Personally I don't think this place gets enough reviews... and you kicking in the teeth of someone who did bother to contribute isn't really going to help the situation.

At least the individual bothered to write something. Perhaps, they didn't have the time to write a long detailed review but wanted to let others know about something they found.

As for your rant about the system guys, I believe the individual was probably using them as support that programmer types he knew liked the book as well. Perfectly, reasonable information to add I think, since the writer identified themselves as a non-programmer.

Examples? Complete how? What does it have over Camel? Where is Camel lacking?
Did you bother to read what you quoted? The writer stated that they found the Camel book referenced (take note of that spelling, you might want to remember it when you are hacking people about their spelling and grammer. ) too much Unix in the explanations. As for "complete" -- well "complete" is a pretty good word if you felt the book contained all you were looking to find and didn't have time to redundantly list all of the features.

Sell me the book. Rave about it.
I disagree, tell me about the book. "Raving" tends to imply a lack of objectivity.

On to glass houses....
Before any of that, however, I would refer kommesel to a spellchecker and a grammar book. If you're going to take the effort to write a usable review, at least make it something I can read.

• refrenced is not a word, perhaps you meant referenced? A spell checker would have caught that.
• reccomend is not a word, perhaps you meant recommend? A spell checker would have caught that.
• I couldn't care less if someone said that "Book A, grammar says you should remove the "that". A grammar checker would have caught that.

So what don't you just hop down of that high-horse of yours and give the writer a break. Did you really add anything to the monestary with this message? The writer of the review added more than you did.

We need to encourage sharing, not kick people in the teeth on their first posting. The posting could have been better, and we have most positively seen better written reviews; However, your response is written even more poorly from a stand point of adding anything to the monestary.

Spelling and Grammar checker free

---

---

• Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
• Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:

  <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>

• Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
• Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.