85,313
edits
Rachel Landers: Difference between revisions
m
Added Quote Box
(Adjusted link) |
m (Added Quote Box) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
=== Critiques === | === Critiques === | ||
{{Quote box|width=400px|bgcolor=#c6dbf7|align=left|quote=At the very end of Rachel's book, just before her smarmy epilogue, Rachel tries to buttress her ridiculously weak (in truth, non-existent) case by misrepresenting the content of a 2003 newspaper article in [[:wikipedia:The Australian|The Weekend Australian]] of February 8-9. Of course, a newspaper article is hardly evidence; and a misrepresented newspaper article is just a lie.<br />But this final and false assertion made by Rachel epitomizes her book: shallow and biased research distorted by perverted imagination.<br />''Who Bombed the Hilton?'' is '''a deceitful hate crime'''.<ref>[http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-rachel-landers-hilton-bomber.html Is Rachel Landers the Hilton bomber?, Abhidevananda, 2016 May 11]</ref><br /><div style="text-align: right;">Abhidevananda on ''[http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.com New Humanist Society]''</div>}} | |||
Leaving aside the aforementioned, self-serving award, reviews of the Landers book have been scanty and largely negative. The only [http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01D0YGJD4?tag=professionalde03&linkCo reviews] of the book on [[:wikipedia:Amazon.com|Amazon.com]] dismiss the book as "highly speculative", "very poor history", and "trash journalism". The first review also cautions that the book is marketed with "false advertising". In addition, [[Abhidevananda]], one of the people libeled by Landers in her book, panned the book and its author in an [http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/is-rachel-landers-hilton-bomber.html article] on one of his [[New Humanist Society|blogs]]. | Leaving aside the aforementioned, self-serving award, reviews of the Landers book have been scanty and largely negative. The only [http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01D0YGJD4?tag=professionalde03&linkCo reviews] of the book on [[:wikipedia:Amazon.com|Amazon.com]] dismiss the book as "highly speculative", "very poor history", and "trash journalism". The first review also cautions that the book is marketed with "false advertising". In addition, [[Abhidevananda]], one of the people libeled by Landers in her book, panned the book and its author in an [http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/is-rachel-landers-hilton-bomber.html article] on one of his [[New Humanist Society|blogs]]. | ||