Quote:
On 2002-03-11 18:46, JayUtah wrote:
Anyone can skim the material, but a reviewer should actually view all of it.
One of the reviews for Dark Moon states that the reader only skimmed the book. Yet he wrote a lengthy review for it. Nobody seems to have objected to it.
|
Do you happen to know the person's name? I will see for myself.
Quote:
If the reviewer doesn't view all of the material, the last thing that reviewer should do is, post that admission on the internet for someone else to see.
True, if the reviewer's intent was to deceive his audience. If the reviewer had no malice and no intent to deceive, then he might feel perfectly comfortable discussing the extent of his authority in public.
|
Only you are aware of your intent and your feelings. Others are only aware of your words and their meaning.
Quote:
|
Thus those who wish to accuse him of malice in writing the review would have to answer why he spoke so freely and candidly about the circumstances surrounding the review.
|
Many admissions slip out in the form of free and candid statements. Maybe the reason you spoke so free and candidly is because you thought nothing like this could ever happen. Now you know better.
Quote:
|
Those who wonder about ethics ought to turn their attention to the review widely believed to have been written by Bart Sibrel himself. Is it ethical to pose as a supposedly unbiased third party to artificially inflate the appeal of one's own product?
|
You are the one who made a mistake. Dragging others into it will not make your mistake go away.
FYI