Mike, on a basic level, I agree with you that the actual content of the review is relatively even-handed and useful. However, it was not allowed to speak on its own merits without the editorial preamble interpreting it (incorrectly and uncharitably, IMO) as "very critical". Likewise, it was initially unattributed and is clearly just another user opinion, not a professional or scientific review. It's not the content of the review I object to, but the context in which it was presented.
As to being defensive, you likely have a point. And consider the circumstances; because of the nearly absolute latitude we enjoy here, it is easy to minimize what it means that this resource remains sponsored and subsidized by Axiom. The environment here is wonderful, casual, educational, helpful, etc. AND this is not a "neutral, public, free speech" zone. Since the forum remains completely unmoderated by its sponsor, I do feel some compunction to cry "bullsh*t" occasionally in return for my enjoyment of Axiom speakers and the Axiom forum.
On a real fundamental level, there is a big difference to me between "my experience was suboptimal. Here are my impressions. Here is the environment. Here are the potential causes" and "somebody said xyz sucks". I do not think it is intellectually honest to afford both of those positions the same deference.
And, like, what else would you expect any self-respecting posse to do?
