It is so completely transparent that you are both a shill for the authors and looking to drum up some traffic for you site that sees none other than yourself.
I've been coming to these messageboards long before my join date suggests. I came on here because I finally had an opinion about something I read on Gunks.com. Are you telling me I'm not welcome to hang with the Gunks.com crew?
I'm here to play Devils Advocate to many people who I felt were picking up the guide, thumbing through it and looking for reasons to not like the guide. Some people were even bashing the book before it even came out or without even looking at it.
The book has its problems sure, I've already said that it does. All I'm saying is that I don't find the grades in the new guide a big deal. Goldstone's approach to looking at things objectively has impressed me. The guide suffers from inconsistencies between the description to the topos. This to me is the biggest problem the guidebook suffers from, but only a few posters have taken the time to mention that.
When William's Grey guide came out, I shouted its praises because I loved the book, I still think it's the gold standard of Gunks guidebooks. I'd link you to my review, but I don't want you to think I'm drumming up traffic for my site.
You can call me what you want, but I'm no shill for this book. If I wanted to drum up traffic for my site, don't you think I'd have done that three years ago?