John I was responding to this comment: "I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits." The suggestion seemed to be that it was only Brits who had an issue with the book and I wanted to make clear that that was not the case. Many of the fiercest critics of Wade's book are in America. I was not making any comments about people's intelligence. I was suggesting that Wade's racist views would not be tolerated and supported here in the same way that they are in America. In fact his book has been largely ignored here. The review in The Times is the only I've seen. Perhaps I didn't phrase my words very carefully and I'm sorry if I've caused offence where none was intended. As Lawrence has argued, it is a perfectly objective and sensible approach to seek the views of people I trust before deciding whether or not to buy a book. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: 29 June 2014 22:33 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book "Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie" hmmm . . . I thought I had been even toned in my post, but perhaps not. What I was objecting to Debbie are these comments of yours: 1) "Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash." 2) " It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here." The first I let slide, but after the second I called you on it. You are implying, intentionally or not, that on your side of the Atlantic intelligence is in greater supply than on ours. And like I said, by doing so you are acting in a typical stereotypical manner. You have been rather heatedly denouncing Mr. Wade's book, basing your indignation upon the reviews of others rather than reading the material and forming your own opinion. Not an objective approach, is it? You can make your argument without bringing ANY nationality into it, as you've demonstrated. When you fail to do so you are, in a round about manner, doing the very same thing you feel so strongly Mr. Wade has done in his book. John Beardsley --