[001]
IdumeanPatriot
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
When I talk about \
to:
When I talk about \\\"published reviews\\\" I mean reviews published by a magazine, book-review blog or similar. Not random spoutings by people on Amazon who often do not seem to have even read the book.
\\\'\\\'\\\'Clanger 00:\\\'\\\'\\\'
While that may well be so, have all or most of the people on here who are eager to pillory \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' actually \\\'\\\'read\\\'\\\' the book, or are they driven more by knee-jerk reactions against the author\\\'s reactionary politics? Because it would seem odd that consensus about what a book is or is not should be determined by people who are not in fact familiar with its content, especially when the issue is one of great inflammatory potential.
In case of doubt, there are easy ways we could check who has and who has not read it. For example, we could ask and see who knows on what page a given line is spoken in a certain chapter. That would put the discussion on a firmer basis and reveal if there is anyone who is not debating in good faith.
\\\'\\\'\\\'Clanger 00:\\\'\\\'\\\'
While that may well be so, have all or most of the people on here who are eager to pillory \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' actually \\\'\\\'read\\\'\\\' the book, or are they driven more by knee-jerk reactions against the author\\\'s reactionary politics? Because it would seem odd that consensus about what a book is or is not should be determined by people who are not in fact familiar with its content, especially when the issue is one of great inflammatory potential.
In case of doubt, there are easy ways we could check who has and who has not read it. For example, we could ask and see who knows on what page a given line is spoken in a certain chapter. That would put the discussion on a firmer basis and reveal if there is anyone who is not debating in good faith.
