The gist of the review is: the negative reviewers seem harsh and bitter, therefore they must be wrong.
In other words, he ignores completely the factual points that are made and tries to handwave vaguely toward an emotional argument. It doesn't matter that the "harsh and bitter" reviewers find instance after instance where Bennett and Percy are misleading, unfair, or just plain wrong. People who lie repeatedly for profit -- however miniscule -- generally don't elicit charitable reactions from others.
We see the standard projectionism: we "harsh and bitter" reviewers are simply holding tenaciously onto what we want to believe irrespective of fact, and our alleged emotionalism is evidence of that. But this reviewer titles his essay paradoxically "A fact is an opinion." Why is it, then, that we -- the Harsh and Bitter Posse -- are the ones toting out facts and asking to have them reconciled with the authors' claims? When one side is so conspicuously talking about fact and the other side is so conspicuously waxing pontifical over conjectured emotional and financial motivatios, it's hard to argue that the fact-based contestants are the ones who are delusional.
We see the standard guilt-by-association: we will never know the truth about Kennedy or Apollo either. Well, we certainly won't so long as fabrication, innuendo, and error are considered as evidentially valid as observation, science, and documentation. In fact we can know the truth about Apollo if we apply appropriate rigor. No amount of sobbing compensates for the inability of Dark Moon to withstand scrutiny by qualified experts. It's not about who has the "big money", as the reviewer states. It's about who has the truth. You can't buy truth.
The reviewer gives Dark Moon only four stars out of five, according to the argument that even the best authors make mistakes. Yes, they do, but the ability to face up to and correct those mistakes is what separates good fallible authors from bad fallible authors. The bad fallible authors do what Bennett and Percy have done when faced with well-founded criticism: they run and hide.
That review is an excellent example of the distractionary approach of conspiracism. They'll talk about anything but fact. Instead of showing where the "harsh and bitter" responses are wrong -- if indeed they are -- the reviewer simply tries every trick in the book to insinuate that the bad reviews must be in error. That reviewer is exactly the gullible sort of reader that Bennett and Percy had in mind.
|