A Feb. 28 WorldNetDaily article promoting WND managing editor David Kupelian's book "The Marketing of Evil" -- which cited excerpts from "hate mail" he claims to have received -- Kupelian is quoted as saying that "what's so interesting about all this hate mail is that to date, no one has actually identified a single factual error in 'The Marketing of Evil.' All they can do is get upset and call me a Nazi or a devil or Ann Coulter. But they can't point to where I'm wrong." (Italics his.)
That's because Kupelian's book isn't about facts; it's about assertions and conclusions, which are opinion and therefore not objectively true or not true. For Kupelian to claim that there have been no identified factual errors in the book is disingenous because that's not the point of the book.
The article also employs another disingenous technique -- quoting only the most extreme examples of criticism of Kupelian to present them as representative of all criticism. WND has done this before in regard to Kupelian's book, as we've noted. We've critiqued a Kupelian essay that later appeared in his book, and the fact that we did not suggest that he burn in hell or resort to similar inflammatory rhetoric would presumably warrant a response from Kupelian -- yet we've heard nothing. (Anytime you're ready, David, just drop us a line.)
Isn't using such disingenuous techniques to market Kupelian's book just as evil as what Kupelian writes about?