A bad review on Amazon

An alert reader spotted this, and it’s hilarious. An egg? Really?

I’m glad, though, that the readers have been washed by the theory of evolution.

tumblr_mnsv9eOXUM1r7mymoo1_1280

81 Comments

  1. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    I don’t even…

  2. Matt G
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    A word salad of stupid right there, folks.

    • gravityfly
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Why spend time worrying about evolution? Let’s just buy our eggs and eat them…

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

        I wonder if you can buy your egg and eat it too? ;)

  3. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    Aren’t Australian supposed to know English?

    • Sarah
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:40 am | Permalink

      His knowledge of English is second only to his knowledge of evolution.

    • Dawn Oz
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:48 am | Permalink

      In Oz, we also have our own breed of stupid – they tend not to mix it up with religion as much. All are taught evolution at school……..sigh!

    • Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:54 am | Permalink

      In fairness his native language may not be English. Let’s gloss over that and possibly add his native mental state is lacking a logical flow.

      • tony bryant
        Posted June 18, 2013 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

        Don’t forget that Ken Ham is an Aussie.

        • js
          Posted June 19, 2013 at 4:19 am | Permalink

          Please DO NOT remind us of that.

  4. kelskye
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:24 am | Permalink

    Got to love the appeal to ridicule without explaining how the idea is ridiculous. Sentence after sentence of “it’s so obviously stupid”. Sad, really.

  5. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:25 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it gets more stupid than that

    • Posted June 18, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

      You clearly haven’t read the other one-star reviews…

      /@

      • Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

        I haven’t and I don’t think I want to

  6. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:27 am | Permalink

    I was just browsing through some Amazon reviews (and comments on reviews) yesterday. It wasn’t a particularly pleasant experience. Here’s hoping this review is some sort of satire. That egg line is pretty good though, nice way to sign off –

    I could buy and eat an egg, I think I will do that yes…

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      I think it should win a prize for best non sequitur in a book review.

  7. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:30 am | Permalink

    So he’s reviewing the reviews and gives them one star, but what did he think of your book?
    Oh, that’s right, he didn’t read it!

  8. SA Gould
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:31 am | Permalink

    This, from another one of his reviews: “Is there anything to say for a fact that there is Aliens? no there is not but there is a lot of mysterious remnants left by previous humans that seems, un-explainable. It is all logical and has an answer, we just do not know it. I think to say Aliens gave them the knowledge is an insult to them and disrespectful. This theory is far more credible than say evolution!”

    • Ryan S
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Great Find!

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Wow – I was half expecting him to end with cheesecake. He has a hard time articulating himself, poor sausage.

  9. Sarah
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    It’s sad and funny at the same time. You want to say, “Look, while you’re eating that egg, I’d like to tell you a couple of things…”

  10. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    It almost sounds “poe” to me (intentionally dumb to ridicule creationists).

    • gbjames
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:53 am | Permalink

      +1

  11. Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:41 am | Permalink

    He likes his eggs over stupid.

    Please don’t tell him about the broken genes for producing yolk.

  12. First Approximation
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    He later adds:

    “I have not read this book. I have watched the man do an interview on why Evolution is true. So I have seen him in the flesh. I saw his body language and his persona. He came across as hollow and snide. I had no choice I had to give a star. “

    Why do people insist on reading books to review them when all you need to do is see the author’s body language?

    • Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:05 am | Permalink

      “I had no choice I had to give a star.”

      To make matters worse, a lack of free will has just ruined this man’s Amazon experience. Break out the world’s smallest violin, or egg.

    • Posted June 18, 2013 at 6:05 am | Permalink

      So he hasn’t read the book but can review it! This is amazing

    • DrBrydon
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      It’s not even his body language while writing! That’s what would be important! ;-)

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      Well I guess you can’t judge a book by its cover but you CAN judge it by your interpretation of the author’s body language that you saw that one time.

  13. stevo
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    Haha. I fear you/we have been trolled.

  14. Rob
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    Oh this is even better than it looks.

    You know what he does for a living, or at least part of one?

    Sells fossils.

  15. Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Reminds me of a rude joke:
    Q. What’s the difference between an egg and a wank?
    A. You can beat an egg.

    and in a similar vein:
    Q. What’s the differnce between “light” and “hard” ?
    A. You can fall aseep with a light on.

  16. coozoe
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Or a book on grammar and spelling.

  17. Leo
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Maybe he frequents a restaurant where something made from more or less a single egg costs 14 USD…

    • Geoff Egan
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      I was going to say-can it be possible that in Australia the rice of a single egg equals the cost of a paperback book? If so, they really have to overhaul their agricultural policies!

  18. Dominic
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    Don’t waste time reading the ‘review’ of an ignoramus who clearly does not understand what ‘review’ means.
    Peter Overton “snags” hates Macs

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R163ZDZW0T12CM

    • SA Gould
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      You are right. Apparently he met a “strangeley mac” and it tried to harm him.

  19. Gordon Hill
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Ignorance does seem blissful, however.

  20. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Speaking of ‘smart babble,’ Christian apologist Randal Rauser insists that William Dembski is not a creationist, and that ‘The fact is that ID is not “rebranded creationism”, and the person who suggests it is merely shows their ignorance of both

  21. ratabago
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure about being washed by the theory of evolution. Is being washed enough, do you think? Or do I need total immersion?

  22. Genghis
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Poe’s Law anyone? Some people deliberately post spoof reviews on Amazon and think that this guy’s conned lot of you.

    (I thought I’d posted this but it’s disappeared)

  23. Posted June 18, 2013 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Apparently Hawking got a similar treatment:

    http://leasthelpful.com/post/53193485334/also-how-can-a-species-have-an-origin-everyone

  24. Chuck O'Connor
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    The gentleman needs to observe the virtue of one of the greatest opponents to Evolution in the history of Western thought the Natural Theologian William Paley, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

  25. Posted June 18, 2013 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Serious or spoof, it is pretty funny.

  26. neil
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    I vote for spoof. The fact that he knows about the titaalik (sic) is suspicious.

  27. DrBrydon
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Reading Amazon reviews is a game I play sometimes when I am bored.

    I’ve observed that non-controversial books with good reviews, and one or two bad reviews probably means there’s a problem with the Kindle version (formatting or price). Sometimes, though, it’s a student who had to buy the book for a course, and feels that it isn’t suitable or that it’s too expensive.

    If the book is controversial, then it seems like there are a lot of stereotyped one star reviews that give no indication that the reviewer read the book. Especially annoying are the “dismissers”: ‘nothing new here’, ‘poorly written’, etc.

    When I see those, I often go to the reviewer’s profile. It’s seems that most of the time this is the only review they’ve done. Is there a website where people go to learn which books they should pan? “Go to Amazon, and create a new account, and review this book saying it’s the same old thing again.”

    Occasionally, though, one finds a loon. There used to be a fellow who would pan any book that was critical of the Third Reich. He had the charming nom de guerre of “RSHA” (if you don’t know it, hit Wikipedia quickly).

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      Services such as Mechanical Turk [MT] [ironically owned by Amazon] are used by unscrupulous people to push products up [or down] the review tables. I could go onto MT & advertise for people to perform a series of repetitive home computing tasks on my behalf such as logging onto review sites under a series of identities & post a bunch of good [or bad] reviews. The pay rates are very poor by western standards ~ perhaps $2/hr if you work hard.

      The people doing the hiring at MT are not usually the product producers, but middle companies that specialise in producing fake reviews. An example of such a company is PositiveReviews.com

      Then there’s the bots one can hire to click advertising links on ones websites & generate advertising income via fake views of ads…

    • Diane G.
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:33 am | Permalink

      The NYT had an interesting article last year about what’s really going on with some of the reviews and reviewers:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

        Ouch and he makes quite a profit in his venture too!

  28. quiscalus
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    I like to “proof” my evolution the same way I proof my dough for my atheist bread. Perhaps I could fry his egg o’ ignorance and make myself a smart little sandwich

  29. Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Unbelievable, but there are plenty of those out there. Pathetically funny.

  30. Posted June 18, 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Maybe this is crying out for somebody to post a
    an explanation of evolution based around….eggs! Reptiles, birds, duck-billed platypus and so on.

    • John Scanlon, FCD
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      It’s well known that a finch is only an egg’s way of making another egg. It’s eggs all the way down, so of course one can construct a phylogeny based on shell morphology, membrane structures, lipid composition, albumin and yolk protein sequences, and even those quantitatively insignificant nucleic acids.

    • Diane G.
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:35 am | Permalink

      And how we have to thank reptiles for coming up with internal fertilization!

  31. Maple
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Speaking of which I found this book “Darwin’s Doubt” in the science section of our big box book store…all about “intelligent design” so I took them over to the Religion & Spirituality section and re-shelved them…I used to work at the university stacks I’m a trained professional ;o)

    Mini Review:
    Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen C Meyer

    Nice cover, shame that inside it is all peepee kaka.

    Next week we review: Evolution: The First Four Billion Years (if I can find the Jerry Coyne narrated version) ;o)

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      Ha ha – nice reshelving!

  32. Posted June 18, 2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I wasn’t going to let Jerry know; I’m sure he gets enough stupid comments, but after seeing this post, I feel obligated to post this email I got in :). See if anyone can wrap their head around this comment that come to me after my interview with Jerry Coyne on evolution and religion:

    “I read your interview and wrote this in response. WHY EVOLUTION IS TRULY A FAIRY TALE Education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge… Many scientists who believe in evolution are highly trained individuals, most with a PhD or other highly esteemed credentials to their credit. These are people who have been “educated” at the finest universities and collages. They are people who have spent many hours studying, researching, analyzing, and inquiring into their respective field of interest and “expertise.” Because of such efforts, which comparatively few do, those diligent enough to complete their academic training are usually thought of as someone who is in the “know,” has the answers and evidence to back up statements and pronouncements made to the general public concerning the “facts” dealing with evolution. It is true, those who receive a PhD in evolutionary biology or any similar branch of “science” have learned a huge amount of information, which they can with ease; recite to dazzle the less informed and ignorant. The information they received, studied and were taught is the accumulation of decades of thought, data and material. And there is an ever-growing, ever-expanding ocean of evolutionary information and data that continues to pour each year into the “pool” of information taught by the universities and collages. Each year the mountains of data that are accumulated are disseminated among the faithful. The bulk of this data is translated into books, research papers, into “scientific” journals, periodicals, reports, and newspaper releases. Education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge… All this accumulated information, all this evolutionary “stuff” learned, what a huge mount-ain it would make if it was printed out into book form and placed into one pile. That would be one immense mountain of piffle. The reader of this article will surly ask: “You want me to believe that all this accumulated information and all this data that has taken years for evolutionists to assemble and collect is nothing more then nonsense, absurdity, prattle and rubbish?” “That what they teach is just a scientific sounding delusion?” “That all these intelligent and well “educated” men and woman, some which have dedicated their lives to this pursuit has all been for naught?” The answer to all three questions is a resounding Yes! Those people who spout this stupidity (evolution) have not been educated nor have they acquired true knowledge. For education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge. It makes no difference how much nonsense (evolutionary teaching) you have learned nor how long it took you to accumulate that blather, for whenever you relate that drivel to anyone, it is just that, piffle, useless, worthless, piffle. Many will respond to this accusation with this kind of reply. “I don’t believe they are teaching nonsense, it must be science, for they sound so sure and confident and they have earned PhD’s in their respective fields.” Well, let us take a look at their fable…ah, I mean the “science,” of how everything, including life came about. We will use the striped down to “bare bones” tale, without any fluff or embellishment. Please try not to cry or feel embarrassed when you realize you have been duped, bamboozled and mislead by some so-called expert, teacher, professor, or scientist who touted the “realities,” the “facts,” and the “science” of evolution. Here is their “scientific” tale of the creation of the universe and life, how it all came about. In the beginning there was nothing. No energy, no atoms, no matter, just a big empty space full of Nothingness. In time this great expanse of nothingness decided to create a somethingness, a small speck of material the size of an atom that it just “popped” into existence. Into this small particle the nothingness compressed all the matter of the entire universe. This tiny speck then exploded, or expanded like a cake in an oven and made everything. Then on a newly formed planet which we call earth, this great somethingness created life out of a rock. Yes, tis’ true, that somehow, someway, this inorganic rock magically transformed itself into living pond scum. Then, over a long period of time the scum evolved into ape-like creatures who were not content to remain just simians, but one day decided to evolve just a little further, to a higher level of life, and their offspring become the parents of Albert Einstein. If a spark of reason or logic still resides within your brain after being mislead by so many “educated” teachers and professors during the course of your schooling, you should begin to realize that the story you have been told of our beginnings is somewhat lacking even a small smattering of science. And the more you contemplate their story, the more you will realize, you are very familiar with the genre. Aw…is the light coming on? It’s the kind your mother read to you at bedtime and it normally started with “Once upon a time” and usually ended with…“and they lived happily ever after.” Education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge… It is always assumed by evolutionists that one kind of creature whose bones are now fossils evolved into another kind, and that you can trace their evolution through the fossil record. That is an assumption that can not be known with any kind of certainty. The so-called line of decent or lineage, of the progression of one kind of creature into another is always assumed and never questioned with any real effort. In every interview, every story, article or book dealing with evolution, this un-provable, unknowable, “fact” is always assumed and counted as truth, and believed and accepted just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It is then on this “fact” that the proof rests, that everything has evolved from a common ancestor. That assumption is a house of cards and lacks any credibility. Neither proof, nor any evidence is ever offered. On May 21, 2013, on the web-site “Random Rationality,” the author Fouret Janabi interviewed Jerry Coyne, the author of Why Evolution is True. Mr. Coyne is Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. His work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. In this interview he states: …The part that everyone agrees on, let me underline in the beginning, is that evolution happened, it took billions of years, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life has been here for at least 3.5 billion; that there is common ancestry of all forms of life because there is a branching bush of life, and that, in terms of the adaptive character of life was produced by the process of natural selection. So, those are the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory, and those have not been called into question. (emphasis added) Did you catch his reasoning? He knows that there is a “common ancestry of all forms of life,” he knows this, “because there is a branching bush of life.” A little further in the interview he again states this kind of reasoning. …the other evidence is some of the fossil record, the finding of the intermediate whales. When I was in grad school, we knew that reptiles had ancestors to mammals…And now we have an even better fossil record because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs…Same thing with whales, we see this whole intermediate group of whales about 45 million years ago, we have their ancestors and this whole series of animals losing their hind limbs, having their nostrils moved on top of the head, developing flippers, losing their ears, and not only do we have the fossil sequence, but it occurs in exactly the right time… (emphasis added) The good Professor Coyne is guilty of what is known as Circular reasoning or what is also called Begging the question. In stating his case for evolution, the professor commits a logical fallacy, of assuming what he is attempting to prove or defend. On the RationalWike web-site they describe Begging the question this way: “Begging the question or assuming the answer is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn’t already assumed to be true.” In the Cognitive Science article by Lance J. Rips on Circular reasoning he states: “A common criticism directed at informal arguments is that the arguer has engaged in circular reasoning. In one form of this fallacy, the arguer illicitly uses the conclusion itself (or a closely related proposition) as a crucial piece of support, instead of justifying the conclusion on the basis of agreed-upon facts and reasonable inferences. A convincing argument for conclusion c can’t rest on the prior assumption that c, so something has gone seriously wrong with such an argument.” (Cognitive Science, Lance J. Rips, Circular reasoning, 26 (2002) 767–795 first published online 11 Feb. 2010) Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states: “Circular reasoning is fallacious because reasoning and justification must start with the known and then determine the unknown – in the case of circular reasoning, it starts with the known and ends up with the equally known, thus it proves nothing.” The circular reasoning used by the professor is easily discerned. He knows A is true because B is true; and B is true because A is true.” Some will state it this way: A implies B which implies A., or A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed. Let us pull a few statements out of the interview, ask a few questions, and see if the professor is begging the question and guilty of circular reasoning. B “evolution happened” How does the professor know this? Because of his foundational principles. A “those are the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory, and those have not been called into question.” B “it took billions of years” How does the professor know this? Because of his foundational principles. A “those are the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory, and those have not been called into question.” B “life has been here for at least 3.5 billion” How does the professor know this? Because of his foundational principles. A “those are the bedrock foundational principles of modern evolutionary theory, and those have not been called into question.” B “there is a branching bush of life” How does the professor know this? Because of his belief that, A “there is common ancestry of all forms of life” B “we knew that reptiles had ancestors to mammals” How does the professor know this? Because of his belief that, A “there is common ancestry of all forms of life” B “the finding of the intermediate whales” How does the professor know there are intermediate whales? Because of his belief that, A “there is common ancestry of all forms of life” B “we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs” How does the professor know birds evolved from dinosaurs? Because of his belief that, A “there is common ancestry of all forms of life” B “we have their ancestors and this whole series of animals losing their hind limbs” How does the professor know that those animals were the ancestors of the animals that “lost” their hind limbs? A “there is common ancestry of all forms of life” Clearly, the only reason the professor “knows” B is true, is that A is true, “there is a common ancestry of all forms of life” Now, how does he know that A is true? Well, because B is true. This brings us back to the question, how does the professor know A is true? Is there any evidence of this, besides B? With all the mountains of evolutionary data and all that information out there for the taking, surely there must be some evidence for his belief. Since he is a “scientist” we must assume he, or someone at sometime and somewhere, used the scientific method to discover that A is true, that there is a common ancestry to all forms of life. Surely, somehow, someway, someone must have tested or observed the foundational principles of evolution. So what is the scientific method used by scientists? In “[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy”, Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from the General Scholium, it states: “The development of the scientific method has made a significant contribution to how knowledge is acquired. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning and experimentation.” (emphasis added) The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that: “The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” Education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge… In every science book, reference, textbook or dictionary you check, you will find that the scientific method is always defined by the use of specific types of criteria. The scientific method usually has five or six basic steps that are taken before scientists can come to any kind of conclusion. Scientists will generally follow these steps when considering a problem. First they will formulate a question, do background research; then develop or construct a hypothesis (a testable prediction). They will then refine the idea and make predictions according to the hypothesis. They will then devise experiments and tests (which must be repeatable) to confirm or “prove” their hypothesis and then analyze the data from the tests and experiments. They generally try to falsify the hypotheses by the tests they devise, for the purposes of their experiments are to determine whether things observed in the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. And lastly, they will draw conclusions from those experiments and make a final analysis and statement. In science, real science, to call something a theory means that it has been put through its “paces.” It is something based upon many experiments and observations and has well-tested and verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. A theory can be used as a basis for predicting future discoveries or events. So, because of the many varied and well-tested experiments and numerous observations and “hard” evidence, a theory is something that could be thought of as a fact. So, by what stretch of logic can evolution be placed within the category of science? Those who study evolution never gain true knowledge, just reams of useless information and data. The philosopher Plato defined knowledge as “justified true belief.” Belief in evolution is anything but “justified.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, under the heading of Knowledge states: “Science is the process used everyday to logically complete thoughts through inference of facts determined by calculated experiments.” Can the scientific method be used in regards to “prove” evolution? No. There is no observable or measurable evidence to gather. Evolution is a belief about the past so it is not subject to testing or any kind of experiments. Since none of that is possible, the study of evolution does not even fall within the category of science, for the scientific method can not be used to evaluate, observe, or test it. Evolution would be a better “fit” in a course about history. But where its true nature and genre really lies, where its teachings rightly belong, is right next door to American folklore charterers such as Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, fairy tales like Little Red Ridding Hood and King Midas, and the Greek mythology of Hades, Poseidon, Zeus and its other bevies of deities. Education is the accusation of true wisdom and true knowledge… True wisdom and true knowledge is not to be found within the confines of the *religion of evolution. Those who adhere to it need to accept it for what it really is, a religious, scientific sounding fairy tale which contains no truth, no evidence, no science, nor any true knowledge. It truly is just a big pile of piffle. * Religion – 7 a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith: a value held to be of supreme importance…and by practicing as well as preaching its doctrines. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary

    Thank you!”

    Does anyone elses head hurt? He pretty much tries to do Jerry in on a technicality in the middle of a free-flowing conversation.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      Well one thing is for sure: he really doesn’t like paragraphs.

    • Old Rasputin
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

      A bit hard to follow, but at least it contains some interesting typos.

      “Mount-ain”? Or how about this (decorative?) semi-colon: “which they can with ease; recite”?

      Just strange.

      In his defense, I can see why he wouldn’t want to proofread it.

      • Posted June 18, 2013 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

        LOL, it was painful enough for me to read, took me 3 sessions. Wonder how long it took him to write.

      • Diane G.
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:39 am | Permalink

        The typos are a hoot!

        “Education is the accusation of true wisdom …”

    • Shwell Thanksh
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      Wow, I stalled out here at the point where he started attacking Jerry’s 3-sentence summary of the bedrock principles that are considered so well-established everyone is willing to simply stipulate them and move on to talk about the actual interesting new discoveries.

      As he would know, of course, if he had actually Read The Book.

    • Old Rasputin
      Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      And what’s with the “accusation of true wisdom…” bit? At first I assumed he was typing/thinking fast and conflated “accusation” and “accumulation” in his mind. But it appears again and again in the same mutilated form, like some sort of recurring Wagnerian leitmotif. Did he copy and paste? I will just never understand how some people’s minds work…

      • Diane G.
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:41 am | Permalink

        I’m sure he was reaching for “acquisition” and missed.

    • Notagod
      Posted June 19, 2013 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      It must have taken at least a carton of buying and eating eggs to get that warped.

  33. revjimbob
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Samuel K Amphong returns.
    He was a fake too.

  34. Notagod
    Posted June 18, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    The 666th sentence of the first paragraph, could the author restate that? It seems to be an attempt to justify the 90th which creates a circumstance in which a christian god could literally not exist. Unless that is intended.

  35. John
    Posted June 19, 2013 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    It wouldn’t sound like babble if he had the ability to intelligently reflect upon it. My hypothesis as to the source this silly review is that the writer had no freaking idea was he was reading because a of general lack of education (reading comprehension skills, basic science concepts, etc.) For this reason, I never read Amazon reviews. There are no actual standards, with the exception of a general discouragement of profanity. I expect more from book reviews, whether negative or positive.

    • Diane G.
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:42 am | Permalink

      To be fair, some of them are very well done.

  36. vini
    Posted June 24, 2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Which came first, the stupid or the egg?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28,628 other followers

%d bloggers like this: