If he can scan a copy of the receipt onto his review, that could satisfy some people, but after this debacle, I don't think it would.

As long as after you started posting comments, you finished viewing the material. Anyone can skim the material, but a reviewer should actually view all of it. A review should not be hearsay.

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. Especially if that reviewer is not popular with everyone. You may now have an idea of what can happen.

Do you review at amazon.com under the name of John Witts?

I am not associated with amazon.com.

FYI

I can't remember if I've ever reviewed anything at Amazon. I know I've never ordered from them. I would have used my name if I had, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to find any reviews. I don't usually put a space between my names, so it's easier to remember my usernames (same as my E-mail). If you do find any reviews I have done at 3am with bleary eyes that I don't remember doing, please tell me so that I can get Jay to give them the once over to check I've got my facts straight.

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.

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. 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.

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?

Do you happen to know the person's name? I will see for myself.

Only you are aware of your intent and your feelings. Others are only aware of your words and their meaning.

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.

You are the one who made a mistake. Dragging others into it will not make your mistake go away.

FYI

FYI,

What the hell do you want us to do with Jay? Give him 10 spanks and send him to bed without any dinner?

The way I look at it is, the price you pay for a mistake is, the mistake.

You only pay more if you don't learn from the mistake.

Maybe some of you are wondering why I didn't post this information at apollohoax.com.

To be honest, I didn't think "FYI is a fool" was very becoming of me.

I'll leave that task up to someone else.

That thread had quite an audience, and people who have never been to that site were reading it. The only thing that young administrator proved was, he has a lot of growing up to do.

What disappointed me most was, that young man admittedly looks up to the much older Jay Utah, and he may have listened to Jay Utah, if Jay had advised him to mellow out. For the sake of appearance.

The way you appear is, in most cases, directly proportional to how seriously you are taken.

I'm not judging the entire debate, I'm just saying that part of it looked pretty bad.

FYI

I've heard enough. Stop this. My board is not for character assassination. Take it to Apollohoax.com if you want, but keep this off here.