> Avery, had this blogger (for that's what he is)
> actually given a good review of Creighton's book,
> you would be vying with Martin Stower to be the
> first to demand he be crucified.
Most certainly. Given we have a pretty good idea what's in it, I would without pause take issue with anyone who supports Creighton's works.
By the way, Jason is not just a 'blogger'. Didn't go to the link, huhn?
> That his negative review suits your purposes and
> the purposes of many on here is convenient in the
> extreme - otherwise the review would never have
> been publicised so slavishly here in the first
'Convenience' is not what comes to mind ... I would say 'accurate'.
> I suspect when Scott's book comes out, and is read
> by people unlike Jason Nobody who do not have an
> axe to grind (as if he were ever going to
> backtrack on his ealier attack on Scott's work)
> then you and Martin and many others on here will
> be a lot, lot, lot more perturbed than I could
> ever make you.
Sean, Jason's opinion has nothing to do with axes to grind. He gives his opinion of what is presented, and finds it lacking in credibility, with argumentation.
My perturbations are born out of distaste for very poor academia, not the 'sake of being perturbed'.
> As for "smart-alecky" - ouch - I'm afraid to say
> maybe it does describe my tone. However, it
> doesn't even begin to describe yours.
What specifically have you against Jason's review? Care to quote it, then give some backed arguments? Seems at this point you're just poking around with snaps at Jason, as though he is some 'no-name' blogger. His relative cv in the link I gave you says otherwise. Be honest here, Sean.
Beyond that, I've not seen you give a substantive response. So when you wave off someone who has specialized experience in these matters, why should you be surprised when anyone (myself, Martin, Lee, whomever) takes offence to this type of pointless posturing?