"I hope Minstrel will now eat his words after defending her and insisting that she was a friend of ours"

I did neither. The following is everything I've said on the subject, other people's words removed, bold added for this post. If you think there's anything there I need to take back, please quote it, because I see nothing I regret saying. I presented my evidence and drew no conclusions. You, on the other hand, took three paragraphs she didn't even write, and no other evidence at all, and went on and on and on about how terrible she was because of all the things "she said". If you stick your nose into the refrigerator and declare you need a sweater to go outside, someone who tells you that's a pretty stupid way to make a decision is not going to eat his words just because it might turn out to actually be cold outside. I'll take evidence without a conclusion over a conclusion without evidence any time.

---

"There are many descriptions that can be written about the same book, and the bias of both writers comes into play. If she wrote her own description, then this doesn't apply. Could someone copy the full description here, please?"

"That doesn't sound to me like she wrote the description, therefore the bias of the second writer may obscure the actual content of the book. For example,"

"Are these things all what she said in the book, and the way she said it, or are they the interpretations of someone else trying to summarize the book in three paragraphs intended to sell the book to potential buyers (the vast majority of whom are antis)?"

"Unlike other commenters here, I did fill out the questionaire, even responding to many of her follow-up questions and discussing some issues with her in depth, and I find the quote above to be more typical of "treating our ideology with respect by giving a NEUTRAL attitude towards it" that she showed to me during those discussions. Now, she may have fooled me completely, and her book may be every bit as bad as the description makes it sound ("a valuable discussion on how adult sexual contact harms children" bleaaargh), but based on my experiences directly with her, I'll have to reserve judgement until I have more than three paragraphs written by someone else to use as evidence against her."

"Keeping in mind that I'm not vouching for the book, merely reserving judgement until there's more to go on... If the book was neutral, and part of the description described it as neutral (the substantial part I quoted before) while the rest didn't, then it wouldn't be "totally offbase" just partially."

"I would find it very frustrating to be betrayed again, but no, I wouldn't be surprised either."

"I don't think she necessarily has to come to the same conclusions, nor see eye-to-eye with the pro-choice MAAs, to respect them and listen to them."

"Yes, I believed that she was neutral and would give us a fair shake. But no, I'm not sure she wasn't just acting polite while hiding her views. It's quite possible, though I see very slim evidence for it, that she began the research with a concluson she wanted to prove, and carefully hid her intent. On the other hand, I think that being aggressively insulting and denigrating to people with conflicting viewpoints is one of my worst character flaws, and not one I require other people to emulate. Also, as you often say, antis often give themselves away very quickly here, even when they attempt to hide their views, yet she didn't 'give herself away' to me in quite a long discussion.

Nor do I think it would be good research technique for a researcher to state his or her own views before interviewing someone. It seems to me that "neutral" research would require the very act of hiding one's own viewpoint that you seem to be (first assuming, then) berating her for.

Also, good research doesn't necessarily by definition come to the conclusion that I (or we) held before the research was done, does it? What would it say about open-mindedness to require the conclusions to agree with our original position? I'll judge the research based on the soundness of its logic and reasoning, its use of facts and evidence, and the neutrality of the presentation, not on whether I like the conclusions, and especially not before even seeing it.

Alas, given all the things I need that I can't afford to get, I certainly won't buy the book, and doubt it will be any time soon before I see it in the crappy library or bookstores I have access to, if ever. But if I do happen to come across it, I'll speak my mind in my usual aggressively insulting and denigrating way if I think she deserves it.

In the meantime, I might try to find back the email correspondence and see if it sheds any light on the subject."

---

As far as your declaration that no one should have trusted her, do you suppose the book would have been better if the only people she talked to were Taf-Kat and others with his attitudes? I think my participation in the survey made a positive difference in the final result, even if the final result is not all we could have hoped for.