Hilary Ostrov is taking some potshots at poor old Peter Gleick, who seems to have made himself look a bit foolish by jumping up and down accusing Donna LaF of lying and then failing to provide any evidence of such lies.
I have my own little anecdote on this subject too. You will recall that it was suggested some time ago that Gleick had written his review of the Delinquent Teenager without actually having read the book. At the time I thought I'd ask if this was true, so I sent him a tweet. This is the subseqent exchange.
Bishop Hill: @PeterGleick Did you really review Donna's book without reading it?
Peter Gleick: I've read it. Ugh. If I could have given it 0 stars on Amazon, i would have.
Bishop Hill: Are you disputing the facts or the interpetation?
Peter Gleick: Yes.
At this point, Barry Woods joined in.
Barry Woods: Bit puzzled by that…@Adissentient asked if you dispute facts OR interpretation of Donna's book? Facts seem factual 2 me?
Peter Gleick: No, spending more time reviewing this piece of crap is a waste of MY time and electrons.
At this point he appears to have blocked me from following him on Twitter - I know there are glitches in the system, but I'm still blocked three days later, so I'm pretty sure that he has genuinely put a block in place.
He does seem like a sensitive soul.