24. surlysimon

    one of the twitter Andrews has been suspended, but as this was reported on twitter by @andrewbolt it’s not all doom and gloom

  25. Matthew of Canberra

    Oooh, this sort of “scary music” garbage really does get me annoyed. And somebody gets upset when he’s described as not being a serious journalist. Yeah, well.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_and_the_green_march_through_our_institutions/

    Apparently, mentioning a (non-CSIRO) event called “walk against warming” in an employee-circular newsletter justifies the question of “How unbiased and apolitical is the CSIRO?”. What utter nonsense. But it’s a whistle, and it’ll blow and my, the dogs will bark.

    Also notice that there’s no link to the source, and the name of the submitter is missing. We’ve got no way of even assessing what sorts of articles are alongside it. Although a quick google suggests that this event is VERY high-profile, and it would be a bit odd if it didn’t get a mention on the noticeboard of a group who does, you know, atmospheric flamin’ PHYSICS for a living.

    I still bet AB’s never actually spoken to anyone at CSIRO atmos. It would be incredibly easy – just pick up the phone.

  26. Matthew of Canberra

    jules @68

    “dudette Dawkins has a tendency to be as big a fundie as the religious freaks he criticises”

    Hmm, no. Not really. He’s occasionally a bit clumsy about his choice of words (IMHO) and I think he gets exasperated too easily on camera, but he’s no fundie – unless you count a refusal to accept things that are simply, provably not true as “a fundie” 😉

    If you follow him a bit, you’ll discover that’s far more concerned with actual evidence than most fundamentalists, more often than not he actually goes easy on his opponents and his aim isn’t to eliminate competing views – just to put them in their proper context.

    “Andrew Bolt continues to prove just how hopeless he really is.”

    I assume you mean how hopeless Andrew is. Because Andrew’s attempts to show how “hopeless” Dawkins can be regarded as a farce – a mess of supposition, bad sources, shifting goalposts and a failure to just do a bit of googling before hitting “send”. Oh, and the occasional bit of abuse towards people who pointed out the flaws in his argument (most notably me).

  27. Matthew of Canberra

    dudette @61

    “What happens now that Richard Dawkins has just said the same thing? Far worse, in fact. Much more strongly:”

    Interesting. He is occasionally a bit undiplomatic, isn’t he? It’s a pity, but that interview’s for subscribers, and I haven’t decided yet if I want to shell out my Pound to hear it. Like Tone, he doesn’t agree with banning things. It’s worth mentioning that the interview in question was a lead-up to a documentary about faith schools – and in previous examples he’s happily dished it out to all brands of faith schools alike.

    “Let’s see Hardy now dish it out to Dawkins, just to prove that her opposition to Abbott’s views were based on principle, not political partisanship.”

    Actually, I think her comments should have been directed a Cory Bernardi, not Tony Abbott. But that’s her problem.

  28. damacus

    I’m actually kind of enjoying Bolt’s “barbarian” thing, the more he becomes a ludicrous parody of himself the easier it is to laugh him off. Actually, the way he makes his views more extreme depending on his audience; (affable TV Andrew > dogmatic Herald Sun Bolt > arch-wingnut blogger AB), he’s kind of a ludicrous parody of a ludicrous parody of a ludicrous parody, with each increasingly unhinged version stacked inside the next. A Boltbushka doll.

  29. Daniel

    “She won’t do it, of course, will she.”

    Is that a question?

  30. bpobjie

    “it also sounds like the joke is “she’s so bad, I wouldn’t even rape her” which is a terrible view to have.”

    But

    “Not that I have any problem with hate-f___ing in general”

    Then why did you say it was rape above?

  31. bpobjie

    “Let’s see Hardy now dish it out to Dawkins”

    She probably doesn’t find his face confronting.

  32. jules

    Hey pedro barak obama is a corporate stooge.

    dudette Dawkins has a tendency to be as big a fundie as the religious freaks he criticises, and Andrew Bolt continues to prove just how hopeless he really is.

    He’s just being hypocritical (again) and objecting to someone doing what he does, cos when they do they swear. Sad really.

  33. quantize

    Pedro : ‘And you quote any examples of this…. where?’

    Surely this is a complete joke? What kind of feeble and withering mind, knowing full well the numerous, constantly quoted examples of both Bolts own dog whistling and the kind of rabid lunatic racism that leaks its foul stench from his blog could possibly even question this?

    Pedro, you are simply beyond reasonable debate if you are so politically blinded you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  34. surlysimon

    Pedro
    So hairdressing is divorced from appearance? That’s pathetic, he mocked her appearance, trying to judge her intelligence from her hair style, yes that’s real grown up political debate.

    I notice no defense of the allegations made about Catherine Deveny’s mental health.

  35. Broggly

    I don’t mind Hardy’s comment, since it’s just using crude and colourful language against a political opponent. I haven’t heard the full speech, but it sound like Tony was saying “Lefties hate babies and families” to which “F___ off” is a perfectly reasonable reasonable response.
    Burt’s tweet, on the other hand, seems pretty misogynistic. I don’t know what the full context was, but it also sounds like the joke is “she’s so bad, I wouldn’t even rape her” which is a terrible view to have. Plus, whenever men react to female opponents with some sexually charged comment it reinforces the view that women are fundamentally sex objects, rather than fundamentally human beings. This is exactly the sort of thing the feminists are talking about when they warn liberals that being left-wing doesn’t mean you’re not sexist.

    Not that I have any problem with hate-f___ing in general (if Harry/Snape fanfics have taught us nothing else, it’s that what two consenting arch-enemies do in private is their own business). And Bolt has no credibility on anything, really. When he’s right, it tends to be a lucky coincidence.

  36. surlysimon

    Dudette
    I didn’t say conservatives didn’t try to insult, just that they aren’t any good at insults.

    And then you go and prove my point

  37. surlysimon

    And Dudette Mareike has 16,000 followers on Twitter, that’s double MTRs audience.

    @andrewbolt is still on twitter too

    and I am smiling

  38. surlysimon

    So Dudette your answer to this is to try and out do them, with less wit or humour, and we are the barbarians?
    and my comment at @56should be aimed at you rather than shabs sorry.

    Notice too Dudette you haven’t been censored and no one has made fun of your appearance or called for you to be deprived of your source of income, who is civilised, grow up.

  39. dudette

    Oh boy ….

    When Tony Abbott expressed that he was uneasy with the concept of the burkha, Marieke Hardy put forth that:

    “Tony Abbott finds the burqa ‘confronting’. OH YEAH? I FIND YOUR F**KING FACE CONFRONTING, DOUCHEBAG.”

    What happens now that Richard Dawkins has just said the same thing? Far worse, in fact. Much more strongly:
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7943503/fury-as-dawkins-compares-burka-to-bin-liner

    Let’s see Hardy now dish it out to Dawkins, just to prove that her opposition to Abbott’s views were based on principle, not political partisanship.

    Hold your breath! … No, wait, don’t.
    She won’t do it, of course, will she. Pretty pathetic.

  40. Pedro

    Surly: “is it OK to mock Marieke’s appearance?”

    Bolt did not mock her appearance. He mocked her idiotic hairdressing.

  41. Marek Bage

    Dudette, your concerns are valid but off-target.

    Neither Daniel Burt or Marieke Hardy are journalists or political pundits.
    One is a comedian and the other is a media personality.

    Neither runs a blog under the masthead of a major newspaper and neither is a regular guest on The Insiders, or any other political fora.

    Yes, they have said stupid and distasteful things but from what I can tell, and I’m willing to be corrected, it’s only on Twitter.
    If a major newspaper or television station gave them a platform to spew their hatred, then I, too, would be worried for the state of democracy.

    As an example, can you imagine if Sky News got a failed rock star on to call for the murder of Julia Gillard?

    Still, I agree with you about Deveny. She always was and always will be a talentless bint.

    Cheers

  42. dudette

    SurlySimon says in response that “the trouble with Conservatives is they just aren’t any good at whit or insult” (I think this is a compliment)
    … while Bridgit says that Bolt insults all the time on any matter of traits.

    Which one is it?

    Surlysimon asks: “And why shouldn’t these people be allowed a measure of free speech?
    Of course they should. As long as it’s not confused with sensible, intelligent or relevant debate.

    SurlySimon asks “what level of debate have we descended from?”
    Dunno, perhaps discussing the actual issues. Hang on, lemme try this other Deveny-Hardy lurid gig.

    Ok, here goes.

    The Greens candidate, Sarah Hanson-Young, is a f*ckin ugly self-righteous mole. Her hyperventilating would be handy in the sack though, where I’d like to see her gettin’ pumped to the sounds of corny 70’s disco music.
    (Nod to Hardy’s asthetic judgement of Abbott’s face. Hat tip to Daniel Burt’s insertion of hateful sex act)

    Ah, mission accomplished. Have I done well? Have I helped to sway minds? No? About as effective as shallow rants from Hardy?

    Somehow, it just doesn’t seem as effective as pointing out the policy deficieny, most prominantly the Greens moronic pledge at the 2007election to close down the coal mines within 3 years. Former PM Rudd described the idea as “absurd” due to the massive decrease in revenue and resulting job losses (leading to social problems arising from increased unemployment, lapsed mortgages and homelessness, family stress, broken marriages, etc)

    But wait, … “she’s an ugly mole!!!!!”

    Mmmmm ….. What do you think is the more effective tactic?

  43. mondo rock

    Dudette – you should not assume that these entertainers’ comments reflect a deep-seated hatred of their targets. Their comments are likely to be little more than spur of the moment emotional reactions.

    Which is, of course, what Twitter is all about.

    It is also why Bolt’s hysterical beat-up of these comments is so utterly idiotic: he’s expressing passionate outrage over the fact that other people expressed passionate outrage.

    Really his complaint boils down to nothing more than “they’re rude”. I say suck it Bolty – rudeness is vastly preferable to the peddling of intolerance.

  44. surlysimon

    Hey Shabs is it OK to mock Marieke’s appearance? And what about trying to deny Catherine her views because someone alleged that she is Bipolar?

    Is it ok to try and have people sacked because you don’t agree with their views?

    The trouble is that you think you are part of the Enlightenment but in reality you are the Visigoths of our age, hammering at the doors and trying to destroy what little advancement we have made, hauling us back to the dark ages.

  45. Pedro

    Bridgit:”Racism and bigotry is largely visceral and the domain of the simple-minded, but shysters like Bolt seek to give them intellectual legs.”

    And you quote any examples of this…. where?

  46. Pedro

    LHO: “the Right seem to have far less hestitation in worshipping their leaders (e.g. Howard), while the Left are more cynical”

    Hahahaa. I can’t decide if that comment is bait or blatant ignorance. Two words to consider, Lee Harvey: BARACK OBAMA.

    You know… The Messiah. The One, The Saviour, The Tingles Up The Legs…

    Surly: “It seems to me this applies to those who read and comment on much News Ltd offerings”

    Yet it doesn’t seem to you that it equally applies to those who read and comment on Fairfax’s offerings?

    And it doesn’t seem odd to you that people who disagree with the left way of thinking are regularly described as, say, “rabid”, as confessions so politely put it?

    Kinda balances that “barbarian” don’t ya think??

  47. RobJ

    [Bolt thinks Hardy’s less of an expert in literary culture, or shouldn’t be on the conversation hour, because she wears pigtails]

    Yep, kicks off his post with an ad hom. Typical. His error though was the picture he chose to use, she looks fantastic.

    I like her, if saying naughty words makes one a barbarian then what are the war mongering, ignorant, redneck chickenhawks that frequent Bolt’s site?

    [To think that Marieke appears on a semi-intellectual TV show, ]

    Here we go, because she can be crude that makes her stupid? I don’t thinks so.

    [unbelievable.]

    Riiiiiight. And Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman get to spout their rubbish on Insiders.

  48. bridgit

    First, I don’t think newspaper columns change the opinions of many readers, as I said again in a speech only last week.

    And by and large, he’s correct. The problem is that writers like Bolt reinforce prejudices and foment division, by presenting ‘logic’ that’s constructed in the manner of a Meccano set. Racism and bigotry is largely visceral and the domain of the simple-minded, but shysters like Bolt seek to give them intellectual legs.

    Why not just point out the flawed policy ideas?

    Twitter is largely spontaneous and has a 140-character limit. There is very little scope for policy deconstruction. Also, it’s a platform for discourse and humour, not intellectual debate.

    Why the need to so viciously critique the political opposition on such a personal basis?

    I have seen Bolt write columns and posts that ridicule of make light of people’s appearance, weight, dress sense, their sexual orientation and the size of a woman’s breasts. Best the emperor go get himself some clobber, I think.

    It’s worrisome for democracy when our disrespect for the other side descends into a viscerial political hatred on a personal level.

    Actually, personal slurs and commentary have been the hallmark of democracy since it was practised by the ancient Greeks. It’s nothing new, so to call a few barbed Twitter posts a ‘descent into barbarism’ is to know very little about political history.

    To think that Marieke appears on a semi-intellectual TV show, unbelievable. Obviously the feigning intellectual has a far-from enlightened thought process.

    Hardy has no pretensions to be an intellectual or an academic – she’s a writer, a blogger and appears on a chat show where a few people swap personal reflections about books they’ve read. To suggest it’s more than that is sow’s ears and silk purses stuff.

  49. surlysimon

    And dudette
    none of the utterances quoted by you have anything to do with either persons employment. And why shouldn’t these people be allowed a measure of free speech? I could suggest it is typical of the right to want to censor opposing views but I would be stating the bleeding obvious

https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/10/more-barbarian-twits/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.