matt I was hoping you wouldn't generalize

Submitted by Silicondoc (United States), Jan 29, 2008 at 17:29

or that after you claimed the book mixed or expanded on two generalities, you'd explain what those are, and how you deemed them to be erroneous.

Instead, I am left with the impression that you "became" the criticism you tried to outline. You used a polemic tactic to spew out a generalized critique from a vague and nearly blank slate position "against", rather than "for" - adopting that "position of authority" stance you talked about by using a few buzz words, with no self-analysis, hence a meatless unpinnable opinion, leaving the reader with a nearly empty conclusion they couldn't possibly begin to defend even if they "agreed with you".

I was waiting for the solid critique, and the explanation never came. Now I may buy the book anyway, instead of foregoing it, in favor of understanding someone shared a solid reason why perhaps I should.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".