Negative Positive
Title: par for Nickell
Review: Nickell is a major-league dip. He doesn't research his facts fully, and--despite his claim that he's interested only in the scientific method and, above all, the truth--he is certain to prejudge everything as false and select only that "evidence" that supports this position. He reminds me of one of his younger fellows from CSICOP--Underhill or Underwood or something--whom you always see on TV. That fellow will go off about, oh, sasquatch or some such, dismissing eyewitness reports, films, and such with general comments about people having seen bears. Generalities are just fine, but they do not serve as an off-the-cuff, zero-thought-required refutation to any and every possibility that presents itself!
Is the review positive or negative? 