|
Personally, I agree to an extent with the original post. The 'review' in question was not a review at all. Even the byline of the 'reviewer' reveals the agenda behind the uncalled for slam on the mud in question.
What I find interesting is that there seems to be more offense taken to the original post in this thread than there is to the tactics being used in the farce of a review that spawned the thread in the first place. Passing off tripe like that as a review is acceptable, yet voicing an objection to it is not?
|