Indeed, Ken Rockwell and Michael Reichman are different ages but have far, far more in common than in distinction, not the least of which is that both are Internet "personalities".
Rockwell's article and Reichman's rebuttal contain, to my eye, about the same measures of conceptual accuracy, conceptual obfuscation, tunnel-vision, and self-righteous hubris. Many of the six pages of posters above have already wrung this subject dry, with many making observations that are far keener and cooler than anything found in either source pieces. Adding my pence to the subject would be utterly superfluous.
I will say, however, that in the final analysis Reichman's rebuttal was the weaker of the two pieces by virtue of its angry reactionary tone. In my opinion, his rebuttal both raised the general awareness of Ken Rockwell (formerly a boundary gadfly by most measures) and reinforced the popular opinion that Reichman is merely a gear hound. I think it was a misjudgment for Reichman to post his rebuttal. He should have written it, carefully edited it, and then filed it away for revisiting in 90-120 days to review its value after the bug had exited the orifice.
