Shared publicly  - 
Update: Some asked for a fuller response. It is here:

The thrashing my book and I just received from Evgeny Morozov was as preordained as the last election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Months ago, he bragged that he had me in his crosshairs, assigned to review Public Parts -- even before I had finished writing the book. The New Republic assigned him with the sure expectation he would do this, for Morozov reliably dislikes me, just as he dislikes people I quote, whom he lists: +Clay Shirky, Don Tapscott, +Jay Rosen, +Arianna Huffington, +John Perry Barlow, Steven Johnson, +Robert Scoble, +Seth Godin, +Nick Denton, +Umair Haque, +Doc Searls. We are, in his view, "comrades in the Cyber-Uptopian International." Good company in my view.

I wish Morozov had tackled issues and ideas to show how it's done. He wants an intellectual examination of the topic -- accusing me of not providing it -- but then he doesn't offer one himself. Instead, he only writes a personal attack. It has the air of history's longest troll's comment. I could choose to feed him and reply to his complaints -- his mischaracterizations (I imagine no "privacy police") and his hysterics (he finds Streetview to be a case of Germans "tyrannized by an American company") and his amusing overreaches (he complains about the names Habermas and Oprah appearing in the same book). And I could point out that he omits my agreement with and praise of him (putting him in bad company, to be sure) . But in the end, such a discussion would end up looking like this... Me: "You don't like me." Him: "No, I don't." So what? One price of publicness is haters. He fulfills that role for the people listed above and more.

Of course, I am linking to Morozov's piece. I worship at the altar of the link, remember. "Geek religion," he calls my faith. I trust that you'll make your own judgments -- because, you see, I am a utopian and a populist and fool enough to trust a public empowered by these new tools, which I hope to see us all protect. But then, that's what my book is really about. You wouldn't know it on the other side of this link.

(By the way, you'll find you'll have to read this very, very long screed in very small type on a printer-only page -- the link Morozov provided -- because that gets around his publication's pay wall.)

[Later: On Twitter, Morozov says TNR wasn't the publication that assigned him back in June. It "grew" to a publication that could afford the paper to print it. I did try to report the point and asked him more than once who assigned him at the time but he coyly would not say.]

[Later still: Morozov says he doesn't say technology is neutral. This is a semantic disagreement, I believe. I heard him speak at SXSW and used his example of security forces crowdsourcing protestors' photos in my book. I say that technology can be used for good or bad and it is that sense I say it is neutral.]
The Internet Intellectual. Evgeny Morozov; October 12, 2011 | 11:12 pm. Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live By Jeff Jarvis (Simon & Schuster, 263 pp., $2...
Pratik Patel's profile photoBerrie Pelser's profile photoBora Zivkovic's profile photoGunnar Sohn's profile photo
A douche bag who feels better about himself, by disliking other people. Dont let him get to you.
"One price of publicness is haters." Ain't that the truth.
If a man can truly be judged by the quality of his enemies, I'm afraid being disliked by Morozov isn't helping you much, Jeff.
I dunno. I kinda liked the book. But I'm a dweeb, so what do I know?
"the air of histroy's longest troll's comment" : exactly, including the ALL CAPS mini titles.
Thanks for sharing this which such a cool attitude. (safari "reader" makes this text way more readable by the way)
@tim My kind of dweeb, apparently.
Hmmmm. Such is the price, I guess. I'm still going to listen to you, Jarvis.
As a University Freshman majoring in Professional Communication & Emerging Media, picking up the book was a no brainier. I already quoted it today in a speech and have it pegged as a source in an up and coming composition paper. I foresee it being a valuable resource continuing throughout my education; it was quite the investment for me. Haters gonna hate. Thank you for such a resource that will last throughout my studies!
tl;dr to the extreme...screw him, jeff.. :P
+Jeff Jarvis - most of that review is bullshit, and Morozov knows it. It's nice to have the print link to get around the paywall, but it's impossible to read! I sent the link to +Marco Arment's Instapaper and read it comfortably on my iPad. Then deleted it.
+Jeff Jarvis , tomorrow is payday, and I will definitely be getting your book. I enjoy your commentary on TWiG, and maybe if I had the good sense to stay in-state (hell, in-city) to go to school, I'm sure I would've enjoyed your class.

Do authors of your caliber still (need to) do book signings? I'm usually the first to sell off old electronics, but if you sign my Android Tablet, I think i'll actually have to hold onto it. ;)
+Grayson Hill It would be a very boring situation and I'd have done a very bad job with the book if we did agree about everything. What I crave is a real conversation about the topics, sad I didn't get it here. (By the way, what'd you disagree with?)
guy sounds like a total douchebag.... enjoyed the book as always
I think his review is about as long as your book!

I'm near the end of Public Parts and I find it more of a philosophical discussion on exactly what is the definition of privacy and what is the definition of public and how the Internet and social networks are changing this definition. I also see your book as documenting the paradigm shift that has taken place with regard to access to information and individuals across time and geography.

My son is a student at BU at the College of Communications. I'm bringing him your book when I visit for parent's weekend next week. I consider this a must read for everyone of his generation since they are living this shift and might not be able to see it while living it. It may take those of us with a few more years to perhaps be able to see it from a perspective they have never known.
Thanks, +Kevin Bae. If he chooses to read it, I'd be curious to hear whether your perspectives are different.
The irony is that Jeff's post probably gave him more readers than he's had in his storied career.
+Jeff Jarvis I'm about to get your book Jeff. We have too little time to devote to cranks like Morozov.
I think his critique is longer than your whole book, Jeff.
I had to copy it and put it in a word document just to be able to read it. These eyes are too old, to read tiny writing.
Just blow off what he has to say. It doesn't matter in the end. Be proud of what you wrote, it is yours.
And,they probably paid him by the word. :)
+Jeff Jarvis That's a pretty scathing review. Wait, though - please tell me you didn't actually slam Internet privacy advocates?
Geek Religion? Hmmm... I like the sound of that.
Great book. It think it will take another generation for the value of public transparency to really take hold.
+Jeff Jarvis That was a review? I am now enjoying my first read of Public Parts. I see you so far as acknowledging that privacy has it's place and that it is important. And that the argument for being public is that, to the extent one is comfortable with it, public dissemination and discussion of what we've leaned on as "private matters" in the past, may afford us more and surprisingly good avenues from which to get information, assistance, and comfort. That's a bad thing, eh?
The Joe Lieberman Weekly still has a website? That's too bad. But it won't make up for them not having an subscribers, or credibility.
A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car.
Kenneth Tynan
Or: A critic is a man who thinks he knows the way but can't drive the car.
Monique Jacobse
Wow, Morozov can really pad and fluff a review with the best of them. Can I assume he gets paid by the word? There are about three paragraphs of actual content in that rambling diatribe.
That's too bad, Jeff. I'm sorry.
Quick question: How many of the people flaming Morozov actually read his book?
wow after reading this review, now I am compelled, must buy book! I Say curse this Morozov!
The New Republic? I'd be more pissed about some drunk fool writing disparaging comments about me in the bathroom stall of the local bar ... come to think of it, from where do they publish The New Republic these days?
Jeff, i haven't read your book yet. Have you addressed in the book or elsewhere, why you feel we need people to advocate for public-ness when there are already huge commercial interests pushing people to be more public? I can see why privacy advocates are valuable, since I can't think of a single commercial interest pushing people guard their information more carefully. Or, do you disagree with the premise I've just described?
+Jeff Jarvis I think there is a lot of value in the debate of public vs private information, with a lot of good points on both sides.

Unfortunately the debate seems to get lost in the taking of idealistic sides backed up by various philosophies, and the day to day experience of real people is forgotten. Your book reviewer seems to have taken this tact.

I think as in may things there is a middle ground. An example would be the use of location services... If I'm going to town to party, then I am happy for my location to be public, making it easier for me to meet up with friends.. If however I'm quickly ducking out to do some shopping and don't want to turn it into a social event, there would be value in ensuring that any friends who are also at the same shopping mall don't get notification that I just arrived.

I think the thing that creeps most people out is the lack of control of the message. It is easy to see how particular information made public could be misconstrued, and unless you have the time and energy to write a running commentary of your life, then the individual data points being made public by your technology could be read in many ways.

Keep up the debate and providing an example of one way of living online.
+Steve Raikow the premise you describe sounds like a false dichotomy to me. The privacy advocates ensure we have the choice to stay private when we wish. Publicness advocates are NOT suggesting that publicness should be enforced. Having not read the book, but following Jeff fairly closely, I expect he is simply explaining the value that an individual one can gain from choosing publicness. I am personally happy to have the individual perspective rather than simply rely on the "push of commercial interest" for information and discourse on the subject.

To be clear I see this as a separate issue from privacy. I am both a privacy advocate and a publicness advocate. they are not mutually exclusive.
+Roei Eisenberg I'm reading Morozov's book now. It's interesting and thought provoking. But, I think his view of the net and net culture is terribly pessimistic. He derides those who think the net is generally positive as "cyber-utopians," starry-eyed dreamers unable to recognize the potential negative applications of internet technology.

He notes the use of crowd-sourced photos by an Iranian "cybercrime" team to identify and arrest protestors during the Green Movement in 2009. And, he's right. This is a chilling use of the technology.

Morozov also argues that "the Internet has provided so many cheap and easily available entertainment fixes to those living under authoritarianism that it has become considerably harder to get people to care about politics at all."

But where I think Morozov misses the point (and, admittedly, I'm only about a third of the way into the book), is that +Jeff Jarvis and the rest of his "cyber-utopian" cohort (me included) aren't arguing that the technology is all-good, but that we as a society need to decide what's appropriate in an era of ever-increasing publicness.

My dad (now in his 80's) grew up with a party-line telephone. And while anyone could listen in to anyone else's conversation, etiquette dictated otherwise. But that wasn't the default behavior. Instead, society learned and adapted (and then technology providers realized an opportunity and developed private lines).

Jarvis, +Clay Shirky and others seem to argue that it's our choice to decide what we want from the tech around us. And for us to act on that decision. The only way we could possibly achieve anything approaching a "cyber-utopia" is if we're not so enamored of "easily available entertainment fixes,"--that is, if we're not sheep--and push society in that direction. That doesn't seem near so optimistic about technology as it is optimistic about human beings.
+Jeff Jarvis Even if everything he says is true (which I don't believe), your book is still part of the beginning of a very interesting conversation that challenges some pretty entrenched thinking on privacy. As someone who makes his living advising companies and individuals on privacy laws (and blogs, tweets and plusses at the same time), I have to say your voice is a very valuable contribution to what will be one of the key cultural debates of our time. Keep it up.
I'm sure you have already sold more copies of your book than they will sell issues of the New Republic this month.
Morozov at once totally "GETS" you, and totally misunderstands you. I don't think he truly dislikes you, but he is very conflicted. He's like a crazy girl that has a crush on you but you don't reciprocate. I haven't read your book, but this was a personal attack more than a book review.
Nobody that reads 2 pages into that review would take the guy seriously. I read Jeff's book and the review is just a hit piece.
+Jeff Jarvis I'd read his 'review' but I can't be bothered to read a book length review of a book.
I think some day if you do not have some net presence you will not be able to get a job. Now I'll eat my soup ;o)
Somebody get that guy a twitter account so he can practice a little brevity.
I guess the "Visiting Scholar" is looking for an institution to offer him Tenure.
Also, what the hell? I can see why you'd want to document your cancer--describing your experience was probably therapeutic for you, and likely helped others going through the experience--but is this guy seriously faulting you for not sharing your passwords and iTunes playlists?
Jeff, I think you nailed the roots of the "German paradox". And since you have German ancestors and did a lot of research in Germany I am not surprised. I share your opinion that is about culture, heritage and the recent past and not such much about fearing crime and exploitation. There are more paradox things like the sauna. Germans have to register their address at the "registry office" or "Einwohnermeldeamt". There is not even an English word for that, since Americans would not tolerate to have to tell the government where they live and when they move. To demand, like Morozov does, that your book has to offer the ultimate truth how to deal with privacy is preposterous. I see your book as a thought provoking starting point for a debate how to deal with privacy in a globalized world. But Morozov also asks a lot of good questions and I think his review will positively impact your book sales ;-)
+Tim Peter Yes, that's the topic where I agree with and compliment Morozov: The technology is neutral. Iranian officials can use crowdsourcing to identify protestors and arrest them: bad. But Egyptian revolutionaries can use crowdsourcing to identify and bring to justice security officials: good.
+Jesse Miller Precisely: I do not for a second suggest that anyone should be forced into publicness. I argue the benefit of choosing publicness.
Jeff, I am about to change my religion listing on Facebook to "Geek Orthodox." Maybe you should consider the same, worshipping at the altar of the link.. great book, just finished it on Audible and will write my weak attempt at a review explaining why non-geeks need to read and understand it. Do I agree with every nitpicky point? Nah. But I'm a curmudgeon and never do with anyone. Is the body of work awesome? Absolutely. I work with a lot of media and this "transition" "change" etc etc.. and it's been enlightening having your work as a beacon.
+Jeff Jarvis I think you have nothing to whorie about it is oveus form the many coments above wich i couldnt read thou all of just to much that there are many people that think in new media and not the old. I am still reading your book and its awsume im a slwo reader and it often amkes me stop and think. I keep reflecting back on me and my interaction with the internet and how its has changed so drasticly in only the last fue years. i whent to hi-school in the late 90's with the rise of the internet and we ahd one basic rule for the web real names don't belong on the internet. I have been Helga(or some variegation there of) for so long its almost feels like my real name. if live al over the world an nevre near home im not even Robert on facebook it real name polacy being only lipservic (so many friends without real names and face duplicate accounts) when google+ lonched and asked for my real name is was scared i wired i wondered and pondered who would come and get me. I am not wired about pretiors as much as government and out dated laws that where never bilt for our ear. i do all i can not to day anything that woudl be elegaal but when they amke thinsg like giving your parenst you netfix acoutn a 6 year prison turm i wire and try to hide more. i try to keep my laptop clane but can you imagin having to prove you bout every pease of software on your computer every mp3 every movie. it's not posable i see goverment over reach every day and that scares me more then facebook thou there privacey setings have always bothered me. i whant to live my life more publicly but i whire evry day that maby that wourd that keeps many awake at. night having my rela name on google plue whires me that i will say somthing a word filter will find the FBI will trace my IP and ubduct me in the midle of the night like any others. I dont think im parenid i whant to be more public but i dont thing the laws we ahve to day will ever alw us too when it seams more and more the MPAA and the record company's assume your guilty lentil proven inanest. PS: im sory im spelinging is tarable i blame WOW.
"Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University and the author of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (PublicAffairs)."

Translation: I wrote the opposing view book, and therefore your view is invalid.
+Jeff Jarvis Small correction on Morozov - he doesn't argue that technology is neutral. Quite the contrary, there is an entire section in his book titled 'why technologies are never neutral' or something to the same effect.

Ignoring the whole trolling issue (I can see why you would say that), from my perspective the main problem with his argument is inconsistency. While he is right that technologies are not 'neutral', he then goes on to argue against the main 'non-neutral' aspect of social networks: providing a platform for scale-free network effects benefiting the protest movements. I suspect he is simply not very well versed in network theory.
+Tim Peter I'm sure the other contributors to this thread appreciate the brief insight into Morozov's painstakingly well-researched book.

But to respond to your point, society hasn't learned and it hasn't adapted. The problems Neil Postman identified with regards to TV more than 25 years ago in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" have not been addressed. In fact, our visual media have spiraled out of control since.

The beauty of intellectual life is the ability to entertain a thought without agreeing with it. But Jarvis doesn't entertain Postman's ideas in his book, nor grapple with their difficult implications. That's the "meat" of his argument.
Take it as a badge, Jeff. Morozov wrote exactly the same trashing of my book (, with the same arguments: "Nobody else is a good academic technology historian like him. These other pundits earn money while he is a pure scholar who earns very little and gets down into the details. They don't bore the reader with all the intricate details of how everything has happened before. They are not true intellectuals like him. I am a real intellectual!"
I wonder if your book, Jeff, bears some resemblance to Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." He argues that globalization has shrunk the world from a "large" to a "small." In the internet age, economics and social interaction can never be the same.

Ranting away against publicness seems a bit like being angry at the highway. It is just a vehicle for connectedness. As an aside, do you think that The New Republic has a horse in this race?
it has the air of history's longest troll's comment. What a great line :)
What a badge of honor ... that dude spent a LOT of time writing that article about you and your book. I wonder if he realizes hatin on yer book that much is just going to cause people to buy it to see what's up.
You Jeff link "openly" to him, but so funny that one cannot comment on his closed blog piece unless you pay 40 bucks for a subscription and membership. That in itself tells the whole story.
When I got to the line "In one respect—his unrivaled ability to attract attention to his diva-like self—Jarvis has outdone even the fictional Dr. Kirk." I actually started laughing out loud!
I've never heard of this critic and I can see why his daft position/critique is annoying... however... genuine question: Why does he/it warrant this level of attention from you Jeff?
My "discovery" of your work/ideas over the last couple of years (via Twitter, TWIG & buzzmachine and now G+ mostly) has greatly influenced my thoughts on public/privacy/tracking/paranoia/signals etc etc... moving me along the paranoia <===> relaxed scale (more relaxed now - yet also also much better informed).

Is Morozov == the Anti-Jarvis?
Enjoy tremendously listening to you on TWIG, Jeff, although I tend to agree more with Morozov's views on social media. So I thoroughly enjoyed reading this review, though I will still read the book! (I also love that we have to read his review through a paywall-- which says alot about where publicness may be headed unfortunately) Thanks for sharing...
@sprague Dawley I totally agree! That would be a great debate!
Interesting review. Makes me want to read your book. Part of being public, by the way, is making the dividing line between "intellectual argument" and "ad hominem diatribe" a bit indistinct. Perhaps Morozov's attitude is that, given your support for "publicness," he is thereby justified in going after you on a more personal level. (Or maybe he just got out of bed on the wrong side.)
+Dennis D. McDonald Yes, there are those who say that if you're public you deserve such treatment, as if publicness is a sin.
+Jeff Jarvis If there weren't people like him, you'd know you weren't doing your job right.
What? Conserative hysteria? I'm shocked! You never had a chance Jeff.
Mr. Jarvis, you have never read as a diva to me!
"loudest internet guru". Dunno, Jeff, it was good enough for Dell and good enough for those of us who bought your book(s). Every time read a review like this, one that walks right up close to a naked personal attack, I just see the word jealous flashing subliminally on the screen. As our mutual friend +Hugh MacLeod would say: Rock On.
How would I go about joining the Cyber-Uptopian International? It sounds like an interesting group with good ideas.
+Jeff Jarvis Maybe something by the Grateful Dead? Why not stay in-house as it were? Besides who needs a song when the conversation would be so good?
Well, a serious question: Why isn't "I don't like you" a legitimate theme for Evgeny Mozorov? Why aren't the collection ideas, habits of expression, preoccupations, and intellectual associates of +Jeff Jarvis an appropriate target for dissent?
+Jason Pontin "I don't like you" is never a reason to rubbish a persons ideas, nor are their associations or preoccupations. If Mozorov thinks they are good excuses then he shouldn't be a journalist to begin with. Ideas and actions are the only things that really matter.

The only thing I can glean from the review is that Mozorov thinks that Jeff should have been more scholarly in his treatment of the subject of privacy. My usual answer to this is; as long as what you say can be backed up with evidence or logical reasoning it doesn't matter how it is presented. Had Jeff written a more "scholarly" book would it be as well received by mainstream readers with an interest in privacy issues? I would suggest not. Many academics write books which are only ever read by other academics, very ivory tower. I admire Jeff for not using obfuscatory language and for trying to publicise his ideas widely.
But why not? Reasoned, passionate invective has a respectable intellectual tradition, and "ideas and actions" can be legitimately be seen in context of the totality of an author's statements, writings, intellectual associations.

When I look at the enraged response to Mozorov here, what I see is the mirror to his "I don't like you." It's people saying, essentially, "I do like +Jeff Jarvis and what he stands for.

For myself, I am reflexively skeptical of Jeff's schtick, insofar as I understand it; but I also think Mozorov a professional contrarian. I have no game in this. But I dislike the inclination to reject Mozorov's arguments as ad hominem attacks.
PEOPLE! You are justifying Morozov with nearly every comment. There is nothing wrong with being scholarly. There is nothing wrong with due diligence. Morozov is not the first to publicly tear down another author's ideas. He won't be the last. By blindly supporting Jeff without reading Morozov, you are showing that the Internet - like the printing press before it - allows for the spread of ideological rubbish as much as it supports the dissemination of intellectual thought.

And for the record, Morozov is not a journalist, and the reason he dislikes Jeff is simple - in his eyes, Jeff is the epitome of a cyber-utopian, the type of person Morozov spends his time warning about (à la Alec J Ross and the others mentioned in the review).
Jeff, aside from the personal references (and I know they are difficult to "side" because you are named 108 times and the tone of the review is aggressive), Morozov do provide ideas and concepts all across his work on your book. So… would you counter him with ideas and concepts instead of whining on being trashed, or not liked enough, or not sharing the same friends? Who cares if you guys get along well or not? Have a discussion. Give us counter-arguments. That will be the work of the intellectual I am sure you have inside yourself.
The debate about the book and specially about the "critical" review by Evgeny Morozov in "The New Republic " ... belongs to the topic of the book anyway :-)... and shows also, how "criticism" & discourse are changing in the social web! A collection of resources, reviews, tweets, retweets ..***Rethink!
(first I tried to "curate" the discussion on, with is good for quick & simple announcements, but not for complex debates .. so I am continuing in Storify ...)
Morozov, Keene, etc. are, I think, incapable of understanding complex, distributed systems. Perhaps due to authoritarian upbringing, they can only grasp linear, hierarchical, top-down systems. Everything that does not have a strong singular "leader" or "driver" of the system, seems to them to be anarchy. Where we see finely self-tuned systems vastly superior to top-down organization, they see chaos because they are mentally incapable of grokking how such systems can work.
+Bora Zivkovic They're not alone. I think that this possible shift from heirarchical to networks architecture will disturb many. I quote some academics in the book from the University of Southern Denmark who talk about the confusion that occurred at the start and now is occurring at the other side of what they call the Gutenberg parenthesis. It's not just about forms changing but how the changes of those forms -- architectures -- affect our cognition of our world.
The best comments here come from +Roei Eisenberg and +Toni Piqué i Fernàndez, although I see legitimacy to an extent in what +Jeff Jarvis is trying to do with this book as a popular work. As he says, he is an optimist and trying to present the side of the argument of why and how being more public (and less paranoid about privacy) can be useful and liberating. I have not read the book, so I will not get too deeply into criticism, but it sounds to me like Morozov's complaint is primarily that this work is not attentive enough to some of the broader concerns for the knowledge we have about the Internet as a tool that can have both useful and harmful effects. Because it is not the intent of +Jeff Jarvis to present a work which closely tackles these issues as one might in a scholarly journal, Morozov's criticism comes off as missing the point and in a way it does miss the point if we accept that a major objective of +Jeff Jarvis lies in seeking accessibility to broader audiences. The problem to me, however, starts in the sense that accessibility and careful review of complex social concerns never work together. I don't fault +Jeff Jarvis for persuading people to be not so scared about sharing more of themselves than what they've been traditionally comfortable. But generally speaking, I believe Morozov's argument (even if he might be a bit overly antagonistic) is sound and ultimately seems to be grounded in a concern from the contrary view that the potential drawbacks of the Internet's social influence more often than not get sidelined in public discussions (especially in a market-driven culture in which arguments like those by +Jeff Jarvis are more favorable to the interests of those companies who benefit from more utopian sentiments about our still excessively commerical media ecology).
It is interesting to see different perceptions by different people, probably influenced by their usual media diets. In my media diet, I encounter tons of almost-paranoid op-eds about privacy, especially about kids online, which are very much over the top (just ask +danah boyd). Thus I see Jeff's book (and many blog posts on which the book is based, I gather) as a rare and useful counter to the usually panicky view of privacy usually seen in the MSM.
@ +Bora Zivkovic It is possible that both things are true: that being less private about certain things can be useful and that there are potentially major, underappreciated dangers for the information marketplace in the way that companies like Google are able to use our public sharing of information as a tool for gaining excessive power over the conditions for being heard online.
+Bora Zivkovic Thanks so much; that means a lot from you.

+Thomas E Yes, both are true; I write that. My point is that privacy is well-protected with much attention today and publicness much less so. I want to bring balance to the conversation.
+Gina Trapani No  Jeff regularly interrupts Leo on the podcast and seems to like the sound of his own voice.  He uses his hands to gesture too much on a video podcast.  Clearly takes too much opportunity to boost his books. Comes off as too egotistical and will be the reason I now longer listen to this show.  Jarvis, your arrogance killed it for me.   
Add a comment...