X-Post: "...as evidenced by his link to Horowitz, I'm betting Mr Douglas has never read the book"

American Nihilist X-Post
----------------

Funny how Donald feels qualified to comment on a book he's never read--

American Power: Classroom Indoctrination's Indefensible Defense:

"One-Party Classroom is on my list of 'books to read,' although I've written previously a lengthy post outlining some of my thoughts on all of this."

--while attacking folks on the left who discuss a book they have never read (or "may not have ever read" in one case. A wikipedia link really doesn't prove one way or the other whether someone's read a book or not,does it?):

In the post The War on High Earners, Donald says:

"...as evidenced by his link to wikipedia, I'm betting Mr. Taylor's never read the book."

(You tell me... Does a wikipedia link to "John Galt" prove someone's never read Atlas Shrugged? Can you explain why?)

Donald continues:

Matthew Yglesias hasn't read it, but that didn't stop him from attacking the "nightmare scenarios" of the revolt of the "titans of high finance."

Mathew admits to not having read Atlas Shrugged, the same way Donald admits above to not having read One Party Classroom. So what should we take away from this? Is it alright to comment on an unread book only if you're a neocon, or is it wrong to comment on a book you haven't read UNLESS you're a neocon? Or is there some kinda rule that should apply to everyone, including Donald?

"The non-book reading collectivists are like that though..."

I suppose it takes one to know one, professor...