Reply #11: If you're such an expert, what threat could reading the book have to you?

[JackRiddler]

I notice you don't claim to have worked at any of these technocracies, although you say you have read about them a great deal. So have I, and for at least as many years as you claim.

I notice you imply you haven't actually read Perkins, but refuse to do so because to read him would "undo all that" you say you "have learnt or read for 25 years."

Really? Are all your readings that flimsy? Is Perkins that dangerous?

So you content yourself with dismissing him on the basis of what you think is in his book. Nice.

You make no case for your naked assertion that he is lying factually about anything. You merely have your interpretation of his book, which you haven't read.

In other words, you are attacking him for telling the truth as he sees it in his book, after he quit a system he says was based on lying. This fact-free mode of defamation could be applied to any whistleblower, whether what they said was truthful or not.

That will do. Your argument is too simplistic and divorced from empirical consideration to merit further analysis.