I do not dispute the conclusion one might draw from the circumstances that all but a few of the signers (that is, all but the very few who actually embraced the Holy Father's gesture, usually characterized by the word "generous") abjured their signatures as soon as it became convenient.
So why on earth is this spirit of sweet agreement being described as "utter refusal to hear what anyone else is sayings [sic] and his perverse desire to warp every bit of information to support his venom?" Why call someone who agrees with you so completely a "filthy old man with flies buzzing round his head"?
Strange guy. Strange bunch. Most of them, like Stephen Smuts, have moved on. I would say, though, that Fr Z (a Catholic, so take it for what it's worth) on his blog occasionally worries that some bloggers allow their commenters to put their souls in danger. At least Mr Smuts is no longer providing that opportunity.
UPDATE: Predictably, Mr Chadwick said, "I have resolved not to answer anything further coming from this man", but his word is as good as the solemn word of any TAC bishop! I agree with him in that post, too -- to address someone as "Father" is at least a sign of respect.
